[FairfieldLife] Enlightenment as moodmaking?

2007-07-25 Thread TurquoiseB
--- 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?

2007-07-25 Thread cardemaister

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?

2007-07-25 Thread TurquoiseB
--- 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?

2007-07-25 Thread t3rinity
--- 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

2007-07-25 Thread TurquoiseB
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?

2007-07-25 Thread nablusoss1008
--- 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?

2007-07-25 Thread t3rinity
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?

2007-07-25 Thread nablusoss1008
--- 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

2007-07-25 Thread t3rinity
--- 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

2007-07-25 Thread uns_tressor
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

2007-07-25 Thread uns_tressor
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

2007-07-25 Thread t3rinity
--- 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

2007-07-25 Thread tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis
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

2007-07-25 Thread tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis
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...

2007-07-25 Thread MDixon6569
 
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

2007-07-25 Thread authfriend
--- 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?

2007-07-25 Thread jim_flanegin
--- 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?

2007-07-25 Thread jim_flanegin
--- 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?

2007-07-25 Thread new . morning
--- 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?

2007-07-25 Thread jim_flanegin
--- 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?

2007-07-25 Thread jim_flanegin
--- 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

2007-07-25 Thread jim_flanegin
--- 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?

2007-07-25 Thread Vaj


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?

2007-07-25 Thread jim_flanegin
--- 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...

2007-07-25 Thread BillyG.
--- 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?

2007-07-25 Thread TurquoiseB
--- 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?

2007-07-25 Thread new . morning
--- 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?

2007-07-25 Thread curtisdeltablues
--- 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

2007-07-25 Thread tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis
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?

2007-07-25 Thread curtisdeltablues
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!

2007-07-25 Thread curtisdeltablues
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?

2007-07-25 Thread jim_flanegin
--- 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?

2007-07-25 Thread jim_flanegin
--- 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?

2007-07-25 Thread TurquoiseB
--- 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

2007-07-25 Thread new7892001
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?

2007-07-25 Thread jim_flanegin
--- 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

2007-07-25 Thread Peter
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?

2007-07-25 Thread Marek Reavis
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?

2007-07-25 Thread qntmpkt
---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?

2007-07-25 Thread jim_flanegin
--- 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?

2007-07-25 Thread jim_flanegin
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 problem—I 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?

2007-07-25 Thread authfriend
--- 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?

2007-07-25 Thread TurquoiseB
--- 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'

2007-07-25 Thread Robert Gimbel
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...

2007-07-25 Thread MDixon6569
 
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

2007-07-25 Thread Rick Archer
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?

2007-07-25 Thread TurquoiseB
--- 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?

2007-07-25 Thread authfriend
--- 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

2007-07-25 Thread Peter
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?

2007-07-25 Thread Rory Goff
--- 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

2007-07-25 Thread Ron
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

2007-07-25 Thread Ron
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?

2007-07-25 Thread Sal Sunshine
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'

2007-07-25 Thread Robert Gimbel
 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?

2007-07-25 Thread Rory Goff
--- 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?

2007-07-25 Thread Rory Goff
--- 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?

2007-07-25 Thread jim_flanegin
--- 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

2007-07-25 Thread do.rflex

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 hits—out 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 business—GOOD 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 anything—even people. 






[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?

2007-07-25 Thread Alex Stanley
--- 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?

2007-07-25 Thread new . morning
--- 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

2007-07-25 Thread new . morning
--- 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?

2007-07-25 Thread authfriend
--- 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?

2007-07-25 Thread new . morning
--- 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?

2007-07-25 Thread yifuxero
---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?

2007-07-25 Thread jim_flanegin
--- 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.'

2007-07-25 Thread jim_flanegin
--- 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?

2007-07-25 Thread new . morning
--- 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.'

2007-07-25 Thread Robert Gimbel
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?

2007-07-25 Thread new . morning
--- 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 problem—I 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?

2007-07-25 Thread new . morning
--- 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?'

2007-07-25 Thread Robert Gimbel
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?

2007-07-25 Thread jim_flanegin
--- 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 problem—I 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?

2007-07-25 Thread Vaj


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?

2007-07-25 Thread jim_flanegin
--- 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?

2007-07-25 Thread jim_flanegin
--- 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?

2007-07-25 Thread Peter
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?

2007-07-25 Thread new . morning
--- 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?

2007-07-25 Thread new . morning
--- 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?

2007-07-25 Thread new . morning
--- 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

2007-07-25 Thread new . morning
--- 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'

2007-07-25 Thread Robert Gimbel
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?

2007-07-25 Thread jim_flanegin
--- 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.'

2007-07-25 Thread Robert Gimbel
--- 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

2007-07-25 Thread mathatbrahman
...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?

2007-07-25 Thread jim_flanegin
--- 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

2007-07-25 Thread Ron
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.'

2007-07-25 Thread Robert Gimbel
--- 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?

2007-07-25 Thread jim_flanegin
--- 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?

2007-07-25 Thread jim_flanegin
--- 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?

2007-07-25 Thread authfriend
--- 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?

2007-07-25 Thread new . morning
--- 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....

2007-07-25 Thread Rick Archer
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

2007-07-25 Thread cardemaister

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

2007-07-25 Thread shempmcgurk
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?

2007-07-25 Thread new . morning
--- 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?

2007-07-25 Thread new . morning
--- 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?

2007-07-25 Thread authfriend
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?

2007-07-25 Thread mathatbrahman
---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?

2007-07-25 Thread Rory Goff
--- 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?

2007-07-25 Thread authfriend
--- 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.




  1   2   >