[FairfieldLife] Re: FairfieldLife : Photos

[lurkernomore20002000]

 Wow, what are those?big blue elephants?
> 
> Yup. I think they're guarding the gates of heaven.

A moist meadow?

lurk

>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Identification and saturational clarity

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> As I've suggested before, try to have some 
> compassion for Edg. He's melting down, and
> for some reason has chosen Fairfield Life as
> the place where he wants to do it.
>

Lol !
I don't read much of the Turqey's posts these days, but he's still 
good for a laugh once in a while.

He compassionately wants to publicly announce that (as he's so wisely 
said before, as he so humbly points out) that someone is melting 
down, therefore have compassion upon the poor fellow...as if no-one 
can plainly see what the Turqey really means is: "I now want to shaft 
the Edg fellow in the ass, and you can watch me, but I don't want to 
say it out loud because I don't want to state to the world openly 
what a turqey I am"

And he thinks this is a clever manouvering on his part to send a 
stabbing jibe to the man, and thus bolstering his standing among the 
masses.

Turq...this is not an episode of Survivor. Everyone sees right 
through your remarks that backfire upon you, and then recoil and hit 
you once again.

but alas...The Turq is a Turqey.


OffWorld
(always way ahead of the crowd)

.

[FairfieldLife] Re: ..."the first ruler of the universe..."

[off_world_beings]

"Upon the death of Boudicca's husband, King Prasutagus, Roman 
soldiers attempted to regain control of their client kingdom. Though 
Boudicca had been stripped naked and flogged and her daughters raped, 
the Iceni queen would not bow to Roman rule. Rather, she led her 
fellow Britons against their oppressor. According to Dio Cassius, a 
Roman historian, "a terrible disaster occurred in Britain. Two cities 
were sacked, eighty thousand of the Romans and of their allies 
perished, and the island was lost to Rome. Moreover, all this ruin 
was brought upon the Romans by a woman, a fact which in itself caused 
them the greatest shame."

"Dio Cassius describes the Iceni queen: "in stature she was very 
tall, in appearance most terrifying, in the glance of her eye most 
fierce, and her voice was harsh; a great mass of the tawniest hair 
fell to her hips; around her neck was a large golden necklace; and 
she wore a tunic of divers colours over which a thick mantle was 
fastened with a brooch. This was her invariable attire. She now 
grasped a spear to aid her in terrifying all beholders:"

"Boudicca, queen of the Celtic Iceni tribe, described the Romans 
under Nero as "insolent, unjust, insatiable, impious,— if, indeed, we 
ought to term those people men who bathe in warm water, eat 
artificial dainties, drink unmixed wine, anoint themselves with 
myrrh, sleep on soft couches with boys for bedfellows,— boys past 
their prime at that,— and are slaves to a lyre-player and a poor one 
too"  

"Speaking to the army of some 120,000 Britons she had amassed in 
response to the enslavement of her people, her own humiliating 
beating, and the rape of her two daughters, Boudicca reasoned, "have 
no fear whatever of the Romans; for they are superior to us neither 
in numbers nor in bravery. And here is the proof: they have protected 
themselves with helmets and breastplates and greaves and yet further 
provided themselves with palisades and walls and trenches to make 
sure of suffering no harm by an incursion of their enemies. For they 
are influenced by their fears when they adopt this kind of fighting 
in preference to the plan we follow of rough and ready action. 
Indeed, we enjoy such a surplus of bravery, that we regard our tents 
as safer than their walls and our shields as affording greater 
protection than their whole suits of mail" 
Boudicca further points out, "they cannot bear up under hunger, 
thirst, cold, or heat, as we can. They require shade and covering, 
they require kneaded bread and wine and oil, and if any of these 
things fails them, they perish; for us, on the other hand, any grass 
or root serves as bread, the juice of any plant as oil, any water as 
wine, any tree as a house. Furthermore, this region is familiar to us 
and is our ally, but to them it is unknown and hostile. As for the 
rivers, we swim them naked, whereas they do not across them easily 
even with boats." (Cassius Dio's "Roman History" Book 62 (LXII)) 

Description by Tacitus of the Rebellion of Boudicca (AD 60-61) in 
Athena Review Vol.1, No.1
http://www.athenapub.com/tacitus1.htm


Jai MahaLakshmi
http://www.usd.edu/~asolomon/Images/boudicca44.jpg


OffWorld
(as usual way ahead of the crowd)






--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/xjy2/38515389/in/photostream/
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  
> wrote:
> >
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/xjy2/38515390/in/photostream/
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings 
 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm votin' for MahaLakshmi, the Queen of the Universe and The 
> First 
> > > Truth.
> > > 
> > > http://www.photozo.com/album/data/3653/5027Boudicca_II_a_.jpg
> > > 
> > > OffWorld
> > > (as usual way ahead of the crowd)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante  
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > GGN
> > > > http://tinyurl.com/yoxxwo
> > > > 
> > > > 'And I am with the ruler, the first ruler of the universe, on 
> the 
> > > > ground of total Natural Law, the state of consciousness, 
silent 
> > > rule.
> > > > 
> > > > * 
> > > > 
> > > > "We have been administering the world for the last few years 
> > under 
> > > > the spell of the Constitution of the Universe, Veda, the Will 
> of 
> > > God. 
> > > > The Will of God is with us in the script of the Veda. Veda is 
> > > > inscribed in Atma.Veda is inscribed in Atma. 'A' is the first 
> > > > syllable of Atma, and the same 'A' is the first syllable of 
> Veda. 
> > > The 
> > > > whole Veda is concentratedly lively in 'A', which is the 
> > expression 
> > > > of Atma. Everyone's Atma is lively in Total Knowledge, the 
> Veda. 
> > > And 
> > > > the Total Knowledge has infinite organizing power in it—
> infinite 
> > > > organizing power inherent in the first syllable of Veda, 'A', 
> > which 
> > > > is the impulse of Atma. 
> > > > 
> > > > 'Total Knowledge and total organizing power. Th

[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn

[bob_brigante]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "biosoundbill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
 You will find a 
> few of the 'meaningless sounds' used by TM 

*

The meaningless sounds used in TM are indeed meaningless sounds because 
that is the proper use of the mantra in TM. If a thought of meaning 
about the mantra or any other thought comes up, we just quietly go back 
to the mantra. 

Whether somebody assigns meanings to the TM mantras outside of the 
practice of TM has no effect on the proper practice of TM, which is to 
always just go with the sound value of the mantra, and be neutral to 
meaning or any other thought.

[FairfieldLife] Re: ..."the first ruler of the universe..."

[off_world_beings]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/xjy2/38515389/in/photostream/

