[FairfieldLife] Enlightenment as moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sinhlnx sinhlnx@ wrote: ---Consider an apartment as a type of cage. Could a person only think the apartment is real, but really be living inside Mae West's head? http://www.planetperplex.com/en/item203 Or, Jim, you were fortunate in realizing you were in a cage. So I guess the people living in the cage but don't know it are in ignorant Bliss?kind of like the people living in the Matrix world while the aliens are sucking out the juices from their real bodies. Or perhaps Jim is living locked in the cage of Enlightenment World -- perhaps not knowing he is caged, all the while thinking he is boundlessly free. Or, having made the mistake of announcing that he is realized/enlightened, now he's stuck in the cage of pretending that he is. I guess that's the same thing you mean by enlightenment world. I can't say fersure, of course, but it's certainly a possibility. I've seen the same phenomenon before in many different spiritual trips. Someone has a neat experience of realization -- a *real* experience of realization -- and, because they assume that once they have such an experience it will be permanent, they announce to the world their enlightenment. Some of them even set themselves up as spiritual teachers or gurus at this point. And then the experience fades. What's a guru to do? An honest one would go to his students and say, Oops, I was wrong. One who was a little less honest, espec- ially with himself, would pretend that the experience of realization was still going on. An even less honest one would indulge in self deception, and convince him- self that it was still going on. Once you've had a couple of these realization exper- iences, it's pretty easy to talk the talk of them. Few can tell whether you're talkin' from present exper- ience or past experience, because you *are* talkin' from experience. So it's actually a fairly common phenomenon in the larger community of spiritual trips and seekers to see people milking a transitory exper- ience of realization for years or decades after it has gone away or faded. Not to say that's what's going on here on FFL, but it could be. Because such things *aren't* talked about much in the TMO, but are known about and talked about openly in other spiritual trips, I just thought I'd bring up the possibility.
[FairfieldLife] Male FFL'ers and CC?
Adam Sandler apparently (not-alltogether-jokingly?) missing his praeputium on Conan inspired this question: What percentage of (male) FFL'ers, in your estimate, has lost a sensitive part (IMO, almost as sensitive as lips) of there lingam? :/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightenment as moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sinhlnx sinhlnx@ wrote: ---Consider an apartment as a type of cage. Could a person only think the apartment is real, but really be living inside Mae West's head? http://www.planetperplex.com/en/item203 Or, Jim, you were fortunate in realizing you were in a cage. So I guess the people living in the cage but don't know it are in ignorant Bliss?kind of like the people living in the Matrix world while the aliens are sucking out the juices from their real bodies. Or perhaps Jim is living locked in the cage of Enlightenment World -- perhaps not knowing he is caged, all the while thinking he is boundlessly free. Or, having made the mistake of announcing that he is realized/enlightened, now he's stuck in the cage of pretending that he is. I guess that's the same thing you mean by enlightenment world. I can't say fersure, of course, but it's certainly a possibility. I've seen the same phenomenon before in many different spiritual trips. Someone has a neat experience of realization -- a *real* experience of realization -- and, because they assume that once they have such an experience it will be permanent, they announce to the world their enlightenment. Some of them even set themselves up as spiritual teachers or gurus at this point. And then the experience fades. What's a guru to do? An honest one would go to his students and say, Oops, I was wrong. One who was a little less honest, espec- ially with himself, would pretend that the experience of realization was still going on. An even less honest one would indulge in self deception, and convince him- self that it was still going on. Once you've had a couple of these realization exper- iences, it's pretty easy to talk the talk of them. Few can tell whether you're talkin' from present exper- ience or past experience, because you *are* talkin' from experience. So it's actually a fairly common phenomenon in the larger community of spiritual trips and seekers to see people milking a transitory exper- ience of realization for years or decades after it has gone away or faded. Not to say that's what's going on here on FFL, but it could be. Because such things *aren't* talked about much in the TMO, but are known about and talked about openly in other spiritual trips, I just thought I'd bring up the possibility. Just to clarify, what I am talking about above is a spirituality-wide phenomenon, one *not* limited to TM and the TMO. For the record, however, there are a couple of aspects of this phenomenon that I have noticed are stronger in the TMO. The first is the willingness of the larger commun- ity of seekers to *perpetuate* the phenomenon of people moodmaking their enlightenment and allow it to go on. IMO, this is because in the TMO, relatively few people (maybe a few hundred out of what, millions?) have ever *had* strong realization experiences. *And* they've paid a great deal, both in terms of time and money, *to* have such an experience. So when someone announces that they've had one, or have realized their enlightenment, there is a tendency to suspend disbelief and allow them to do it out of hopes that, If it can happen for him/her, it could still happen for me. The second aspect of this phenomenon that I see as fairly unique within the TM movement variant of it is that the hierarchical oneupsmanship *continues* in those who have announced their enlightenment. In the TMO, with its rigid, hierarchical conceptual framework of seven states of consciousness, it's not *enough* to just realize one's enlightenment. No. :-) Once one has announced that one is real- ized (CC), there are still GC and UC and BC to announce. And now there are all the siddhis and other perceptions to announce as well. It's like the moment Maharishi talks about a new state of consciousness or a new type of subtle perception, there are realized souls lining up to announce that they've just reached that state of consciousness or had that perception. What's funniest for those of us who have seen this phenomenon in other spiritual traditions is to watch the enlightened dick size contests. They go some- thing like the following imaginary dialog between two TM-realized souls: Yeah, that's a pretty good realization experience you just talked about. Thanks for sharing it. I used to have those experiences, too, back before my own realization began to open up into God consciousness. Oh, I didn't mean to imply that the experience I was talking about was *limited* to only CC; it has continued for me, even after I started experiencing GC. In fact, I still have these experiences now that I'm living in UC. Yes, I agree. Even from the standpoint of Brahman it is possible to have such experiences. I know
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip I don't view the ego in the way you seem to be using it and losing my personality is not a goal for me. As I understand it, enlightenment doesn't mean losing one's personality, only the attachment to and identification with it. The personality remains as it was. That was how I understood it in MMY's system also. I was commenting on the Koan: I'd like to give you the following koan: If you loose your own personality, you can afford to be non-equal. I think it is pretty clear that personalities don't diminish in any way from spiritual practices judging from this group! Sure Curtis, but of course I do mean it the way Judy described. For me its rather a 'view', a fundamental understanding that personailty, the external persona, my habits, thought habits, opininions etc are arbitrary and not chosen by 'me'. As such I understand the extreme relativity of what 'I am' in an external way. So 'losing ones's personality' would refer to such an understanding.
[FairfieldLife] Challenging the primary assumption
So here's a question for the group. One of the most fundamental assumptions within the TMO, and in many paths that see enlightenment as the end product of their spiritual sadhana, is that *in* the state of enlightenment one's perceptions are accurate, a true reflection of reality. The reasons given for this assumption are many, and depend a lot on the set of buzzwords that the spiritual tradition tends to use. In TM, the enlightened ones can perceive accurately because they have dissolved all their stresses, or because they have gone beyond karma, or they are in tune with the Laws Of Nature. In other spiritual traditions it might be because they have dissolved their samskaras. Whatever...the assump- tion is still there. This assumption forms the entire *basis* of guru yoga. You should do what the guru says because he's *right*; his perceptions are accurate, free from distortion, unclouded by the things that cloud our perceptions. The enlightened being's 'take' on things equates to Truth, because only in enlightenment can one begin to *perceive* Truth. And so on and so on. So who believes that this is true? I, for one, do not. Based on my own experiences with altered (or higher...your call) states of consciousness, I find myself after four and a half decades on the spiritual path leaning towards, Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water; after enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. I don't think anything changes in enlightenment. It's not really achieving enlight- enment or reaching enlightenment; it's more like realizing that enlightenment has always already been present. Having experienced this always already present-ness aspect of enlightenment experiences, and having realized that my perceptions of the world around me were no more accurate or unclouded while these enlightenment exper- iences were going on than when they weren't, it's a little difficult for me to believe in the the enlight- ened perceive perfectly and act perfectly model. I spent a whole story in the silly book I wrote dealing with this ( http://ramalila.net/RoadTripMind/rtm52.html ). So let's open the question up to the group. This *is* a really interesting group, full of strong spiritual seekers who have spent the better part of their lives pursuing enlightenment. So whaddyathink? When you realize your own enlightenment (or now that you have), will your perceptions be (or are your perceptions now) 100% accurate, unclouded by any stress or samskaras or anything that could render them less than objective truth, or Cosmic Truth? I'm interested in hearing what people have to say. *Not* to argue with, but just to hear the different points of view folks here might have when dealing with what is, in my opinion, one of the most fundamental assumptions underlying the TM approach to enlightenment.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Me: I have been enjoying lurking I have been thinking something about how you write that I would like to run by you Rory. I think you are using language that very carefully does separate you from the person you are responding to. To a large degree this is true, Curtis, in that I generally attempt to take responsibility for my perceptions *of* the other, without ascribing specific attributes *to* the other (though sometimes I fail of course), as it's usually evident that my perceptions of the other are simply the qualities of myself I choose to see in this moment. This is *not* to say however that my perceptions aren't also true -- or at least shared by others, which may be our basic criterion of objective as opposed to subjective reality. However, as I mentioned to Steve, I really can't say if an asshole has any real existence -- the only reality I am prepared to affirm whole-heartedly is the self- evident, radiant indescribable one, as that one keeps appearing when the other perceptions un-slip-knot themselves. There is then no separation. Almost to a post there is an assertion of your separateness, specialness. Yes, I'm special, and so is everyone else, though some don't like to admit it. When I came on FFL with the message I'm enlightened, and so are you you wouldn't believe some of the responses I got ... even a strongly-worded death-wish :-) I think it is very important for you to present yourself as having a special relationship with the world. Special and ordinary, simultaneously. I offer you another option and perspective for consideration. We may all actually be the same with regard to our states of consciousness. Yes, that is generally my initial a-priori assumption, and was very much so on FFL -- though I have very often been shown here that my assumptions were apparently false, not shared by others :-) What you are describing in sometimes Baroque detail may just be an affectation of your use of words to describe states that everyone else is living in without needing all the descriptions. That's what a writer does, if successful -- points out something universal that others may have overlooked, or not seen in precisely that way :-) If you really want a unitive experience, I suggest trying out the following premise: You and I are actually the same. No states of awakening separate us. Neither of us are on any continuum of awareness before or after each other. Agreed :-) We are both just simply human with the same limitations and capacities. I uphold all of that, although obviously you have some capacities and talents which I do not, and vice versa. I respect yours, and do not require you to falsely insist I am your equal in them. Likewise, I also respect mine, and do not falsely insist you are my equal in them. Then go to the supermarket and look at everyone that same equal way. Everyone is just equally human and not on a path of awakening. Just folks. That's exactly the way I *do* go to the supermarket, live my life, etc. It was quite a shift to come onto FFL and try to see things in the old way of path and growth and enlightenment enough to communicate effectively with people here, and to realize that that long-outgrown mode of perception actually had richness and value I had overlooked. Yes, it's quite evident that everyone is precisely as enlightened as I am, as they *are* me -- but they are free to deny this if they so choose (and they often so choose)! :-) I hope this wont be taken as an attack although it is a judgment I am making. Naah :-) (BTW nuts are actually very hard to kick so their use in fights is really overrated!) Good to know :-) I think we have established enough rapport in previous posts to actually explore this topic a bit. I suspect Turq will have some perspective to share on this. No doubt :-) In my daily life I notice people's language as an attempt to assert a ranking. It is a version of monkey oneupmanship. As a performing artist I must push some people's buttons because I get a regular stream of guys (always guys) who feel the need to try to find out what I make as a performer. It seems important for them to make sure I am not making much money while having this much fun. They ask a serious of roundabout questions to determine that even though they hate their jobs (their words) at least they are making more money. Here on FFL it seems that there is another ranking system in place between guys. An enlightenment-O-meter. I've noticed that you seem to regard gurus, saints, etc. as on a power-trip of sorts. Me, not so much -- I actually was very
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
Thanks Curtis for your quick response, and especially for not taking offense in any way. That really speaks for you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for taking the time to respond in detail. I think you have brought out some very good points about our different world views. I do agree with your point about people's differences concerning talents, intelligence and skills. You have correctly noted that I do not recognize the same meaning value in some spiritual experiences that some here do. It is not because I can not relate to them, it is because I view their value differently. What it means is where we differ. I don't recognize that a person's inner experiences make him higher than me in any way. I see this 'higher' only in a contextual way. For example 'more evolved towards a certain state of consciousness'. For example, somebody could be from a completely different philosophy, lets say a Dualist in the sense of Madhva. I could see that he is possibly very advanced at his path, even though I differ from him about the ultimate goal.And yet there are many common elements on the path.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor matrixmonitor@ wrote: ---the people you mention - living in cages. They should practice TM regularly and buy all the CD's DVD's relating to Ramana Maharshi from http://www.arunachala.org What do you suggestsome type of mood-making to grok I'm out of the cage, out of the cage, out of the cage.? i.e. a reorientation of one's thinking to consider that one is not in the cage. But if the person still thought he was in the cage, could he/she get Enlightened anyway? I can only say what worked for me; a burning thirst, hunger, desire to get out of the bondage that I felt accutely- a desire that transcended money, sex, formal education, friendship, death, food, sleep, relative happiness of any kind. And complete and utter surrender to that which I intuited would set me free. And frequent prayer and study of spiritual teaching. And regular TM, morning and evening for 30 years. And the Siddhis programme to burn out some big stuff, for 15 years. And always being true to myself, no matter what. And no dogma or organized anything to follow- just me, in the slowly blooming desert of my consciousness, from the age of ten to the age of fifty. And I was in the cage of my making, right up until the moment I wasn't. That is what worked for me.:-) Wonderful Jim ! Thanks for sharing this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenging the primary assumption
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This assumption forms the entire *basis* of guru yoga. You should do what the guru says because he's *right*; his perceptions are accurate, free from distortion, unclouded by the things that cloud our perceptions. The enlightened being's 'take' on things equates to Truth, because only in enlightenment can one begin to *perceive* Truth. And so on and so on. So who believes that this is true? Not in the way you describe it Barry. I think the way you describe it here is a thorough mis-representation of of what Guru Yoga is all about, and I am fully for it. Lets analyze 'You should do what the Guru says..' okay until this point, but everything from then on is an oversimplification which distorts truth and the merits of this path. In my view it is an energetic thing. For this energetic transmission to happen, there is what I would call a 'working agreement', which both the Guru and the disciple are aware of. The Guru knows that the disciple sees God in him/her, that he is a channel of this energy and will work on the disciples energy-body and ego. A 'mature' disciple would be able to distinguish between the relative persona of the Guru, his /her humanity, and that what lies beyond it, and it would be a grave mistake to mix the two up. Most Gurus I know about teach this in one way or the other: to not mix up the two, his realtive outside personality and the Divine essence behind. The disciple is asked to focus on he Divine essence, which is the same as in himself, therefore most traditions say that the Guru is within yourself. The Guru is also within the disciple not just in this abstract absolute way, but in an energetic and alchemical way, in his energy-field. For this to work there has to be a close interaction between Guru and disciple. The disciple has to live with the Guru and has to watch him/her in everyday interactions. I believe this is not the path for many people, but it certainly is a valid path many great saints have walked. A disciple has to be surrendered to the Guru, which he understands represents God to him in he relative field.It is a way to make the abstract concept of God grasp-able in a person. Now I am not saying that this concept cannot be misused, and that there cannot be false Gurus, that there can't be power trips of Gurus etc. But to take misuse as your measuring rod, you are likely to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
[FairfieldLife] Three more and I'll begin impeachment
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers has said that if three more Congress Members get behind impeachment he will start the impeachment proceedings. http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp? articleID=32859 Uns.
