[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@ wrote: That's right Curtis! Don't be buying into Barry's bilious propaganda! Since I actually started this angle of re-examination of yoga terms I believe it must have been Barry who was buying into MY bilious propaganda! I want credit for my contributions to the cause of deluding the ignorant and diverting them from yoga induced freedom! Yeah! Curtis da man. Curtis da bilious propagandameister. I da humble servant. But Curtis, have you figured out a way to *make money* yet from all of this bilious propaganda we been spoutin'? Maharishi did, after all. He managed to get millions of people feeling so bad about themselves that they were willing to pay him billions of dollars to fix them and lead them to the promised bliss of enlightenmentitude. I think that if we're going to spend all this time deluding the ignorant and diverting them from freedom, we need a *product* -- something to delude them *with* so that they'll pay us for it. How 'bout Transcendental Just Be Your Bad Self (TM)? We could develop a puja (For your initiation, bring some baby back ribs, fries and a pint of Maker's Mark) and teach people to effortlessly think the mantra we give them (I bad. I bad. I bad.) so that they, too, can realize the joy of living without feeling OK about they bad selves, and that they have to *change* those bad selves to to live up to the unrealistic and highly questionable goals of yoga-lite. Later on we could sponsor residence courses featuring big rap stars as honored guests, and come up with some program where everyone dances hip-hop together twice a day for world peace. Extra charge for these, of course. Yours in biliousnessitude, Bad Barry
[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@ wrote: That's right Curtis! Don't be buying into Barry's bilious propaganda! Since I actually started this angle of re-examination of yoga terms I believe it must have been Barry who was buying into MY bilious propaganda! That's true, I take it all back. You used the terms broken and fix, and Barry then did a whole riff on them: I am claiming that my my relationship with my body and mind are in proper perspective. It isn't broken and doesn't need fixing. Hear, hear. It's fascinating when you realize that most of the people who are preaching to you trying to convince you to join their religion or to think like them are asking you to buy in to a *lesser* state of self esteem, isn't it? One in which you are broken until something outside yourself fixes you. And they wonder why people laugh at them. BT. So many mistakes in this paragraph. First, most seekers decide on their own that there's something more to life than what they're experiencing, and then go looking for it. Second, other than perhaps fundamentalist Christians, nobody gets told they're broken and need to be fixed. It's that there's something *more* available. Third, it isn't what's outside oneself that gives one that something more; it's already there inside oneself. Fourth, only really low-class, meanspirited, pinched people laugh at those who want to share with them an experience they've found beneficial. And only the lowest of these maliciously misrepresent it in an attempt to get others to laugh. Judy *really* needs to see the film Doubt. Maybe if she saw someone on the movie screen acting the way she acts here every day she would realize how pathetic it is. Sister Aloysius: I am concerned that Father Flynn may have made advances on your son. Mrs. Miller: May have made? No evidence? Sister Aloysius: No. Mrs. Miller: Then maybe there's nothing to it. Sister Aloysius: I think there is something to it. ... Sister Aloysius: I believe this man is creating, or may have already brought about, an improper relationship with your son. Mrs. Miller: I don't know. Sister Aloysius: I know. I am right. Mrs. Miller: Why you got to know something like that for sure, when you don't? Sister Aloysius [disgusted]: What kind of mother are you? Mrs. Miller: Excuse me, but you don't know enough about life to say a thing like that. Sister Aloysius: I know enough. ... I know what I won't accept.
[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
You are expressing a hierarchy of human awareness with one state as higher than another. I'm saying that for me, it's a better state. Don't put words in my mouth, please. Yeah, Curtis. How bilious of you. The correct word is better, not higher. Judy is better than you are for believing what she believes, not higher. All the difference in the world.
[FairfieldLife] An example of the yogic thinking Curtis has been bilious about
I received this today from a friend. It is a letter forwarded to my friend by a woman she met in India recently that was sent to her daughter by the head of a large yoga ashram in India (non-TM-related, as far as I know) that her daughter had worked at for and stayed at for several months, receiving zero pay but room and board (sound familiar?). The daughter was being expelled because she didn't fit in. Her crime? Same as Curtis' here recently in conversations with our resident Sister Aloysius. She challenged the yoga philosophy she was being taught that was supposed to make her feel bad about herself and in need of fixing. Worse, she did this publicly, and once publicly and face-to-face with the ashram's Mother Superior, the author of this letter. The letter is how she reacted. Notice the same *assumption* of lesser-ness in the person being spoken down to. Notice the same put- down of her for not understanding. Notice how the girl's refusal to admit that she was broken and in need of fixing was perceived by the leaders of the ashram as a threat, and as depleting their energies. This is what happens when, in such an environment, you speak up about feeling OK about yourself as you are, and that you are not in need of fixing. Do give this a read, and see if you don't perceive the same superior, Our way of seeing you as damaged and in need of fixing is right and your way of per- ceiving yourself as proud to be the person that you are and not wishing to change is wrong elitist bullheadedness that you've been seeing here lately in our own self-appointed Mother Superior. If nothing else, this letter should point out that such idiocy is not limited to Judy, or to the TM movement. It is rampant in spiritual groups that can only function when they've convinced the people within them that they need the group's help to fix what's wrong with them. ** Dear Amanda, We have arrived at a junction where we need to clearly define the direction of our journey, both individually and collectively. As I got to know you better over the last three months, I realized that your special skill lies in communication...with those who understand your language and its contents. Your strength lies in being aggressive to stick by your beliefs. Your strength lies in being able to spring back after every `obstacle'. Your strength lies in always believing that you are right. Your strength lies in taking over a situation and completely dominating it. My dear...these are all excellent qualities for a city job in the corporate sector I can see you excel in a PR firm. However, these are not the qualities of a person who can become a part of name of ashram at the farm. All the above qualities bring with them a vibration of competitiveness, of insecurity, of frustration and other negative emotions, of stress and related symptoms, which create disharmony in the environment that we live within. Mandy, this is not a personal criticism directed at you. Today, each one of us is what circumstances around us have shaped us to be. Some of us become aware of our flaws and try to overcome them, others take much longer because they would rather see the faults around than within. My heart goes out to you my dear because I can see the agony that you are going through within (not being able to understand why you don't fit in) yet realizing that the best thing I can do for you now, is to tell you to find the right job, in the right place, with the right people which best suits your temperament as it is now. You must realize that your discomfort here has nothing to do with the language. You do not need words or gestures to connect with people. All it requires is genuine empathy and concern and goodwill, from the innermost core of one's heart. You cannot force it to come or pretend that it is there. If it is not there now, it may develop as you grow older...if you want it to. This is the `love' that connects those of us who live in name of ashram. No outer work is more important. You may not have felt this love from us because all your energies pushed us away, made us wary...and depleted our energies. I can list the people that we have connected from the heart in the last one year...Virginia, Sophie, Alice, Cecil, Michelle, Lysandre, Noemie, Julie, Isha, Sarah and of course Emmanuelle and Olivia. None of them were here to prove anything to anybody...least of all to themselves. They blended in beautifully without being told what to do. They took over small projects and completed them successfully, without feeling the need to talk about it. They made places for themselves in the hearts of the girls without speaking even 5% of the Hindi that you do. A person who has these abilities will find a warm welcome wherever he/she goes. They will make a place for themselves anywhere in the world because they have found a way to connect with their inner selves. They are willing to change and adapt.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dalai Lama Twitters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: To desire Twitter is the root of suffering Is the Dalai Lama a micro-blogger? Or was it all an illusion? All is delusion: A Twitter account purporting to be written by the Dalai Lama has been suspended after being exposed as a fake. http://tinyurl.com/b5u2u6 Andrew Leonard Feb. 09, 2009 | Seek, and ye shall not find? On Monday morning, AFP reported that the Dalai Lama had joined the micro- blogging service Twitter, attracting nearly 20,000 followers in just two days. And why not? Did not His Holiness once say that The Buddha himself taught differently according to the place, the occasion, and the situation of those who were listening to him? Surely, enlightenment can be found in 140 characters or less. Anything more strikes me as verbose, for a true Bodhisattva. But when I went to look for Twitter.com/OHHDL (Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama), Twitter would only tell me that That page doesn't exist! I wondered, is this some kind of test? A cosmic joke? Unless all is illusion, the Twitter account did once exist, at least for a short time. But the Dalai Lama has also told us that If objects and people evoke attachment in us, we do not understand the true nature of phenomena. I wanted the Dalai Lama to be twittering, but now I realize, such desire is the root of suffering. Further research reveals that Twitter suspended the account, on the grounds that whoever had set it up was impersonating the Dalai Lama. Ah well -- ample justification of yet another piece of good advice from the man himself: It is wrong to expect some final satisfaction to come from money or a computer. All quotes were found by following the Twitter feed, Twitter.com/hisholiness, which is not, and does not claim to be, the real deal. But what is reality, anyway? I went looking for the 14th Dalai Lama on Twitter, and I found him, even though he isn't there. http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2009/02/09/dalai_lama_twitter/index.htm l http://tinyurl.com/dz4opw
[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: Let me jump into this attachment discussion. I'd like to argue that you don't know what attachment is until you experience pure consciousness while the mind functions. Any attempt to become unattached through the mind is pure mood-making/manipulation which is worthless. I don't know that I agree. I think that detachment can occur through maturity and experience, through living in accordance with your values. Even if this had nothing to do with pure consciousness, I disagree that it is irrelevant mood making or is worthless. It is functioning in a self actualized way, with empathy and at your best. This is worthwhile, whatever the label. I suppose an affectation of non-attachment may have some relative value, but it reminds me of the people I saw on the Oprah message boards, trying to imitate Eckhart Tolle being present to what is and thinking that is what it is to be awakened. For all its relative value, it's still not freedom.
[FairfieldLife] Republican Stimulus Plan
http://snipurl.com/bmdy3
[FairfieldLife] Carnival seen as the holiest of holy days
Here in Sitges, we're starting to see the buildup to one of the biggest fiestas and party-down blowouts of the year, Carnival. (Think Carnival in Rio or Mardi Gras in New Orleans, both celebrating the same thing.) It's interesting to think about in terms of recent discussions intiated biliously :-) by Curtis, and propagated equally biliously by myself. That is, the often unrecognized (and even more often unchallenged) assumption in many spiritual seekers that either 1) there is something wrong or broken about them that needs to be fixed or rejected before they can attain salvation or enlightenment, or 2) there is something higher or better about themselves that they can aspire to than just being themselves. Carnival, in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox trad- itions, precedes Lent. That's where you give up for a period of forty days before Easter all of the things you enjoy most in life. :-) Carnival or Mardi Gras is the big party-down blowout the Church found was necessary before asking people to do this. :-) During Lent, people are expected to give up their vices. You know, things like eating the wrong foods, partici- pating in parties or fiestas or celebrations, indulging in bad sexual behavior, that sorta thing. In other words, for a period of forty days they are expected to *give up* all the things they do the rest of the year, the things that pretty much make them themselves. They do this to make themselves more holy in anticipation of the most holy day of all, Easter. Think about the underlying *assumption* about this practice. These pleasures they are giving up are not really themselves. They are something lesser, something *not holy*, something not pleasing to God. God, the assumption goes, would be offended if they were to enter into the celebrations sur- rounding His most holy of holy days tainted with having done these pleasurable things. So the Church instituted Lent, an emulation of the forty days that Moses spent on Mount Sinai before coming down with a shitload of Thou shalt nots carved in stone. It's also an emulation of the forty days that Jesus spent in the desert being tempted by Satan with these same not holy pleasures. But the Church found that they couldn't *get away* with this imposed forty-day period of being someone other than yourself without some *payoff* for the people they required to practice it. Nobody bought into it. So they instituted Carnival or Mardi Gras, during which these people who were being told to give up all of their favorite pleasures for forty days could PARTY DOWN, and indulge the hell out of these pleasures for a few days before Lent. Carnival is a short, Church-tolerated period of feast before the imposed famine. And that is pretty much what Carnival *looks like* here in Sitges. It is one enormous PARTY. Too much of a party, by my tastes, because my sleepy little beach town grows to ten times its normal population, and just walking through the streets becomes an exercise in identifying with what sardines feel like in the can. But I like it anyway, because I've noticed that modern-day Catholics, at least here in Spain, often have transcended the repressive Thou shalt not nature of Lent, and have instead embraced the party-down atmosphere of Carnival. They take Carnival as a Church-approved suggestion to party down and indulge their vices more than ever. And then *after* Carnival is over, they pretty much continue doing the same thing the rest of the year -- being themselves. After all, the dogma of the Church is that they can do all this and *get away with it*, as long as they confess. Me, being the Tantric kinda guy I am, I tend to see Carnival as potentially more holy than the period of enforced abstin- ance that follows it. It is a short period of time in which it is **OK** to be yourself. As compared to the next forty days, in which it is not. As opposed to the rest of *life*, in which they have been taught that it is *not OK* to be themselves, and that being themselves is something they have to confess to. So consider me a fan of Carnival, even though it is a Church holiday, and I'm not usually big on churches and their holi- days. This one is **OK** in my book, because it celebrates -- for a short period of time -- that it is **OK** to be yourself. That is rare in any religion. http://www.gaysitgesguide.com/events/sitges-carnival-gay.html http://www.whatsonwhen.com/sisp/index.htm?fx=eventevent_id=23200 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnival (search for 'Sitges')
[FairfieldLife] The Urgency of Addressing the Massive Job Losses
Rachel Maddow Report: David Axelrod, counselor to President Obama http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxJ72gT_Bd8
[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: [Curtis wrote:] You are expressing a hierarchy of human awareness with one state as higher than another. [I wrote:] I'm saying that for me, it's a better state. Don't put words in my mouth, please. Yeah, Curtis. How bilious of you. The correct word is better, not higher. Judy is better than you are for believing what she believes, not higher. All the difference in the world. Barry, if you're going to lie about what I wrote, it would really be a lot smarter if you didn't *quote* it in the very same post in which you lie about it. That way, readers won't see right off the bat that you're lying. What I wrote was (see quote above), FOR ME, it's a better state. Curtis gets to decide whether it's a better state FOR HIM. All the difference in the world.
