[FairfieldLife] Re: Ashtavakra Gita -fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realizaion

2007-09-26 Thread cardemaister
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 again. 1.18
 Just as a mirror exists everywhere both within and apart from its 
reflected images, so the 
 Supreme Lord exists everywhere within and apart from this body. 1.19
 Just as one and the same all-pervading space exists within and 
without a jar,

That's obviously archaic use of without (outside?)...


 so the 
 eternal, everlasting God exists in the totality of things. 1.20
 




[FairfieldLife] Re: Ashtavakra Gita -fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realizaion

2007-09-26 Thread cardemaister
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 When there is no me, that is liberation, and when there is me 
there is bondage. 

yadaa naahaM tadaa moksho yadaahaM bandhanaM tadaa .

yadaa (when) na (not) aham (I) tadaa (then) mokSaH (liberation)
yadaa (when) aham (I) bandhanam (bondage) tadaa (then)

 Consider this carefully, and neither hold on to anything nor 
reject anything. 8.4

matveti [matvaa + iti] helayaa ki.nchinmaa gR^ihaaNa vimu.ncha 
maa .. 8\-4..

Considering (matvaa) thus (iti) carefully (helayaa: easily,
sportively - M-W.) kiñcit (anything) maa (do not) gRhaaNa (hold)
vimuñca (reject) maa (do not).






[FairfieldLife] Re: Ashtavakra Gita -fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realizaion

2007-09-26 Thread cardemaister
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote:
 
  When there is no me, that is liberation, and when there 
is me 
 there is bondage. 
 
 yadaa naahaM tadaa moksho yadaahaM bandhanaM tadaa .
 
 yadaa (when) na (not) aham (I) tadaa (then) mokSaH (liberation)
 yadaa (when) aham (I) bandhanam (bondage) tadaa (then)
 
  Consider this carefully, and neither hold on to anything nor 
 reject anything. 8.4
 
 matveti [matvaa + iti] helayaa ki.nchinmaa gR^ihaaNa vimu.ncha 
 maa .. 8\-4..
 
 Considering (matvaa) thus (iti) carefully (helayaa: easily,
 sportively - M-W.) kiñcit (anything) maa (do not) gRhaaNa (hold)
 vimuñca (reject) maa (do not).


Oops!  ;)



[FairfieldLife] Re: Ashtavakra Gita -fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realizaion

2007-09-26 Thread george_deforest
 cardemaister wrote:
  again. 1.18
  Just as a mirror exists everywhere both within and apart from its 
 reflected images, so the 
  Supreme Lord exists everywhere within and apart from this body. 1.19
  Just as one and the same all-pervading space exists within and 
  without a jar,
 
 That's obviously archaic use of without (outside?)...
 

yes; and the Beatles played with the 2 usages in this lyric:

And the time will come when you see we're all one, 
and life flows on within you and without you.

gotta love it



[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened

2007-09-26 Thread nablusoss1008
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 Some good points.
 
 On different responses to darshan, MMY made clear, at least from 
his
 side, and presumably he was pretty attuned to the dynamics of SBS'
 darshan, if not of a much larger group, by tradition. 
 
 {Paraphrasing} 'It all comes from the student.The student thinks it
 all comes from the teacher, but it is not so. The teacher is the 
well
 head. The water from the well flows in which ever way it is tapped.
 The well does nothing. Its all from the student. Like a golden 
chain
 is attached between teacher an student. And then everything flows. 
The
 teacher has nothing to do with the chain. Its all in the student.'
 [this was a paraphrase not a direct quote.]

Very interesting point. Thanks !



[FairfieldLife] Re: The Ugly Side of the GOP - by Bob Herbert, of the NY Times

2007-09-26 Thread nablusoss1008
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, oneradiantbeing 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 The Ugly Side of the GOP
 By Bob Herbert
 The New York Times
 
 Tuesday 25 September 2007
 
 I applaud the thousands of people, many of them poor, who 
 traveled from around the country to protest in Jena, La., last 
week. 
 But what I'd really like to see is a million angry protesters 
 marching on the headquarters of the National Republican Party in 
 Washington.
 
 Enough is enough. Last week the Republicans showed once again 
 just how anti-black their party really is.
 
 The G.O.P. has spent the last 40 years insulting, 
 disenfranchising and otherwise stomping on the interests of black 
 Americans. Last week, the residents of Washington, D.C., with its 
 majority black population, came remarkably close to realizing a 
goal 
 they have sought for decades - a voting member of Congress to 
 represent them.
 
 A majority in Congress favored the move, and the House had 
 already approved it. But the Republican minority in the Senate - 
with 
 the enthusiastic support of President Bush - rose up on Tuesday 
and 
 said: No way, baby.
 
 At least 57 senators favored the bill, a solid majority. But 
the 
 Republicans prevented a key motion on the measure from receiving 
the 
 60 votes necessary to move it forward in the Senate. The bill died.
 
 At the same time that the Republicans were killing 
Congressional 
 representation for D.C. residents, the major G.O.P. candidates for 
 president were offering a collective slap in the face to black 
voters 
 nationally by refusing to participate in a long-scheduled, 
nationally 
 televised debate focusing on issues important to minorities.
 
 The radio and television personality Tavis Smiley worked for a 
 year to have a pair of these debates televised on PBS, one for the 
 Democratic candidates and the other for the Republicans. The 
 Democratic debate was held in June, and all the major candidates 
 participated.
 
 The Republican debate is scheduled for Thursday. But Rudy 
 Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson have all told 
 Mr. Smiley: No way, baby.
 
 They won't be there. They can't be bothered debating issues 
that 
 might be of interest to black Americans. After all, they're 
 Republicans.
 
 This is the party of the Southern strategy - the party that 
ran, 
 like panting dogs, after the votes of segregationist whites who 
were 
 repelled by the very idea of giving equal treatment to blacks. 
Ronald 
 Reagan, George H.W. (Willie Horton) Bush, George W. (Compassionate 
 Conservative) Bush - they all ran with that lousy pack.
 
 Dr. Carolyn Goodman, a woman I was privileged to call a 
friend, 
 died last month at the age of 91. She was the mother of Andrew 
 Goodman, one of the three young civil rights activists shot to 
death 
 by rabid racists near Philadelphia, Miss., in 1964.
 
 Dr. Goodman, one of the most decent people I have ever known, 
 carried the ache of that loss with her every day of her life.
 
 In one of the vilest moves in modern presidential politics, 
 Ronald Reagan, the ultimate hero of this latter-day Republican 
Party, 
 went out of his way to kick off his general election campaign in 
1980 
 in that very same Philadelphia, Miss. He was not there to send the 
 message that he stood solidly for the values of Andrew Goodman. He 
 was there to assure the bigots that he was with them.
 
 I believe in states' rights, said Mr. Reagan. The crowd 
roared.
 
 In 1981, during the first year of Mr. Reagan's presidency, the 
 late Lee Atwater gave an interview to a political science 
professor 
 at Case Western Reserve University, explaining the evolution of 
the 
 Southern strategy:
 
 You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger,'  
 said Atwater. By 1968, you can't say 'nigger' - that hurts you. 
 Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights, 
and 
 all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're 
talking 
 about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are 
 totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks 
get 
 hurt worse than whites.
 
 In 1991, the first President Bush poked a finger in the eye of 
 black America by selecting the egregious Clarence Thomas for the 
seat 
 on the Supreme Court that had been held by the revered Thurgood 
 Marshall. The fact that there is a rigid quota on the court, 
 permitting one black and one black only to serve at a time, is 
itself 
 racist.
 
 Mr. Bush seemed to be saying, All right, you want your black 
on 
 the court? Boy, have I got one for you.
 
 Republicans improperly threw black voters off the rolls in 
 Florida in the contested presidential election of 2000, and sent 
 Florida state troopers into the homes of black voters to 
intimidate 
 them in 2004.
 
 Blacks have been remarkably quiet about this sustained 
 mistreatment by the 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer

2007-09-26 Thread MDixon6569
 
In a message dated 9/25/07 7:55:39 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I can't  seriously believe that anyone, particularly anyone who knows
Judy, could  seriously conclude by what she said that she really *did*
mean convert to  Islam simply because of hearing a song - no matter how
beautiful. I don't  know what your history is with Judy, Sal, but I
suspect that you, like  Dixon and Barry, have been a recipient of her
criticism and don't mind  finding any excuse to attack her.



Actually I found Judy's original post about the little Koran singer amusing  
in that she had considered converting to Judaism once before and was gushing  
over a little boy singing from the Koran without knowing what he was singing.  
For all anybody knew, he could have been singing about killing Jews and other 
 infidels. Just my observation which I found ironic. Meanwhile, I'm attacked 
and  called a bigot because I dare associate Islam with anything negative like 
 bigotry towards Jews and infidels and accused of promoting Israeli 
propaganda,  code word for *Jewish lies*. Such is a day in Fairfield  Life:)



** See what's new at http://www.aol.com


[FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer

2007-09-26 Thread TurquoiseB
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Actually I found Judy's original post about the little Koran 
 singer amusing in that she had considered converting to Judaism 
 once before and was gushing over a little boy singing from the 
 Koran without knowing what he was singing. For all anybody knew, 
 he could have been singing about killing Jews and other infidels. 
 Just my observation which I found ironic. Meanwhile, I'm attacked 
 and called a bigot because I dare associate Islam with anything 
 negative like bigotry towards Jews and infidels and accused of 
 promoting Israeli propaganda, code word for *Jewish lies*. Such 
 is a day in Fairfield  Life:)

While I agree with you completely on what's been
going on here on Fairfield Life, I think that even
you will have to admit that there *is* a great deal
of Israeli propaganda, and has been for decades.
It coincides with a lot of the Neocon/Bush propa-
ganda, in that both sets of People With Agendas 
would like nothing better than for people all over
the world to hear the words 'Arab' or 'Muslim' and
then, in their next thought, automatically associate 
those words with 'terrorist' and 'killer.'

And, sadly, they have accomplished this to some
extent in the United States. You really don't see 
it as much here in Europe, where they're more used 
to dealing with people from different countries
and different traditions as individuals, not as 
symbols for something.

When you live alongside a lot of Muslims, and deal
with them on a day-to-day basis, it's easier to 
understand that the propaganda about them is just
that, and that they're human beings just like you
and me who, for the most part, want the same things
that you and I want. But for Americans who have been
frightened into being *afraid* of anyone who looks
even remotely Middle Eastern, and regarding them as
a potential terrorist ready to kill them the moment
their back is turned, it's quite a different story.

I've met a number of Americans over here lately,
and I have to tell you how *shocking* it is to hear
the things they think, and the things they worry 
about. After living in Europe for four years, I have
grown used to an environment in which there is *zero*
fear of terrorism in the general population. There
is an *awareness* of it, and there are measures in
place to prevent anything from happening, but it 
really doesn't impinge on the private lives of most
of the people. I would go so far as to say that the
fear of terrorism never even enters their minds;
they're too busy living their lives and enjoying
those lives, for the most part.

And then I meet the Americans. *Smart* Americans,
*intelligent* Americans, not like Bush and his cronies.
And they can't go an hour without mentioning terrorism
at least once.

It's very, very sad from my point of view. It's an
indication that the terrorists WON with regard to 
America and Americans. When the bombs went off in 
Madrid, half the population of the city marched to 
show their protest, and their conviction that such 
things were impermissible, and that they wouldn't 
tolerate them. But then they went back to their lives.
Same in London, with the subway bombings. The next
day people were back at work and back in their lives.
They didn't allow the mind virus of terrorism to
take over their lives and make them worried much of
the time and make them give away their liberties. I'm 
sorry, dude, but Americans did. They allowed the 
terrorists to WIN, by allowing these mind viruses 
free rein in their minds.

In a way it's similar to some of the games we see
played here on FFL. There are people whose goal in
life seems to be to suck attention. They want you to
*focus on them*. They want to believe that you're
thinking about them all the time, even if what they
believe you're thinking is how to do them or their 
reputations harm. They're like attention terrorists, 
always trying to push themselves into somebody else's 
mind. 

Me, I don't stand for it any more. Like the Spanish
and like the British, I've got more important things
to do than think about insecure pissants who want to
force their way into your attention field. Like living.
Like working. Like playing and having fun. 

I have realized that the pissants are going to be 
stalking me and other people here that they don't 
like pretty much forever. I can't do anything about 
it; it just seems to be how their minds work, their
operating system. But I don't have to allow them 
into *my* mind. 

As with terrorism, living well is the best revenge. 





Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer

2007-09-26 Thread Vaj
So if what some are saying comes true, and if 50-100 years France and  
Germany become majority Muslim states, do you feel these states will  
be better or worse off for non-Muslims and women? What about people  
who are not of the book, like , Atheists, Hindus and Buddhists?  
What about human rights in general?


On Sep 26, 2007, at 7:34 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:


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

 Actually I found Judy's original post about the little Koran
 singer amusing in that she had considered converting to Judaism
 once before and was gushing over a little boy singing from the
 Koran without knowing what he was singing. For all anybody knew,
 he could have been singing about killing Jews and other infidels.
 Just my observation which I found ironic. Meanwhile, I'm attacked
 and called a bigot because I dare associate Islam with anything
 negative like bigotry towards Jews and infidels and accused of
 promoting Israeli propaganda, code word for *Jewish lies*. Such
 is a day in Fairfield Life:)

While I agree with you completely on what's been
going on here on Fairfield Life, I think that even
you will have to admit that there *is* a great deal
of Israeli propaganda, and has been for decades.
It coincides with a lot of the Neocon/Bush propa-
ganda, in that both sets of People With Agendas
would like nothing better than for people all over
the world to hear the words 'Arab' or 'Muslim' and
then, in their next thought, automatically associate
those words with 'terrorist' and 'killer.'

And, sadly, they have accomplished this to some
extent in the United States. You really don't see
it as much here in Europe, where they're more used
to dealing with people from different countries
and different traditions as individuals, not as
symbols for something.

When you live alongside a lot of Muslims, and deal
with them on a day-to-day basis, it's easier to
understand that the propaganda about them is just
that, and that they're human beings just like you
and me who, for the most part, want the same things
that you and I want. But for Americans who have been
frightened into being *afraid* of anyone who looks
even remotely Middle Eastern, and regarding them as
a potential terrorist ready to kill them the moment
their back is turned, it's quite a different story.

