[FairfieldLife] Hog Lot Opposition Rally Today in Des Moines
details via Maharishi Vedic City Mayor's Wife From: Maureen M. Wynne CityAttorney @ MaharishiVedicCity-Iowa.gov Subject: Rally Schedule Wednesday in Des Moines Here is the schedule for the rally: Iowa Farmers Citizens Rally to Protect the Health of its Children, the Environment and the Family Farm Rally Day Schedule April 11, 2007 9:30 a.m.: Volunteers Begin to Arrive to Set Up (Neila Seaman, Bruce Grady, Stephanie Weisenbach, Tyler Reedy, David Rosmann, Michael McBurnie, Mike Carberry, Dave Murphy) 10:00 - 11:00 a.m.: Rally Attendees Arrive in Capitol Cafeteria 11:00 a.m.: Go to Room 116 on 1st Floor for Citizen Lobby Training by Lyle Krewson of Sierra Club. 11:15 - 12:00 p.m.: Citizen Lobbyists Go Up to 2nd Floor to Begin Lobbying Legislators from Home District, Leadership, and Members of Ways Means Committee: (Paul Shomshor Chair, Tom Schueller, Tom Sands, Mark Davitt, Dave Deyoe, Greg Forristall, Marci Frevert, Pat Grassley, Geri Huser, Libby Jacobs, Pam Jochum, Jeff Kaufmann, Doris Kelley, Tyler Olson, Dawn Pettengill, Brian Quirk, Michael Reasonser, Chuck Soderberg, Doug Struyk, Roger Thomas, Jamie Van Fossen, Roger Wendt, Tami Wiencek, Matt Widschitl, Phil Wise) HF 873 has been assigned to the following Ways Means Subcommittee Marci Frevert, Chair, Paul Shomshor, Tom Schueller, Dave Deyoe, Tom Sands. 12:15 - 1:00 p.m.: Speakers Address Rally (Representatives Mark Kuhn, Marci Frevert, Pau Willis, Barb Kalbaugh, Francis Thicke, Ron Rosmann, Chris Petersen and Denise O'Brien) 1:00 - 2:00 p.m.: Return to Lobbying Legislators from Home District, Leadership, and Members of Ways Means 2:00 - 3:00 p.m.: Continue to Lobby Legislators - Share Updates If you need a ride or directions to the State Capitol Building in Des Moines here is a message from Diana Comey. At MUM and in Maharishi Vedic City you can also assemble in front of the flying halls at Headley Hall and the Golden Domes and caravan from there. Dear Friends, To make it simple, rides are being coordinated by CleanUpIowa.org Go to the website at http://cleanupiowa.org or click on link below: http://www.legislativealert-ia.net/070409_rides_to_Des_Moines.htm Also, if you can't get through to the links then email bgrady @ lisco.com or call 641-472-3880 This corrects any previous information that you received. If you emailed earlier about a ride or offered to take people and have not heard back, then please contact Cleanupiowa at the above links, email address or phone number. Directions to Iowa State Capitol: From Ottumwa, keep on Route 63/163 to Des Moines. Turn left on Hubble Avenue (near Route 235 entrance ramp). Hubble turns into Grand and the Capitol becomes obvious. Parking is usually available on the right about 2 blocks from the actual Capitol. A map with directions is also available at http://www.legislativealert-ia.net/070408%20directions_to_the_iowa_state_cap.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: Curtis Blues on Youtube.com
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, thanks for catching that. If you search for Curtis Blues I come up. Otherwise you can go to http://youtube.com/watch?v=tbLehU3j_os It's real good, stardom awaits. I would offer my services as drummer but you seem to have it sewn up, plus it might disturb the one-man-band ethos a bit. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of curtisdeltablues Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 9:37 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Curtis Blues on Youtube.com Someone just posted my first video on Youtube from a TV show So where's the link?
[FairfieldLife] The D Word
It seems to me, based on my reading here and on a number of other spiritual forums, that a lot can be learned about spiritual movements and about the spiritual seekers within them by how they respond to the D word -- DOUBT. In some spiritual movements and traditions, doubt is looked upon as a *healthy* thing. I remember meeting a Paulist (Catholic) priest who told me that within his order, no one was ever trusted with a position of power within the Church until after they'd gone through their own dark night of the soul and had some serious doubts about the Church and Christ and their relationships with both. Before they'd gone through that, they were looked upon as novices, newbies, buying whatever had been told to them without really ever questioning it, and in the process of questioning it, making it theirs. I've encountered other Eastern traditions in which doubt is also seen as a very natural thing, and actually encouraged. In face-to-face meetings with the spiritual teachers of these traditions, it is permitted and encouraged to ask ANYTHING, and to question ANY teaching or point of dogma. In one Tibetan tradition I know of, there is a system of formal debate in which students are regularly assigned the task of defending the very *opposite* of the dogma that they believe and have been told is correct. Interestingly, within ALL of these traditions, there is *no concept* of being declared anathema, of being told to leave the study or the movement. Compare and contrast to other spiritual traditions in which doubt is looked upon as a weakness, or as something that has to be hidden from the powers that be, or worst, can be grounds for excommunication, for being told that your doubt has no place in the movement in question, and that you should get the hell out and stay out and take your doubts with you. Being a lifelong doubter myself, it probably goes without saying that I'm happier with the former situation. :-) I can make a case for the latter approach, in which doubt is demonized and driven out of the gates of the monastery the moment it rears its ugly head, but I honestly believe that this approach is self-defeating, not to mention Self-defeating. I guess this is just another way of thanking Rick for creating a forum on which doubt is not only allowed, but encouraged, and treated as if it were a healthy and normal part of the spiritual path. Such forums are rare, and to be treasured. Earlier today I was told by some students of a former spiritual teacher of mine that I was essen- tially evil because I didn't buy the Party Line that all of the women students he slept with did so willingly, and that they all benefited from the experience. I was told this by students who have studiously avoided ever hearing any stories to the contrary; they have never talked to the women involved. I have. And so, do I have doubts that all of the guy's actions were appropriate? You betcha. It reminded me of reactions here when the same subject comes up with regard to Maharishi. There are people here who have *no problem* believing that Maharishi was human, and scored him some very human nookie along the Way, and who RESPECT HIM ANYWAY. Those are my kinda people, the ones who are unafraid to express their normal, everyday doubts, and who refuse to be intimidated into hiding them. High five all around to those kinda people from me. You make the spiritual path worth walking.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The D Word
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems to me, based on my reading here and on a number of other spiritual forums, that a lot can be learned about spiritual movements and about the spiritual seekers within them by how they respond to the D word -- DOUBT. In some spiritual movements and traditions, doubt is looked upon as a *healthy* thing. I remember meeting a Paulist (Catholic) priest who told me that within his order, no one was ever trusted with a position of power within the Church until after they'd gone through their own dark night of the soul and had some serious doubts about the Church and Christ and their relationships with both. Before they'd gone through that, they were looked upon as novices, newbies, buying whatever had been told to them without really ever questioning it, and in the process of questioning it, making it theirs. Turq, this is a good post that says a lot of things about our experience here in FF. You could easily transpose over many of these thoughts about the church to the TMorg and Maharishi. Last night i was going through a grocery store checkout line behind an old meditator here. He turned to me and winked saying that he was 'out' of the movement here and feeling really great about it now. He had come here like many of us as uptopians, as spiritual activists in the domes, raised a family here, set up a career here, sent kids to the Maharishi school, was dedicated on the daily meditation program in the domes. now like others, was recently excluded from the dome. Still a meditator, loves living in the meditating community here, but free from Maharishi and the org. That is very much a status quo and not at all uncommon here now. Fairfield, it has been a great place to grow for a lot of people. This is now very much part of the story here. Yours is a good thoughtful post. Thanks for taking the time to pen it and send it. Yes also, your comments about Rick and FFL are true. As a forum it has been very useful for bringing the light to a lot of people since it started. With Best Regards from FF, -Doug , I've encountered other Eastern traditions in which doubt is also seen as a very natural thing, and actually encouraged. In face-to-face meetings with the spiritual teachers of these traditions, it is permitted and encouraged to ask ANYTHING, and to question ANY teaching or point of dogma. In one Tibetan tradition I know of, there is a system of formal debate in which students are regularly assigned the task of defending the very *opposite* of the dogma that they believe and have been told is correct. Interestingly, within ALL of these traditions, there is *no concept* of being declared anathema, of being told to leave the study or the movement. Compare and contrast to other spiritual traditions in which doubt is looked upon as a weakness, or as something that has to be hidden from the powers that be, or worst, can be grounds for excommunication, for being told that your doubt has no place in the movement in question, and that you should get the hell out and stay out and take your doubts with you. Being a lifelong doubter myself, it probably goes without saying that I'm happier with the former situation. :-) I can make a case for the latter approach, in which doubt is demonized and driven out of the gates of the monastery the moment it rears its ugly head, but I honestly believe that this approach is self-defeating, not to mention Self-defeating. I guess this is just another way of thanking Rick for creating a forum on which doubt is not only allowed, but encouraged, and treated as if it were a healthy and normal part of the spiritual path. Such forums are rare, and to be treasured. Earlier today I was told by some students of a former spiritual teacher of mine that I was essen- tially evil because I didn't buy the Party Line that all of the women students he slept with did so willingly, and that they all benefited from the experience. I was told this by students who have studiously avoided ever hearing any stories to the contrary; they have never talked to the women involved. I have. And so, do I have doubts that all of the guy's actions were appropriate? You betcha. It reminded me of reactions here when the same subject comes up with regard to Maharishi. There are people here who have *no problem* believing that Maharishi was human, and scored him some very human nookie along the Way, and who RESPECT HIM ANYWAY. Those are my kinda people, the ones who are unafraid to express their normal, everyday doubts, and who refuse to be intimidated into hiding them. High five all around to those kinda people from me. You make the spiritual path worth walking.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SURVEY - Who has good experiences from TM?