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/xjy2/38515390/in/photostream/
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm votin' for MahaLakshmi, the Queen of the Universe and The 
First 
> > Truth.
> > 
> > http://www.photozo.com/album/data/3653/5027Boudicca_II_a_.jpg
> > 
> > OffWorld
> > (as usual way ahead of the crowd)
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > GGN
> > > http://tinyurl.com/yoxxwo
> > > 
> > > 'And I am with the ruler, the first ruler of the universe, on 
the 
> > > ground of total Natural Law, the state of consciousness, silent 
> > rule.
> > > 
> > > * 
> > > 
> > > "We have been administering the world for the last few years 
> under 
> > > the spell of the Constitution of the Universe, Veda, the Will 
of 
> > God. 
> > > The Will of God is with us in the script of the Veda. Veda is 
> > > inscribed in Atma.Veda is inscribed in Atma. 'A' is the first 
> > > syllable of Atma, and the same 'A' is the first syllable of 
Veda. 
> > The 
> > > whole Veda is concentratedly lively in 'A', which is the 
> expression 
> > > of Atma. Everyone's Atma is lively in Total Knowledge, the 
Veda. 
> > And 
> > > the Total Knowledge has infinite organizing power in it—
infinite 
> > > organizing power inherent in the first syllable of Veda, 'A', 
> which 
> > > is the impulse of Atma. 
> > > 
> > > 'Total Knowledge and total organizing power. The characteristic 
> > > quality of Total Knowledge is total organizing power. The power 
> of 
> > > Total Knowledge is lively in the power of total action. Action 
is 
> > > vibrant, dynamic; knowledge, self-referral silence. And the 
self-
> > > referral value also has its basis in organizing power. It holds 
> > onto 
> > > itself. It holds onto itself. It remains in the self-referral 
> > state, 
> > > in the state of Being, and that Being is directed to itself. 
> > > 
> > > 'Self-referral Being is the steady administrative skill of the 
> > > universe, uni-verse, ever-expanding universe. How it is 
> > administered? 
> > > It is administered by the inward status of the administrator, 
the 
> > > Purusha. Fortunately, with the blessings of Guru Dev, the 
> technique 
> > > of administration came to us in the characteristic quality of 
> > Purusha—
> > > inward. Purusha, inward. Prakriti, outward, and inward. Outward 
> and 
> > > inward, they are two opposite directions of dynamism—outward, 
> > inward. 
> > > 
> > > 'Outwardness is opposed to inwardness. Inwardness is opposed to 
> > > outwardness. Summation of the two, unity of the two, is that 
> grand 
> > > principle of Being. Being balances inward becoming and outward 
> > > becoming. Becoming in opposite direction is balanced by Being—
> > Being, 
> > > self-referral, and that has been named Purusha. So the rule of 
> > > Purusha, the rule of Purusha, that handles the self-referral 
> state 
> > of 
> > > Being and the object-referral state of becoming, Being and 
> becoming—
> > > the balance, the grand balance between the two, is the secret 
of 
> > > diversity governed by unity. Otherwise diversity will fall 
apart 
> in 
> > > all directions. Nothing will remain. 
> > > 
> > > 'But everything remains. Everything remains [in the] outward 
> > > direction, outwardly directed; and everything remains inwardly 
> > > directed at the same time. Unity centralizes all diversity, and 
> in 
> > > centralizing all diversity, it maintains order in the flow of 
> > > diversity. Otherwise, the outward flow will make the whole 
thing 
> > null 
> > > and void. But outward and inward, outward and inward, outward 
and 
> > > inward—two opposite directions—activity is that most perfect, 
> most 
> > > balanced state of administration that upholds infinite 
diversity 
> of 
> > > the ever-expanding universe in its steadiness. 
> > > 
> > > 'This is Brahm. Our Guiding Light, Guru Dev, Brahmanand 
> Saraswati. 
> > > Saraswati is the steady, non-flowing flow of total intelligence 
> > that 
> > > spontaneously maintains order in creation. That system of 
> > > administration is coming back, and that is the dawn of light, 
> after 
> > > the long darkness of the night, coming back. So the 
> administration 
> > in 
> > > all our world family is getting to be from that most basic 
level, 
> > > which is the level of Purusha, containing Prakriti within 
itself. 
> > > Beautiful time for the world is coming. And it's not ''will 
> come''. 
> > > It is coming. It has started its value. Our aspiration is to 
> > quickly 
> > > establish this most natural system of maintaining order in all 
> our 
> > > countries in the world. 
> > > 
> > > 'Today is the Vijaya Dashami day, the day of victory, victory 
of 
> > the 
> > > sun over the darkness of the night. It's a beautiful, beautiful 
> > > fortune of ours t

[FairfieldLife] Cardmeister question

[off_world_beings]

Etymology of Keltic "Boadicea"

???

OffWorld
(as usual way aead of the crowd)



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/xjy2/38515390/in/photostream/
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm votin' for MahaLakshmi, the Queen of the Universe and The 
First 
> > Truth.
> > 
> > http://www.photozo.com/album/data/3653/5027Boudicca_II_a_.jpg
> > 
> > OffWorld
> > (as usual way ahead of the crowd)
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > GGN
> > > http://tinyurl.com/yoxxwo
> > > 
> > > 'And I am with the ruler, the first ruler of the universe, on 
the 
> > > ground of total Natural Law, the state of consciousness, silent 
> > rule.
> > > 
> > > * 
> > > 
> > > "We have been administering the world for the last few years 
> under 
> > > the spell of the Constitution of the Universe, Veda, the Will 
of 
> > God. 
> > > The Will of God is with us in the script of the Veda. Veda is 
> > > inscribed in Atma.Veda is inscribed in Atma. 'A' is the first 
> > > syllable of Atma, and the same 'A' is the first syllable of 
Veda. 
> > The 
> > > whole Veda is concentratedly lively in 'A', which is the 
> expression 
> > > of Atma. Everyone's Atma is lively in Total Knowledge, the 
Veda. 
> > And 
> > > the Total Knowledge has infinite organizing power in it—
infinite 
> > > organizing power inherent in the first syllable of Veda, 'A', 
> which 
> > > is the impulse of Atma. 
> > > 
> > > 'Total Knowledge and total organizing power. The characteristic 
> > > quality of Total Knowledge is total organizing power. The power 
> of 
> > > Total Knowledge is lively in the power of total action. Action 
is 
> > > vibrant, dynamic; knowledge, self-referral silence. And the 
self-
> > > referral value also has its basis in organizing power. It holds 
> > onto 
> > > itself. It holds onto itself. It remains in the self-referral 
> > state, 
> > > in the state of Being, and that Being is directed to itself. 
> > > 
> > > 'Self-referral Being is the steady administrative skill of the 
> > > universe, uni-verse, ever-expanding universe. How it is 
> > administered? 
> > > It is administered by the inward status of the administrator, 
the 
> > > Purusha. Fortunately, with the blessings of Guru Dev, the 
> technique 
> > > of administration came to us in the characteristic quality of 
> > Purusha—
> > > inward. Purusha, inward. Prakriti, outward, and inward. Outward 
> and 
> > > inward, they are two opposite directions of dynamism—outward, 
> > inward. 
> > > 
> > > 'Outwardness is opposed to inwardness. Inwardness is opposed to 
> > > outwardness. Summation of the two, unity of the two, is that 
> grand 
> > > principle of Being. Being balances inward becoming and outward 
> > > becoming. Becoming in opposite direction is balanced by Being—
> > Being, 
> > > self-referral, and that has been named Purusha. So the rule of 
> > > Purusha, the rule of Purusha, that handles the self-referral 
> state 
> > of 
> > > Being and the object-referral state of becoming, Being and 
> becoming—
> > > the balance, the grand balance between the two, is the secret 
of 
> > > diversity governed by unity. Otherwise diversity will fall 
apart 
> in 
> > > all directions. Nothing will remain. 
> > > 
> > > 'But everything remains. Everything remains [in the] outward 
> > > direction, outwardly directed; and everything remains inwardly 
> > > directed at the same time. Unity centralizes all diversity, and 
> in 
> > > centralizing all diversity, it maintains order in the flow of 
> > > diversity. Otherwise, the outward flow will make the whole 
thing 
> > null 
> > > and void. But outward and inward, outward and inward, outward 
and 
> > > inward—two opposite directions—activity is that most perfect, 
> most 
> > > balanced state of administration that upholds infinite 
diversity 
> of 
> > > the ever-expanding universe in its steadiness. 
> > > 
> > > 'This is Brahm. Our Guiding Light, Guru Dev, Brahmanand 
> Saraswati. 
> > > Saraswati is the steady, non-flowing flow of total intelligence 
> > that 
> > > spontaneously maintains order in creation. That system of 
> > > administration is coming back, and that is the dawn of light, 
> after 
> > > the long darkness of the night, coming back. So the 
> administration 
> > in 
> > > all our world family is getting to be from that most basic 
level, 
> > > which is the level of Purusha, containing Prakriti within 
itself. 
> > > Beautiful time for the world is coming. And it's not ''will 
> come''. 
> > > It is coming. It has started its value. Our aspiration is to 
> > quickly 
> > > establish this most natural system of maintaining order in all 
> our 
> > > countries in the world. 
> > > 
> > > 'Today is the Vijaya Dashami day, the day of victory, victory 
of 
> > the 
> > > sun over the darkness of the night. It's a beautiful, beautiful 
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: ..."the first ruler of the universe..."