Re: [FairfieldLife] An example of the yogic thinking Curtis has been bilious about
On Feb 10, 2009, at 3:48 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Ps: I will be sending copies of this letter to Virginia and Olivia so that you may discuss future course of action with them. Also, I will need to remove the Amanda @ name of ashram.com email id by the end of February. So I suggest you start using your personal/akashneem id once again. Mandy, this may be the beginning of another journey for you. We have all gone through those journeys and continue to do so. It is a spiral movement which constantly moves upwards towards becoming a better person. The harder the outer crust, the more difficult it is to break through. This is the journey of the Growth of Consciousness. Good luck my dear. What can one say? A classic bitch. One doesn't have to go to an ashram to find this garbage. The condescension, the thinly veiled accusations, the meanness, the us-against-them mentality are familiar to many of us from situations right here. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: An example of the yogic thinking Curtis has been bilious about
Question is, did Barry not read my exchange with Curtis, so that he genuinely believes I said what he claims below? Or did he read it, and did his subconscious mind translate it into what he wishes I'd said, so that his *conscious* mind genuinely believes I said what he claims below? Or did he read it, notice that I didn't say what he wishes I'd said, and decide to blatantly lie about it in the hope that nobody else would have read what I wrote and assume he was telling the truth? We'll never know. But the third possibility seems unlikely given how obvious the falsehoods are, especially given the number of posts relating to this exchange in which I reiterated, or someone else quoted, my flat *denial* of Curtis's and Barry's broken and needs fixing notion--precisely the opposite, in other words, of what he claims below. You just wouldn't think that someone who is compos mentis would even *dream* he could get away with a lie that preposterous. Note also that the point I was challenging Curtis on was not his feelings about himself, contrary to what Barry claims below, but rather his understanding of what spiritual teachers mean by the term identification. Note also that I made no assumption about lesserness with regard to Curtis; I spoke only in terms of my own experience. Whether he's lying or deluded, why is it that Barry has such trouble accepting reality, such that he is compelled, subconsciously or with full awareness, to portray it as different than it obviously is? Why does Barry mock solipsism when he goes to such trouble *publicly* to attempt to create his own reality, one that contrasts so starkly with the reality that's on the record? We'll never know. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: I received this today from a friend. It is a letter forwarded to my friend by a woman she met in India recently that was sent to her daughter by the head of a large yoga ashram in India (non-TM-related, as far as I know) that her daughter had worked at for and stayed at for several months, receiving zero pay but room and board (sound familiar?). The daughter was being expelled because she didn't fit in. Her crime? Same as Curtis' here recently in conversations with our resident Sister Aloysius. She challenged the yoga philosophy she was being taught that was supposed to make her feel bad about herself and in need of fixing. Worse, she did this publicly, and once publicly and face-to-face with the ashram's Mother Superior, the author of this letter. The letter is how she reacted. Notice the same *assumption* of lesser-ness in the person being spoken down to. Notice the same put- down of her for not understanding. Notice how the girl's refusal to admit that she was broken and in need of fixing was perceived by the leaders of the ashram as a threat, and as depleting their energies. This is what happens when, in such an environment, you speak up about feeling OK about yourself as you are, and that you are not in need of fixing. Do give this a read, and see if you don't perceive the same superior, Our way of seeing you as damaged and in need of fixing is right and your way of per- ceiving yourself as proud to be the person that you are and not wishing to change is wrong elitist bullheadedness that you've been seeing here lately in our own self-appointed Mother Superior. If nothing else, this letter should point out that such idiocy is not limited to Judy, or to the TM movement. It is rampant in spiritual groups that can only function when they've convinced the people within them that they need the group's help to fix what's wrong with them. ** Dear Amanda, We have arrived at a junction where we need to clearly define the direction of our journey, both individually and collectively. As I got to know you better over the last three months, I realized that your special skill lies in communication...with those who understand your language and its contents. Your strength lies in being aggressive to stick by your beliefs. Your strength lies in being able to spring back after every `obstacle'. Your strength lies in always believing that you are right. Your strength lies in taking over a situation and completely dominating it. My dear...these are all excellent qualities for a city job in the corporate sector I can see you excel in a PR firm. However, these are not the qualities of a person who can become a part of name of ashram at the farm. All the above qualities bring with them a vibration of competitiveness, of insecurity, of frustration and other negative emotions, of stress and related symptoms, which create disharmony in the environment that we live within. Mandy, this is not a personal criticism directed at you. Today, each one of us is what circumstances around us have shaped us to be. Some of us become aware of our flaws and try
[FairfieldLife] Post from ex member of catholic cult
http://steveskojec.com/2009/02/03/house-of-cards/
[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
Notice two points here. First, Barry does not deny anything I said. Second, he quotes what I *did* say about his and Curtis's broken and needs fixing notion, i.e., that it was nonsense--precisely the notion he claims in a later post that I was insisting on. What is it about the fact that I *denied* this notion that has Barry so terrified that he has to pretend I *espoused and promoted* it? I submit that the reason Barry is so consumed by the character of Sister Aloysius in Doubt is because he recognizes in her not me, but himself. That's what terrifies him. His fear compels him to try to exorcise this recognition by projecting it onto me. Sister Aloysius's last words in what Barry quotes below from Doubt are, I know what I won't accept. What Barry cannot accept is *himself*. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@ wrote: That's right Curtis! Don't be buying into Barry's bilious propaganda! Since I actually started this angle of re-examination of yoga terms I believe it must have been Barry who was buying into MY bilious propaganda! That's true, I take it all back. You used the terms broken and fix, and Barry then did a whole riff on them: I am claiming that my my relationship with my body and mind are in proper perspective. It isn't broken and doesn't need fixing. Hear, hear. It's fascinating when you realize that most of the people who are preaching to you trying to convince you to join their religion or to think like them are asking you to buy in to a *lesser* state of self esteem, isn't it? One in which you are broken until something outside yourself fixes you. And they wonder why people laugh at them. BT. So many mistakes in this paragraph. First, most seekers decide on their own that there's something more to life than what they're experiencing, and then go looking for it. Second, other than perhaps fundamentalist Christians, nobody gets told they're broken and need to be fixed. It's that there's something *more* available. Third, it isn't what's outside oneself that gives one that something more; it's already there inside oneself. Fourth, only really low-class, meanspirited, pinched people laugh at those who want to share with them an experience they've found beneficial. And only the lowest of these maliciously misrepresent it in an attempt to get others to laugh. Judy *really* needs to see the film Doubt. Maybe if she saw someone on the movie screen acting the way she acts here every day she would realize how pathetic it is. Sister Aloysius: I am concerned that Father Flynn may have made advances on your son. Mrs. Miller: May have made? No evidence? Sister Aloysius: No. Mrs. Miller: Then maybe there's nothing to it. Sister Aloysius: I think there is something to it. ... Sister Aloysius: I believe this man is creating, or may have already brought about, an improper relationship with your son. Mrs. Miller: I don't know. Sister Aloysius: I know. I am right. Mrs. Miller: Why you got to know something like that for sure, when you don't? Sister Aloysius [disgusted]: What kind of mother are you? Mrs. Miller: Excuse me, but you don't know enough about life to say a thing like that. Sister Aloysius: I know enough. ... I know what I won't accept.
[FairfieldLife] Re: An example of the yogic thinking Curtis has been bilious about
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Feb 10, 2009, at 3:48 AM, TurquoiseB quoted a bitch as saying: Ps: I will be sending copies of this letter to Virginia and Olivia so that you may discuss future course of action with them. Also, I will need to remove the Amanda @ name of ashram.com email id by the end of February. So I suggest you start using your personal/akashneem id once again. Mandy, this may be the beginning of another journey for you. We have all gone through those journeys and continue to do so. It is a spiral movement which constantly moves upwards towards becoming a better person. The harder the outer crust, the more difficult it is to break through. This is the journey of the Growth of Consciousness. Good luck my dear. What can one say? A classic bitch. One doesn't have to go to an ashram to find this garbage. The condescension, the thinly veiled accusations, the meanness, the us-against-them mentality are familiar to many of us from situations right here. Indeed. The fascinating thing is that the person who forwarded this letter to my friend, who is a member in good standing of the ashram in question, sent it to her as an example of how compassionate, wise, and forgiving the author of the letter was. I'm serious. Since I happen to know the young woman to whom this letter was addressed (a lovely, non-mean, non-egotistical to the point of shyness, well- mannered person who IMO is more than *entitled* to see herself as proud to be the person that she is and not wishing to change), and knowing from emails what the problem the ashram saw in her was, I saw this letter a different way. The problem was that she chose to think for herself. When teachings were presented to her, teachings that called upon her to think of her- self as not complete or not fulfilled or not whole, she challenged those teachings. She also challenged the wisdom of pursuing enlightenment and one's personal fulfillment as the highest priority in life, because she was there out of a sense of wanting to spend some time doing for others. That was more important to her than thinking about enlight- enment and the things that the women in the ashram wanted her to think about and focus on. Worse, she said so out loud. And right in the faces of those who had become used to saying things to the people under them and having them accept these things as a given, without a word of protest or questions of any kind. Mandy just doesn't DO without questions of any kind. One of the things I like about her is that if God himself appeared before her and told her to do something she felt to be not quite right, she'd get in His face, too. And good for her for doing that. My response to seeing this letter and hearing of how her independence and comfort with being who she was were treated at this ashram was to advise her to go see the film Doubt. She managed to find a pirated copy, and did. She wrote back thanking me for the suggestion, indicating that she *more* than understood some of the parallels I saw in the film to her situation, and joking that Meryl Streep in the film looked *exactly* like the person who had written the letter. I could have told her that just by reading it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Post from ex member of catholic cult
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives boo_li...@... wrote: http://steveskojec.com/2009/02/03/house-of-cards/ For more details of Maciel's behavior, have a look at the two letters Skojec links to: http://www.regainnetwork.org/let/let.html Both were written by members of the Legionaries who had worked closely with Maciel, at the order of their superiors, in 1954, as part of an investigation by the Vatican, which subsequently exonerated him, in 1959. Maciel remained as head of the order until he was finally removed and censured in *2006*. He died in January 2008. Wikipedia's page on Maciel is a good short summary of his career, the allegations against him, and the actions taken (or mostly not taken) regarding him by the Vatican. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcial_Maciel
[FairfieldLife] Rumi's love Cd in daily OM.for this Valentine
http://www.dailyom.com/articles/3/2009/17069.html enjoy it
[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: Let me jump into this attachment discussion. I'd like to argue that you don't know what attachment is until you experience pure consciousness while the mind functions. Any attempt to become unattached through the mind is pure mood-making/manipulation which is worthless. Most people disengage/unattach from aspects of their relative existence out of neurotic fear, not out of a desire for realization. They want to free themselves from the discomfort of the mind's attachment so they disengage. But this is a mistake. Even in enlightenment the mind is still fully engaged when dealing with relative existence. What is unattached in enlightenment is pure conscious which has ALWAYS been unattached. But prior to realization pure consciousness identifies with something other than itself (primarily the mind, secondarily the body) and an ego is created. So pure awareness experiences itself as limited. So why would PC, which is eternally free and unbounded, the substratum of the gods, the Being of the universe, experience itself as limited? Exactly when did this delusion of Pure Consciousness begin? Ultimately, this is a question for the philosophers of the group - but experientially, this is what Maharishi referred to as the 'naturalness' of waking state, or the 'naturalness' of CC or the 'naturalness' of any state of consciousness - - it is accompanied by a sense of This is how I have always lived, or This is what it means to be a human being, etcCompletely natural means there is not a sense of: I used to be or experience such and such, but now I experience or am such and such. It is completely seamless. This is a delusion. This is why advaitins will say you already are enlightened. That might be true, but its not necessarily very helpful for popping you out of a delusion. It'd be like a character in a dream telling you that all of this is not real. It might get you out of the dream or you might just look at him and say, what? --- On Mon, 2/9/09, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ Subject: [FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs ) To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, February 9, 2009, 11:42 AM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip It's not that type of identity I'm talking about. It's not vanity or preoccupation with the body. Identification occurs with human development. Identification isn't an overt craving of the body, but a seamless identification that identifies your body as separate from all other bodies. Curtis, this description of the nature of identification, as the term is used in enlightenment teaching, is an exceedingly rare instance of near-total agreement between Vaj and me. That alone should lead you to sit up and take notice! (I'm referring here just to the definition, not the meaning, which is a whole 'nother question.) It sounds like a positive aspect of our natural development and not anything that needs fixing to me. snip I don't view people that way. Most people seem to be more similar than different to me. They share the same cares and desires for their loved one's lives. Exactly, they share the same references you do. They attach to others and they probably enjoy attachments games like romance as part of those attachments. But from the yogic point of view--not necessarily the Hindu POV, these are just objects. Crucial point. I think Curtis has been misled by the term objects. In this context it means something much more general than in the standard usage, i.e., things as opposed to people or one's own body and thoughts. Referring to romance as an attachment game sounds like a product of dissociation to me. In fact this whole world view sounds like a result of cultivating dissociation. Here's where Vaj and I don't agree: And by being caught up unconsciously in and seamlessly in maintaining identification with these reference point, we allow awareness--we train awareness--to unconsciously run in a non-mindful rut. I don't think it has much of anything to do with mindfulness per se. Or at least that may be one way to diminish identification, but it's not the only way. I am down with the concept of mindfulness but I don't view it as having anything to do with attachment. Being able to completely immerse yourself in an experience without any part of you witnessing the experience is a fantastic option for experience
[FairfieldLife] What will change about you when you realize enlightenment?
I post this as an open question to FFL readers. I think it's an interesting question. If you believe in enlightenment, and that it is within your grasp in this lifetime, what about yourself do you believe will *change* when you realize enlightenment? I ask because many here seem to believe that some things definitely *will* change. I'm wondering what those things are. Me, I'm a fan of the old Zen saying, Before enlight- enment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. I don't believe that *anything* will change about me when my realization of enlightenment becomes permanent, other than the addition of that permanent realization to my daily life. I don't think I'll necessarily become nicer, or wiser, or omniscient, or able to perform siddhis, or above temptation, or any less able to do things that are less than positive (or less than life- supporting). I'll be the same person, just enlightened. But I am aware that these beliefs place me in the minority here, and that others believe that great changes will befall them when they finally realize the goal they have been pursuing all these years. So I'm asking in all sincerity what you think those changes will be. I think it could be an interesting thread.
[FairfieldLife] Rumi's love in daily Om for this Valentine
http://www.dailyom.com/articles/3/2009/17069.html enjoy it
[FairfieldLife] Website Gita
A few weeks ago I went on a website that was referenced here in FFL. That website had .pdf files that contained Maharishi's commentary on the Gita that went beyond Chapter 6. Do any of you recall what that website might be? Thanks in advance.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Website Gita
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, paultrunk paultr...@... wrote: A few weeks ago I went on a website that was referenced here in FFL. That website had .pdf files that contained Maharishi's commentary on the Gita that went beyond Chapter 6. Do any of you recall what that website might be? Thanks in advance. http://alex.natel.net/ffl/documents/MMYBG8.pdf http://alex.natel.net/ffl/documents/MMYBG9.pdf
[FairfieldLife] How do you manage your film habit?
I'm using too much time to manage my film addiction. I watch a lot of films, but I'm spending a lot of time just doing the research to know what to watch next. I'm hoping someone here has a better system than me. I have a Netflix account, Charter Comm's premium and HD channels. Every day, I scan the next 24 hours of cable-channel films looking for anything new and then setting up my DVR to record. That's hundreds of titles must be scanned, and there's about a 30% repeat dynamic, so my eyes have to see, say, the title Monkeybone five times in the day's scheduling, and I hated that film so much that it's a drag to have to have it -- even that briefly -- be brought to my attention. That's five times I have to be reminded of two hours of my life having been utterly wasted. I consult RottonTomatoes.com for all the new stuff coming out on DVD and theaters. And, best I can do most days is 1. find a film that I haven't seen in a while and bear another viewing, 2. get lucky with a new DVD release coming out for a major film -- one so hot I have to rent it from a local video store NOW NOW NOW! 3. find an oldie at Netflix that I've somehow missed 4. have a new release that simply must be seen now even though it means going out to a theater. I see about 10 - 15 films a week at home, but it takes something special to get me into a theater -- I have a 52 flat screen with a nice sound system, so I'm in heaven, but I do see the thrillers on IMAX -- the latest Batman was mind blowing. My problem is that it is such a time-consuming and boring chore to do all the research necessary to keep on top of media offers. Scanning ahead costs me about 20 minutes of very dull work -- basically I'm seeing the titles of films and have to have them all memorized like flash cards so that I don't have to click on them to get a plot summary. When I see a title that I don't recognize -- yay! -- but more often than not I see a title that I'm fuzzy about and have to click on -- only to find that this is a film I have decided never to see (or see again) but had not memorized the title well enough yet to avoid the clicking. This is a serious drag. Netflix's recommendation engine fails me in that its reviews are all bias and try to make the film sound much better than it is -- trying to get me to rent the thing, see? So that sucks. And, of course, anything hot will be on a long waiting list. RottonTomatoes.com is very helpful, but this is another 20 - 120 mins per week to scan the new stuff coming out and picking which reviews to read. There's so much dross out there that takes up my head-space -- for every film I really want to see, there's 20 others recently released that require me to have to comb through them enough to rate them as viewable or not. Help! Is there a system that doesn't cost so much time used in reconnoitering? Edg
[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: Notice two points here. First, Barry does not deny anything I said. Second, he quotes what I *did* say about his and Curtis's broken and needs fixing notion, i.e., that it was nonsense--precisely the notion he claims in a later post that I was insisting on. What is it about the fact that I *denied* this notion that has Barry so terrified that he has to pretend I *espoused and promoted* it? I submit that the reason Barry is so consumed by the character of Sister Aloysius in Doubt is because he recognizes in her not me, but himself. That's what terrifies him. His fear compels him to try to exorcise this recognition by projecting it onto me. Sister Aloysius's last words in what Barry quotes below from Doubt are, I know what I won't accept. What Barry cannot accept is *himself*. ROTFL..Judy you are a riot! This post is a kind of Judy's greatest hits package all rolled into one.
[FairfieldLife] Re: How do you manage your film habit?