I've met a number of Americans over here lately,
and I have to tell you how *shocking* it is to hear
the things they think, and the things they worry
about. After living in Europe for four years, I have
grown used to an environment in which there is *zero*
fear of terrorism in the general population. There
is an *awareness* of it, and there are measures in
place to prevent anything from happening, but it
really doesn't impinge on the private lives of most
of the people. I would go so far as to say that the
fear of terrorism never even enters their minds;
they're too busy living their lives and enjoying
those lives, for the most part.

And then I meet the Americans. *Smart* Americans,
*intelligent* Americans, not like Bush and his cronies.
And they can't go an hour without mentioning terrorism
at least once.

It's very, very sad from my point of view. It's an
indication that the terrorists WON with regard to
America and Americans. When the bombs went off in
Madrid, half the population of the city marched to
show their protest, and their conviction that such
things were impermissible, and that they wouldn't
tolerate them. But then they went back to their lives.
Same in London, with the subway bombings. The next
day people were back at work and back in their lives.
They didn't allow the mind virus of terrorism to
take over their lives and make them worried much of
the time and make them give away their liberties. I'm
sorry, dude, but Americans did. They allowed the
terrorists to WIN, by allowing these mind viruses
free rein in their minds.

In a way it's similar to some of the games we see
played here on FFL. There are people whose goal in
life seems to be to suck attention. They want you to
*focus on them*. They want to believe that you're
thinking about them all the time, even if what they
believe you're thinking is how to do them or their
reputations harm. They're like attention terrorists,
always trying to push themselves into somebody else's
mind.

Me, I don't stand for it any more. Like the Spanish
and like the British, I've got more important things
to do than think about insecure pissants who want to
force their way into your attention field. Like living.
Like working. Like playing and having fun.

I have realized that the pissants are going to be
stalking me and other people here that they don't
like pretty much forever. I can't do anything about
it; it just seems to be how their minds work, their
operating system. But I don't have to allow them
into *my* mind.

As with terrorism, living well is the best revenge.







Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer

2007-09-26 Thread Vaj
Does this echo your sentiment on terrorism and America B.? Just  
curious how close it was.


Is Terrorism a Mortal Threat?

It may have been politically incorrect to publish the thoughts on the  
sixth anniversary of 9-11, but what Colin Powell had to say to GQ  
magazine needs to be heard.


Terrorism, said Powell, is not a mortal threat to America.

What is the greatest threat facing us now? Powell asked. People  
will say it's terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world  
who can change the American way of life or our political system? No.  
Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But  
can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the  
great threat we are facing?


History and common sense teach that Powell speaks truth.

Since 9-11, 100,000 Americans have been murdered -- as many as we  
lost in Vietnam, Korea and Iraq combined. Yet, not one of these  
murders was the work of an Islamic terrorist, and all of them,  
terrible as they are, did not imperil the survival of our republic.
Terrorists can blow up our buildings, assassinate our leaders, and  
bomb our malls and stadiums. They cannot destroy us. Assume the  
worst. Terrorists smuggle an atom bomb into New York harbor or into  
Washington, D.C., and detonate it.


Horrible and horrifying as that would be -- perhaps 100,000 dead and  
wounded -- it would not mean the end of the United States. It would  
more likely mean the end of Iran, or whatever nation at which the  
United States chose to direct its rage and retribution.


Consider. Between 1942 and 1945, Germany and Japan, nations not one- 
tenth the size of the United States, saw their cities firebombed, and  
their soldiers and civilians slaughtered in the millions. Japan lost  
an empire. Germany lost a third of its territory. Both were put under  
military occupation. Yet, 15 years later, Germany and Japan were the  
second and third most prosperous nations on Earth, the dynamos of  
their respective continents, Europe and Asia.


Powell's point is not that terrorism is not a threat. It is that the  
terror threat must be seen in perspective, that we ought not frighten  
ourselves to death with our own propaganda, that we cannot allow fear  
of terror to monopolize our every waking hour or cause us to give up  
our freedom.


For all the blather of a restored caliphate, the Islamofascists, as  
the neocons call them, cannot create or run a modern state, or pose a  
mortal threat to America. The GNP of the entire Arab world is not  
equal to Spain's. Oil aside, its exports are equal to Finland's.


Afghanistan and Sudan, under Islamist regimes, were basket cases.  
Despite the comparisons with Nazi Germany, Iran is unable to build  
modern fighters or warships and has an economy one-twentieth that of  
the United States, at best. While we lack the troops to invade Iran,  
three times the size of Iraq, the U.S. Air Force and Navy could, in  
weeks, smash Iran's capacity to make war, blockade it and reduce its  
population to destitution.
Should Iran develop a nuclear weapon and use it on us or on Israel,  
it would invite annihilation.


As a threat, Iran is not remotely in the same league with the Soviet  
Union of Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev, or Mao's China, or Nazi  
Germany, or Imperial Japan, or even Mussolini's Italy.


And why would Tehran, which has not launched a war since the  
revolution in 1979, start a war with an America with 10,000 nuclear  
weapons? If the Iranians are so suicidal, why have they not committed  
suicide in 30 years by attacking us or Israel?


What makes war with Iran folly is that an all-out war could lead to a  
break-up of that country, with Persians, Azeris, Kurds, Arabs and  
Baluchis going their separate ways, creating fertile enclaves for al- 
Qaida recruitment and training.


Yet, while talking common sense, Gen. Powell himself reverted to  
cliche. America could not survive without immigration.


But this is nonsense. From 1789 to 1845, we had almost no  
immigration, before the Irish came. Did we not survive? From 1925 to  
1965, we had almost no immigration. Yet, we conquered the Great  
Depression, won World World II, became the greatest power on earth  
and ended those four decades with an Era of Good Feeling under Ike  
and JFK unlike any we had known before.


Was the America of the 1940s and 1950s in which Colin Powell grew up  
in danger of not surviving for lack of immigration?


In our time, Pakistan, Ethiopia and Czechoslovakia have split apart.  
The Soviet Union and Yugoslavia have broken up into two dozen  
nations. Terrorism had nothing to do with it. Tribalism had  
everything to do with it.


Race, ethnicity and religion are the fault lines along which nations  
like Iraq are coming apart. If America ends, it will not be the work  
of an Osama bin Laden. As Abraham Lincoln said, it will be by our own  
hand, it will be by suicide.






by Patrick J. Buchanan (more by this 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Charles Lutes at Bedtime

2007-09-26 Thread do.rflex
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, suziezuzie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, suziezuzie msilver1951@
  wrote:
  
   I've been listening to Charles Lutes every night, all his 
 recorded 
   lectures and answers to questions. After a few weeks of 
 listening, I'm 
   getting the impression that he was a legitimately powerful soul.
  
  
  Charlie was, in my view, an institution. I had the good fortune to
  have known him personally for over 20 years and I felt a tremendous
  empty gap when he passed away. In the later years before he got 
 sick I
  began to recognize that he was literally his 'own' being and 
 commanded
  a powerful yet sublime energy presence. He didn't look outside of
  himself for anything. As you've likely noticed in his lectures,
  whatever the question or topic, he always focused it in terms of
  encouraging the meditaters in their practice of Transcendental 
 Meditation.
  
  You have taken on the human form to gain Divine Mind through
  knowledge and experience in the field of combined opposites. 
  
  ~~  Charlie Lutes 
  
  
  Revealing exchange between Charlie Lutes and Maharishi [according to
  Charlie]
  
  Charlie said, Why don't you tell them that if they meditate for 
 God 
  they will evolve faster? Oh Charlie, we not have to tell them 
  everything!, laughed Maharishi.
 
 Without being disrespectful, could you be kind enough to describe 
 that period of time when Lutes had become ill? Did you ever see him 
 during this period? The reason I ask this, is because I was really in 
 awe of his strengh and solid personality. I was really shocked and 
 disheartened to find out that he had contracted dementia. How did he 
 handle himself in the midst of this disease? How did he make that 
 transformation from being a dynamic personality into one as we see 
 characterized by those who suffer from dementia? IOW, I'm trying to 
 understand that transformation by a man of personal strengh, 
 supposedly enlightened into a new and seemingly weaker state, yet 
 still enlightened.


I lost phone contact with Charlie when, in the mid 1990's, I
temporarily moved to San Diego and found out he had moved to
Scottsdale, AZ. I had been informed that he was ill and that it would
be in his best interests to not disturb him and to leave him to the
care of those with him. Apparently he wished it that way, although he
never told me that himself. In any case I respected the request fully
trusting that he was in the best of care. Regretfully, for that
reason, I'm at a loss to answer your question. He passed away in 2001.


The one who has come, has to go. Nobody can stay here. Every moment 
keep your luggage packed. Nobody knows when death will call. The
warrant of death is like the arrest warrant. One cannot think of
appealing against it. Quickly one should leave off everything and
leave. Whatever is, wherever is, we have to leave and go. 

So, if you are ready before, there will be not much of a difficulty, 
while leaving. The one who is always ready to leave, will never be
able to sin. Only by forgetting the other world, one becomes immoral
and licentious. If a man remembers at every moment, that one day or
the other all will have to leave this world, then he will never be
able to bring in untruth and inappropriate conduct into his life. 

~~ Guru Dev





[FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer

2007-09-26 Thread do.rflex
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
 In a message dated 9/25/07 7:55:39 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
 I can't  seriously believe that anyone, particularly anyone who knows
 Judy, could  seriously conclude by what she said that she really *did*
 mean convert to  Islam simply because of hearing a song - no matter how
 beautiful. I don't  know what your history is with Judy, Sal, but I
 suspect that you, like  Dixon and Barry, have been a recipient of her
 criticism and don't mind  finding any excuse to attack her.
 
 
 
 Actually I found Judy's original post about the little Koran singer
amusing  
 in that she had considered converting to Judaism once before and was
gushing  
 over a little boy singing from the Koran without knowing what he was
singing.  
 For all anybody knew, he could have been singing about killing Jews
and other 
  infidels. Just my observation which I found ironic. Meanwhile, I'm
attacked 
 and  called a bigot because I dare associate Islam with anything
negative like 
  bigotry towards Jews and infidels and accused of promoting Israeli 
 propaganda,  code word for *Jewish lies*. Such is a day in Fairfield
 Life:)


What's most disturbing is that you wear your bigotry so
self-assuredly. It's classic.









[FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer

2007-09-26 Thread do.rflex
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 So if what some are saying comes true, and if 50-100 years France and  
 Germany become majority Muslim states, do you feel these states will  
 be better or worse off for non-Muslims and women? What about people  
 who are not of the book, like , Atheists, Hindus and Buddhists?  
 What about human rights in general?


The Islamification of Europe 
Simon Kuper 
Financial Times, August 19 2007 
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/123ade02-4e6f-11dc-85e7-779fd2ac.html

Excerpts:

...Bernard Lewis, a scholar of Islam, cited the immigration from
Muslim countries and relatively high birth-rates of immigrants as
trends that mean Europe will have Muslim majorities in the population
by the end of the twenty-first century at the latest. 

Most academics who have analysed the demographics dismiss such
predictions. 

Jytte Klausen, a professor of politics at Brandeis University who
studies European Muslims, says: It's being advocated by people who
don't consult the numbers. All these claims are really emotional
claims. Sometimes they are made by Muslim or far-right groups, who
share an interest in exaggerating the numbers. 

Nominal Muslims – whether religious or not – account for 3-4 per cent
of the European Union's total population of 493m. Their percentage
should rise, but far more modestly than the extreme predictions. That
is chiefly because Muslims, both in Europe and the main emigrating
countries of Turkey and north Africa, are having fewer babies. […] 

The US National Intelligence Council predicts there will be between
23m and 38m Muslims in the EU in 2025 – 5-8 per cent of the
population. But after 2025 the Muslim population should stop growing
so quickly, given its falling birth-rate. In short, Islamicisation –
let alone sharia law – is not a demographic prospect for Europe. 




[FairfieldLife] Over Genralizations, over Claiming of Casusal Relations -- and the Pheonix

2007-09-26 Thread new . morning
I think thats a common sense article, Is Terrorism a Mortal Threat?, 
 with good, almost obvious, yet sadly not obvious (to many) points. 

I am guessing many readers may have not noticed the author:  Patrick
J. Buchanan. Whom most here, and throughout many liberal enclaves, if
said, hey, listen to this piece by Pat Buchanan they would receive
sneers, rebuke, and ridicule. Pre-judging something by some
overly-broad generalizations. In common parlance, its also called
prejudice and bigotry. Not foreign attributes of many political
persuasions, ethnic groups, social strata. Albeit, silently, never
acknowledged, always shunned hypocritically via lip service.

Cognitive Therapy (CT), is actually a therapy used to heal or help
people overcome this disabling challenge. As well as arbitrary
inference and selective abstraction. I am not sure of the
effectiveness of cognitive therapy, and I would be interested from any
learned or experience opinions. 

A side observation (of mine) is that those tending towards
Enlightenment -- that is those there, thinking they are there, close,
to what ever they define as that state -- are far from immune to
overgneralization and the other maladies for which CT is used as
healing therapy. Should there perhaps be an E2 category -- those who
are enlightened, and then via CT, inquiry, ritam, or whatever, have
healed most all cognitive disabilities? 

Of course that raises the possibilities of And E3 an E4 state. Hey, I
think we may be able to out label Ron Hubbard. 

Several over-generalizations, implied or explicit, today and often
everyday, here, there and everywhere. Turq, I think you are 
over-generalizing about Americans from a few, or several dozen,
traveling Americans. Vaj and Dixon, I think you are overgeneralizing
about muslims. Others appear to be overgeneralizing about Jews. And of
course, I may be overgeneralizing here.

Speaking of Muslims (and perhaps Arabs), I saw an interview this
weekend with Nassim Nicholas Taleb on book TV (on CSPAN all weekeds)
-- my favorite TV of all. (how can Heroes compare to THIS!).

His first book, Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in
Life and in the Market, I have partly read and love. His new bool, The
Black Swan -- about highly unlikely events -- and their impacts on
individuals and society, appears, far-reaching, deeply connected, and
highly insightful. A major theme of his is that things are way more
random than most suppose -- an that people draw all sorts of causal
relations inappropriately -- and too their detriment. A great read for
all here, and FFL booklist, candidate.

Back to Taleb. Hardly an expousing religious kind of guy, he did hint
of his Islamic and or Arab background. To equate some of the
overgeneralize, perhaps implied, islamic slurs here recently, and in
the past, is quite laughable. Puts such expousers in glorious
perspective. YMMV. 