[off_world_beings]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/xjy2/38515390/in/photostream/


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> I'm votin' for MahaLakshmi, the Queen of the Universe and The First 
> Truth.
> 
> http://www.photozo.com/album/data/3653/5027Boudicca_II_a_.jpg
> 
> OffWorld
> (as usual way ahead of the crowd)
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante  
> wrote:
> >
> > GGN
> > http://tinyurl.com/yoxxwo
> > 
> > 'And I am with the ruler, the first ruler of the universe, on the 
> > ground of total Natural Law, the state of consciousness, silent 
> rule.
> > 
> > * 
> > 
> > "We have been administering the world for the last few years 
under 
> > the spell of the Constitution of the Universe, Veda, the Will of 
> God. 
> > The Will of God is with us in the script of the Veda. Veda is 
> > inscribed in Atma.Veda is inscribed in Atma. 'A' is the first 
> > syllable of Atma, and the same 'A' is the first syllable of Veda. 
> The 
> > whole Veda is concentratedly lively in 'A', which is the 
expression 
> > of Atma. Everyone's Atma is lively in Total Knowledge, the Veda. 
> And 
> > the Total Knowledge has infinite organizing power in it—infinite 
> > organizing power inherent in the first syllable of Veda, 'A', 
which 
> > is the impulse of Atma. 
> > 
> > 'Total Knowledge and total organizing power. The characteristic 
> > quality of Total Knowledge is total organizing power. The power 
of 
> > Total Knowledge is lively in the power of total action. Action is 
> > vibrant, dynamic; knowledge, self-referral silence. And the self-
> > referral value also has its basis in organizing power. It holds 
> onto 
> > itself. It holds onto itself. It remains in the self-referral 
> state, 
> > in the state of Being, and that Being is directed to itself. 
> > 
> > 'Self-referral Being is the steady administrative skill of the 
> > universe, uni-verse, ever-expanding universe. How it is 
> administered? 
> > It is administered by the inward status of the administrator, the 
> > Purusha. Fortunately, with the blessings of Guru Dev, the 
technique 
> > of administration came to us in the characteristic quality of 
> Purusha—
> > inward. Purusha, inward. Prakriti, outward, and inward. Outward 
and 
> > inward, they are two opposite directions of dynamism—outward, 
> inward. 
> > 
> > 'Outwardness is opposed to inwardness. Inwardness is opposed to 
> > outwardness. Summation of the two, unity of the two, is that 
grand 
> > principle of Being. Being balances inward becoming and outward 
> > becoming. Becoming in opposite direction is balanced by Being—
> Being, 
> > self-referral, and that has been named Purusha. So the rule of 
> > Purusha, the rule of Purusha, that handles the self-referral 
state 
> of 
> > Being and the object-referral state of becoming, Being and 
becoming—
> > the balance, the grand balance between the two, is the secret of 
> > diversity governed by unity. Otherwise diversity will fall apart 
in 
> > all directions. Nothing will remain. 
> > 
> > 'But everything remains. Everything remains [in the] outward 
> > direction, outwardly directed; and everything remains inwardly 
> > directed at the same time. Unity centralizes all diversity, and 
in 
> > centralizing all diversity, it maintains order in the flow of 
> > diversity. Otherwise, the outward flow will make the whole thing 
> null 
> > and void. But outward and inward, outward and inward, outward and 
> > inward—two opposite directions—activity is that most perfect, 
most 
> > balanced state of administration that upholds infinite diversity 
of 
> > the ever-expanding universe in its steadiness. 
> > 
> > 'This is Brahm. Our Guiding Light, Guru Dev, Brahmanand 
Saraswati. 
> > Saraswati is the steady, non-flowing flow of total intelligence 
> that 
> > spontaneously maintains order in creation. That system of 
> > administration is coming back, and that is the dawn of light, 
after 
> > the long darkness of the night, coming back. So the 
administration 
> in 
> > all our world family is getting to be from that most basic level, 
> > which is the level of Purusha, containing Prakriti within itself. 
> > Beautiful time for the world is coming. And it's not ''will 
come''. 
> > It is coming. It has started its value. Our aspiration is to 
> quickly 
> > establish this most natural system of maintaining order in all 
our 
> > countries in the world. 
> > 
> > 'Today is the Vijaya Dashami day, the day of victory, victory of 
> the 
> > sun over the darkness of the night. It's a beautiful, beautiful 
> > fortune of ours that we got today's Vijaya Dashami day to do the 
> Puja 
> > to Guru Dev, and we have done Puja to Guru Dev. 
> > 
> > 'And I am with the ruler, the first ruler of the universe, on the 
> > ground of total Natural Law, the state of consciousness, silent 
> rule. 
> > 
> > *
> > 
> > "We are in that atmosphere of total order, total order maintained 
> by 
> > the Constitution of the Univ

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: FairfieldLife : Photos

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of off_world_beings
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 10:23 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: FairfieldLife : Photos

 

--- In HYPERLINK
"mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com"FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick
Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From a friend:
> 
> HYPERLINK
> "HYPERLINK
"http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/photos/view/4a28?"http://ph.
groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/photos/view/4a28?
b=4"http://
> ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/photos/view/4a28?b=4 
> 
> From Vlodrop right now, in Maharishi's Brahmasthan, during the Rajas'
> coronation. A dear friend thinks Maharishi said yesterday or today 
that the
> Gates of Heaven are widely opened.

Wow, what are those?big blue elephants?

Yup. I think they’re guarding the gates of heaven.


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.6/1086 - Release Date: 10/22/2007
7:57 PM
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: ..."the first ruler of the universe..."

[off_world_beings]

I'm votin' for MahaLakshmi, the Queen of the Universe and The First 
Truth.

http://www.photozo.com/album/data/3653/5027Boudicca_II_a_.jpg

OffWorld
(as usual way ahead of the crowd)


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> GGN
> http://tinyurl.com/yoxxwo
> 
> 'And I am with the ruler, the first ruler of the universe, on the 
> ground of total Natural Law, the state of consciousness, silent 
rule.
> 
> * 
> 
> "We have been administering the world for the last few years under 
> the spell of the Constitution of the Universe, Veda, the Will of 
God. 
> The Will of God is with us in the script of the Veda. Veda is 
> inscribed in Atma.Veda is inscribed in Atma. 'A' is the first 
> syllable of Atma, and the same 'A' is the first syllable of Veda. 
The 
> whole Veda is concentratedly lively in 'A', which is the expression 
> of Atma. Everyone's Atma is lively in Total Knowledge, the Veda. 
And 
> the Total Knowledge has infinite organizing power in it—infinite 
> organizing power inherent in the first syllable of Veda, 'A', which 
> is the impulse of Atma. 
> 
> 'Total Knowledge and total organizing power. The characteristic 
> quality of Total Knowledge is total organizing power. The power of 
> Total Knowledge is lively in the power of total action. Action is 
> vibrant, dynamic; knowledge, self-referral silence. And the self-
> referral value also has its basis in organizing power. It holds 
onto 
> itself. It holds onto itself. It remains in the self-referral 
state, 
> in the state of Being, and that Being is directed to itself. 
> 
> 'Self-referral Being is the steady administrative skill of the 
> universe, uni-verse, ever-expanding universe. How it is 
administered? 
> It is administered by the inward status of the administrator, the 
> Purusha. Fortunately, with the blessings of Guru Dev, the technique 
> of administration came to us in the characteristic quality of 
Purusha—
> inward. Purusha, inward. Prakriti, outward, and inward. Outward and 
> inward, they are two opposite directions of dynamism—outward, 
inward. 
> 
> 'Outwardness is opposed to inwardness. Inwardness is opposed to 
> outwardness. Summation of the two, unity of the two, is that grand 
> principle of Being. Being balances inward becoming and outward 
> becoming. Becoming in opposite direction is balanced by Being—
Being, 
> self-referral, and that has been named Purusha. So the rule of 
> Purusha, the rule of Purusha, that handles the self-referral state 
of 
> Being and the object-referral state of becoming, Being and becoming—
> the balance, the grand balance between the two, is the secret of 
> diversity governed by unity. Otherwise diversity will fall apart in 
> all directions. Nothing will remain. 
> 
> 'But everything remains. Everything remains [in the] outward 
> direction, outwardly directed; and everything remains inwardly 
> directed at the same time. Unity centralizes all diversity, and in 
> centralizing all diversity, it maintains order in the flow of 
> diversity. Otherwise, the outward flow will make the whole thing 
null 
> and void. But outward and inward, outward and inward, outward and 
> inward—two opposite directions—activity is that most perfect, most 
> balanced state of administration that upholds infinite diversity of 
> the ever-expanding universe in its steadiness. 
> 
> 'This is Brahm. Our Guiding Light, Guru Dev, Brahmanand Saraswati. 
> Saraswati is the steady, non-flowing flow of total intelligence 
that 
> spontaneously maintains order in creation. That system of 
> administration is coming back, and that is the dawn of light, after 
> the long darkness of the night, coming back. So the administration 
in 
> all our world family is getting to be from that most basic level, 
> which is the level of Purusha, containing Prakriti within itself. 
> Beautiful time for the world is coming. And it's not ''will come''. 
> It is coming. It has started its value. Our aspiration is to 
quickly 
> establish this most natural system of maintaining order in all our 
> countries in the world. 
> 
> 'Today is the Vijaya Dashami day, the day of victory, victory of 
the 
> sun over the darkness of the night. It's a beautiful, beautiful 
> fortune of ours that we got today's Vijaya Dashami day to do the 
Puja 
> to Guru Dev, and we have done Puja to Guru Dev. 
> 
> 'And I am with the ruler, the first ruler of the universe, on the 
> ground of total Natural Law, the state of consciousness, silent 
rule. 
> 
> *
> 
> "We are in that atmosphere of total order, total order maintained 
by 
> the Constitution of the Universe, the Veda, 'A', which is the flow 
of 
> Atma, Atma. Aham Atma, I am Atma. Aham Atma, I am Atma. I am Veda—
> Veda Aham. And one more ''I am''—I am the extension of the Veda, 
> which is Vishwa, Vishwa the universe, I am the extension of the 
Veda. 
> So Veda Aham, Aham Vishwam, Aham Brahm, Totality. 
> 
> 'What is this Totality? We have been talking with Puru

[FairfieldLife] Re: ..."the first ruler of the universe..."

