[FairfieldLife] Re: Lutes' account of MMY's early days

[m2smart4u2000]

I never could figure out if I am supposed to write at the top or 
bottom of the reply page..

Charlie was certainly entertaining, and I really enjoyed his talks 
and stories. He was always available for personal questions and gave 
very practical advice, contrary to what one might expect. I think he 
and Helen saved a boat-load of people from going over the deep-end, 
just by caring enough to listen to them complain about their 
problems. The Lutes were very generous that way, and always kind and 
loving people. 
The space ships, blue star (planet?) and Christ stories were 
inspiring to me, even if they didn't happen! Charlie gets and A+ for 
spiritual entertainment. Lets see:

Take the spherical spaceships not the cigar shaped ones
Go with the good looking, not the lizards
When the blue star comes it will be light 24/7
Christ was a leo (duh)
Christ was blond and blue eyed (double duh)


 In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well, I've got to admit, that over the 20+ years I heard Charlie 
speak
> I did hear a few strange things, but then I think you have to 
realize
> this Eastern 'religion' thing was new to all of us, and him at the 
time.
> 
> One thing struck me as odd when he said in 10 or X years (don't
> remember exact time) all the prisoners would just 'miraculously'
> disappear from the prisons, apparently to make way for the 'new 
age'.
> 
> Finally toward the very end I quit going due to the small group of
> 'groupies' that had 'worshiped' him, it gave me the creeps, 
according
> to them he was CC and higher.  I never looked at him that way, he
> enriched my life with his esoteric knowledge he gleaned from Max
> Heindel, Manly P. Hall and a few others.
> 
> Also Charlie had character and integrity...yeah, perhaps he
> exaggerated a little but I never took those things seriously. 
Overall
> he was a great spiritual mentor and the closest thing to a personal
> guru I've ever had!  BillyG.
> 
> P.S. One Friday night he said Lord Maitreya had been reborn on 
earth,
> a few nights later he said his 'reliable' source had been 'duped' 
by a
> spirit...:-)
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason Spock  
wrote:
> >
> >  
> >
> > This is what three TM-tutors in the indian TM-org told 
me.
> >
> > TM was formulated about Two thousand years before the 
Advent
> of Adi Sankara..!!  TM is more than four thousand years old..!!
> >
> > GuruDev Bramananda Sarasvati taught TM to Maharishi,,,
> almost literaly giving it to him on a Silver plate..!!
> >
> >  Maharishi did NOT travel by foot.  People sponsored his
> trips which he went by trains and buses.
> > 
> > CurtisDeltaBlues  wrote:
> >   Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:48:53 -
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Lutes' account of MMY's early days
> > 
> >
> >   Thanks for posting this Bob. There is a contradictions in his 
account
> > from MMY's own account. Since he was so close to MMY it is
> > interesting that he would tell a different story. I am beginning 
to
> > wonder if it is MMY who told different versions to different 
people. 
> > But for his official version that is played repeatedly on his 
courses,
> > we are all familiar with that one so my pointing out the 
difference
> > certainly wont bring a flurry of resistance, it will just be an
> > obvious fact that we can work out together...
> > 
> > C: A few years before he became Shankaracharya, the old sage 
made one
> > of his rare ventures out of the wilderness. It was at this time 
that
> > Maharishi saw him in a procession and the experience was 
something
> > like spiritual love at first sight. Maharishi, a twenty-year- old
> > student, felt an overwhelming desire to be near and serve the 
great
> > master.
> > 
> > Me: In his taped account he came to see Guru Dev in a house at 
night
> > for the first time and caught a "flashy glimpse" when a car 
headlight
> > illuminated his face. There was no procession.
> > 
> > C: He sought out the Guru Dev who told him to first finish his
> > education and then come. Two years later, having earned his 
degree,
> > Maharishi headed for the monastery of Jyotir Math in the 
Himalayan
> > religious center of Badrinath, there to devote his life to the 
Guru
> > Dev, "to serve at the feet of my master." And this he did for 
thirteen
> > years until the swami passed on.
> > 
> > Over the years, Maharishi would be asked hundreds of times to 
talk
> > about his past. Reporters were especially curious. But his 
answer was
> > always the same: "Once you take the vows of the monk, past life 
is
> > forgotten."
> > 
> > He told me long ago that when you become a bramachari, or monk, 
you no
> > longer relate to your family or to any of your background.
> > 
> > Me: So is his obvious connection with his family in the indian
> > movement a departure from his vows? He set them up with sweet 
jobs,
> > that is definitely relating to them, in fact showing them 
favoritism.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Women in Art

[lurkernomore20002000]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is the most spectacularly well-done, most beautiful, most 
> imaginative, most uplifting video I've ever seen.
> 
> YouTube:
> http://tinyurl.com/2r73ay

Excellent Find!

lurk
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Lutes' account of MMY's early days

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > I love his story that he was in an auto accident and ended up sitting
> > on the sidewalk with just the steering wheel in his hand. His comment
> > was that it would have been much much worse if it was not for TM which
> > changed the karma from really bad to mild.
> >
> 
> 
> **
> 
> Apparently Lutes' karmic load was heavy -- Charlie recounted on several 
> occasions that after MMY gave a lecture once in which he said that a 
> certain unnamed man had a "mountain" of bad karma, Lutes asked MMY if 
> Lutes' karma was such, and MMY said that Charlie had a "mountain range" 
> of bad karma. I think Nature gives people with the worst karma the 
> opportunity to work off their bad destiny by helping promote bliss-
> consciousness in the world in the TM movement. Charlie, foolish as he 
> was, did do a lot to promote TM, and I'm sure that is now helping him 
> survive his miserable karmic burden (which, like everybody else, is 
> strictly his own creation).

Like when he was Alexander the Great -- per himself.
>

RE: [FairfieldLife] Posting Totals

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of gullible fool
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 7:37 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Posting Totals

 


Rick, Shemp is already over 35, yet I am still getting
requests to approve moderated posts by him. Is he
wasting his time with these posts, or are you
approving these once the next week comes around? You
once said extra posts would get deleted. 

I approve them when the new week starts. I don't mind doing it. of course,
then he doesn't have too many to play with the following week. I would
consider him more courteous if he would just adhere to the guidelines
everyone else has agreed to and adheres to.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Lutes' account of MMY's early days

[bob_brigante]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> I love his story that he was in an auto accident and ended up sitting
> on the sidewalk with just the steering wheel in his hand. His comment
> was that it would have been much much worse if it was not for TM which
> changed the karma from really bad to mild.
>


**

Apparently Lutes' karmic load was heavy -- Charlie recounted on several 
occasions that after MMY gave a lecture once in which he said that a 
certain unnamed man had a "mountain" of bad karma, Lutes asked MMY if 
Lutes' karma was such, and MMY said that Charlie had a "mountain range" 
of bad karma. I think Nature gives people with the worst karma the 
opportunity to work off their bad destiny by helping promote bliss-
consciousness in the world in the TM movement. Charlie, foolish as he 
was, did do a lot to promote TM, and I'm sure that is now helping him 
survive his miserable karmic burden (which, like everybody else, is 
strictly his own creation).

[FairfieldLife] Re: Lutes' account of MMY's early days

[new . morning]

I love his story that he was in an auto accident and ended up sitting
on the sidewalk with just the steering wheel in his hand. His comment
was that it would have been much much worse if it was not for TM which
changed the karma from really bad to mild. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Lutes' account of MMY's early days

[bob_brigante]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> >
> > I saw Charlie Lutes in California 30 years ago, and he said, "In 
> the
> > next year or two, they'll find Christ's rocket ship inside one of 
> the
> > pyramids."  
> > 
> > 20 years later I saw him in one of his last lectures in Iowa City
> > (Cedar Rapids?) and I asked him about that rocket and why it 
hadn't
> > been found yet.
> > 
> > He said, "I never said any such thing."
> > 
> > I quizzed him a bit more about aliens coming to earth and that we
> > should go with the good looking ones -- not the lizard people.
> > 
> > Again, "I never said anything about those subjects."
> > 
> > That was the end of any fascination I had with Charlie Lutes.
> > 
> > Edg
> > 


> I heard someone near the end of his talk series stabbed him over 
> some remark about Christ. perhaps he was trying to tone it down. Or 
> maybe he just lied. :-)
>




Charlie did get stabbed at one of his lectures at his WLA center, 
probably in the seventies. I don't  what the statement was about, but 
the stabber shouted "You can't say that," and stuck him. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Lutes' account of MMY's early days

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Richard J. Williams
> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 4:31 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Lutes' account of MMY's early days
> 
>  
> 
> > > http://www.maharishiphotos.com/mem2a.html
> > >
> Curtis wrote: 
> > Me: In his taped account he came to see Guru Dev 
> > in a house at night for the first time and caught 
> > a "flashy glimpse" when a car headlight illuminated 
> > his face. There was no procession.
> >
> For someone who makes TMO status claims you don't seem 
> to be able make much sense.


Me: I have made no such claims,troll.


 Obviously Marshy knew who 
> Guru Dev was and had an introduction to be in his room. 
> Are you thinking that Marshy just happened to be in the 
> upstairs room by coincidence when he saw Guru Dev?
> 
> He wasn't in his room. He was on an outside veranda and had never
seen him
> before. And couldn't see him because it was dark, until a car's
headlight
> illuminated his face.
> 
> According to the official account, Raj Varma had been 
> a devotee of Guru Dev for many years before Marshy 
> actually met Guru Dev. Lots of people, including Marshy, 
> probably saw Guru Dev in various processions over the 
> years. However, the first time Marshy actually met Guru 
> Dev face-to-face was in the upstairs room at the time 
> of the flashing headlights.
> 
> Maybe it was an upstairs room. I recall his saying it was a veranda.
In any
> case, you're speculating, because is MMY told the story he had never
seen GD
> before. He never mentioned having seen him in processions, etc. Maybe he
> had, but he said this was the first time he saw him.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Posting Totals

[gullible fool]

Rick, Shemp is already over 35, yet I am still getting
requests to approve moderated posts by him. Is he
wasting his time with these posts, or are you
approving these once the next week comes around? You
once said extra posts would get deleted. 

--- Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Turq is at 32
> 
> Judy is at 35 (done for the week)
> 
> Shemp maxxed out a few days ago.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rick Archer
> President 
> 
> SearchSummit
>  
>
 2C+IA+52556-3805&country=us> 1108 S. B St.
> Fairfield, IA 52556-3805 
> 
> 
>  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> 
> 
> tel: 
> fax: 
> Skype ID:
> 
>  
>
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 641-472-9336 
> 914-470-9336
> Rick_Archer 
> 
>   
> 
> 
>  
>

4&k1=804482755&src=client_sig_212_1_card_join&invite=1>
> Always have my
> latest info
> 
> 
>

> Want a
> signature like this?
> 
>  
> 
> 



   

Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, 
photos & more. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Lutes' account of MMY's early days

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Richard J. Williams
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 4:31 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Lutes' account of MMY's early days

 

> > http://www.maharishiphotos.com/mem2a.html
> >
Curtis wrote: 
> Me: In his taped account he came to see Guru Dev 
> in a house at night for the first time and caught 
> a "flashy glimpse" when a car headlight illuminated 
> his face. There was no procession.
>
For someone who makes TMO status claims you don't seem 
to be able make much sense. Obviously Marshy knew who 
Guru Dev was and had an introduction to be in his room. 
Are you thinking that Marshy just happened to be in the 
upstairs room by coincidence when he saw Guru Dev?

He wasn't in his room. He was on an outside veranda and had never seen him
before. And couldn't see him because it was dark, until a car's headlight
illuminated his face.

According to the official account, Raj Varma had been 
a devotee of Guru Dev for many years before Marshy 
actually met Guru Dev. Lots of people, including Marshy, 
probably saw Guru Dev in various processions over the 
years. However, the first time Marshy actually met Guru 
Dev face-to-face was in the upstairs room at the time 
of the flashing headlights.

Maybe it was an upstairs room. I recall his saying it was a veranda. In any
case, you're speculating, because is MMY told the story he had never seen GD
before. He never mentioned having seen him in processions, etc. Maybe he
had, but he said this was the first time he saw him. 