Back to Pat, if America ends, I won't go th the funeral. I will toast
of some good and great things at its wake, though. Amercia is not
important, IMO, in the long span of history, relative to attributes it
tries to enoble and live by -- an often fails miserably. We can all
make our lists -- and the may even have some Venn type overlap. 

If I woke up tomorrow to find the new nations of Pacifica,
Mountaintonia, Zealotecha, Snoberossa, etc, I would not shed a tear. 
Each seperatley may be able to fulfill the dream of many noble
qualities for which America is currently failing, or faultering in.
Some of the new nations would enoble some of these qualities better
than others. Those that like those qualities an migrate wowards there
and live in a society tht suits them. Those with bettr overall
qualites will tend to flourish, those with less qualites, or
floundering with all through inept administration and/or leader
selection processes -- will lose favor -- an have pressure to change
and evolve.

If Dixon wants a nation strongly adhered to a particular brand of 
Christian priciples an doctrine, go for it. If Vaj wants to live in a
nation that disallows work, tourist or any entry to any muslim, or
racial groups with which Islam is associated, then go for it. If Turq
wants a society or only hip non-americans, kewl. Create and strive to
build these new nations, on the ashes of America. See how well these
societies work. That would be the American spirit renewed in the
American pheonix arising form those ashes.
 
Overgeneralizing about terrorism, ethic and racial groups, persons of
various faiths -- what good are they? 

Over claiming causality of terror to national demise, various
practices with particular inner   (darshan and spectacular experience)
an outer (YF or BK and world peace)  -- or even way under evidence
correlations of enlightenment with any improved positve attributes --
what good are they?

In New_Morningna -- a blissfull alpine country, on the coast, with
georgeous mountains 14,00) foot mountains, and nearby coastal white
sandy beaches (its one helluva a road 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer

2007-09-26 Thread TurquoiseB
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 So if what some are saying comes true, and if 50-100 years France 
 and Germany become majority Muslim states, do you feel these states 
 will be better or worse off for non-Muslims and women? What about 
 people who are not of the book, like , Atheists, Hindus and 
 Buddhists?  What about human rights in general?

I have no idea. As far as I can tell, both France
and Germany are pretty strongly in the If you move
to our country, you tacitly agree to play by our
rules camp. And they've gotten very little negative
feedback on that from anyone but insane fanatical
Muslims. Unfortunately, as in the US, the insane
fanatics tend to get the airplay on the News, so
people think there are more of them than there are.
In my experience, most of the Muslim community 
thinks these people are insane, too. They're not
going to let a few fanatics spoil it for the rest
of them in the long run.

 On Sep 26, 2007, at 7:34 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote:
  
   Actually I found Judy's original post about the little Koran
   singer amusing in that she had considered converting to Judaism
   once before and was gushing over a little boy singing from the
   Koran without knowing what he was singing. For all anybody knew,
   he could have been singing about killing Jews and other infidels.
   Just my observation which I found ironic. Meanwhile, I'm attacked
   and called a bigot because I dare associate Islam with anything
   negative like bigotry towards Jews and infidels and accused of
   promoting Israeli propaganda, code word for *Jewish lies*. Such
   is a day in Fairfield Life:)
 
  While I agree with you completely on what's been
  going on here on Fairfield Life, I think that even
  you will have to admit that there *is* a great deal
  of Israeli propaganda, and has been for decades.
  It coincides with a lot of the Neocon/Bush propa-
  ganda, in that both sets of People With Agendas
  would like nothing better than for people all over
  the world to hear the words 'Arab' or 'Muslim' and
  then, in their next thought, automatically associate
  those words with 'terrorist' and 'killer.'
 
  And, sadly, they have accomplished this to some
  extent in the United States. You really don't see
  it as much here in Europe, where they're more used
  to dealing with people from different countries
  and different traditions as individuals, not as
  symbols for something.
 
  When you live alongside a lot of Muslims, and deal
  with them on a day-to-day basis, it's easier to
  understand that the propaganda about them is just
  that, and that they're human beings just like you
  and me who, for the most part, want the same things
  that you and I want. But for Americans who have been
  frightened into being *afraid* of anyone who looks
  even remotely Middle Eastern, and regarding them as
  a potential terrorist ready to kill them the moment
  their back is turned, it's quite a different story.
 
  I've met a number of Americans over here lately,
  and I have to tell you how *shocking* it is to hear
  the things they think, and the things they worry
  about. After living in Europe for four years, I have
  grown used to an environment in which there is *zero*
  fear of terrorism in the general population. There
  is an *awareness* of it, and there are measures in
  place to prevent anything from happening, but it
  really doesn't impinge on the private lives of most
  of the people. I would go so far as to say that the
  fear of terrorism never even enters their minds;
  they're too busy living their lives and enjoying
  those lives, for the most part.
 
  And then I meet the Americans. *Smart* Americans,
  *intelligent* Americans, not like Bush and his cronies.
  And they can't go an hour without mentioning terrorism
  at least once.
 
  It's very, very sad from my point of view. It's an
  indication that the terrorists WON with regard to
  America and Americans. When the bombs went off in
  Madrid, half the population of the city marched to
  show their protest, and their conviction that such
  things were impermissible, and that they wouldn't
  tolerate them. But then they went back to their lives.
  Same in London, with the subway bombings. The next
  day people were back at work and back in their lives.
  They didn't allow the mind virus of terrorism to
  take over their lives and make them worried much of
  the time and make them give away their liberties. I'm
  sorry, dude, but Americans did. They allowed the
  terrorists to WIN, by allowing these mind viruses
  free rein in their minds.
 
  In a way it's similar to some of the games we see
  played here on FFL. There are people whose goal in
  life seems to be to suck attention. They want you to
  *focus on them*. They want to believe that you're
  thinking about them all the time, even if what they
  believe you're thinking is how to do them or their
  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Over Genralizations, over Claiming of Casusal Relations -- and the Pheonix

2007-09-26 Thread Vaj


On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:34 AM, new.morning wrote:


Vaj and Dixon, I think you are overgeneralizing
about muslims.



If Vaj wants to live in a
nation that disallows work, tourist or any entry to any muslim, or
racial groups with which Islam is associated, then go for it.


What on earth would ever make you jump to such bizarre conclusions? 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Some responses to Bronte Baxter from David Spero

2007-09-26 Thread curtisdeltablues
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 -Nice Curtis!
 
 I need to email you and reconnect.
 
 From one unenlightened dude to another
 
 Steve
 

That would be great Steve, you were one of the most entertaining guys
at Sidhaland.  Unenlightened guys get the hottest chicks and don't let
anyone tell ya different!




 
 -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ 
 wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
   curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin 
 jflanegi@ 
   wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  Great youtube videos.  He, he, we are all aspirants and 
 he 
   is the
  enlightened teacher.  Step right up, step right up...
  
 yeah, I'll bet it really pissed you off in grade school when 
 the teacher referred to you as a student...

Not at all.  The relationship was appropriately named. 

 
 If you just read the words enlightened teacher 
 and aspirant 
   as 
 words with definitions, vs. loading them with baggage, it is 
   easier to 
 see what he is talking about. Dr. Phil, who's common sense I 
   enjoy, 
 refers to this loading as psychological sunburn; because of 
   events in 
 the past, even a mention of a word or phrase evokes strong 
   emotion. 
 I'm not dissing you, just noticing your reaction to those 
 words. 
   DS 
 doesn't strike me as a power tripper in the least.:-)

So not recognizing people's self proclaimed superior enlightened
status is a psychological problem that I have that Dr. Phil can 
   help
me with?  That is super news for me!

   Why is the self proclaimed status any different whether its 
 someone 
   calling themselves doctor because they did a thesis or med 
 school, 
   and graduated, or calling themselves enlightened because they did 
   self realization school, and graduated? Either way there has been 
 an 
   achievement, but so what? Life is full of achievements. Why are 
   either of them, the doc or the enlightened, or both of them, 
   considered superior as a result? And why not just recognize 
 them 
   for what they have accomplished? I don't get the issue with 
 that.:-)
  
  
  David: Thanks for deconstructing the notion that within teaching
  enlightenment there is an inherent, unspoken position of authority 
 or
  superiority. That was right on! Namaste, DS
  
  Me: I'll let David explain it to you since he is obviously much more
  enlighteneder than you are (with the website and all).  If you pay
  attention you may reach your next stage of enlightenmentedness 
 through
  recognizing your relationship with his higher degree of
  enlightendenessinment.  (That is unless your own psychological 
 sunburn
  doesn't allow you to submit to your true relationship with him as
  living a state of  less enlightnedernessinment than he has, you know
  like an MD, so what's the problem?)
  
  Meanwhile common dudes like me will just have to settle for our own
  level of nonenlightenmentesque lives. Or is it 
 unenlightenmenedness? 
  Either way you guys can work this one out amongst yourselves and I
  wont worry my pretty little head about such lofty matters.
 





[FairfieldLife] Re: The Ugly Side of the GOP - by Bob Herbert, of the NY Times

2007-09-26 Thread oneradiantbeing
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 You can say the same thing about million babies who are victims of 
 abortion.
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, oneradiantbeing 
  oneradiantbeing@ wrote:
  
   The Ugly Side of the GOP
   By Bob Herbert
   The New York Times
   
   Tuesday 25 September 2007
   
   I applaud the thousands of people, many of them poor, who 
   traveled from around the country to protest in Jena, La., last 
  week. 
  
  
  ME TOO !!
  
  And what is wrong with people, protesting over a few kids in a 
 brawl, 
  but don't give a damn about the 100,000 children murdered 
  by coalition forces and Blackwater in Iraq. ?!??
  
  OffWorld
 


A fetus is not a human life. These are two totally unrelated topics. 



[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true

2007-09-26 Thread off_world_beings
--- In 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Barry writes in his summary:
 So have a go at it, eh? And if you are able to come
 up with some statement -- any statement -- that is
 true for all beings, in all periods of time, in all
 contexts, and when viewed from all states of consciousness, 
 *then* come back and tell me how accurate
 you believe the words of the supposedly enlightened
 are when describing what it's like. I'll wait.


Existence exists, therefore interaction of the full potential of 
existence - its opposite potentials of point and infinity - occurs. 
Therefore activity occurs, therefore dynamism flourishes and 
propogates. You are that existence and its inherent dynamism. Therefore 
you are at home in that. Being at home, therefore you are happy in this 
universe, which is your cherished home where you grew up as a species. 
Therefore life is bliss, because you are always at home in this 
universe. All else is illusion.

Therefore, life is bliss. All else is self-illusion. Untrue.

OffWorld



 
 Tom T:
 You have now *got* the Byron Katie system down pat. Her questions lead
 one to the conclusion you are asking those here to come to. Awesome!. 
Tom





[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true

2007-09-26 Thread off_world_beings
--- In 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Barry writes in his summary:
 So have a go at it, eh? And if you are able to come
 up with some statement -- any statement -- that is
 true for all beings, in all periods of time, in all
 contexts, and when viewed from all states of consciousness, 
 *then* come back and tell me how accurate
 you believe the words of the supposedly enlightened
 are when describing what it's like. I'll wait.


Existence exists, therefore interaction of the full potential of
existence - its opposite potentials of point and infinity - occurs.
Therefore activity occurs, therefore dynamism flourishes and
propogates. You are that existence and its inherent dynamism. Therefore
you are at home in that. Being at home, therefore you are happy in this
universe, which is your cherished home where you grew up as a species.
Therefore life is bliss, because you are always at home in this
universe. All else is illusion.

Therefore, life is bliss. 
All else is self-illusion, ie.untrue.

OffWorld



 
 Tom T:
 You have now *got* the Byron Katie system down pat. Her questions lead
 one to the conclusion you are asking those here to come to. Awesome!. 
Tom





[FairfieldLife] Abortion - By William Edelen

2007-09-26 Thread oneradiantbeing
Abortion, by William Edelen, (Taken from: www.williamedelen.com)

The Republican National Committee, the big shots, are meeting.
Do you know what they are going to debate? A proposed abortion
litmus test for all Republican candidates. My gawd! Thomas
Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, where are men of your
stature and brilliance now that we need you? 

In this debate the Bible and God are words that are going to be 
raining down like balloons at a Republican convention. A few facts 
will puncture those balloons. If a person wants to simply say I do 
not like abortion. That's fine. That's their opinion and they have a 
right to it. But when they start using the bible, the church and God 
to justify their position they do not seem to realize how inane,
unhinged and comical they appear.

In papal theology they use the phrase the sanctity of life from
conception onwards. There is no reference in either the Old or
New Testament to the sacredness or sanctity of either human
or fetal life. All through the Bible, people are murdered and slaugh-
tered by the millions. The lack of sanctity of the fetus is all
through the Old Testament. 2 Kings 15 reads: All the women
therein that are with child shall be ripped up. Hosea 13:16 reads:
The infants shall be dashed to pieces, and those with child ripped
up. God tells Moses how to mix a potion for an abortion if a man's
wife has become pregnant by another man (Numbers 5:11-31).
Deuteronomy 21:8 gives us instructions on how to kill our sons if
they are rebellious. Deuteronomy 13 tells us how to kill our
wives and children. Jesus shows no concern for fetal life: Blessed
are the barren and wombs that never bore, and the breasts that
never gave suck (Luke 22). Lack of space precludes my listing
hundreds of other biblical passages. Pro-life? You've got to be 
joking.

In the Bible, human life begins with breathing, not conception.
The Hebrew word to describe a human being is nephesh . . . the
breathing one. It occurs 854 times in the Hebrew Bible. The history
of the Christian church has never been pro-life. Today, those using
the church and the bible for justification of their pro-life position
condemn abortion as murder of the unborn, while the church
itself has one of the most horrible, unjust and cruel murder records
in the history of our species, of both the born and unborn.
Millions slaughtered by instruments that stagger the human mind.

If the Republicans want to simply say I am against abortion
and let it go at that, fine. But in the name of all that is truth and 
all that is sacred, let them stop using the blood soaked hands of
Moses, the Bible and the church for their justification.




[FairfieldLife] Re: The Ugly Side of the GOP - by Bob Herbert, of the NY Times

2007-09-26 Thread off_world_beings
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 You can say the same thing about million babies who are victims of 
 abortion.

A fetus is not a baby. 
The states decide on what to do about abortion, not federal.
Therefore the states have clearly and emphatically decided it is 
legal...all of  them. Even the redneck republican states have not 
outlawed itwhich they totally could if they wanted to.