Tom T: From Alistair Shearer version of Patanjali. Chapter 3 Expansion final verse #55: And when the translucent intellect is as pure as the Self, there is Enlightenment. Big Snip Robert Gimbel writes: For me it's a little different, as far as this description of Patanjali...A translucent intellect is fundementally different from the standard government issued intellect.The regular generic intellect is just the 'Decider';It decides whether it be this, or whether it be that. But once the intellect becomes so purified, as pure as the Self; Then it is no longer the 'Decider'...it's no longer jumping from tree to tree, like the monkey, in the jungle.It's still, translucent...it's not deciding anymore;It is standing back along with the Self, just knowing, no longer deciding between this or that.This is what the concept of: 'Spontaneous right action', in the SCI course. r.g. TomT: From the Shearer version of Patanjali Chapter 4 Enlightenment: #22 When the unmoving consciousness of the Self assumes the form of intellect, it beomes conscious mind. #26 Then truly, the mind begins to experience the Self as separate from activity, and is naturally drawn towards Enlightenment. #27 Any thoughts that arise to interrupt this discrimination are born of the latent impression which still exist. #28 These are to be destroyed by the same means as were described for the causes of suffering. #29 One who has attained complete discrimination between the subtlest level of mind and the Self has no higher knowledge to acquire. This is dharma megha samadhithe state of Unclouded Truth. #30 It destroys the causes of suffering, and the bondage of action disappears. #31 Knowledge which has been freed from the veils of impurity is unbounded. Whatever can be known is insignificant in its light. #32 This samadhi completes the transformations of the gunas and fulfils the purpose of evolution. #33 Now the process by which evolution unfolds through time is understood. #34 The gunas, their purpose fulfilled, return to their original state of harmony, and pure unbounded Consciousness remains, forever established in its own absolute nature. This is Enlightenment.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Codicil 371.3
Barry writes snipped: If there is any pinch in my heart when I think of any of them, it's for the concept of wasted potential, what they did with their lives as opposed to what they might have done with them. But then I look at my life, and I sigh, and I relax. They did what they did with their lives, and I have done with mine what I have done with it. There is no second guessing their lives, or mine. They are what they are. TomT: As Byron Katie says, How do I know that everything that has happened to me is perfect? Because that is the way it went down. Enjoy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thou art the tenth...MMY
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: Commentator said: Maharishi explained that 'the Tenth' refers to Purushathe Totality Natural Law which encompasses simultaneously all the eight aspects of the manifest universe (known in Veda as the eight Prakritis), together with the unmanifest field of Transcendental Consciousness (the ninth or Para Prakriti). I think the commentator here is mistaken, the Para Parkriti is the *pure* prakriti, in the transcendent it would be called *mula-prakriti* from Sanskrit 'mula' or 'root'. Maharishi commented: 'This is Vedic civilization. Some word will click sometime and it will give the Totality. Just as today, this Dashamas Twam Asi, Thou art The Tenth. I was talking of Purusha and all that, but today it clicked.' Interesting that the 10 is the zero along with the one, that is the drop has become the ocean symbolized by the 10, the 'memory' is reflected in the one, the unity in the zero. The purport being once we become the tenth purusha and are one with Brahman we never lose the 'memory' of our separate existence, it exists in the absolute as the memory, or one. snip
RE: [FairfieldLife] Hog Lot Opposition Rally Today in Des Moines
Bad day for a rally. A snowstorm is forecast and probably already underway in Des Moines.
RE: [FairfieldLife] The D Word
I've heard MMY go both ways on the doubt issue. In the earlier days, such as Poland Spring and Mallorca, he said to get up on the mike and express your doubts - not suppress them and assume they are resolved. Later on, he referred to doubt as a dry rot and said it was better to doubt the doubts. This was said with reference to one's experiences, but it also seems to have applied to doubts about the Movement. A few years ago at least half a dozen MUM faculty were purged for somewhat too free in their thinking, expressing doubts about policies and procedures.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The D Word
Wasn't the line doubt the doubt? I don't remember when MMY said it. It may have been a meditation instruction that got generalized. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems to me, based on my reading here and on a number of other spiritual forums, that a lot can be learned about spiritual movements and about the spiritual seekers within them by how they respond to the D word -- DOUBT. In some spiritual movements and traditions, doubt is looked upon as a *healthy* thing. I remember meeting a Paulist (Catholic) priest who told me that within his order, no one was ever trusted with a position of power within the Church until after they'd gone through their own dark night of the soul and had some serious doubts about the Church and Christ and their relationships with both. Before they'd gone through that, they were looked upon as novices, newbies, buying whatever had been told to them without really ever questioning it, and in the process of questioning it, making it theirs. I've encountered other Eastern traditions in which doubt is also seen as a very natural thing, and actually encouraged. In face-to-face meetings with the spiritual teachers of these traditions, it is permitted and encouraged to ask ANYTHING, and to question ANY teaching or point of dogma. In one Tibetan tradition I know of, there is a system of formal debate in which students are regularly assigned the task of defending the very *opposite* of the dogma that they believe and have been told is correct. Interestingly, within ALL of these traditions, there is *no concept* of being declared anathema, of being told to leave the study or the movement. Compare and contrast to other spiritual traditions in which doubt is looked upon as a weakness, or as something that has to be hidden from the powers that be, or worst, can be grounds for excommunication, for being told that your doubt has no place in the movement in question, and that you should get the hell out and stay out and take your doubts with you. Being a lifelong doubter myself, it probably goes without saying that I'm happier with the former situation. :-) I can make a case for the latter approach, in which doubt is demonized and driven out of the gates of the monastery the moment it rears its ugly head, but I honestly believe that this approach is self-defeating, not to mention Self-defeating. I guess this is just another way of thanking Rick for creating a forum on which doubt is not only allowed, but encouraged, and treated as if it were a healthy and normal part of the spiritual path. Such forums are rare, and to be treasured. Earlier today I was told by some students of a former spiritual teacher of mine that I was essen- tially evil because I didn't buy the Party Line that all of the women students he slept with did so willingly, and that they all benefited from the experience. I was told this by students who have studiously avoided ever hearing any stories to the contrary; they have never talked to the women involved. I have. And so, do I have doubts that all of the guy's actions were appropriate? You betcha. It reminded me of reactions here when the same subject comes up with regard to Maharishi. There are people here who have *no problem* believing that Maharishi was human, and scored him some very human nookie along the Way, and who RESPECT HIM ANYWAY. Those are my kinda people, the ones who are unafraid to express their normal, everyday doubts, and who refuse to be intimidated into hiding them. High five all around to those kinda people from me. You make the spiritual path worth walking.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's House on Raam Navami
Long way from the basement (cave) in Uttar Kashi, eh? MMY's crib looks like it was built for Tammy Faye Baker! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Some photos added at the bottom of http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/photos/browse/f411?b=17m=to =0
Re: [FairfieldLife] The D Word
In a message dated 4/11/2007 10:27:40 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I’ve heard MMY go both ways on the doubt issue. In the earlier days, such as Poland Spring and Mallorca, he said to get up on the mike and express your doubts – not suppress them and assume they are resolved. Later on, he referred to doubt as a dry rot and said it was better to doubt the doubts. This was said with reference to one’s experiences, but it also seems to have applied to doubts about the Movement. A few years ago at least half a dozen MUM faculty were purged for somewhat too free in their thinking, expressing doubts about policies and procedures. Rick, I recently spoke with a close friend of Dr. David Orme Johnson. He was told to leave the faculty. His friend did not know for what reasons. This is just another example of why you and others have moved on to other ways of continuing your spiritual journey and at the same time still hanging on to some respect for MMY and what he gave to us. The reason why I am mentioning it is the information seems to connect with your information posted. Lsoma. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The D Word
Hey Turq, Let me be playful here and see if this very fine work of yours below can be doubted too. (Emphasis on the words playful and fine.) Might give us some insight into Maharishi and others who have taken on that terrible burden: dhoti, divan, and divination. Just keep hearing me giggling in the background as you read, and be ready to praise me for the tremendous effort it requires for me to disagree with your concepts. I'm hoping to neutralize your words so that my nervous system will, as if, have never identified with your words, and thus I will be freed thereby from attachment to your, oh-so-sweet, truths. TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems to me, based on my reading here and on a number of other spiritual forums, that a lot can be learned about spiritual movements and about the spiritual seekers within them by how they respond to the D word -- DOUBT. I doubt it. As if any insight into anything can be achieved by merely having the ego using the intellect as a flashlight to shine into the back of God's mind. As if whatever came out of anyone's mouth could be read like yarrow stalks. As if a lot about any spiritual movement could be as small as merely knowing how some members of the group react in a deeply negative way towards doubters. As if anyone could be such an expert psychologist that a few samplings of a few of the group's members could be definitive. Would anyone here want the TM movement to be judged by examining the self-serving doubts of the likes of DeAngelis, Gray, Bloomfield or by examining the doubts of the likes of me? The whole truth would not emerge, right? And, I know some folks in Fairfield who were crazy -- yes, insane -- when seen from certain perspectives. I dare not name names of these edge-of-society minions, these broken ones who found a home of sorts in Fairfield. But who would say that the movement should be judged by the thoughts of these poor souls that are so heroically dealing with incredible angst? So I very much doubt that anyone can really know much about any movement without, you know, being subjected to its dynamics for decades. After such a time, I find that my TM situation is so complex that I dare not judge anyone in the movement -- (but of course I doubt that notion too, and so I judge.) In some spiritual movements and traditions, doubt is looked upon as a *healthy* thing. I remember meeting a Paulist (Catholic) priest who told me that within his order, no one was ever trusted with a position of power within the Church until after they'd gone through their own dark night of the soul and had some serious doubts about the Church and Christ and their relationships with both. Before they'd gone through that, they were looked upon as novices, newbies, buying whatever had been told to them without really ever questioning it, and in the process of questioning it, making it theirs. I doubt it. What don't you understand about the futility of analyzing the dark? We all know that the blind can think of reasons all day long for the why of something, but until the light goes on, everyone in the room is wrong all the time. No amount of doubt can be the basis of faith and clarity. No practicing of all the ways to have an erroneous thought can be the foundation of training the mind for truth -- which cannot be told. No studying of the cave-wall's shadows will prepare you to meet the actual folks casting those shadows. Doubters in movements may seem to have cultured their nervous systems to see all the false in addition to all the true, and it may seem that such a wider ken would be the basis of enlightenment, but ask Indra about knowing everything -- except one thing: how to escape Indra-ness! The meek inherit the earth -- a diploma in darkness is not required. Matthew 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. So, doubting darkness? I doubt it. I've encountered other Eastern traditions in which doubt is also seen as a very natural thing, and actually encouraged. In face-to-face meetings with the spiritual teachers of these traditions, it is permitted and encouraged to ask ANYTHING, and to question ANY teaching or point of dogma. In one Tibetan tradition I know of, there is a system of formal debate in which students are regularly assigned the task of defending the very *opposite* of the dogma that they believe and have been told is correct. Interestingly, within ALL of these traditions, there is *no concept* of being declared anathema, of being told to leave the study or the movement. How sweet my memories at the 1971 Humboldt month-long course. 1500 seekers, half of them hippies, asking Maharishi every question possible. Three sessions of a couple hours each, every
[FairfieldLife] Re: Curtis Blues on Youtube.com
Thanks man. I appreciate your checking it out. I never perform with drummers but love to jam with them. A real drummer can lay down much more complex rhythms than I can with my bass and hi-hat. It challenges me, changes the music and teaches me a lot. I get a lot more out of that kind of creative jam then I do from playing with another guitarist. Other guitarists tend to fill in the silences that this style requires to preserve the feel. I have also had some great jams with people playing dumbek or djimbe hand drums. I have always had a strong affinity with percussion and rhythm. If you don't get that right people don't move their hips which is my whole purpose of my life, getting those hips moving! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Sorry, thanks for catching that. If you search for Curtis Blues I come up. Otherwise you can go to http://youtube.com/watch?v=tbLehU3j_os It's real good, stardom awaits. I would offer my services as drummer but you seem to have it sewn up, plus it might disturb the one-man-band ethos a bit. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of curtisdeltablues Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 9:37 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Curtis Blues on Youtube.com Someone just posted my first video on Youtube from a TV show So where's the link?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's House on Raam Navami
On Apr 11, 2007, at 10:41 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Long way from the basement (cave) in Uttar Kashi, eh? MMY's crib looks like it was built for Tammy Faye Baker! With the flags from all the various nations and the administrative or government office look of the building I couldn't help but sense he was styling himself as some kind of world leader (or dictator).