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Lutes' account of MMY's early days

[Peter]

--- Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Duveyoung
> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 12:29 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Lutes' account of MMY's
> early days
> 
>  
> 
> I saw Charlie Lutes in California 30 years ago, and
> he said, "In the
> next year or two, they'll find Christ's rocket ship
> inside one of the
> pyramids." 
> 
> 20 years later I saw him in one of his last lectures
> in Iowa City
> (Cedar Rapids?) and I asked him about that rocket
> and why it hadn't
> been found yet.
> 
> He said, "I never said any such thing."
> 
> I quizzed him a bit more about aliens coming to
> earth and that we
> should go with the good looking ones -- not the
> lizard people.
> 
> Again, "I never said anything about those subjects."
> 
> That was the end of any fascination I had with
> Charlie Lutes.
> 
> I always found the tension between SRM and the
> mainstream TM movement
> interesting. I was in the latter camp, although I
> went to see Charlie a few
> times. Charlie devotees believed he was expounding
> truths cognized or
> imparted to him by the White Brotherhood, and that
> he was undoubtedly in a
> higher state of consciousness because he had been
> meditating 15 years, or
> whatever. I always figured he was picking up most of
> his stuff by reading
> esoteric books. But I found him amusing, like the
> Weekly World News:
> http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/

I think most of us Charlie fans now realize that
Charlie liked to tell entertaining stories. And
entertain us he did. Now I realize why Jerry was so
bothered by Charlie-Charlie just made shit up at
times.




> 
> 




 

Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ron Dector: A Prison of the Mind, Sthapatya Veda

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> It just shows how far you will go to perpetuate lies, create  
> diversions and foster deception.

Finally Vaj throws in a few words of wisdom about his motifs

[FairfieldLife] Re: Lutes' account of MMY's early days

[Richard J. Williams]

> > http://www.maharishiphotos.com/mem2a.html
> >
Curtis wrote: 
> Me: In his taped account he came to see Guru Dev 
> in a house at night for the first time and caught 
> a "flashy glimpse" when a car headlight illuminated 
> his face.  There was no procession.
>
For someone who makes TMO status claims you don't seem 
to be able make much sense. Obviously Marshy knew who 
Guru Dev was and had an introduction to be in his room. 
Are you thinking that Marshy just happened to be in the 
upstairs room by coincidence when he saw Guru Dev?

According to the official account, Raj Varma had been 
a devotee of Guru Dev for many years before Marshy 
actually met Guru Dev. Lots of people, including Marshy, 
probably saw Guru Dev in various processions over the 
years. However, the first time Marshy actually met Guru 
Dev face-to-face was in the upstairs room at the time 
of the flashing headlights.
 
> Me:  So is his obvious connection with his family 
> in the indian movement a departure from his vows?  
>
Anyone can be a monk, but only Sannyasins are required 
to abstain from maintaining attachment to their ancestral 
family. A Yogi, on the other hand, whether a monk or not, 
is free to maintain any relationships he pleases. For 
example, Ramakrishna was a monk but he maintained a 
relationship with wife until he passed away. The historical 
Buddha was a monk, but he maintained a relationship with 
his ancestral family, even ordaining his own son and 
wife into the order. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Women in Art

[larry.potter]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is the most spectacularly well-done, most beautiful, most 
> imaginative, most uplifting video I've ever seen.
> 
> YouTube:
> http://tinyurl.com/2r73ay
>


i *saw* one woman that has many faces; no wonder i love them all.   ;)

lovely.

[FairfieldLife] China's fast growing industry

[Jason Spock]

 
   
http://www.usembassy-china.org.cn/sandt/sex-industry.html
  A Close Look at China's "Sex Industry"  [related link:   Red Light District a 
book on prostitution in China] 
   
  by Zhong Wei  (Lianhe Zaobao -- Singapore October 2, 2000)   Summary:  
There isn't very much reliable data about China's sex trade. For lack of good 
data, let's take a look at data released on anti vice campaigns since 1999. 
Take Beijing, for example. Two anti vice campaigns in Beijing during 1999 
involved enforcement actions at 6000 hair salons, baths, and other 
establishments were vice is easily concealed. This July Beijing police arrested 
4101 gamblers, and 1866 establishments in violation of vice laws. Each large 
sex establishment can house 100 prostitutes while a hair salon might have ten 
prostitutes. One can estimate from this that Beijing has at least 200,000 - 
300,000 prostitutes.  Another example is Fuzhou. During a five days in 
July, 13,000 sexual companions were arrested and 5604 establishments were found 
in violation. Fuzhou seems to be in a worse situation than Beijing, so perhaps 
there are 100,000 prostitutes in Fuzhou.   Guangzhou and Shenzhen, as
 China's first windows to open to the Western world got an early start so the 
proliferation of prostitution there is even more astonishing.  There, 
prostitution is closely tied to organized crime, corrupt local officials, and 
underground vice marketing organizations that use hotels, places of 
entertainment and other semi-public locaux to provide sexual services.   
Jiangsu Province: in Hangzhou City, at just one establishment, the Xunmeng 
Gewuting [Searching for Dreams Dance Hall] three or four hundred prostitutes 
and their clients congregate. In that region there is a big demand for 
prostitutes so that in Wuning City a "prostitute wholesaling center" appeared.  
  In Yining City alone, there are 25 of these establishments and 40 
underground exchanges.  There prostitutes wait for a boss from a sexual 
services center to come and take them away. Business is good.   In Wuhan, 
the call girl service has even developed to the point of needing a work permit. 
In Guangzhou to
 the city of Dongwan, there are many apartments where merchants from Hong Kong 
and Taiwan live -- the apartments rent girls to them. In Taiyuan, Shanxi 
Province, there are nearly 5000 registered dance halls and after investigation 
another 3000 turned up. Taiyuan may well be the world's prostitution capital -- 
just counting the "girls" working at the over twenty large "dance hall cities" 
and 60 sauna establishments, there are nearly 100,000 prostitutes. During the 
1997 floods, many top officials were paying attention to the famous courtesan 
Chen Li...  In Jiangsu Province, Danyang district, prostitutes are known 
for stopping diners and trucks on the roads to offer their services. In Kunming 
and other places, prostitution "services" have developed to the point of 
vehicles with beds.  Prostitutes are people living on the edge, struggling 
for existence. If we estimate that 20 million prostitutes earn 25,000 RMB 
annually, that comes to 500 billion RMB or is 6 percent of
 the PRC GDP.  More over,  China's "new left" economist Yang Fan estimates that 
half of the prostitutes income goes to consumption, so that represents 
consumption of 250 Billion RMB. Prostitutes need quite a lot of equipment: 
beepers, cell phones, cabs, apartments or rooms in homes, expensive clothes and 
fine cosmetics and even bodyguards, pharmaceuticals.. so the sex industry may 
well move the economy along with an annual level of consumption of 1 trillion 
RMB.  The "sex industry" is certainly a significant part of the Chinese 
economy. When we consider that the Chinese GDP in 1998 and 1999 was 7.8 
trillion RMB and 8.3 trillion RMB, the contribution of the "sex industry" to 
the GDP comes in at about 12.1 - 12.8 percent. Thus it is not moonshine to talk 
about the economic importance of the "sex industry". The economist Yang Fan 
even estimates that with the implementation of the "Regulations on the 
Management of Places of Entertainment" issued by the State Council during
 the latter half of 1999, the Chinese GDP dropped by one percent. 
   How did China's sex industry get to be so big? Over the past two 
decades, economic changes have been too big and have come to fast. Morals have 
been changing and the population pressure is more and more apparent. When 
everybody was poor, being rich was seen as evil.  The words "let a few get rich 
first" was a clever formula, but it didn't say just how this was to be done. Or 
which people in which areas in which classes could get rich first. As the old 
house collapses, some time is needed for the construction of new values and the 
rule of law. The combination of the traditional worship of power with the new 
worship of money created a disaster. Little could be done about it. Some relied 
on power to get money. Some relied on

[FairfieldLife] Re: Request to Rick to burn my months posts for Ron Paul

[boo_lives]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason Spock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  
>
>   I think Nixon scrapped the 'Gold Standard' in 1971.   
>
>   There was also an outward flight of Dollars as it was adopted
as the Global Reserve Currency in the early 70's.  Billions of ' float
dollars' circulated in the world economy never reaching the American
shores...!!
>
>The value of the US dollar is also artificialy high. 
Churchill made the same mistake which almost killed off the Brit
manufacturing.
>
>The world has to revert back to the ' Gold standard' for a
more stable economy.  Silver, Platinum and Niobium can be used along
with Gold.
>
>I wonder what ' standard' TM-org uses to print Raam..!!
>
>http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm
> 
> off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 03:30:30 -
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Request to Rick to burn my months posts
for Ron Paul
> 
>
>   Your chances of finding on interenet are as good as mine, but it is 
> a wide platform from the things I have seen, so maybe if you ask 
> specifics, I could answer them.
> 
> Regarding your federal reserve question.
> 
> I don't understand Ron Paul's exact thinking on this, so if anyone 
> else does let me know, but I know he is going in the right direction.
> 
> But do you know what the Federal Reserve actually is? 
> Answer: Nothing. 
> 
> It does not exist, except on paper, so abolishing it will make no 
> difference whatsoever, except cut out the middle man. The 
> governement borrows money, through the Federal Reserve from the 
> banks (based on the LAW that the banks are allowed to lend every 
> dollar they own, one hundred times ! ! ! )
> 
> That means if I was a bank, and had 100,000,000 dollars, I could 
> lend 10,000,000,000. 
> 
> The Government gets its debt from Federal Reserve which just funnels 
> ficticious money from the banks.

The Fed has nothing to do directly with the issuing of debt by the
gov't.  The gov't raises funds to finance its deficit by selling bonds
to the public.  It's true that in an IPO of treasury debt that debt is
first bought by a select group of bank/dealers, who then sell the debt
to the public. The Fed does buy and sell treasuries for its own
account as a way of influencing the money supply, which is a whole
other complex topic.  The last time I checked the Fed held about 8% of
the US debt I believe.  Banks of course can borrow money from the Fed
at the discount rate of interest and banks can use that borrowed money
as needed, and in that sense the Fed creates money out of nothing by
loaning to solvent banks, but the Fed has nothing to do with providing
money directly to the US Treasury to pay its bills.

I agree there is a built in bias in a fiat currency society for govts
to issue debt which has a way of artificially expanding the money
supply and giving the illusion of economic growth, but most of the
conspiracy books on the Fed that I've read don't understand some
really basic rules about how the Fed and US Treasury interact.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Women in Art

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is the most spectacularly well-done, most beautiful, most 
> imaginative, most uplifting video I've ever seen.
> 
> YouTube:
> http://tinyurl.com/2r73ay
>
Thanks for sharing this- it is an amazing piece and must have taken 
quite a while to compile. I was trying to figure out if the sequence 
was purely historical. Close but probably not exactly. Really liked 
it!:-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: rfk anniversary

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "boo_lives" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> today is the 39th anniversary of the assassination of RFK.  this
> extemporaneous talk of his on the evening of the assassination of
> martin luther king is worth watching and remembering.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gigsZH5HlJA

If you enjoy this, I think you would enjoy
Emilio Estevez's film "Bobby" even more. It's
a true labor of love; he wrote it and directed
it and had to mortgage his own house to get it
made. The fervor he brought to the project may
be inferred from the list of people who (as I
hear it) either worked for scale or donated 
their time to be in the film:

Harry Belafonte
Laurence Fishburne
Heather Graham
Anthony Hopkins
Helen Hunt
Ashton Kutcher
Shia LaBeouf
Lindsay Lohan
William H. Macy
Demi Moore
Martin Sheen
Christian Slater
Sharon Stone
Elijah Wood

[FairfieldLife] rfk anniversary

[boo_lives]

today is the 39th anniversary of the assassination of RFK.  this
extemporaneous talk of his on the evening of the assassination of
martin luther king is worth watching and remembering.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gigsZH5HlJA

[FairfieldLife] Re: Request to Rick to burn my months posts for Ron Paul

[Jason Spock]

 
   
  I think Nixon scrapped the 'Gold Standard' in 1971.   
   