No-one wants to. 
The reason?...because it is education and wholesome growth of 
communities that is the best hope for your fetuses that you want to 
save ...not laws.

OffWorld

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, oneradiantbeing 
  oneradiantbeing@ wrote:
  
   The Ugly Side of the GOP
   By Bob Herbert
   The New York Times
   
   Tuesday 25 September 2007
   
   I applaud the thousands of people, many of them poor, who 
   traveled from around the country to protest in Jena, La., last 
  week. 
  
  
  ME TOO !!
  
  And what is wrong with people, protesting over a few kids in a 
 brawl, 
  but don't give a damn about the 100,000 children murdered 
  by coalition forces and Blackwater in Iraq. ?!??
  
  OffWorld
 





[FairfieldLife] Re: Abortion - By William Edelen

2007-09-26 Thread sgrayatlarge
David states: If the Republicans want to simply say I am against 
abortion
and let it go at that, fine. But in the name of all that is truth and
all that is sacred, let them stop using the blood soaked hands of
Moses, the Bible and the church for their justification.

-David, you are hysterical!! Thanks for the laugh.

Steve


-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, oneradiantbeing 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Abortion, by William Edelen, (Taken from: www.williamedelen.com)
 
 The Republican National Committee, the big shots, are meeting.
 Do you know what they are going to debate? A proposed abortion
 litmus test for all Republican candidates. My gawd! Thomas
 Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, where are men of your
 stature and brilliance now that we need you? 
 
 In this debate the Bible and God are words that are going to 
be 
 raining down like balloons at a Republican convention. A few facts 
 will puncture those balloons. If a person wants to simply say I do 
 not like abortion. That's fine. That's their opinion and they have 
a 
 right to it. But when they start using the bible, the church and 
God 
 to justify their position they do not seem to realize how inane,
 unhinged and comical they appear.
 
 In papal theology they use the phrase the sanctity of life from
 conception onwards. There is no reference in either the Old or
 New Testament to the sacredness or sanctity of either human
 or fetal life. All through the Bible, people are murdered and 
slaugh-
 tered by the millions. The lack of sanctity of the fetus is all
 through the Old Testament. 2 Kings 15 reads: All the women
 therein that are with child shall be ripped up. Hosea 13:16 reads:
 The infants shall be dashed to pieces, and those with child ripped
 up. God tells Moses how to mix a potion for an abortion if a man's
 wife has become pregnant by another man (Numbers 5:11-31).
 Deuteronomy 21:8 gives us instructions on how to kill our sons if
 they are rebellious. Deuteronomy 13 tells us how to kill our
 wives and children. Jesus shows no concern for fetal life: Blessed
 are the barren and wombs that never bore, and the breasts that
 never gave suck (Luke 22). Lack of space precludes my listing
 hundreds of other biblical passages. Pro-life? You've got to be 
 joking.
 
 In the Bible, human life begins with breathing, not conception.
 The Hebrew word to describe a human being is nephesh . . . the
 breathing one. It occurs 854 times in the Hebrew Bible. The history
 of the Christian church has never been pro-life. Today, those using
 the church and the bible for justification of their pro-life 
position
 condemn abortion as murder of the unborn, while the church
 itself has one of the most horrible, unjust and cruel murder records
 in the history of our species, of both the born and unborn.
 Millions slaughtered by instruments that stagger the human mind.
 
 If the Republicans want to simply say I am against abortion
 and let it go at that, fine. But in the name of all that is truth 
and 
 all that is sacred, let them stop using the blood soaked hands of
 Moses, the Bible and the church for their justification.





[FairfieldLife] Re: Abortion - By William Edelen

2007-09-26 Thread off_world_beings
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, oneradiantbeing 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Abortion, by William Edelen, (Taken from: www.williamedelen.com)
 
 The Republican National Committee, the big shots, are meeting.
 Do you know what they are going to debate? A proposed abortion
 litmus test for all Republican candidates. My gawd! Thomas
 Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, where are men of your
 stature and brilliance now that we need you? 

Some of them were too busy raping their slaves (of which there are 
modern descendents), and others were too busy worrying that Britain, 
under its free parlimentary system, was moving quickly to outlaw 
slavery in Britain, with several court cases in London(before US even 
existed). The others were busy land-grabbing while British soldiers 
died defending them from the tyrannical Papist regimes of France and 
Spain, since Britain had emphatically outlawed discriminating against 
religions, and were busy fighting the forces of the world that wanted 
tyrannical catholic rule, and would have destroyed US if it was not 
for British soldiers dying to save their criminal asses. No wonder, 
MANY of the 'greatest generation' in Britain had no respect for 
the 'the Yanks' and expressed it openly when I was younger, because 
the British working folks had a collective memory of that traitorous 
event and the US joining with the French Papist regime to fight 
Britain (a war which Britain ultimately won against the French and 
Spanish, saving America and Europe and laying the ground for the 
progressive place it was to become)
(plus, the most common comment from the WWII generation in Britain 
was: The bloody yanks only came into WWII after all the hard stuff 
was done

 
 In this debate the Bible and God are words that are going to 
be 
 raining down like balloons at a Republican convention. A few facts 
 will puncture those balloons. If a person wants to simply say I do 
 not like abortion. That's fine.

Ron Paul does not like abortion. He says it should be decided by the 
states, which everyone knows only a couple of redneck states would 
outlaw, and therefore a brain drain would occur from those states, 
plus people could get abortions anyway.

All this is simply to try to re-energise their Christian Talibanesque 
base, but never to act on this rethoric. 

OffWorld


 That's their opinion and they have a 
 right to it. But when they start using the bible, the church and 
God 
 to justify their position they do not seem to realize how inane,
 unhinged and comical they appear.
 
 In papal theology they use the phrase the sanctity of life from
 conception onwards. There is no reference in either the Old or
 New Testament to the sacredness or sanctity of either human
 or fetal life. All through the Bible, people are murdered and 
slaugh-
 tered by the millions. The lack of sanctity of the fetus is all
 through the Old Testament. 2 Kings 15 reads: All the women
 therein that are with child shall be ripped up. Hosea 13:16 reads:
 The infants shall be dashed to pieces, and those with child ripped
 up. God tells Moses how to mix a potion for an abortion if a man's
 wife has become pregnant by another man (Numbers 5:11-31).
 Deuteronomy 21:8 gives us instructions on how to kill our sons if
 they are rebellious. Deuteronomy 13 tells us how to kill our
 wives and children. Jesus shows no concern for fetal life: Blessed
 are the barren and wombs that never bore, and the breasts that
 never gave suck (Luke 22). Lack of space precludes my listing
 hundreds of other biblical passages. Pro-life? You've got to be 
 joking.
 
 In the Bible, human life begins with breathing, not conception.
 The Hebrew word to describe a human being is nephesh . . . the
 breathing one. It occurs 854 times in the Hebrew Bible. The history
 of the Christian church has never been pro-life. Today, those using
 the church and the bible for justification of their pro-life 
position
 condemn abortion as murder of the unborn, while the church
 itself has one of the most horrible, unjust and cruel murder records
 in the history of our species, of both the born and unborn.
 Millions slaughtered by instruments that stagger the human mind.
 
 If the Republicans want to simply say I am against abortion
 and let it go at that, fine. But in the name of all that is truth 
and 
 all that is sacred, let them stop using the blood soaked hands of
 Moses, the Bible and the church for their justification.





[FairfieldLife] Re: Abortion - By William Edelen

2007-09-26 Thread oneradiantbeing
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 David states: If the Republicans want to simply say I am against 
 abortion
 and let it go at that, fine. But in the name of all that is truth 
and
 all that is sacred, let them stop using the blood soaked hands of
 Moses, the Bible and the church for their justification.
 
 -David, you are hysterical!! Thanks for the laugh.
 
 Steve
 
 
 -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, oneradiantbeing 
 oneradiantbeing@ wrote:
 
  Abortion, by William Edelen, (Taken from: www.williamedelen.com)
  
  The Republican National Committee, the big shots, are meeting.
  Do you know what they are going to debate? A proposed abortion
  litmus test for all Republican candidates. My gawd! Thomas
  Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, where are men of your
  stature and brilliance now that we need you? 
  
  In this debate the Bible and God are words that are going 
to 
 be 
  raining down like balloons at a Republican convention. A few 
facts 
  will puncture those balloons. If a person wants to simply say I 
do 
  not like abortion. That's fine. That's their opinion and they 
have 
 a 
  right to it. But when they start using the bible, the church and 
 God 
  to justify their position they do not seem to realize how inane,
  unhinged and comical they appear.
  
  In papal theology they use the phrase the sanctity of life from
  conception onwards. There is no reference in either the Old or
  New Testament to the sacredness or sanctity of either human
  or fetal life. All through the Bible, people are murdered and 
 slaugh-
  tered by the millions. The lack of sanctity of the fetus is all
  through the Old Testament. 2 Kings 15 reads: All the women
  therein that are with child shall be ripped up. Hosea 13:16 
reads:
  The infants shall be dashed to pieces, and those with child 
ripped
  up. God tells Moses how to mix a potion for an abortion if a 
man's
  wife has become pregnant by another man (Numbers 5:11-31).
  Deuteronomy 21:8 gives us instructions on how to kill our sons if
  they are rebellious. Deuteronomy 13 tells us how to kill our
  wives and children. Jesus shows no concern for fetal 
life: Blessed
  are the barren and wombs that never bore, and the breasts that
  never gave suck (Luke 22). Lack of space precludes my listing
  hundreds of other biblical passages. Pro-life? You've got to be 
  joking.
  
  In the Bible, human life begins with breathing, not conception.
  The Hebrew word to describe a human being is nephesh . . . the
  breathing one. It occurs 854 times in the Hebrew Bible. The 
history
  of the Christian church has never been pro-life. Today, those 
using
  the church and the bible for justification of their pro-life 
 position
  condemn abortion as murder of the unborn, while the church
  itself has one of the most horrible, unjust and cruel murder 
records
  in the history of our species, of both the born and unborn.
  Millions slaughtered by instruments that stagger the human mind.
  
  If the Republicans want to simply say I am against abortion
  and let it go at that, fine. But in the name of all that is truth 
 and 
  all that is sacred, let them stop using the blood soaked hands of
  Moses, the Bible and the church for their justification.
 


Steve, I didn't state it. Edelen did. That was his essay. I just 
posted the article. Peace, David



[FairfieldLife] Re: Over Genralizations, over Claiming of Casusal Relations -- and the Pheonix

2007-09-26 Thread new . morning
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:34 AM, new.morning wrote:
 
  Vaj and Dixon, I think you are overgeneralizing
  about muslims.
 
  If Vaj wants to live in a
  nation that disallows work, tourist or any entry to any muslim, or
  racial groups with which Islam is associated, then go for it.
 
 What on earth would ever make you jump to such bizarre conclusions?


My above statement is not a conclusion. Its a conditional statement.
Perhaps you are providing another data point in my general thesis of
over generaization -- and its cousins: basically seeing something that
is not there.

Next, as you may know from a number of posts, I don't draw
conclusions, as in truth claims. I have opinions, some of which I
assess as highly probable. But none are 100%. And I am willing to
change the probabilities  at any time. I work form a series of
interrelated flexible, adaptive  working hypotheses, not conclusions.

Though I suppose I may use the term conclusion, I don't believe I
do, but I will keep it in mind, for a very local, specific outcome of
a logical chain. An it implies just that. A logical outcome, not Truth.


So if what some are saying comes true, and if 50-100 years France and
Germany become majority Muslim states, do you feel these states will
be better or worse off for non-Muslims and women? What about people
who are not of the book, like , Atheists, Hindus and Buddhists? What
about human rights in general?

I juxtaposed tha above statement, with past statements you have made
about the ominous and growing threat of islam an muslims. Not just
radical, but most all if I have understood you correctly. 

These two elements together, led my the the possibility that you might
structure the above, If Vaj wants to live in a
nation .., a sa non-zero probability event -- a possibility. 

A conditional statement is just  that.   If A then B, If Not A, then
Not B. It is not an assertion or a claim. of fact.

And per my juxtaposition above, perhaps I have mis read your prior
statements. I, and everyone is prone to misreading intent, via word
symbols. Or perhaps, you once held such beliefs and they have changed,
evolved, been restructured with new information or logical appraisal. 

So if I implied (not my intent) that you never did, or do not
currently hold a position, along the lines of, or some subset of the
following, then wonderful. You are certainly free, to clarify my
impressions. I am open to your refinement of your views and my
understanding of them.

My understanding of Vaj's prior statements, generalized: 
 there is an ominous and growing threat of islam and muslims. Not
just radical, but most all, [or  many] [brackets clause just added,
to clarify my intended conditional statment.

Correct and clarify.












Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Over Genralizations, over Claiming of Casusal Relations -- and the Pheonix

2007-09-26 Thread Vaj


On Sep 26, 2007, at 11:47 AM, new.morning wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:34 AM, new.morning wrote:

  Vaj and Dixon, I think you are overgeneralizing
  about muslims.

  If Vaj wants to live in a
  nation that disallows work, tourist or any entry to any muslim, or
  racial groups with which Islam is associated, then go for it.

 What on earth would ever make you jump to such bizarre conclusions?


My above statement is not a conclusion. Its a conditional statement.
Perhaps you are providing another data point in my general thesis of
over generaization -- and its cousins: basically seeing something that
is not there.

Next, as you may know from a number of posts, I don't draw
conclusions, as in truth claims. I have opinions, some of which I
assess as highly probable. But none are 100%. And I am willing to
change the probabilities at any time. I work form a series of
interrelated flexible, adaptive working hypotheses, not conclusions.

Though I suppose I may use the term conclusion, I don't believe I
do, but I will keep it in mind, for a very local, specific outcome of
a logical chain. An it implies just that. A logical outcome, not  
Truth.


So if what some are saying comes true, and if 50-100 years France and
Germany become majority Muslim states, do you feel these states will
be better or worse off for non-Muslims and women? What about people
who are not of the book, like , Atheists, Hindus and Buddhists? What
about human rights in general?

I juxtaposed tha above statement, with past statements you have made
about the ominous and growing threat of islam an muslims. Not just
radical, but most all if I have understood you correctly.

These two elements together, led my the the possibility that you might
structure the above, If Vaj wants to live in a
nation .., a sa non-zero probability event -- a possibility.