[FairfieldLife] Three more and I'll start impeachment
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers has said that if three more Congress Members get behind impeachment he will start the impeachment proceedings. http://tinyurl.com/2294ds Uns.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenging the primary assumption
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So let's open the question up to the group. This *is* a really interesting group, full of strong spiritual seekers who have spent the better part of their lives pursuing enlightenment. So whaddyathink? When you realize your own enlightenment (or now that you have), will your perceptions be (or are your perceptions now) 100% accurate, unclouded by any stress or samskaras or anything that could render them less than objective truth, or Cosmic Truth? Just to answer this, as I had overseen this question the first time: No, I don't think there is 100% unclouded perception in the relative. I am not enlightened, at least not 100%, so I can't really judge 100% ;-) ... but then for me it is not important if something is 100% 'correct' .. it would also mean there is no evolution possible, which I don't believe. If I'm with an enlightened, I allow him to be human and err. OTOH I believe that everything that happens has a purpose, and that all our mistakes guide us in the right direction. There is no 'wrong' from an ultimate perspective, and especially not if you are sincere in your own pursuit.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodm
New morning et al posts snipped: When the heart is full, one sees love in everything. A sweet radiant love -- emanating from everything. When one is Full of It, one sees That everywhere. In that sense, I think it is still a projection, a line, of a distinct, but out there not so significant personality. That is, until there is no line anymore. But then its silly to say It all is ME. There is no IT and the there is no ME when the line is gone. Then it makes as much or more sense to simple say Chocolate Pudding than to say Its ALL ME. Or ponder and grok the flip side -- that You are a projection of IT. It realizes that IT is YOU. And then the line disappears for It projecting itself onto you -- and Chocolate Pudding. (Then there is no more flip side.) TomT: The only reason anyone ever says Its all ME is that is how it feels. There is also a change in POV when one is willing to admit that is how it feels. By saying It is all ME one is willing to admit THAT am I. The way it is as IT or THAT is you living a life. By admitting and saying how it is one allows the further clarification of THAT is YOU which moves into THAT is THIS. And of course we can take it one step further and we end up with THATS ALL FOLKS!. Tom T
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodm
Barry writes snipped: You'll realize that there was never anything you could DO to escape from jail, because you were never in it in the first place. There IS no doing when it comes to escaping from the imaginary prison of self. I hope for your sake that this happens soon. I know that it'll happen, in spite of your self's efforts to keep it from happening. That's the magic of self realization -- even the self can't keep itself from realization. Tom T: As I said to one of the folks in FF the other day. You were doomed to awaken. She laughed heartily. That idea seemed to tickle her in a funny way. She had been on the path for the past 35 years and the idea she was doomed the entire time seemed to cause the contrast that allows us to laugh at ourselves.;
Re: [FairfieldLife] Jesus Christ speaks of the living waters..bliss conscious...
In a message dated 7/24/07 4:37:35 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jesus (addressing the Samarian woman at the well) answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again, ...but, whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst, the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water (bliss,anandam) springing up into everlasting life. John 4:13. Have you ever seen a group of several hundred to a thousand or more experiencing this? It really is amazing to witness. Acts 2. Dr. Rodney Howard Brown gives this anointing (Shaktipat) in groups of hundreds or more. ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenging the primary assumption
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So here's a question for the group. One of the most fundamental assumptions within the TMO, and in many paths that see enlightenment as the end product of their spiritual sadhana, is that *in* the state of enlightenment one's perceptions are accurate, a true reflection of reality. Gee, I've never heard this in the TM context, Barry. Is this one of those special teachings given only to teachers? snip So let's open the question up to the group. This *is* a really interesting group, full of strong spiritual seekers who have spent the better part of their lives pursuing enlightenment. So whaddyathink? When you realize your own enlightenment (or now that you have), will your perceptions be (or are your perceptions now) 100% accurate, unclouded by any stress or samskaras or anything that could render them less than objective truth, or Cosmic Truth? Haven't we discussed this umpty times already (here and on alt.m.t)? I know I've given my understanding of it many times. Very briefly: the enlightened person perceives what Nature wants him or her to perceive, for Nature's own inscrutable purposes (anthropomorphically speaking; it's much more abstract than that, but that's the gist of it). In other words: If Nature has a need for an enlightened person to perceive something incorrectly, that's how he or she will perceive it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sinhlnx sinhlnx@ wrote: ---Consider an apartment as a type of cage. Could a person only think the apartment is real, but really be living inside Mae West's head? http://www.planetperplex.com/en/item203 Or, Jim, you were fortunate in realizing you were in a cage. So I guess the people living in the cage but don't know it are in ignorant Bliss?kind of like the people living in the Matrix world while the aliens are sucking out the juices from their real bodies. That isn't my reality, though it may be someone's. I recall someone said once that if it can be imagined, it exists. I like that, believe it, and accept it.:-) An yet, someone also said (Saint Byron perhaps) that if you can't imagine the opposite of something -- as possibly being true, then you are stuck in in that boundary. The point of my kidding has been, Can you imagine yourself as possibly stuck in a prison that you are unaware of? Its easy to imagine anything. If I have my choice I will imagine that I am eternally free. I can certainly imagine myself to be in prison, but I choose not to. I'm actually not very interested in imagining much about myself at all, purely for the purpose of speculation. I'd much rather live it through my body than imagine it in my head. My imagination serves the purpose of bringing my desires to fruition, and it does a very good job of that, so I ask you, why would I imagine myself in prison?:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightenment as moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sinhlnx sinhlnx@ wrote: ---Consider an apartment as a type of cage. Could a person only think the apartment is real, but really be living inside Mae West's head? http://www.planetperplex.com/en/item203 Or, Jim, you were fortunate in realizing you were in a cage. So I guess the people living in the cage but don't know it are in ignorant Bliss?kind of like the people living in the Matrix world while the aliens are sucking out the juices from their real bodies. Or perhaps Jim is living locked in the cage of Enlightenment World -- perhaps not knowing he is caged, all the while thinking he is boundlessly free. Or, having made the mistake of announcing that he is realized/enlightened, now he's stuck in the cage of pretending that he is. I guess that's the same thing you mean by enlightenment world. I can't say fersure, of course, but it's certainly a possibility. I've seen the same phenomenon before in many different spiritual trips. Someone has a neat experience of realization -- a *real* experience of realization -- and, because they assume that once they have such an experience it will be permanent, they announce to the world their enlightenment. Some of them even set themselves up as spiritual teachers or gurus at this point. And then the experience fades. What's a guru to do? An honest one would go to his students and say, Oops, I was wrong. One who was a little less honest, espec- ially with himself, would pretend that the experience of realization was still going on. An even less honest one would indulge in self deception, and convince him- self that it was still going on. Once you've had a couple of these realization exper- iences, it's pretty easy to talk the talk of them. Few can tell whether you're talkin' from present exper- ience or past experience, because you *are* talkin' from experience. So it's actually a fairly common phenomenon in the larger community of spiritual trips and seekers to see people milking a transitory exper- ience of realization for years or decades after it has gone away or faded. Not to say that's what's going on here on FFL, but it could be. Because such things *aren't* talked about much in the TMO, but are known about and talked about openly in other spiritual trips, I just thought I'd bring up the possibility. This experience of transitory enlightenment is actually quite a good one to have, for several reasons. First, while it is occurring, it feels great; a blissful vacation from ourselves. The experiences we have during that time move us ahead in terms of being unlike what we've experienced before. Next, as the experience fades, it leaves behind a strong impression of that which is very desirable for us, spurring us forward in our quest for eternal freedom. Finally, the more we milk it as you say (for years??? I find that hard to believe, though I used to try to hold on for a couple of days afterwards...), the more our ego goes through an adjustment afterwards, realizing its limits, and hopefully helping us to become more humble in the process (lol). I look at those experiences of transitory enlightenment in hindsight as advertisements for and by the Divine-- flashy, desirable, and brief.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sinhlnx sinhlnx@ wrote: ---Consider an apartment as a type of cage. Could a person only think the apartment is real, but really be living inside Mae West's head? http://www.planetperplex.com/en/item203 Or, Jim, you were fortunate in realizing you were in a cage. So I guess the people living in the cage but don't know it are in ignorant Bliss?kind of like the people living in the Matrix world while the aliens are sucking out the juices from their real bodies. That isn't my reality, though it may be someone's. I recall someone said once that if it can be imagined, it exists. I like that, believe it, and accept it.:-) An yet, someone also said (Saint Byron perhaps) that if you can't imagine the opposite of something -- as possibly being true, then you are stuck in in that boundary. The point of my kidding has been, Can you imagine yourself as possibly stuck in a prison that you are unaware of? Its easy to imagine anything. If I have my choice I will imagine that I am eternally free. I can certainly imagine myself to be in prison, but I choose not to. I'm actually not very interested in imagining much about myself at all, purely for the purpose of speculation. I recall someone said once that if it can be imagined, it exists. I like that, believe it, and accept it.:-) I'd much rather live it through my body than imagine it in my head. My imagination serves the purpose of bringing my desires to fruition, and it does a very good job of that, so I ask you, why would I imagine myself in prison?:-) Why would you or anybody do any Byron Katie work?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor matrixmonitor@ wrote: ---the people you mention - living in cages. They should practice TM regularly and buy all the CD's DVD's relating to Ramana Maharshi from http://www.arunachala.org What do you suggestsome type of mood-making to grok I'm out of the cage, out of the cage, out of the cage.? i.e. a reorientation of one's thinking to consider that one is not in the cage. But if the person still thought he was in the cage, could he/she get Enlightened anyway? I can only say what worked for me; a burning thirst, hunger, desire to get out of the bondage that I felt accutely- a desire that transcended money, sex, formal education, friendship, death, food, sleep, relative happiness of any kind. And complete and utter surrender to that which I intuited would set me free. And frequent prayer and study of spiritual teaching. And regular TM, morning and evening for 30 years. And the Siddhis programme to burn out some big stuff, for 15 years. And always being true to myself, no matter what. And no dogma or organized anything to follow- just me, in the slowly blooming desert of my consciousness, from the age of ten to the age of fifty. And I was in the cage of my making, right up until the moment I wasn't. That is what worked for me.:-) Wonderful Jim ! Thanks for sharing this. You are welcome, and so am I!;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightenment as moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The bottom line from my point of view is that there is simply No Way to tell whether someone is bullshitting you (and often themselves) about their supposed enlight- enment or not. So you believe whatever you want, and whatever makes you happy. not to be too cryptic about it, but try listening beyond your hearing. Its a quick and easy way to suss out the bullshitters.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenging the primary assumption
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: So here's a question for the group. One of the most fundamental assumptions within the TMO, and in many paths that see enlightenment as the end product of their spiritual sadhana, is that *in* the state of enlightenment one's perceptions are accurate, a true reflection of reality. Gee, I've never heard this in the TM context, Barry. Is this one of those special teachings given only to teachers? snip So let's open the question up to the group. This *is* a really interesting group, full of strong spiritual seekers who have spent the better part of their lives pursuing enlightenment. So whaddyathink? When you realize your own enlightenment (or now that you have), will your perceptions be (or are your perceptions now) 100% accurate, unclouded by any stress or samskaras or anything that could render them less than objective truth, or Cosmic Truth? Haven't we discussed this umpty times already (here and on alt.m.t)? I know I've given my understanding of it many times. Very briefly: the enlightened person perceives what Nature wants him or her to perceive, for Nature's own inscrutable purposes (anthropomorphically speaking; it's much more abstract than that, but that's the gist of it). In other words: If Nature has a need for an enlightened person to perceive something incorrectly, that's how he or she will perceive it. That's a pretty good way to put it. Whether we like it or not (lol) we become agents of the Divine. Its pretty funny actually, and no disrespect meant for those ignirant enough to imagine what I said means I am somehow better than they are (lol), which from my POV is both hilarious and absurd.:-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
On Jul 24, 2007, at 10:39 PM, new.morning wrote: This is a common theme in neo-advaitin realizers, the inability to present a correct View (drsti) regarding the two truths (satyadvaya). Being THE correct view, I am sure all realized ones agree on it. :-) If only.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just one short comment to this: For me it is a wonderful refreshment to FFL, and for me personally, that you and Jim are saying what you do. Since the two of you started saying what you say this place has made a dramatical turn towards soberness, in my honest opinion. Thanks :-) OK, I'll say it again: I am enlightened, as of March(?- close enough) 2005. My experience has continued to grow-- like that Ramana Mountain fellow, we continue to eat the Universe after the perception and experience becomes clear. Jai Guru Dev.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jesus Christ speaks of the living waters..bliss conscious...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/24/07 4:37:35 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jesus (addressing the Samarian woman at the well) answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again, ...but, whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst, the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water (bliss,anandam) springing up into everlasting life. John 4:13. Have you ever seen a group of several hundred to a thousand or more experiencing this? It really is amazing to witness. Acts 2. Dr. Rodney Howard Brown gives this anointing (Shaktipat) in groups of hundreds or more. Any you tube video? In Acts 2 And suddenly there came a *sound* from *heaven* as of a rushing mighty wind... Perhaps the pranava of the Holy Spirit or the Holy OM vibration! And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightenment as moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: The bottom line from my point of view is that there is simply No Way to tell whether someone is bullshitting you (and often themselves) about their supposed enlight- enment or not. So you believe whatever you want, and whatever makes you happy. not to be too cryptic about it, but try listening beyond your hearing. Its a quick and easy way to suss out the bullshitters.:-) If I'd done that, you would definitely have been in the bullshitter's group. I think it's far more compassionate and charitable to just say, No Way to tell. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An yet, someone also said (Saint Byron perhaps) that if you can't imagine the opposite of something -- as possibly being true, then you are stuck in in that boundary. The point of my kidding has been, Can you imagine yourself as possibly stuck in a prison that you are unaware of? Its easy to imagine anything. If I have my choice I will imagine that I am eternally free. But of course you don't have that choice. Your imagination It is only that abstract anthropomorphic Nature that imagines what it wants and you are only the humble servant. Right? I can certainly imagine myself to be in prison, but I choose not to. But if that abstract anthropomorphic Nature imagines you in prison, per its inscrutable and abstract needs, then you will imagine you are in prison. Or are you saying you are not the instrument of the Divine and the Divine's imagination? I thought you just did in a prior post. Whether we like it or not (lol) we become agents of the Divine. Can you imagine that you are only imagining that you have the choice to imagine? Can you imagine that you are not the instrument of the Divine? Can you imagine that you are only imagining that you are enlightened? Can you imagine that you are only imagining that you are enlightened if that abstract anthropomorphic Nature imagines that you imagine that you are enlightened -- but also imagines that actually you are not? For all of you imaginations, or natures imaginations, and your thought of enlightenment, Is it true? Can you absolutely know that it's true? How do you react when you think that thought? Who would you be without the thought? Can you turn it around? (Each turnaround is an opportunity to experience the opposite of your original statement and see what you are without your (original) thought) Or is (or do you imagine) Byron Katie is only for those ignirant souls who are not as enlightened as you?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Curtis for your quick response, and especially for not taking offense in any way. That really speaks for you. It was easy not to be offended since your post had some interesting points for me to think about. It would be unrealistic for me to expect that a person pursuing a spiritual path would just drop it when communicating with me. Of course you would view people with perceptual filters that you value just as I do. This discussion has been helpful for me in exploring where these filters interact. One of the values for me in posting here has been to challenge my own perceptual filters concerning people who are on a spiritual path. At first I noticed the differences more between us, now I see more of the similarities. This is important for me because in my personal filters, I place a high value on being able to see things about people who are very different from me that I can relate with and connect to. Prejudging overtly spiritual people is a flaw in my filters that I am working on correcting. Posts with sincere desire to communicate our differences respectfully are my medicine. Thanks for a dose brother! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Thanks for taking the time to respond in detail. I think you have brought out some very good points about our different world views. I do agree with your point about people's differences concerning talents, intelligence and skills. You have correctly noted that I do not recognize the same meaning value in some spiritual experiences that some here do. It is not because I can not relate to them, it is because I view their value differently. What it means is where we differ. I don't recognize that a person's inner experiences make him higher than me in any way. I see this 'higher' only in a contextual way. For example 'more evolved towards a certain state of consciousness'. For example, somebody could be from a completely different philosophy, lets say a Dualist in the sense of Madhva. I could see that he is possibly very advanced at his path, even though I differ from him about the ultimate goal.And yet there are many common elements on the path.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodm
New Morning et al write snipped: Is it true? Can you absolutely know that it's true? How do you react when you think that thought? Who would you be without the thought? Can you turn it around? (Each turnaround is an opportunity to experience the opposite of your original statement and see what you are without your (original) thought) Or is (or do you imagine) Byron Katie is only for those ignirant souls who are not as enlightened as you? TomT: OK New the work is what you do to you not other. You have judged another so do the work on you. Answer the questions for your self and tell us your results. Interesting how it will play out.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
Rory: As I said when I first met you here, I am completely willing to be unenlightened with you in your world, if you are willing to be enlightened with me in mine -- will that do? Can we be both ordinary and special simultaneously together? I will if you will. Actually, I will even if you won't ... and I don't mean that as a put-down, just telling you who I am, while respecting your freedom of choice to be who you want :-) ME: Thanks for replying in detail. I knew I could count on some thoughtful material in response. There have been good perspectives offered by others in this thread giving me food for thought. The paragraph above is very T.S. Elliot. It is too clever to mess with. Very entertaining. I don't think I lump all Gurus in the same camp, but I think the ones who have built up big organizations are a bit power oriented. I don't know about the quieter ones who never built up big Western followings. I did spend some time in Christian monasteries with some monks who had a cool vibe that I wouldn't judge as being on a power trip. I tend to believe that gurus who end up with millions of dollars probably wanted them and worked hard to get them. I hold them as different from my value system as The Donald or any other heavy empire builder. My feelings about gurus in general is a work in progress. Right now the jury is deadlocked and keeps requesting more information. It is fine with me if I never get a verdict. I do come across exceptional people from time to time and they really seem to be functioning from a different POV. For me a person's POV on life is the driving factor. I am very influenced by the thinking of Albert Ellis (who just died RIP) and his view of how our conceptual models effect our happiness. (Rational Emotive Therapy) I found this exchange helpful and I appreciate your response. I think we do get a skewed vision of each other from our writing. We are all using our writing here for our own self discovery. Your point about the nature of writing was a valuable one. One of the paradoxes of the TM system is that anyone claiming to have reached the goal was always viewed with great suspicion when I was involved. I can imagine the rash of S-- you would have gotten for announcing your own perspective on your experiences. Inherent in a view that you are no longer resisting your enlightenment and guys like me are, is a sort of hierarchy implied. But I can look past that since I carry my own versions of ranking people in my world. It is really none of my business how you are viewing me as long as the way you communicate with me has the friendly connection that I sense from your post. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Me: I have been enjoying lurking I have been thinking something about how you write that I would like to run by you Rory. I think you are using language that very carefully does separate you from the person you are responding to. To a large degree this is true, Curtis, in that I generally attempt to take responsibility for my perceptions *of* the other, without ascribing specific attributes *to* the other (though sometimes I fail of course), as it's usually evident that my perceptions of the other are simply the qualities of myself I choose to see in this moment. This is *not* to say however that my perceptions aren't also true -- or at least shared by others, which may be our basic criterion of objective as opposed to subjective reality. However, as I mentioned to Steve, I really can't say if an asshole has any real existence -- the only reality I am prepared to affirm whole-heartedly is the self- evident, radiant indescribable one, as that one keeps appearing when the other perceptions un-slip-knot themselves. There is then no separation. Almost to a post there is an assertion of your separateness, specialness. Yes, I'm special, and so is everyone else, though some don't like to admit it. When I came on FFL with the message I'm enlightened, and so are you you wouldn't believe some of the responses I got ... even a strongly-worded death-wish :-) I think it is very important for you to present yourself as having a special relationship with the world. Special and ordinary, simultaneously. I offer you another option and perspective for consideration. We may all actually be the same with regard to our states of consciousness. Yes, that is generally my initial a-priori assumption, and was very much so on FFL -- though I have very often been shown here that my assumptions were apparently false, not shared by others :-) What you are describing in sometimes Baroque detail may just be an affectation of your use of words to describe states that everyone else is living in without needing all the descriptions. That's what a writer does, if successful -- points out
[FairfieldLife] Peg Leg Sam - The Tat Wala Baba of blues harmonica players!