Edg, as you can probably tell, I...uh...watch a lot of films. :-) I'll tell you how I do it, but you must understand that it is a system that is based on me being an eyepatch-wearing Pirate. I can't see English-language films here in Sitges. If I were to wait for them to come out on DVD I would be waiting six months to a year for each of them. So I download them from the Net, using a wonderful BitTorrent client called Miro. Miro allows me to subscribe to channels that are defined via an RSS feed. It's like subscribing on Tivo to record every episode of one of your favorite TV shows. Anyway, two of the best channels are called Timo's Movie Trailers and Timo's HD Movie Trailers. Literally every trailer for every movie released appears on them. So I glance at the description of the movie, and if it sounds interesting I down- load the trailer and watch it. If it looks like a film I'd enjoy watching, I add the name of it to a list I keep called Films To Watch For. Then I wait to see if they appear as torrents, and when they do, I download them. That's it. Takes only a few seconds. I never read movie reviews before watching a film. The only reviewer I read is Roger Ebert, and that only after having seen the film myself, to see if he liked it, too. Again, this a technique that works for us pirates, but might not for those of you who have the luxury of being able to get the movies you want to see on your cable box or from Netflix. Yo ho ho and a big bag of popcorn... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: I'm using too much time to manage my film addiction. I watch a lot of films, but I'm spending a lot of time just doing the research to know what to watch next. I'm hoping someone here has a better system than me. I have a Netflix account, Charter Comm's premium and HD channels. Every day, I scan the next 24 hours of cable-channel films looking for anything new and then setting up my DVR to record. That's hundreds of titles must be scanned, and there's about a 30% repeat dynamic, so my eyes have to see, say, the title Monkeybone five times in the day's scheduling, and I hated that film so much that it's a drag to have to have it -- even that briefly -- be brought to my attention. That's five times I have to be reminded of two hours of my life having been utterly wasted. I consult RottonTomatoes.com for all the new stuff coming out on DVD and theaters. And, best I can do most days is 1. find a film that I haven't seen in a while and bear another viewing, 2. get lucky with a new DVD release coming out for a major film -- one so hot I have to rent it from a local video store NOW NOW NOW! 3. find an oldie at Netflix that I've somehow missed 4. have a new release that simply must be seen now even though it means going out to a theater. I see about 10 - 15 films a week at home, but it takes something special to get me into a theater -- I have a 52 flat screen with a nice sound system, so I'm in heaven, but I do see the thrillers on IMAX -- the latest Batman was mind blowing. My problem is that it is such a time-consuming and boring chore to do all the research necessary to keep on top of media offers. Scanning ahead costs me about 20 minutes of very dull work -- basically I'm seeing the titles of films and have to have them all memorized like flash cards so that I don't have to click on them to get a plot summary. When I see a title that I don't recognize -- yay! -- but more often than not I see a title that I'm fuzzy about and have to click on -- only to find that this is a film I have decided never to see (or see again) but had not memorized the title well enough yet to avoid the clicking. This is a serious drag. Netflix's recommendation engine fails me in that its reviews are all bias and try to make the film sound much better than it is -- trying to get me to rent the thing, see? So that sucks. And, of course, anything hot will be on a long waiting list. RottonTomatoes.com is very helpful, but this is another 20 - 120 mins per week to scan the new stuff coming out and picking which reviews to read. There's so much dross out there that takes up my head-space -- for every film I really want to see, there's 20 others recently released that require me to have to comb through them enough to rate them as viewable or not. Help! Is there a system that doesn't cost so much time used in reconnoitering? Edg
[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfr...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Notice two points here. First, Barry does not deny anything I said. Second, he quotes what I *did* say about his and Curtis's broken and needs fixing notion, i.e., that it was nonsense--precisely the notion he claims in a later post that I was insisting on. What is it about the fact that I *denied* this notion that has Barry so terrified that he has to pretend I *espoused and promoted* it? I submit that the reason Barry is so consumed by the character of Sister Aloysius in Doubt is because he recognizes in her not me, but himself. That's what terrifies him. His fear compels him to try to exorcise this recognition by projecting it onto me. Sister Aloysius's last words in what Barry quotes below from Doubt are, I know what I won't accept. What Barry cannot accept is *himself*. ROTFL..Judy you are a riot! This post is a kind of Judy's greatest hits package all rolled into one. Y'know, Geeze, your (and Barry's) obsessive disses would be *so* much more effective if you could rebut, or just say something substantive about, even *one* point in the post you're dissing. It's really tempting to assume that you don't do so because you recognize the validity of the points and know there's no way you could rebut them--but that fact upsets you so much that you feel you have to say *something* to express your distress, even if it's pathetically lame, as above.
[FairfieldLife] cognition honestly
the CHNN broadcast about Jnanadakini is all about cognition. Brilliant.
Re: [FairfieldLife] How do you manage your film habit?
(Too long a post follows) I watch quite a few movies a week too but most are from the local Hollywood Video store which fortunately is one that generates revenue so is still in business. Compared to Blockbuster, HV tends to get more second tier films, i.e. foreign and independent. I have a flat rate subscription there. I can rent two DVDs or Blu-Rays at a time. I could even just take those home, watch them and return them and get a couple more in the same day. My preference is to rent on Blu-Ray but only limited titles are available. Some of those being for the national stupid I have no interest in. If HD-DVD would have been the winner there would be two to three times as many titles available because it was cheaper and easier to get titles into production on that platform than on Blu-Ray. However I only make two runs to the video rental place a week. The rest of the week can be filled watching some of the few TV shows in HD I watch: BSG, Heroes, 24, Supernatural, Damages, US of Tara, CSI, Burn Notice, etc. I'm sure some folks have some favorites that they think I'm missing but I'm pretty particular. And the titles I mentioned are ones currently playing so there IS a larger list. 24? Well, it's like going to a film classs and having a professor ask the class what was wrong with the scene he just played. Very badly written and almost hilarious. I was an early Netflix user but then the local mom and pops (now gone) started renting DVDs and I like to pick out something I feel in the mood for rather than something that Netflix can send me. So I haven't used them in years. I stay pretty much on top of what is going on in film. I am on the www.avsforum.com and watch the Blu-Ray release section as well as the discussion section for films in theaters. I have a nice 8 screen digital theater a few blocks away. It mainly plays big titles but I go see some of those. I also have a Cinemark Cinearts theater about 8 miles away with 5 screens including a big dome screen that plays all indies and foreign films. And they have $6 Mondays for us old fogies. If I want to watch the latest rage on Indian DVD I rent from the local Indian grocery. I kind of have a rule not to watch anymore than 2 to 3 hours a night of TV. So I have to be selective. There is a lot of trash being produced these days due to the writers strike which set some projects behind and now the economic crunch where producers are having a hard time finding financing for films. Then we have the studios making producers of horror, sci-fi, thrillers and action films (my favorites) be PG-13 rated for a broader audience though the story lines could have used an R rated treatment. Usually the latter means of little interest to people under 17 instead of just nudity and violence. IOW a story done in an adult treatment. There have been remakes of Asian films such as Bangkok Dangerous which were originally R but redone as PG-13 and lose something in the process (the Pang Brothers even did both versions). A bitch I have is that the bigger rental places having driven out the mom and pops don't have many of the old releases. For instance after renting Death Race I wanted to watch the original. IMDB said that it was released on DVD in 2005 in a special edition on an anamorphic DVD. Very difficult to find and none of the chain rentals have it in their older libraries. A friend who used to have a mom and pop got all kinds of titles including importing ones from Mexico and South America. There were some real gems there. He would have had that title. I am a big fan of 1970's movies because they are so honestly done that it is almost the most recent golden era of film because filmmakers were breaking away from the studio scene and making movies elsewhere including Seattle where I made the acquaintance of James Caan and Mark Rydell at the cast party which my group played for the film Cinderella Liberty. I have in my DVD collection that film which was released little while back on DVD. What we need is full blown VOD where anyone with content they want to rent can make it available that way. For small studios or DVD companies they often will do a run say of 10,000 copies and when those are gone there's no more unless it makes sense for them to release it again. Then you have to go the Barry route if you dare here in MPAA ruled USA. Frankly if you called one of those small companies inquiring about a copy of some film they released years ago they might even tell you to go ahead an download it as a torrent since it makes no business sense for them to re-release it. It would if it was cheap and easy for them to make it available VOD that would solve the problem. Comcast has some oldies in HD on their free OnDemand. I watched the first Mad Max film which few Americans have seen on the Impact section which has a some older films. My problem with the network
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Junk foods of the world
bob_brigante wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote: Bhairitu, do you really like racist, anti-Semites like Karl Marx? *** Karl Marx was not only Jewish, he was descended from an established rabbinical family. http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/5/1/Whisker69-76.html http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/5/1/Whisker69-76.html Thanks Bob. I figured Shemp was off his rocker but I am actually not that familiar with Marx and sent the link as joke in reply to his joke link.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Website Gita
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, paultrunk paultr...@... wrote: A few weeks ago I went on a website that was referenced here in FFL. That website had .pdf files that contained Maharishi's commentary on the Gita that went beyond Chapter 6. Do any of you recall what that website might be? Thanks in advance. They excist. But I seriously doubt Paul Mason or anyone else have been able to steal them.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Website Gita
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, paultrunk paultrunk@ wrote: A few weeks ago I went on a website that was referenced here in FFL. That website had .pdf files that contained Maharishi's commentary on the Gita that went beyond Chapter 6. Do any of you recall what that website might be? Thanks in advance. They excist. But I seriously doubt Paul Mason or anyone else have been able to steal them. I'm reffering to Maharishi's commentaries 6 - 18.
[FairfieldLife] Re: How do you manage your film habit?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: (Too long a post follows) Mine's shorter, but still a post. I'm trying to post out early so I won't be tempted to spend time here while Carnival is going on in my town. The rest of the week can be filled watching some of the few TV shows in HD I watch: BSG, Heroes, 24, Supernatural, Damages, US of Tara, CSI, Burn Notice, etc. I'm sure some folks have some favorites that they think I'm missing but I'm pretty particular. I don't know a few on your list so I'll look into them. Like you, I have my priorities, so I try not to watch any series I really don't find benefit in. That said, I would add to my watch faithfully list Lie To Me, House, and, as a guilty pleasure, The L Word. Every episode is full of some of the most shallow, backbiting, evil women in L.A., which specializes in those sorts of women. On the other hand, they are naked a lot. Priorities. :-) I also watch Life On Mars US, but for similar reasons as you mention below for watching 24. It is a textbook example of What Not To Do If You Are Remaking A Great British TV Show. Just awful what they've done IMO. I don't understand how Harvey Keitel can be a part of it. But I watch it anyway, because I've seen the British version twice and love it, and it's fascinating to me what the American producers chose to cut or change into something else. 24? Well, it's like going to a film classs and having a professor ask the class what was wrong with the scene he just played. Very badly written and almost hilarious. I started watching it again after you mentioned it recently, and for the same reason. It's almost textbook. You can learn as much IMO from seeing do things wrong as you can from seeing them do them right. I kind of have a rule not to watch anymore than 2 to 3 hours a night of TV. So I have to be selective. Although it may not seem that way given how often I mention films here, I'm the same way. No more than 3 hours a day, and it usually works out to doing that only 3-4 days a week. As much as it pains me to say it, there *are* other things in life besides movies. :-) There have been remakes of Asian films such as Bangkok Dangerous which were originally R but redone as PG-13 and lose something in the process (the Pang Brothers even did both versions). I just downloaded (but haven't watched yet) a Thai film I saw the trailer for on Timo's and just fell in love with. It's called Chocolate, and is about a young girl who is autistic, but who can learn how to do anything by watching someone else do it. So what does she watch on TV? Martial arts films. Then something bad happens to her parents. I think you can guess the rest. :-) But it just looked so *sweet* on another level that I have to give it a try. The girl is now in her teens or early twenties, and still autistic. It's just that she can kick ass when she has to, and the badasses who did something bad to her parents have made her have to. What we need is full blown VOD where anyone with content they want to rent can make it available that way. I agree. I would pay for the films I watch if I had been provided with a way to do it. Tonight I'm off to some friends' house to play them the copy of the Dead Like Me Movie I just downloaded. We were all big fans of the TV show, and just can't wait to see what they've done in the movie version.
[FairfieldLife] Junk foods of the world
NOLA: gotta take what you can get. I guess Juan's Flying Burrito is about my fave. I like Luau. Small shrimp, bacon, cheeses, white flour tort. Take awhile to get. Hopefully by then a tequila (El Tesoro Anejo, or even Herradura anejo) ) or two. Mind you we're discussing lunch. They aren't open for breakfast. Oh yeah they have fresh habanero ranchero. A tequila to numb the tongue - no lime or salt you fuckers - and some lovely shrimp and cheese and bacon and habenero is the thing. This thing, I am reminds me of a Bowie song, sun machine. too bad no friends like that where can I go to I guess Mrs Maes.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: An example of the yogic thinking Curtis has been bilious about
On Feb 10, 2009, at 9:10 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: What can one say? A classic bitch. One doesn't have to go to an ashram to find this garbage. The condescension, the thinly veiled accusations, the meanness, the us-against-them mentality are familiar to many of us from situations right here. Indeed. The fascinating thing is that the person who forwarded this letter to my friend, who is a member in good standing of the ashram in question, sent it to her as an example of how compassionate, wise, and forgiving the author of the letter was. While I'm not a psychologist, I would guess this letter is filled with classic P/A crap. And I would also submit that the reason this person thinks of this as an example of compassion and wisdom is that like so many, she's cut loose from her emotions simply as a way to survive in that community and probably others as well. Got 2 movies for you, Barry, maybe you've already seen them. The first is Casanova, with Heath Ledger-- ought to be right up your alley. :) The second is The Savages, with Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Both are great IMO. Sal
[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: Let me jump into this attachment discussion. I'd like to argue that you don't know what attachment is until you experience pure consciousness while the mind functions. Any attempt to become unattached through the mind is pure mood-making/manipulation which is worthless. I don't know that I agree. I think that detachment can occur through maturity and experience, through living in accordance with your values. Even if this had nothing to do with pure consciousness, I disagree that it is irrelevant mood making or is worthless. It is functioning in a self actualized way, with empathy and at your best. This is worthwhile, whatever the label. I suppose an affectation of non-attachment may have some relative value, but it reminds me of the people I saw on the Oprah message boards, trying to imitate Eckhart Tolle being present to what is and thinking that is what it is to be awakened. For all its relative value, it's still not freedom. I don't think she's talking about an affectation so much as the kind of resignation that one naturally acquires with age. Resignation isn't quite the right word for it; it's just that you're no longer so astonished and hurt and outraged when things don't go the way you think they should, because your expectations have changed. You don't necessarily take bad stuff lying down, but your approach to doing something about them is more measured. Has nothing to do with Peter's post, however. Like Curtis, Ruth is talking about nonattachment as a psychological state, whereas Peter's talking about it as a state of consciousness. So it's a straw-man argument.