  There was also an outward flight of Dollars as it was adopted as the 
Global Reserve Currency in the early 70's.  Billions of ' float dollars' 
circulated in the world economy never reaching the American shores...!!
   
   The value of the US dollar is also artificialy high.  Churchill made the 
same mistake which almost killed off the Brit manufacturing.
   
   The world has to revert back to the ' Gold standard' for a more stable 
economy.  Silver, Platinum and Niobium can be used along with Gold.
   
   I wonder what ' standard' TM-org uses to print Raam..!!
   
   http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm

off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 03:30:30 -
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Request to Rick to burn my months posts for Ron 
Paul

   
  Your chances of finding on interenet are as good as mine, but it is 
a wide platform from the things I have seen, so maybe if you ask 
specifics, I could answer them.

Regarding your federal reserve question.

I don't understand Ron Paul's exact thinking on this, so if anyone 
else does let me know, but I know he is going in the right direction.

But do you know what the Federal Reserve actually is? 
Answer: Nothing. 

It does not exist, except on paper, so abolishing it will make no 
difference whatsoever, except cut out the middle man. The 
governement borrows money, through the Federal Reserve from the 
banks (based on the LAW that the banks are allowed to lend every 
dollar they own, one hundred times ! ! ! )

That means if I was a bank, and had 100,000,000 dollars, I could 
lend 10,000,000,000. 

The Government gets its debt from Federal Reserve which just funnels 
ficticious money from the banks.

There is no "federal reserves". 

The banks are able to get away with this because the biggest feuler 
of the US economy is the Military Industrial Complex (Haliburton et 
al). Without this input the US economy would flounder. Haliburton, a 
US company, has its head offices in the TAX HAVEN Cayman Islands. 
Its head office is a tiny office with a phone and answering machine 
which does nothing. No people. Nothing. 

Do you still want to keep the ficticious Federal Reserve which has 
no money? Not since your founding fathers started printing British 
pounds sterling money illegally has there been such a scam.

OffWorld

   

   
-
You snooze, you lose. Get messages ASAP with AutoCheck
 in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta. 

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Lutes' account of MMY's early days

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Duveyoung
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 12:29 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Lutes' account of MMY's early days

 

I saw Charlie Lutes in California 30 years ago, and he said, "In the
next year or two, they'll find Christ's rocket ship inside one of the
pyramids." 

20 years later I saw him in one of his last lectures in Iowa City
(Cedar Rapids?) and I asked him about that rocket and why it hadn't
been found yet.

He said, "I never said any such thing."

I quizzed him a bit more about aliens coming to earth and that we
should go with the good looking ones -- not the lizard people.

Again, "I never said anything about those subjects."

That was the end of any fascination I had with Charlie Lutes.

I always found the tension between SRM and the mainstream TM movement
interesting. I was in the latter camp, although I went to see Charlie a few
times. Charlie devotees believed he was expounding truths cognized or
imparted to him by the White Brotherhood, and that he was undoubtedly in a
higher state of consciousness because he had been meditating 15 years, or
whatever. I always figured he was picking up most of his stuff by reading
esoteric books. But I found him amusing, like the Weekly World News:
http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Women in Art

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is the most spectacularly well-done, most beautiful, most 
> imaginative, most uplifting video I've ever seen.
> 
> YouTube:
> http://tinyurl.com/2r73ay

 WOW...was that Paris Hilton in that last morph? That great paragon of
virtue and chastity that all woman (and drunk men) admire and revere?
American Culture..ain't it great!

[FairfieldLife] Women in Art

[authfriend]

This is the most spectacularly well-done, most beautiful, most 
imaginative, most uplifting video I've ever seen.

YouTube:
http://tinyurl.com/2r73ay

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Request to Rick to burn my months posts for Ron Paul

[Bhairitu]

shempmcgurk wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
>   
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>> 
>>> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>>>   
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> 
>>> On Behalf Of off_world_beings
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 6:55 PM
>>> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>>> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Request to Rick to burn my months posts 
>>>   
> for Ron
>   
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> Just kidding about burning the months posts Rick. Just making a 
>>>   
> point 
>   
>>> about Ron Paul.
>>>
>>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=HA9EHrH7NKQ
>>>
>>> from what little I know about him, I agree with you. I'd vote for
>>>   
>> him over
>> 
>>> some Democrats. Very cool dude.
>>>   
>>  This is not directed at you Rick, (though if the shoe fits at least
>> one foot ...) but more to others I see lauding this guy. He is
>> interesting. 
>>
>> But for those who cry and moan and belittle the Bush tax cuts -- and
>> intents (which turned out to be words only) for constraints 
>> on goverment spending -- and then to applaud Paul -- is the height 
>> 
> of
>   
>> irony. Its almost surreal. 
>>
>> Paul doesn't want to cut taxes -- he wants to TOTALLY eliminate 
>> 
> income
>   
>> taxes. And to do that, he would cut government spending by a third.
>> Given that  entitlements and debt service take up a large portion of
>> the budget, this means most discretionary funding would be cut. Like
>> for education, energy policy, expanded health care, science resarch,
>> etc. Are you and others who like Paul really behind these ideas? Are
>> you in favor of such policies?
>>
>> Personally I am not arguing against these polices, being some what
>> towards rational libertarianism on the political scale. I am not
>> advocating them, but I would be interested in some slices of what he
>> suggests. But his view are SO counter to what appear to be the
>> mainstream political thinking in this group, I am laughingly 
>> 
> surprised
>   
>> that those who support Dennis K on one hand, can clap for ron paul a
>> second later.
>>
>> 
>
> Finally some common sense on this subject.
>
> This is precisely what I was trying to tell other_worldlyness.
The reason Ron Paul appeals to some liberals is that both liberals and 
constitutional conservatives overlap on an fundamental issue: 
preservation of the Constitution and The Bill of Rights.  As long as you 
preserve these then both groups can continue to have a voice in this 
country.
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Lutes' account of MMY's early days

[BillyG.]

Well, I've got to admit, that over the 20+ years I heard Charlie speak
I did hear a few strange things, but then I think you have to realize
this Eastern 'religion' thing was new to all of us, and him at the time.

One thing struck me as odd when he said in 10 or X years (don't
remember exact time) all the prisoners would just 'miraculously'
disappear from the prisons, apparently to make way for the 'new age'.

Finally toward the very end I quit going due to the small group of
'groupies' that had 'worshiped' him, it gave me the creeps, according
to them he was CC and higher.  I never looked at him that way, he
enriched my life with his esoteric knowledge he gleaned from Max
Heindel, Manly P. Hall and a few others.

Also Charlie had character and integrity...yeah, perhaps he
exaggerated a little but I never took those things seriously. Overall
he was a great spiritual mentor and the closest thing to a personal
guru I've ever had!  BillyG.

P.S. One Friday night he said Lord Maitreya had been reborn on earth,
a few nights later he said his 'reliable' source had been 'duped' by a
spirit...:-)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason Spock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  
>
> This is what three TM-tutors in the indian TM-org told me.
>
> TM was formulated about Two thousand years before the Advent
of Adi Sankara..!!  TM is more than four thousand years old..!!
>
> GuruDev Bramananda Sarasvati taught TM to Maharishi,,,
almost literaly giving it to him on a Silver plate..!!
>
>  Maharishi did NOT travel by foot.  People sponsored his
trips which he went by trains and buses.
> 
> CurtisDeltaBlues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:48:53 -
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Lutes' account of MMY's early days
> 
>
>   Thanks for posting this Bob. There is a contradictions in his account
> from MMY's own account. Since he was so close to MMY it is
> interesting that he would tell a different story. I am beginning to
> wonder if it is MMY who told different versions to different people. 
> But for his official version that is played repeatedly on his courses,
> we are all familiar with that one so my pointing out the difference
> certainly wont bring a flurry of resistance, it will just be an
> obvious fact that we can work out together...
> 
> C: A few years before he became Shankaracharya, the old sage made one
> of his rare ventures out of the wilderness. It was at this time that
> Maharishi saw him in a procession and the experience was something
> like spiritual love at first sight. Maharishi, a twenty-year- old
> student, felt an overwhelming desire to be near and serve the great
> master.
> 
> Me: In his taped account he came to see Guru Dev in a house at night
> for the first time and caught a "flashy glimpse" when a car headlight
> illuminated his face. There was no procession.
> 
> C: He sought out the Guru Dev who told him to first finish his
> education and then come. Two years later, having earned his degree,
> Maharishi headed for the monastery of Jyotir Math in the Himalayan
> religious center of Badrinath, there to devote his life to the Guru
> Dev, "to serve at the feet of my master." And this he did for thirteen
> years until the swami passed on.
> 
> Over the years, Maharishi would be asked hundreds of times to talk
> about his past. Reporters were especially curious. But his answer was
> always the same: "Once you take the vows of the monk, past life is
> forgotten."
> 
> He told me long ago that when you become a bramachari, or monk, you no
> longer relate to your family or to any of your background.
> 
> Me: So is his obvious connection with his family in the indian
> movement a departure from his vows? He set them up with sweet jobs,
> that is definitely relating to them, in fact showing them favoritism.
> If in fact they are actually getting big bank accounts from the
> movement's finances, this would also seem to contradict this vow
> business. So either Charlie is misquoting him or he is not following
> his own standards.
> 
> C: From time to time, over the ages, this special technique is brought
> back into focus. The Guru Dev chose Maharishi to do it now. Where the
> Guru Dev acquired the knowledge isn't known; whether it was given to
> him by his own guru many, many years ago, or whether it came to him
> from his attunement with the Infinite. The Guru Dev was a master of
> masters, a master of all paths. His comprehension was universal.
> 
> What Maharishi had inherited was the quintessence of Transcendental
> Meditation. It was like a magnificent raw diamond requiring the skill
> of an expert cutter and polisher. Maharishi now had to structure the
> knowledge and make it workable. What was the best way to teach it?
> What were the modes of practicing it? How could it be made appealing
> to the masses?
> 
> None of the other monks or holy men could help him. He alone had
> received the knowledge from the Gur

[FairfieldLife] Re: Lutes' account of MMY's early days

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I saw Charlie Lutes in California 30 years ago, and he said, "In 
the
> next year or two, they'll find Christ's rocket ship inside one of 
the
> pyramids."  
> 
> 20 years later I saw him in one of his last lectures in Iowa City
> (Cedar Rapids?) and I asked him about that rocket and why it hadn't
> been found yet.
> 
> He said, "I never said any such thing."
> 
> I quizzed him a bit more about aliens coming to earth and that we
> should go with the good looking ones -- not the lizard people.
> 
> Again, "I never said anything about those subjects."
> 
> That was the end of any fascination I had with Charlie Lutes.
> 
> Edg
> 
I heard someone near the end of his talk series stabbed him over 
some remark about Christ. perhaps he was trying to tone it down. Or 
maybe he just lied. :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] FF Jobs cut

[Vaj]

On Jun 6, 2007, at 1:25 PM, Peter wrote:



--- Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> dhamiltony2k5 wrote:
> > Word on the street is that Earl Kaplan's old
> business in FF that he
> > sold is shifting jobs to Chicago, is not re-hiring
> positions, & down-
> > sizing in FF. "Alot of the third floor buying is
> empty now". It has
> > been a good white collar employer paying decent
> money to workers and
> > flexible with people.
> >
> >
> >
> But everyone there is a yogi. They don't need
> anything but a dhoti and
> a bedroll. :)

You forgot the tongue scraper



And the chillum. :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Lutes' account of MMY's early days

[Jason Spock]

 
   
This is what three TM-tutors in the indian TM-org told me.
   
TM was formulated about Two thousand years before the Advent of Adi 
Sankara..!!  TM is more than four thousand years old..!!
   
GuruDev Bramananda Sarasvati taught TM to Maharishi,,, almost literaly 
giving it to him on a Silver plate..!!
   
 Maharishi did NOT travel by foot.  People sponsored his trips which he 
went by trains and buses.

CurtisDeltaBlues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:48:53 -
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Lutes' account of MMY's early days

   
  Thanks for posting this Bob. There is a contradictions in his account
from MMY's own account. Since he was so close to MMY it is
interesting that he would tell a different story. I am beginning to
wonder if it is MMY who told different versions to different people. 
But for his official version that is played repeatedly on his courses,
we are all familiar with that one so my pointing out the difference
certainly wont bring a flurry of resistance, it will just be an
obvious fact that we can work out together...