One of the most amazing guys I have come across lately is this hobo harmonica player named Peg Leg Sam. He represents one of the most irrepressible human spirits I have seen. Whatever life throws at him, he just reframes it and moves on. When he lost his leg hopping a freight train, he strapped on a fence post with a belt and kept on truck'n. He saved a woman from a beating in a domestic dispute, and got repaid by having his face slit from ear to jaw. He floated through life totally under radar of society until he was discovered and filmed. In this documentary you hear his life's philosophy and see some great harmonica tricks. This guy is a one-of-a-kind miracle. Give this streaming video a few minutes of your time and I hope you find it as life affirming as I did! http://www.folkstreams.net/pub/stream.php?s=22f=1 It comes from this great site for free history of blues videos: http://tinyurl.com/368j9d
[FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightenment as moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: The bottom line from my point of view is that there is simply No Way to tell whether someone is bullshitting you (and often themselves) about their supposed enlight- enment or not. So you believe whatever you want, and whatever makes you happy. not to be too cryptic about it, but try listening beyond your hearing. Its a quick and easy way to suss out the bullshitters.:-) If I'd done that, you would definitely have been in the bullshitter's group. I think it's far more compassionate and charitable to just say, No Way to tell. :-) Get real. I don't want your compassion to determine whether or not you think I am enlightened or BSing. What a rediculous notion. Think whatever you want. This is an absurd conversation at this point; compassion- what a joke.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: An yet, someone also said (Saint Byron perhaps) that if you can't imagine the opposite of something -- as possibly being true, then you are stuck in in that boundary. The point of my kidding has been, Can you imagine yourself as possibly stuck in a prison that you are unaware of? Its easy to imagine anything. If I have my choice I will imagine that I am eternally free. But of course you don't have that choice. Your imagination It is only that abstract anthropomorphic Nature that imagines what it wants and you are only the humble servant. Right? I can certainly imagine myself to be in prison, but I choose not to. But if that abstract anthropomorphic Nature imagines you in prison, per its inscrutable and abstract needs, then you will imagine you are in prison. Or are you saying you are not the instrument of the Divine and the Divine's imagination? I thought you just did in a prior post. Whether we like it or not (lol) we become agents of the Divine. Can you imagine that you are only imagining that you have the choice to imagine? Can you imagine that you are not the instrument of the Divine? Can you imagine that you are only imagining that you are enlightened? Can you imagine that you are only imagining that you are enlightened if that abstract anthropomorphic Nature imagines that you imagine that you are enlightened -- but also imagines that actually you are not? For all of you imaginations, or natures imaginations, and your thought of enlightenment, Is it true? Can you absolutely know that it's true? How do you react when you think that thought? Who would you be without the thought? Can you turn it around? (Each turnaround is an opportunity to experience the opposite of your original statement and see what you are without your (original) thought) Or is (or do you imagine) Byron Katie is only for those ignirant souls who are not as enlightened as you? I don't know where to start with your plethora of rhetorical questions. I am perfectly comfortable to let you answer every one of them by yourself.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: An yet, someone also said (Saint Byron perhaps) that if you can't imagine the opposite of something -- as possibly being true, then you are stuck in in that boundary. The point of my kidding has been, Can you imagine yourself as possibly stuck in a prison that you are unaware of? Its easy to imagine anything. If I have my choice I will imagine that I am eternally free. But of course you don't have that choice. Your imagination It is only that abstract anthropomorphic Nature that imagines what it wants and you are only the humble servant. Right? I can certainly imagine myself to be in prison, but I choose not to. But if that abstract anthropomorphic Nature imagines you in prison, per its inscrutable and abstract needs, then you will imagine you are in prison. Or are you saying you are not the instrument of the Divine and the Divine's imagination? I thought you just did in a prior post. Whether we like it or not (lol) we become agents of the Divine. Can you imagine that you are only imagining that you have the choice to imagine? Can you imagine that you are not the instrument of the Divine? Can you imagine that you are only imagining that you are enlightened? Can you imagine that you are only imagining that you are enlightened if that abstract anthropomorphic Nature imagines that you imagine that you are enlightened -- but also imagines that actually you are not? For all of you imaginations, or natures imaginations, and your thought of enlightenment, Is it true? Can you absolutely know that it's true? How do you react when you think that thought? Who would you be without the thought? Can you turn it around? (Each turnaround is an opportunity to experience the opposite of your original statement and see what you are without your (original) thought) Or is (or do you imagine) Byron Katie is only for those ignirant souls who are not as enlightened as you? I don't know where to start with your plethora of rhetorical questions. I am perfectly comfortable to let you answer every one of them by yourself.:-) He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that what new.morning was getting at is whether you or anyone who considers themselves enlightened are willing to do the work on your assumption that you're enlightened. So far, the answer is no. You don't seem to be *able* to challenge that assumption, or question it in any way. It's a given, a story that you believe so thoroughly that you refuse to question it even theoretically. I get the feeling that what new.morning is suggesting is that there is a bit of cognitive dissonance when some who promote Byron Katie's techniques for anal- yzing one's stories (although I don't remember you having done that, Jim) refuse to analyze their own story of enlightenment, or even *consider the possi- bility* that it might not be true. Did I get that right, new? You're enlightened, and you refuse to even *think* that you might not be. Did I get that right, Jim?
[FairfieldLife] the mantra
Hi, Just wondering, how much does a mantra cost these days? When I got my first one (the second one from Maharishi himself, in 1971) I could manage financially. But now I heard that it costs around 2.500 dollars, (though there is discount for families). If so, why so expensive? Is it only for the well-to-do folks? Best wishes, j.-- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/J-Krishnamurti_andLife/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're enlightened, and you refuse to even *think* that you might not be. Did I get that right, Jim? You are missing what I and many others have already said again and again here. Enlightenment is not experienced on the level of thinking. It is a state of Being. This is not my original expression-- All of the gurus and spiritual teachers say this also. Given your background, I am surprised that you don't know this yet. Your level of ignorance astounds me.:-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] the mantra
Dude or dudette, Welcome and are you serious or are you a troll? --- new7892001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Just wondering, how much does a mantra cost these days? When I got my first one (the second one from Maharishi himself, in 1971) I could manage financially. But now I heard that it costs around 2.500 dollars, (though there is discount for families). If so, why so expensive? Is it only for the well-to-do folks? Best wishes, j.-- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/J-Krishnamurti_andLife/ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=listsid=396545469
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
Quick comment at the bottom: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rory: As I said when I first met you here, I am completely willing to be unenlightened with you in your world, if you are willing to be enlightened with me in mine -- will that do? Can we be both ordinary and special simultaneously together? I will if you will. Actually, I will even if you won't ... and I don't mean that as a put-down, just telling you who I am, while respecting your freedom of choice to be who you want :-) ME: Thanks for replying in detail. I knew I could count on some thoughtful material in response. There have been good perspectives offered by others in this thread giving me food for thought. The paragraph above is very T.S. Elliot. It is too clever to mess with. Very entertaining. I don't think I lump all Gurus in the same camp, but I think the ones who have built up big organizations are a bit power oriented. I don't know about the quieter ones who never built up big Western followings. I did spend some time in Christian monasteries with some monks who had a cool vibe that I wouldn't judge as being on a power trip. I tend to believe that gurus who end up with millions of dollars probably wanted them and worked hard to get them. I hold them as different from my value system as The Donald or any other heavy empire builder. My feelings about gurus in general is a work in progress. Right now the jury is deadlocked and keeps requesting more information. It is fine with me if I never get a verdict. I do come across exceptional people from time to time and they really seem to be functioning from a different POV. For me a person's POV on life is the driving factor. I am very influenced by the thinking of Albert Ellis (who just died RIP) and his view of how our conceptual models effect our happiness. (Rational Emotive Therapy) I found this exchange helpful and I appreciate your response. I think we do get a skewed vision of each other from our writing. We are all using our writing here for our own self discovery. Your point about the nature of writing was a valuable one. One of the paradoxes of the TM system is that anyone claiming to have reached the goal was always viewed with great suspicion when I was involved. I can imagine the rash of S-- you would have gotten for announcing your own perspective on your experiences. Inherent in a view that you are no longer resisting your enlightenment and guys like me are, is a sort of hierarchy implied. But I can look past that since I carry my own versions of ranking people in my world. It is really none of my business how you are viewing me as long as the way you communicate with me has the friendly connection that I sense from your post. **snip to end** Curtis, your last comment (last sentence, immediately above) re the friendly connection represents for me, too, the best of FFL. Whenever people here are willing to presume the best of other posters here it makes me feel good. Even some of the more gadfly-oriented posts can be inherently respectful of the audience and I appreciate the more spirited discussions that sometimes result. It's disappointing, however, when folks presume the worst, take offense, and start the slamming. This thread fits in the first category and I agree that it has been very helpful. Marek
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
---Thanks, true, but why are you talking about it? In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: You're enlightened, and you refuse to even *think* that you might not be. Did I get that right, Jim? You are missing what I and many others have already said again and again here. Enlightenment is not experienced on the level of thinking. It is a state of Being. This is not my original expression-- All of the gurus and spiritual teachers say this also. Given your background, I am surprised that you don't know this yet. Your level of ignorance astounds me.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: You're enlightened, and you refuse to even *think* that you might not be. Did I get that right, Jim? You are missing what I and many others have already said again and again here. Enlightenment is not experienced on the level of thinking. It is a state of Being. This is not my original expression-- All of the gurus and spiritual teachers say this also. Given your background, I am surprised that you don't know this yet. Your level of ignorance astounds me.:-) It's a little like accusing somebody of refusing even to *think* they might be dreaming rather than awake. When you're awake, it's self-evident you aren't dreaming. (Not self-evident meaning obvious, but rather evident in terms of itself.) That's a perfect analogy- Thanks!:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
Good question Are you not interested? Seriously, there are many seekers on the path, like the poster who asked me if I think I am or am not enlightened, who want to believe that we can achieve an enlightened state permanently, theoretically, maybe, possibly, almost, according to these factors, but excluding these factors, and only if they like me, and only if I like them, belonging to this sect, but not belonging to that one, and manifesting these behaviors, but excluding those behaviors, having these beliefs, and excluding those beliefs, etc. No problemI ran the same stories at one time, though they were probably more like feelings than discrete lists. So perhaps I talk about it to let people know the living truth of it, that anyone can find themselves in such a state of Being, and what it is like when it happens to an ordinary person. Hopefully something of what I am saying is helpful to someone out there. The other piece of it is, I just enjoy talking about it, as would most of us, having achieved a goal we've spent decades on.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, qntmpkt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ---Thanks, true, but why are you talking about it? In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: You're enlightened, and you refuse to even *think* that you might not be. Did I get that right, Jim? You are missing what I and many others have already said again and again here. Enlightenment is not experienced on the level of thinking. It is a state of Being. This is not my original expression-- All of the gurus and spiritual teachers say this also. Given your background, I am surprised that you don't know this yet. Your level of ignorance astounds me.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: You're enlightened, and you refuse to even *think* that you might not be. Did I get that right, Jim? You are missing what I and many others have already said again and again here. Enlightenment is not experienced on the level of thinking. It is a state of Being. This is not my original expression-- All of the gurus and spiritual teachers say this also. Given your background, I am surprised that you don't know this yet. Your level of ignorance astounds me.:-) It's a little like accusing somebody of refusing even to *think* they might be dreaming rather than awake. When you're awake, it's self-evident you aren't dreaming. (Not self-evident meaning obvious, but rather evident in terms of itself.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: You're enlightened, and you refuse to even *think* that you might not be. Did I get that right, Jim? You are missing what I and many others have already said again and again here. Enlightenment is not experienced on the level of thinking. It is a state of Being. This is not my original expression-- All of the gurus and spiritual teachers say this also. Given your background, I am surprised that you don't know this yet. Your level of ignorance astounds me.:-) It's a little like accusing somebody of refusing even to *think* they might be dreaming rather than awake. When you're awake, it's self-evident you aren't dreaming. (Not self-evident meaning obvious, but rather evident in terms of itself.) Ever heard of hallucination? Or delusion? Clinically deluded people see things and believe things about their perceptions -- things that are self-evident to them -- every day that are more correctly categorized as dreams, or at the very least dreamlike. The first step to helping these people separate what is real in their perceptions and what is not is getting them to do a little self inquiry, to ask themselves if there is a *possibility* that they are not real. Until that happens, in an extreme case involving waking hallucinations and delusions, no progress can be made. (Other than with, say, drugs.) Now make the mental leap to those following spiritual paths who are so convinced that their perceptions are correct, and that their enlightenment is self-evident that they are unable to question, even theoretically, that they might be something else. I know that you haven't been around the block much, spiritually, but if you had you might have run into a few people who believed themselves enlightened who turned out to be delusional, and were later committed to institutions as a result of those delusions. You might have run into people who had convinced themselves -- and others -- that they were fully enlightened, and then self-destructed in some other way. Think Andy Rhymer. Think Frederick Lenz/ Rama, whom you probably *don't* consider enlightened. He certainly considered himself to be. I know for sure that his state of consciousness was self-evident to him, and yet he ended up as crab food, a suicide. *Without a doubt*, these people's enlightenment was self-evident to them. There was no question in their minds that it existed. But did it? I'm just sayin' that there is a big red flag raised for me when someone believes one of their stories so completely that they seem *unable* to even *entertain* the idea that it might not be true. Haven't you ragged on me for years to examine my experiences of seeing someone levitate, to see if there might be another way of seeing the experience, and see if it might not be true? ( As if I hadn't already done this hundreds of times before I ever ran into you. :-) Yet when Jim refuses to even *consider* examining his enlightenment, even if it's just theoretical and for fun, you defend him and claim that I'm accusing him of something. H. :-) The Byron Katie fans here seem to be saying that it's a good thing to utilize some of her techniques to analyze their stories to see if they're true. And yet there is one story of their own that is somehow exempt from analysis. H.