[FairfieldLife] Bhairitu the racist believes Obama is a Muslim
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: bob_brigante wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Bhairitu, do you really like racist, anti-Semites like Karl Marx? *** Karl Marx was not only Jewish, he was descended from an established rabbinical family. http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/5/1/Whisker69-76.html http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/5/1/Whisker69-76.html Thanks Bob. I figured Shemp was off his rocker but I am actually not that familiar with Marx and sent the link as joke in reply to his joke link. Karl Marx was Jewish in the same way that Barack Obama is Muslim. Yes, Marx's lineage was Jewish but the father converted to Catholicism before he was born and his mother's family converted to Lutheran. Indeed, the mother's lineage is more important than the father's because for those, like Bhairitu, that consider race and lineage more important in judging and labelling a person than the content of one's character, according to Jewish law if a mother is Jewish that automatically makes the child Jewish. So to call Marx Jewish on the basis of his lineage is, of course, the same mode of thinking of those racists who call Obama Muslim because his lineage on his father's side is Muslim...and according to Islamic law it is patrilinear descendancy that counts (unlike Jewish law in which it is matrilinearly based). And keep in mind that neither Marx nor Obama consider themselves, respectively, as Jewish or Muslim. They choose, instead, to define themselves as to their believes, not the dictates of some tradition. But that doesn't count to racists like Bhairitu who judge people by their lineage and/or skin color instead of what that person himself decides to label himself. So, Bhairitu, you and your correspondent, to be consistent, must now refer to Barack Obama as a Muslim...and I will continue to remind you of that in posts henseforth until you admit your racist error. Oh, and by the way, it is very well documented that Karl Marx hated both Jews and Blacks (whom he often described with the n-word when referring to them). The following link is just one article on this. Try googling Karl Marx with anti-semite and nigger and you'll see how many hits you get: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50724
[FairfieldLife] RICK ALERT ------ Re: Bhairitu the R-word believes Obama is a Muslim
Rick, There are certainly a lot of slurs and -- perhaps actionable -- posts here that we've come to put up with, but I'm with Curtis and others who have taken the stance that using a person's name in the title of a post can amount to an especially grievous attack. Since everyone here but Shemp knows that Bhairitu is far far from being a racist, it seems to me that this title is clear evidence of a FFL crime if not real-world slander. I'm wondering if we can agree that this kind of offense deserves some time off. What do you think, Rick? And, Shemp, WTF? Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: bob_brigante wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Bhairitu, do you really like racist, anti-Semites like Karl Marx? *** Karl Marx was not only Jewish, he was descended from an established rabbinical family. http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/5/1/Whisker69-76.html http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/5/1/Whisker69-76.html Thanks Bob. I figured Shemp was off his rocker but I am actually not that familiar with Marx and sent the link as joke in reply to his joke link. Karl Marx was Jewish in the same way that Barack Obama is Muslim. Yes, Marx's lineage was Jewish but the father converted to Catholicism before he was born and his mother's family converted to Lutheran. Indeed, the mother's lineage is more important than the father's because for those, like Bhairitu, that consider race and lineage more important in judging and labelling a person than the content of one's character, according to Jewish law if a mother is Jewish that automatically makes the child Jewish. So to call Marx Jewish on the basis of his lineage is, of course, the same mode of thinking of those racists who call Obama Muslim because his lineage on his father's side is Muslim...and according to Islamic law it is patrilinear descendancy that counts (unlike Jewish law in which it is matrilinearly based). And keep in mind that neither Marx nor Obama consider themselves, respectively, as Jewish or Muslim. They choose, instead, to define themselves as to their believes, not the dictates of some tradition. But that doesn't count to racists like Bhairitu who judge people by their lineage and/or skin color instead of what that person himself decides to label himself. So, Bhairitu, you and your correspondent, to be consistent, must now refer to Barack Obama as a Muslim...and I will continue to remind you of that in posts henseforth until you admit your racist error. Oh, and by the way, it is very well documented that Karl Marx hated both Jews and Blacks (whom he often described with the n-word when referring to them). The following link is just one article on this. Try googling Karl Marx with anti-semite and nigger and you'll see how many hits you get: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50724
Re: [FairfieldLife] RICK ALERT ------ Re: Bhairitu the R-word believes Obama is a Muslim
On Feb 10, 2009, at 1:23 PM, Duveyoung wrote: Rick, There are certainly a lot of slurs and -- perhaps actionable -- posts here that we've come to put up with, but I'm with Curtis and others who have taken the stance that using a person's name in the title of a post can amount to an especially grievous attack. Since everyone here but Shemp knows that Bhairitu is far far from being a racist, it seems to me that this title is clear evidence of a FFL crime if not real-world slander. I'm wondering if we can agree that this kind of offense deserves some time off. What do you think, Rick? And, Shemp, WTF? Edg, When are you going to catch on that shemp is out of his effing mind? And wasn't it you who originally started this practice, using Curtis' name? Sal
[FairfieldLife] RICK ALERT ------ Re: Bhairitu the R-word believes Obama is a Muslim
Sal, Yeah, I think I did do a bad thing back when. Point for you. And, hey, I did even worse with my listing of the War Monger's descriptions, but I've come to see the error of my ways. Shemp writes well enough that we all know he has intelligence and knows he's being offensive. Consider me a takes one to know one kinda guy -- Shemp's sin is easily seen by me, so toss a brick my way too, but aim for Shemp first! That said, I think that FFL has become a bit calmer in the last few weeks -- my theory: the trolls are mostly elsewhere, so we don't get our usual amount of arbitrary attacks. Also, is it just me or are the trolls being ignored far more thoroughly lately? If so, then it works! 'Course we'll always have the Punchin' Judy show . . . but I like the part where she whacks the fuck outta __. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Feb 10, 2009, at 1:23 PM, Duveyoung wrote: Rick, There are certainly a lot of slurs and -- perhaps actionable -- posts here that we've come to put up with, but I'm with Curtis and others who have taken the stance that using a person's name in the title of a post can amount to an especially grievous attack. Since everyone here but Shemp knows that Bhairitu is far far from being a racist, it seems to me that this title is clear evidence of a FFL crime if not real-world slander. I'm wondering if we can agree that this kind of offense deserves some time off. What do you think, Rick? And, Shemp, WTF? Edg, When are you going to catch on that shemp is out of his effing mind? And wasn't it you who originally started this practice, using Curtis' name? Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] RICK ALERT ------ Re: Bhairitu the R-word believes Obama is a Muslim
On Feb 10, 2009, at 2:07 PM, Duveyoung wrote: Sal, Yeah, I think I did do a bad thing back when. Point for you. And, hey, I did even worse with my listing of the War Monger's descriptions, but I've come to see the error of my ways. Shemp writes well enough that we all know he has intelligence and knows he's being offensive. Exactly, he's being offensive. That's the whole point of most of his posts--provoke a reaction. Consider me a takes one to know one kinda guy -- Shemp's sin is easily seen by me, so toss a brick my way too, but aim for Shemp first! LOL That said, I think that FFL has become a bit calmer in the last few weeks -- my theory: the trolls are mostly elsewhere, so we don't get our usual amount of arbitrary attacks. Also, is it just me or are the trolls being ignored far more thoroughly lately? If so, then it works! 'Course we'll always have the Punchin' Judy show . . . but I like the part where she whacks the fuck outta __. I find that whole scene pretty entertaining too, gotta admit. Edg Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Bhairitu the racist believes Obama is a Muslim
shempmcgurk wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: bob_brigante wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Bhairitu, do you really like racist, anti-Semites like Karl Marx? *** Karl Marx was not only Jewish, he was descended from an established rabbinical family. http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/5/1/Whisker69-76.html http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/5/1/Whisker69-76.html Thanks Bob. I figured Shemp was off his rocker but I am actually not that familiar with Marx and sent the link as joke in reply to his joke link. Karl Marx was Jewish in the same way that Barack Obama is Muslim. Yes, Marx's lineage was Jewish but the father converted to Catholicism before he was born and his mother's family converted to Lutheran. Indeed, the mother's lineage is more important than the father's because for those, like Bhairitu, that consider race and lineage more important in judging and labelling a person than the content of one's character, according to Jewish law if a mother is Jewish that automatically makes the child Jewish. So to call Marx Jewish on the basis of his lineage is, of course, the same mode of thinking of those racists who call Obama Muslim because his lineage on his father's side is Muslim...and according to Islamic law it is patrilinear descendancy that counts (unlike Jewish law in which it is matrilinearly based). And keep in mind that neither Marx nor Obama consider themselves, respectively, as Jewish or Muslim. They choose, instead, to define themselves as to their believes, not the dictates of some tradition. But that doesn't count to racists like Bhairitu who judge people by their lineage and/or skin color instead of what that person himself decides to label himself. So, Bhairitu, you and your correspondent, to be consistent, must now refer to Barack Obama as a Muslim...and I will continue to remind you of that in posts henseforth until you admit your racist error. Oh, and by the way, it is very well documented that Karl Marx hated both Jews and Blacks (whom he often described with the n-word when referring to them). The following link is just one article on this. Try googling Karl Marx with anti-semite and nigger and you'll see how many hits you get: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50724 Shemp, for the record I am racially blind. I grew up in a small farming community with the children of Mexican laborers. They were my school buddies. I worked as jazz musician for many years with African American musicians who were great friends and bright people. I have no racial biases. I have many Jewish friends and a few Jewish girlfriends so I am not anti-semitic either. It's just you and your hypocritical right wing ilk try to drag out this stuff and project it on people whose political or economic views you don't like. You are borrowing a page from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the biggest hypocrite of all Michael Savage. I am not however culturally blind and recognize that the true difference between groups is cultural and that is really where the societal breakdowns occur (rent the excellent Bhaji at the Beach for a commentary on this from the Indian immigrant perspective -- its by the director of Bend It with Beckham.) And the thing about cultures comes back to MMY's cultural integration which was one of the better points in SCI. Thus I highly suspect you were programmed by your immigrant parents to overvalue free enterprise and stand against any form of socialism. This often happens when people are run out of their homelands when coups happen where they don't fit in. We see this with Asian immigrants particularly who fled Vietnam because maybe they had a business that they thought they might lose if the VC took over. It is however an unbalanced or skewed view though somewhat understandable. Remember Vietnam much like early America was simply fighting to get rid of foreign occupiers who were there as usual for the resources. So China helped them but that didn't necessarily make Vietnam communist though leftist factions would naturally have taken up the fight over the corrupt right. So many of our Asian immigrants often vote Republican but have in recent years woken up to the tyranny and a starting to vote Democratic. You, like Willy, are naive to think that Indian are conservative. In general they are pretty liberal. They've had a taste of fascism with the Indira Ghandi regime and didn't like it. They are quick to decry tyranny when they see it and were puzzled by the apathy of Americans to the tyranny of the Bush administration. In India they would have been rioting in the streets over such a government.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Website Gita
This commentary on BG Chapters 8 and 9 definitely has the feel of MMY's earlier manner of thought and delivery.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Website Gita
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, paultrunk paultrunk@ wrote: A few weeks ago I went on a website that was referenced here in FFL. That website had .pdf files that contained Maharishi's commentary on the Gita that went beyond Chapter 6. Do any of you recall what that website might be? Thanks in advance. http://alex.natel.net/ffl/documents/MMYBG8.pdf I wonder who's been typing that. Lots of typos at least on page 19, in the Sanskrit words... http://alex.natel.net/ffl/documents/MMYBG9.pdf
[FairfieldLife] Re: Website Gita
--Bessel 21: (a picture is worth a thousand words): http://www.ericjhellergallery.com/index.pl?page=image;iid=25 - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, paultrunk paultrunk@ wrote: A few weeks ago I went on a website that was referenced here in FFL. That website had .pdf files that contained Maharishi's commentary on the Gita that went beyond Chapter 6. Do any of you recall what that website might be? Thanks in advance. http://alex.natel.net/ffl/documents/MMYBG8.pdf I wonder who's been typing that. Lots of typos at least on page 19, in the Sanskrit words... http://alex.natel.net/ffl/documents/MMYBG9.pdf
[FairfieldLife] Re: Website Gita
--Does this conform to MMY's standards of everything Vedic: http://pic.templetons.com/brad/photo/bm08/scenes/ - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifux...@... wrote: --Bessel 21: (a picture is worth a thousand words): http://www.ericjhellergallery.com/index.pl?page=image;iid=25 - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, paultrunk paultrunk@ wrote: A few weeks ago I went on a website that was referenced here in FFL. That website had .pdf files that contained Maharishi's commentary on the Gita that went beyond Chapter 6. Do any of you recall what that website might be? Thanks in advance. http://alex.natel.net/ffl/documents/MMYBG8.pdf I wonder who's been typing that. Lots of typos at least on page 19, in the Sanskrit words... http://alex.natel.net/ffl/documents/MMYBG9.pdf
[FairfieldLife] Will this be the fate of Vedic culture?
Western influences in Vedic culture: the height of Western civilization? (the Goa Trash Party): http://www.lightomatic.com/images/goa_trash/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: How do you manage your film habit?
TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: (Too long a post follows) Mine's shorter, but still a post. I'm trying to post out early so I won't be tempted to spend time here while Carnival is going on in my town. The rest of the week can be filled watching some of the few TV shows in HD I watch: BSG, Heroes, 24, Supernatural, Damages, US of Tara, CSI, Burn Notice, etc. I'm sure some folks have some favorites that they think I'm missing but I'm pretty particular. I don't know a few on your list so I'll look into them. Like you, I have my priorities, so I try not to watch any series I really don't find benefit in. That said, I would add to my watch faithfully list Lie To Me, House, and, as a guilty pleasure, The L Word. Every episode is full of some of the most shallow, backbiting, evil women in L.A., which specializes in those sorts of women. On the other hand, they are naked a lot. Priorities. :-) Dollhouse starts on Friday on Fox. I know you were waiting for that one. Haven't heard your opinion of Burn Notice (on USA) which I watch religious though it is pretty light but co-stars Bruce Campbell and Tricia Helfer has a small role too. I also watch Life On Mars US, but for similar reasons as you mention below for watching 24. It is a textbook example of What Not To Do If You Are Remaking A Great British TV Show. Just awful what they've done IMO. I don't understand how Harvey Keitel can be a part of it. But I watch it anyway, because I've seen the British version twice and love it, and it's fascinating to me what the American producers chose to cut or change into something else. For some reason the concept worked better in the British series which was a much lower budget production than the ABC version. 24? Well, it's like going to a film classs and having a professor ask the class what was wrong with the scene he just played. Very badly written and almost hilarious. I started watching it again after you mentioned it recently, and for the same reason. It's almost textbook. You can learn as much IMO from seeing do things wrong as you can from seeing them do them right. I kind of have a rule not to watch anymore than 2 to 3 hours a night of TV. So I have to be selective. Although it may not seem that way given how often I mention films here, I'm the same way. No more than 3 hours a day, and it usually works out to doing that only 3-4 days a week. As much as it pains me to say it, there *are* other things in life besides movies. :-) I've mentioned before rather than reading books which are close vision looking at a 53 set 6' feet away is more relaxing on the eyes after a day of close eye work on a computer and an optometrist friend verified that it's true. But sometimes 2 hours is all I can stand. Hey, but I did read The Road by Cormac McCarthy the weekend before last since it is coming out in a movie (Weinstein) this year. Probably too dark and a bummer for many. There have been remakes of Asian films such as Bangkok Dangerous which were originally R but redone as PG-13 and lose something in the process (the Pang Brothers even did both versions). I just downloaded (but haven't watched yet) a Thai film I saw the trailer for on Timo's and just fell in love with. It's called Chocolate, and is about a young girl who is autistic, but who can learn how to do anything by watching someone else do it. So what does she watch on TV? Martial arts films. Then something bad happens to her parents. I think you can guess the rest. :-) But it just looked so *sweet* on another level that I have to give it a try. The girl is now in her teens or early twenties, and still autistic. It's just that she can kick ass when she has to, and the badasses who did something bad to her parents have made her have to. Just came back from HV where they got Chocolate in Blu-Ray. I will probably rent it for the weekend if it is in. They are expanding the Blu-Ray section as corporate wants to push Blu-Ray. Fine with me. What we need is full blown VOD where anyone with content they want to rent can make it available that way. I agree. I would pay for the films I watch if I had been provided with a way to do it. I also should have mentioned there are companies like Video Source of Miami who specialize in finding films that neither had a US copyright or it has expired and distributing those on one-off DVDs. I picked up Holy Mountain that way. But it apparently was a version that the director had posted to the internet himself cut up out of sequence so he could force Alan Klein into re-releasing it. Klein did a year or two ago with a beautiful restoration which I purchased. A girl I knew back in the 1960's is in the film. There is also another company called EZTakes www.eztakes.com where small producers
[FairfieldLife] 'Livni Leads in Israeli Election'
Israel's Livni emphasizes peace credentials By STEVE WEIZMAN – 37 minutes ago JERUSALEM (AP) — Soft-spoken and lacking the battlefield credentials of her rivals, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni presents herself as the best hope for bringing peace to Israel and promises to take a tough line toward Palestinian militants. Throughout the campaign for Tuesday's election, Livni stressed her experience as Israel's chief negotiator with the Palestinians. At the same time, she was one of the architects of Israel's recent offensive against Gaza militants, which killed nearly 1,300 Palestinians. She displayed both attributes in a single speech recently, emphasizing that peace and security go hand in hand. This election is about peace, she told a prestigious security conference. The dove is on the window sill. We can choose either to slam the door or let it in. At the same time, she added, terror must be fought with force, and lots of force. Livni, 50, was elected to head the ruling Kadima party in a closely fought primary last September, replacing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who is stepping down to fight corruption charges. If she can line up enough parliamentary factions to cobble together a coalition government, she will become Israel's second female leader after Golda Meir, who served from 1969 to 1974. It's far from clear she'll be able to do that, given the hawkish bent of the incoming parliament. After being elected Kadima's leader, Livni failed to keep the current faction intact — forcing Israel into the early elections held Tuesday. Livni, like Olmert, followed then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon out of Likud to set up Kadima in the aftermath of Sharon's 2005 Gaza withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, which Likud strongly opposed. Sharon later suffered a massive stroke and is still in a coma. She was first elected to parliament in 1999 and rose rapidly. She has held six Cabinet offices, including foreign affairs and justice. She has a reputation as a pragmatic straight talker who disdains back-room horse trading and loathes graft. She has pledged, if elected, to practice a different kind of politics. She completed Israel's compulsory military service as a lieutenant and then had a spell in the Mossad spy agency. She traded that in to become a corporate lawyer, wife and mother of two sons. In 2007, Time magazine included her in its list of the world's 100 most influential people, and she was No. 52 in a Forbes magazine ranking of the planet's 100 most powerful women. Belittled by her domestic rivals as having insufficient hands-on military experience, she has been pressing for tougher and immediate Israeli responses to the Palestinian rockets that have continued to hit southern Israel since Israel ended its Gaza offensive on Jan. 18. Israel will act and strike and continue to act if need be, and if at the end of this operation they don't understand, then we will continue until they understand the message, she told the security conference. Her father, Eitan Livni, was a hero of a right-wing Zionist underground movement that battled the British in pre-state Palestine and believed Israel should expand its borders into Arab lands. She initially shared that dream but eventually concluded that it clashed irreconcilably with the reality of living among a fast-growing Palestinian population. Now she advocates creation of a Palestinian state in large parts of the West Bank and Gaza.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What will change about you when you realize enlightenment?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: I post this as an open question to FFL readers. I think it's an interesting question. If you believe in enlightenment, and that it is within your grasp in this lifetime, what about yourself do you believe will *change* when you realize enlightenment? I ask because many here seem to believe that some things definitely *will* change. I'm wondering what those things are. Me, I'm a fan of the old Zen saying, Before enlight- enment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. I don't believe that *anything* will change about me when my realization of enlightenment becomes permanent, other than the addition of that permanent realization to my daily life. I don't think I'll necessarily become nicer, or wiser, or omniscient, or able to perform siddhis, or above temptation, or any less able to do things that are less than positive (or less than life- supporting). I'll be the same person, just enlightened. But I am aware that these beliefs place me in the minority here, and that others believe that great changes will befall them when they finally realize the goal they have been pursuing all these years. So I'm asking in all sincerity what you think those changes will be. I think it could be an interesting thread. The experience of Samadhi and the lack of internal conflict, and the evaporation of the ego. R.G.