C: A few years before he became Shankaracharya, the old sage made one
of his rare ventures out of the wilderness. It was at this time that
Maharishi saw him in a procession and the experience was something
like spiritual love at first sight. Maharishi, a twenty-year- old
student, felt an overwhelming desire to be near and serve the great
master.

Me: In his taped account he came to see Guru Dev in a house at night
for the first time and caught a "flashy glimpse" when a car headlight
illuminated his face. There was no procession.

C: He sought out the Guru Dev who told him to first finish his
education and then come. Two years later, having earned his degree,
Maharishi headed for the monastery of Jyotir Math in the Himalayan
religious center of Badrinath, there to devote his life to the Guru
Dev, "to serve at the feet of my master." And this he did for thirteen
years until the swami passed on.

Over the years, Maharishi would be asked hundreds of times to talk
about his past. Reporters were especially curious. But his answer was
always the same: "Once you take the vows of the monk, past life is
forgotten."

He told me long ago that when you become a bramachari, or monk, you no
longer relate to your family or to any of your background.

Me: So is his obvious connection with his family in the indian
movement a departure from his vows? He set them up with sweet jobs,
that is definitely relating to them, in fact showing them favoritism.
If in fact they are actually getting big bank accounts from the
movement's finances, this would also seem to contradict this vow
business. So either Charlie is misquoting him or he is not following
his own standards.

C: From time to time, over the ages, this special technique is brought
back into focus. The Guru Dev chose Maharishi to do it now. Where the
Guru Dev acquired the knowledge isn't known; whether it was given to
him by his own guru many, many years ago, or whether it came to him
from his attunement with the Infinite. The Guru Dev was a master of
masters, a master of all paths. His comprehension was universal.

What Maharishi had inherited was the quintessence of Transcendental
Meditation. It was like a magnificent raw diamond requiring the skill
of an expert cutter and polisher. Maharishi now had to structure the
knowledge and make it workable. What was the best way to teach it?
What were the modes of practicing it? How could it be made appealing
to the masses?

None of the other monks or holy men could help him. He alone had
received the knowledge from the Guru Dev. (snip)

Me: Here Charlie seems to be trying to share credit for TM between MMY
and Guru Dev. Since the simple japa style meditation is so common in
India I don't really get this claim. (I know the magic effortless
nature of the practice story) The mantras are not meaningless sounds
to Indians so for them this aspect of how it is presented in the West
is absent. So it seems a bit dubious that TM is so unique. Having
spent a short amount of time after getting out of TM practicing some
other versions I am not so sure this claim of uniqueness is valid. I
know many others here have much more experience with different forms
of meditation so I will leave this topic to the experts.

C: He had traveled more than 1,500 miles, most of that distance on foot.

Me: Puleeze! Monks get free rides on Indian trains. MMY super
hiker! Guru Dev super camper! How did such outdoor types end up with
the pasty faced crew that are their most devoted followers?
   
   

   
-
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, 
photos & more. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Lutes' account of MMY's early days

[Vaj]

On Jun 6, 2007, at 1:28 PM, Duveyoung wrote:


I saw Charlie Lutes in California 30 years ago, and he said, "In the
next year or two, they'll find Christ's rocket ship inside one of the
pyramids."

20 years later I saw him in one of his last lectures in Iowa City
(Cedar Rapids?) and I asked him about that rocket and why it hadn't
been found yet.

He said, "I never said any such thing."

I quizzed him a bit more about aliens coming to earth and that we
should go with the good looking ones -- not the lizard people.

Again, "I never said anything about those subjects."

That was the end of any fascination I had with Charlie Lutes.



I always took Charlie as kind of the TMO version of Madame Blavatsky  
and Theosophy, a kind of romanticized fiction of TM and it's origins:  
very colorful, but far from true.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Lutes' account of MMY's early days

[Duveyoung]

I saw Charlie Lutes in California 30 years ago, and he said, "In the
next year or two, they'll find Christ's rocket ship inside one of the
pyramids."  

20 years later I saw him in one of his last lectures in Iowa City
(Cedar Rapids?) and I asked him about that rocket and why it hadn't
been found yet.

He said, "I never said any such thing."

I quizzed him a bit more about aliens coming to earth and that we
should go with the good looking ones -- not the lizard people.

Again, "I never said anything about those subjects."

That was the end of any fascination I had with Charlie Lutes.

Edg

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> i love how Charlie always but the "the" in front of
> Guru Dev to make it a noun!
>  
> --- curtisdeltablues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > http://www.maharishiphotos.com/mem2a.html
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks for posting this Bob.  There is a
> > contradictions in his account
> > from MMY's own account.  Since he was so close to
> > MMY it is
> > interesting that he would tell a different story.  I
> > am beginning to
> > wonder if it is MMY who told different versions to
> > different people. 
> > But for his official version that is played
> > repeatedly on his courses,
> > we are all familiar with that one so my pointing out
> > the difference
> > certainly wont bring a flurry of resistance, it will
> > just be an
> > obvious fact that we can work out together...
> > 
> > C: A few years before he became Shankaracharya, the
> > old sage made one
> > of his rare ventures out of the wilderness. It was
> > at this time that
> > Maharishi saw him in a procession and the experience
> > was something
> > like spiritual love at first sight. Maharishi, a
> > twenty-year-old
> > student, felt an overwhelming desire to be near and
> > serve the great
> > master.
> > 
> > Me: In his taped account he came to see Guru Dev in
> > a house at night
> > for the first time and caught a "flashy glimpse"
> > when a car headlight
> > illuminated his face.  There was no procession.
> > 
> > C: He sought out the Guru Dev who told him to first
> > finish his
> > education and then come. Two years later, having
> > earned his degree,
> > Maharishi headed for the monastery of Jyotir Math in
> > the Himalayan
> > religious center of Badrinath, there to devote his
> > life to the Guru
> > Dev, "to serve at the feet of my master." And this
> > he did for thirteen
> > years until the swami passed on.
> > 
> > Over the years, Maharishi would be asked hundreds of
> > times to talk
> > about his past. Reporters were especially curious.
> > But his answer was
> > always the same: "Once you take the vows of the
> > monk, past life is
> > forgotten."
> > 
> > He told me long ago that when you become a
> > bramachari, or monk, you no
> > longer relate to your family or to any of your
> > background.
> > 
> > Me:  So is his obvious connection with his family in
> > the indian
> > movement a departure from his vows?  He set them up
> > with sweet jobs,
> > that is definitely relating to them, in fact 
> > showing them favoritism.
> >   If in fact they are actually getting big bank
> > accounts from the
> > movement's finances, this would also seem to
> > contradict this vow
> > business.  So either Charlie is misquoting him or he
> > is not following
> > his own standards.
> > 
> > C: From time to time, over the ages, this special
> > technique is brought
> > back into focus. The Guru Dev chose Maharishi to do
> > it now. Where the
> > Guru Dev acquired the knowledge isn't known; whether
> > it was given to
> > him by his own guru many, many years ago, or whether
> > it came to him
> > from his attunement with the Infinite. The Guru Dev
> > was a master of
> > masters, a master of all paths. His comprehension
> > was universal.
> > 
> > What Maharishi had inherited was the quintessence of
> > Transcendental
> > Meditation. It was like a magnificent raw diamond
> > requiring the skill
> > of an expert cutter and polisher. Maharishi now had
> > to structure the
> > knowledge and make it workable. What was the best
> > way to teach it?
> > What were the modes of practicing it? How could it
> > be made appealing
> > to the masses?
> > 
> > None of the other monks or holy men could help him.
> > He alone had
> > received the knowledge from the Guru Dev. (snip)
> > 
> > Me: Here Charlie seems to be trying to share credit
> > for TM between MMY
> > and Guru Dev.  Since the simple japa style
> > meditation is so common in
> > India I don't really get this claim.  (I know the
> > magic effortless
> > nature of the practice story)  The mantras are not
> > meaningless sounds
> > to Indians so for them this aspect of how it is
> > presented in the West
> > is absent.  So it seems a bit dubious that TM is so
> > unique.  Having
> > spent a short amount of time after getting out of TM
> > practicing some
> > other vers

Re: [FairfieldLife] FF Jobs cut

[Peter]

--- Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> dhamiltony2k5 wrote:
> > Word on the street is that Earl Kaplan's old
> business in FF that he 
> > sold is shifting jobs to Chicago, is not re-hiring
> positions, & down-
> > sizing in FF.  "Alot of the third floor buying is
> empty now".  It has 
> > been a good white collar employer paying decent
> money to workers and 
> > flexible with people.
> >
> >
> >   
> But everyone there is a yogi.  They don't need
> anything but a dhoti and
> a bedroll.  :)

You forgot the tongue scraper




> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To subscribe, send a message to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Or go to: 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> and click 'Join This Group!' 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 



 

The fish are biting. 
Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php

[FairfieldLife] "Clap on, clap off" (was Re: Ron Dector: A Prison of the Mind, Sthapatya Veda)

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't even see what you're on about, 
> unless it's Just Another Attempt To Make Barry Seem 
> Stupid Or Without Values.

Please don't get so defensive. Just asking a question and trying to 
get an answer. :-)
 
PS I thought this forum was all about clarifying spiritual topics. 
That is honestly all I am trying to do. As to my statement that 
Maharishi is enlightened as an undisputed fact, yes, it still holds, 
but just for me. At the time you wanted me to admit that I couldn't 
see it any other way, and that somehow that is a failing on my part. I 
agree that I couldn't, and can't. Sort of goes to new morning's 
earlier comment about whether a black cat is black or white. You can 
see Maharishi as the most ignorant fool. I am OK with that, though it 
won't change my perception of him as enlightened, and privately and 
personally I think it is your loss to not see that. And that and $100 
will buy you a cup of coffee at someplace very fancy.:-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Waiting for the bankruptcy of Benefon, Inc..., part 1

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> 
> Bhoja's comment on YS III 42:
> 
> kaayaH paañcabhautikaM shariiraM tathaakaashenaavakaashadaayakena
> yaH saMbandhastatra saMyamaM vidhaaya laghuni tulaadau(?)
> samaapattiM tanmayiibhaavalakSaNaaM ca vidhaaya praaptaatilaghubhaavo
> yogii prathamaM yathaaruci *jale* saMcaran kramenorNanaabhatantu 
**jaalena**
> saMcaramaaNa ***aadityarashmibhish***ca viharanyatheSTam 
aakaashena gacchati|
> 

I'm most probably reading too much into this,
but I recently paid attention to the fact, that
for "walking on water" (*jale* saMcaran), Bhoja
uses locative singular case, but for the rest of
them "kramas(?)" he uses instrumental singular or plural:
"**jaalena** saMcaramaaNaH" (moving [or whatever verb
that means movement] with[?] a [spider's] web),
***aaditya-rashmibhiH*** viharan ("moving" with[?]
the rays of the Sun: instr. pl.), aakaashena
gacchati ([s/he]goes with[?] akaasha). 

Note, that the only difference between 'water'(jala) and
'net' (jaala) is the length of the first vowel.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Lutes' account of MMY's early days

[Peter]

i love how Charlie always but the "the" in front of
Guru Dev to make it a noun!
 