A conditional statement is just that. If A then B, If Not A, then
Not B. It is not an assertion or a claim. of fact.

And per my juxtaposition above, perhaps I have mis read your prior
statements. I, and everyone is prone to misreading intent, via word
symbols. Or perhaps, you once held such beliefs and they have changed,
evolved, been restructured with new information or logical appraisal.

So if I implied (not my intent) that you never did, or do not
currently hold a position, along the lines of, or some subset of the
following, then wonderful. You are certainly free, to clarify my
impressions. I am open to your refinement of your views and my
understanding of them.

My understanding of Vaj's prior statements, generalized:
there is an ominous and growing threat of islam and muslims. Not
just radical, but most all, [or many] [brackets clause just added,
to clarify my intended conditional statment.

Correct and clarify.


Thanks, I'll pass.



[FairfieldLife] Turq: I saw Next

2007-09-26 Thread Bhairitu
Next has been releasing on DVD here in the US.  I watched it last 
night.  I can see why it got panned by critics and it is just another 
victim of the studios trend to do science fiction and horror for PG-13 
audience.  Though an interesting story and somewhat well developed it 
could have been better as it came off as a couple cuts above a TV 
movie.  I like to see these kind of films with an R rating because 
that usually means the material has been developed in a more mature 
manner targeted at an audience over 18.  An R rating does not 
necessarily mean gratuitous violence or sex.  I recall what Robert 
Altman said in his commentary on Gosford Park that he put in enough 
f words to make sure it got an R rating so that kids wouldn't spoil 
the movie for a film made for an adult audience.

On a technical note this is another film done with the Panavision HD 
Genesis system which allows filmmakers to use conventional 35mm gear and 
lenses when shooting HD.  You can't tell its not film.  The Genesis 
system uses a single CMOS instead of 3 CCDs and that's what allows it to 
use 35mm lenses.

However it was a good ride and thanks for the recommendation.



Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer

2007-09-26 Thread Vaj


On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:37 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 So if what some are saying comes true, and if 50-100 years France
 and Germany become majority Muslim states, do you feel these states
 will be better or worse off for non-Muslims and women? What about
 people who are not of the book, like , Atheists, Hindus and
 Buddhists? What about human rights in general?

I have no idea. As far as I can tell, both France
and Germany are pretty strongly in the If you move
to our country, you tacitly agree to play by our
rules camp. And they've gotten very little negative
feedback on that from anyone but insane fanatical
Muslims. Unfortunately, as in the US, the insane
fanatics tend to get the airplay on the News, so
people think there are more of them than there are.
In my experience, most of the Muslim community
thinks these people are insane, too. They're not
going to let a few fanatics spoil it for the rest
of them in the long run.


Hopefully that is the case. Some polls have shown that in some  
countries there is a minority of radicals, but a close majority that  
supports some of their actions.


It is certainly a universal structure in mythic religious believers  
across religion or country -- more specifically those who adhere to  
an egocentric or ethnocentric god, a people of a my god or a  
certain god, the god of a chosen people as opposed to world-centric  
god. In fact this is a given in almost all religious terrorists  
whether it be protestant fundamentalists who blow up abortion clinics  
or Buddhists who put sarin gas into subways: a fundamentalist,  
ethnocentric, mythic belief driven by a egocentric, rather primitive,  
drive.


The psychological profile of almost ALL terrorists is identical: 'I  
see no room in the MODERN world for MY god or MY PEOPLE'S god:  
therefore it's my destiny/duty/dharma to kill the other.


When immigrants from societies whose collective consciousness are  
still at the Red (mythic gods) and Blue (mythic order) meme move into  
orange meme or higher societies, it hard for them to remain at the  
lower levels--they will naturally gravitate towards the orange meme  
themes (scientific understanding). The main way this can be  
forestalled is to isolate one's group from the whole and refuse to  
assimilate. Since the majority of the planet is at orange meme or  
higher (our collective center of gravity), it takes societal or  
collective effort to NOT assimilate, at least to orange meme. This is  
also why the collective will tend to focus, sometimes as a demonic  
projection, on these lower levels that are still resisting more  
globlacentric integration and acceptance. The US and western Europe  
are some of the first emerging green meme center of gravity societies  
and we are beginning to get some second tier segments of society  
(yellow, turquoise and coral meme), but they are still in the  
minority overall.


The fastest way to urge collective societal consciousness higher is  
to encourage assimilation of groups which still actively resist the  
reality of a modern world with different people, all in the same  
boat--not competing tribes-- and encourage the more universal,  
global-centric aspect of spirit (in my estimation).

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Ugly Side of the GOP - by Bob Herbert, of the NY Times

2007-09-26 Thread Robert Gimbel
 (snip)

 Agreed ! Where is the freedom for millions of americans the  
 president so loudly and forcefully wants to export to other 
 countries ?

Hopefully, the freedom is still located in the Ballot Box, that is, 
if the bastards haven't corrupted the way the votes are cast, yet.

The Republicans are so easy to see through, if you have a brain...
The stand for lies, manipulation, greed, lust and murder.
They have no compassion, and they are not conservative.
Hopefully, since they have ignored the Black People, they have 
insured- a Democratic Victory, if we make it through the last days, 
of Bush Presidency...

As far as comparing abortion, to the bombing of innocents:
Let's put it this way...
Would you rather be a fetus in the womb, of a couple or woman who 
does not want to carry you to term, who chooses to end that 
pregnancy, aborted(so, you as a soul, can manifest in another womb at 
a better time?),
Or, would you rather have your countries infrastructure, completely 
destroyed, by an outside power, and then occupy your country, and 
then hire professional killers to roam your streets, in the night, 
with machine guns at the ready, with high altitude jets flying above, 
bombing, bombing, and more bombing, with no end in sight, and no 
place to go? Watching your poor country completley destroyed, 
experiencing unimaginable horrors?
Would you rather live in a place, where an outside force, has decided 
your repressive government has to go, so they invade your country, 
and unleash ancient tribal forces, that turn the country into a blood-
bath of civil way.

Would you rather live in a nation(USA), where the more greedy you 
are, the more ruthless, the more cold and calculating- the more you 
break the back of others, the ones you consider, 'inferior'..
What kind of a nation to you want to be a part of?
A country with 'God', on the money, inferring that God is Money, and 
Money is God.
Or, would you rather live in a nation based on the spiritual 
principles of God, rather than praying and idolizing the many false 
gods that lust, greed and murder produce?
A nation who prays to false idols is on shaky ground.
Shake, shake, shake...
Shake your booty, shake that booty...

r.g.  madison.




[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened

2007-09-26 Thread qntmpkt
--But Shakti comes from the teacher, igniting the student's Shakti. 
This helps eradicate obstacles to the immediate apprehensionof Pure 
Consciousness.
  A dirt clod is equally The Absolute or, emptiness, compared to 
MMY or a Buddha; but dirt clods don't help much.  Therefore, there 
are other ingredients that should be identified as evolution 
facilitators..

.
- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  Some good points.
  
  On different responses to darshan, MMY made clear, at least from 
 his
  side, and presumably he was pretty attuned to the dynamics of SBS'
  darshan, if not of a much larger group, by tradition. 
  
  {Paraphrasing} 'It all comes from the student.The student thinks 
it
  all comes from the teacher, but it is not so. The teacher is the 
 well
  head. The water from the well flows in which ever way it is 
tapped.
  The well does nothing. Its all from the student. Like a golden 
 chain
  is attached between teacher an student. And then everything 
flows. 
 The
  teacher has nothing to do with the chain. Its all in the student.'
  [this was a paraphrase not a direct quote.]
 
 Very interesting point. Thanks !





[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true

2007-09-26 Thread qntmpkt
--There are some non-sequiturs in the paragraph below. It says you 
are at home in that (the dynamic aspect of life). Then it says Being 
at home, therefore you are happy.  Non-Sequitur. There are 
plenty of creatures at home but grossly unhappy.
 Then it says Therefore life is bliss.  Doesn't follow at all!.
Last, it says all else is illusion. There's a problem here.  What 
is the all else?? This is shaping up to be a tautology.
The conclusion  life is bliss may be true but it's not supported by 
the supposed logic of the previous statements.
 
 
 Existence exists, therefore interaction of the full potential of
 existence - its opposite potentials of point and infinity - occurs.
 Therefore activity occurs, therefore dynamism flourishes and
 propogates. You are that existence and its inherent dynamism. 
Therefore
 you are at home in that. Being at home, therefore you are happy in 
this
 universe, which is your cherished home where you grew up as a 
species.
 Therefore life is bliss, because you are always at home in this
 universe. All else is illusion.
 
 Therefore, life is bliss. 
 All else is self-illusion, ie.untrue.
 
 OffWorld
 
 
 
  
  Tom T:
  You have now *got* the Byron Katie system down pat. Her questions 
lead
  one to the conclusion you are asking those here to come to. 
Awesome!. 
 Tom
 





[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened

2007-09-26 Thread TurquoiseB
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, qntmpkt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --But Shakti comes from the teacher, igniting the student's Shakti. 

Now do you know? 

Does lightning strike downwards, from cloud to earth,
or upwards, from earth to cloud?

As it turns out, both. From 
http://screem.engr.scu.edu/emerald/VLF/ligh.html :

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Does lightning travel upwards or downwards?

The answer is BOTH: For a cloud-to-ground the stepped
discharge, leader begins in the lower section of a
and thunderstorm cloud travels downward and initiates an
upward-moving leader when it gets close to the ground
(see animation at right). The two meet in midair, usually
at a point about 300 feet or less above ground. When the
stepped leader and leader meet, providing a conducting path
for charge flow, there is a huge flow of current upwards
through the channel, brightly illuminating it.Other types
of discharges, such as the less frequent ground-to-cloud
discharges, consist of an upward moving stepped leader that
starts from an object on the ground. 





[FairfieldLife] Re: The Ugly Side of the GOP - by Bob Herbert, of the NY Times

2007-09-26 Thread nablusoss1008
-- 
 
 A fetus is not a human life. These are two totally unrelated topics.

to take an abortion is like 
burning down an uninhabited house
- Maharishi



Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer

2007-09-26 Thread MDixon6569
 
In a message dated 9/26/07 6:34:51 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

hile I  agree with you completely on what's been
going on here on Fairfield Life, I  think that even
you will have to admit that there *is* a great deal
of  Israeli propaganda, and has been for decades


Of course Israeli's use propaganda as do Palestinians and propaganda  doesn't 
necessarily have to be a falsehood. Israel is in a fight for it's very  
existence and they have to stick up for themselves. One thing Israelis have  
learned , the hard way, is you don't lay down for someone trying to kill you.  
The 
web sites I provided have been corroborated by other sources  including major 
American media sources(other than Fox) as well as   Palestinians who used to 
fall for that stuff. 



** See what's new at http://www.aol.com


Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer

2007-09-26 Thread MDixon6569
 
In a message dated 9/26/07 7:32:04 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Since 9-11,  100,000 Americans have been murdered -- as many as we lost in 
Vietnam, Korea  and Iraq combined. Yet, not one of these murders was the work 
of 
an Islamic  terrorist, and all of them, terrible as they are, did not imperil 
the survival  of our republic. 
Terrorists can  blow up our buildings, assassinate our leaders, and bomb our 
malls and  stadiums. They cannot destroy us. Assume the worst. Terrorists 
smuggle an atom  bomb into New York harbor or into Washington, D.C., and 
detonate  
it. 



And in general wreak havoc on our economy through these  actions.



** See what's new at http://www.aol.com


Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Ugly Side of the GOP - by Bob Herbert, of the NY ...

2007-09-26 Thread MDixon6569
 
In a message dated 9/26/07 5:31:09 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Last  week, the residents of Washington, D.C., with its 
 majority black  population, came remarkably close to realizing a 
goal 
 they have  sought for decades - a voting member of Congress to 
 represent  them.
 
 A majority in Congress favored the move, and the House  had 
 already approved it. But the Republican minority in the Senate -  
with 
 the enthusiastic support of President Bush - rose up on  Tuesday 
and 
 said: No way, baby.



Bob Hebert doesn't bother to tell us what the Constitution says about  
Washington D.C. having elected representatives and  Senators.



** See what's new at http://www.aol.com


Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Ugly Side of the GOP - by Bob Herbert, of the NY ...

2007-09-26 Thread MDixon6569
 
In a message dated 9/26/07 10:13:07 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

A fetus  is not a human life. These are two totally unrelated topics.  




Not human? What does the DNA say it is? It's definitely not the  mother's, 
alone, nor the father's, alone and it's definitely alive or  it wouldn't be 
growing. Why do some states charge a person with double murder if  they 
intentionally kill a pregnant woman?



** See what's new at http://www.aol.com


[FairfieldLife] Re: The Ugly Side of the GOP - by Bob Herbert, of the NY Times

2007-09-26 Thread John
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, oneradiantbeing 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
 
  You can say the same thing about million babies who are victims 
of 
  abortion.
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings 
no_reply@ 
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, oneradiantbeing 
   oneradiantbeing@ wrote:
   
The Ugly Side of the GOP
By Bob Herbert
The New York Times

Tuesday 25 September 2007

I applaud the thousands of people, many of them poor, who 
traveled from around the country to protest in Jena, La., 
last 
   week. 
   
   
   ME TOO !!
   
   And what is wrong with people, protesting over a few kids in a 
  brawl, 
   but don't give a damn about the 100,000 children murdered 
   by coalition forces and Blackwater in Iraq. ?!??
   
   OffWorld
  
 
 
 A fetus is not a human life. These are two totally unrelated topics.


This debate has been going on for many years in Congress and among 
Americans.  I don't think we can settle this issue in this forum.  
Nonetheless, we can ask: if a fetus is not human life, what is it?  I 
believe that by reason alone, one can come to a conclusion that it 
comes from a human origin.

For convenience, Congress has passed the responsibility to the States 
to determine the status of a fetus.  But the question still remains 
at the individual basis, as a matter of conscience.

If a fetus is aborted, I believe that a negative karma is created 
which will ultimately affect the person involved and the nation that 
allows abortion to be performed.








[FairfieldLife] Response to MDixon - Re: Herbert

2007-09-26 Thread oneradiantbeing
MDixon wrote: Bob Hebert doesn't bother to tell us what the 
Constitution says about Washington D.C. having elected representatives 
and Senators.