[off_world_beings]

I'm votin' For mahaLakshmi, the Queen of the Universe and The First 
Truth.

http://www.photozo.com/album/data/3653/5027Boudicca_II_a_.jpg

OffWorld
(as usual way ahead of the crowd)



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> GGN
> http://tinyurl.com/yoxxwo
> 
> 'And I am with the ruler, the first ruler of the universe, on the 
> ground of total Natural Law, the state of consciousness, silent 
rule.
> 
> * 
> 
> "We have been administering the world for the last few years under 
> the spell of the Constitution of the Universe, Veda, the Will of 
God. 
> The Will of God is with us in the script of the Veda. Veda is 
> inscribed in Atma.Veda is inscribed in Atma. 'A' is the first 
> syllable of Atma, and the same 'A' is the first syllable of Veda. 
The 
> whole Veda is concentratedly lively in 'A', which is the expression 
> of Atma. Everyone's Atma is lively in Total Knowledge, the Veda. 
And 
> the Total Knowledge has infinite organizing power in it—infinite 
> organizing power inherent in the first syllable of Veda, 'A', which 
> is the impulse of Atma. 
> 
> 'Total Knowledge and total organizing power. The characteristic 
> quality of Total Knowledge is total organizing power. The power of 
> Total Knowledge is lively in the power of total action. Action is 
> vibrant, dynamic; knowledge, self-referral silence. And the self-
> referral value also has its basis in organizing power. It holds 
onto 
> itself. It holds onto itself. It remains in the self-referral 
state, 
> in the state of Being, and that Being is directed to itself. 
> 
> 'Self-referral Being is the steady administrative skill of the 
> universe, uni-verse, ever-expanding universe. How it is 
administered? 
> It is administered by the inward status of the administrator, the 
> Purusha. Fortunately, with the blessings of Guru Dev, the technique 
> of administration came to us in the characteristic quality of 
Purusha—
> inward. Purusha, inward. Prakriti, outward, and inward. Outward and 
> inward, they are two opposite directions of dynamism—outward, 
inward. 
> 
> 'Outwardness is opposed to inwardness. Inwardness is opposed to 
> outwardness. Summation of the two, unity of the two, is that grand 
> principle of Being. Being balances inward becoming and outward 
> becoming. Becoming in opposite direction is balanced by Being—
Being, 
> self-referral, and that has been named Purusha. So the rule of 
> Purusha, the rule of Purusha, that handles the self-referral state 
of 
> Being and the object-referral state of becoming, Being and becoming—
> the balance, the grand balance between the two, is the secret of 
> diversity governed by unity. Otherwise diversity will fall apart in 
> all directions. Nothing will remain. 
> 
> 'But everything remains. Everything remains [in the] outward 
> direction, outwardly directed; and everything remains inwardly 
> directed at the same time. Unity centralizes all diversity, and in 
> centralizing all diversity, it maintains order in the flow of 
> diversity. Otherwise, the outward flow will make the whole thing 
null 
> and void. But outward and inward, outward and inward, outward and 
> inward—two opposite directions—activity is that most perfect, most 
> balanced state of administration that upholds infinite diversity of 
> the ever-expanding universe in its steadiness. 
> 
> 'This is Brahm. Our Guiding Light, Guru Dev, Brahmanand Saraswati. 
> Saraswati is the steady, non-flowing flow of total intelligence 
that 
> spontaneously maintains order in creation. That system of 
> administration is coming back, and that is the dawn of light, after 
> the long darkness of the night, coming back. So the administration 
in 
> all our world family is getting to be from that most basic level, 
> which is the level of Purusha, containing Prakriti within itself. 
> Beautiful time for the world is coming. And it's not ''will come''. 
> It is coming. It has started its value. Our aspiration is to 
quickly 
> establish this most natural system of maintaining order in all our 
> countries in the world. 
> 
> 'Today is the Vijaya Dashami day, the day of victory, victory of 
the 
> sun over the darkness of the night. It's a beautiful, beautiful 
> fortune of ours that we got today's Vijaya Dashami day to do the 
Puja 
> to Guru Dev, and we have done Puja to Guru Dev. 
> 
> 'And I am with the ruler, the first ruler of the universe, on the 
> ground of total Natural Law, the state of consciousness, silent 
rule. 
> 
> *
> 
> "We are in that atmosphere of total order, total order maintained 
by 
> the Constitution of the Universe, the Veda, 'A', which is the flow 
of 
> Atma, Atma. Aham Atma, I am Atma. Aham Atma, I am Atma. I am Veda—
> Veda Aham. And one more ''I am''—I am the extension of the Veda, 
> which is Vishwa, Vishwa the universe, I am the extension of the 
Veda. 
> So Veda Aham, Aham Vishwam, Aham Brahm, Totality. 
> 
> 'What is this Totality? We have been talking with Pur

[FairfieldLife] Re: FairfieldLife : Photos

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From a friend:
> 
> HYPERLINK
> "http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/photos/view/4a28?
b=4"http://
> ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/photos/view/4a28?b=4 
> 
> From Vlodrop right now, in Maharishi's Brahmasthan, during the Rajas'
> coronation.  A dear friend thinks Maharishi said yesterday or today 
that the
> Gates of Heaven are widely opened.

Wow, what are those?big blue elephants?

OffWorld
(as usual way ahead of the crowd)

[FairfieldLife] Re: DUMBLEDORE IS GAY

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "suziezuzie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071021/ap_en_ot/books_potter_dumbledore
>



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/152348


OffWorld
(as usual way ahead of the crowd)

[FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife : Photos

[Rick Archer]

>From a friend:

HYPERLINK
"http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/photos/view/4a28?b=4"http://
ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/photos/view/4a28?b=4 

>From Vlodrop right now, in Maharishi's Brahmasthan, during the Rajas'
coronation.  A dear friend thinks Maharishi said yesterday or today that the
Gates of Heaven are widely opened.


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.6/1086 - Release Date: 10/22/2007
7:57 PM
 

[FairfieldLife] DUMBLEDORE IS GAY

[suziezuzie]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071021/ap_en_ot/books_potter_dumbledore

[FairfieldLife] Re: Identification and saturational clarity

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> T3rinity, what you've written (below) is way over my 
> present mental acuity to grok but I do agree with you 
> that Curtis is not the rational atheist Edg is railing 
> against. Basically, I don't get what Edg's problem is...

Edg isn't railing against atheism; he's just
panicky because he thinks that folks here on
FFL have figured him out and now automatically 
consign his posts to the same trash bin they 
put Willytex's posts in. And he's right. 

And instead of looking into the "why" of that,
he's taking the Willytex path and trying to 
insult people into giving him the attention 
he's so desperate for. 

Doesn't work for Willytex, and it won't work
for Edg. Actually, most people probably read
more lines of Willy's posts before hitting NEXT
than they do Edg's because Willy's not as 
pretentious a writer.

As I've suggested before, try to have some 
compassion for Edg. He's melting down, and
for some reason has chosen Fairfield Life as
the place where he wants to do it.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Identification and saturational clarity

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity  wrote:
> 
>   An atheist may be in awe, but
> > basically (Unless he is a Buddhist or Taoist)he is just exploring
> > a kind of a metaphysical study. So he may be in awe, yes. But he
> > cannot LOVE reality as such, and he cannot develop a passion about
> > it.
> 
> Boy, Michael, I don't think that's true. Some of
> the most passionate expressions of love for
> reality-as-such that I've ever encountered have
> come from atheists.>>

Yes, and only fools think that theists and atheists exist.
Neither exists.
Love exists.