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's House on Raam Navami
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vaj Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 9:54 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's House on Raam Navami On Apr 11, 2007, at 10:41 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Long way from the basement (cave) in Uttar Kashi, eh? MMY's crib looks like it was built for Tammy Faye Baker! With the flags from all the various nations and the administrative or government office look of the building I couldn't help but sense he was styling himself as some kind of world leader He thinks of himself that way. A reporter once asked him, Are you trying to take over the world? He answered, I already have. He may have meant that in a spiritual sense (conquering maya) but we was aware of the political implications.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The D Word
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I mean, if God is true, anything can be true, right? If we don't know EVERYTHING, we can be wrong about anything, right? snip But if we don't allow God to have that freedom, to be that deeply dramatic over the lifetimes of billions of souls, then we don't really want a redoubtable God and instead are hoping for a doubtable God. It's about faith, not certainty, right? Came across two pieces of material this morning that tie into the issue of doubt more or less directly. The first was an email to Andrew Sullivan concerning his debate with Sam Harris about faith vs. science, which Andrew posted on his blog: Moderation vs. Fundamentalism. How much doubt is too much? Why not doubt the whole shebang? The answer: because doubting the whole shebang is a 'certainty' that could be as mistaken as believing in any particular religion. The argument for believing in a 'tolerant' religious framework is because we do not, and cannot, know the truth of either atheism or of any theismOne can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. But all scientific evidence suggests the physical limitations of the human consciousness separate us from the true nature of the universe. God is merely that true nature; religion, like science, a path to glimpse a part of it, not an expression of the whole. http://tinyurl.com/2r8hyt In other words: Doubt the doubt. Then I was curious about when David Orme-Johnson had been kicked off the MUM faculty and went to his TruthAboutTM Web site to find out (2004). I nosed around the site a bit and found this: Issue: Is the Transcendental Meditation organization a cult? The Evidence: The Transcendental Meditation organization is not a cult and 'thought reform' is not used in the Transcendental Meditation program. Background: Research on the Transcendental Meditation program shows that the effects it produces are the opposite to those found in people who allegedly get involved in cults. For example, a doctoral dissertation conducted at York University found that high school students became more autonomous, independent, and innovative through the Transcendental Meditation program, with increased ability to deal with abstract and complex situations. They also showed increases on creativity, general intelligence and self-esteem. Similarly, a doctoral dissertation at Harvard found that the Transcendental Meditation program increased autonomous thought in prisoners, and increased moral reasoning to levels that displays mature, independent judgement based on principles. This is highly significant, because cult following is allegedly based on the oppositeblind faith and rigid adherence to arbitrary rules and authority, which are characteristic of a lower level of moral reasoning measured by the psychological tests used in the study. A wide variety of other research also demonstrates the growth of independent thinking in those who practice the Transcendental Meditation program. For example, well controlled studies have found that the Transcendental Meditation program increases field independence. Research has shown that field independent individuals are more independent in their thinking and are more resistant to peer pressure to do anything that they feel is not right. An essential feature of a cult is that it is a closed system of thought that does not submit itself to outside validation. The Transcendental Meditation organization is the opposite because it submits its theories to the rigors of scientific testing, encourages research by independent universities and research organizations (to date, 209 universities have conducted research on the Transcendental Meditation program), publishes in peer-reviewed journals, and participates actively in scientific conferences worldwide. http://tinyurl.com/2shu7w This really got me chuckling. Obviously the last paragraph is ironic considering what the TMO has become; but what really struck me--and others have made pretty much the same point, but this highlights it so clearly--is the inherent contradiction in trying to run a coherent movement deeply committed to the universal practice of a technique that fosters autonomy and independent thinking (and hence encourages doubt). Such a movement willy-nilly carries the seeds of its own destruction.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's House on Raam Navami
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vaj Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 9:54 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's House on Raam Navami On Apr 11, 2007, at 10:41 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Long way from the basement (cave) in Uttar Kashi, eh? MMY's crib looks like it was built for Tammy Faye Baker! With the flags from all the various nations and the administrative or government office look of the building I couldn't help but sense he was styling himself as some kind of world leader He thinks of himself that way. A reporter once asked him, Are you trying to take over the world? He answered, I already have. He may have meant that in a spiritual sense (conquering maya) but we was aware of the political implications. The building itself is relatively modest, only two stories and made of wood, more like a Sthapatya-Vedic motel-cum-hunting-lodge than a government building. But somebody let a really manic lighting person loose on the grounds.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's House on Raam Navami
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 10:52 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's House on Raam Navami The building itself is relatively modest, only two stories and made of wood, more like a Sthapatya-Vedic motel-cum-hunting-lodge than a government building. But somebody let a really manic lighting person loose on the grounds. Most cultures, including Indian, like lots of lights during celebrations. I'm sure it's not ordinarily lit that way.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The D Word
nice post. more comments below- --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems to me, based on my reading here and on a number of other spiritual forums, that a lot can be learned about spiritual movements and about the spiritual seekers within them by how they respond to the D word -- DOUBT. In some spiritual movements and traditions, doubt is looked upon as a *healthy* thing. I remember meeting a Paulist (Catholic) priest who told me that within his order, no one was ever trusted with a position of power within the Church until after they'd gone through their own dark night of the soul and had some serious doubts about the Church and Christ and their relationships with both. Before they'd gone through that, they were looked upon as novices, newbies, buying whatever had been told to them without really ever questioning it, and in the process of questioning it, making it theirs. I've encountered other Eastern traditions in which doubt is also seen as a very natural thing, and actually encouraged. In face-to-face meetings with the spiritual teachers of these traditions, it is permitted and encouraged to ask ANYTHING, and to question ANY teaching or point of dogma. In one Tibetan tradition I know of, there is a system of formal debate in which students are regularly assigned the task of defending the very *opposite* of the dogma that they believe and have been told is correct. Interestingly, within ALL of these traditions, there is *no concept* of being declared anathema, of being told to leave the study or the movement. Compare and contrast to other spiritual traditions in which doubt is looked upon as a weakness, or as something that has to be hidden from the powers that be, or worst, can be grounds for excommunication, for being told that your doubt has no place in the movement in question, and that you should get the hell out and stay out and take your doubts with you. yeah- on the one hand trying to find a middle ground of how to not dilute the teaching, and on the other hand wanting to expand the teaching to more closely adjust to the expansion of the students is a bear. And the ones trying to figure it out are on the path themselves, not having yet lived paradox, so the spiritual tradition either becomes rigid and alienates most everyone except the core followers, or becomes so diffuse and anything goes, like many Christian sects for example, that the path is lost that way too. I think any group movement can only lead us so far anyway, kind of like the nest, and then one day its time to fly. To expect them to be the be all and end all is only always for a small core group.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Codicil 371.3
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: during my return to the Dome last summer, I noticed repeatedly that MMY and I were utterly identical, and *on the basis of this identity* I felt overwhelming waves of surrender and devotion for Him, as I did for Guru Dev and for my own simple/expanded creator self while experiencing reality as its devic/particular creature contraction. This dynamic surpised me; I wasn't expecting it -- rather having been taught only that it is love/appreciation/devotion which brings one into unity. At least in my case, however, it appears that my heart fully breaks open and surrenders only to itself, truly knowing complete creature/creator devotion only *upon the basis* of unity. *L*L*L* the love/appreciation/devotion is the intellect slicing and dicing love into its linear components so that we can find our direction. Then once there, established in unity, in an instant the heart fully breaks open, and the universe is here; angels, Krishna, Shiva, Vishnu, Guru Dev, Maharishi, mother, father, Fairfield, Iowa, anyone at all. The linear yearning of the heart is transformed in an instant, to unified duality, becoming instantly greater than the sum of its parts, resting brightly in unity.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The D Word