DS responds: What the Constitution says in Sec. 8 is that the Congress 
possesses power to legislate for the District of Columbia and what the 
size of this district should be limited to. Bob Herbert wrote that 
Congress failed to legislate (pass laws) for the people of DC to have 
their own elected Representatives in the House and also the right to 
vote. How do you feel about the fact that these people (mostly Black 
people) cannot vote except in presidential elections and yet they pay 
taxes to the U.S. government just like everybody else? Here is a 
quotation right from Sec. 8 of the US Constitution: Peace, DS 

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such 
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of 
particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of 
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority 
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the 
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, 
Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

In a message dated 9/26/07 5:31:09 A.M. Central Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Last week, the residents of Washington, D.C., with its 
 majority black population, came remarkably close to realizing a 
goal 
 they have sought for decades - a voting member of Congress to 
 represent them.
 
 A majority in Congress favored the move, and the House had 
 already approved it. But the Republican minority in the Senate - 
with 
 the enthusiastic support of President Bush - rose up on Tuesday 
and 
 said: No way, baby.





[FairfieldLife] Re: Abortion - By William Edelen

2007-09-26 Thread shempmcgurk
Congratulations, sgrayatlarge, as this post of your's was #150,000 on 
FFL.

The Corvette Stingray you've won can be redeemed at Rick Archer's 
home this Saturday between 9am and 5pm.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 David states: If the Republicans want to simply say I am against 
 abortion
 and let it go at that, fine. But in the name of all that is truth 
and
 all that is sacred, let them stop using the blood soaked hands of
 Moses, the Bible and the church for their justification.
 
 -David, you are hysterical!! Thanks for the laugh.
 
 Steve
 
 
 -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, oneradiantbeing 
 oneradiantbeing@ wrote:
 
  Abortion, by William Edelen, (Taken from: www.williamedelen.com)
  
  The Republican National Committee, the big shots, are meeting.
  Do you know what they are going to debate? A proposed abortion
  litmus test for all Republican candidates. My gawd! Thomas
  Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, where are men of your
  stature and brilliance now that we need you? 
  
  In this debate the Bible and God are words that are going 
to 
 be 
  raining down like balloons at a Republican convention. A few 
facts 
  will puncture those balloons. If a person wants to simply say I 
do 
  not like abortion. That's fine. That's their opinion and they 
have 
 a 
  right to it. But when they start using the bible, the church and 
 God 
  to justify their position they do not seem to realize how inane,
  unhinged and comical they appear.
  
  In papal theology they use the phrase the sanctity of life from
  conception onwards. There is no reference in either the Old or
  New Testament to the sacredness or sanctity of either human
  or fetal life. All through the Bible, people are murdered and 
 slaugh-
  tered by the millions. The lack of sanctity of the fetus is all
  through the Old Testament. 2 Kings 15 reads: All the women
  therein that are with child shall be ripped up. Hosea 13:16 
reads:
  The infants shall be dashed to pieces, and those with child 
ripped
  up. God tells Moses how to mix a potion for an abortion if a 
man's
  wife has become pregnant by another man (Numbers 5:11-31).
  Deuteronomy 21:8 gives us instructions on how to kill our sons if
  they are rebellious. Deuteronomy 13 tells us how to kill our
  wives and children. Jesus shows no concern for fetal 
life: Blessed
  are the barren and wombs that never bore, and the breasts that
  never gave suck (Luke 22). Lack of space precludes my listing
  hundreds of other biblical passages. Pro-life? You've got to be 
  joking.
  
  In the Bible, human life begins with breathing, not conception.
  The Hebrew word to describe a human being is nephesh . . . the
  breathing one. It occurs 854 times in the Hebrew Bible. The 
history
  of the Christian church has never been pro-life. Today, those 
using
  the church and the bible for justification of their pro-life 
 position
  condemn abortion as murder of the unborn, while the church
  itself has one of the most horrible, unjust and cruel murder 
records
  in the history of our species, of both the born and unborn.
  Millions slaughtered by instruments that stagger the human mind.
  
  If the Republicans want to simply say I am against abortion
  and let it go at that, fine. But in the name of all that is truth 
 and 
  all that is sacred, let them stop using the blood soaked hands of
  Moses, the Bible and the church for their justification.
 





[FairfieldLife] Chase the Buffalo

2007-09-26 Thread Vaj
Listening to Pat Guadagno turned me on to a number of relatively  
unknown singer-songwriters, most recently Pierce Pettis. Pettis was  
originally a staff songwriter for PolyGram Publishing in Nashville.  
It turns out he's really a musician's musician and a great  
songwriter. He reminds me of Jimmy Webb. He wrote great song called  
Chase the Buffalo, which Pat Guadagno covered in the finest version  
I've heard so far.


As with all shared music, if you like it, buy it. If you like it,  
share it with your friends.


http://www.box.net/shared/static/fnly5r1bnr.mp3

CHASE THE BUFFALO
Pierce Pettis, ©1991 Piercepettisongs (ASCAP)

Indians of long ago
Followed after buffalo
They found a use for every part
Everything except his heart

I have wandered like those herds
Lost in music, lost in words
But the hunger leads me on
Seductive like a siren's song

And I can put my ear right to the ground
Just to hear those motors humming
The pounding sound of hoofbeats
Like a thousand guitars strumming
And there is music in all this
It is all material
Before the beauty melts like snow
Chase the buffalo

People in these halls and bars
They wish on me like I'm a star
But I can never fill that hole
I am not their buffalo

And the gravity of the situation makes me start to fall
My guitar like a fire alarm is ringing off the wall
And there is music in all this
It is all material
Before the beauty melts like snow
Chase the buffalo

East of Eden, west of the night
The sun lies bleeding in a dying light
And the lady in the Cheyenne moon
Is singing out her mournful tune

So I chase the herds again
Smear the warpaint on my skin
Riding west with all my might
Where the sun is holding off the night

I cannot name this passion
Don't know where this stuff comes from
Maybe its a trail of tears
Or just a trail of crumbs
But there is music in all this
It is all material
Before the beauty melts like snow
Chase the buffalo



Re: [FairfieldLife] Response to MDixon - Re: Herbert

2007-09-26 Thread MDixon6569
 
In a message dated 9/26/07 3:46:58 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Bob Herbert wrote that 
Congress failed to legislate (pass  laws) for the people of DC to have 
their own elected Representatives in  the House and also the right to 
vote.


 
In _1961_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961) , the _Twenty-third  Amendment 
to the United States Constitution_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-third_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)
  was ratified, allowing District  
residents to vote for president and vice president. This right has been  
exercised by D.C. citizens since the _election  of 1964_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1964) . 
In _1978_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978) , Congress  passed on to the 
states another constitutional amendment, the _District  of Columbia Voting 
Rights Amendment_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Voting_Rights_Amendment) , 
which would have given the District its  own voting members of 
Congress, making it virtually a state. However, a  seven-year time limit was 
placed on the amendment, which was subsequently _ratified_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification)   by only 16 of the states, far 
short of the 
three-quarters (currently 38)  required for it to be ratified.



** See what's new at http://www.aol.com


[FairfieldLife] DS's Response to MDixon Re; Abortion

2007-09-26 Thread oneradiantbeing
DS wrote: A fetus is not a human life. 

MDixon responds: Not human? What does the DNA say it is? It's 
definitely not the mother's, alone, nor the father's, alone and it's 
definitely alive or it wouldn't be growing. 

DS: But the actual fetus is the object in question, not what the fetus 
breaks down into chemically or biologically. That is a separate topic 
and a smokescreen for the real issue at hand, which is: WHO DECIDES if 
this form will mature into a separately functioning human being or not? 
The answer to this dilemma boils down to one primary issue: who is the 
fetus a part of? That is what the courts should decide, not whether 
it's alive, which can only be determined from the point of view of 
philosophy or theology. In other words, it's merely theoretical.

MDixon: Why do some states charge a person with double murder if they 
intentionally kill a pregnant woman?

First, human laws do not make a thing right or wrong.

Second, because the misogynic religious right has had a huge impact on 
state laws. Some of these Christian apologists/misogynists/anti-
abortionists also support laws to stone adulterous women.  

Anti-abortionists remain indifferent toward, or even against, pro-
environmental legislation that would protect the health of fetuses, 
like controlling the amount of mercury released into the environmnent. 
These anti-abortionists are religious and political hypocrits with a 
specifically misogynic agenda. They also oppose birth control to make 
sure women remain in the home, giving birth to babies whether they 
want them or not. This amounts to punishing women for being sexually 
active. As you sow, so shall you reap.

Misogeny, the hatred, fear and suppression of woman, and not life, 
underlies the position of the religious right on the issue of abortion. 
Thanks for your comments and the opportunity to respond. Peace, DS



[FairfieldLife] Re: Abortion - By William Edelen

2007-09-26 Thread jim_flanegin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 Congratulations, sgrayatlarge, as this post of your's was #150,000 
on 
 FFL.
 
 The Corvette Stingray you've won can be redeemed at Rick Archer's 
 home this Saturday between 9am and 5pm.
 
Uh, I just read the fine print on our contest, and its a full color 
*poster* of a Corvette Stingray. Still free, though framing is extra.:-
)



Re: [FairfieldLife] DS's Response to MDixon Re; Abortion

2007-09-26 Thread MDixon6569
 
In a message dated 9/26/07 5:44:45 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Misogeny, the hatred, fear and suppression of woman, and not life,  
underlies the position of the religious right on the issue of abortion.  
Thanks for your comments and the opportunity to respond. Peace,  DS




LOL! Had I referred to Islam as being misogynic in another thread that  alone 
would have been grounds for calling me a bigot!



** See what's new at http://www.aol.com


[FairfieldLife] Not all shaktipat or dharshan is equall

2007-09-26 Thread Ron
 Comment from post:--But Shakti comes from the teacher, igniting the student's 
Shakti.

HR: Again, the central issue is that the fallacy is that a me gains 
enlightenment. As long 
as there is a me that is there, there is further to go. Cognitions belong to 
those having 
them, absolute IS all there is in Enlightenmenet.

Not unusual for people to have this glimpse, then the mind reroots. Then such 
comments 
as I am enlightened and yes the me does return, there is an ego, then they can 
be 
forgiven. Well, just because this is the experience where the mind rerooted, it 
is not the 
experience for those enlightened. For those with this rerooting of the mind, 
there is more 
to go. If one is one's one guru, has the inner Guru as the guide, ( weather as 
form or 
absolute concept), and one thinks they have arrived, it is sad because there is 
more to go 
but they are not going to hear one word of that.

The scriptures such as the one I posted, Ramana Maharishi and all the great 
sages of the 
past and now explain from their own existence that this is the case, there is 
no me and 
there never was. The me is ego and it can not exist in enlightenment- it is 
either one or 
the other.

These are the general points from my Guru, and the other two recently 
enlightened echo 
the same independant of one another. 

I can only say that I have had the dharshan of MMY, Mother Meera and MY Guru. 
In 
addition, I have had shatipat with my Guru, as well as taking it from a healer 
and also from 
a deeksha giver with kalki- so I have all this to compare with.

In my case, it is the most significant with where I am now, it has awakened the 
kundalini, 
and the on going guidance ensures that things are in balance and progress is 
taking place.  
I notice great progress with about 10 fellow sadakas, it is very impressive.

The reason that Kundalini is finished in enlightenment, and the reason shakti 
does not 
come from an enlightened teacher is there is no persona there, Guru is only 
consciuous

Hridaya Puri



[FairfieldLife] Re: Not all shaktipat or dharshan is equall

2007-09-26 Thread purushaz
Ron---You don't understand, how many times do we have to go over 
this?  In Muktananda's tradition, there's a transfer of Shakti from 
the BODY(s) of Muktananda to the BODY(s) of the disciple.  Therefore, 
the me in that context refers to the body, (and of course all of 
attributes that make up a person, whether Enlightend or not).
 Do you agree that your Guru is a person, as opposed to other 
persons? Then he's an individual, and in due course of conversation, 
may say I, and me often.
 Nobody is saying there's a delusional false I or 
me that your Guru identifies with. If he's Enlightened, then 
there's no such false I; however, there's still a body, mind, 
actions, reactions, conditionings, manner of social 
interactions; etc; all of which make up the I that separates 
your Guru from other people.  You will agree that your Guru is not 
MMY, correct?
 Refer to Prior to Consciousness, the transcribed statements of 
Nisargadatta Maharaj, page 31.
 The disciple asks, Ramana Maharshi was a great sage, he was unknown 
in India. When Paul Brunton wrote the book in English about him, 
everybody went to see him and he became well known 

MAHARAJ: I agree with that. Ramana Maharshi was discovered by Paul 
Brunton and I was discovered by Maurice Frydman.
 So! From the King of all Neo-Advaitins, Nisargadatta Maharaj, we 
have the use of I twice in two lines, proving there is an I; 
(since, obviously), this I doesn't refer to the delusional I 
which didn't exist in his case at the time he spoke that, but rather, 
everything - every property, quality, or attribute that made him an 
individual person, as opposed to other persons.
 One of those differences between him and RM was that the latter 
was discovered by Paul Brunton (for Westerners), and Maurice 
Frydman discovered Nisargadatta Maharaj.
 Again, hopefully for the last time, the I for Enlightened people 
is a valid referent to the entire spectrum of properties (beginning 
with the body(s); that makes up an individual person, and which 
distinguishes that person from others. But most important, the I in 
reference to Enlightened Gurus refers to a particular POV, differing 
from the POV's of other Gurus.  In some cases, the POV's are closely 
allied, such as Nisargadatta Maharaj and RM.
 In other cases, the POV's differ; say MMY vs Eckart Tolle.



 In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Comment from post:--But Shakti comes from the teacher, igniting 
the student's Shakti.
 
 HR: Again, the central issue is that the fallacy is that a me 
gains enlightenment. As long 
 as there is a me that is there, there is further to go. Cognitions 
belong to those having 
 them, absolute IS all there is in Enlightenmenet.
 
 Not unusual for people to have this glimpse, then the mind reroots. 
Then such comments 
 as I am enlightened and yes the me does return, there is an ego, 
then they can be 
 forgiven. Well, just because this is the experience where the mind 
rerooted, it is not the 
 experience for those enlightened. For those with this rerooting of 
the mind, there is more 
 to go. If one is one's one guru, has the inner Guru as the guide, ( 
weather as form or 
 absolute concept), and one thinks they have arrived, it is sad 
because there is more to go 
 but they are not going to hear one word of that.
 