[FairfieldLife] 'New York DC top Cocaine use list'
DC: 7 tons of cocaine up the nose down the drain Recently a German research outfit tested wastewater in more than a dozen worldwide cities for metabolites of cocaine. The idea was to infer per-capita cocaine use by measuring the concentration of coke by-products (excreted through urine and then through the waste treatment system) in the Hudson, the Potomac and other great rivers of the world. The winner, by a lot: New York City, with an estimated useage of 134 lines of cocaine per day per 1,000 inhabitants. That's 16 tons a year. Miranda de Ebro, in Spain's Pyrenees, came in second. Washington D.C. placed third, with 56 lines a day per 1,000 inhabitants or 7 tons per year. San Francisco was fourth. No tests were done on the Patapsco. Source: Institute for Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Research. The study was cited in the United Nations' World Drug Report, published a couple weeks ago. Thanks to Big Picture for the tip. - Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jesus Christ speaks of the living waters..bliss consc...
In a message dated 7/25/07 8:35:21 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jesus (addressing the Samarian woman at the well) answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again, ...but, whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst, the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water (bliss,anandam) springing up into everlasting life. John 4:13. Have you ever seen a group of several hundred to a thousand or more experiencing this? It really is amazing to witness. Acts 2. Dr. Rodney Howard Brown gives this anointing (Shaktipat) in groups of hundreds or more. Any you tube video? In Acts 2 And suddenly there came a *sound* from *heaven* as of a rushing mighty wind... Perhaps the pranava of the Holy Spirit or the Holy OM vibration! And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost. I don't know if there is any video on his web site but you can check it out._REVIVAL.COM / Welcome to revival.com_ (http://www.revival.com/www/r.aspx?lan=1p=1aid=0) He has a television program called Chronicles of Revival which shows a lot of it. I know the first time I ever had a kundalini rush it began with the sound of a roaring/rushing wind blowing up my spine. I think this is what the Hebrews experienced when God attempted to speak to them at Sinai and it scared them so much they asked not to hear the voice of God and let God speak through a prophet to them. ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
[FairfieldLife] Mark Landau re: Conny
From Mark Landau: It has come to my attention that a message I intended as personal communication regarding Conny Larsson made its way into Fairfield Life and other sites on the Internet. These words were sincere but incorrect. I would like to try to rectify that. My words were: “In my memory, Conny's time on the job was limited to a few weeks -- i was surprised at how short he lasted, though, in retrospect, i would mark that up to his integrity, sensitivity and what he saw from the get go. This was my experience regarding Conny’s stint specifically as “skin boy,” and I do remember being shocked when he left so abruptly. I also remember that he was around much longer than that, like so many people were, and that he gave Maharishi massage every night for more than a few months. I have since learned, though, that Conny served Maharishi on and off from 1972 to 1976 as skin boy and in other ways far longer than the few weeks I remember. In some ways he was more intimate with Maharishi and in his confidence than I was, or other “skin boys” as well. Either my memory was faulty, I wasn’t around or I missed much of what he did because a lot of it was at night. I just wanted to set the record straight as best I could. Namaste, Mark Landau No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.19/917 - Release Date: 7/25/2007 1:16 AM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Was in a rush before; want to add a couple things: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip *Without a doubt*, these people's enlightenment was self-evident to them. There was no question in their minds that it existed. But did it? I have no idea. Do you? Not a clue. I'm just sayin' that there is a big red flag raised for me when someone believes one of their stories so completely And Jim was just sayin' that the nature of enlightenment is such that it falls outside the category of stories, something of which you're apparently not aware. And I *understand* that some people believe this. I do not. Neither do spiritual traditions such as the Tibetan one Vaj mentioned. I am a strong believer in enlightenment, and I believe that the experience of it should be under exactly the same scrutiny and subject to the same analysis as any other experience, if not more. It isn't exempt.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: You're enlightened, and you refuse to even *think* that you might not be. Did I get that right, Jim? You are missing what I and many others have already said again and again here. Enlightenment is not experienced on the level of thinking. It is a state of Being. This is not my original expression-- All of the gurus and spiritual teachers say this also. Given your background, I am surprised that you don't know this yet. Your level of ignorance astounds me.:-) It's a little like accusing somebody of refusing even to *think* they might be dreaming rather than awake. When you're awake, it's self-evident you aren't dreaming. (Not self-evident meaning obvious, but rather evident in terms of itself.) Ever heard of hallucination? Or delusion? Not relevant. The issue is one's state of consciousness, not one's state of mind. snip Haven't you ragged on me for years to examine my experiences of seeing someone levitate, to see if there might be another way of seeing the experience, and see if it might not be true? Nope, never have, actually. I'm afraid you're hallucinating.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Disfavor for Bush Hits Rare Heights
When you behave like an arrogant, idiot asshole there are consequences, yes? --- Robert Gimbel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Disfavor for Bush Hits Rare Heights In Modern Era, Only Nixon and Truman Scored Worse, Just Barely By Peter Baker Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, July 25, 2007; A03 President Bush is a competitive guy. But this is one contest he would rather lose. With 18 months left in office, he is in the running for most unpopular president in the history of modern polling. The latest Washington Post-ABC News survey shows that 65 percent of Americans disapprove of Bush's job performance, matching his all-time low. In polls conducted by The Post or Gallup going back to 1938, only twice has a president exceeded that level of public animosity -- Harry S. Truman, who hit 67 percent during the Korean War, and Richard M. Nixon, who hit 66 percent four days before resigning. The historic depth of Bush's public standing has whipsawed his White House, sapped his clout, drained his advisers, encouraged his enemies and jeopardized his legacy. Around the White House, aides make gallows-humor jokes about how they can alienate their remaining supporters -- at least those aides not heading for the door. Outside the White House, many former aides privately express anger and bitterness at their erstwhile colleagues, Bush and the fate of his presidency. Bush has been so down for so long that some advisers maintain it no longer bothers them much. It can even, they say, be liberating. Seeking the best interpretation for the president's predicament, they argue that Bush can do what he thinks is right without regard to political cost, pointing to decisions to send more U.S. troops to Iraq and to commute the sentence of I. Lewis Scooter Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff. But the president's unpopularity has left the White House to play mostly defense for the remainder of his term. With his immigration overhaul proposal dead, Bush's principal legislative hopes are to save his No Child Left Behind education program and to fend off attempts to force him to change course in Iraq. The emerging strategy is to play off a Congress that is also deeply unpopular and to look strong by vetoing spending bills. The president's low public standing has paralleled the disenchantment with the Iraq war, but some analysts said it goes beyond that, reflecting a broader unease with Bush's policies in a variety of areas. It isn't just the Iraq war, said Shirley Anne Warshaw, a presidential scholar at Gettysburg College. It's everything. Some analysts believe that even many war supporters deserted him because of his plan to open the door to legal status for illegal immigrants. You can do an unpopular war or you can do an unpopular immigration policy, said David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter. Not both. Yet Bush's political troubles seem to go beyond particular policies. Many presidents over the past 70 years have faced greater or more immediate crises without falling as far in the public mind -- Vietnam claimed far more American lives than Iraq, the Iranian hostage crisis made the United States look impotent, race riots and desegregation tore the country apart, the oil embargo forced drivers to wait for hours to fill up, the Soviets seemed to threaten the nation's survival. It's astonishing, said Pat Caddell, who was President Jimmy Carter's pollster. It's hard to look at the situation today and say the country is absolutely 15 miles down in the hole. The economy's not that bad -- for some people it is, but not overall. Iraq is terribly handled, but it's not Vietnam; we're not losing 250 people a week. . . . We don't have that immediate crisis, yet the anxiety about the future is palpable. And the feeling about him is he's irrelevant to that. I think they've basically given up on him. That may stem in part from the changing nature of society. When Caddell's boss was president, there were three major broadcast networks. Today cable news, talk radio and the Internet have made information far more available, while providing easy outlets for rage and polarization. Public disapproval of Bush is not only broad but deep; 52 percent of Americans strongly disapprove of his performance and 28 percent describe themselves as angry. A lot of the commentary that comes out of the Internet world is very harsh, said Frank J. Donatelli, White House political director for Ronald Reagan. That has a tendency to reinforce people's opinions and harden people's opinions. Carter and Reagan at their worst moments did not face a public as hostile as the one confronting Bush. Lyndon B. Johnson at the height of Vietnam had the disapproval of 52 percent of the public. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Gerald R. Ford never had disapproval ratings reach 50 percent. Truman and Nixon remain the most unpopular
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip One of the paradoxes of the TM system is that anyone claiming to have reached the goal was always viewed with great suspicion when I was involved. I can imagine the rash of S-- you would have gotten for announcing your own perspective on your experiences. Inherent in a view that you are no longer resisting your enlightenment and guys like me are, is a sort of hierarchy implied. But I can look past that since I carry my own versions of ranking people in my world. Actually, Curtis, I do not generally place you in any category of seriously resisting me/self/enlightenment as I don't generally feel any heavy resistance from you -- I almost always find you to be very open, thoughtful, and heartfilled -- all anyone could ask, and more. Moreover, a small degree of resistance itself is often stimulating, the grain of sand that grows the pearl. That's why I find myself often preferring FFL to other more homogeneous spiritual groups -- a bit of challenge is fun -- vive la difference! :-) It is really none of my business how you are viewing me as long as the way you communicate with me has the friendly connection that I sense from your post. My brother! :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: My experience with the awakened Kundalini
Hello, I am typing in a dark room in Germany. I know the keyboard but will keet it short because I cant type as fast as Rick. What is interesting is what came about in my writting the posts as I was reporting my experiences, and the conclusion that ended was 1. Who am I 2. How sure are you about that answer This is why as I was typeing, I wrote as concrete as can be unless a hammer smashes it. For starters, people may want to plant these two questions deeply within and see what comes out Any one that wants to answer those questions now in a post, be my guest, would love to read the answers The exchange between Barry and I is transcended in this moment, lots of intellectual exchange on both sides, so it seems Tanmay Tanmay
[FairfieldLife] Siddhanandas first post since Realization
Namaste and Om Dear Swamiji and Group, I have been fully absorbed and relishing the company of our beloved Sat Guru and have not had a free moment to sit down and write of what has taken place in the past few days. It is very difficult to relate and speak about the transformation that took place as words are useless and can never touch the reality of it. I cannot remember the days exactly, but will take you through the sequence of the experience as best possible. The first evening Swamiji did energy work on me, there was the usual shifting states of awareness, samadhi, kriyas and pranayam.these symptoms continued intensely for some time - the body sometimes felt as if dead - there was no breath intermittently for long periods - after (am not sure how long), there came to a point when it felt like every cell, every thought, everything known was going to explode - it felt literally as if the world was going to explode (the world being the private universe one had taken security in)...there was a point of extinction that came into view. At this time the automatic reaction was to preserve the self - the eyes scrunched up tight against it, the whole body was trembling in absolute terror, the breath stopped in the throat choking and gagging - there was no breath for a long time. The desire was to pull away and save oneself - it was an automatic reaction like an instinct. I will say that no matter how far one feels they have come - how many experiences one feels has been gathered, there is nothing like this fear. It explodes through the being on all levels. I cannot say that anything internally was said or there was a conscious letting go, but the transmission of energy broke down the last threads of resistance held in place. I don't know what happened at this point, but eventually the body sat up. (Was very surprised there was a body at all). Swamiji was sitting in the Guru chair in the corner - the heart balloons Premananda brought floating beside her. She pointed to the balloons and said, Is that how you feel? We laughed and laughed - then, my head went down and a deep samadhi was entered, the void - could not come out of it for awhile. When it was over, I stood up and there was a radical shift in consciousness. I told, Swamiji - there is something different about this - this is zero. In this state of perfect grounding and balance, suffering never existed. In all other states previously entered, there was a reference point of sorts - a comparison - such as I am suffering, now I am not or There was a me, now there is not. In 0 - the suffering persona never was and cannot be cognized. Realization is not at all what one thinks. All of the fears and ideas once ruminated on about it are absoluteley unfounded. I used to think all sorts of things about it. I used to worry about all sorts of things about it. Could I work? Could I function? Could I take care of my son? What would he think of me? Would I look or behave strange around him or others. Some of the sadhakas have said to me, You don't look any different. They may be looking for something about me that is different. What is she talkin about? Has she gone off the ddep end. Nothing outwardly has changed. This is true. It is only the consciousnes that has changed. This is the whole joke of it. The me persona that was such a driving force (the seeker) does not exist and never did. Something that for years was all that was known - it is nothing, unreal, non-existent..and what is revealed always IS and there never was a time that it could not be. O-point blows out all opposites what remains is a flame that is eternally lit in the heart Nothing of the world, nothing of the senses, no cause, no effect can touch it. One becomes the flame or that which illumines There is no love, no compassion - no sense of otherness to create a feeling or drive. There is no inside or outside There is no me and has never been There is no past or future as they have no existence There is no God or all is God There is nothing that comes and goes There is no stain There is no object of perception There is no point of contact There is nothing seen There is a fullness of life an innocence that is unstained and has 0 identifications, attachment or sense of loss and gain There is no child, no youth, no adult or aged There is no progression Thought are like birds flying through vastless space The supreme self is the space The supreme self is that which lights up the world, but is untouched by any activity, any vocalization, any becoming, any knowledge. There is no happiness or enjoyer, yet there is full enjoyment and rejoicing. There is only the changeless, timeless supreme being that palpably and eternally abides as IS. All so simple, so absolutley natural. There is no Guru and never was. I am not, but I am - timeless and unchangeable. There is no beauty, but all shines beautiful. There is a steady calm, a gentle peace, a
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightenment as moodmaking?
On Jul 25, 2007, at 4:26 PM, Peter wrote: I officially declare that Jim is enlightened and is the envy of the entire host of celestial gods. I will declare anyone else to be enlightened too if they like. Also Risk Archer is enlightened because he's my initiator. Micheal Dean Goodman is also enlightened because I drum with him and went to his house last Saturday night. Dr. Pete, maybe next time you see him you could mention that his house in FF is on the verge of being condemned, and several of his neighbors are seriously ticked that he's let things get to the point they have. Apparently he's been ignoring letters from the city to take care of his property for years now. Curtis is enlightened because I went to MIU with him.