The answer: because doubting the whole shebang is a 'certainty' that could be as mistaken as believing in any particular religion. The argument for believing in a 'tolerant' religious framework is because we do not, and cannot, know the truth of either atheism or of any theismOne can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. But all scientific evidence suggests the physical limitations of the human consciousness separate us from the true nature of the universe. God is merely that true nature; religion, like science, a path to glimpse a part of it, not an expression of the whole. So do you think Andrew is on the fence about the existence of Zeus or is he pretty sure humans made up the whole idea? What Andrew is doing is making the definition of God so vague and lacking in distinctive qualities that he might as well say he believes in blabidy blab. Defining God as the true nature of the universe is great for evading being challenged on his specific beliefs, I mean who could argue with that definition? This is a definition that no Atheist should have a problem with. Atheists assert that there is mystery in the world and neither myths nor science have cleared it up. Religion is not just pointing the the mystery, religion is claiming to have explained it. Atheists are saying that religions have added little to our insight into the true nature of the universe. They have offered interesting myths that have other values. The problem comes when Andrew uses specific myth books like the Bible as his method of glimpsing a part of that true nature. It comes when he asserts that the historical person Jesus is fundamentally different from you and I and has died for our sins. As a Catholic he believes that the Pope has special powers of insight into the true nature of the universe. He is hiding his beliefs in a specific teleology and that his provincial version of religion knows what that purpose is. These are the beliefs that Atheist's challenge because that is where the problem with religious beliefs begin. So is he doubting his doubt about the actual historical existence of all myths, or just the one he grew up with? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: snip I mean, if God is true, anything can be true, right? If we don't know EVERYTHING, we can be wrong about anything, right? snip But if we don't allow God to have that freedom, to be that deeply dramatic over the lifetimes of billions of souls, then we don't really want a redoubtable God and instead are hoping for a doubtable God. It's about faith, not certainty, right? Came across two pieces of material this morning that tie into the issue of doubt more or less directly. The first was an email to Andrew Sullivan concerning his debate with Sam Harris about faith vs. science, which Andrew posted on his blog: Moderation vs. Fundamentalism. How much doubt is too much? Why not doubt the whole shebang? The answer: because doubting the whole shebang is a 'certainty' that could be as mistaken as believing in any particular religion. The argument for believing in a 'tolerant' religious framework is because we do not, and cannot, know the truth of either atheism or of any theismOne can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. But all scientific evidence suggests the physical limitations of the human consciousness separate us from the true nature of the universe. God is merely that true nature; religion, like science, a path to glimpse a part of it, not an expression of the whole. http://tinyurl.com/2r8hyt In other words: Doubt the doubt. Then I was curious about when David Orme-Johnson had been kicked off the MUM faculty and went to his TruthAboutTM Web site to find out (2004). I nosed around the site a bit and found this: Issue: Is the Transcendental Meditation organization a cult? The Evidence: The Transcendental Meditation organization is not a cult and 'thought reform' is not used in the Transcendental Meditation program. Background: Research on the Transcendental Meditation program shows that the effects it produces are the opposite to those found in people who allegedly get involved in cults. For example, a doctoral dissertation conducted at York University found that high school students became more autonomous, independent, and innovative through the Transcendental Meditation program, with increased ability to deal with abstract and complex situations. They also showed increases on creativity, general intelligence and self-esteem. Similarly, a doctoral dissertation at Harvard found that the Transcendental Meditation program increased autonomous thought in prisoners, and increased moral reasoning to levels that displays mature, independent judgement based on principles. This is highly significant, because cult
[FairfieldLife] Re: The D Word
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Turq, Let me be playful here and see if this very fine work of yours below can be doubted too. (Emphasis on the words playful and fine.) I certainly hope it can. I'm not selling anything. As a former spiritual teacher of mine once said, Writers write because they're trying to figure things out. That's all I'm doing here. Caveat lector. Might give us some insight into Maharishi and others who have taken on that terrible burden: dhoti, divan, and divination. Their problem, not mine. :-) Just keep hearing me giggling in the background as you read, and be ready to praise me for the tremendous effort it requires for me to disagree with your concepts. I'm hoping to neutralize your words so that my nervous system will, as if, have never identified with your words, and thus I will be freed thereby from attachment to your, oh-so-sweet, truths. Whatever floats your boat. Me, I...uh...doubt that I'm going to have much to say about them. TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: It seems to me, based on my reading here and on a number of other spiritual forums, that a lot can be learned about spiritual movements and about the spiritual seekers within them by how they respond to the D word -- DOUBT. I doubt it. As if any insight into anything can be achieved by merely having the ego using the intellect as a flashlight to shine into the back of God's mind. You forget that you're talking to someone who doesn't believe in a God, or at least not one with a mind or a will of its own. :-) As if whatever came out of anyone's mouth could be read like yarrow stalks. As if a lot about any spiritual movement could be as small as merely knowing how some members of the group react in a deeply negative way towards doubters. I think a LOT can be learned about a spiritual movement from how it deals with doubters. If it deals with them less than gracefully, for example, I for one am never going to get involved with them. :-) As if anyone could be such an expert psychologist that a few samplings of a few of the group's members could be definitive. With regard to TM and several other come-down-hard-on- doubt movements, it's FAR from a few. It's the whole bloody program. Would anyone here want the TM movement to be judged by examining the self-serving doubts of the likes of DeAngelis, Gray, Bloomfield or by examining the doubts of the likes of me? I certainly would. The value of a spiritual teaching is in the *students*, not in the teaching itself. If they're full of shit, so is the teaching. IMHO, of course. :-) That's all I have the time or the interest to read right now. No offense, dude, but it's software release time for me, and that takes precedence over everything else. Hope that you continue to have fun... Unc
[FairfieldLife] Re: The D Word
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The answer: because doubting the whole shebang is a 'certainty' that could be as mistaken as believing in any particular religion. The argument for believing in a 'tolerant' religious framework is because we do not, and cannot, know the truth of either atheism or of any theismOne can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. But all scientific evidence suggests the physical limitations of the human consciousness separate us from the true nature of the universe. God is merely that true nature; religion, like science, a path to glimpse a part of it, not an expression of the whole. So do you think Andrew is on the fence about the existence of Zeus or is he pretty sure humans made up the whole idea? Sullivan didn't write this. Try reading what I wrote, please. What Andrew is doing is making the definition of God so vague and lacking in distinctive qualities that he might as well say he believes in blabidy blab. Defining God as the true nature of the universe is great for evading being challenged on his specific beliefs, I mean who could argue with that definition? This is a definition that no Atheist should have a problem with. Atheists assert that there is mystery in the world and neither myths nor science have cleared it up. Religion is not just pointing the the mystery, religion is claiming to have explained it. Atheists are saying that religions have added little to our insight into the true nature of the universe. They have offered interesting myths that have other values. The problem comes when Andrew uses specific myth books like the Bible as his method of glimpsing a part of that true nature. It comes when he asserts that the historical person Jesus is fundamentally different from you and I and has died for our sins. As a Catholic he believes that the Pope has special powers of insight into the true nature of the universe. He is hiding his beliefs in a specific teleology and that his provincial version of religion knows what that purpose is. These are the beliefs that Atheist's challenge because that is where the problem with religious beliefs begin. So is he doubting his doubt about the actual historical existence of all myths, or just the one he grew up with? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: snip I mean, if God is true, anything can be true, right? If we don't know EVERYTHING, we can be wrong about anything, right? snip But if we don't allow God to have that freedom, to be that deeply dramatic over the lifetimes of billions of souls, then we don't really want a redoubtable God and instead are hoping for a doubtable God. It's about faith, not certainty, right? Came across two pieces of material this morning that tie into the issue of doubt more or less directly. The first was an email to Andrew Sullivan concerning his debate with Sam Harris about faith vs. science, which Andrew posted on his blog: Moderation vs. Fundamentalism. How much doubt is too much? Why not doubt the whole shebang? The answer: because doubting the whole shebang is a 'certainty' that could be as mistaken as believing in any particular religion. The argument for believing in a 'tolerant' religious framework is because we do not, and cannot, know the truth of either atheism or of any theismOne can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. But all scientific evidence suggests the physical limitations of the human consciousness separate us from the true nature of the universe. God is merely that true nature; religion, like science, a path to glimpse a part of it, not an expression of the whole. http://tinyurl.com/2r8hyt In other words: Doubt the doubt. Then I was curious about when David Orme-Johnson had been kicked off the MUM faculty and went to his TruthAboutTM Web site to find out (2004). I nosed around the site a bit and found this: Issue: Is the Transcendental Meditation organization a cult? The Evidence: The Transcendental Meditation organization is not a cult and 'thought reform' is not used in the Transcendental Meditation program. Background: Research on the Transcendental Meditation program shows that the effects it produces are the opposite to those found in people who allegedly get involved in cults. For example, a doctoral dissertation conducted at York University found that high school students became more autonomous, independent, and innovative through the Transcendental Meditation program, with increased ability to deal with abstract and complex situations. They also showed increases on creativity, general intelligence and self-esteem. Similarly, a doctoral dissertation at
[FairfieldLife] Re: The D Word
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: The answer: because doubting the whole shebang is a 'certainty' that could be as mistaken as believing in any particular religion. The argument for believing in a 'tolerant' religious framework is because we do not, and cannot, know the truth of either atheism or of any theismOne can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. But all scientific evidence suggests the physical limitations of the human consciousness separate us from the true nature of the universe. God is merely that true nature; religion, like science, a path to glimpse a part of it, not an expression of the whole. So do you think Andrew is on the fence about the existence of Zeus or is he pretty sure humans made up the whole idea? Sullivan didn't write this. Try reading what I wrote, please. BTW, not only did you get the author of the quote wrong, you went on to thoroughly misrepresent Sullivan's beliefs, including his views on the pope. So much for the superior clarity of the scientific perspective on religion and religionists. What Andrew is doing is making the definition of God so vague and lacking in distinctive qualities that he might as well say he believes in blabidy blab. Defining God as the true nature of the universe is great for evading being challenged on his specific beliefs, I mean who could argue with that definition? This is a definition that no Atheist should have a problem with. Atheists assert that there is mystery in the world and neither myths nor science have cleared it up. Religion is not just pointing the the mystery, religion is claiming to have explained it. Atheists are saying that religions have added little to our insight into the true nature of the universe. They have offered interesting myths that have other values. The problem comes when Andrew uses specific myth books like the Bible as his method of glimpsing a part of that true nature. It comes when he asserts that the historical person Jesus is fundamentally different from you and I and has died for our sins. As a Catholic he believes that the Pope has special powers of insight into the true nature of the universe. He is hiding his beliefs in a specific teleology and that his provincial version of religion knows what that purpose is. These are the beliefs that Atheist's challenge because that is where the problem with religious beliefs begin. So is he doubting his doubt about the actual historical existence of all myths, or just the one he grew up with? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: snip I mean, if God is true, anything can be true, right? If we don't know EVERYTHING, we can be wrong about anything, right? snip But if we don't allow God to have that freedom, to be that deeply dramatic over the lifetimes of billions of souls, then we don't really want a redoubtable God and instead are hoping for a doubtable God. It's about faith, not certainty, right? Came across two pieces of material this morning that tie into the issue of doubt more or less directly. The first was an email to Andrew Sullivan concerning his debate with Sam Harris about faith vs. science, which Andrew posted on his blog: Moderation vs. Fundamentalism. How much doubt is too much? Why not doubt the whole shebang? The answer: because doubting the whole shebang is a 'certainty' that could be as mistaken as believing in any particular religion. The argument for believing in a 'tolerant' religious framework is because we do not, and cannot, know the truth of either atheism or of any theismOne can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. But all scientific evidence suggests the physical limitations of the human consciousness separate us from the true nature of the universe. God is merely that true nature; religion, like science, a path to glimpse a part of it, not an expression of the whole. http://tinyurl.com/2r8hyt In other words: Doubt the doubt. Then I was curious about when David Orme-Johnson had been kicked off the MUM faculty and went to his TruthAboutTM Web site to find out (2004). I nosed around the site a bit and found this: Issue: Is the Transcendental Meditation organization a cult? The Evidence: The Transcendental Meditation organization is not a cult and 'thought reform' is not used in the Transcendental Meditation program. Background: Research on the Transcendental Meditation program shows that the effects it produces are the opposite to those found in people
[FairfieldLife] Re: The D Word
Thanks, I'll trrryy. From Andrew above the your quoted post: A reader addresses one central point of contention between Sam Harris and me - by supporting my position from a more agnostic perspective: My points stand. Andrew didn't write it, he is agreeing with it with one irrelevant qualification. Andrew has been guilty of defining God in terms that are too vague to be challenged in this whole debate and ignoring Sam's attempts to get him to own up to his own specific beliefs. Andrew is just as skeptical of the historical Zeus and confident of it mythic origins as Sam is about Andrew's Jesus dying for our sins myth. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: The answer: because doubting the whole shebang is a 'certainty' that could be as mistaken as believing in any particular religion. The argument for believing in a 'tolerant' religious framework is because we do not, and cannot, know the truth of either atheism or of any theismOne can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. But all scientific evidence suggests the physical limitations of the human consciousness separate us from the true nature of the universe. God is merely that true nature; religion, like science, a path to glimpse a part of it, not an expression of the whole. So do you think Andrew is on the fence about the existence of Zeus or is he pretty sure humans made up the whole idea? Sullivan didn't write this. Try reading what I wrote, please. What Andrew is doing is making the definition of God so vague and lacking in distinctive qualities that he might as well say he believes in blabidy blab. Defining God as the true nature of the universe is great for evading being challenged on his specific beliefs, I mean who could argue with that definition? This is a definition that no Atheist should have a problem with. Atheists assert that there is mystery in the world and neither myths nor science have cleared it up. Religion is not just pointing the the mystery, religion is claiming to have explained it. Atheists are saying that religions have added little to our insight into the true nature of the universe. They have offered interesting myths that have other values. The problem comes when Andrew uses specific myth books like the Bible as his method of glimpsing a part of that true nature. It comes when he asserts that the historical person Jesus is fundamentally different from you and I and has died for our sins. As a Catholic he believes that the Pope has special powers of insight into the true nature of the universe. He is hiding his beliefs in a specific teleology and that his provincial version of religion knows what that purpose is. These are the beliefs that Atheist's challenge because that is where the problem with religious beliefs begin. So is he doubting his doubt about the actual historical existence of all myths, or just the one he grew up with? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: snip I mean, if God is true, anything can be true, right? If we don't know EVERYTHING, we can be wrong about anything, right? snip But if we don't allow God to have that freedom, to be that deeply dramatic over the lifetimes of billions of souls, then we don't really want a redoubtable God and instead are hoping for a doubtable God. It's about faith, not certainty, right? Came across two pieces of material this morning that tie into the issue of doubt more or less directly. The first was an email to Andrew Sullivan concerning his debate with Sam Harris about faith vs. science, which Andrew posted on his blog: Moderation vs. Fundamentalism. How much doubt is too much? Why not doubt the whole shebang? The answer: because doubting the whole shebang is a 'certainty' that could be as mistaken as believing in any particular religion. The argument for believing in a 'tolerant' religious framework is because we do not, and cannot, know the truth of either atheism or of any theismOne can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. But all scientific evidence suggests the physical limitations of the human consciousness separate us from the true nature of the universe. God is merely that true nature; religion, like science, a path to glimpse a part of it, not an expression of the whole. http://tinyurl.com/2r8hyt In other words: Doubt the doubt. Then I was curious about when David Orme-Johnson had been kicked off the MUM faculty and went to his TruthAboutTM Web site to find out (2004). I nosed around the site a bit and found this:
[FairfieldLife] Re: The D Word
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks, I'll trrryy. From Andrew above the your quoted post: A reader addresses one central point of contention between Sam Harris and me - by supporting my position from a more agnostic perspective: My points stand. Andrew didn't write it, he is agreeing with it None of your points stand. The point of contention between Sullivan and Harris in question here was whether one should doubt the whole shebang, as the emailer puts it, i.e., whether it makes rational sense to be an atheist. with one irrelevant qualification. Andrew has been guilty of defining God in terms that are too vague to be challenged in this whole debate and ignoring Sam's attempts to get him to own up to his own specific beliefs. What you're really saying is that Sullivan declines to own up to specific beliefs that Harris (and you) would like to attribute to him so you have something you feel competent to challenge. Get that straw man before he gets you! Andrew is just as skeptical of the historical Zeus and confident of it mythic origins as Sam is about Andrew's Jesus dying for our sins myth. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: The answer: because doubting the whole shebang is a 'certainty' that could be as mistaken as believing in any particular religion. The argument for believing in a 'tolerant' religious framework is because we do not, and cannot, know the truth of either atheism or of any theismOne can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. But all scientific evidence suggests the physical limitations of the human consciousness separate us from the true nature of the universe. God is merely that true nature; religion, like science, a path to glimpse a part of it, not an expression of the whole. So do you think Andrew is on the fence about the existence of Zeus or is he pretty sure humans made up the whole idea? Sullivan didn't write this. Try reading what I wrote, please. What Andrew is doing is making the definition of God so vague and lacking in distinctive qualities that he might as well say he believes in blabidy blab. Defining God as the true nature of the universe is great for evading being challenged on his specific beliefs, I mean who could argue with that definition? This is a definition that no Atheist should have a problem with. Atheists assert that there is mystery in the world and neither myths nor science have cleared it up. Religion is not just pointing the the mystery, religion is claiming to have explained it. Atheists are saying that religions have added little to our insight into the true nature of the universe. They have offered interesting myths that have other values. The problem comes when Andrew uses specific myth books like the Bible as his method of glimpsing a part of that true nature. It comes when he asserts that the historical person Jesus is fundamentally different from you and I and has died for our sins. As a Catholic he believes that the Pope has special powers of insight into the true nature of the universe. He is hiding his beliefs in a specific teleology and that his provincial version of religion knows what that purpose is. These are the beliefs that Atheist's challenge because that is where the problem with religious beliefs begin. So is he doubting his doubt about the actual historical existence of all myths, or just the one he grew up with? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: snip I mean, if God is true, anything can be true, right? If we don't know EVERYTHING, we can be wrong about anything, right? snip But if we don't allow God to have that freedom, to be that deeply dramatic over the lifetimes of billions of souls, then we don't really want a redoubtable God and instead are hoping for a doubtable God. It's about faith, not certainty, right? Came across two pieces of material this morning that tie into the issue of doubt more or less directly. The first was an email to Andrew Sullivan concerning his debate with Sam Harris about faith vs. science, which Andrew posted on his blog: Moderation vs. Fundamentalism. How much doubt is too much? Why not doubt the whole shebang? The answer: because doubting the whole shebang is a 'certainty' that could be as mistaken as believing in any particular religion. The argument for believing in a 'tolerant' religious framework is because we do not, and cannot, know the
Re: [FairfieldLife] Curtis Blues on Youtube.com
curtisdeltablues wrote: Someone just posted my first video on Youtube from a TV show appearance. (high brow Wayne's World but TV nonetheless!) Any well wishers who care to check it out, give me a star rating, and write comments like I want to have his babies (women and effeminate power-bottoms only please) would be much appreciated. It doesn't exactly have viral potential but it would be nice to boost it up a bit so more people see it. Anyone who writes something nice will be mentioned at my Grammy acceptance speech after Jesus Christ, Lord Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Sam Harris...(you get the idea). The song is from Big Joe Williams who used to liven up his performances by shooting a pistol in the air if the crowd got too rowdy. He was a contemporary of Robert Johnson and was re-recorded in the 60's in the folk revival. He used to add 3 strings to his guitar by drilling holes in the headstock which doubled certain strings for busking volume. It starts: When the blues come out of Texas, they were loping like a mule, but those Texas women are just too hard to fool! Thanks for indulging this blatant self promotion. Great stuff. I think you would have enjoyed sitting in with some of the blues bands I played with in Seattle and we certainly would have enjoyed having you sit in.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The D Word