--- curtisdeltablues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > http://www.maharishiphotos.com/mem2a.html
> >
> 
> 
> Thanks for posting this Bob.  There is a
> contradictions in his account
> from MMY's own account.  Since he was so close to
> MMY it is
> interesting that he would tell a different story.  I
> am beginning to
> wonder if it is MMY who told different versions to
> different people. 
> But for his official version that is played
> repeatedly on his courses,
> we are all familiar with that one so my pointing out
> the difference
> certainly wont bring a flurry of resistance, it will
> just be an
> obvious fact that we can work out together...
> 
> C: A few years before he became Shankaracharya, the
> old sage made one
> of his rare ventures out of the wilderness. It was
> at this time that
> Maharishi saw him in a procession and the experience
> was something
> like spiritual love at first sight. Maharishi, a
> twenty-year-old
> student, felt an overwhelming desire to be near and
> serve the great
> master.
> 
> Me: In his taped account he came to see Guru Dev in
> a house at night
> for the first time and caught a "flashy glimpse"
> when a car headlight
> illuminated his face.  There was no procession.
> 
> C: He sought out the Guru Dev who told him to first
> finish his
> education and then come. Two years later, having
> earned his degree,
> Maharishi headed for the monastery of Jyotir Math in
> the Himalayan
> religious center of Badrinath, there to devote his
> life to the Guru
> Dev, "to serve at the feet of my master." And this
> he did for thirteen
> years until the swami passed on.
> 
> Over the years, Maharishi would be asked hundreds of
> times to talk
> about his past. Reporters were especially curious.
> But his answer was
> always the same: "Once you take the vows of the
> monk, past life is
> forgotten."
> 
> He told me long ago that when you become a
> bramachari, or monk, you no
> longer relate to your family or to any of your
> background.
> 
> Me:  So is his obvious connection with his family in
> the indian
> movement a departure from his vows?  He set them up
> with sweet jobs,
> that is definitely relating to them, in fact 
> showing them favoritism.
>   If in fact they are actually getting big bank
> accounts from the
> movement's finances, this would also seem to
> contradict this vow
> business.  So either Charlie is misquoting him or he
> is not following
> his own standards.
> 
> C: From time to time, over the ages, this special
> technique is brought
> back into focus. The Guru Dev chose Maharishi to do
> it now. Where the
> Guru Dev acquired the knowledge isn't known; whether
> it was given to
> him by his own guru many, many years ago, or whether
> it came to him
> from his attunement with the Infinite. The Guru Dev
> was a master of
> masters, a master of all paths. His comprehension
> was universal.
> 
> What Maharishi had inherited was the quintessence of
> Transcendental
> Meditation. It was like a magnificent raw diamond
> requiring the skill
> of an expert cutter and polisher. Maharishi now had
> to structure the
> knowledge and make it workable. What was the best
> way to teach it?
> What were the modes of practicing it? How could it
> be made appealing
> to the masses?
> 
> None of the other monks or holy men could help him.
> He alone had
> received the knowledge from the Guru Dev. (snip)
> 
> Me: Here Charlie seems to be trying to share credit
> for TM between MMY
> and Guru Dev.  Since the simple japa style
> meditation is so common in
> India I don't really get this claim.  (I know the
> magic effortless
> nature of the practice story)  The mantras are not
> meaningless sounds
> to Indians so for them this aspect of how it is
> presented in the West
> is absent.  So it seems a bit dubious that TM is so
> unique.  Having
> spent a short amount of time after getting out of TM
> practicing some
> other versions I am not so sure this claim of
> uniqueness is valid.  I
> know many others here have much more experience with
> different forms
> of meditation so I will leave this topic to the
> experts.
> 
> C: He had traveled more than 1,500 miles, most of
> that distance on foot.
> 
> Me: Puleeze!  Monks get free rides on Indian
> trains.  MMY super
> hiker!  Guru Dev super camper!  How did such outdoor
> types end up with
> the pasty faced crew that are their most devoted
> followers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To subscribe, send a message to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Or go to: 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> and click 'Join This Group!' 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 



 

Don't get soaked.  Take a quick peak at the forecast
with the Yahoo! Search weath

Re: [FairfieldLife] FF Jobs cut

[Bhairitu]

dhamiltony2k5 wrote:
> Word on the street is that Earl Kaplan's old business in FF that he 
> sold is shifting jobs to Chicago, is not re-hiring positions, & down-
> sizing in FF.  "Alot of the third floor buying is empty now".  It has 
> been a good white collar employer paying decent money to workers and 
> flexible with people.
>
>
>   
But everyone there is a yogi.  They don't need anything but a dhoti and
a bedroll.  :)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Lutes' account of MMY's early days

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://www.maharishiphotos.com/mem2a.html
>


Thanks for posting this Bob.  There is a contradictions in his account
from MMY's own account.  Since he was so close to MMY it is
interesting that he would tell a different story.  I am beginning to
wonder if it is MMY who told different versions to different people. 
But for his official version that is played repeatedly on his courses,
we are all familiar with that one so my pointing out the difference
certainly wont bring a flurry of resistance, it will just be an
obvious fact that we can work out together...

C: A few years before he became Shankaracharya, the old sage made one
of his rare ventures out of the wilderness. It was at this time that
Maharishi saw him in a procession and the experience was something
like spiritual love at first sight. Maharishi, a twenty-year-old
student, felt an overwhelming desire to be near and serve the great
master.

Me: In his taped account he came to see Guru Dev in a house at night
for the first time and caught a "flashy glimpse" when a car headlight
illuminated his face.  There was no procession.

C: He sought out the Guru Dev who told him to first finish his
education and then come. Two years later, having earned his degree,
Maharishi headed for the monastery of Jyotir Math in the Himalayan
religious center of Badrinath, there to devote his life to the Guru
Dev, "to serve at the feet of my master." And this he did for thirteen
years until the swami passed on.

Over the years, Maharishi would be asked hundreds of times to talk
about his past. Reporters were especially curious. But his answer was
always the same: "Once you take the vows of the monk, past life is
forgotten."

He told me long ago that when you become a bramachari, or monk, you no
longer relate to your family or to any of your background.

Me:  So is his obvious connection with his family in the indian
movement a departure from his vows?  He set them up with sweet jobs,
that is definitely relating to them, in fact  showing them favoritism.
  If in fact they are actually getting big bank accounts from the
movement's finances, this would also seem to contradict this vow
business.  So either Charlie is misquoting him or he is not following
his own standards.

C: From time to time, over the ages, this special technique is brought
back into focus. The Guru Dev chose Maharishi to do it now. Where the
Guru Dev acquired the knowledge isn't known; whether it was given to
him by his own guru many, many years ago, or whether it came to him
from his attunement with the Infinite. The Guru Dev was a master of
masters, a master of all paths. His comprehension was universal.

What Maharishi had inherited was the quintessence of Transcendental
Meditation. It was like a magnificent raw diamond requiring the skill
of an expert cutter and polisher. Maharishi now had to structure the
knowledge and make it workable. What was the best way to teach it?
What were the modes of practicing it? How could it be made appealing
to the masses?

None of the other monks or holy men could help him. He alone had
received the knowledge from the Guru Dev. (snip)

Me: Here Charlie seems to be trying to share credit for TM between MMY
and Guru Dev.  Since the simple japa style meditation is so common in
India I don't really get this claim.  (I know the magic effortless
nature of the practice story)  The mantras are not meaningless sounds
to Indians so for them this aspect of how it is presented in the West
is absent.  So it seems a bit dubious that TM is so unique.  Having
spent a short amount of time after getting out of TM practicing some
other versions I am not so sure this claim of uniqueness is valid.  I
know many others here have much more experience with different forms
of meditation so I will leave this topic to the experts.

C: He had traveled more than 1,500 miles, most of that distance on foot.

Me: Puleeze!  Monks get free rides on Indian trains.  MMY super
hiker!  Guru Dev super camper!  How did such outdoor types end up with
the pasty faced crew that are their most devoted followers?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Spirituality Paradox Contradictions Spirituality All True

[larry.potter]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
wrote:
> > > 
> > > It seems to me that the attempt to claim that some-
> > > thing is "true," and to actively get someone else
> > > to "buy into" that "truth," is an attempt to get
> > > them to *share your state of consciousness*. 
> 
> If the discussion is not mataphysical, but rather is focussed on 
the
> dynamics of the everyday word, then I disagree. If the cat is white
> and you say its black, I am not subsequently arguing against your
> state of consciousness -- (if you get the point  without going 
off
> into metaphysical realms).
>  
> > > Any appeal to others to believe something that is
> > > true only from the unenlightened waking state is,
> > > almost by definition, an appeal to these others
> > > to look at the situation *from* the POV of unenlight-
> > > ened waking state. If these others are looking at 
> > > the situation from another state of consciousness,
> > > from the POV of, say, UC, then the situation as
> > > described by someone in the state of ignorance is 
> > > *not* true, for them. 
> 
> The cat is still white. It may also be known by some to be a
> reflection  of the same omnipotence that they are a reflection of. 
But
> the cat is still white.
> 

newmorning i very much doubt that Christine Breese was referring
to any obvious, factual level cases or even to cases that basic 
common sense can determined where the truth resides.

:D





>  
> > > But the folks who feel the need to *convince* these 
> > > others that they "know" the "truth" often keep ham-
> > > mering away at the UC POV, telling it that it's 
> > > "wrong," and that they should look at things from 
> > > the "right" POV. Which in this case, of course, is 
> > > ignorance.
> > 
> > Actually, I don't recall having seen many, if any,
> > disputes of this nature here. 
> 
> I agree. I can't recall many if any, Turq, can you cite 3-4 of 
these
> discussion, My mind draws a blank.
> 
> 
> >I think the assertion
> > above is being used to lump all disputes about
> > what is true and what isn't into this category and
> > thereby stigmatize anybody who takes a stand on
> > anything as being in "ignorance," as well as to
> > excuse those who contradict themselves or get
> > their facts wrong or express an opinion that is not
> > well founded.
> 
> Some true contradictions are inevitable -- and useful -- if used 
well.
> That is far from validly concluding or infering that ALL 
contradicions
> are good.   If someone says the cat is black, when its white, 
thats a
> contradiction. One of mistaken perception. Its not profound.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Something to bear in mind when trying to claim that
> > > your POV is "true." When you make that claim, aren't 
> > > you *really* saying, "*Mine* is the POV or SOC from 
> > > which 'truth' is determined?"
>  
> 
> Since few discussions are really debating such, your point is not
> relevant to 99%+ of all dsscussions here that focus on the every 
day
> material world. If in that context if "you know, its a 
contradiction"
> is used as a trump card -- to justify poor logic, cognitive
> difficulties or incorrect "facts, then its a cop-out.
> 
> > Nope.  Depends entirely on the claim and the
> > nature of the POV.
> 
>  
> > 
> > Charles Manson is reported to have said, "If all
> > is One, nothing can be wrong."
> > 
> > That's true, but it's irrelevant, even if we
> > accept for the sake of argument that Manson was
> > in UC. To claim that it makes a difference on
> > the level of human interaction is just sophistry.
> 
> Yes.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Spirituality Paradox Contradictions Spirituality All True

[larry.potter]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "larry.potter"
>  wrote:
> >
> >  
> > Learn to accept contradictions and don't be obsessed with
> > your *truth*.
> > 
> > Christine Breese has many amazing satsangs but I thought this
> > short talk will be relevant/appreciated on this forum, many times
> > people here will find themselves in such defensive situations 
that
> > they feel they need to protect their "truth" no matter what.
> > 
> > It's worth the 7 min to listen to it,imo.
> > 
> > http://youtube.com/watch?v=MKf9CmNzpxY
> > 
> > Enjoy.
> 
> Interesting, but I also found it interesting that
> she didn't offer much justification for *why* she's
> saying what she's saying about becoming comfortable
> with contradiction. She did mention the "mental body"
> vs. the "heart," but to me that's NewAgeSpeak.
> 

yes, I've notice that term, but I'm not sure that she is speaking
as a NewAge guy, but maybe some of her audiance are such.
most of her other talks are coming from the advaita teachings,
my interpratation was that she was pointing to listen with your
intuition, aka "heart" while leaving the contradiction on the leanear
level as is, that way one can "transcend" the paradox or conflict
and find his own "truth".


> One additional point of information that can actually
> give some justification for her stance is in MMY's
> olde saying, "Knowledge is different in different
> states of consciousness." Even *within* his system
> there are paradoxes, depending upon which state of
> consciousness he is speaking about, or from. The 
> description of "reality" is different from the POV 
> of waking state, or CC, or GC, or UC. Total contra-
> dictions. But very possibly all true. 
> 
> It seems to me that the attempt to claim that some-
> thing is "true," and to actively get someone else
> to "buy into" that "truth," is an attempt to get
> them to *share your state of consciousness*. 
> 

yes, I was thinking exactly that verse when i heard her talk.