OffWorld
(as usual way ahead of the crowd)

[FairfieldLife] Pressing Question of the Hour

[off_world_beings]

Is Harry Potter Gay?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071021/ap_en_ot/books_potter_dumbledore


OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] 'Emotions Run Amok in Sleep-Deprived Brains'

[Robert]

Emotions Run Amok in Sleep-Deprived Brains
By Charles Q. Choi, Special to LiveScience
posted: 22 October 2007 12:02 pm ET
  
Without sleep, the emotional centers of our brains dramatically overreact to 
bad experiences, research now reveals. 
"When we're sleep deprived, it's really as if the brain is reverting to more 
primitive behavior, regressing in terms of the control humans normally have 
over their emotions," researcher Matthew Walker, a neuroscientist at the 
University of California, Berkeley, told LiveScience. 
Anyone who has ever gone without a good night's sleep is aware that doing so 
can make a person emotionally irrational. While past studies have revealed that 
sleep loss can impair the immune system and brain processes such as learning 
and memory, there has been surprisingly little research into why sleep 
deprivation affects emotions, Walker said. 
Walker and his colleagues had 26 healthy volunteers either get normal sleep or 
get sleep deprived, making them stay awake for roughly 35 hours. On the 
following day, the researchers scanned brain activity in volunteers using 
functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) while they viewed 100 images. 
These started off as emotionally neutral, such as photos of spoons or baskets, 
but they became increasingly negative in tone over time—for instance, pictures 
of attacking sharks or vipers. 
"While we predicted that the emotional centers of the brain would overreact 
after sleep deprivation, we didn't predict they'd overreact as much as they 
did," Walker said. "They became more than 60 percent more reactive to negative 
emotional stimuli. That's a whopping increase—the emotional parts of the brain 
just seem to run amok." 
The researchers pinpointed this hyperactive response to a shutdown of the 
prefrontal lobe, a brain region that normally keeps emotions under control. 
This structure is relatively new in human evolution, "and so it may not yet 
have adapted ways to cope with certain biological extremes," Walker speculated. 
"Human beings are one of the few species that really deprive themselves of 
sleep. It's a real oddity in nature." 
In modern life, people often deprive themselves of sleep "almost on a daily 
basis," Walker said. "Alarm bells should be ringing about that behavior—no pun 
intended." 
Future research can focus on which components of sleep help restore emotional 
stability—"whether it's dreaming REM sleep or slow-wave, non-dreaming forms of 
sleep," Walker said. 
Many psychiatric disorders, "particularly ones involving emotions, seem to be 
linked with abnormal sleep," he added. "Traditionally people mostly thought the 
psychiatric disorders were contributing to the sleep abnormalities, but of 
course it could be the other way around. If we can find out which parts of 
sleep are most key to emotional stability, we already have a good range of 
drugs that can push and pull at these kinds of sleep and maybe help treat 
certain kinds of psychiatric conditions." 
The findings are detailed in the Oct. 23 issue of the journal Current Biology.

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Who is "in control" of our lives?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sorry, but I really cannot get past the moral-
> equivalence problem that you have in common with
> Rick and several others here. It's such a
> gigantic blind spot...

Speaking of gigantic blind spots, that's
37 posts, Judy...you're out.

God must have wanted you to go over the
limit, right?  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Ron Paul is riding wave of rising consciousness.

[off_world_beings]

Ron Paul is ACTUALLY riding a wave of rising consciousness in the world.
Nothing can stop him. 
Not even he can stop him.
It is not within the control of men.

This I state as my theory, long before anyone else stated it.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gsXLf_w_0fs

OffWorld 
(as usual way ahead of the crowd)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn

[Vaj]

On Oct 22, 2007, at 5:46 PM, bob_brigante wrote:



> What, exactly, is a bija mantra anyway?
> >
> > Do bija mantras always have to be recieved in one-on-one
> > initiation from a genuine tantric guru? Are bija mantras
> > effective if you find them in a book?
> >
> > Why all the secrecy about bija mantras?
> >
>

***

The thing about bija mantras (which are certainly not secret, being
listed in several Vedic texts) needing their proper use to be taught
by a teacher is because they are powerful. The ancient text Srimad
Devi Bhagavatam (this is different from the Srimad Bhagavatam) says,
after listing the bija mantras used in TM, that results will not be
good for those who try to learn TM on their own (I can't cite the
page, it's been too long since I read the SDB):

http://tinyurl.com/e4q48



This is on the Spiritual Texts online archive for free now:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/db/index.htm

Re: [FairfieldLife] ...yawn...

[Angela Mailander]

I know.  Enlightenment is a real bore in my opinion.  But follow this link.  
It'll wake you up:
  
   http://birdloversonly.blogspot.com/2007/09/may-i-have-this-dance.html

off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:   
umyawn...
 
 ('scuse me...)
 
 OffWorld
 
 
 
   

 Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

[FairfieldLife] ...yawn...

[off_world_beings]

umyawn...

('scuse me...)


OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Who is "in control" of our lives?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Judy, I don't want to prolong this because I do understand that you 
> feel that if Barry just stopped acting the way you don't agree with 
> then you wouldn't have to point out to everyone that he's 
> acting/writing the way you don't agree with.
> 
> But there is a world of difference (IMO) between Barry posting
> on FFL, no matter how loose you believe he may be with a fact or
> how soft his argument may be or provocative his rhetoric is, as 
> compared to Bush, Al Qaeda, Sai Baba, Maharishi, or Muktananda
> and the level of influence and power they exercise in world affairs.



Yes, Marek. Did they always exercise this level
of influence and power in world affairs?

And how much influence does Barry currently
exercise in the affairs of FFL?

> But, to address one of your points directly, I am always 
> dissappointed when Barry makes a point of needling you or
> criticising you gratuitously, too.

"Too."  I see.

  The knee-jerk reaction you both exhibit 
> regarding the other has some other underlying motivation that is, I 
> feel, other than what either of you state is the particular reason 
> you are writing about in any particular post.

Sorry, but I really cannot get past the moral-
equivalence problem that you have in common with
Rick and several others here. It's such a
gigantic blind spot that I can't take seriously
anything else you say about the conflict between
Barry and me.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Identification and saturational clarity

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Thank you, Judy, this is excellent and such a better expression of 
> what I was trying to write about in reply to t3rinity's post.

Thanks for your post Marek.  I don't think any claim about what
another person can or cannot experience could be valid.  How could
anyone know this?  I certainly don't think that people who believe in
God can't be rational people who have good reasons for the things they
choose, or are limited in any other way. 

One of my goals in this discussion has been to make a case that as far
apart as atheists and theists seem on that one issue (and for one
version of God), they share much more humanity.  I set myself up a bit
making this point on a spiritual board where my POV has a high
"cootie" factor.

I was not trying to convince anyone that my POV is right or debate
it's superiority (as Edg wants me to do) or try to argue that others
should adapt it.  But evaluating my capacities for love or passion for
reality as limited seems to go against everything I value in other
people's spiritual perspective. Spirituality may aspire to explain the
ultimate reality of life, but at the very least I would expect it to
be able to summon a good Kumbaya vibe around the human campfire.