[FairfieldLife] RICK ALERT ------ Re: Bhairitu the R-word believes Obama is a Muslim
Duveyoung wrote: There are certainly a lot of slurs and -- perhaps actionable --posts here that we've come to put up with... Well, I guess we know who the trolls are now. Guffaw!!!
[FairfieldLife] Re: An example of the yogic thinking Curtis has been bilious about
even though it is far longer and more revealing a letter than is typically found in business, it doesn't look all that unusual to me. it basically says, we don't think you are the best fit for our organization, who we are, and what we are trying to achieve - here are some options for you; none of which include staying with us any longer. i don't see or am not as sensitive to the condescention that you see here. any organization has a group ego, which will justify itself, whether it is these guys, FFL, the girl scouts, or IBM. anyone who thinks any organization is going to sever ties with one of its former members in a completely neutral way is being unrealistic, imo. the organization glues the egos of its members together because of a common purpose, and because of that common purpose, is able to achieve things greater than the sum of its parts. so if it chooses to expel one of its members, it will do so prejudicially, not neutrally, for the organization will always protect itself, at the expense of any of its former members. i am NOT defending these people. i just don't see anything all that unusual in this letter, except that it voices group dynamics which are usually kept silent. having said all of that, i probably wouldn't want to hang out with Virginia, Sophie, Alice, Cecil, Michelle, Lysandre, Noemie, Julie, Isha, Sarah and of course Emmanuelle and Olivia. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: I received this today from a friend. It is a letter forwarded to my friend by a woman she met in India recently that was sent to her daughter by the head of a large yoga ashram in India (non-TM-related, as far as I know) that her daughter had worked at for and stayed at for several months, receiving zero pay but room and board (sound familiar?). The daughter was being expelled because she didn't fit in. Her crime? Same as Curtis' here recently in conversations with our resident Sister Aloysius. She challenged the yoga philosophy she was being taught that was supposed to make her feel bad about herself and in need of fixing. Worse, she did this publicly, and once publicly and face-to-face with the ashram's Mother Superior, the author of this letter. The letter is how she reacted. Notice the same *assumption* of lesser-ness in the person being spoken down to. Notice the same put- down of her for not understanding. Notice how the girl's refusal to admit that she was broken and in need of fixing was perceived by the leaders of the ashram as a threat, and as depleting their energies. This is what happens when, in such an environment, you speak up about feeling OK about yourself as you are, and that you are not in need of fixing. Do give this a read, and see if you don't perceive the same superior, Our way of seeing you as damaged and in need of fixing is right and your way of per- ceiving yourself as proud to be the person that you are and not wishing to change is wrong elitist bullheadedness that you've been seeing here lately in our own self-appointed Mother Superior. If nothing else, this letter should point out that such idiocy is not limited to Judy, or to the TM movement. It is rampant in spiritual groups that can only function when they've convinced the people within them that they need the group's help to fix what's wrong with them. ** Dear Amanda, We have arrived at a junction where we need to clearly define the direction of our journey, both individually and collectively. As I got to know you better over the last three months, I realized that your special skill lies in communication...with those who understand your language and its contents. Your strength lies in being aggressive to stick by your beliefs. Your strength lies in being able to spring back after every `obstacle'. Your strength lies in always believing that you are right. Your strength lies in taking over a situation and completely dominating it. My dear...these are all excellent qualities for a city job in the corporate sector I can see you excel in a PR firm. However, these are not the qualities of a person who can become a part of name of ashram at the farm. All the above qualities bring with them a vibration of competitiveness, of insecurity, of frustration and other negative emotions, of stress and related symptoms, which create disharmony in the environment that we live within. Mandy, this is not a personal criticism directed at you. Today, each one of us is what circumstances around us have shaped us to be. Some of us become aware of our flaws and try to overcome them, others take much longer because they would rather see the faults around than within. My heart goes out to you my dear because I can see the agony that you are going through within (not being able to understand why you don't fit in) yet realizing that the best
[FairfieldLife] Re: Website Gita
touche! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifux...@... wrote: --Bessel 21: (a picture is worth a thousand words): http://www.ericjhellergallery.com/index.pl?page=image;iid=25 - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, paultrunk paultrunk@ wrote: A few weeks ago I went on a website that was referenced here in FFL. That website had .pdf files that contained Maharishi's commentary on the Gita that went beyond Chapter 6. Do any of you recall what that website might be? Thanks in advance. http://alex.natel.net/ffl/documents/MMYBG8.pdf I wonder who's been typing that. Lots of typos at least on page 19, in the Sanskrit words... http://alex.natel.net/ffl/documents/MMYBG9.pdf
[FairfieldLife] Re: How do you manage your film habit?
Duveyoung wrote: I'm using too much time to manage my film addiction... I'd say!!! Have any of you movie addicts thought about getting a job or at least a girlfriend? Other questions: You guys really seem to have way too much time on your hands. Have you thought about counseling? What does your spouse think about you lying around on the couch all day and night clicking on the remote? What happens if your wife wants to watch a movie? Do you go into a funk and get all depressed? Is that when you get on the computer and start posting inflammatory messages to strangers?
[FairfieldLife] Re: How do you manage your film habit?
TurquoiseB wrote: Mine's shorter, but still a post. I'm trying to post out early so I won't be tempted to spend time here while Carnival is going on in my town... I hear you Bro, I'm trying my best to insult as many people on the forum today as I can before the rodeo starts up. But you got a head start on me, since you seem to be staying up every Saturday night to post to Judy and Sal. San Antonio Stock Show Rodeo Alan Jackson Taylor Swift Reba McIntyre http://tinyurl.com/agceww
[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
Judy wrote: Y'know, Geeze, your (and Barry's) obsessive disses would be *so* much more effective if you could rebut, or just say something substantive about, even *one* point in the post you're dissing... I wonder why almost all of Geezer's posts start with RE: and end on one line? ADD?
[FairfieldLife] Dubya's ice cream flavor
Ben and Jerry created the Yes Pecan! ice cream flavor for Obama. They then asked people to fill in the blank to the following: For George W. the best Ben and Jerry's flavor would be __. Here are some of the responses: - Grape Depression - Abu Grape - Cluster Fudge - Nut'n Accomplished - Iraqi Road - Chock 'n Awe - WireTapioca - Impeach Cobbler - Guantanmallow - imPeachmint - Good Riddance You Lousy Motherf**ker... Swirl - Heck of a Job, Brownie! - Neocon Politan - RockyRoad to Fascism - The Reese's-cession - Cookie D'oh! - The Housing Crunch - Nougular Proliferation - Death by Chocolate... and Torture - Credit Crunch - Country Pumpkin - Chunky Monkey in Chief - George Bush Doesn't Care About Dark Chocolate - WM Delicious - Chocolate Chimp - Bloody Sundae - Caramel Preemptive Stripe
[FairfieldLife] Edg the hypocrite
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: Rick, There are certainly a lot of slurs and -- perhaps actionable -- posts here that we've come to put up with, but I'm with Curtis and others who have taken the stance that using a person's name in the title of a post can amount to an especially grievous attack. Since everyone here but Shemp knows that Bhairitu is far far from being a racist, it seems to me that this title is clear evidence of a FFL crime if not real-world slander. I'm wondering if we can agree that this kind of offense deserves some time off. What do you think, Rick? And, Shemp, WTF? Edg First of all, Edg, you fucking prick, you called ME a racist for simply reproducing an Ann Coulter column here on FFL. See message 174668. So maybe it is YOU who should be banned...no? Two other people during the presidential campaign called me a racist for the simple reason that I either didn't support Barack Obama or questioned some of his stances. Robert was one and I forget for the moment who the other one was. Just a week or so ago, I-am-the-eternal was accused of being a racistAND FOR NO REASON! So I thought I'd get the jump on Bhairitu before he and someone else started calling ME a racist again. And besides: I'm calling Bhairitu a racist for all the reasons I list in my post. And I stand by it because that's what he is if he's judging someone and labelling them by virtue of what their ancestry is. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: bob_brigante wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Bhairitu, do you really like racist, anti-Semites like Karl Marx? *** Karl Marx was not only Jewish, he was descended from an established rabbinical family. http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/5/1/Whisker69-76.html http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/5/1/Whisker69-76.html Thanks Bob. I figured Shemp was off his rocker but I am actually not that familiar with Marx and sent the link as joke in reply to his joke link. Karl Marx was Jewish in the same way that Barack Obama is Muslim. Yes, Marx's lineage was Jewish but the father converted to Catholicism before he was born and his mother's family converted to Lutheran. Indeed, the mother's lineage is more important than the father's because for those, like Bhairitu, that consider race and lineage more important in judging and labelling a person than the content of one's character, according to Jewish law if a mother is Jewish that automatically makes the child Jewish. So to call Marx Jewish on the basis of his lineage is, of course, the same mode of thinking of those racists who call Obama Muslim because his lineage on his father's side is Muslim...and according to Islamic law it is patrilinear descendancy that counts (unlike Jewish law in which it is matrilinearly based). And keep in mind that neither Marx nor Obama consider themselves, respectively, as Jewish or Muslim. They choose, instead, to define themselves as to their believes, not the dictates of some tradition. But that doesn't count to racists like Bhairitu who judge people by their lineage and/or skin color instead of what that person himself decides to label himself. So, Bhairitu, you and your correspondent, to be consistent, must now refer to Barack Obama as a Muslim...and I will continue to remind you of that in posts henseforth until you admit your racist error. Oh, and by the way, it is very well documented that Karl Marx hated both Jews and Blacks (whom he often described with the n-word when referring to them). The following link is just one article on this. Try googling Karl Marx with anti-semite and nigger and you'll see how many hits you get: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50724
[FairfieldLife] Re: What will change about you when you realize enlightenment?
---the ego doesn't vanish. It's only realized (along with everything else) ... as inseparable from nondual Reality. The mental notion of an internal I as an identity vanishes, since the thinking part of the brain dissolves into pure Consciousness. But body/mind remains although immersed in Self. The body/mind IS the ego. That's why/how we can account for egoic-like behavior on the part of supposedly Enlightened people, MMY for example. For all we know, he may be trying to gouge people for millions in his subtle body. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: I post this as an open question to FFL readers. I think it's an interesting question. If you believe in enlightenment, and that it is within your grasp in this lifetime, what about yourself do you believe will *change* when you realize enlightenment? I ask because many here seem to believe that some things definitely *will* change. I'm wondering what those things are. Me, I'm a fan of the old Zen saying, Before enlight- enment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. I don't believe that *anything* will change about me when my realization of enlightenment becomes permanent, other than the addition of that permanent realization to my daily life. I don't think I'll necessarily become nicer, or wiser, or omniscient, or able to perform siddhis, or above temptation, or any less able to do things that are less than positive (or less than life- supporting). I'll be the same person, just enlightened. But I am aware that these beliefs place me in the minority here, and that others believe that great changes will befall them when they finally realize the goal they have been pursuing all these years. So I'm asking in all sincerity what you think those changes will be. I think it could be an interesting thread. The experience of Samadhi and the lack of internal conflict, and the evaporation of the ego. R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bhairitu the racist believes Obama is a Muslim
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: shempmcgurk wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: bob_brigante wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Bhairitu, do you really like racist, anti-Semites like Karl Marx? *** Karl Marx was not only Jewish, he was descended from an established rabbinical family. http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/5/1/Whisker69-76.html http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/5/1/Whisker69-76.html Thanks Bob. I figured Shemp was off his rocker but I am actually not that familiar with Marx and sent the link as joke in reply to his joke link. Karl Marx was Jewish in the same way that Barack Obama is Muslim. Yes, Marx's lineage was Jewish but the father converted to Catholicism before he was born and his mother's family converted to Lutheran. Indeed, the mother's lineage is more important than the father's because for those, like Bhairitu, that consider race and lineage more important in judging and labelling a person than the content of one's character, according to Jewish law if a mother is Jewish that automatically makes the child Jewish. So to call Marx Jewish on the basis of his lineage is, of course, the same mode of thinking of those racists who call Obama Muslim because his lineage on his father's side is Muslim...and according to Islamic law it is patrilinear descendancy that counts (unlike Jewish law in which it is matrilinearly based). And keep in mind that neither Marx nor Obama consider themselves, respectively, as Jewish or Muslim. They choose, instead, to define themselves as to their believes, not the dictates of some tradition. But that doesn't count to racists like Bhairitu who judge people by their lineage and/or skin color instead of what that person himself decides to label himself. So, Bhairitu, you and your correspondent, to be consistent, must now refer to Barack Obama as a Muslim...and I will continue to remind you of that in posts henseforth until you admit your racist error. Oh, and by the way, it is very well documented that Karl Marx hated both Jews and Blacks (whom he often described with the n-word when referring to them). The following link is just one article on this. Try googling Karl Marx with anti-semite and nigger and you'll see how many hits you get: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50724 Shemp, for the record I am racially blind. I grew up in a small farming community with the children of Mexican laborers. They were my school buddies. I worked as jazz musician for many years with African American musicians who were great friends and bright people. I have no racial biases. I have many Jewish friends and a few Jewish girlfriends so I am not anti-semitic either. [snip] Well, well, well. Look who's on the defensive. And invoking the silliest, sorriest line of all: I'm not a racist because some of my best friends are... Fact is, you judged someone based upon their ancestry which, by the way, is the defining criteria of racism. I've been published internationally in which I've researched and outlined the procedures of discrimination in South Africa, so I know what I'm talking about. Do I think you're a racist? Of course not. Indeed, I think you're basically a good person. But you've been pretty loose and easy in calling me all sorts of names so I thought I'd latch on to something YOU said which is -- whether you realize it or not -- emanating from a racially discriminatory worldview. You labelled someone based upon their ancestry, not the content of their character. This is shameful. And you need to rethink the way you look at the world. Funny, I don't remember YOU or anyone else on this forum coming to my defense when on three separate occasions during the presidential campaign I was called a racist by three different posters here...all because I didn't support Obama or I reproduced an Ann Coulter column. Now everyone is up in arms because I called YOU a racist for actually doing something that IS racist. Ironic, isn't it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Edg the hypocrite
shempmcgurk wrote: First of all, Edg... So maybe it is YOU who should be banned...no? Yeah, lets ban 'what's-his-name', and that other Barry, the Bharat2, for being trolls and pricks and racist bigots. It's people like that who give the TMO a bad name. And while we're at it, let's ban John Manning for being a troll and a racist; and TB as well, for being a paid foreign informant. And get rid of that Curtis big-mouth too, for putting up with all the other bigots and big-mouth ex-TM teachers. I'm really getting sick and tired of them hogging the forum all day and night with all their puny insults. We can do better than this people!!!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dubya's ice cream flavor
Hey, Bob
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dubya's ice cream flavor
Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha!!! my favorite flavor of those listed is: Good Riddance You Lousy Motherf**ker...Swirl --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_re...@... wrote: Ben and Jerry created the Yes Pecan! ice cream flavor for Obama. They then asked people to fill in the blank to the following: For George W. the best Ben and Jerry's flavor would be __. Here are some of the responses: - Grape Depression - Abu Grape - Cluster Fudge - Nut'n Accomplished - Iraqi Road - Chock 'n Awe - WireTapioca - Impeach Cobbler - Guantanmallow - imPeachmint - Good Riddance You Lousy Motherf**ker... Swirl - Heck of a Job, Brownie! - Neocon Politan - RockyRoad to Fascism - The Reese's-cession - Cookie D'oh! - The Housing Crunch - Nougular Proliferation - Death by Chocolate... and Torture - Credit Crunch - Country Pumpkin - Chunky Monkey in Chief - George Bush Doesn't Care About Dark Chocolate - WM Delicious - Chocolate Chimp - Bloody Sundae - Caramel Preemptive Stripe
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What will change about you when you realize enlightenment?