[FairfieldLife] 'Man stops for cigs during police chase'
Jul 25, 2007 11:08 am US/Mountain Fugitive Stops For Cigarettes During Police Chase Video: Fugitive makes cigarette pit stopPHOENIX - A man involved in a police chase on Tuesday surprised authorities when he stopped at a convenience store to buy cigarettes -- before resuming the pursuit. That is exactly what happened Tuesday in Phoenix, where authorities chased a suspected bank robber through city streets. The suspect weaved his way through neighborhoods and made a couple of close calls with cars on the roadways. At one point, an undercover officer in a truck ran into the suspect -- trying to spin him out. Then, in the middle of the chase, the suspect made a pit stop at a convenience store -- and ran inside, apparently to buy a pack of smokes. The clerk said the guy seemed to be in a hurry, but paid for the pack and left. I give him [the cigarettes] and he gave me $20 and he left, the store clerk said. Police eventually deployed a spike strip, which blew out one of the suspects tires, before taking him into custody. - Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: You're enlightened, and you refuse to even *think* that you might not be. Did I get that right, Jim? You are missing what I and many others have already said again and again here. Enlightenment is not experienced on the level of thinking. It is a state of Being. snip Got to agree with Jim here -- I'd say it's not even an experience in the conventional meaning; more an Understanding that finally frees one from bondage to all experience -- hence, not really something that can fade away or get lost, like the glimpses of higher states we used to value so :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that what new.morning was getting at is whether you or anyone who considers themselves enlightened are willing to do the work on your assumption that you're enlightened. Basically, as I understand it, one does the work on oneself in areas in which one feels pain or suffering, as these are signs of incorrect thinking or thinking not in alignment with nature; there is no need to examine ideas that don't hurt :-) snip
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Was in a rush before; want to add a couple things: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip *Without a doubt*, these people's enlightenment was self-evident to them. There was no question in their minds that it existed. But did it? I have no idea. Do you? Not a clue. I'm just sayin' that there is a big red flag raised for me when someone believes one of their stories so completely And Jim was just sayin' that the nature of enlightenment is such that it falls outside the category of stories, something of which you're apparently not aware. And I *understand* that some people believe this. I do not. Neither do spiritual traditions such as the Tibetan one Vaj mentioned. I am a strong believer in enlightenment, and I believe that the experience of it should be under exactly the same scrutiny and subject to the same analysis as any other experience, if not more. It isn't exempt. What basis do you have for believing that Rory and I see it any other way? Is it because of what Vaj said? And why do you believe Vaj more than you believe either of us? Ask yourself this please and let the rest of FFL know the answer if you would: Why is it you are inclined to only believe in enlightenment from a distance, either psychologically (paraphrase of Barry: we are always enlightened, we just need to realize it...- yes, and that means it can be escaped from at any time too), physically (paraphrase of Barry: those that say they are enlightened here, are not- yes, because if they were, they could be talking to you right now), or mentally (paraphrase of Barry: those who say they are enlightened need to be able to doubt their experiences- yes, because it again makes the immediate experience of enlightenment doubtful, and distant). I think you are afraid of enlightenment Barry. Very, very afraid of it. Prove me otherwise.:-)
[FairfieldLife] WTO Announces Formalized Slavery Model for Africa
WTO Announces Formalized Slavery Model for Africa US Trade Representative to Africa, Governor of Nigeria Central Bank weigh in at Wharton WTO NEWS: 2006 PRESS RELEASES WTO News Archives, November 13, 2006 http://www.gatt.org/wharton.html Philadelphia - At a Wharton Business School conference on business in Africa, World Trade Organization representative Hanniford Schmidt announced the creation of a WTO initiative for full private stewardry of labor for the parts of Africa that have been hardest hit by the 500 years of Africa's free trade with the West. The initiative will require Western companies doing business in some parts of Africa to own their workers outright. Schmidt recounted how private stewardship has been successfully applied to transport, power, water, traditional knowledge, and even the human genome. The WTO's full private stewardry program will extend these successes to (re)privatize humans themselves. Full, untrammelled stewardry is the best available solution to African poverty, and the inevitable result of free-market theory, Schmidt told more than 150 attendees. Schmidt acknowledged that the stewardry program was similar in many ways to slavery, but explained that just as compassionate conservatism has polished the rough edges on labor relations in industrialized countries, full stewardry, or compassionate slavery, could be a similar boon to developing ones. The audience included Prof. Charles Soludo (Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria), Dr. Laurie Ann Agama (Director for African Affairs at the Office of the US Trade Representative), and other notables. Agama prefaced her remarks by thanking Scmidt for his macroscopic perspective, saying that the USTR view adds details to the WTO's general approach. Nigerian Central Bank Governor Soludo also acknowledged the WTO proposal, though he did not seem to appreciate it as much as did Agama. A system in which corporations own workers is the only free-market solution to African poverty, Schmidt said. Today, in African factories, the only concern a company has for the worker is for his or her productive hours, and within his or her productive years, he said. As soon as AIDS or pregnancy hitsout the door. Get sick, get fired. If you extend the employer's obligation to a 24/7, lifelong concern, you have an entirely different situation: get sick, get care. With each life valuable from start to finish, the AIDS scourge will be quickly contained via accords with drug manufacturers as a profitable investment in human stewardees. And educating a child for later might make more sense than working it to the bone right now. To prove that human stewardry can work, Schmidt cited a proposal by a free-market think tank to save whales by selling them. Those who don't like whaling can purchase rights to specific whales or groups of whales in order to stop those particular whales from getting whaled as much, he explained. Similarly, the market in Third-World humans will empower caring First Worlders to help them, Schmidt said. One conference attendee asked what incentive employers had to remain as stewards once their employees are too old to work or reproduce. Schmidt responded that a large new biotech market would answer that worry. He then reminded the audience that this was the only possible solution under free-market theory. There were no other questions from the audience that took issue with Schmidt's proposal. During his talk, Schmidt outlined the three phases of Africa's 500-year history of free trade with the West: slavery, colonialism, and post-colonial markets. Each time, he noted, the trade has brought tremendous wealth to the West but catastrophe to Africa, with poverty steadily deepening and ever more millions of dead. So far there's a pattern: Good for business, bad for people. Good for business, bad for people. Good for business, bad for people. That's why we're so happy to announce this fourth phase for business between Africa and the West: good for businessGOOD for people. The conference took place on Saturday, November 11. The panel on which Schmidt spoke was entitled Trade in Africa: Enhancing Relationships to Improve Net Worth. Some of the other panels in the conference were entitled Re-Branding Africa and Growing Africa's Appetite. Throughout the comments by Schmidt and his three co-panelists, which lasted 75 minutes, Schmidt's stewardee, Thomas Bongani-Nkemdilim, remained standing at respectful attention off to the side. This is what free trade's all about, said Schmidt. It's about the freedom to buy and sell anythingeven people.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Was in a rush before; want to add a couple things: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip *Without a doubt*, these people's enlightenment was self-evident to them. There was no question in their minds that it existed. But did it? I have no idea. Do you? Not a clue. I'm just sayin' that there is a big red flag raised for me when someone believes one of their stories so completely And Jim was just sayin' that the nature of enlightenment is such that it falls outside the category of stories, something of which you're apparently not aware. And I *understand* that some people believe this. I do not. Neither do spiritual traditions such as the Tibetan one Vaj mentioned. I am a strong believer in enlightenment, and I believe that the experience of it should be under exactly the same scrutiny and subject to the same analysis as any other experience, if not more. It isn't exempt. What basis do you have for believing that Rory and I see it any other way? Is it because of what Vaj said? And why do you believe Vaj more than you believe either of us? What's particularly interesting is that Vaj claimed the test for enlightenment was whether the person could do certain siddhis. Barry, of course, has always insisted that the ability to do siddhis doesn't have anything to do with enlightenment. So if he's going by what Vaj says in this case, I guess it's just another one of those contradictions that show how spiritually advanced he is. How did Self-Realization come to be associated with the ability to perform spiritual parlor tricks and feats of esoteric duality?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: I don't know where to start with your plethora of rhetorical questions. They are interesting questions, IMO. But I like to play with perspectives, logic and nuances of semantics. You probably are wired differently and don't find such interesting. No harm, now foul. (I have been reading about different personality types and the research indicating different neural pathways for different types). I am perfectly comfortable to let you answer every one of them by yourself.:-) They are interesting questions, IMO. But I like to play with perspectives, logic and nuances of semantics. You probably are wired differently and don't find such interesting. No harm, now foul. (I have been reading about different personality types and the research indicating different neural pathways for different types). I am glad you are comfortable.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodm
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TomT: OK New the work is what you do to you not other. Ok. Good point I guess. I am used to hearing Byron (audio MP3 version) do it to others so it seemed natural. A I recall, you have asked others these same work questions. Others have on the list. Rory has I think. Are you make a judgement about people doing so? You have judged another Nope. Thats your perception and your issues. so do the work on you. Answer the questions for your self I have. I have done the work a lot in the past day -- reading her web site an asking the quetion of Jim has refreshed my memory and past practice of it. and tell us your results. I am sure it would bore most. Interesting how it will play out. Interesting for you perhaps. Though perhaps you are being polite. Thanks for the personal interest though.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Was in a rush before; want to add a couple things: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip *Without a doubt*, these people's enlightenment was self-evident to them. There was no question in their minds that it existed. But did it? I have no idea. Do you? Not a clue. I'm just sayin' that there is a big red flag raised for me when someone believes one of their stories so completely And Jim was just sayin' that the nature of enlightenment is such that it falls outside the category of stories, something of which you're apparently not aware. And I *understand* that some people believe this. I do not. Neither do spiritual traditions such as the Tibetan one Vaj mentioned. I am a strong believer in enlightenment, and I believe that the experience of it should be under exactly the same scrutiny and subject to the same analysis as any other experience, if not more. It isn't exempt. What basis do you have for believing that Rory and I see it any other way? Is it because of what Vaj said? And why do you believe Vaj more than you believe either of us? What's particularly interesting is that Vaj claimed the test for enlightenment was whether the person could do certain siddhis. Barry, of course, has always insisted that the ability to do siddhis doesn't have anything to do with enlightenment. So if he's going by what Vaj says in this case, I guess it's just another one of those contradictions that show how spiritually advanced he is.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: You're enlightened, and you refuse to even *think* that you might not be. Did I get that right, Jim? You are missing what I and many others have already said again and again here. Enlightenment is not experienced on the level of thinking. It is a state of Being. This is not my original expression-- All of the gurus and spiritual teachers say this also. Given your background, I am surprised that you don't know this yet. Your level of ignorance astounds me.:-) It's a little like accusing somebody of refusing even to *think* they might be dreaming rather than awake. When you're awake, it's self-evident you aren't dreaming. (Not self-evident meaning obvious, but rather evident in terms of itself.) I am not so sure. Some interesting literature an epistimologies makes that very presumption -- that we are dreaming but think we are awake. Parallel to Plato's cave, perhaps. I think some here, perhaps Rory and Jim, have expressed something of that sort. I do know that when you are dreaming, its hard to accept that you are dreaming -- but assume you are awake. Though sometimes in the dream, you can be aware its a dream. But not so often, i think.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
---to a certain extent, your're right, Vaj; except that there's an infinite variation in the possible Siddhis, and then one would have to judge which of them is a criterion: certainly, being able to communicate with lobsters would be on top of the list, for sure! At the very least, Siddhis separate the men/women from the novices; thus, Guru Dev is a quantum leap beyond MMY although I dispute that there's some difference in the nature of Enlightenment since it's based on pure Consciousness and there's only one possibility there, vs an infinite variety of Siddhis to choose from. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 25, 2007, at 7:48 PM, Alex Stanley wrote: So if he's going by what Vaj says in this case, I guess it's just another one of those contradictions that show how spiritually advanced he is. How did Self-Realization come to be associated with the ability to perform spiritual parlor tricks and feats of esoteric duality? It's just a natural byproduct of real union, thus the association. Realization is invariably accompanied by mundane siddhi, although mundane siddhi is not always a sign of realization. How could we pretend to really be operating from the unified field and not naturally have some manifestation of that?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: You're enlightened, and you refuse to even *think* that you might not be. Did I get that right, Jim? You are missing what I and many others have already said again and again here. Enlightenment is not experienced on the level of thinking. It is a state of Being. This is not my original expression-- All of the gurus and spiritual teachers say this also. Given your background, I am surprised that you don't know this yet. Your level of ignorance astounds me.:-) Thats quite a judgement Jim. (which is not a judgement of jim, but is an observation.) Yes it is, and based on what I said above, that Enlightenment is not experienced on the level of thinking; it is a state of Being. Very basic stuff, and for the seeker in question to not get this after all he has studied, merits, imo, my comment. I find it shocking.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Foxnews Reports: Sen.Specter(R-PA)Switches to Dem.'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert Gimbel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Foxnews mistakenly reported today; In a subliminal message That Sen. Arlen Spector, specter.senate.gov/ Had switched parties; As he was speaking against Alberto Gonzales... Scarey? There was nothing subliminal about it; they clearly labeled him Senator, Pennsylvania (D), for 'Democrat'.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: that sort. I do know that when you are dreaming, its hard to accept that you are dreaming -- but assume you are awake. Though sometimes in the dream, you can be aware its a dream. But not so often, i think. The only logical conclusion to your statements, though, is an infinite regress in which all states of consciousness are then invalidated through equivocation. I can think of other conclusions. Can be said of anything really. A supposition which then makes any kind of reality based discourse impossible, ergo, no learning from one another is possible. I can think of other conclusions. Is that where you want to keep this discussion? No. Though its not much a discussion. As I said, questions appear to me. I am inquisitive. See my list of possibly useful inquiry questions with which to ponder of use the Work on. For you, such may be meaningless. For me they are useful. C'est la vie. Its the difference of mind / personality / types. i like you either way. If the answer is yes, why? Seems like a big time waster. :-)
[FairfieldLife] 'Foxnews Reports: Sen.Specter(R-PA)Switches to Dem.'
Foxnews mistakenly reported today; In a subliminal message That Sen. Arlen Spector, specter.senate.gov/ Had switched parties; As he was speaking against Alberto Gonzales... Scarey? - Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good question Are you not interested? Seriously, there are many seekers on the path, like the poster who asked me if I think I am or am not enlightened, I assume you man me. Or perhaps Barry. Perhaps both of us scoundrels. who want to believe that we can achieve an enlightened state permanently, theoretically, maybe, possibly, almost, according to these factors, but excluding these factors, and only if they like me, and only if I like them, belonging to this sect, but not belonging to that one, and manifesting these behaviors, but excluding those behaviors, having these beliefs, and excluding those beliefs, etc. Wow, thats quite a pre-judgement that you have going there. i guess its not polite to suggest doing some work on that, but holy deep filters. Do you seriously believe I think like that? or Barry does? Where does that beleif come from, do you suppose? It is interesting to see how your mind works. No problemI ran the same stories at one time, though they were probably more like feelings than discrete lists. So perhaps I talk about it to let people know the living truth of it, that anyone can find themselves in such a state of Being, and what it is like when it happens to an ordinary person. Hopefully something of what I am saying is helpful to someone out there. The other piece of it is, I just enjoy talking about it, as would most of us, having achieved a goal we've spent decades on.:-) You must be very proud of yourself.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: You're enlightened, and you refuse to even *think* that you might not be. Did I get that right, Jim? You are missing what I and many others have already said again and again here. Enlightenment is not experienced on the level of thinking. It is a state of Being. This is not my original expression-- All of the gurus and spiritual teachers say this also. Given your background, I am surprised that you don't know this yet. Your level of ignorance astounds me.:-) It's a little like accusing somebody of refusing even to *think* they might be dreaming rather than awake. When you're awake, it's self-evident you aren't dreaming. (Not self-evident meaning obvious, but rather evident in terms of itself.) Ever heard of hallucination? Or delusion? Clinically deluded people see things and believe things about their perceptions -- things that are self-evident to them -- every day that are more correctly categorized as dreams, or at the very least dreamlike. The first step to helping these people separate what is real in their perceptions and what is not is getting them to do a little self inquiry, to ask themselves if there is a *possibility* that they are not real. Until that happens, in an extreme case involving waking hallucinations and delusions, no progress can be made. (Other than with, say, drugs.) Like in the film / book A Beautiful Mind. nash could not begin his recovery process until he accepted that his friends may not be real. And in a sense, that seems to be a type of mahavakaya. (Though I am sure it must only be a vakaya): Accepting, or questioning if what is out there -- the world and all, is real. Or if our fears or desires are real. Now make the mental leap to those following spiritual paths who are so convinced that their perceptions are correct, and that their enlightenment is self-evident that they are unable to question, even theoretically, that they might be something else. I know that you haven't been around the block much, spiritually, but if you had you might have run into a few people who believed themselves enlightened who turned out to be delusional, and were later committed to institutions as a result of those delusions. You might have run into people who had convinced themselves -- and others -- that they were fully enlightened, and then self-destructed in some other way. Think Andy Rhymer. Think Frederick Lenz/ Rama, whom you probably *don't* consider enlightened. He certainly considered himself to be. I know for sure that his state of consciousness was self-evident to him, and yet he ended up as crab food, a suicide. *Without a doubt*, these people's enlightenment was self-evident to them. There was no question in their minds that it existed. But did it? I'm just sayin' that there is a big red flag raised for me when someone believes one of their stories so completely that they seem *unable* to even *entertain* the idea that it might not be true. Haven't you ragged on me for years to examine my experiences of seeing someone levitate, to see if there might be another way of seeing the experience, and see if it might not be true? ( As if I hadn't already done this hundreds of times before I ever ran into you. :-) Yet when Jim refuses to even *consider* examining his enlightenment, even if it's just theoretical and for fun, you defend him and claim that I'm accusing him of something. H. :-) The Byron Katie fans here seem to be saying that it's a good thing to utilize some of her techniques to analyze their stories to see if they're true. And yet there is one story of their own that is somehow exempt from analysis. H.