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Turq, Let me be playful here and see if this very fine work of yours below can be doubted too. (Emphasis on the words playful and fine.) some more word play : this quote is attributed to Buddha: Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true. It could also be considered as a standard for modern science. Sounds good, yeh? But, my feeling is that Buddha's above quote without further examination is somewhat dangerous and can lead to extremes and unbalance. However, if one applies this quote to itself, then you get believe not in believe nothing since (-)x(-) = (+) we get: believe not in believe nothing = believe everything and this is what I have heard Charlie Lutz and Amma and others say, I believe in everything! Hard for me to imagine. So perhaps Buddha's middle path is best; believe some, doubt some but don't dwell too much on either let Silence balance the two. Om, amarnath
[FairfieldLife] Re: The D Word
Turq, Is it my projection or did I go too far and smack you instead of tickle you?.did I trigger a bit of a harrumph kinda mood? Sorry if I ruffled any feathers -- I do this often and am in denial usually, but I tried to warn that I was engaging in an exercise to see if I could take the other side and still have some integrity. My point probably should have been spelled out better: words are always poetry. If I take the statement, I love you it seems to have one meaning, but we know that anyone who has ever uttered it is saying something new and different -- unique in the entire history of the universe. I've read your posts here while I was lurking, and I gotta tell ya, I have no handle on your emotional tone -- wondering if I'm not hearing your voice at all. When you challenge me for how I use the word God for instance, I feel like you feel like I'm trying to jam the concept into every reader's brain, and yeah, I do do that sort of thingy, do try to bully, take a short cut, but in my most recent posts, I think I'm mostly just having myself a thrill with seeing how words can be tossed at other words. You seem to be, well, very hair-triggered about certain concepts. Is that true? You may say no, but then why that tone? Again, maybe you're all sugar and cream, and I'm the sour interpreter, and if so, blame on me. Meanwhile, about that God thingy. Here's a way that maybe you can relax about my vocabulary and allow me to use that word: think about your nightly dreams. When you dream at night, how effortlessly do the images, words, furniture, spaces, people etc. get built instantaneously moment by moment. Your sleeping brain has the talent of Spielberg in these nightly productions, but while in the dream your character feels not the slightest authorship of the whole shebang. Yet, verily are you not a god for this dream world? And that's what I'm talking about. I'm a character in God's dream, and though my core self is doing the actual work of creation, I'm caught up with a mere speck of it and calling it me. Can't you allow me to use the word God for that level of me-ness that I am not consciously in touch with? If there is a Krishna, with a brain of biblical proportions, ahem, a living self-referential holodeck, can't I refer to Him like I would to that self that creates my nightly dreams? Can't I see that Krishna and my sleeping brain both have me in common, and each one is as responsible for the creation that contains me as the other is? When I dream, my dream character can be tortured, yet I do not awaken -- a sort of tell -- but, should I wake up, I don't hold it against me that I was being tortured. Something in me accepts the bad dream karma -- isn't this like what we call the compassion of the enlightened? Don't we expect the enlightened to have the ability to surrender to what is no matter what? Don't we expect that the enlightened know that this is a dream, and also that the dreamer cannot be found without destroying the dreamstate? If and when I do meet Krishna, I expect Him to be surprised that He'd thought me up -- just like I might be surprised to remember that in the dream I just woke up from that I had for some reason created a flaming couch that my dream character was sitting on nonchalantly but, for reasons never to be known, it was unnoticed by any character in the dream until now after awakening. Just so when I awaken from my living dream, might I not be surprised to find my self to be the creator of ALL THIS and that there is no doubt that it was me, me, only me what done the dream but still wonder why the flaming couch? Can't God be Someone like that -- have the dream emerge effortlessly with not the slightest sense of doership, no sense of having created me because He's part of the dream too, another character that the Absolute created? Turq, go with me here, let me use that word again in a serious question. When God awakens from the dream of creation, do you think that only the Absolute is there -- that there'd be no manifest brain to conceptualize that a dream had occurred? Is that more like your concept, more a Buddhist kinda voidy thingy? Like zero is needed for non-existence in math, can't I have a pet name for the Void? Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: Hey Turq, Let me be playful here and see if this very fine work of yours below can be doubted too. (Emphasis on the words playful and fine.) I certainly hope it can. I'm not selling anything. As a former spiritual teacher of mine once said, Writers write because they're trying to figure things out. That's all I'm doing here. Caveat lector. Might give us some insight into Maharishi and others who have taken on that terrible burden: dhoti, divan, and divination. Their problem, not mine. :-) Just keep hearing me giggling in the background
[FairfieldLife] Re: The D Word
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Turq, Is it my projection or did I go too far and smack you instead of tickle you?.did I trigger a bit of a harrumph kinda mood? Not at all. I'm really busy right now, and 1) didn't have time to read everything you wrote and respond to it, and 2) found it difficult to actually *follow* everything you wrote enough to finish reading it. I *get* that you were having fun with it, and that's cool. It's just that your idea of fun isn't mine right now, with a big software deadline hanging over my head. snip I've read your posts here while I was lurking, and I gotta tell ya, I have no handle on your emotional tone -- wondering if I'm not hearing your voice at all. When you challenge me for how I use the word God for instance, I feel like you feel like I'm trying to jam the concept into every reader's brain, and yeah, I do do that sort of thingy, do try to bully, take a short cut, but in my most recent posts, I think I'm mostly just having myself a thrill with seeing how words can be tossed at other words. I'm not the *least* offended by Godtalk, yours or anyone else's. It's just that every so often, possibly out of the same sense of fun that you called upon, I like to remind people that *assuming* that everyone believes in God is just that, an assumption. I'm a forty-plus-year spiritual seeker with more than a few fleeting enlightenment experiences under my belt who does *not* believe in God, and I suspect that there are a few other Buddhists on this forum who are in the same boat as me. It's not an aversion thang, really... just a remind-people-of-the-language-they're-using thang. You seem to be, well, very hair-triggered about certain concepts. Is that true? You may say no, but then why that tone? What tone, dude? I was dashing off a reply to you that I *really* didn't have time to write, because I should have been working. I took the time to write what I did because *you* took the time to write what you did. I felt *nothing* in reaction to *what* you wrote; I was just being polite enough to respond to a long reply with as much of one as I could manage given my tight work schedule. If you read anything else into it, you were reading something into it. Same with this one. It's nearly 11:00 PM my time, and I'm just taking a short break from work. This is as far as I have either time or inclination to read into your post, and thus reply to. So if I stop here, it has nothing to do with you, only with the realities of software development. Get it?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The D Word
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: snip You seem to be, well, very hair-triggered about certain concepts. Is that true? You may say no, but then why that tone? What tone, dude? I was dashing off a reply to you that I *really* didn't have time to write, because I should have been working. I took the time to write what I did because *you* took the time to write what you did. I felt *nothing* in reaction to *what* you wrote; I was just being polite enough to respond to a long reply with as much of one as I could manage given my tight work schedule. If you read anything else into it, you were reading something into it. Same with this one. It's nearly 11:00 PM my time, and I'm just taking a short break from work. This is as far as I have either time or inclination to read into your post, and thus reply to. So if I stop here, it has nothing to do with you, only with the realities of software development. Get it? Yeah, dude, what tone?
[FairfieldLife] 3d Images
Hey all, just logged into check out the photos of MMY and company and then saw this in my inbox, so I thought I'd share: 3D is getting pretty amazing: http://www.zbrushcentral.com/zbc/showthread.php?t=43670 Enjoy the FFL argument clinic. Lawson
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The D Word
On Apr 11, 2007, at 3:54 PM, authfriend wrote: What tone, dude? I was dashing off a reply to you that I *really* didn't have time to write, because I should have been working. I took the time to write what I did because *you* took the time to write what you did. I felt *nothing* in reaction to *what* you wrote; I was just being polite enough to respond to a long reply with as much of one as I could manage given my tight work schedule. If you read anything else into it, you were reading something into it. Same with this one. It's nearly 11:00 PM my time, and I'm just taking a short break from work. This is as far as I have either time or inclination to read into your post, and thus reply to. So if I stop here, it has nothing to do with you, only with the realities of software development. Get it? Yeah, dude, what tone? I was thinking the same thing, which seems to happen pretty regularly whenever Barry is crossed on no-matter how trivial a subject. The person doing the crossing then becomes some faceless dude or dudette whose name Barry suddenly can't remember. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Tarot shop Greek Cafe
On Apr 10, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Kagan Kagan wrote: Good afternoon, I was wondering if anyone remembers the Oracle tarot shop that used to be just off the square. Or the Greek Cafe that was on the square. There was a great guy who worked at both. His name is Dennis Dowell. Does anyone know what ever happen to these three? Don't know about the person, but I remember the Greek cafe really well, it was open the first few years after I moved here. It's been gone for quite a while now. I couldn't quite understand what happened to it, because the food was really good. I vaguely remember the Tarot shop that was just off the square--at least I'm pretty sure that's where it was. There's a fine line between being really profound and just makin no damn sense! No kidding--you see a lot of that here. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: The D Word
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was thinking the same thing, which seems to happen pretty regularly whenever Barry is crossed on no-matter how trivial a subject. The person doing the crossing then becomes some faceless dude or dudette whose name Barry suddenly can't remember. Free clue, Sal. You ARE a faceless dudette. I don't know you from Adam. Or Eve. Whatever. Edg's posts stupefied me; I couldn't make my way through more than the first few paragraphs of either of them. And I owed him *nothing* -- not a reply, not an argument, nothing. But he obviously expended a lot of effort in writing them, and I wanted to reply *somehow*. Sorry if how I replied didn't meet your high standards. If what he said interests you, *you* reply. Me, I've got more important things to do right now...