 



> 
> **
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity  wrote:
> > 
> >   An atheist may be in awe, but
> > > basically (Unless he is a Buddhist or Taoist)he is just exploring
> > > a kind of a metaphysical study. So he may be in awe, yes. But he
> > > cannot LOVE reality as such, and he cannot develop a passion about
> > > it.
> > 
> > Boy, Michael, I don't think that's true. Some of
> > the most passionate expressions of love for
> > reality-as-such that I've ever encountered have
> > come from atheists.
> > 
> > One of my favorite passages is from the end of
> > atheist physicist Heinz Pagels's "Cosmic Code,"
> > a book for the general reader about physics and
> > quantum mechanics:
> > 
> > "Science is not the enemy of humanity but one of the deepest 
> > expressions of the human desire to realize that vision of infinite 
> > knowledge. Science shows us that the visible world is neither 
> matter 
> > nor spirit; the visible world is the invisible organization of 
> > energy. I do not know what the future sentences of the cosmic code 
> > will be. But it seems certain that the recent human contact with 
> the 
> > invisible world of quanta and the vastness of the cosmos will shape 
> > the destiny of our species or whatever we may become.
> > 
> > "I used to climb mountains in snow and ice, hanging onto the sides 
> of 
> > great rocks. I was describing one of my adventures to an older 
> friend 
> > once, and when I had finished he asked me, 'Why do you want to kill 
> > yourself?' I protested. I told him that the rewards I wanted were 
> of 
> > sight, of pleasure, of the thrill of pitting my body and my skills 
> > against nature. My friend replied, 'When you are as old as I am you 
> > will see that you are trying to kill yourself.'
> > 
> > "I often dream about falling. Such dreams are commonplace to the 
> > ambitious or those who climb mountains. I dreamed I was clutching 
> at 
> > the face of a rock but it did not hold. Gravel gave way. I grasped 
> > for a shrub, but it pulled loose, and in cold terror I fell into 
> the 
> > abyss. Suddenly I realized that my fall was relative; there was no 
> > bottom and no end. A feeling of pleasure overcame me. I realized 
> that 
> > what I embody, the principle of life, cannot be destroyed. It is 
> > written into the cosmic code, the order of the universe. As I 
> > continued to fall in the dark void, embraced by the vault of the 
> > heavens, I sang to the beauty of the stars and made my peace with 
> the 
> > darkness."
> > 
> > I don't think it gets much more passionate
> > than that.
> > 
> > There is a huge tragic irony in the last two
> > paragraphs, however. Not long after this was
> > written, Pagels died in a fall while mountain
> > climbing. Not only does that make the dream
> > rather eerie, but even more so the paragraph
> > above it about mountain climbing involving a
> > subconscious death wish.
> > 
> > It's almost as if Pagels had become impatient
> > with human progress toward the "infinite
> > knowledge" he refers to in the first paragraph,
> > and his subconscious mind had prodded him to
> > "let go" of the struggle to climb the mountains
> > of ignorance and instead experience directly his
> > oneness with the order of the universe.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Identification and saturational clarity

[Marek Reavis]

Thank you, Judy, this is excellent and such a better expression of 
what I was trying to write about in reply to t3rinity's post.

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity  wrote:
> 
>   An atheist may be in awe, but
> > basically (Unless he is a Buddhist or Taoist)he is just exploring
> > a kind of a metaphysical study. So he may be in awe, yes. But he
> > cannot LOVE reality as such, and he cannot develop a passion about
> > it.
> 
> Boy, Michael, I don't think that's true. Some of
> the most passionate expressions of love for
> reality-as-such that I've ever encountered have
> come from atheists.
> 
> One of my favorite passages is from the end of
> atheist physicist Heinz Pagels's "Cosmic Code,"
> a book for the general reader about physics and
> quantum mechanics:
> 
> "Science is not the enemy of humanity but one of the deepest 
> expressions of the human desire to realize that vision of infinite 
> knowledge. Science shows us that the visible world is neither 
matter 
> nor spirit; the visible world is the invisible organization of 
> energy. I do not know what the future sentences of the cosmic code 
> will be. But it seems certain that the recent human contact with 
the 
> invisible world of quanta and the vastness of the cosmos will shape 
> the destiny of our species or whatever we may become.
> 
> "I used to climb mountains in snow and ice, hanging onto the sides 
of 
> great rocks. I was describing one of my adventures to an older 
friend 
> once, and when I had finished he asked me, 'Why do you want to kill 
> yourself?' I protested. I told him that the rewards I wanted were 
of 
> sight, of pleasure, of the thrill of pitting my body and my skills 
> against nature. My friend replied, 'When you are as old as I am you 
> will see that you are trying to kill yourself.'
> 
> "I often dream about falling. Such dreams are commonplace to the 
> ambitious or those who climb mountains. I dreamed I was clutching 
at 
> the face of a rock but it did not hold. Gravel gave way. I grasped 
> for a shrub, but it pulled loose, and in cold terror I fell into 
the 
> abyss. Suddenly I realized that my fall was relative; there was no 
> bottom and no end. A feeling of pleasure overcame me. I realized 
that 
> what I embody, the principle of life, cannot be destroyed. It is 
> written into the cosmic code, the order of the universe. As I 
> continued to fall in the dark void, embraced by the vault of the 
> heavens, I sang to the beauty of the stars and made my peace with 
the 
> darkness."
> 
> I don't think it gets much more passionate
> than that.
> 
> There is a huge tragic irony in the last two
> paragraphs, however. Not long after this was
> written, Pagels died in a fall while mountain
> climbing. Not only does that make the dream
> rather eerie, but even more so the paragraph
> above it about mountain climbing involving a
> subconscious death wish.
> 
> It's almost as if Pagels had become impatient
> with human progress toward the "infinite
> knowledge" he refers to in the first paragraph,
> and his subconscious mind had prodded him to
> "let go" of the struggle to climb the mountains
> of ignorance and instead experience directly his
> oneness with the order of the universe.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Who is "in control" of our lives?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of authfriend
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 11:42 AM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Who is "in control" of our lives?
> 
>  
> 
> Note once again the astounding *moral equivalence*
> inherent in Rick's vacuuous little speculation:
> between a hypocritical phony completely lacking in
> any scruples about fairness and honesty, and the
> person who is calling attention to his behavior--
> neither, in Rick's mind, apparently more deserving
> of criticism or judgment than the other (although
> what criticism there is typically is directed at
> me).
> 
> Say, why don't we all relax and allow the Bushies
> to be what they are without criticism or
> judgment? And Al Qaeda too, while we're at it?
> 
> How about we relax and allow Maharishi be what
> he is without criticism or judgment? Or Bevan?
> Or Sai Baba or Sri Chinmoy or Muktananda?
> 
> Let's just ignore all ethical lapses lest we
> get in the way of our own precious enlightenment.
> Yeah, that's the ticket.
> 
> You make good points and I was making a "vacuuous little 
> speculation," but it may still be somewhat valid. I think
> the more adamant and "black and white" we tend to be in our
> judgments, including those of Bush, Al Qaeda, etc., the
> more locked into a narrow individual perspective and closed
> to the nuanced nature of reality we tend to be. Can you
> admit that Barry possesses many qualities you appreciate,
> because I'll bet he does, and vice versa.

He has many *potential* good qualities; I've
said that many times. He isn't an "evil" person,
he's someone who is deeply fearful that who he
really is isn't acceptable. This fear is what
generates all the ugliness and almost completely
suppresses the good stuff.

He's talked himself into believing he really is
who he presents himself to be, but the strain of
maintaining that phony act shows more and more
the older he gets.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Identification and saturational clarity

[matrixmonitor]

--Heinz R. Pagels, died on July 23, 1988, in a mountain climbing 
accident on Pyramid Peak in Aspen, Colorado. His death had an 
enormous impact on a wide and disparate range of individuals who, 
each in their own way, were affected by his inquiring mind. 

Heinz, a physicist, was Executive Director of The New York Academy of 
Sciences, adjunct professor of physics at Rockefeller University, and 
president of the International League for Human Rights. He was the 
author of three books: The Cosmic Code (1982)Perfect Symmetry (1985), 
and Dreams of Reason: The Rise of the Sciences of Complexity (1988). 
He was also a founding member, and, at the time of his death, 
president of "The 




- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity  wrote:
> 
>   An atheist may be in awe, but
> > basically (Unless he is a Buddhist or Taoist)he is just exploring
> > a kind of a metaphysical study. So he may be in awe, yes. But he
> > cannot LOVE reality as such, and he cannot develop a passion about
> > it.
> 
> Boy, Michael, I don't think that's true. Some of
> the most passionate expressions of love for
> reality-as-such that I've ever encountered have
> come from atheists.
> 
> One of my favorite passages is from the end of
> atheist physicist Heinz Pagels's "Cosmic Code,"
> a book for the general reader about physics and
> quantum mechanics:
> 
> "Science is not the enemy of humanity but one of the deepest 
> expressions of the human desire to realize that vision of infinite 
> knowledge. Science shows us that the visible world is neither 
matter 
> nor spirit; the visible world is the invisible organization of 
> energy. I do not know what the future sentences of the cosmic code 
> will be. But it seems certain that the recent human contact with 
the 
> invisible world of quanta and the vastness of the cosmos will shape 
> the destiny of our species or whatever we may become.
> 
> "I used to climb mountains in snow and ice, hanging onto the sides 
of 
> great rocks. I was describing one of my adventures to an older 
friend 
> once, and when I had finished he asked me, 'Why do you want to kill 
> yourself?' I protested. I told him that the rewards I wanted were 
of 
> sight, of pleasure, of the thrill of pitting my body and my skills 
> against nature. My friend replied, 'When you are as old as I am you 
> will see that you are trying to kill yourself.'
> 
> "I often dream about falling. Such dreams are commonplace to the 
> ambitious or those who climb mountains. I dreamed I was clutching 
at 
> the face of a rock but it did not hold. Gravel gave way. I grasped 
> for a shrub, but it pulled loose, and in cold terror I fell into 
the 
> abyss. Suddenly I realized that my fall was relative; there was no 
> bottom and no end. A feeling of pleasure overcame me. I realized 
that 
> what I embody, the principle of life, cannot be destroyed. It is 
> written into the cosmic code, the order of the universe. As I 
> continued to fall in the dark void, embraced by the vault of the 
> heavens, I sang to the beauty of the stars and made my peace with 
the 
> darkness."
> 
> I don't think it gets much more passionate
> than that.
> 
> There is a huge tragic irony in the last two
> paragraphs, however. Not long after this was
> written, Pagels died in a fall while mountain
> climbing. Not only does that make the dream
> rather eerie, but even more so the paragraph
> above it about mountain climbing involving a
> subconscious death wish.
> 
> It's almost as if Pagels had become impatient
> with human progress toward the "infinite
> knowledge" he refers to in the first paragraph,
> and his subconscious mind had prodded him to
> "let go" of the struggle to climb the mountains
> of ignorance and instead experience directly his
> oneness with the order of the universe.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Identification and saturational clarity

[Marek Reavis]

T3rinity, what you've written (below) is way over my present mental 
acuity to grok but I do agree with you that Curtis is not the 
rational atheist Edg is railing against.  Basically, I don't get what 
Edg's problem is; if Curtis just said he believed in a God then 
that's cool, but if he follows his true feelings and interior muse 
and continues to investigate those feelings for their continued 
validity against what he learns and in the light of other new 
experiences, somehow that's standing in a cesspool?

Furthermore, from what I've read of Curtis and the personal 
experiences he has alluded to, I would wager that his interior life 
as well as his appreciation and awe of the manifest universe is 
something most folks would give their right arm for (that is, if they 
could even appreciate or comprehend it).

And Curtis isn't denying an underlying ground or basis or mystery to 
the universe, quite the contrary, he appears to be marveling and 
enjoying the mystery that can't be explained (either by religion or 
science or rational thought).  As I understand it, he's qualifying 
all the mystical experiences he has had (with the admission that they 
carried all the self-evident authority that such interior experiences 
convey) with the caveat that they "may" all be just mechanisms within 
the physiology of the species.  For that matter, didn't Maharishi 
first explain the concept of the siddhis as just tweaking the inner 
physiology such that the desired (siddhi) experience was produced 
from the side of the experiencer without having to resort to an 
experience outside the experiencer?

It just doesn't seem to me that Curtis or Turq is engaged in a 
superficial metaphysical study or that they are under the dictates of 
the mind or that an atheist can't truly LOVE what IS.  The ability to 
Be and to Love cannot be circumscribed by whether or not you 
subscribe to a "belief" in God.  If you fall through the rabbit hole 
you're not required to label it by any particular name to know that 
you've fallen.

Anyway, mostly rambling, but it doesn't compute with me that these 
guys or atheists in general are somehow excluded from anything and it 
puzzles me that so much energy is spent attempting to knock them off 
their own internal gyroscope.

Marek

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> >
> > Curtis, et al,
> > 
> > To me, this "refining an atheistic stance" is merely a waste of 
time
> > like having a discussion about where's the best place to stand in 
a
> > cesspool.  "Oh, stand over here, cuz the puke stench is easier to 
bear
> > than than the doo-doo stink over there." 
> 
> Well I don't know about the way you put it Edg, but basically,
> principally I agree with you. Out of reasons I have already tried to
> point out, and that particularely directed at a 'Rationalist 
Atheist'.
> The moment you deny an ultimate ground / being / mystery at the 
basis
> of creation which cannot be rationally contained (for a rationalist
> its only a matter of time till science will understand it all), you
> have no way of attaining anything, or evolving towards a 'higher
> goal', like the mystic would do. All the fine-edging on yur
> intellecual POV will be mute, as it is clear what becomes of you in
> the end: A dissipation into the inconsciousness.
> 
> I am not sure though, if Curtis is really in this category. It seems
> he is still on his quest.
> 
> 
> 
> > Major AWE can only come from seeing Pure Being's manifested 
diversity
> > as ALIVE, not MERELY an almost infinite, glorious, incredible
> > clockworks a'tickin'.  It's all the difference between looking at 
the
> > Mona Lisa, and looking at the Mona Lisa and understanding that 
she's
> > actually there looking back at you -- and her smile now blazes at 
one.  
> > 
> > That's the difference between an atheist's awe and 
enlightenment's awe.
> 
> I think thats the bottom line for me: Religion /spirituality is all
> about living it and practising. An atheist may be in awe, but
> basically (Unless he is a Buddhist or Taoist)he is just exploring a
> kind of a metaphysical study. So he may be in awe, yes. But he 
cannot
> LOVE reality as such, and he cannot develop a passion about it. 
(maybe
> some out there regard or sense this passion as something dangerous)
> There is no one there to love, except of course his spouse, his
> children etc. He can love everything in the objective world, but of
> course he cannot love the WHOLE  Essence in a personified way.
> Similarely, a Buddhist, being an atheist (soft one)can have all the
> detachment in the world, but whatever awe Curtis or barry may have, 
it
> cannot translate into love - not at least in a unfified way towards
> the essence of everything. A believer to the contrary is more
> interested in loving God than proving him/her.
> 
> An atheist is under the dictate of th mind - he can gauge what the
> mind can know a

[FairfieldLife] Re: Identification and saturational clarity

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

  An atheist may be in awe, but
> basically (Unless he is a Buddhist or Taoist)he is just exploring
> a kind of a metaphysical study. So he may be in awe, yes. But he
> cannot LOVE reality as such, and he cannot develop a passion about
> it.

Boy, Michael, I don't think that's true. Some of
the most passionate expressions of love for
reality-as-such that I've ever encountered have
come from atheists.

One of my favorite passages is from the end of
atheist physicist Heinz Pagels's "Cosmic Code,"
a book for the general reader about physics and
quantum mechanics:

"Science is not the enemy of humanity but one of the deepest 
expressions of the human desire to realize that vision of infinite 
knowledge. Science shows us that the visible world is neither matter 
nor spirit; the visible world is the invisible organization of 
energy. I do not know what the future sentences of the cosmic code 
will be. But it seems certain that the recent human contact with the 
invisible world of quanta and the vastness of the cosmos will shape 
the destiny of our species or whatever we may become.

"I used to climb mountains in snow and ice, hanging onto the sides of 
great rocks. I was describing one of my adventures to an older friend 
once, and when I had finished he asked me, 'Why do you want to kill 
yourself?' I protested. I told him that the rewards I wanted were of 
sight, of pleasure, of the thrill of pitting my body and my skills 
against nature. My friend replied, 'When you are as old as I am you 
will see that you are trying to kill yourself.'

"I often dream about falling. Such dreams are commonplace to the 
ambitious or those who climb mountains. I dreamed I was clutching at 
the face of a rock but it did not hold. Gravel gave way. I grasped 
for a shrub, but it pulled loose, and in cold terror I fell into the 
abyss. Suddenly I realized that my fall was relative; there was no 
bottom and no end. A feeling of pleasure overcame me. I realized that 
what I embody, the principle of life, cannot be destroyed. It is 
written into the cosmic code, the order of the universe. As I 
continued to fall in the dark void, embraced by the vault of the 
heavens, I sang to the beauty of the stars and made my peace with the 
darkness."

I don't think it gets much more passionate
than that.

There is a huge tragic irony in the last two
paragraphs, however. Not long after this was
written, Pagels died in a fall while mountain
climbing. Not only does that make the dream
rather eerie, but even more so the paragraph
above it about mountain climbing involving a
subconscious death wish.

It's almost as if Pagels had become impatient
with human progress toward the "infinite
knowledge" he refers to in the first paragraph,
and his subconscious mind had prodded him to
"let go" of the struggle to climb the mountains
of ignorance and instead experience directly his
oneness with the order of the universe.