 The scriptures such as the one I posted, Ramana Maharishi and all 
the great sages of the 
 past and now explain from their own existence that this is the 
case, there is no me and 
 there never was. The me is ego and it can not exist in 
enlightenment- it is either one or 
 the other.
 
 These are the general points from my Guru, and the other two 
recently enlightened echo 
 the same independant of one another. 
 
 I can only say that I have had the dharshan of MMY, Mother Meera 
and MY Guru. In 
 addition, I have had shatipat with my Guru, as well as taking it 
from a healer and also from 
 a deeksha giver with kalki- so I have all this to compare with.
 
 In my case, it is the most significant with where I am now, it has 
awakened the kundalini, 
 and the on going guidance ensures that things are in balance and 
progress is taking place.  
 I notice great progress with about 10 fellow sadakas, it is very 
impressive.
 
 The reason that Kundalini is finished in enlightenment, and the 
reason shakti does not 
 come from an enlightened teacher is there is no persona there, Guru 
is only consciuous
 
 Hridaya Puri





[FairfieldLife] Re: Abortion - By William Edelen

2007-09-26 Thread sgrayatlarge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, oneradiantbeing 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

David,

Am I missing something here? Normally when I post an article that has 
a strong bias like this one and after reading your previous posts, I 
would assume that you are in line with Mr. Edelen thinking, hence the 
laugh.

I wonder what he would say about Krishna telling Arjuna he should 
fight and kill his relatives? See how silly that sounds? He is saying 
the same thing in his silly article.

Oh right, he will never comment on that sort of thing.

Also since it seems that Edelen doesn't like this mixing of religion 
and politics, he probably abhors what religious Buddhist monks are 
doing in Burma, mixing religion and politics. Oh right, he will never 
comment on that.

Btw, I am in favor of the Buddhist monks and if a religious 
republican wants to throw in his/her beliefs and values in the 
political debate, free speech cuts both ways. Tolerance cuts both 
ways.

Peace,

Steve

p.s. Someone say something about a Corvette??!!

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  David states: If the Republicans want to simply say I am against 
  abortion
  and let it go at that, fine. But in the name of all that is truth 
 and
  all that is sacred, let them stop using the blood soaked hands of
  Moses, the Bible and the church for their justification.
  
  -David, you are hysterical!! Thanks for the laugh.
  
  Steve
  
  
  -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, oneradiantbeing 
  oneradiantbeing@ wrote:
  
   Abortion, by William Edelen, (Taken from: www.williamedelen.com)
   
   The Republican National Committee, the big shots, are meeting.
   Do you know what they are going to debate? A proposed abortion
   litmus test for all Republican candidates. My gawd! Thomas
   Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, where are men of your
   stature and brilliance now that we need you? 
   
   In this debate the Bible and God are words that are going 
 to 
  be 
   raining down like balloons at a Republican convention. A few 
 facts 
   will puncture those balloons. If a person wants to simply 
say I 
 do 
   not like abortion. That's fine. That's their opinion and they 
 have 
  a 
   right to it. But when they start using the bible, the church 
and 
  God 
   to justify their position they do not seem to realize how inane,
   unhinged and comical they appear.
   
   In papal theology they use the phrase the sanctity of life from
   conception onwards. There is no reference in either the Old or
   New Testament to the sacredness or sanctity of either human
   or fetal life. All through the Bible, people are murdered and 
  slaugh-
   tered by the millions. The lack of sanctity of the fetus is 
all
   through the Old Testament. 2 Kings 15 reads: All the women
   therein that are with child shall be ripped up. Hosea 13:16 
 reads:
   The infants shall be dashed to pieces, and those with child 
 ripped
   up. God tells Moses how to mix a potion for an abortion if a 
 man's
   wife has become pregnant by another man (Numbers 5:11-31).
   Deuteronomy 21:8 gives us instructions on how to kill our sons 
if
   they are rebellious. Deuteronomy 13 tells us how to kill our
   wives and children. Jesus shows no concern for fetal 
 life: Blessed
   are the barren and wombs that never bore, and the breasts that
   never gave suck (Luke 22). Lack of space precludes my listing
   hundreds of other biblical passages. Pro-life? You've got to be 
   joking.
   
   In the Bible, human life begins with breathing, not conception.
   The Hebrew word to describe a human being is nephesh . . . the
   breathing one. It occurs 854 times in the Hebrew Bible. The 
 history
   of the Christian church has never been pro-life. Today, those 
 using
   the church and the bible for justification of their pro-life 
  position
   condemn abortion as murder of the unborn, while the church
   itself has one of the most horrible, unjust and cruel murder 
 records
   in the history of our species, of both the born and unborn.
   Millions slaughtered by instruments that stagger the human mind.
   
   If the Republicans want to simply say I am against abortion
   and let it go at that, fine. But in the name of all that is 
truth 
  and 
   all that is sacred, let them stop using the blood soaked hands 
of
   Moses, the Bible and the church for their justification.
  
 
 
 Steve, I didn't state it. Edelen did. That was his essay. I just 
 posted the article. Peace, David





[FairfieldLife] Next Chapter to the Da Vinci Code?

2007-09-26 Thread John
Here's an interesting article:

6 Ark. nuns excommunicated for heresy By ANDREW DeMILLO, Associated 
Press Writer 
2 hours, 16 minutes ago
 


LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - Six Catholic nuns have been excommunicated for 
heresy after refusing to give up membership in a Canadian sect whose 
founder claims to be the reincarnation of the Virgin Mary, the 
Diocese of Little Rock announced Wednesday. 

The Rev. J. Gaston Hebert, the diocese administrator, said he 
notified the nuns of the decision Tuesday night after they refused to 
recant the teachings of the Community of the Lady of All Nations, 
also known as the Army of Mary.

The Vatican has declared all members of the Army of Mary 
excommunicated. Hebert said the excommunication was the first in the 
diocese's 165-year history.

It is a painfully historic moment for this church, Hebert said.

The six nuns are associated with the Good Shepherd Monastery of Our 
Lady of Charity and Refuge in Hot Springs. Sister Mary Theresa 
Dionne, one of the nuns excommunicated, said the nuns will still live 
at the convent property, which they own.

We are at peace and we know that for us we are doing the right 
thing, the 82-year-old nun said. We pray that the church will open 
their eyes before it is too late. This is God's work through Mary, 
the blessed mother, and we're doing what we're asked to do.

At a news conference, Hebert said the nuns became entranced and 
deluded with a doctrine that is heretical. He said church officials 
removed the sacraments from the monastery on Tuesday night.

Hebert said the sect's members believe that its founder, Marie Paule 
Giguere, is the reincarnation of the Virgin Mary and that God speaks 
directly through her.

Excommunication bars the nuns from participating in the church 
liturgy and receiving communion or other sacraments.

The diocese said the action was taken after the Congregation for the 
Doctrine of the Faith issued a declaration that the Army of Mary's 
teachings were heretical and automatically excommunicated any who 
embraced the doctrine.

Hebert said the diocese had known for years that the nuns were 
following the sect and said church officials in the past had 
encouraged them to come back into the fold.

According to the Catholic News Service, the Army of Mary was founded 
in Quebec in 1971 by Giguere, who said she was receiving visions from 
God.

Dionne said she does not know if Giguere is the reincarnation of the 
Virgin Mary, but said she believes God communicates through the 
sect's founder.

She is doing only what God and Mary tells her to do, Dionne said.

Calls made to a spokesman for the Army of Mary in Quebec were 
answered by a fax machine tone.





Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Not all shaktipat or dharshan is equall

2007-09-26 Thread Peter
he is a she.

--- purushaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Ron---You don't understand, how many times do we
 have to go over 
 this?  In Muktananda's tradition, there's a transfer
 of Shakti from 
 the BODY(s) of Muktananda to the BODY(s) of the
 disciple.  Therefore, 
 the me in that context refers to the body, (and of
 course all of 
 attributes that make up a person, whether Enlightend
 or not).
  Do you agree that your Guru is a person, as opposed
 to other 
 persons? Then he's an individual, and in due course
 of conversation, 
 may say I, and me often.
  Nobody is saying there's a delusional false I or 
 me that your Guru identifies with. If he's
 Enlightened, then 
 there's no such false I; however, there's still a
 body, mind, 
 actions, reactions, conditionings, manner of social 
 interactions; etc; all of which make up the I
 that separates 
 your Guru from other people.  You will agree that
 your Guru is not 
 MMY, correct?
  Refer to Prior to Consciousness, the transcribed
 statements of 
 Nisargadatta Maharaj, page 31.
  The disciple asks, Ramana Maharshi was a great
 sage, he was unknown 
 in India. When Paul Brunton wrote the book in
 English about him, 
 everybody went to see him and he became well known 
 
 MAHARAJ: I agree with that. Ramana Maharshi was
 discovered by Paul 
 Brunton and I was discovered by Maurice Frydman.
  So! From the King of all Neo-Advaitins,
 Nisargadatta Maharaj, we 
 have the use of I twice in two lines, proving
 there is an I; 
 (since, obviously), this I doesn't refer to the
 delusional I 
 which didn't exist in his case at the time he spoke
 that, but rather, 
 everything - every property, quality, or attribute
 that made him an 
 individual person, as opposed to other persons.
  One of those differences between him and RM was
 that the latter 
 was discovered by Paul Brunton (for Westerners),
 and Maurice 
 Frydman discovered Nisargadatta Maharaj.
  Again, hopefully for the last time, the I for
 Enlightened people 
 is a valid referent to the entire spectrum of
 properties (beginning 
 with the body(s); that makes up an individual
 person, and which 
 distinguishes that person from others. But most
 important, the I in 
 reference to Enlightened Gurus refers to a
 particular POV, differing 
 from the POV's of other Gurus.  In some cases, the
 POV's are closely 
 allied, such as Nisargadatta Maharaj and RM.
  In other cases, the POV's differ; say MMY vs Eckart
 Tolle.
 
 
 
  In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
   Comment from post:--But Shakti comes from the
 teacher, igniting 
 the student's Shakti.
  
  HR: Again, the central issue is that the fallacy
 is that a me 
 gains enlightenment. As long 
  as there is a me that is there, there is further
 to go. Cognitions 
 belong to those having 
  them, absolute IS all there is in Enlightenmenet.
  
  Not unusual for people to have this glimpse, then
 the mind reroots. 
 Then such comments 
  as I am enlightened and yes the me does return,
 there is an ego, 
 then they can be 
  forgiven. Well, just because this is the
 experience where the mind 
 rerooted, it is not the 
  experience for those enlightened. For those with
 this rerooting of 
 the mind, there is more 
  to go. If one is one's one guru, has the inner
 Guru as the guide, ( 
 weather as form or 
  absolute concept), and one thinks they have
 arrived, it is sad 
 because there is more to go 
  but they are not going to hear one word of that.
  
  The scriptures such as the one I posted, Ramana
 Maharishi and all 
 the great sages of the 
  past and now explain from their own existence that
 this is the 
 case, there is no me and 
  there never was. The me is ego and it can not
 exist in 
 enlightenment- it is either one or 
  the other.
  
  These are the general points from my Guru, and the
 other two 
 recently enlightened echo 
  the same independant of one another. 
  
  I can only say that I have had the dharshan of
 MMY, Mother Meera 
 and MY Guru. In 
  addition, I have had shatipat with my Guru, as
 well as taking it 
 from a healer and also from 
  a deeksha giver with kalki- so I have all this to
 compare with.
  
  In my case, it is the most significant with where
 I am now, it has 
 awakened the kundalini, 
  and the on going guidance ensures that things are
 in balance and 
 progress is taking place.  
  I notice great progress with about 10 fellow
 sadakas, it is very 
 impressive.
  
  The reason that Kundalini is finished in
 enlightenment, and the 
 reason shakti does not 
  come from an enlightened teacher is there is no
 persona there, Guru 
 is only consciuous
  
  Hridaya Puri
 
 
 
 
 
 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]
 
 
 



   

Got a little couch 

[FairfieldLife] God Speed Off!

2007-09-26 Thread new . morning
Off,

Let me, along with all redemptive seeking souls, deeply and profusely
apologize for the massive decadence, debauchery and criminality of our
founders, and their even more wretched off spring, who to this day
spoil the natural refinement and  galactic dignity that you so
demonstratively possess. No Scotsman, the soul of God, would ever,
ever, set foot, much less stay, in America for one second, unless they
were treacherously kidnapped, or lost a massively disabling wager. You
have my deepest sympathy for which ever it was, an MAY GODSPEED, your
safe and most hasty return to heaven on earth, to the precious earth
of Scotland. What horrendously evil force is keeping you tied town so
harshly that even a Herculean personality such as your self, is not
able to break free of this terrible curse, exert your own free will,
and flee most rapidly from this hell hole. God Speed, Onward to
Scotland!  oh Noble Soul! 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, oneradiantbeing 
 oneradiantbeing@ wrote:
 
  Abortion, by William Edelen, (Taken from: www.williamedelen.com)
  
  The Republican National Committee, the big shots, are meeting.
  Do you know what they are going to debate? A proposed abortion
  litmus test for all Republican candidates. My gawd! Thomas
  Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, where are men of your
  stature and brilliance now that we need you? 
 
 Some of them were too busy raping their slaves (of which there are 
 modern descendents), and others were too busy worrying that Britain, 
 under its free parlimentary system, was moving quickly to outlaw 
 slavery in Britain, with several court cases in London(before US even 
 existed). The others were busy land-grabbing while British soldiers 
 died defending them from the tyrannical Papist regimes of France and 
 Spain, since Britain had emphatically outlawed discriminating against 
 religions, and were busy fighting the forces of the world that wanted 
 tyrannical catholic rule, and would have destroyed US if it was not 
 for British soldiers dying to save their criminal asses. No wonder, 
 MANY of the 'greatest generation' in Britain had no respect for 
 the 'the Yanks' and expressed it openly when I was younger, because 
 the British working folks had a collective memory of that traitorous 
 event and the US joining with the French Papist regime to fight 
 Britain (a war which Britain ultimately won against the French and 
 Spanish, saving America and Europe and laying the ground for the 
 progressive place it was to become)
 (plus, the most common comment from the WWII generation in Britain 
 was: The bloody yanks only came into WWII after all the hard stuff 
 was done
 
  
  In this debate the Bible and God are words that are going to 
 be 
  raining down like balloons at a Republican convention. A few facts 
  will puncture those balloons. If a person wants to simply say I do 
  not like abortion. That's fine.
 