> Any appeal to others to believe something that is
> true only from the unenlightened waking state is,
> almost by definition, an appeal to these others
> to look at the situation *from* the POV of unenlight-
> ened waking state. If these others are looking at 
> the situation from another state of consciousness,
> from the POV of, say, UC, then the situation as
> described by someone in the state of ignorance is 
> *not* true, for them. 
> 
> But the folks who feel the need to *convince* these 
> others that they "know" the "truth" often keep ham-
> mering away at the UC POV, telling it that it's 
> "wrong," and that they should look at things from 
> the "right" POV. Which in this case, of course, is 
> ignorance.
> 

yes it is applicable to different levels of  consciousness,
yet it can also be expanded to the different spiritual systems,
meaning the different spiritul teachings that one finds them
to contradict each other.

> If you need an example of this, look at Rory's 
> recent post #140834. I thought that was a marvelous
> example of "stepping back" and expressing the same
> situation from a completely different POV and SOC,
> from which it looks entirely different. What *seems*
> true when looking at the situation from one POV is
> no longer true when looking at the same situation
> from another POV. 
> 
> Something to bear in mind when trying to claim that
> your POV is "true." When you make that claim, aren't 
> you *really* saying, "*Mine* is the POV or SOC from 
> which 'truth' is determined?"
>

[FairfieldLife] Posting Totals

[Rick Archer]

Turq is at 32

Judy is at 35 (done for the week)

Shemp maxxed out a few days ago.

 





Rick Archer
President 

SearchSummit
 
 1108 S. B St.
Fairfield, IA 52556-3805 


  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 


tel: 
fax: 
Skype ID:

 
 641-472-9336 
914-470-9336
Rick_Archer 




 
 Always have my
latest info

  Want a
signature like this?

 

<>

[FairfieldLife] "Clap on, clap off" (was Re: Ron Dector: A Prison of the Mind, Sthapatya Veda)

[TurquoiseB]

Jim, I want you to know from the outset that I am 
*wasting* one of my last remaining posts to deal with
this silliness, because you really are missing the
point on something, and it would be unkind of me to
allow you to keep missing it. If you choose to keep
on trying to debate it, it will be with others on 
this forum, because I'll be saving my last few posts
for something more interesting.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
> wrote:
> >
> > I think I covered all of this in my earlier reply
> > to larry.potter's posting. To claim that your beliefs
> > equate with truth, you pretty much have to be claiming
> > that your state of consciousness equates with truth.
> > To state that such-and-such belief is one of your
> > "convictions," you have to assume that you will *remain*
> > in the state of consciousness from which that belief
> > appears to be true forever. To assert that this convic-
> > tion is "true" for others, you have to declare that
> > attaining that SOC/POC (or *regressing* to that SOC/POV)
> > would be "better" for them than the SOC/POV they have
> > currently. You may be comfortable doing that. I am not.
> > End of story.
> > 
> > Those who are uncomfortable with contradictions are
> > uncomfortable with life.
> 
> It appears you have misunderstood me—I am not making the point 
> that if I believe something, others should believe it, or attempt  
> to believe it too. Not at all. 

Understood, although that has *not* been your position
consistently on this forum. I remember several instances
in which you have declared one of your *beliefs* -- such
as Maharishit's enlightenment -- to be indisputable fact.

> Rather, I am making the point that if I believe something (not 
> necessarily "forever"), and if someone contradicts my belief, I can 
> reconcile it with my own belief, as opposed to folding up and 
> declaring, "Well said". 

I didn't "fold up." I still hold my opinion. I can *also*
appreciate Rory's. You and Judy seem to be incapable of
understanding that.

But as to what you said above, who is this "I" you speak
of that has beliefs?  :-)

If it is your current small s self, doesn't the belief
that your beliefs will *endure* and be "true" tomorrow
imply that you believe you'll have the *same* small s
self tomorrow? I do not have the luxury of such an
assumption. Chances are there will be a different "I"
tomorrow, and "his" beliefs may not be the same as
the ones that this one holds. The opinions I write on
this forum are written by the "self in charge" at the
time I write the posts. As the selves change, so might
the beliefs that each of them hold *at the time of
writing*.

If you're still claiming that what you refer to as "I"
is the Self, well, I'll leave you to make the case for
*it* having beliefs.  :-)
 
> That was the nature of my question to you, and it still remains 
> unanswered. 

It's based on a faulty assumption, that I "capitulated,"
as Judy put it earlier and as you put it later. I did not. 
The current "I" still believes what "yesterday's I" said
yesterday. But at the same time I can *completely* grok 
where Rory is coming from, and appreciate his point of 
view on the matter. I have no problem with *both* points
of view being valid, with *both* perceptions being "true," 
as much as *anything* can be said to be "true."

> It seems from your answer to Rory that you have no 
> answer for his statement that there is no difference between 
> self and Self, which you plainly don't see the same way. 

On the contrary, I see it exactly the same way. Sometimes.
It all depends on point of view.

> Rather than resolving the contradiction, you stated, "Well 
> said". It was this capitulation to which my remarks were 
> addressed. 

And, as I have said, it's based on your inability to
"get" the nature of seeming contradictions, and "get"
that I can understand and appreciate another point of 
view while holding my own. That's not my problem; it
*would* clearly seem to be yours.

> Should I then conclude that it is you who are uncomfortable with 
> contradictions, and choose to dismiss them as "just another SOC", 
> vs. resolving them? And further, that anything else you disagree 
> with or see another way is handled the same way, by simply 
> capitulating without resolution? :-)

You can conclude anything you want. That doesn't keep
you from being incapable of juggling contradictory 
concepts at the same time. "I" seem to have no such 
limitation, so I don't even see what you're on about, 
unless it's Just Another Attempt To Make Barry Seem 
Stupid Or Without Values.

I would say that if the latter was your intent, you
haven't succeeded, at least as far as I am concerned.
I can *fully* appreciate Rory's position on this matter.
His point of view and opinions on the subject are *just*
as valid as mine, more so from a certain point of view. 
At the same time, I still hold to my previou

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ron Dector: A Prison of the Mind, Sthapatya Veda

[Vaj]

On Jun 5, 2007, at 10:53 AM, authfriend wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jun 4, 2007, at 10:00 PM, authfriend wrote:

> > Here's the lie Vaj told:
> >
> > "if you do a web search for 'Do nothing and accomplish
> > everything' the phrase is usually tied to get rich
> > quick schemes."
> >
> > In fact, virtually every Google hit on the phrase
> > is tied to Gratzon's book, which is not, of course,
> > a "get rich quick scheme."
>
> Well, since you failed to define a "get rich quick scheme" I find
> your lame response unconvincing.

Most people (including you) know what "get-rich-quick
scheme" refers to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get-rich-quick_scheme


Not at all the type of scheme I was referring to. Of course it should  
be clear that I was specifically talking about TM org inspired  
schemes for success, wealth and/or financial gain through support of  
natural law, etc.


But then again, Judy knew that, she's just using one of her favorite  
tactics: diversion. Nice try, but no cigar babe. Thanks for the red  
herring but I already had breakfast.




More importantly, though, your lie suggested the
links were to lots of different get-rich-quick
schemes, not to a single book.


And there are others. Will I take the time to hunt them down and list  
them for you? Unlikely for me to contact people I've not seen in  
years, nor is it likely I will violate their confidentiality by doing  
so publicly.


Besides I've already proven my point with hundreds of links. I'm sure  
you'll get over it in time if you try.


How many movement entrepreneurs were you friends with Judy? Please  
share some of your friend's misfortunes online on a public forum,  
we'd love to hear them. I take it you get my point. After all, you  
claim to have 'been around' in the TMO. Surely you know someone since  
you've been around the TMO so much.


Just for the record, there was no indication whether or not these  
hundreds of links would be connected to a single book or not (kind of  
irrelevant since some of these are links to different people). The  
intention was to demonstrate they simply exist on the web, at that  
time. One would suspect most of these have or will disappear over  
time since the TM org is dying a slow death and few new people come  
in to add to more fiascos.




> So let's look at Judy's assertion that Gratzon's book is not
> part of the genre of "get rich quick scheme" books and whether
> or not it aims a quicker approach to starting a business
> compared to the more traditional approaches.

Irrelevant argument on both counts. There are no
"schemes" in Gratzon's book, so it isn't part of
the genre of books advancing such schemes.



Of course, IMO the book is about such schemes, so this is an  
irrelevant point. People tend to do their "scheming" in private. And  
of course the number of schemes operating under the 'do nothing,  
accomplish everything' rubric extend beyond the ideas in a book.  
Different people interpreted it differently and applied it  
differently. Most of them are long gone and will never be found on  
the web. After all the hay day of the TMO has long since passed.



Rather,
it attempts to prepare readers psychologically to
approach the endeavor of making money without
thinking it has to involve great effort on their
part. His basic thesis is that once you stop
thinking this way, things begin to fall into place
(whatever the specifics) more or less automatically.

No "schemes" involved, just a change of attitude.


LOL, The author himself, apparently applying these same ideas did use  
lying and illegal tactics to establish his telecom group, which  
eventually applied for bankruptcy before being sold.


Sounds like a "scheme" to me.

Let's look at the definition of the word scheme and this example above:

Scheme: "make plans, esp. in a devious way or with intent to do  
something illegal or wrong"


Did the author of the aforementioned book, presumably the leading  
expert on how to apply them use such a scheme: devious and illegal  
plans, too get rich quickly?


Yes he did.

(You won't find these kinda things in any book)

"Fred Gratzon, founder of long-distance reseller Telegroup in  
Fairfield, Iowa, also readily admits to being economical with the  
truth. The company's first direct mailing was cunningly designed to  
'look like an official notice from the telephone people.' It was a  
computer printout with no company logo that blandly stated: 'NOTICE  
OF TELEPHONE RATE REDUCTION AVAILABILITY. Due to recent changes in  
tariffs of the Federal Communications Commission, your company is  
entitled to reduced rates on long-distance service.' Never mind that  
those 'recent' changes referred to the Communications Act of 1934.  
'The response to this was enormous,' says Gratzon. 'That was the  
white lie that launched Telegroup.'


(...) And the time he decided he couldn't afford the expensive  
registration process in each s

[FairfieldLife] Re: Spirituality Paradox Contradictions Spirituality All True

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
wrote:
> > > 
> > > It seems to me that the attempt to claim that some-
> > > thing is "true," and to actively get someone else
> > > to "buy into" that "truth," is an attempt to get
> > > them to *share your state of consciousness*. 
> 
> If the discussion is not mataphysical, but rather is focussed on 
the
> dynamics of the everyday word, then I disagree. If the cat is white
> and you say its black, I am not subsequently arguing against your
> state of consciousness -- (if you get the point  without going 
off
> into metaphysical realms).
>  
> > > Any appeal to others to believe something that is
> > > true only from the unenlightened waking state is,
> > > almost by definition, an appeal to these others
> > > to look at the situation *from* the POV of unenlight-
> > > ened waking state. If these others are looking at 
> > > the situation from another state of consciousness,
> > > from the POV of, say, UC, then the situation as
> > > described by someone in the state of ignorance is 
> > > *not* true, for them. 
> 
> The cat is still white. It may also be known by some to be a
> reflection  of the same omnipotence that they are a reflection of. 
But
> the cat is still white.
> 
>  
> > > But the folks who feel the need to *convince* these 
> > > others that they "know" the "truth" often keep ham-
> > > mering away at the UC POV, telling it that it's 
> > > "wrong," and that they should look at things from 
> > > the "right" POV. Which in this case, of course, is 
> > > ignorance.
> > 
> > Actually, I don't recall having seen many, if any,
> > disputes of this nature here. 
> 
> I agree. I can't recall many if any, Turq, can you cite 3-4 of 
these
> discussion, My mind draws a blank.
> 
> 
> >I think the assertion
> > above is being used to lump all disputes about
> > what is true and what isn't into this category and
> > thereby stigmatize anybody who takes a stand on
> > anything as being in "ignorance," as well as to
> > excuse those who contradict themselves or get
> > their facts wrong or express an opinion that is not
> > well founded.
> 
> Some true contradictions are inevitable -- and useful -- if used 
well.
> That is far from validly concluding or infering that ALL 
contradicions
> are good.   If someone says the cat is black, when its white, 
thats a
> contradiction. One of mistaken perception. Its not profound.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Something to bear in mind when trying to claim that
> > > your POV is "true." When you make that claim, aren't 
> > > you *really* saying, "*Mine* is the POV or SOC from 
> > > which 'truth' is determined?"
>  
> 
> Since few discussions are really debating such, your point is not
> relevant to 99%+ of all dsscussions here that focus on the every 
day
> material world. If in that context if "you know, its a 
contradiction"
> is used as a trump card -- to justify poor logic, cognitive
> difficulties or incorrect "facts, then its a cop-out.
> 
> > Nope.  Depends entirely on the claim and the
> > nature of the POV.
> 
>  
> > 
> > Charles Manson is reported to have said, "If all
> > is One, nothing can be wrong."
> > 
> > That's true, but it's irrelevant, even if we
> > accept for the sake of argument that Manson was
> > in UC. To claim that it makes a difference on
> > the level of human interaction is just sophistry.
> 
> Yes.
>
new morning says it perhaps far better than I did. Agreed.:-)