--- On Tue, 2/10/09, yifuxero yifux...@yahoo.com wrote: From: yifuxero yifux...@yahoo.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What will change about you when you realize enlightenment? To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2009, 5:46 PM ---the ego doesn't vanish. It depends upon what you mean by ego. What do you mean? It's only realized (along with everything else) ... as inseparable from nondual Reality. The mental notion of an internal I as an identity vanishes, since the thinking part of the brain dissolves into pure Consciousness. If the mental notion of an individual I vanishes, then there goes the ego. The thought process does not dissolve into pure consciousness. That only occurs when you clearly transcend. But body/mind remains although immersed in Self. The body/mind IS the ego. You have a definition I don't agree with. Body/mind is body/mind, its not the ego. Ego is the result of pure consciousness identifying with a mental vehical and, as it were, becoming the limitation it identifies with. That's why/how we can account for egoic-like behavior on the part of supposedly Enlightened people, Behavior is behavior with or without an ego. The ego is a delusion that rides along saying, I'm doing that or I'm deciding that or I'm feeling that. MMY for example. For all we know, he may be trying to gouge people for millions in his subtle body. Don't be ridiculous. MMY is a blazing supernova of Brahman. Some sort of subtle body is still left. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: I post this as an open question to FFL readers. I think it's an interesting question. If you believe in enlightenment, and that it is within your grasp in this lifetime, what about yourself do you believe will *change* when you realize enlightenment? I ask because many here seem to believe that some things definitely *will* change. I'm wondering what those things are. Me, I'm a fan of the old Zen saying, Before enlight- enment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. I don't believe that *anything* will change about me when my realization of enlightenment becomes permanent, other than the addition of that permanent realization to my daily life. I don't think I'll necessarily become nicer, or wiser, or omniscient, or able to perform siddhis, or above temptation, or any less able to do things that are less than positive (or less than life- supporting). I'll be the same person, just enlightened. But I am aware that these beliefs place me in the minority here, and that others believe that great changes will befall them when they finally realize the goal they have been pursuing all these years. So I'm asking in all sincerity what you think those changes will be. I think it could be an interesting thread. The experience of Samadhi and the lack of internal conflict, and the evaporation of the ego. R.G. To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bhairitu the racist believes Obama is a Muslim
Bhairitu wrote: You, like Willy, are naive to think that Indian are conservative. In general they are pretty liberal. They've had a taste of fascism with the Indira Ghandi regime and didn't like it. ... Goldberg's working definition of fascism is pretty much this: Total worship of the state, state control of all activities and expression, and state ownership of everything. Fascism is always more and more government. The classic example of Fascism, Mussolini's Italy, is exactly this when you examine the historical record. True conservatism, on the other hand, always seeks to lessen the influence of government. - Samir al-Muti Read more: 'Liberal Fascism' The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning by Jonah Goldberg Doubleday, 2008 Amazon review: http://tinyurl.com/ak2zq8
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dubya's ice cream flavor
enlightened_dawn11 wrote: Good Riddance You Lousy Motherf**ker...Swirl Here's my favorite Obama flavor: Change and hope. Hope and change. Change and hope. Hope and change. Change and hope. Hope and change. Hope and change. Change and hope. Hope and change. Change and hope. Hope and change. Change and hope. Chope and chope. Chope and chope. Chope and change. Hope and chope. Chope and chope. Change. Hope. Chope!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bhairitu the racist believes Obama is a Muslim
Richard J. Williams wrote: Bhairitu wrote: You, like Willy, are naive to think that Indian are conservative. In general they are pretty liberal. They've had a taste of fascism with the Indira Ghandi regime and didn't like it. ... Goldberg's working definition of fascism is pretty much this: Total worship of the state, state control of all activities and expression, and state ownership of everything. Fascism is always more and more government. The classic example of Fascism, Mussolini's Italy, is exactly this when you examine the historical record. True conservatism, on the other hand, always seeks to lessen the influence of government. - Samir al-Muti Read more: 'Liberal Fascism' The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning by Jonah Goldberg Doubleday, 2008 Amazon review: http://tinyurl.com/ak2zq8 You're missing the corporate element of fascism and making it purely governmental. And Goldberg is defining authoritarianism which also exists in a corporate state -- ever work for a large corporation? I believe it is wrong to mix fascism with authoritarianism as the latter can also exist in a socialist state. Fascism is just another form of authoritarianism. So by displaying this definition however you're with me on not letting anyone tell you what to do?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bhairitu the racist believes Obama is a Muslim
shempmcgurk wrote: Well, well, well. Look who's on the defensive. And invoking the silliest, sorriest line of all: I'm not a racist because some of my best friends are... Fact is, you judged someone based upon their ancestry which, by the way, is the defining criteria of racism. I've been published internationally in which I've researched and outlined the procedures of discrimination in South Africa, so I know what I'm talking about. Do I think you're a racist? Of course not. Indeed, I think you're basically a good person. But you've been pretty loose and easy in calling me all sorts of names so I thought I'd latch on to something YOU said which is -- whether you realize it or not -- emanating from a racially discriminatory worldview. You labelled someone based upon their ancestry, not the content of their character. This is shameful. And you need to rethink the way you look at the world. Funny, I don't remember YOU or anyone else on this forum coming to my defense when on three separate occasions during the presidential campaign I was called a racist by three different posters here...all because I didn't support Obama or I reproduced an Ann Coulter column. Now everyone is up in arms because I called YOU a racist for actually doing something that IS racist. Ironic, isn't it. Like Sal said we take you with a grain of salt because you're nuts.
[FairfieldLife] Post Count
Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): Sat Feb 07 00:00:00 2009 End Date (UTC): Sat Feb 14 00:00:00 2009 596 messages as of (UTC) Wed Feb 11 00:14:12 2009 62 authfriend jst...@panix.com 57 shempmcgurk shempmcg...@netscape.net 44 curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com 44 TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com 31 Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net 29 enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 28 I am the eternal l.shad...@gmail.com 25 sparaig lengli...@cox.net 19 yifuxero yifux...@yahoo.com 18 geezerfreak geezerfr...@yahoo.com 17 Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@lisco.com 15 Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net 15 BillyG. wg...@yahoo.com 14 do.rflex do.rf...@yahoo.com 13 Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com 11 ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com 11 Arhata Osho arhatafreespe...@yahoo.com 10 nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 10 Robert babajii...@yahoo.com 10 Duveyoung no_re...@yahoogroups.com 9 cardemaister no_re...@yahoogroups.com 9 Richard J. Williams willy...@yahoo.com 7 raunchydog raunchy...@yahoo.com 7 bob_brigante no_re...@yahoogroups.com 7 Rick Archer r...@searchsummit.com 5 boo_lives boo_li...@yahoo.com 5 Richard M compost...@yahoo.co.uk 4 metoostill metoost...@yahoo.com 4 lurkernomore20002000 steve.sun...@sbcglobal.net 4 arhatafreespe...@yahoo.com 4 Peter violates the FFL rules fairfield.li...@gmail.com 4 Peter drpetersutp...@yahoo.com 4 Marek Reavis reavisma...@sbcglobal.net 3 dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony...@yahoo.com 3 Barry is a stupid cunt fairfield.li...@gmail.com 3 grate.swan no_re...@yahoogroups.com 2 wayback71 waybac...@yahoo.com 2 sinajon1 sinaj...@yahoo.com 2 mainstream20016 mainstream20...@yahoo.com 2 wle...@aol.com 2 Nelson nelsonriddle2...@yahoo.com 2 Kirk kirk_bernha...@cox.net 2 John jr_...@yahoo.com 2 Fairfield Lifer fairfield.li...@gmail.com 2 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jan-=C5ke_Ingvar_J=F6nsson?= transcendentalcosmicbl...@yahoo.se 1 uns_tressor uns_tres...@yahoo.ca 1 shukra69 shukr...@yahoo.ca 1 pranamoocher bh...@hotmail.com 1 paultrunk paultr...@yahoo.com 1 off_world_beings no_re...@yahoogroups.com 1 menkemeyer menkeme...@yahoo.com 1 guyfawkes91 guyfawke...@yahoo.com 1 film_man_pdx no_re...@yahoogroups.com 1 billy jim emptyb...@yahoo.com 1 Peter is an ignorant cunt fairfield.li...@gmail.com 1 Patrick Gillam jpgil...@yahoo.com 1 Larry inmadi...@hotmail.com 1 Joe Smith msilver1...@yahoo.com Posters: 58 Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times = Daylight Saving Time (Summer): US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM Standard Time (Winter): US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: What will change about you when you realize enlightenment?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: I post this as an open question to FFL readers. I think it's an interesting question. If you believe in enlightenment, and that it is within your grasp in this lifetime, what about yourself do you believe will *change* when you realize enlightenment? The word myself will mean something different. Me, I'm a fan of the old Zen saying, Before enlight- enment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. Before enlightenment, I chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, wood gets chopped and water gets carried.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What will change about you when you realize enlightenment?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: I post this as an open question to FFL readers. I think it's an interesting question. If you believe in enlightenment, and that it is within your grasp in this lifetime, what about yourself do you believe will *change* when you realize enlightenment? My indifference to the tremendous bliss that exists as my own Self.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count
On Feb 10, 2009, at 6:17 PM, FFL PostCount wrote: Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): Sat Feb 07 00:00:00 2009 End Date (UTC): Sat Feb 14 00:00:00 2009 596 messages as of (UTC) Wed Feb 11 00:14:12 2009 62 authfriend jst...@panix.com 57 shempmcgurk shempmcg...@netscape.net Whoops! Sayonara Judy and Shemp. :) Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Feb 10, 2009, at 6:17 PM, FFL PostCount wrote: Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): Sat Feb 07 00:00:00 2009 End Date (UTC): Sat Feb 14 00:00:00 2009 596 messages as of (UTC) Wed Feb 11 00:14:12 2009 62 authfriend jst...@... 57 shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... Whoops! Sayonara Judy and Shemp. :) Sal My, my...12 over. Isn't that worthy of a two week time out for Nurse Ratchet?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Feb 10, 2009, at 6:17 PM, FFL PostCount wrote: Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): Sat Feb 07 00:00:00 2009 End Date (UTC): Sat Feb 14 00:00:00 2009 596 messages as of (UTC) Wed Feb 11 00:14:12 2009 62 authfriend jst...@... 57 shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... Whoops! Sayonara Judy and Shemp. :) Nope. Post Count screwed up. By my manual count since yesterday's post count, Judy's last post was her 50th, and Shemp is at 30. I have no idea what the problem is. My email feed and PostCount's email feed are both Gmail accounts, so our counts are usually the same.
[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Notice two points here. First, Barry does not deny anything I said. Second, he quotes what I *did* say about his and Curtis's broken and needs fixing notion, i.e., that it was nonsense--precisely the notion he claims in a later post that I was insisting on. What is it about the fact that I *denied* this notion that has Barry so terrified that he has to pretend I *espoused and promoted* it? I submit that the reason Barry is so consumed by the character of Sister Aloysius in Doubt is because he recognizes in her not me, but himself. That's what terrifies him. His fear compels him to try to exorcise this recognition by projecting it onto me. Sister Aloysius's last words in what Barry quotes below from Doubt are, I know what I won't accept. What Barry cannot accept is *himself*. ROTFL..Judy you are a riot! This post is a kind of Judy's greatest hits package all rolled into one. Y'know, Geeze, your (and Barry's) obsessive disses would be *so* much more effective if you could rebut, or just say something substantive about, even *one* point in the post you're dissing. It's really tempting to assume that you don't do so because you recognize the validity of the points and know there's no way you could rebut them--but that fact upsets you so much that you feel you have to say *something* to express your distress, even if it's pathetically lame, as above. Obsessive? You're the one who posted out (63 in 3 days!) little lady. As I've mentioned before, I do have a life outside of FFL. The last thing I want to do is waste what little free time I have engaging in endless tangled word games with you. Doing THAT would upset mewasted time I could never get back. So no, you don't upset me. You amuse me, albeit in a sick kind of way. I can leave FFL for months on end and know that all I have to do is pop back in to find you running your same Mother Superior trip on whoever disagrees with you. It's comical but I fully admit to having a twisted sense of humor.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count
Alex Stanley wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Feb 10, 2009, at 6:17 PM, FFL PostCount wrote: Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): Sat Feb 07 00:00:00 2009 End Date (UTC): Sat Feb 14 00:00:00 2009 596 messages as of (UTC) Wed Feb 11 00:14:12 2009 62 authfriend jst...@... 57 shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... Whoops! Sayonara Judy and Shemp. :) Nope. Post Count screwed up. By my manual count since yesterday's post count, Judy's last post was her 50th, and Shemp is at 30. I have no idea what the problem is. My email feed and PostCount's email feed are both Gmail accounts, so our counts are usually the same. You can check duplicate emails by looking at the log.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Feb 10, 2009, at 6:17 PM, FFL PostCount wrote: Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): Sat Feb 07 00:00:00 2009 End Date (UTC): Sat Feb 14 00:00:00 2009 596 messages as of (UTC) Wed Feb 11 00:14:12 2009 62 authfriend jstein@ 57 shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ Whoops! Sayonara Judy and Shemp. :) Nope. Post Count screwed up. By my manual count since yesterday's post count, Judy's last post was her 50th, and Shemp is at 30. Correction: Judy's last post was her 48th.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Feb 10, 2009, at 6:17 PM, FFL PostCount wrote: Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): Sat Feb 07 00:00:00 2009 End Date (UTC): Sat Feb 14 00:00:00 2009 596 messages as of (UTC) Wed Feb 11 00:14:12 2009 62 authfriend jst...@... 57 shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... Whoops! Sayonara Judy and Shemp. :) Sal Sorry to burst your bubble of pleasure and bliss, Sal, but I'm afraid I'll be sticking around until Friday or until I reach 50 posts, whichever comes first.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What will change about you when you realize enlightenment?
--I would definitely agree with Auth's statement below that wood gets chopped; but disagree with the Gita on the doer; (thereby adding a corollary). Doers: people, bugs, rodents, Scientologists, whatever/whomever, don't vanish as doers. The doing is simply subsumed within the global ocean of Being. However, at this juncture, we could easily run up against a Real type of Paradox of Brahman: namely, without even mentioning what the paradoxes are and how they can be resolved; we can say that they may NOT be resolved and that's why they are genuine paradoxes. Doership could be in this category. Two apparently contradictory statements regarding doership could both be correct. There's no Law that says that mind has to figure everything out. (more exciting that way...which is why I only read textbooks I can only understand 5% of). - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: I post this as an open question to FFL readers. I think it's an interesting question. If you believe in enlightenment, and that it is within your grasp in this lifetime, what about yourself do you believe will *change* when you realize enlightenment? The word myself will mean something different. Me, I'm a fan of the old Zen saying, Before enlight- enment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. Before enlightenment, I chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, wood gets chopped and water gets carried.
[FairfieldLife] Where are the Buddhists?