[FairfieldLife] 'An Islamic Solution?'
Acts of Faith: The Story of an American Muslim, the Struggle for the Soul of a Generation by Eboo Patel About This Book Synopses Reviews Comment on this title and you could win free books! More Books by Eboo Patel ISBN13: 9780807077269 ISBN10: 0807077267 All Product Details Available at: Burnside, Quimby WarehouseSynopses ReviewsPublisher Comments: Acts of Faith, a beautifully written story of discovery and hope, chronicles Dr. Eboo Patel' s struggle to forge his identity as a Muslim, an Indian, and an American. In the process, he developed a deep reverence for what all faiths have in common, and founded an interfaith movement to help young people to embrace their common humanity through their faith. This young social entrepreneur offers us a powerful way to deal with one of the most important issues of our time. President Bill Clinton The lessons we learn when we are young, Eboo Patel writes, determine the commitments we carry the rest of our lives. Even so, many organizations only pay lip service to the importance of youth programs; few devote substantial time and effort to them. But there is a segment of our world that fully understands that young people are a combustible combination of power and fragility. Preachers in the bigotry-driven Christian Identity movement pay special attention to young people. Yitzhak Rabin' s assassin was a twenty-five-year-old observant Jew. Muslim extremists run madrasas with the clear-cut goal of teaching youth that violence is the answer. Youth programs are the focus of the institutions created by these religious totalitarians and at the center of their strategies. All too often, young people are the perpetrators of the devastating acts of violence that define these groups. Acts of Faith interweaves accounts of how religious totalitarian groups engage youth with Patel' s own story of growing up Muslim and angry in America. His unique understanding of the importance of positively engaging religious youth led him to found the Interfaith Youth Core, an energetic organization that seeks to counter religious totalitarianism by building an interfaith, pluralistic youth movement. Addressing the key questions of this emerging movement, Patel shows us how to engage religious conservatives and, most importantly, how to positively focus the fires of youth. Eboo Patel is an exciting new voice of a new America. Diverse but not divisive, hopeful but not utopian. He is an American Indian whose roots are not in South Dakota but in South Asia, and he speaks for all of us from a rising generation of bright, brown and bold Americans who have much to offer a country embarking on a new millennium and in need of new blood. Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, executive director of the Zaytuna Institute Eboo Patel has crafted an elegantly written and brilliantly argued manifesto a call to arms, really about the importance, not of interfaith dialogue, but of interfaith cooperation. His thesis is simple: children are not born to hate; hatred is taught to them. And in a time when religion is used increasingly to justify bigotry and violence, it is up to people of faith everywhere who believe in peace, and tolerance, and pluralism, to stand up to those who preach hatred in the name of God. Acts of Faith is more than a book, it is an awakening of the mind. It should be required reading for all Americans. Reza Aslan, author of No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam Religious pluralism is one of the greatest challenges facing the world today. Acts of Faith is the inspiring story of Eboo Patel' s own life journey and his vision in creating an interfaith youth movement. He showshow educating a new generation to reject religious intolerance and work for the common good is the only way the world can avoid growing fanaticism and violence. This hopeful book shows the power that is waiting to be engaged for a better future. I highly commend it. Jim Wallis, author of God' s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn' t Get It A remarkable book by a young Muslim and a Rhodes Scholar with a vast spiritual vision: a future in which young people join hands in service across the lines of religion. Refreshing, honest, and hopeful, it will speak to the soul of a generation yearning for a new way ahead. Give it to every young person in your life and to yourself. Diana Eck, author of A New Religious America: How a ' Christian Country' Has Become the World' s Most Religious Diverse Nation Eboo Patel, Ph.D., is the founder and executive director of the Interfaith Youth Core, an international nonprofit building the interfaith youth movement. His media appearances include CNN Sunday Morning, NPR' s Morning Edition, and the PBS
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: Good question Are you not interested? Seriously, there are many seekers on the path, like the poster who asked me if I think I am or am not enlightened, I assume you man me. Or perhaps Barry. Perhaps both of us scoundrels. who want to believe that we can achieve an enlightened state permanently, theoretically, maybe, possibly, almost, according to these factors, but excluding these factors, and only if they like me, and only if I like them, belonging to this sect, but not belonging to that one, and manifesting these behaviors, but excluding those behaviors, having these beliefs, and excluding those beliefs, etc. Wow, thats quite a pre-judgement that you have going there. i guess its not polite to suggest doing some work on that, but holy deep filters. Do you seriously believe I think like that? or Barry does? Where does that beleif come from, do you suppose? It is interesting to see how your mind works. No problemI ran the same stories at one time, though they were probably more like feelings than discrete lists. So perhaps I talk about it to let people know the living truth of it, that anyone can find themselves in such a state of Being, and what it is like when it happens to an ordinary person. Hopefully something of what I am saying is helpful to someone out there. The other piece of it is, I just enjoy talking about it, as would most of us, having achieved a goal we've spent decades on.:-) You must be very proud of yourself. Etc.:-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
On Jul 25, 2007, at 9:09 PM, new.morning wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 25, 2007, at 10:17 AM, new.morning wrote: Can you absolutely know that it's true? I hate to bring up what seems obvious to me, but there are objective ways to test states of enlightenment which have been used successfully for thousands of years. These are simple tests. If you claim to be enlightened thru an approach that used samadhi--nitya- samadhi (permanent samadhi, CC) as MMY called it, it is easy to test. Rather recently there was a rather famous western Tibetan Buddhist who claimed a high stage of enlightenment and it was interesting the type of verification they used. The person had to be capable of performing certain siddhis at will. When he did not meet any of the criteria, HHDL's office issued a statement essentially saying this person was not who he claimed to be. I hate to bring up what seems obvious to me, but .. I hope you can see through the mass of assumptions you cling to to make the above assertion. It's really a matter of experience, although to you there might seem to be some assumptions. Or so you assume. ;-) I also see, from just listening to what people on this list say, that most are not even barely aware of the basic assumptions behind a yogic approach to advaita and what those assumptions really, practically mean. Unfortunately this also means people who make wild claims and never even realize the implications which are implied, can be rather obviously blind-sided.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: You're enlightened, and you refuse to even *think* that you might not be. Did I get that right, Jim? You are missing what I and many others have already said again and again here. Enlightenment is not experienced on the level of thinking. It is a state of Being. This is not my original expression-- All of the gurus and spiritual teachers say this also. Given your background, I am surprised that you don't know this yet. Your level of ignorance astounds me.:-) It's a little like accusing somebody of refusing even to *think* they might be dreaming rather than awake. When you're awake, it's self-evident you aren't dreaming. (Not self-evident meaning obvious, but rather evident in terms of itself.) I am not so sure. Some interesting literature an epistimologies makes that very presumption -- that we are dreaming but think we are awake. Parallel to Plato's cave, perhaps. I think some here, perhaps Rory and Jim, have expressed something of that sort. I do know that when you are dreaming, its hard to accept that you are dreaming -- but assume you are awake. Though sometimes in the dream, you can be aware its a dream. But not so often, i think. The only logical conclusion to your statements, though, is an infinite regress in which all states of consciousness are then invalidated through equivocation. Can be said of anything really. A supposition which then makes any kind of reality based discourse impossible, ergo, no learning from one another is possible. Is that where you want to keep this discussion? If the answer is yes, why? Seems like a big time waster. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: You're enlightened, and you refuse to even *think* that you might not be. Did I get that right, Jim? You are missing what I and many others have already said again and again here. Enlightenment is not experienced on the level of thinking. It is a state of Being. snip Got to agree with Jim here -- I'd say it's not even an experience in the conventional meaning; more an Understanding that finally frees one from bondage to all experience -- hence, not really something that can fade away or get lost, like the glimpses of higher states we used to value so :-) HH Shiva smiles in agreement.:-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightenment as moodmaking?
I officially declare that Jim is enlightened and is the envy of the entire host of celestial gods. I will declare anyone else to be enlightened too if they like. Also Risk Archer is enlightened because he's my initiator. Micheal Dean Goodman is also enlightened because I drum with him and went to his house last Saturday night. Curtis is enlightened because I went to MIU with him. --- jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: The bottom line from my point of view is that there is simply No Way to tell whether someone is bullshitting you (and often themselves) about their supposed enlight- enment or not. So you believe whatever you want, and whatever makes you happy. not to be too cryptic about it, but try listening beyond your hearing. Its a quick and easy way to suss out the bullshitters.:-) If I'd done that, you would definitely have been in the bullshitter's group. I think it's far more compassionate and charitable to just say, No Way to tell. :-) Get real. I don't want your compassion to determine whether or not you think I am enlightened or BSing. What a rediculous notion. Think whatever you want. This is an absurd conversation at this point; compassion- what a joke.:-) 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] Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mailp=graduation+giftscs=bz
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: Can you imagine that you are only imagining that you are enlightened if that abstract anthropomorphic Nature imagines that you imagine that you are enlightened -- but also imagines that actually you are not? For all of you imaginations, or natures imaginations, and your thought of enlightenment, Is it true? Can you absolutely know that it's true? How do you react when you think that thought? Who would you be without the thought? Can you turn it around? (Each turnaround is an opportunity to experience the opposite of your original statement and see what you are without your (original) thought) Or is (or do you imagine) Byron Katie is only for those ignirant souls who are not as enlightened as you? I don't know where to start with your plethora of rhetorical questions. I am perfectly comfortable to let you answer every one of them by yourself.:-) He can correct me if I'm wrong, Oh, there are SO many things I would correct you on. :) (joke) but I think that what new.morning was getting at is whether you or anyone who considers themselves enlightened are willing to do the work on your assumption that you're enlightened. Yes. And other assumptions -- though I doubt they would consider them assumptions. Though, I suppose, any one with firm beliefs, particularly those based on personal experience -- do not think that their conclusion about the experience is a mere assumption. Ron, I doubt, considers his beleifs about his new path and teacher are assumptions They are like totally true. I started to explore the issue, in my own meandering, perhaps pesky, way, because various statements across several of Jim's posts did not add up. Which is probably my short coming. Still, an actually because of thet, I started looking at the issue from different angles.To see where my misunderstanding might be. And to gain a broader breakthough / fusion understanding of the issue areas laid out in my questions. It was not a gotcha ya set of questions. I have an iquisitve mind. I am curious (in many senses of the term.) And I am happy to set the foundation of my perspective and views. Jim is enlightened alternatively, Jim is not enlightened. Is it true? I don't know. For either question. Can you absolutely know that it's true? Nope. for both question How do you react when you think that thought? About the same when I don't think that thought. Who would you be without the thought? Just the same, with out either thought Can you turn it around? (I am not so good at turn arounds, but I will give it a try. I already have sort of flipped it by addressing both sides of the question. But another part of turn arounds, which I like, is to uncover any subconscious projection reflected in the belief worked on above. Lets see. 'Jim thinks I am enlightened' and/or 'Jim thinks I am not enlightened' -- do either of Jim's beliefs effect me, or change who I am? No. So far, the answer is no. You don't seem to be *able* to challenge that assumption, or question it in any way. It's a given, a story that you believe so thoroughly that you refuse to question it even theoretically. I get the feeling that what new.morning is suggesting is that there is a bit of cognitive dissonance when some who promote Byron Katie's techniques for anal- yzing one's stories (although I don't remember you having done that, Jim) refuse to analyze their own story of enlightenment, or even *consider the possi- bility* that it might not be true. Yes, that is one of several things that don't add up, in my perhaps limited view. And I don't buy the argument that its a matter of my not accepting paradoxes. I accept various spiritual and metaphysical paradoxes. Such paradoxes do not in any way imply that all spiritual paradoxes are valid. And it certainly does not imply that all, or even any, mundane paradoxes are valid. Except in riddles of course. What is black and white and red all over? Did I get that right, new? You are deeply perceptive and have remarkably clear cognitive functions. :) You're enlightened, and you refuse to even *think* that you might not be. Did I get that right, Jim?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that what new.morning was getting at is whether you or anyone who considers themselves enlightened are willing to do the work on your assumption that you're enlightened. Basically, as I understand it, one does the work on oneself in areas in which one feels pain or suffering, as these are signs of incorrect thinking or thinking not in alignment with nature; there is no need to examine ideas that don't hurt :-) Nothing in stone says that the work can't be used in other ways. I don't have an understanding of any limits placed on the Work. Ron's recent post added to questions for interesting inquiries to use the Work for? Answers to the following questions seem to me to be fair game for the Work -- and useful: Who am I? Is the world real? Do i accurately precieve and cognize what is out there? Does God exist? Is TM a great thing / a not good thing? Am I useful for others? Do I make judgements, and pre-judgments that are not necessary? Where dos the sky end? What was there before the universe was created -- the big bang? Is global warming a large threat? Should everyone drive a hybrid? Is Tarantino a good director / writer? Do bears shite in the woods? Is April really the cruelest month? Is the sky really blue? Are the colors I see really the colors of the things I see? Is there life after death? Is fear real or useful? Who is Jesus? Who is SBS? Is Peter judgemental? Is Bush corrupt? Did the govt blow up the twin towers? Should capital gains tax be eliminated? Are apples the best PC's? Should the work only be done on areas in which one feels pain or suffering? Can one delude themselves about a state of being, a state of consciousness, an altered state of consciousness, perceptions, cognitive functions? Does God love me? Is Alison Krauss the best singer in the universe? Of course, you might suggest that these are all areas in which I feel pain or suffering. I would work on: How would Rory know what I feel and think inside? Do I care if Rory is mistaken?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mathatbrahman mathatbrahman@ wrote: ---Nope I disagree. The questions below are legitimate, of interest, and potentially of value; but obviously not to Neo-Advaitins who believe that nothing exists anyway. I said, essentially a waste of time *unless* they're areas you're personally feeling particular pain and suffering in, the object being to realize one's eternal liberation from bondage and suffering. If you're not interested in liberation from suffering in this moment, of course, then feel free to inquire about whatever floats your boat, but it would be a mistake to equate that with the work :-) Is that BK's assessment, or your unique and original view?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Disfavor for Bush Hits Rare Heights
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When you behave like an arrogant, idiot asshole there are consequences, yes? Is that a judgement? Is there possibly any projection in that judgement? (Thats a non-judgemental and non-leading question. We like you either way.) --- Robert Gimbel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Disfavor for Bush Hits Rare Heights In Modern Era, Only Nixon and Truman Scored Worse, Just Barely By Peter Baker Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, July 25, 2007; A03 President Bush is a competitive guy. But this is one contest he would rather lose. With 18 months left in office, he is in the running for most unpopular president in the history of modern polling. The latest Washington Post-ABC News survey shows that 65 percent of Americans disapprove of Bush's job performance, matching his all-time low. In polls conducted by The Post or Gallup going back to 1938, only twice has a president exceeded that level of public animosity -- Harry S. Truman, who hit 67 percent during the Korean War, and Richard M. Nixon, who hit 66 percent four days before resigning. The historic depth of Bush's public standing has whipsawed his White House, sapped his clout, drained his advisers, encouraged his enemies and jeopardized his legacy. Around the White House, aides make gallows-humor jokes about how they can alienate their remaining supporters -- at least those aides not heading for the door. Outside the White House, many former aides privately express anger and bitterness at their erstwhile colleagues, Bush and the fate of his presidency. Bush has been so down for so long that some advisers maintain it no longer bothers them much. It can even, they say, be liberating. Seeking the best interpretation for the president's predicament, they argue that Bush can do what he thinks is right without regard to political cost, pointing to decisions to send more U.S. troops to Iraq and to commute the sentence of I. Lewis Scooter Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff. But the president's unpopularity has left the White House to play mostly defense for the remainder of his term. With his immigration overhaul proposal dead, Bush's principal legislative hopes are to save his No Child Left Behind education program and to fend off attempts to force him to change course in Iraq. The emerging strategy is to play off a Congress that is also deeply unpopular and to look strong by vetoing spending bills. The president's low public standing has paralleled the disenchantment with the Iraq war, but some analysts said it goes beyond that, reflecting a broader unease with Bush's policies in a variety of areas. It isn't just the Iraq war, said Shirley Anne Warshaw, a presidential scholar at Gettysburg College. It's everything. Some analysts believe that even many war supporters deserted him because of his plan to open the door to legal status for illegal immigrants. You can do an unpopular war or you can do an unpopular immigration policy, said David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter. Not both. Yet Bush's political troubles seem to go beyond particular policies. Many presidents over the past 70 years have faced greater or more immediate crises without falling as far in the public mind -- Vietnam claimed far more American lives than Iraq, the Iranian hostage crisis made the United States look impotent, race riots and desegregation tore the country apart, the oil embargo forced drivers to wait for hours to fill up, the Soviets seemed to threaten the nation's survival. It's astonishing, said Pat Caddell, who was President Jimmy Carter's pollster. It's hard to look at the situation today and say the country is absolutely 15 miles down in the hole. The economy's not that bad -- for some people it is, but not overall. Iraq is terribly handled, but it's not Vietnam; we're not losing 250 people a week. . . . We don't have that immediate crisis, yet the anxiety about the future is palpable. And the feeling about him is he's irrelevant to that. I think they've basically given up on him. That may stem in part from the changing nature of society. When Caddell's boss was president, there were three major broadcast networks. Today cable news, talk radio and the Internet have made information far more available, while providing easy outlets for rage and polarization. Public disapproval of Bush is not only broad but deep; 52 percent of Americans strongly disapprove of his performance and 28 percent describe themselves as angry. A lot of the commentary that comes out of the Internet world is very harsh, said Frank J. Donatelli, White House political director for Ronald Reagan. That has a tendency to reinforce people's opinions and harden people's opinions. Carter and Reagan at their worst moments did not