[FairfieldLife] Re: The D Word
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: I was thinking the same thing, which seems to happen pretty regularly whenever Barry is crossed on no-matter how trivial a subject. The person doing the crossing then becomes some faceless dude or dudette whose name Barry suddenly can't remember. Free clue, Sal. You ARE a faceless dudette. I don't know you from Adam. Or Eve. Whatever. Edg's posts stupefied me; I couldn't make my way through more than the first few paragraphs of either of them. And I owed him *nothing* -- not a reply, not an argument, nothing. But he obviously expended a lot of effort in writing them, and I wanted to reply *somehow*. Sorry if how I replied didn't meet your high standards. If what he said interests you, *you* reply. Me, I've got more important things to do right now... How could anybody possibly think Barry was in a harrumph kinda mood or had his feathers ruffled? He's all sugar and cream, and we're the sour interpreters. It's just that reading through Edg's post was *hard work*, and Barry had better things to do.
[FairfieldLife] Imus and da ho's
FFL has been awfully quiet in regards to Don Imus and the nappy headed Ho's. I just saw where MSNBC has dropped his show. Any comments? ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
[FairfieldLife] Pandit Update from Raja Wynne
Subject: Vedic Pandit Update #4 From: Raja Wynne maillist @ invincibleamerica.org Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 [Global Country of World Peace] Dear Supporters of Permanent Invincibility for America, We thought you would enjoy seeing these pictures of the newest group of Vedic Pandits from India. The Pandits arrived last Friday and went straight to their new campus in Maharishi Vedic City. This was the 10th group of Vedic Pandits to arrive since October. There are now almost 500 Vedic Pandits here on two campuses and more groups will continue to arrive until there are 1050 Vedic Pandits to raise our numbers flying each day on the Invincible America Assembly to 2500. The Vedic Pandits from India are blessing America with invincibility. Jai Guru Dev. Raja Wynne [Photo1] Assembly Hall Awaiting Arrival of the Pandits[Photo2] Inaugural Ceremony for the New Campus [Photo2] Pandits on the New Campus Crowning America with Invincibility
[FairfieldLife] Re: Imus and da ho's
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FFL has been awfully quiet in regards to Don Imus and the nappy headed Ho's. I just saw where MSNBC has dropped his show. Any comments? I believe I speak for everyone on FFL in saying that we've all been preoccupied with a far more important story than some dumbass conservative shock-jock overstepping the bounds of common decency: the paternity of Anna Nicole's baby.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM-Free Blog: Alcohol, Drug, Sex, and Other Addictions in TM Org
authfriend wrote: It really must be a pain in the tail to have someone always calling attention to your falsehoods, Vaj. Who needs that kind of negativity, indeed? So, it's all about Vaj.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The D Word
Sal Sunshine wrote: I was thinking the same thing, which seems to happen pretty regularly whenever Barry is crossed on no-matter how trivial a subject. The person doing the crossing then becomes some faceless dude or dudette whose name Barry suddenly can't remember. So, it's all about Barry.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's House on Raam Navami
Most cultures, including Indian, like lots of lights during celebrations. I'm sure it's not ordinarily lit that way. Have you noticed, though, that the more third world a country is, the greater the amount of celebratory hoopla and whirling trance-dance exists as a substitute for genuine progress? --- Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 10:52 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's House on Raam Navami The building itself is relatively modest, only two stories and made of wood, more like a Sthapatya-Vedic motel-cum-hunting-lodge than a government building. But somebody let a really manic lighting person loose on the grounds. Most cultures, including Indian, like lots of lights during celebrations. I'm sure it's not ordinarily lit that way. Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food Drink QA. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=listsid=396545367
[FairfieldLife] Re: Imus and da ho's
MDixon wrote: FFL has been awfully quiet in regards to Don Imus and the nappy headed Ho's. I just saw where MSNBC has dropped his show. Any comments? Well, I've never listened to Don Imus, but the thought occurs to me: why hasn't Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton complained about all those rap songs that are played on the radio? From what I've heard, some of the language on them is outrageous. But, the only rap music I've really heard is what I hear blasting out of a car on my short walk to work. But even that short exposure I heard all kinds of words that were much worse than what Don Imus said. I've never listened much to Howard Stern either, but when he got heat he just went over to satelite radio and kept on talking. Apparently Imus brought in 10 million dallars a week for MSNBC, so he'll probably go over to satelite as well, where he belongs. How do they get away with playing those rap songs on the radio? Or, maybe it was a CD that I heard playing. If so, how do they get recorded, and what does Jesse and Al have to say about that? Come to think of it, I don't listen to Jesse or Al in church either, so I probably missed their comments on that too. But, as long as I'm making comments - how could anyone sit through three hours of Grindhouse? I mean, I almost got a headache watching Lord of the Rings. Go figure. Well, I guess I'm really getting old - but I liked Finding Nemo. Bought the Cars DVD and I've watched it three times. Go figure. I've got an awesome stereo system (vintage Yamaha separates with chips, not, ICs) with a great turntable and a Stanton moving coil cartridge, four rebuilt Ohm Acoustic speakers stacked. My Yamaha Amp puts out 150 watts of natural sound per channel and since I live in a farm house, I can really crank it. Most of the time I play vinyl hits like Stevie Ray Vaughn and Double Trouble and sometimes I put on Jimi or Peter Gabriel. Sometimes Fleetwood Mac or an old Ledd side. Yesterday I played a Crystal Gale tape. No time for Imus in the morning - no time for Howard in the evening. I guess I'm a square. That's about all I have to say about shock jocks today.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Imus and da ho's
FFL has been awfully quiet in regards to Don Imus and the nappy headed Ho's. I just saw where MSNBC has dropped his show. Any comments? Alex Stanley wrote: I believe I speak for everyone on FFL in saying that we've all been preoccupied with a far more important story than some dumbass conservative shock-jock overstepping the bounds of common decency: the paternity of Anna Nicole's baby. Speaking of Anna Nicole's baby, I heard on the radio that she had ten prescription medications, all from the same doctor, and most of them were in Howard K. Stern's name. So, I began to wonder - here's Nicole with a lawyer at her side, a maid or two, a nurse, and the whole staff of a motel, at her every beck and call. Now wouldn't at least one of these individuals stand up and say - ENOUGH. You're going to rehab! Now Howard is deep trouble over this, and now he's not even the father of the baby anymore. Nicole and her son are dead, and that's a fact, but I think they should bury Mrs. Marshall in Texas where she was born and raised, not on some island somewhere. That's what I think. And maybe Stern should get a day job now and leave Larry Birkhead alone to raise his own daughter.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Imus and da ho's
I'm fond of the Imus show. He's often labeled as conservative, but that's not true. In 2004, for instance, he was one of Kerry's biggest supporters. Regardless of what happens to him and his show, the larger set of questions arising from this affair boils down to the glamorization of G.C.--ghetto consciousness. It ain't unity! I like an occasional hip hop song as much as the next white guy, and I've been known to joke about bitches and ho's. But this spotlight shown nationally on G.C. should point out that it is a weed. Sometimes weeds can be pretty, but they are invasive species that choke out everything else. Such is the world of hip hop and its ilk. Popular music, save for country, which I dislike, is rapidly having all the beauty of good music choked out of it by the weeds of hip hop and the ugliness of low culture. I was listening to streaming KHOE this afternoon and was delighted to hear a tasteful rendition of Something Stupid, right out of the lyrically rich '60s. Something Stupid I know I stand in line Until you think you have the time To spend an evening with me And if we go someplace to dance I know that there's a chance You won't be leaving with me Then afterwards we drop into a quiet little place And have a drink or two And then I go and spoil it all By saying something stupid Like I love you I can see it in your eyes You still despise the same old lines You heard the night before And though it's just a line to you For me it's true And never seemed so right before I practice every day to find some clever lines to say To make the meaning come true But then I think I'll wait until the evening gets late And I'm alone with you The time is right Your perfume fills my head The stars get red And oh the night's so blue And then I go and spoil it all By saying something stupid Like I love you I love you... Bitch rhymes with nothing in the song, and that's good. We need to think as a nation whether it's time to find a softer and gentler way to live. That said, I like Stern's show, too, by the way --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MDixon wrote: FFL has been awfully quiet in regards to Don Imus and the nappy headed Ho's. I just saw where MSNBC has dropped his show. Any comments? Well, I've never listened to Don Imus, but the thought occurs to me: why hasn't Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton complained about all those rap songs that are played on the radio? From what I've heard, some of the language on them is outrageous. But, the only rap music I've really heard is what I hear blasting out of a car on my short walk to work. But even that short exposure I heard all kinds of words that were much worse than what Don Imus said. I've never listened much to Howard Stern either, but when he got heat he just went over to satelite radio and kept on talking. Apparently Imus brought in 10 million dallars a week for MSNBC, so he'll probably go over to satelite as well, where he belongs. How do they get away with playing those rap songs on the radio? Or, maybe it was a CD that I heard playing. If so, how do they get recorded, and what does Jesse and Al have to say about that? Come to think of it, I don't listen to Jesse or Al in church either, so I probably missed their comments on that too. But, as long as I'm making comments - how could anyone sit through three hours of Grindhouse? I mean, I almost got a headache watching Lord of the Rings. Go figure. Well, I guess I'm really getting old - but I liked Finding Nemo. Bought the Cars DVD and I've watched it three times. Go figure. I've got an awesome stereo system (vintage Yamaha separates with chips, not, ICs) with a great turntable and a Stanton moving coil cartridge, four rebuilt Ohm Acoustic speakers stacked. My Yamaha Amp puts out 150 watts of natural sound per channel and since I live in a farm house, I can really crank it. Most of the time I play vinyl hits like Stevie Ray Vaughn and Double Trouble and sometimes I put on Jimi or Peter Gabriel. Sometimes Fleetwood Mac or an old Ledd side. Yesterday I played a Crystal Gale tape. No time for Imus in the morning - no time for Howard in the evening. I guess I'm a square. That's about all I have to say about shock jocks today.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Pandit Update from Raja Wynne