From time to time I see posts claiming that !...@#$%^ is a Buddhist. So, I'm wondering who these Buddhist might be here on FFL? In fact, I'm thinking that there are no Buddhists on FFL. Why would Buddhists populate FFL? Outside of the snearing, slander and outright fighting that some of our luminaries indulge in (code for *ejaculate on*) why would a Buddhist care one single thing about MMY's teachings or any of the various reckless and drunken speculations parading here as ideas on public-spectacle-dot.001? I'm wondering just who these Buddhists might be. I've hung with Tantric Buddhists since 1992 - although they are not the usual breed of knee-jerk Prasangikas. The ones I talk with can actually discuss the similarities between Jamgon Kongtrul and Iamblicus on the role of the pranic chariot (oxema-pneuma) in theurgic/tantric rites. The ones I don't talk with much are the there is no chariot - it is nothing but a collection of boards, axils and spokes. Of course this is not real news here since doctrinare and mindless intellects are plentiful on any forum- especially one involving the relationship between the fundamental questions of human life and the teachings of the .org/church/sampradaya/lineage/revelation/religion. However my conversations over the years have demonstrated that most Buddhists don't really have anything close to the meditative-experiential baseline that most of us bring to FFL and take for granted in our conversations. In fact, one of my friends, who had Tri-Cyle Buddhist training starting from the early 70's, was startled to hear MMY's description of transcending (from the Gita commentary). We were looking at Shankara's commentary on the Yoga-Sutras and his assumption was that this must have been my own personal experience. Although in one sense this was accurate, it just did'nt occur to him that MMY would offer this description to us precisely because many of us had this very experience of transcending during meditation. All lineage are not the same. Buddhists claimants! Stand forth and assert your claims here on FFL in a straight-forward manner - instead of the usual pseudo-fodder. Who here is a Buddhist - enough of one that you can claim to critique MMY's teachings on the one hand or use that very basis to bring greater clarity to understanding what he said?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count
On Feb 10, 2009, at 7:08 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: 62 authfriend jst...@... 57 shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... Whoops! Sayonara Judy and Shemp. :) Sal Sorry to burst your bubble of pleasure and bliss, Sal, but I'm afraid I'll be sticking around until Friday or until I reach 50 posts, whichever comes first. Dam. And here I was, totally blissed out at the thought of you wandering around in the wilderness for two weeks, shemp. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Where are the Buddhists?
On Feb 10, 2009, at 7:52 PM, emptybill wrote: From time to time I see posts claiming that !...@#$%^ is a Buddhist. So, I'm wondering who these Buddhist might be here on FFL? In fact, I'm thinking that there are no Buddhists on FFL. Why would Buddhists populate FFL? Outside of the snearing, slander and outright fighting that some of our luminaries indulge in (code for *ejaculate on*) why would a Buddhist care one single thing about MMY's teachings or any of the various reckless and drunken speculations parading here as ideas on public-spectacle-dot.001? I'm wondering just who these Buddhists might be. Actually, bill, there's a dirty little secret here on FFL and so far, you are the only one who's even come close to cracking it, and it's this...Rick decided when he first started this group, that he dam well didn't want it overrun by Buddhists, know what I mean? So he took a page from what others have done to keep things civil...You've heard of Jewish quotas, Catholic quotas and Black quotas? Well, Rick instituted a Buddhist quota! That's right, here on FFL, only a certain amount of those crazy Buddhists are allowed at any one time, and even then they still have to use separate virtual drinking fountains, sit in the back of the virtual bus, and, well... you get the idea. But please, don't tell anyone. Since this place is so well-known as a haven of peace and tranquillity, I wouldn't want any unseemly revelations to ruin that. Sal
[FairfieldLife] newsletter from Raja Harris, raja of India
Vasant Pachami with the Vedic Pandits [150] 10 February 2009 Dear George, I am writing you from the Brahmasthan to let you know about some new content on our website and to share with you a few of our recent experiences here. First, we have put up several beautiful audio clips and a video clip of Maharishi speaking on the knowledge underlying the unique role of the Vedic Pandits in creating peace and harmony for the whole world. These can be found on a new page http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=1012754936msgid=1531201act=\ UXFDc=387898admin=0destination=https%3A%2F%2Fvedicpandits.org%2FPage2\ _mmy.html of the website. Further presentations from Maharishi will be added in the near future. [Pandit outside]Younger Pandits in late afternoon training. Second, Dr. Girish Chadra Varma has recorded a remarkable new video for the site. To see it please click the link under the photograph of Dr. Varma on the home page. Click here for the home page. http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=1012754936msgid=1531201act=\ UXFDc=387898admin=0destination=https%3A%2F%2Fvedicpandits.org%2FPage2\ .html When Arlene and I watched this for the first time we both felt that Girish had profoundly captured in his words and through new video footage the enormous scope, power, and sweetness which is the reality of this project and the vital importance of making it a reality as quickly as possible for the peace and prosperity of the whole world. Please watch this video and send the link along to your friends. It is very important that as many people as possible hear this message now. (You can watch this video in full-screen mode by clicking the icon on the control bar at the bottom of the video window.)We always appreciate your thoughts and comments about how we could make the website better and, most of all, your suggestions about how we can most effectively advance this project. The Atmosphere at the Brahmasthan Our view of the main Pandit campus at Karaundi at sunset. There is such a palpable environment of peace here at the Brahmasthan. Yesterday, along with Dr. Bevan Morris and a few others, we climbed one of the high forested hills to the north of the main Karaundi campus - which is also protected by similar hills on the west and south, and open to the east. At the top, we looked back towards the buildings, and with the sun setting behind them in the west the whole campus was glowing. We all spontaneously smiled at this sight of what is rising at the heart of India to bless the whole world. We are planning to arrange special tours of the Brahmasthan this coming fall for our dear donors so that they can experience it for themselves. Vasant Panchami with the Vedic Pandits Maharishi Vedic Pandits performing the special recitation for Vasant Panchami. On January 31st, there was a beautiful celebration of Vasant Panchami, the day in the Vedic calendar which celebrates the eternity and accessibility of total knowledge. Perhaps you saw it. At the conclusion, after the broadcast ended, as we were thanking the 12 Vedic Pandits who had been performing the traditional recitation, the 1,000+ Pandits gathered with us in the grand assembly hall rose as one and began a very moving, long and loud cheering for these Pandits. They (and we) were clapping for those 12 but at the same time we were all applauding our happiness and good fortune that this sublime knowledge and experience was lively in the world. I am sure that all who had enjoyed this celebration were feeling the same, wherever around the world they had watched on the MOU channel. With all best wishes always, Jai Guru Dev Raja Harris, Arlene and Raj Rajeshwari Lauren Kaplan P.S. If you were forwarded this newsletter, you can sign up to have future issues sent directly to you by clicking here http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=1012754936msgid=1531201act=\ UXFDc=387898admin=0destination=https%3A%2F%2Fvedicpandits.org%2Ficont\ act%2Fform.html . This message was sent from Brahmananda Saraswati Trust to george.defor...@gmail.com. It was sent from: Brahmananda Saraswati Trust, 1900 Capital Boulevard, Maharishi Vedic City, IA 52556. You can modify/update your subscription via the link below. [Email Marketing Software] http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186 To be removed click here http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=1012754936l=26503s=UX\ FDm=1531201c=387898 http://app.icontact.com/icp/sub/forward?m=1531201s=1012754936c=UXFDc\ id=387898
[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Larry inmadi...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: Let me jump into this attachment discussion. I'd like to argue that you don't know what attachment is until you experience pure consciousness while the mind functions. Any attempt to become unattached through the mind is pure mood-making/manipulation which is worthless. Most people disengage/unattach from aspects of their relative existence out of neurotic fear, not out of a desire for realization. They want to free themselves from the discomfort of the mind's attachment so they disengage. But this is a mistake. Even in enlightenment the mind is still fully engaged when dealing with relative existence. What is unattached in enlightenment is pure conscious which has ALWAYS been unattached. But prior to realization pure consciousness identifies with something other than itself (primarily the mind, secondarily the body) and an ego is created. So pure awareness experiences itself as limited. So why would PC, which is eternally free and unbounded, the substratum of the gods, the Being of the universe, experience itself as limited? Exactly when did this delusion of Pure Consciousness begin? Ultimately, this is a question for the philosophers of the group - but experientially, this is what Maharishi referred to as the 'naturalness' of waking state, or the 'naturalness' of CC or the 'naturalness' of any state of consciousness - - it is accompanied by a sense of This is how I have always lived, or This is what it means to be a human being, etcCompletely natural means there is not a sense of: I used to be or experience such and such, but now I experience or am such and such. It is completely seamless. Thanks for your reply. I understand that some may say things such as pure consciousness identifies with something other than itself and pure awareness experiences itself as limited in a poetic sense, and/or as from the perspective of the (illusion of an) ego in order to paint a picture for an ego-driven waking state perspective. However to state, and to hold that literally, that Pure Consciousness morphs into a limited state, and gets confused and identifies with the mind or objects of the senses indicates that this type of Pure Consciousness is a very weak -- and unworthy, bound state of consciousness, IMO. The experience of this very weak sibling of ever constant unchanging actual Pure Consciousness -- even when this weak sibling gets strong and not so confused -- appears a trivial attainment.
[FairfieldLife] Re: newsletter from Raja Harris, raja of India
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, george_deforest george.defor...@... wrote: Vasant Pachami with the Vedic Pandits [150] 10 February 2009 Dear George, I am writing you from the Brahmasthan to let you know about some new content on our website and to share with you a few of our recent experiences here. Yesterday, along with Dr. Bevan Morris and a few others, we climbed one of the high forested hills to the north of the main Karaundi campus - which is also protected by similar hills on the west and south, and open to the east. At the top, we looked back towards the buildings, and with the sun setting behind them in the west the whole campus was glowing. *** Well, apparently, if chubby (Bevan) can still walk to the top of a hill, he can't be in terrible health, although he's certainly a candidate for pre-diabetes or the whole enchilada.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What will change about you when you realize enlightenment?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifux...@... wrote: since the thinking part of the brain dissolves into pure Consciousness. That sounds rather slimy. Do the brains sort of drip out onto the floor -- or is it a sudden gush? Have anatomical studies been done on these people -- do they literally have holes in their brain?
[FairfieldLife] Re: What will change about you when you realize enlightenment?
---good question! Actually, none of the physiological studies address the question of what happens to the brain before, during, and after unstressing since the spikes or flat-lines one sees on an oscilloscope have little connectivity to what's actually occurring. But it's a safe assumption that not ALL of the nervous system is able to fully appreciate PC to the same degree (Ramana Maharshi may be a rare exception to this, since he attained Self-Realization all at once on 7-17-1896 without any conscious, prior Sadhana). Also, he claims he had no experience of the Self prior to that date. When people say they transcend, we may therefore assume that just on the basis of statistics, that they are not referring to a temporary experience of UNITY; but rather some sort of TC or PC. Thus, in a figurative sense, some parts of the nervous system may dissolve into PC; although anybody is invited to come up with a more accurate term. This may be difficult though since it seems nobody can say exactly what happens to the brain when one transcends. Saying that such states correspond to some type of Alpha, Theta, or other corelate is only a gross correlation. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifuxero@ wrote: since the thinking part of the brain dissolves into pure Consciousness. That sounds rather slimy. Do the brains sort of drip out onto the floor -- or is it a sudden gush? Have anatomical studies been done on these people -- do they literally have holes in their brain?
[FairfieldLife] Ringo Paul to Perform Together at David Lynch's concert on April 4th
In case you haven't already heard the news. http://www.iowasource.com/blog/858-ringo-paul-to-perform-together.html Ringo Paul to Perform Together at David Lynch's Change Starts from Within concert on April 4th by Christine Albers 10 Feb 2009
[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Larry inmadison@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: Let me jump into this attachment discussion. I'd like to argue that you don't know what attachment is until you experience pure consciousness while the mind functions. Any attempt to become unattached through the mind is pure mood-making/manipulation which is worthless. Most people disengage/unattach from aspects of their relative existence out of neurotic fear, not out of a desire for realization. They want to free themselves from the discomfort of the mind's attachment so they disengage. But this is a mistake. Even in enlightenment the mind is still fully engaged when dealing with relative existence. What is unattached in enlightenment is pure conscious which has ALWAYS been unattached. But prior to realization pure consciousness identifies with something other than itself (primarily the mind, secondarily the body) and an ego is created. So pure awareness experiences itself as limited. So why would PC, which is eternally free and unbounded, the substratum of the gods, the Being of the universe, experience itself as limited? Exactly when did this delusion of Pure Consciousness begin? Ultimately, this is a question for the philosophers of the group - but experientially, this is what Maharishi referred to as the 'naturalness' of waking state, or the 'naturalness' of CC or the 'naturalness' of any state of consciousness - - it is accompanied by a sense of This is how I have always lived, or This is what it means to be a human being, etcCompletely natural means there is not a sense of: I used to be or experience such and such, but now I experience or am such and such. It is completely seamless. Thanks for your reply. I understand that some may say things such as pure consciousness identifies with something other than itself and pure awareness experiences itself as limited in a poetic sense, and/or as from the perspective of the (illusion of an) ego in order to paint a picture for an ego-driven waking state perspective. However to state, and to hold that literally, that Pure Consciousness morphs into a limited state, and gets confused and identifies with the mind or objects of the senses indicates that this type of Pure Consciousness is a very weak -- and unworthy, bound state of consciousness, IMO. The experience of this very weak sibling of ever constant unchanging actual Pure Consciousness -- even when this weak sibling gets strong and not so confused -- appears a trivial attainment. When the sun shines upon the earth, the sun is not effected by how it is reflected off mud or water or any surface, likewise PC is not effected by how it is reflected by various sentient beings. As far as the 'attainment' is concerned, think of the attainment as an increasingly clear discernment of Reality, Reality without the noise, grime and distortion of cloudy perception. The noise and distortion are attachments and obsessions - and these attachments are simply patterns of thinking and feeling that prevent us from seeing and touching Reality directly.
[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
in order to attempt an understanding of enlightenment, the waking state mind conceptualizes enlightenment as an object, with conventional attributes and boundaries. but enlightenment is unbounded by its very definition, without attributes and boundaries. so when the identification of the mind itself changes from bound to an entity that constantly grows and expands, and continues to expand, that is the change of the mind that occurs with enlightenment. anything the waking state mind attempts to latch onto, and think, yes, THAT is enlightenment will necessarily be incorrect. enlightenment is a process, beginning with a fundamental change in identification, from self to Self. that is why there are three distinct stages of enlightenment in the TM lexiccn, and many many more stages beyond that. to think incorrectly of waking state morphing into another bound atate, the state of enlightenment, is a mental trick with no value. the first establishment of enlightenment, CC, is just the beginning, and neither that, nor any other state of enlightenment that ripens subsequently, can be conceptualized by the waking state mind. conceptualization needs at least two values, both fixed. so if a person from waking state, a fixed value, attempts to conceptualize a second, elightened state, which is not fixed but ever expanding, there is no way to compare the two, no way to bridge the apparent distance between the fixed and the not fixed, by thinking. it is like trying to mathematically compute all of the numbers between one and infinity. impossible. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Larry inmadison@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: Let me jump into this attachment discussion. I'd like to argue that you don't know what attachment is until you experience pure consciousness while the mind functions. Any attempt to become unattached through the mind is pure mood- making/manipulation which is worthless. Most people disengage/unattach from aspects of their relative existence out of neurotic fear, not out of a desire for realization. They want to free themselves from the discomfort of the mind's attachment so they disengage. But this is a mistake. Even in enlightenment the mind is still fully engaged when dealing with relative existence. What is unattached in enlightenment is pure conscious which has ALWAYS been unattached. But prior to realization pure consciousness identifies with something other than itself (primarily the mind, secondarily the body) and an ego is created. So pure awareness experiences itself as limited. So why would PC, which is eternally free and unbounded, the substratum of the gods, the Being of the universe, experience itself as limited? Exactly when did this delusion of Pure Consciousness begin? Ultimately, this is a question for the philosophers of the group - but experientially, this is what Maharishi referred to as the 'naturalness' of waking state, or the 'naturalness' of CC or the 'naturalness' of any state of consciousness - - it is accompanied by a sense of This is how I have always lived, or This is what it means to be a human being, etcCompletely natural means there is not a sense of: I used to be or experience such and such, but now I experience or am such and such. It is completely seamless. Thanks for your reply. I understand that some may say things such as pure consciousness identifies with something other than itself and pure awareness experiences itself as limited in a poetic sense, and/or as from the perspective of the (illusion of an) ego in order to paint a picture for an ego-driven waking state perspective. However to state, and to hold that literally, that Pure Consciousness morphs into a limited state, and gets confused and identifies with the mind or objects of the senses indicates that this type of Pure Consciousness is a very weak -- and unworthy, bound state of consciousness, IMO. The experience of this very weak sibling of ever constant unchanging actual Pure Consciousness -- even when this weak sibling gets strong and not so confused -- appears a trivial attainment.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Feb 10, 2009, at 7:08 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: 62 authfriend jstein@ 57 shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ Whoops! Sayonara Judy and Shemp. :) Sal Sorry to burst your bubble of pleasure and bliss, Sal, but I'm afraid I'll be sticking around until Friday or until I reach 50 posts, whichever comes first. Dam. And here I was, totally blissed out at the thought of you wandering around in the wilderness for two weeks, shemp. Sal Life is full of these unforseeable disappointments. As willytex would say: go figure.