 Ron Paul does not like abortion. He says it should be decided by the 
 states, which everyone knows only a couple of redneck states would 
 outlaw, and therefore a brain drain would occur from those states, 
 plus people could get abortions anyway.
 
 All this is simply to try to re-energise their Christian Talibanesque 
 base, but never to act on this rethoric. 
 
 OffWorld
 




[FairfieldLife] Re: Not all shaktipat or dharshan is equall

2007-09-26 Thread Ron
The use of words may be frustrating in this case. Often My Guru will say this 
one 
replacing the word I, the other Gurus in my path do the same. My Guru said 
that 
speaking this way is researved or those Realized because the me is gone and 
there is 
nothing to replace it with. On other occasions, my Guru will say I and me, but 
in general in 
my gurus books, she cautions the disciples not to view the Guru as persona but 
as 
consciousness

Generally speaking, Gurus will say I and me, and as I cast my opinion before, 
when they 
use this speach, and if they are claiming enlightenment, and at the same time 
referring to 
the individual I, then this is dellusion.

Since there is no Me, then when they use this, they are referenceing 
something other- I 
think this is understood by many or most here. 

The bottom line is not changing as I see it- my Guru's comments- the fallacy 
is that a 
me  becomes enlightened



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, purushaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Ron---You don't understand, how many times do we have to go over 
 this?  In Muktananda's tradition, there's a transfer of Shakti from 
 the BODY(s) of Muktananda to the BODY(s) of the disciple.  Therefore, 
 the me in that context refers to the body, (and of course all of 
 attributes that make up a person, whether Enlightend or not).
  Do you agree that your Guru is a person, as opposed to other 
 persons? Then he's an individual, and in due course of conversation, 
 may say I, and me often.
  Nobody is saying there's a delusional false I or 
 me that your Guru identifies with. If he's Enlightened, then 
 there's no such false I; however, there's still a body, mind, 
 actions, reactions, conditionings, manner of social 
 interactions; etc; all of which make up the I that separates 
 your Guru from other people.  You will agree that your Guru is not 
 MMY, correct?
  Refer to Prior to Consciousness, the transcribed statements of 
 Nisargadatta Maharaj, page 31.
  The disciple asks, Ramana Maharshi was a great sage, he was unknown 
 in India. When Paul Brunton wrote the book in English about him, 
 everybody went to see him and he became well known 
 
 MAHARAJ: I agree with that. Ramana Maharshi was discovered by Paul 
 Brunton and I was discovered by Maurice Frydman.
  So! From the King of all Neo-Advaitins, Nisargadatta Maharaj, we 
 have the use of I twice in two lines, proving there is an I; 
 (since, obviously), this I doesn't refer to the delusional I 
 which didn't exist in his case at the time he spoke that, but rather, 
 everything - every property, quality, or attribute that made him an 
 individual person, as opposed to other persons.
  One of those differences between him and RM was that the latter 
 was discovered by Paul Brunton (for Westerners), and Maurice 
 Frydman discovered Nisargadatta Maharaj.
  Again, hopefully for the last time, the I for Enlightened people 
 is a valid referent to the entire spectrum of properties (beginning 
 with the body(s); that makes up an individual person, and which 
 distinguishes that person from others. But most important, the I in 
 reference to Enlightened Gurus refers to a particular POV, differing 
 from the POV's of other Gurus.  In some cases, the POV's are closely 
 allied, such as Nisargadatta Maharaj and RM.
  In other cases, the POV's differ; say MMY vs Eckart Tolle.
 
 
 
  In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote:
 
   Comment from post:--But Shakti comes from the teacher, igniting 
 the student's Shakti.
  
  HR: Again, the central issue is that the fallacy is that a me 
 gains enlightenment. As long 
  as there is a me that is there, there is further to go. Cognitions 
 belong to those having 
  them, absolute IS all there is in Enlightenmenet.
  
  Not unusual for people to have this glimpse, then the mind reroots. 
 Then such comments 
  as I am enlightened and yes the me does return, there is an ego, 
 then they can be 
  forgiven. Well, just because this is the experience where the mind 
 rerooted, it is not the 
  experience for those enlightened. For those with this rerooting of 
 the mind, there is more 
  to go. If one is one's one guru, has the inner Guru as the guide, ( 
 weather as form or 
  absolute concept), and one thinks they have arrived, it is sad 
 because there is more to go 
  but they are not going to hear one word of that.
  
  The scriptures such as the one I posted, Ramana Maharishi and all 
 the great sages of the 
  past and now explain from their own existence that this is the 
 case, there is no me and 
  there never was. The me is ego and it can not exist in 
 enlightenment- it is either one or 
  the other.
  
  These are the general points from my Guru, and the other two 
 recently enlightened echo 
  the same independant of one another. 
  
  I can only say that I have had the dharshan of MMY, Mother Meera 
 and MY Guru. In 
  addition, I have had shatipat with my Guru, as well as taking it 
 from a healer 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Not all shaktipat or dharshan is equall

2007-09-26 Thread yifuxero

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 The use of words may be frustrating in this case. Often My Guru 
will say this one 

Right, but Ramana Maharshi and others say I'. Saying this one all 
the time is ridiculous!..

 replacing the word I, the other Gurus in my path do the same. My 
Guru said that 
 speaking this way is researved or those Realized because the me 
is gone and there is 

Again, absurd. Tell your Guru to try speaking Engles, Senor.


 nothing to replace it with. On other occasions, my Guru will say I 
and me, but in general in 
 my gurus books, she cautions the disciples not to view the Guru as 
persona but as 
 consciousness

Why would your Guru caution people to engage in mood making?  MMY 
doesn't caution people in that manner.  Your Guru is an oddball.
 
 Generally speaking, Gurus will say I and me, and as I cast my 
opinion before, when they 
 use this speach, and if they are claiming enlightenment, and at the 
same time referring to 
 the individual I, then this is dellusion.

Again, Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj have used the I 
word on many occations, MMY likewise, and Jerry Jarvis.  Are you 
saying these people are not Enlightened? 
 
 Since there is no Me, then when they use this, they are 
referenceing something other- I 
 think this is understood by many or most here. 

Precisely, at last we agree on something!. But nobody on this forum 
said there WAS a false Me or I.  Besides, what's so special about 
that declaration, in view of the fact that Sages have been saying 
this for thousands of years.
 
 The bottom line is not changing as I see it- my Guru's comments-
 the fallacy is that a 
 me  becomes enlightened

Nobody every said a me becomes Enlightened.  Stop confusing the 
issues.  As reported by various Enlightened persons, Enlightenment as 
a Realization takes place within the realm of apparent space-time; in 
which case the individuals REPORT that they became Enlightned; 
realized the innate, prior, pure Consciousness of the Self.
Thus, in the process of an apparent progression in which the 
obstacles to Enlightenment were gradually (or perhaps suddenly) 
removed, the false me obviously cannot exist.
 However, the I or me as mentioned by Ramana and Nisargadatta 
Maharaj, and many others, still exists as a body/mind minus the 
delusion of separateness.
 For example, Rory states that he realized the Self at some 
particular time (I forgot the year, 2001?)
Adi Da says he realized the Self in 1970 while at the Vedanta Temple 
in Hollywood.
Ramakrishna says he realized the Self after getting initiated by a 
Brahmin in some non-dualist school.
Ramana says he realized the Self on 7-17-1896.
Lakshmana, a disciple of Ramana, claims he realized the Self (I 
believe in 1949); at which time shortly thereafter, he handed a note 
to Ramana saying I have realized the Self.
HWL Poonja says he realized the Self while in the presence of Ramana 
Maharshi. 
Obviously, the Realization the Self implies that the I acting as an 
entity apparently separate from the Self had vanished, being a total 
delusion.  Nobody is disputing that! Thus, that I can't realized 
the Self since it was a delusional entity. 

So what is meant by such persons when they say I have realized the 
Self.  The meaning is simply that (as reported by some aspect of the 
individual as a body/mind); btw, you will agree that the above 
persons reported that they had realized the Self.  This is a matter 
of record. To continue, the meaning is that the obscurations to the 
self-evident nature Pure Consciousness had VANISHED. However, some 
aspect of the body/mind reported on that event.
 Though there is no separate entity that can realize the Self, there 
is a part of the body/mind that can report on the fact of the 
Realization in apparent space-time. 
 Therefore, your Guru's statements are only partially correct.
If he wants to go around saying this person or whatever, in place 
of the I word, so be it.  The Dalai Lama acts like an ordinary 
person, on the surface.  He uses the I word, does he not?  Yes, in 
the Barbara Walters interfiew he used it several times.
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, purushaz purushaz@ wrote:
 
  Ron---You don't understand, how many times do we have to go over 
  this?  In Muktananda's tradition, there's a transfer of Shakti 
from 
  the BODY(s) of Muktananda to the BODY(s) of the disciple.  
Therefore, 
  the me in that context refers to the body, (and of course all 
of 
  attributes that make up a person, whether Enlightend or not).
   Do you agree that your Guru is a person, as opposed to other 
  persons? Then he's an individual, and in due course of 
conversation, 
  may say I, and me often.
   Nobody is saying there's a delusional false I or 
  me that your Guru identifies with. If he's Enlightened, then 
  there's no such false I; however, there's still a body, mind, 
  actions, reactions, conditionings, manner of social 
  interactions; 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Next Chapter to the Da Vinci Code?

2007-09-26 Thread Robert Gimbel
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Here's an interesting article:
 
 6 Ark. nuns excommunicated for heresy By ANDREW DeMILLO, Associated 
 Press Writer 
 2 hours, 16 minutes ago

Excommunication is such a joke: to Jesus that is...
Who would Jesus excommunicate? No one!
The Church is not Jesus, and Jesus is not the church.
The Church is part and parcel of the Roman Empire.
It's icons, symbols, statues, subjugation of women, persecution of the 
Jews, the disrespect of other religions (not to mention the death and 
destruction the church has caused, since it's origin)
The child molestation, perversion of the priests, all make the Church 
a very dangerous, ilrelevant and ignorant entity.



[FairfieldLife] Re: Not all shaktipat or dharshan is equall

2007-09-26 Thread Ron
HP: I will do my best to respond. If you want insight into my Guru by reading, 
then all of 
what Ramana has to say is the same my Guru would say. My Guru's last guru that 
apointed 
my Guru as Guru, was commissioned to be a guru by Poonjaji. In addition, my 
Guru's Guru 
had 3 tantric masters and his father was an enlightened being


 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote:
 
  The use of words may be frustrating in this case. Often My Guru 
 will say this one 
 
 Right, but Ramana Maharshi and others say I'. Saying this one all 
 the time is ridiculous!..

HP: My guru does not say this one all the time, and I am sure that all the 
gurus you 
mentioned dont say I all the time either
 
  replacing the word I, the other Gurus in my path do the same. My 
 Guru said that 
  speaking this way is researved or those Realized because the me 
 is gone and there is 
 
 Again, absurd. Tell your Guru to try speaking Engles, Senor.

HP: Considering that my Guru is enlightened and has brought 2 others this past 
year so far 
to enlightenment, referring to my Guru as absurd is not only absurd but VERY 
IGNORANT, 
in my opinion. 
 
 
  nothing to replace it with. On other occasions, my Guru will say I 
 and me, but in general in 
  my gurus books, she cautions the disciples not to view the Guru as 
 persona but as 
  consciousness
 
 Why would your Guru caution people to engage in mood making?  

HP: When a Guru brings 2 to enlightenment in one year, why they engage in 
certain 
methodologies is not important, and certainly if a student ( I realize you are 
not) needs to 
ask why, they are in the wrong place

 thMMY 
 doesn't caution people in that manner. 

HP: ok, then question this since it is apparent that there are none conming to 
realization 
there

 Your Guru is an oddball.

HP: Some people may call you an asshole but I certainly won't. I am a really 
calm guy. I 
will cast my opinion though and say that deep down, you know this is not the 
right thing 
to do, telling a disciple that their guru is an oddball. I could go into depth 
in responding to 
this but no need really.
  
  Generally speaking, Gurus will say I and me, and as I cast my 
 opinion before, when they 
  use this speach, and if they are claiming enlightenment, and at the 
 same time referring to 
  the individual I, then this is dellusion.
 
 Again, Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj have used the I 
 word on many occations, MMY likewise, and Jerry Jarvis.  Are you 
 saying these people are not Enlightened? 

HP: My Guru has also used the I  word on many occasions. saying the above are 
enlightened or not is not based on this.
  
  Since there is no Me, then when they use this, they are 
 referenceing something other- I 
  think this is understood by many or most here. 
 
 Precisely, at last we agree on something!. But nobody on this forum 
 said there WAS a false Me or I.  

HP: I think you may have meant to phrase this line a bit better

Besides, what's so special about 
 that declaration, in view of the fact that Sages have been saying 
 this for thousands of years.

HP: It is not that it is special, it is more that even though it is in the 
scriptures and said by 
sages for thousands of years, it still continues to be in place- so again, the 
fallacy that a 
me gains enlightenment is very much in the forefront. My Guru's comments 
speaking 
FROM BEING is  I just tell people the truth, I never existed nor will I ever 
. Your general 
response is to call her an odd ball- so it seems indirectly that you will stick 
with you 
thought, understanding or whatever it is- and insist that the me is there. Can 
you go to 
your guru and get insights on this? 

HP: I have my guru, and this is the inspiration in what i write. Progress is 
looking good 
here for me and the other disciples. I dont mind responding but if you had the 
name 
calling like this such as odd ball, then my odd ball Guru would show you the 
door very 
quickly. What my path is about is transparency, honesty, integrity and respect.

  
  The bottom line is not changing as I see it- my Guru's comments-
  the fallacy is that a 
  me  becomes enlightened
 
 Nobody every said a me becomes Enlightened.  Stop confusing the 
 issues.  As reported by various Enlightened persons, Enlightenment as 
 a Realization takes place within the realm of apparent space-time; in 
 which case the individuals REPORT that they became Enlightned; 
 realized the innate, prior, pure Consciousness of the Self.
 Thus, in the process of an apparent progression in which the 
 obstacles to Enlightenment were gradually (or perhaps suddenly) 
 removed, the false me obviously cannot exist.
  However, the I or me as mentioned by Ramana and Nisargadatta 
 Maharaj, and many others, still exists as a body/mind minus the 
 delusion of separateness.

HP: I guess we can call it a paradox, and limitation with the use of words but 
again part of 
this paradox is refleected in the quote I mentioned where