- What a bunch of nappy headed hoes! Subject: Vedic Pandit Update #4 From: Raja Wynne maillist @ invincibleamerica.org Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 [Global Country of World Peace] Dear Supporters of Permanent Invincibility for America, We thought you would enjoy seeing these pictures of the newest group of Vedic Pandits from India. The Pandits arrived last Friday and went straight to their new campus in Maharishi Vedic City. This was the 10th group of Vedic Pandits to arrive since October. There are now almost 500 Vedic Pandits here on two campuses and more groups will continue to arrive until there are 1050 Vedic Pandits to raise our numbers flying each day on the Invincible America Assembly to 2500. The Vedic Pandits from India are blessing America with invincibility. Jai Guru Dev. Raja Wynne [Photo1] Assembly Hall Awaiting Arrival of the Pandits[Photo2] Inaugural Ceremony for the New Campus [Photo2] Pandits on the New Campus Crowning America with Invincibility
[FairfieldLife] Re: Imus and da ho's
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], at_man_and_brahman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm fond of the Imus show. He's often labeled as conservative, but that's not true. In 2004, for instance, he was one of Kerry's biggest supporters. Regardless of what happens to him and his show, the larger set of questions arising from this affair boils down to the glamorization of G.C.--ghetto consciousness. It ain't unity! I like an occasional hip hop song as much as the next white guy, and I've been known to joke about bitches and ho's. But this spotlight shown nationally on G.C. should point out that it is a weed. Sometimes weeds can be pretty, but they are invasive species that choke out everything else. Such is the world of hip hop and its ilk. Popular music, save for country, which I dislike, is rapidly having all the beauty of good music choked out of it by the weeds of hip hop and the ugliness of low culture. ** Well, the PM of S-land certainly agrees with you: Blair blames spate of murders on black culture · Political correctness not helping, says PM · Community leaders react angrily to comments Patrick Wintour and Vikram Dodd Thursday April 12, 2007 The Guardian Tony Blair yesterday claimed the spate of knife and gun murders in London was not being caused by poverty, but a distinctive black culture. His remarks angered community leaders, who accused him of ignorance and failing to provide support for black-led efforts to tackle the problem. http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2055148,00.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: The D Word
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sal Sunshine wrote: I was thinking the same thing, which seems to happen pretty regularly whenever Barry is crossed on no-matter how trivial a subject. The person doing the crossing then becomes some faceless dude or dudette whose name Barry suddenly can't remember. So, it's all about Barry. No. It's about, has been about, and always will be about WillyTex.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Pandit Update from Raja Wynne
On Apr 11, 2007, at 10:18 PM, pranamoocher wrote: - What a bunch of nappy headed hoes! I thought they looked more like rakes. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Imus and da ho's
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FFL has been awfully quiet in regards to Don Imus and the nappy headed Ho's. I just saw where MSNBC has dropped his show. Any comments? Alex Stanley wrote: I believe I speak for everyone on FFL in saying that we've all been preoccupied with a far more important story than some dumbass conservative shock-jock overstepping the bounds of common decency: the paternity of Anna Nicole's baby. Speaking of Anna Nicole's baby, I heard on the radio that she had ten prescription medications, all from the same doctor, and most of them were in Howard K. Stern's name. So, I began to wonder - here's Nicole with a lawyer at her side, a maid or two, a nurse, and the whole staff of a motel, at her every beck and call. Now wouldn't at least one of these individuals stand up and say - ENOUGH. You're going to rehab! Now Howard is deep trouble over this, and now he's not even the father of the baby anymore. Nicole and her son are dead, and that's a fact, but I think they should bury Mrs. Marshall in Texas where she was born and raised, not on some island somewhere. That's what I think. And maybe Stern should get a day job now and leave Larry Birkhead alone to raise his own daughter. So it's all about Anna Nicole??
[FairfieldLife] Kurt Vonnegut dies
Mr. Vonnegut was born in Indianapolis in 1922, the youngest of three children. His father, Kurt Sr., was an architect. His mother, Edith, came from a wealthy brewery family. Mr. Vonnegut's brother, Bernard, who died in 1997, was a physicist and an expert on thunderstorms. During the Depression, the elder Vonnegut went for long stretches without work, and Mrs. Vonnegut suffered from episodes of mental illness. When my mother went off her rocker late at night, the hatred and contempt she sprayed on my father, as gentle and innocent a man as ever lived, was without limit and pure, untainted by ideas or information, Mr. Vonnegut wrote. She committed suicide, an act that haunted her son for the rest of his life. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/books/12vonnegut.html *** The effects of inherited alcohol money, like with the Kennedys. Vonnegut was a prisoner of war in Dresden when it was fire-bombed: The defining moment of Mr. Vonnegut's life was the firebombing of Dresden, Germany, by Allied forces in 1945, an event he witnessed firsthand as a young prisoner of war. Thousands of civilians were killed in the raids, many of them burned to death or asphyxiated. The firebombing of Dresden, Mr. Vonnegut wrote, was a work of art. It was, he added, a tower of smoke and flame to commemorate the rage and heartbreak of so many who had had their lives warped or ruined by the indescribable greed and vanity and cruelty of Germany.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Imus and da ho's
Despite his agreeing with me, I do not agree with him. Black culture it is not. Ghetto consciousness it is. Or more specifically, it is the overweeding of G.C., crowding out everything else, that is the problem. And then you had to spoil it all, by saying something stupid like nappy-headed ho's RIP I-man. --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], bob_brigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ** Well, the PM of S-land certainly agrees with you: Blair blames spate of murders on black culture · Political correctness not helping, says PM · Community leaders react angrily to comments Patrick Wintour and Vikram Dodd Thursday April 12, 2007 The Guardian Tony Blair yesterday claimed the spate of knife and gun murders in London was not being caused by poverty, but a distinctive black culture. His remarks angered community leaders, who accused him of ignorance and failing to provide support for black-led efforts to tackle the problem. http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2055148,00.html
[FairfieldLife] Amma's sex scandal
No, Amma wasn't caught in flagrante delicto. But she did participate in what I can only describe as a scandal and one best employed with the adjective sexy. But unlike this forum's allegations about MMY's extra-curriculars which are of the he-said-she-said category of rumors, Amma's scandal was filmed for the whole world to see. I am referring to the DVD Darshan which I saw last week for the first time. There was something in it that just didn't sit right with me. Darshan is a documentary that follows Amma the Hugging Saint around various parts of India, including her Ashram, over a few months time it was made by a French film crew a few years ago. At one point near the end of the DVD, Amma is in a stadium of about 25,000 people who all came for that delicious hug she gives and which is her signature trademark (well, she IS called the hugging saint for a reason). And her people made a point of emphasizing that she only had a certain amount of time to be there. So what did Amma and her organization do? Why, they actually put up a SCORE CARD of how many people she hugged! There was an actual TOTE BOARD, just like in those PBS fund-raisers they Michael Flatley and Lord of the Dance or Joseph Campbell are showcased in order to get the largest possible response during pledge week or that thermometer the United Appeal puts on the town square that fills up with red as each new plateau of funds raised is met. Except this tote board didn't list money; the currency measured was HUGS! And Amma wanted to get in as many as she could. She and her crew seemed intent upon trying to beat some record (exactly whose record and what goal I'm not sure but seeing as she's the only hugging saint around, I guess she was out to beat her own record what sports psychologists tell enthusiasts in non-team sports like golf call competing with yourself). And the whole record-breaking vibe was pumped up to the max because Amma wasn't doing her usual embrace (the preceding one hour of the DVD had documented normal-speed hugging). No, along with her court- side minions, TEAM AMMA shifted into mass-production gear. Unlike the earlier recorded sessions, Amma the Pro performed a well- rehearsed and well-choreographed lift and jerk for each poor soul that trotted up to the dais. Amma and her accountants had precisioned the math and knew exactly how many complete cycles of body-embrace-eject-next had to be performed in the time allotted. Her followers had obviously paid attention in high school math class `cause they had the formula down pat: I'm sure the pre-game prep notes looked something like this: T/H = WR T = Time Amma is in the stadium; H= Number of hugs; WR = World Record). Man, she was huggin' em out at the rate of about 15 per minute. Now, that's some massed-produced touchy-feely darshan working there, worthy of respect from the most jaded MacDonald's production line engineer. Ray Kroc's McSlide Ruler holds nothing on Team Amma which can now proudly hang an X billions hugged sign under the Ashram`s arches. Why have I called this a scandal? Why employ the adjective sex to describe it? Bad enough that Team Amma and its star forward Amma appeared interested in only performing for the camera and unabashedly abandoned even the faintest APPEARANCE of devotion or piety. The worst part was what was so clearly their REAL motivation: cranking out the hugs in order to get into some sort of Spiritual Guinness Book of World Records. Talk about an experience devoid of spirituality all that the principles seemed interested in was getting as high a number on the scoreboard as possible generating love or compassion be damned, let`s just churn out what, at minimum, can be defined as a hug and get on to the next warm body. Head `em up, move `em out Rawhide! In a nutshell: the numbers on the tote board was virtually all that she and her Kool-Aid inner circle were interested in. And that's why it seemed so scandalous to me. And when they got the number they wanted (something like 25,000 but I can't recall the exact tally) Team Amma whooped and clapped like the cheerleaders in American Beauty. This sporty mood generated another impression upon me: Kobi Bryant scoring a three-pointer from center court to beat the Knicks with 2 seconds left on the clock. But there was one final image this carnage of spiritual gluttony cast upon me. And this last one also depicted a pro-basketballer: Wilt Chamberlain whose ultimate claim-to-fame in popular culture wasn't the numerous NBA records he broke but his bold and brass assertion that he had slept with 20,000 women during his lifetime. And that's why Amma's scandal seems so SEXY.