[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
---great!...and there are stages of evolution beyond Enlightenment; to begin with, some form of physical perfection then evolving toward the attainment of a Glorified body. Of course, such evolutionary developments are relative, but nevertheless possibly where humanity is headed. Neo-Advaitins typically downplay such progressions. Vaj called the attainment of a Glorified Rainbow Light Body an epiphenomenon. Of course, all of this is speculative anyway; but the notion that Enlightenment is some type of pinnacle seems counterintuitive. A phase-transition would probably be a more appropriate phrase. But even then, everything has to be placed into the context of what people want, what makes them happy, and where they believe lies the source of happiness. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: in order to attempt an understanding of enlightenment, the waking state mind conceptualizes enlightenment as an object, with conventional attributes and boundaries. but enlightenment is unbounded by its very definition, without attributes and boundaries. so when the identification of the mind itself changes from bound to an entity that constantly grows and expands, and continues to expand, that is the change of the mind that occurs with enlightenment. anything the waking state mind attempts to latch onto, and think, yes, THAT is enlightenment will necessarily be incorrect. enlightenment is a process, beginning with a fundamental change in identification, from self to Self. that is why there are three distinct stages of enlightenment in the TM lexiccn, and many many more stages beyond that. to think incorrectly of waking state morphing into another bound atate, the state of enlightenment, is a mental trick with no value. the first establishment of enlightenment, CC, is just the beginning, and neither that, nor any other state of enlightenment that ripens subsequently, can be conceptualized by the waking state mind. conceptualization needs at least two values, both fixed. so if a person from waking state, a fixed value, attempts to conceptualize a second, elightened state, which is not fixed but ever expanding, there is no way to compare the two, no way to bridge the apparent distance between the fixed and the not fixed, by thinking. it is like trying to mathematically compute all of the numbers between one and infinity. impossible. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Larry inmadison@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: Let me jump into this attachment discussion. I'd like to argue that you don't know what attachment is until you experience pure consciousness while the mind functions. Any attempt to become unattached through the mind is pure mood- making/manipulation which is worthless. Most people disengage/unattach from aspects of their relative existence out of neurotic fear, not out of a desire for realization. They want to free themselves from the discomfort of the mind's attachment so they disengage. But this is a mistake. Even in enlightenment the mind is still fully engaged when dealing with relative existence. What is unattached in enlightenment is pure conscious which has ALWAYS been unattached. But prior to realization pure consciousness identifies with something other than itself (primarily the mind, secondarily the body) and an ego is created. So pure awareness experiences itself as limited. So why would PC, which is eternally free and unbounded, the substratum of the gods, the Being of the universe, experience itself as limited? Exactly when did this delusion of Pure Consciousness begin? Ultimately, this is a question for the philosophers of the group - but experientially, this is what Maharishi referred to as the 'naturalness' of waking state, or the 'naturalness' of CC or the 'naturalness' of any state of consciousness - - it is accompanied by a sense of This is how I have always lived, or This is what it means to be a human being, etcCompletely natural means there is not a sense of: I used to be or experience such and such, but now I experience or am such and such. It is completely seamless. Thanks for your reply. I understand that some may say things such as pure consciousness identifies with something other than itself and pure awareness experiences itself as limited in a poetic sense, and/or as from the perspective of the (illusion of an) ego in order to paint a picture for an ego-driven waking state perspective. However to state, and to hold that literally, that Pure Consciousness morphs into a limited
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ringo Paul to Perform Together at David Lynch's concert on April 4th
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Dick Mays dickm...@... wrote: In case you haven't already heard the news. http://www.iowasource.com/blog/858-ringo-paul-to-perform-together.html Ringo Paul to Perform Together at David Lynch's Change Starts from Within concert on April 4th by Christine Albers 10 Feb 2009 That's great! But what about John and George? I seem to recall there were four members in that group. Won't they be joining them?
[FairfieldLife] WSJ: Obama's charm isn't working abroad
Posted by one of the trolls who's waiting for the real trolls to leave FFL http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123422514997765617.html * FEBRUARY 10, 2009 Barack Obama has now been president for 21 days, following an inauguration that was supposed to have pressed the reset button on America's relations with the wider world and ushered in a new period of global cooperation against common threats. Here's what pressing reset has accomplished so far: - Iran. Since President Obama's inauguration, Iran has launched a satellite into space and declared (with an assist from Russia, which is providing the nuclear fuel) that it would complete its long-delayed reactor at Bushehr later this year. At the Munich Security Conference last week, Iranian parliamentary speaker Ali Larijani promised a golden opportunity for the United States in its relations with the Islamic Republic. He proceeded to make good on that opportunity by skipping Joe Biden's speech the next day. Also, as if to underscore that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Holocaust-denial is merely emblematic of his regime's outlook, Mr. Larijani offered that there could be different perspectives on the Holocaust. Mr. Larijani is widely described as a moderate. - Afghanistan. This is the war Mr. Obama has said we have to win -- as opposed to Iraq. Our NATO allies are supposed to feel the same way. So what was NATO Secretary General Jaap De Hoop Scheffer doing at the Munich conclave? Why, reproaching our allies. When the United States asks for a serious partner, it does not just want advice, it wants and deserves someone to share the heavy lifting, he said. But the plea fell on deaf ears. Germany will not, and probably cannot, commit more than 4,500 soldiers to Afghanistan, and then only to areas where they are unlikely to see combat. The French have no plans to increase their troop commitment beyond the 3,300 now there. Mr. Obama, by contrast, may double the U.S. commitment to 60,000 troops. - North Korea. A constant liberal lament about the Bush administration was that its supposed hard line on Pyongyang had yielded nothing except five or six North Korean bombs. So what is Kim Jong Il to do now that the Obama administration is promising a friendlier approach? In late January, Pyongyang announced it was unilaterally withdrawing from its 1991 nonaggression pact with the South. Satellite imagery later showed the North moving a Taepodong 2 missile -- potentially capable of reaching the U.S. West Coast -- to a launch pad. The missile is pointing at Obama, Baek Seung-joo, a director at the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses in Seoul, told the L.A. Times. North Korea thinks that with such gestures they can control U.S. foreign policy. - Pakistan. Perhaps the most unambiguous of the Bush administration's successes was rolling up the nuclear proliferation network of Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan, who was kept under house arrest for five years. But if some latent fear of the 43rd American president prevented the Pakistani government from releasing their dubious national hero, that fear clearly vanished with the arrival of the 44th. Mr. Khan was released last week, ostensibly by order of a Pakistani court, plainly with the consent of the government. So far, the Obama administration has done little more than issue a muted statement of concern. - Russia. At the Munich conference, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov praised the very positive tone set by Mr. Biden. And Mr. Ivanov's tone? Less positive. Russia will continue to build military bases in Georgia's breakaway republics. It will press ahead with the fueling of the Bushehr reactor. Russia also won't hesitate to complicate the U.S. position in Afghanistan -- and then lie about what it has done in a manner worthy of the late Andrei Gromyko. There is no correlation between the decision of the Kyrgyz republic and the loans that the Russian federation granted, Mr. Ivanov said, referring to Kyrgyzstan's oddly timed decision to close an airbase used by the U.S. to supply Afghanistan after securing a $2 billion Russian loan. - The Arab street. I have Muslim members of my family, Mr. Obama recently told Al-Arabiya. Yet so far his efforts at outreach have been met with derision from Arab hard-liners and liberals alike. We welcomed him with almost total enthusiasm until he underwent his first real test: Gaza, wrote Egyptian novelist Alaa Al Aswany in a New York Times op-ed. We also wanted Mr. Obama . . . to recognize . . . the right of people in occupied territory to resist military occupation. In other words, the price of Arab support for Mr. Obama is that he embrace Hamas and its terrorist tactics. And so it goes. True, Mr. Obama has made the U.S. popular in places like Montreal and Berlin, where our unpopularity never mattered much to begin with. But foreign policy is not about winning popularity contests. And woe to the president who imagines he needn't inspire fear among the wicked even as he
[FairfieldLife] Judee Sill
Barry's recent posts about his long time musical love for the music of Bruce Cockburn really got me rollin'. First I pulled out all of my treasured Cockburn LPs that I (sadly) had neglected for many years. Getting reacquainted with the absolute genius that is Cockburn provided me with several weeks of pure pleasure. (Thanks Barry.both for reminding me and for turning me on to Bruce all those years ago.) Cockburn is again a regular part of my playlist. For those of you who have still not come under the spell of his music, take your earliest opportunity and make your move. I'll let Barry report his picks on Bruce Cockburn for beginners but I can tell you that you are about to embark on a musical journey you will not regret. Personally, I've always been partial to his late 70's albums like Dancin' In The Dragon's Jaws, not only because they are unmitigated brilliance but also because they were my first exposure to the man. The second thing that happened was that I began to pull out my two Judee Sill records. Those who know me, know that I am a jazz fan through and through.jazz meaning the likes of Miles, 'Trane, Bill Evans, Mingus, Grant Green, Wes...on and on. I'm hopelessly addicted to the music, going back to the late 60s when the Greenwich Village jazz mecca called Slugs (seating capacity maybe 60) finally broke Fillmore East's hold on me. I recall watching the latest British wannabe act play for 50 minutes at the Fillmore, prancing and preening with all the moves of the day...and making very little memorable music in the process. I left, grabbed a cab down to the Village and watched McCoy Tyner's group blow the roof off of that little joint until 4 in the morning. I was hooked for good. Getting back to Judee Sill...Judee made two albums for the then fledgling Asylum label (in fact she was Asylum's first signing) in the early 70s. Today she is little known. Judee led what can charitably called a VERY troubled life. She had serious drug problems, primarily heroin. But folks, this woman was one of the most inspired and brilliant artists I have ever heard in any genre. She was gifted in so many areassinger, songwriter and arranger. I believe that David Crosby and Graham Nash were the first to bring Judee to the attention of music biz honchos. Judee wrote (and sang) amazingly complex and beautiful harmonies that will take your breath away. Judee was also able to do her own arranging for her music. Amazing when you consider that her albums (especially the second) feature lush and complex orchestral backing. For those unfamiliar with arranging and orchestration, it means that you write out the entire score for each instrument. On her second album she is shown in the liners conducting the orchestra. No big deal I suppose to some, but her orchestrations are freakin' brilliant by any measure. It has been noted that she learned her gospel inspired piano style while in reform school for writing bad checks. Judee's first album was simply called Judee Sill. She had a minor hit with a song from the album called Jesus Was Crossmaker. (Religion and spirituality are recurring themes in Sill's music.) She did some touring to support the album but her personal life always got in the way of any real success. Judee's second album is called Heart Food. It is simply non-stop brilliance from start to finish. Listen to the second song (The Kiss) and tell that it isn't one of the most perfectly crafted tunes ever created. If I had to pick one LP over the other (which I would not want to do) I would pick Heart Food. Over the many years I've been working with musicians (mostly jazz and blues) I've been surprised by the number of times Judee Sill's name has come up as an example of now forgotten artists whose brilliance continues to amaze those who come into contact with the music. (Most recently, jazz guitar great Anthony Wilson, whose regular gig is with Diana Krall, told me of being completely blown away by Sill's music.) When Heart Food failed to sell, Judee disappeared from the scene. There were many death rumors. Her life spiraled back into various addictions and she finally died in 1979 of (predictably) a drug overdose. I believe both albums are still available on CD through Rhino music. If not, they surely are available via MP3. If you love musical surprises as much as I do check out Judee Sills. You will not be disappointed and you may well find that you are utterly enchanted and amazed.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judee Sill
I've never heard his music. But back in the late '60s, he used to play occasionally at my high school (I grew up in Montreal, which is a two-hour drive from Ottawa). Cockburn was known as one of the local up and comers. Who knew he'd make it big outside Canada? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfr...@... wrote: Barry's recent posts about his long time musical love for the music of Bruce Cockburn really got me rollin'. First I pulled out all of my treasured Cockburn LPs that I (sadly) had neglected for many years. Getting reacquainted with the absolute genius that is Cockburn provided me with several weeks of pure pleasure. (Thanks Barry.both for reminding me and for turning me on to Bruce all those years ago.) Cockburn is again a regular part of my playlist. For those of you who have still not come under the spell of his music, take your earliest opportunity and make your move. I'll let Barry report his picks on Bruce Cockburn for beginners but I can tell you that you are about to embark on a musical journey you will not regret. Personally, I've always been partial to his late 70's albums like Dancin' In The Dragon's Jaws, not only because they are unmitigated brilliance but also because they were my first exposure to the man. The second thing that happened was that I began to pull out my two Judee Sill records. Those who know me, know that I am a jazz fan through and through.jazz meaning the likes of Miles, 'Trane, Bill Evans, Mingus, Grant Green, Wes...on and on. I'm hopelessly addicted to the music, going back to the late 60s when the Greenwich Village jazz mecca called Slugs (seating capacity maybe 60) finally broke Fillmore East's hold on me. I recall watching the latest British wannabe act play for 50 minutes at the Fillmore, prancing and preening with all the moves of the day...and making very little memorable music in the process. I left, grabbed a cab down to the Village and watched McCoy Tyner's group blow the roof off of that little joint until 4 in the morning. I was hooked for good. Getting back to Judee Sill...Judee made two albums for the then fledgling Asylum label (in fact she was Asylum's first signing) in the early 70s. Today she is little known. Judee led what can charitably called a VERY troubled life. She had serious drug problems, primarily heroin. But folks, this woman was one of the most inspired and brilliant artists I have ever heard in any genre. She was gifted in so many areassinger, songwriter and arranger. I believe that David Crosby and Graham Nash were the first to bring Judee to the attention of music biz honchos. Judee wrote (and sang) amazingly complex and beautiful harmonies that will take your breath away. Judee was also able to do her own arranging for her music. Amazing when you consider that her albums (especially the second) feature lush and complex orchestral backing. For those unfamiliar with arranging and orchestration, it means that you write out the entire score for each instrument. On her second album she is shown in the liners conducting the orchestra. No big deal I suppose to some, but her orchestrations are freakin' brilliant by any measure. It has been noted that she learned her gospel inspired piano style while in reform school for writing bad checks. Judee's first album was simply called Judee Sill. She had a minor hit with a song from the album called Jesus Was Crossmaker. (Religion and spirituality are recurring themes in Sill's music.) She did some touring to support the album but her personal life always got in the way of any real success. Judee's second album is called Heart Food. It is simply non-stop brilliance from start to finish. Listen to the second song (The Kiss) and tell that it isn't one of the most perfectly crafted tunes ever created. If I had to pick one LP over the other (which I would not want to do) I would pick Heart Food. Over the many years I've been working with musicians (mostly jazz and blues) I've been surprised by the number of times Judee Sill's name has come up as an example of now forgotten artists whose brilliance continues to amaze those who come into contact with the music. (Most recently, jazz guitar great Anthony Wilson, whose regular gig is with Diana Krall, told me of being completely blown away by Sill's music.) When Heart Food failed to sell, Judee disappeared from the scene. There were many death rumors. Her life spiraled back into various addictions and she finally died in 1979 of (predictably) a drug overdose. I believe both albums are still available on CD through Rhino music. If not, they surely are available via MP3. If you love musical surprises as much as I do check out Judee Sills. You will not be disappointed and you may well find that you are utterly enchanted and amazed.