[FairfieldLife] 'Fox news clip'
Angle's report on Gonzales hearing falsely identified Specter as a Democrat On the July 24 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, on-screen text identified Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) as a Democrat during a report from chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle about Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' July 24 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The text appeared during footage of Specter telling Gonzales that the committee would be reviewing his testimony about a March* 10, 2004, confrontation over the Bush administration's warrantless domestic wiretapping program to see if your credibility has been breached to the point of being actionable. Angle introduced the footage of Specter as an example of other[] senators who urged the attorney general to correct his testimony, vaguely warning of legal action. At no time during Angle's report did anyone say that Specter was, in fact, a Republican. Host Brit Hume, in his preview of Angle's report on the hearing, said that Gonzales end[ed] up being called untrustworthy and a liar by Senate Democrats. Angle's report mentioned only one other senator by name, Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), as criticizing Gonzales. Rockefeller was identified as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence committee in 2004. Angle also mentioned that another senator asked [Gonzales] flatly why he insists on staying on the job and that, in response, Gonzales said that's a good question. The question was from Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI). As Media Matters for America has noted, former Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey told the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 15 about the March* 10, 2004, confrontation over the wiretapping program. Comey testified that Gonzales, who was White House counsel at the time, and Andrew Card, then the White House chief of staff, had attempted to pressure then-Attorney General John Ashcroft -- who was ill at a hospital and had transferred his official powers to Comey -- to approve the eavesdropping program despite the Justice Department's refusal to sign off on its legality. As The Washington Post reported on May 17, Gonzales told two congressional committees in February 2006 that the warrantless wiretapping program had not provoked serious disagreement involving Comey or others. Media Matters has previously noted examples of Fox News misidentifying Republicans as Democrats. From the July 24 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume: HUME: Next on Special Report, Alberto Gonzales tells his side of that late-night hospital meeting -- remember that? -- and ends up being called untrustworthy and a liar by Senate Democrats. [...] HUME: Welcome to Washington, I'm Brit Hume. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales faced the most intense congressional grilling yet and the harshest criticism. The subject was a dramatic late-night visit to then-Attorney General Ashcroft's hospital room and the events leading up to it. Chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle reports. [begin video clip] ANGLE: In another contentious hearing, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told senators today that in an emergency meeting at the White House in March 2004, eight key members of Congress were briefed on a classified intelligence program aimed at terrorists and urged the administration to continue it over the objections of then-acting Attorney General James Comey. GONZALES: The consensus in the room from the congressional leadership is that we should continue the activities at least for now, despite the objections of Mr. Comey. ANGLE: Comey, who testified in May about the controversy, was acting in place of Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was in the hospital and who had previously approved the same program. That was the day before the Madrid bombings and the intelligence community was on edge and worried about losing a key tool in the fight against terrorists. Gonzales said the Gang of Eight, the leaders of Congress from both parties and of the intelligence committees, urged officials to continue the program uninterrupted but said they couldn't help with emergency legislation. GONZALES: There was also consensus that it would be very, very difficult to obtain legislation without compromising this program but that we should look for a way ahead. ANGLE: So Gonzales and former White House chief of staff Andy Card went to see John Ashcroft in the hospital. GONZALES: We felt it important that the attorney general knew about the views and the recommendations of the congressional leadership. ANGLE: But Ashcroft refused to overrule Comey. One official who attended the Gang of Eight meeting tells Fox the Gonzales account is accurate, that members of Congress asked penetrating questions about safeguards, but agreed on the value of the program and the consequences of not continuing it. Senator Jay Rockefeller,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mathatbrahman mathatbrahman@ wrote: ---Nope I disagree. The questions below are legitimate, of interest, and potentially of value; but obviously not to Neo-Advaitins who believe that nothing exists anyway. I said, essentially a waste of time *unless* they're areas you're personally feeling particular pain and suffering in, the object being to realize one's eternal liberation from bondage and suffering. If you're not interested in liberation from suffering in this moment, of course, then feel free to inquire about whatever floats your boat, but it would be a mistake to equate that with the work :-) Is that BK's assessment, or your unique and original view? BK's assessment, derived from her own awakening.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Foxnews Reports: Sen.Specter(R-PA)Switches to Dem.'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert Gimbel babajii_99@ wrote: Foxnews mistakenly reported today; In a subliminal message That Sen. Arlen Spector, specter.senate.gov/ Had switched parties; As he was speaking against Alberto Gonzales... Scarey? There was nothing subliminal about it; they clearly labeled him Senator, Pennsylvania (D), for 'Democrat'.:-) Well, I guess you're right... But for most Americans: That might be considered subliminal. After years of brain-washing, it takes a while for the truth to set in...
[FairfieldLife] Spiritual Awakening in Israel
...featured on CNN this morning, 7-25, numerous Israelis flocking to India in search of Spiritual Awakenings. The story featured the often-seen still photo of the Beatles with MMY - as if to imply that a similar type of Renaissance is occurring. Of course, there are major differences overlooked by the writer, but we'll overlook those for now. Also featured were: tourists in front of a Rishikesh Temple, a Rabbi tour guide overlooking the milking of a cow to put his Kosher stamp of approval on the milk, a young Israeli woman in a bake shop trying her hand at rolling some dough. Also, some Israeli's in the presence of some Temple Pundits. The conclusion was that the tourists came back to Israel in some ways enriched Spiritually, (without leaving their own Jewish roots). Seems like a fine prospect to me, but if one wanted to enforce an extreme code of Conservatism on such persons; I supposed that one could zero on the things that separate Hindus from Jews, rather than unifying themes. Baba Ram Dass (Dr. Richard Alpert), called himself a Hindjoo. Funny. Now for a quiz: 1. As evidence of her new found Spirituality, Paris Hilton was seen with which two books? Ans: The Bible, and Eckart Tolle's The Power of Now. 2. In the latest Harry Potter film, through what Power did Harry and his group appeal to in order to thwart the intentions of the evildoers? Multiple choice: 1. Magic, 2. Meditation 3. Courage 4. Jesus 5. Comradeship, 6. The Buddha. Ans: Love 3. Concerning the disappearance of Natalie Holloway in Aruba, there are 3 persons of interest, including the Kalpoe brothers. The Mother of the Kalpoe brothers is a devotee of whom:? a. Jesus, b. Buddha, c. Shiva d. Lalita e. Shiva and Lalita Ans. Shiva and Lalita that's it for now.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 25, 2007, at 5:20 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: I'm just sayin' that there is a big red flag raised for me when someone believes one of their stories so completely And Jim was just sayin' that the nature of enlightenment is such that it falls outside the category of stories, something of which you're apparently not aware. And I *understand* that some people believe this. I do not. Neither do spiritual traditions such as the Tibetan one Vaj mentioned. I am a strong believer in enlightenment, and I believe that the experience of it should be under exactly the same scrutiny and subject to the same analysis as any other experience, if not more. It isn't exempt. It's interesting Herbert Benson, before he went on to verify the tummo siddhi in a number of advanced yogis (and also the remarkable side-effect that their metabolic rate greatly dropped) he tested a bunch of westerners who all claimed to have the same level of tummo (heat yoga) realization. It turned out although all of them were convinced they had achieved this realization, in fact none of them had. So in some cases sceince can be used to verify certain claims of realization. It just happened in this case that their was a by- product that was easily measurable (heat). I believe at least one of the people claiming enlightenment in FF was tested by the TMO, but still, no cigar. Nonetheless they were obviously convinced they were! To continue this absurd belief that enlightenment can be proven somehow by external objective testing is, imo, one more way to keep eternal freedom at arms length. The ego loves these kinds of tests and criteria, because it gives it the endless ability to escape its own demise. It might help to keep in mind that prior to enlightenment, all seekers are slaves to their notions of seperateness, of uniqueness, of aloneness, of ownership of their thoughts and actions. To come up with endless, and I do mean endless, challenges to prove enlightenment is a sad and pathetic way to perpetuate this slavery. The point the enlightened always try to make is that none of this matters, that the only thing that matters is humility and surrender to that which will truly set you free, whether it comes from something read on a box of cereal, a Buddhist, Hindu, Christian text, a random thought, the living words of a knower of Reality, or the inner conviction to do whatever it takes to listen quietly to your own inner voice of freedom, and act on it. There is no ownership, self-aggrandizement, ego trip, or power trip associated with the words of the enlightened. These are all coverings that the ignorant in their fear place upon such words. So continue to choose; be a little pretzel in a twisted little pretzel world, or decide that total freedom is the only thing worth settling for. Your choice. Your path. Your life.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Enlightened One comments on Siddhanandas post
Namaste, Swami Siddananda. Wow. What a beautiful report. The freshness of it is so... refreshing. Had forgotten the incredible fear of what the ego tries to convince will be death and extinction. That was the last hurdle - the one that required absolute surrender,even at the risk of death... And then the joy and freedom unspeakable. Enjoyed the report of clarity, and the end of seeking, and no need to meditate. This is one of the most difficult for some seeker and advanced students to comprehend. In many religions, Christianity in particular, the pop cultural view is that the most revered state is the one of the faithful pilgrim, and reports having finished the race are very suspect (and misunderstood). As any guru or awakened one who has ever stepped up to teach and guide will report - the resistance it powerful, and sometimes ugly. Satguru Swami G has been in venues that have been really absurd, but she never, ever wavered. The love and respect for her resonated in the heart from the first few exchanges. Yes, words that attempt to report realization are inadequate and seem so paradoxical. No concept or analogy can convey realization. Yet you have woven a handsome fabric with your report. Thank you for this wonderful recap. May the energy of it move the readers closer to transcendence (trance ending) and the realization that the existence that troubles them is secondary and in every way unreal, and that a primary O consciousness will change everything...yet change nothing; and at the same time, solve every problem, eliminate every fear Abiding in Love, Jeff --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], pianojanie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Namaste and Om Dear Swamiji and Group, I have been fully absorbed and relishing the company of our beloved Sat Guru and have not had a free moment to sit down and write of what has taken place in the past few days. It is very difficult to relate and speak about the transformation that took place as words are useless and can never touch the reality of it. I cannot remember the days exactly, but will take you through the sequence of the experience as best possible. The first evening Swamiji did energy work on me, there was the usual shifting states of awareness, samadhi, kriyas and pranayam.these symptoms continued intensely for some time - the body sometimes felt as if dead - there was no breath intermittently for long periods - after (am not sure how long), there came to a point when it felt like every cell, every thought, everything known was going to explode - it felt literally as if the world was going to explode (the world being the private universe one had taken security in)...there was a point of extinction that came into view. At this time the automatic reaction was to preserve the self - the eyes scrunched up tight against it, the whole body was trembling in absolute terror, the breath stopped in the throat choking and gagging - there was no breath for a long time. The desire was to pull away and save oneself - it was an automatic reaction like an instinct. I will say that no matter how far one feels they have come - how many experiences one feels has been gathered, there is nothing like this fear. It explodes through the being on all levels. I cannot say that anything internally was said or there was a conscious letting go, but the transmission of energy broke down the last threads of resistance held in place. I don't know what happened at this point, but eventually the body sat up. (Was very surprised there was a body at all). Swamiji was sitting in the Guru chair in the corner - the heart balloons Premananda brought floating beside her. She pointed to the balloons and said, Is that how you feel? We laughed and laughed - then, my head went down and a deep samadhi was entered, the void - could not come out of it for awhile. When it was over, I stood up and there was a radical shift in consciousness. I told, Swamiji - there is something different about this - this is zero. In this state of perfect grounding and balance, suffering never existed. In all other states previously entered, there was a reference point of sorts - a comparison - such as I am suffering, now I am not or There was a me, now there is not. In 0 - the suffering persona never was and cannot be cognized. Realization is not at all what one thinks. All of the fears and ideas once ruminated on about it are absoluteley unfounded. I used to think all sorts of things about it. I used to worry about all sorts of things about it. Could I work? Could I function? Could I take care of my son? What would he think of me? Would I look or behave strange around him or others. Some of the sadhakas have said to me, You don't look any different. They may be looking for something about me that is different. What is she talkin about? Has she gone off the ddep end. Nothing outwardly has changed.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Foxnews Reports: Sen.Specter(R-PA)Switches to Dem.'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert Gimbel babajii_99@ wrote: Foxnews mistakenly reported today; In a subliminal message That Sen. Arlen Spector, specter.senate.gov/ Had switched parties; As he was speaking against Alberto Gonzales... Scarey? It was yesterday, and it wasn't subliminal, nor did they report that he had switched parties. They just got his party affiliation wrong in the ID that ran under film of him criticizing Gonzales. Fox has done this quite a bit recently, though. Their ID for Mark Foley at one point was as a Democrat, and there are several other instances. Well, it's just an example of how thick and deep the Maya can get. Finally, though, the Maya, seems to be thinning out a bit. Congress looks like it finally is getting the balls, To challenge Bushie on Iraq? Well, see, we'll see...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Was in a rush before; want to add a couple things: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip *Without a doubt*, these people's enlightenment was self-evident to them. There was no question in their minds that it existed. But did it? I have no idea. Do you? Not a clue. I'm just sayin' that there is a big red flag raised for me when someone believes one of their stories so completely And Jim was just sayin' that the nature of enlightenment is such that it falls outside the category of stories, something of which you're apparently not aware. And I *understand* that some people believe this. I do not. Neither do spiritual traditions such as the Tibetan one Vaj mentioned. I am a strong believer in enlightenment, and I believe that the experience of it should be under exactly the same scrutiny and subject to the same analysis as any other experience, if not more. It isn't exempt. What basis do you have for believing that Rory and I see it any other way? Is it because of what Vaj said? And why do you believe Vaj more than you believe either of us? What's particularly interesting is that Vaj claimed the test for enlightenment was whether the person could do certain siddhis. Barry, of course, has always insisted that the ability to do siddhis doesn't have anything to do with enlightenment. So if he's going by what Vaj says in this case, I guess it's just another one of those contradictions that show how spiritually advanced he is. How did Self-Realization come to be associated with the ability to perform spiritual parlor tricks and feats of esoteric duality? Its one more way to keep that snakey string at bay.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: I don't know where to start with your plethora of rhetorical questions. They are interesting questions, IMO. But I like to play with perspectives, logic and nuances of semantics. You probably are wired differently and don't find such interesting. No harm, now foul. (I have been reading about different personality types and the research indicating different neural pathways for different types). I am perfectly comfortable to let you answer every one of them by yourself.:-) They are interesting questions, IMO. But I like to play with perspectives, logic and nuances of semantics. You probably are wired differently and don't find such interesting. No harm, now foul. (I have been reading about different personality types and the research indicating different neural pathways for different types). I am glad you are comfortable. I am much more a cut to the chase type of personality.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: You're enlightened, and you refuse to even *think* that you might not be. Did I get that right, Jim? You are missing what I and many others have already said again and again here. Enlightenment is not experienced on the level of thinking. It is a state of Being. This is not my original expression-- All of the gurus and spiritual teachers say this also. Given your background, I am surprised that you don't know this yet. Your level of ignorance astounds me.:-) It's a little like accusing somebody of refusing even to *think* they might be dreaming rather than awake. When you're awake, it's self-evident you aren't dreaming. (Not self-evident meaning obvious, but rather evident in terms of itself.) I am not so sure. Some interesting literature an epistimologies makes that very presumption -- that we are dreaming but think we are awake. Parallel to Plato's cave, perhaps. Sure, but that just moves the whole thing back a level; it doesn't address or challenge my point at all. If what we think is waking is actually dreaming, then what is what we think is dreaming? There are still two different states of consciousness involved. I think some here, perhaps Rory and Jim, have expressed something of that sort. I do know that when you are dreaming, its hard to accept that you are dreaming -- but assume you are awake. Yes, but that doesn't affect what I'm saying either. The point is that the difference between waking and dreaming is the *quality of consciousness*. Even the most vivid dream doesn't have the same quality as waking. If you had a really weird experience, you might ask yourself whether you were dreaming, but you wouldn't wonder for long; the content of the experience is trumped by the quality of consciousness. (I don't mean quality as in good-better-best but rather what your consciousness feels like.) Though sometimes in the dream, you can be aware its a dream. But not so often, i think.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: You're enlightened, and you refuse to even *think* that you might not be. Did I get that right, Jim? You are missing what I and many others have already said again and again here. Enlightenment is not experienced on the level of thinking. It is a state of Being. This is not my original expression-- All of the gurus and spiritual teachers say this also. Given your background, I am surprised that you don't know this yet. Your level of ignorance astounds me.:-) Thats quite a judgement Jim. (which is not a judgement of jim, but is an observation.)