[FairfieldLife] "Clap on, clap off" (was Re: Ron Dector: A Prison of the Mind, Sthapatya Veda)

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> I think I covered all of this in my earlier reply
> to larry.potter's posting. To claim that your beliefs
> equate with truth, you pretty much have to be claiming
> that your state of consciousness equates with truth.
> To state that such-and-such belief is one of your
> "convictions," you have to assume that you will *remain*
> in the state of consciousness from which that belief
> appears to be true forever. To assert that this convic-
> tion is "true" for others, you have to declare that
> attaining that SOC/POC (or *regressing* to that SOC/POV)
> would be "better" for them than the SOC/POV they have
> currently. You may be comfortable doing that. I am not.
> End of story.
> 
> Those who are uncomfortable with contradictions are
> uncomfortable with life.
>
It appears you have misunderstood me—I am not making the point that 
if I believe something, others should believe it, or attempt to 
believe it too. Not at all. 

Rather, I am making the point that if I believe something (not 
necessarily "forever"), and if someone contradicts my belief, I can 
reconcile it with my own belief, as opposed to folding up and 
declaring, "Well said". 

That was the nature of my question to you, and it still remains 
unanswered. It seems from your answer to Rory that you have no 
answer for his statement that there is no difference between self 
and Self, which you plainly don't see the same way. Rather than 
resolving the contradiction, you stated, "Well said". It was this 
capitulation to which my remarks were addressed. 

Should I then conclude that it is you who are uncomfortable with 
contradictions, and choose to dismiss them as "just another SOC", 
vs. resolving them? And further, that anything else you disagree 
with or see another way is handled the same way, by simply 
capitulating without resolution? :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?

[Duveyoung]

http://tinyurl.com/2j3yaf

The above might be a good analog for all of us ego lovers.  Here's a
guy who LITERALLY has a handle on four "other" selves.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.. (Seinfeld)

Edg

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "martyboi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Barry's ego puts on a show of pretending that it has a handle on
itself.
> >
> 
> 
> Good insight, but I would question if Barry's ego is the only ego
> doing this? Seems to be lots of it going around.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?

[Duveyoung]

http://tinyurl.com/2j3yaf

The above might be a good analog for all of us ego lovers.  Here's a
guy who LITERALLY has a handle on four "other" selves.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.. (Seinfeld)

Click on the "Christopher.wmv" link.

Edg

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "martyboi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Barry's ego puts on a show of pretending that it has a handle on
itself.
> >
> 
> 
> Good insight, but I would question if Barry's ego is the only ego
> doing this? Seems to be lots of it going around.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?

[martyboi]

> Barry's ego puts on a show of pretending that it has a handle on itself.
>


Good insight, but I would question if Barry's ego is the only ego
doing this? Seems to be lots of it going around. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Spirituality Paradox Contradictions Spirituality All True

[Jason Spock]

 

 Turquoise is a writer in France.
   
 Turquoise is a mutant Ninja Turtle.
   
 Turquoise is a three toed Sloth bear in South America.
   
 Turquoise is a Klingon on the Federation hit list.
   
 Turquoise is a plant eating Bug in a Rain Forest in Congo..!
   
 Turquoise is a drink in a Mexican restaurant.
   
 Turquoise is a mighty Roman Warrior in 200 BC.
   
 Turquoise is a pea brained Snail in Galapagos islands.
   
 Turquoise is an abandoned rusting Tank used in the Second World War.
   
 Turquoise is an ET living 230 million light years away.
   
 Which one is correct..??

TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 07:50:26 -
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Spirituality Paradox Contradictions Spirituality 
All True

   
  Interesting, but I also found it interesting that
she didn't offer much justification for *why* she's
saying what she's saying about becoming comfortable
with contradiction. She did mention the "mental body"
vs. the "heart," but to me that's NewAgeSpeak.

One additional point of information that can actually
give some justification for her stance is in MMY's
olde saying, "Knowledge is different in different
states of consciousness. " Even *within* his system
there are paradoxes, depending upon which state of
consciousness he is speaking about, or from. The 
description of "reality" is different from the POV 
of waking state, or CC, or GC, or UC. Total contra-
dictions. But very possibly all true. 

It seems to me that the attempt to claim that some-
thing is "true," and to actively get someone else
to "buy into" that "truth," is an attempt to get
them to *share your state of consciousness* . 

Any appeal to others to believe something that is
true only from the unenlightened waking state is,
almost by definition, an appeal to these others
to look at the situation *from* the POV of unenlight-
ened waking state. If these others are looking at 
the situation from another state of consciousness,
from the POV of, say, UC, then the situation as
described by someone in the state of ignorance is 
*not* true, for them. 

But the folks who feel the need to *convince* these 
others that they "know" the "truth" often keep ham-
mering away at the UC POV, telling it that it's 
"wrong," and that they should look at things from 
the "right" POV. Which in this case, of course, is 
ignorance.

If you need an example of this, look at Rory's 
recent post #140834. I thought that was a marvelous
example of "stepping back" and expressing the same
situation from a completely different POV and SOC,
from which it looks entirely different. What *seems*
true when looking at the situation from one POV is
no longer true when looking at the same situation
from another POV. 

Something to bear in mind when trying to claim that
your POV is "true." When you make that claim, aren't 
you *really* saying, "*Mine* is the POV or SOC from 
which 'truth' is determined?"
   
   

  
-
Looking for earth-friendly autos? 
 Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Spirituality Paradox Contradictions Spirituality All True

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > 
> > It seems to me that the attempt to claim that some-
> > thing is "true," and to actively get someone else
> > to "buy into" that "truth," is an attempt to get
> > them to *share your state of consciousness*. 

If the discussion is not mataphysical, but rather is focussed on the
dynamics of the everyday word, then I disagree. If the cat is white
and you say its black, I am not subsequently arguing against your
state of consciousness -- (if you get the point  without going off
into metaphysical realms).
 
> > Any appeal to others to believe something that is
> > true only from the unenlightened waking state is,
> > almost by definition, an appeal to these others
> > to look at the situation *from* the POV of unenlight-
> > ened waking state. If these others are looking at 
> > the situation from another state of consciousness,
> > from the POV of, say, UC, then the situation as
> > described by someone in the state of ignorance is 
> > *not* true, for them. 

The cat is still white. It may also be known by some to be a
reflection  of the same omnipotence that they are a reflection of. But
the cat is still white.

 
> > But the folks who feel the need to *convince* these 
> > others that they "know" the "truth" often keep ham-
> > mering away at the UC POV, telling it that it's 
> > "wrong," and that they should look at things from 
> > the "right" POV. Which in this case, of course, is 
> > ignorance.
> 
> Actually, I don't recall having seen many, if any,
> disputes of this nature here. 

I agree. I can't recall many if any, Turq, can you cite 3-4 of these
discussion, My mind draws a blank.


>I think the assertion
> above is being used to lump all disputes about
> what is true and what isn't into this category and
> thereby stigmatize anybody who takes a stand on
> anything as being in "ignorance," as well as to
> excuse those who contradict themselves or get
> their facts wrong or express an opinion that is not
> well founded.

Some true contradictions are inevitable -- and useful -- if used well.
That is far from validly concluding or infering that ALL contradicions
are good.   If someone says the cat is black, when its white, thats a
contradiction. One of mistaken perception. Its not profound.
> 
> > 
> > Something to bear in mind when trying to claim that
> > your POV is "true." When you make that claim, aren't 
> > you *really* saying, "*Mine* is the POV or SOC from 
> > which 'truth' is determined?"
 

Since few discussions are really debating such, your point is not
relevant to 99%+ of all dsscussions here that focus on the every day
material world. If in that context if "you know, its a contradiction"
is used as a trump card -- to justify poor logic, cognitive
difficulties or incorrect "facts, then its a cop-out.

> Nope.  Depends entirely on the claim and the
> nature of the POV.

 
> 
> Charles Manson is reported to have said, "If all
> is One, nothing can be wrong."
> 
> That's true, but it's irrelevant, even if we
> accept for the sake of argument that Manson was
> in UC. To claim that it makes a difference on
> the level of human interaction is just sophistry.

Yes.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Spirituality Paradox Contradictions Spirituality All True

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> One additional point of information that can actually
> give some justification for her stance is in MMY's
> olde saying, "Knowledge is different in different
> states of consciousness." Even *within* his system
> there are paradoxes, depending upon which state of
> consciousness he is speaking about, or from. The 
> description of "reality" is different from the POV 
> of waking state, or CC, or GC, or UC. Total contra-
> dictions. But very possibly all true. 
> 
> It seems to me that the attempt to claim that some-
> thing is "true," and to actively get someone else
> to "buy into" that "truth," is an attempt to get
> them to *share your state of consciousness*. 
> 
> Any appeal to others to believe something that is
> true only from the unenlightened waking state is,
> almost by definition, an appeal to these others
> to look at the situation *from* the POV of unenlight-
> ened waking state. If these others are looking at 
> the situation from another state of consciousness,
> from the POV of, say, UC, then the situation as
> described by someone in the state of ignorance is 
> *not* true, for them. 
> 
> But the folks who feel the need to *convince* these 
> others that they "know" the "truth" often keep ham-
> mering away at the UC POV, telling it that it's 
> "wrong," and that they should look at things from 
> the "right" POV. Which in this case, of course, is 
> ignorance.

Actually, I don't recall having seen many, if any,
disputes of this nature here. I think the assertion
above is being used to lump all disputes about
what is true and what isn't into this category and
thereby stigmatize anybody who takes a stand on
anything as being in "ignorance," as well as to
excuse those who contradict themselves or get
their facts wrong or express an opinion that is not
well founded.

> If you need an example of this, look at Rory's 
> recent post #140834.

Actually, it's the difference between what Rory
said in that very post in response to Barry, and
then Barry's instant capitulation to it, that
Jim was commenting on.

 I thought that was a marvelous
> example of "stepping back" and expressing the same
> situation from a completely different POV and SOC,
> from which it looks entirely different. What *seems*
> true when looking at the situation from one POV is
> no longer true when looking at the same situation
> from another POV. 
> 
> Something to bear in mind when trying to claim that
> your POV is "true." When you make that claim, aren't 
> you *really* saying, "*Mine* is the POV or SOC from 
> which 'truth' is determined?"

Nope.  Depends entirely on the claim and the
nature of the POV.

For example, in the post to which Rory was
responding (although he didn't comment on it
specifically):

Most folks on this forum already ignore her, and
> > never bother to respond to her posts.

This is *factually* false.

Just for one thing, most people here tend to
respond selectively to some folks and not others,
simply because of differences in interests.

For another, if you add up all the people in
Barry's two groups of those who respond to me,
allowing a conservative three people for each
of his "and a few others," you get a total of
15, which happens to be a substantial percentage
of the regular posters here.

I haven't done a tally--perhaps Barry would like
to spend some time on it?--but I'd guess that
there are few here who have a whole lot more
than 15 regular respondents, including Barry
himself.

 On the whole,
> > the only people who still DO respond fall into two
> > categories. The first is the TBs who agree with her
> > because she's a TM TB, one of the few left on the
> > forum; this group would include Nablus and Off and
> > Jim and occasionally others.
> >
> > The second group consists of those (in my *opinion*)
> > who, although they may be fools for doing so, still
> > have some hope that there really IS a human being
> > inside Judy Stein somewhere, and that if they try
> > long enough, someday they might actually help it to
> > "come out of its closet" and express itself. This
> > group -- whom I henceforth dub as The Compassion
> > Group -- consists of you, Shemp, Vaj, Rick, Curtis,
> > myself, and a few others.

The difference here between Barry's take and Rory's,
who sees no such division into "camps," is probably
not a matter of a difference between states of
consciousness, but simply a relative disagreement.
Others have expressed the same disagreement on the
relative level.

Rory's assertion that he's not in this latter group,
on the other hand, may well be a matter of a different
state of consciousness.

(Whether Shamp, Vaj, Rick, Curtis, and Barry are
expressing genuine compassion in their interactions
with me I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.)

> > Just as a matter of definition, the first group is
> > always RIGHT; the second group is always WRONG. :-)

And this, again, is *factually* false if Barr

[FairfieldLife] "Clap on, clap off" (was Re: Ron Dector: A Prison of the Mind, Sthapatya Veda)

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>

> Those who are uncomfortable with contradictions are
> uncomfortable with life.

You have articulated the points about contradictions of differnet SoC
well. A few additional points (which you may have already made elswhere)

- Contradictions abound in "material" Soc (aka waking state -- which
is ironically named since it is an unawakened state)

- Such contradictions are oftne the genesis of breakthoughs in art,
science, techology, business and humor.

- However it does NOT follow that ALL contradicions are necessarily
"spiritual" and/or the genesis of great breakthroughs.

- Many contradictions are mundane, capricious, silly and the result of
poor reasoning and logic, misconstrued findings ("aka "facts") etc. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?

[Peter]

--- Robert Gimbel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  What does the self fear Most?- 
> The small self, or egoic self, fears most, it's own
> death.
> It's own death arrives, at the moment the intellect
> decides to give up 
> trying to figure it all out, and becomes
> 'Transclucent'.
> Therefore, the small self, ego, dies, to itself, it
> no longer exists.
> Poof, like it never really existed in the first
> place.
> In it's place is the awareness that replaces the
> ego.
> So, the ego is no longer identified, or empowered or
> even consulted.
> It's the death of the ego.
> When Jesus said, something about being born again:
> I believe he was making this point, of transcending
> the ego.
> So, you can see, that transcending the ego, has
> never been a small or 
> an easy thing, through time.
> But, now, things are changing, changing, it seems.

I would only add that giving-up trying to figure it
out is only a first step, for many, in the dissolution
of the ego. Once the intellect is not used to defend
and position the ego there is still a very deep and
foundational identification of pure consciousness
called the Ahamkara or I-thought. This is the
foundation of avidya or ignorance. It is the
experiential sense of individuality. This
individuality as is a delusion of the greatest
magnitude. It is an artifact of the projection and
identification of pure consciousness with space/time
boundaries. 




> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To subscribe, send a message to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Or go to: 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> and click 'Join This Group!' 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 



   

Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search 
that gives answers, not web links. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

[FairfieldLife] Re: What Does The self Fear Most?

[Robert Gimbel]

 What does the self fear Most?- 
The small self, or egoic self, fears most, it's own death.
It's own death arrives, at the moment the intellect decides to give up 
trying to figure it all out, and becomes 'Transclucent'.
Therefore, the small self, ego, dies, to itself, it no longer exists.
Poof, like it never really existed in the first place.
In it's place is the awareness that replaces the ego.
So, the ego is no longer identified, or empowered or even consulted.
It's the death of the ego.
When Jesus said, something about being born again:
I believe he was making this point, of transcending the ego.
So, you can see, that transcending the ego, has never been a small or 
an easy thing, through time.
But, now, things are changing, changing, it seems.

[FairfieldLife] Hong Kong falls head over heels for yoga

[rama krishna]

 A 5,000-year-old tradition rooted in meditation might not seem the obvious 
leisure activity for Hong Kong's high-octane big-spending population, but in 
the past five years yoga has taken the city by storm.Local company Pure Yoga 
last year opened what it believes is the world's biggest yoga studio, and the 
city has just hosted Asia's largest yoga conference, a four-day extravaganza 
with classes on everything from Thai massage to Sanskrit and a huge array of 
yoga equipment on sale.Just a few years ago yoga in Hong Kong was the preserve 
of a handful of small independent studios owned and run by instructors with 
little business acumen.Now it is part of the mainstream, dominated by chains 
such as Pure Yoga and Yoga Planet, run by the flamboyant Indian yogi Master 
Kamal whose media appearances have turned him into something of a local 
celebrity.For American yoga instructor Desiree Rumbaugh, a guest teacher at the 
weekend's Evolution Asia conference, it is the fast pace of life
 in Hong Kong that has made yoga such a hit."It's amazing, it's like 10 times 
the stress of New York," she says. "The city has such a buzz to it. And people 
here are really committed, they are going to classes three or four times a 
week."Colin Grant, founder of Pure Yoga and the man behind Evolution Asia, 
estimates around two percent of Hong Kong's six million people now practise 
yoga regularly, a renaissance he attributes to the new style of studio."When we 
first opened I didn't have a yogi head, I had a business head, so I applied 
what I thought would be good business sense to a yoga studio," he said.
  "We offered complimentary towels, we supplied mats and we had lockers. So 
someone working in a regular office could rock up and do a class and not have 
to drag a big bag into work."We made a million-dollar investment in our first 
studio and everyone thought we were mad. But it changed the model and within a 
month we had 450 people a day coming to classes, most of whom had never done a 
class in their lives."For Hong Kong's image-conscious residents, yoga's 
new-found popularity also goes hand-in-hand with the availability of 
fashionable gear.High-profile devotees such as Madonna, Gwyneth Paltrow and 
Sting have helped make the practice trendy, and even Louis Vuitton has its own 
yoga line.
  Yoga mats, bags and clothes are big business for major brands such as Adidas 
and Nike, but even dedicated labels like the Vancouver-based Lululemon are now 
multi-million dollar concerns.Lululemon had revenues of nearly 150 million 
dollars last year, and in May announced plans for a stock market float to fund 
expansion.Yoga is now estimated to generate about 18 billion dollars annually 
worldwide.The increasing involvement of mainstream brands keen to cash in on 
yoga's popularity, combined with the growing perception of it as a way of 
keeping fit, has led to concern that the true meaning behind the ancient 
discipline is being lost.Conference-goer Elke Shuettler, a Hong Kong resident 
who began learning yoga in her native Germany, said there was a danger people 
learning now could miss out on the spiritual and mental benefits."Yoga is much 
more than gymnastics," she said. "It is very important that there is more to it 
than the physical side."Grant conceded there were concerns,
 particularly over a new breed of classes claiming to combine the discipline 
with such un-yogic activities as kick-boxing.But he said commercialisation 
would not necessarily harm yoga."We're not going to be offering 
fusion-combat-yoga, I can tell you that. But if people like it -- no problem," 
he said. "It's what you make it. If I want to do a power class and have a good 
workout or do a deep meditation class, neither is more yogic or less 
yogic."Conference director Paveena Atipatha believes that while yoga's 
popularity has probably peaked in the United States, Asia offers considerable 
growth opportunities.
  "In the US yoga is now a 3.5-billion-dollar industry. But Asia is where the 
US was five or even 10 years ago," she said.Yoga is already popular in Japan 
and growing rapidly in Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, the Philippines and Korea. 
Studio operators are now looking to China?s growing middle class as the next 
major opportunity."Hong Kong is probably one of the more mature markets," said 
Grant. "Quite a lot of our students have gone to China and set up studios 
there. It?s at the very early stages in China but we?re looking at 
opportunities there."
  http://au.news.yahoo.com/070605/19/13nyi.html
   
   
   

   
-
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story.
 Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. 

[FairfieldLife] "Clap on, clap off" (was Re: Ron Dector: A Prison of the Mind, Sthapatya Veda)

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"  
> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
> > > wrote:
> > > > Well said.
> > > 
> > > Are you familiar with the expression, "The courage of your 
> > > convictions." Just curious how you reconcile apparently not 
> > > having any.:-)
> > 
> > I'm not sure who you are speaking to here.
> > 
> > If to me, I see no problem with anything Rory said.
> > It's just as valid a way of seeing things as was
> > mine. And far more poetic. I repeat my earlier 
> > "review" -- Well said.  
> > 
> > If to Rory, that's not my business -- is of no real
> > import to me.  :-)
> 
> Hi, I was writing to you Turq. I guess where I am going with this is 
> you appear to have set things up in your writings here so that 
> anytime it is convenient for you to disavow ownership of something, 
> you do, while on the other hand, when you want to express an opinion 
> strongly, you do also. Best of both worlds it would seem. However 
> what I am left with is it looks like you are making the point that 
> integrity or having the courage of your convictions is merely for 
> lesser evolved beings who are attached to their illusory small 
> selves; in other words, patsies or suckers. 
> 
> Ownership of our beliefs is not a bad thing, imo. In my experience, 
> life does not progress without such ownership and such conviction. 
> Otherwise all I am left with is emptiness. Not the emptiful absence 
> of manifestation of the Absolute, but truly nothingness, no life.
> 
> So I am curious how you reconcile the ownership, the dedication to, 
> and hard work towards your values and ideals, while at the same time 
> saying you have no values or ideals? How do you accomplish 
> anything? :-)

I think I covered all of this in my earlier reply
to larry.potter's posting. To claim that your beliefs
equate with truth, you pretty much have to be claiming
that your state of consciousness equates with truth.
To state that such-and-such belief is one of your
"convictions," you have to assume that you will *remain*
in the state of consciousness from which that belief
appears to be true forever. To assert that this convic-
tion is "true" for others, you have to declare that
attaining that SOC/POC (or *regressing* to that SOC/POV)
would be "better" for them than the SOC/POV they have
currently. You may be comfortable doing that. I am not.
End of story.

Those who are uncomfortable with contradictions are
uncomfortable with life.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Spirituality Paradox Contradictions Spirituality All True

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "larry.potter"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  
> Learn to accept contradictions and don't be obsessed with
> your *truth*.
> 
> Christine Breese has many amazing satsangs but I thought this
> short talk will be relevant/appreciated on this forum, many times
> people here will find themselves in such defensive situations that
> they feel they need to protect their "truth" no matter what.
> 
> It's worth the 7 min to listen to it,imo.
> 
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=MKf9CmNzpxY
> 
> Enjoy.

Interesting, but I also found it interesting that
she didn't offer much justification for *why* she's
saying what she's saying about becoming comfortable
with contradiction. She did mention the "mental body"
vs. the "heart," but to me that's NewAgeSpeak.

One additional point of information that can actually
give some justification for her stance is in MMY's
olde saying, "Knowledge is different in different
states of consciousness." Even *within* his system
there are paradoxes, depending upon which state of
consciousness he is speaking about, or from. The 
description of "reality" is different from the POV 
of waking state, or CC, or GC, or UC. Total contra-
dictions. But very possibly all true. 

It seems to me that the attempt to claim that some-
thing is "true," and to actively get someone else
to "buy into" that "truth," is an attempt to get
them to *share your state of consciousness*. 

Any appeal to others to believe something that is
true only from the unenlightened waking state is,
almost by definition, an appeal to these others
to look at the situation *from* the POV of unenlight-
ened waking state. If these others are looking at 
the situation from another state of consciousness,
from the POV of, say, UC, then the situation as
described by someone in the state of ignorance is 
*not* true, for them. 

But the folks who feel the need to *convince* these 
others that they "know" the "truth" often keep ham-
mering away at the UC POV, telling it that it's 
"wrong," and that they should look at things from 
the "right" POV. Which in this case, of course, is 
ignorance.

If you need an example of this, look at Rory's 
recent post #140834. I thought that was a marvelous
example of "stepping back" and expressing the same
situation from a completely different POV and SOC,
from which it looks entirely different. What *seems*
true when looking at the situation from one POV is
no longer true when looking at the same situation
from another POV. 

Something to bear in mind when trying to claim that
your POV is "true." When you make that claim, aren't 
you *really* saying, "*Mine* is the POV or SOC from 
which 'truth' is determined?"