RE: [FairfieldLife] When the Ricks Away....
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bhairitu Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 10:08 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] When the Ricks Away Looks like a whole bunch of folks here blew there wad and next weeks on Byron Katie. Who is Byron Katie and why should I care? (Yawn) Byron Katie’s worth knowing about, IMO, but let’s play by the rules, kids. Jim Flanegin is up to 56 posts, New Morning has 40 and Robert Gimbel is up to 36. Those three should kindly refrain from posting until after midnight Friday. Everyone else is within limit. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.19/918 - Release Date: 7/25/2007 2:55 PM
[FairfieldLife] Question for Vaj
Quite often during the first minutes of my meditation session I start burping amazingly forcefully, like farting big fat farts but, from the wrong end. What could that be a sign of? Usually I perform less than 10 burps per session. This morning it started again at the end of my session when I did YF, in Sanskrit.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Disfavor for Bush Hits Rare Heights
The disfavor for Bush registered by polls is surpassed only by the disfavor for the majority-controlled Congress whose poll numbers are even worse than Bush's... Funny, that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert Gimbel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Disfavor for Bush Hits Rare Heights In Modern Era, Only Nixon and Truman Scored Worse, Just Barely By Peter Baker Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, July 25, 2007; A03 President Bush is a competitive guy. But this is one contest he would rather lose. With 18 months left in office, he is in the running for most unpopular president in the history of modern polling. The latest Washington Post-ABC News survey shows that 65 percent of Americans disapprove of Bush's job performance, matching his all-time low. In polls conducted by The Post or Gallup going back to 1938, only twice has a president exceeded that level of public animosity -- Harry S. Truman, who hit 67 percent during the Korean War, and Richard M. Nixon, who hit 66 percent four days before resigning. The historic depth of Bush's public standing has whipsawed his White House, sapped his clout, drained his advisers, encouraged his enemies and jeopardized his legacy. Around the White House, aides make gallows-humor jokes about how they can alienate their remaining supporters -- at least those aides not heading for the door. Outside the White House, many former aides privately express anger and bitterness at their erstwhile colleagues, Bush and the fate of his presidency. Bush has been so down for so long that some advisers maintain it no longer bothers them much. It can even, they say, be liberating. Seeking the best interpretation for the president's predicament, they argue that Bush can do what he thinks is right without regard to political cost, pointing to decisions to send more U.S. troops to Iraq and to commute the sentence of I. Lewis Scooter Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff. But the president's unpopularity has left the White House to play mostly defense for the remainder of his term. With his immigration overhaul proposal dead, Bush's principal legislative hopes are to save his No Child Left Behind education program and to fend off attempts to force him to change course in Iraq. The emerging strategy is to play off a Congress that is also deeply unpopular and to look strong by vetoing spending bills. The president's low public standing has paralleled the disenchantment with the Iraq war, but some analysts said it goes beyond that, reflecting a broader unease with Bush's policies in a variety of areas. It isn't just the Iraq war, said Shirley Anne Warshaw, a presidential scholar at Gettysburg College. It's everything. Some analysts believe that even many war supporters deserted him because of his plan to open the door to legal status for illegal immigrants. You can do an unpopular war or you can do an unpopular immigration policy, said David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter. Not both. Yet Bush's political troubles seem to go beyond particular policies. Many presidents over the past 70 years have faced greater or more immediate crises without falling as far in the public mind -- Vietnam claimed far more American lives than Iraq, the Iranian hostage crisis made the United States look impotent, race riots and desegregation tore the country apart, the oil embargo forced drivers to wait for hours to fill up, the Soviets seemed to threaten the nation's survival. It's astonishing, said Pat Caddell, who was President Jimmy Carter's pollster. It's hard to look at the situation today and say the country is absolutely 15 miles down in the hole. The economy's not that bad -- for some people it is, but not overall. Iraq is terribly handled, but it's not Vietnam; we're not losing 250 people a week. . . . We don't have that immediate crisis, yet the anxiety about the future is palpable. And the feeling about him is he's irrelevant to that. I think they've basically given up on him. That may stem in part from the changing nature of society. When Caddell's boss was president, there were three major broadcast networks. Today cable news, talk radio and the Internet have made information far more available, while providing easy outlets for rage and polarization. Public disapproval of Bush is not only broad but deep; 52 percent of Americans strongly disapprove of his performance and 28 percent describe themselves as angry. A lot of the commentary that comes out of the Internet world is very harsh, said Frank J. Donatelli, White House political director for Ronald Reagan. That has a tendency to reinforce people's opinions and harden people's opinions. Carter and Reagan at their worst moments did not face a public as hostile as the one confronting Bush. Lyndon B. Johnson at the height of Vietnam had the disapproval of 52 percent of the public. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 25, 2007, at 10:17 AM, new.morning wrote: Can you absolutely know that it's true? I hate to bring up what seems obvious to me, but there are objective ways to test states of enlightenment which have been used successfully for thousands of years. These are simple tests. If you claim to be enlightened thru an approach that used samadhi--nitya- samadhi (permanent samadhi, CC) as MMY called it, it is easy to test. Rather recently there was a rather famous western Tibetan Buddhist who claimed a high stage of enlightenment and it was interesting the type of verification they used. The person had to be capable of performing certain siddhis at will. When he did not meet any of the criteria, HHDL's office issued a statement essentially saying this person was not who he claimed to be. I hate to bring up what seems obvious to me, but .. I hope you can see through the mass of assumptions you cling to to make the above assertion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quick comment at the bottom: ** Curtis, your last comment (last sentence, immediately above) re the friendly connection represents for me, too, the best of FFL. Whenever people here are willing to presume the best of other posters here it makes me feel good. Even some of the more gadfly-oriented posts can be inherently respectful of the audience and I appreciate the more spirited discussions that sometimes result. It's disappointing, however, when folks presume the worst, take offense, and start the slamming. This thread fits in the first category and I agree that it has been very helpful. Marek I was thinking perhaps a parallel thing. that when folks presume the worst, they are reflecting an inherent, perhaps unconscious judgement. Though I suppose the opposite is true.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
Was in a rush before; want to add a couple things: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip *Without a doubt*, these people's enlightenment was self-evident to them. There was no question in their minds that it existed. But did it? I have no idea. Do you? I'm just sayin' that there is a big red flag raised for me when someone believes one of their stories so completely And Jim was just sayin' that the nature of enlightenment is such that it falls outside the category of stories, something of which you're apparently not aware. that they seem *unable* to even *entertain* the idea that it might not be true. You have this very peculiar tendency to assume that when someone disagrees with you about whether something is possible, it's because they are unable to entertain the idea that whatever it is, is possible. It never occurs to you that they might have entertained the idea that it was possible and decided it wasn't. Haven't you ragged on me for years to examine my experiences of seeing someone levitate, to see if there might be another way of seeing the experience, and see if it might not be true? This is such a great example of the way you simply make stuff up about people, especially me. It has *zero* basis in reality. If I were you, I wouldn't be questioning others about the validity of *their* perceptions when your own are so demonstrably wrong. snip Yet when Jim refuses to even *consider* examining his enlightenment, even if it's just theoretical and for fun, you defend him and claim that I'm accusing him of something. H. :-) Yeah, I wasn't defending Jim. I was providing an analogy to illustrate the point he was making about the nature of enlightenment. Sorry you were unable to tell the difference. Just one further note: It's wonderfully amusing to watch you trying to make Jim doubt his experience of enlightenment when you've delivered countless exhortations about how TMers never have any spiritual experiences, so they call those of others in question out of jealousy. Given your recent spate of putdowns of Jim's and Rory's experiences, it looks like it ain't the TMers who are jealous.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
---Nope I disagree. The questions below are legitimate, of interest, and potentially of value; but obviously not to Neo-Advaitins who believe that nothing exists anyway. As for Buddhists, Sakyamuni Buddha stated that there's not enough time to investigate natural laws and also do one's Spiritual Sadhana. I disagree with that also, since due to MMY's brilliant innovations, doing all-day Sadhanas (as possibly some Monks in various traditions) is the real waste of time. Best to do TM and then do something productive like stroll around the mall and then see Transformers. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that what new.morning was getting at is whether you or anyone who considers themselves enlightened are willing to do the work on your assumption that you're enlightened. Basically, as I understand it, one does the work on oneself in areas in which one feels pain or suffering, as these are signs of incorrect thinking or thinking not in alignment with nature; there is no need to examine ideas that don't hurt :-) Nothing in stone says that the work can't be used in other ways. I don't have an understanding of any limits placed on the Work. Ron's recent post added to questions for interesting inquiries to use the Work for? Answers to the following questions seem to me to be fair game for the Work -- and useful: Who am I? Is the world real? Do i accurately precieve and cognize what is out there? Does God exist? Is TM a great thing / a not good thing? Am I useful for others? Do I make judgements, and pre-judgments that are not necessary? Where dos the sky end? What was there before the universe was created -- the big bang? Is global warming a large threat? Should everyone drive a hybrid? Is Tarantino a good director / writer? Do bears shite in the woods? Is April really the cruelest month? Is the sky really blue? Are the colors I see really the colors of the things I see? Is there life after death? Is fear real or useful? Who is Jesus? Who is SBS? Is Peter judgemental? Is Bush corrupt? Did the govt blow up the twin towers? Should capital gains tax be eliminated? Are apples the best PC's? Should the work only be done on areas in which one feels pain or suffering? Can one delude themselves about a state of being, a state of consciousness, an altered state of consciousness, perceptions, cognitive functions? Does God love me? Is Alison Krauss the best singer in the universe? Of course, you might suggest that these are all areas in which I feel pain or suffering. No; much like Jim, I'd suggest these are essentially a waste of time *unless* they're areas you're personally feeling particular pain and suffering in. I would (if asked) further suggest working first on the areas in which I feel the *most* suffering, in this moment, if any :-) I would work on: How would Rory know what I feel and think inside? Do I care if Rory is mistaken? Whatever floats your boat :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that what new.morning was getting at is whether you or anyone who considers themselves enlightened are willing to do the work on your assumption that you're enlightened. Basically, as I understand it, one does the work on oneself in areas in which one feels pain or suffering, as these are signs of incorrect thinking or thinking not in alignment with nature; there is no need to examine ideas that don't hurt :-) Nothing in stone says that the work can't be used in other ways. I don't have an understanding of any limits placed on the Work. Ron's recent post added to questions for interesting inquiries to use the Work for? Answers to the following questions seem to me to be fair game for the Work -- and useful: Who am I? Is the world real? Do i accurately precieve and cognize what is out there? Does God exist? Is TM a great thing / a not good thing? Am I useful for others? Do I make judgements, and pre-judgments that are not necessary? Where dos the sky end? What was there before the universe was created -- the big bang? Is global warming a large threat? Should everyone drive a hybrid? Is Tarantino a good director / writer? Do bears shite in the woods? Is April really the cruelest month? Is the sky really blue? Are the colors I see really the colors of the things I see? Is there life after death? Is fear real or useful? Who is Jesus? Who is SBS? Is Peter judgemental? Is Bush corrupt? Did the govt blow up the twin towers? Should capital gains tax be eliminated? Are apples the best PC's? Should the work only be done on areas in which one feels pain or suffering? Can one delude themselves about a state of being, a state of consciousness, an altered state of consciousness, perceptions, cognitive functions? Does God love me? Is Alison Krauss the best singer in the universe? Of course, you might suggest that these are all areas in which I feel pain or suffering. No; much like Jim, I'd suggest these are essentially a waste of time *unless* they're areas you're personally feeling particular pain and suffering in. I would (if asked) further suggest working first on the areas in which I feel the *most* suffering, in this moment, if any :-) I would work on: How would Rory know what I feel and think inside? Do I care if Rory is mistaken? Whatever floats your boat :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: Good question Are you not interested? Seriously, there are many seekers on the path, like the poster who asked me if I think I am or am not enlightened, I assume you man me. Or perhaps Barry. Perhaps both of us scoundrels. who want to believe that we can achieve an enlightened state permanently, theoretically, maybe, possibly, almost, according to these factors, but excluding these factors, and only if they like me, and only if I like them, belonging to this sect, but not belonging to that one, and manifesting these behaviors, but excluding those behaviors, having these beliefs, and excluding those beliefs, etc. Wow, thats quite a pre-judgement that you have going there. i guess its not polite to suggest doing some work on that, but holy deep filters. Do you seriously believe I think like that? or Barry does? Whether Barry thinks like that or not, he *posts* like that. What he posts depends entirely on what has been said by somebody he wants to put down. It's not clear whether he's aware of this or not. He's been doing it for so long, it may well be that he's completely lost touch with the process.