[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn

[biosoundbill]

According to this guy Gabriel,who has Swami Muktananda in his 
lineage, the repetition of a Biijamantra linked to a particular 
deity will develop in a person the qualities and attributes embodied 
by that very deity.They are all doubtless auspicious and will grant 
the best fruits to you provided that you repeat them with respect 
and good pronunciation.
I think that the bija mantras this guy has on his site with the 'ng' 
endings are the most powerful Tantric Bija mantras. You will find a 
few of the 'meaningless sounds' used by TM amongst them also Richard!

http://www.sanskrit-
sanscrito.com.ar/english/sanskrit_sacredmantras/sacredmantras1.html

If you visit the following website -
http://www.tantrananda.com/

You can purchase cds with bija mantras very similar to Gabriels 
except they end in 'm' rather than 'ng' for example 'Shring'for 
Lakshmi becomes 'Shrim' where the 'rim' part is pronounced the same 
as the 'rim' of a wheel.

I think,or in my opinion these are the 2nd most powerful set of bija 
mantras.

Finally if you listen to some of Thomas Ashley Farrand's cds you 
will get the 3rd most powerful set of bija mantras- for example;- 
Eim,Shreem,Hreem,Kreem,Kleem etc

If you experiment you will find that the first set ala Gabriel will 
take you much deeper in meditation than the 2nd set,and the 2nd set 
will take you many times deeper in meditation than the 3rd set.

I think through experimentation on early TM Guinea pigs MMY 
discovered this.

For example the age group 24 to 35 got a Lakshmi Bija.

The younger ones got the more powerful version 'Shring,' and the 
rest were penalized for being older and got 'shrim'
BTW I have tried meditating with both,and have transcended on 
both,but definately in my experience 'shring' works faster,and is 
much more powerful.

Namaste,

Billy


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> 
> > What, exactly, is a bija mantra anyway?
> > > 
> > > Do bija mantras always have to be recieved in one-on-one
> > > initiation from a genuine tantric guru? Are bija mantras
> > > effective if you find them in a book? 
> > > 
> > > Why all the secrecy about bija mantras?
> > >
> > 
> 
> ***
> 
> The thing about bija mantras (which are certainly not secret, 
being 
> listed in several Vedic texts) needing their proper use to be 
taught 
> by a teacher is because they are powerful. The ancient text Srimad 
> Devi Bhagavatam (this is different from the Srimad Bhagavatam) 
says, 
> after listing the bija mantras used in TM, that results will not 
be 
> good for those who try to learn TM on their own (I can't cite the 
> page, it's been too long since I read the SDB):
> 
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/e4q48
> 
> "Bija" means "seed" -- these are powerful mantras, which when 
planted 
> properly, result in the growth of consciousness in the initiate, 
so 
> their proper use needs to be guided by a teacher, just as you 
would 
> check with an expert gardener if you had some seeds you wanted to 
> plant and enjoy optimal growth of the plant.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Identification and saturational clarity

[Duveyoung]

Good stuff, T, good stuff.  I wanted to use the word "love," but I was
afraid I'd come off as even more new age, but yeah, I've posted here
that true love is consciousness, and thank you for helping me come
back to that.  More later, no time to reply-enjoy your words right now.

Edg

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> >
> > Curtis, et al,
> > 
> > To me, this "refining an atheistic stance" is merely a waste of time
> > like having a discussion about where's the best place to stand in a
> > cesspool.  "Oh, stand over here, cuz the puke stench is easier to bear
> > than than the doo-doo stink over there." 
> 
> Well I don't know about the way you put it Edg, but basically,
> principally I agree with you. Out of reasons I have already tried to
> point out, and that particularely directed at a 'Rationalist Atheist'.
> The moment you deny an ultimate ground / being / mystery at the basis
> of creation which cannot be rationally contained (for a rationalist
> its only a matter of time till science will understand it all), you
> have no way of attaining anything, or evolving towards a 'higher
> goal', like the mystic would do. All the fine-edging on yur
> intellecual POV will be mute, as it is clear what becomes of you in
> the end: A dissipation into the inconsciousness.
> 
> I am not sure though, if Curtis is really in this category. It seems
> he is still on his quest.
> 
> 
> 
> > Major AWE can only come from seeing Pure Being's manifested diversity
> > as ALIVE, not MERELY an almost infinite, glorious, incredible
> > clockworks a'tickin'.  It's all the difference between looking at the
> > Mona Lisa, and looking at the Mona Lisa and understanding that she's
> > actually there looking back at you -- and her smile now blazes at
one.  
> > 
> > That's the difference between an atheist's awe and enlightenment's
awe.
> 
> I think thats the bottom line for me: Religion /spirituality is all
> about living it and practising. An atheist may be in awe, but
> basically (Unless he is a Buddhist or Taoist)he is just exploring a
> kind of a metaphysical study. So he may be in awe, yes. But he cannot
> LOVE reality as such, and he cannot develop a passion about it. (maybe
> some out there regard or sense this passion as something dangerous)
> There is no one there to love, except of course his spouse, his
> children etc. He can love everything in the objective world, but of
> course he cannot love the WHOLE  Essence in a personified way.
> Similarely, a Buddhist, being an atheist (soft one)can have all the
> detachment in the world, but whatever awe Curtis or barry may have, it
> cannot translate into love - not at least in a unfified way towards
> the essence of everything. A believer to the contrary is more
> interested in loving God than proving him/her.
> 
> An atheist is under the dictate of th mind - he can gauge what the
> mind can know and what the mind cannot know. A believer does not trust
> the rationale, he trusts his heart only. He is not interested in the
> truth of his mind, if he/she is practising, he will trust the truth of
> his heart/soul. This is completely internal and has no relationship to
> external reality. I am very much a fan of Kierkegaard when it comes to
> his views on subjectivity and choice:
> 
> "We cannot think our choices in life, we must live them; and even
> those choices that we often think about become different once life
> itself enters into the picture. For Kierkegaard, the type of
> objectivity that a scientist or historian might use misses the
> point—humans are not motivated and do not find meaning in life through
> pure objectivity. Instead, they find it through passion, desire, and
> moral and religious commitment. These phenomena are not objectively
> provable—nor do they come about through any form of analysis of the
> external world; they come about through inward reflection, a way of
> looking at one's life that evades objective scrutiny. Instead, true
> self-worth originates in a relation to something that transcends human
> powers, something that provides a meaning because it inspires awe and
> wonder and demands total and absolute commitment in achieving it."
> 
> "Johannes Climacus, in Concluding Unscientific Postscript to
> Philosophical Fragments, writes the following cryptic line:
> "Subjectivity is Truth". To understand Climacus's concept of the
> individual, it is important to look at what he says regarding
> subjectivity. What is subjectivity? In very rough terms, subjectivity
> refers to what is personal to the individual—what makes the individual
> who he is in distinction from others. It is what is inside—what the
> individual can see, feel, think, imagine, dream, etc. It is often
> opposed to objectivity—that which is outside the individual, which the
> individual and others around can feel, see, measure, and think about.
> Another way to interpret subjectivity

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fire in town with SV houses

[Duveyoung]

I remember way back when someone read aloud an article to Maharishi
about a house that got "skipped over" by a tornado that leveled
everything else in the neighborhood.  The owners were quoted, "We're
transcendental meditators, and we were meditating when the tornado came."

On the other hand, if the tornado had hit that house, they probably
wouldn't have mentioned TMing during it, eh?  So these types of 
reports are skewed towards the miraculous maybe.

Edg


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In the last fire that hit SoCal town Ramona, which has a group of SV 
> homes, none of the homes was hit by the fire, altho it came very close, 
> right up to the property line. Fire is again impacting Ramona, and it 
> will be interesting to see if the SV homes escape again:
> 
> http://www.euronews.net/index.php?page=info&article=449710&lng=1
> 
> If we don't hear from the SV homeowners there, I guess that means that 
> the homes were not spared.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn

[bob_brigante]

> What, exactly, is a bija mantra anyway?
> > 
> > Do bija mantras always have to be recieved in one-on-one
> > initiation from a genuine tantric guru? Are bija mantras
> > effective if you find them in a book? 
> > 
> > Why all the secrecy about bija mantras?
> >
> 

***

The thing about bija mantras (which are certainly not secret, being 
listed in several Vedic texts) needing their proper use to be taught 
by a teacher is because they are powerful. The ancient text Srimad 
Devi Bhagavatam (this is different from the Srimad Bhagavatam) says, 
after listing the bija mantras used in TM, that results will not be 
good for those who try to learn TM on their own (I can't cite the 
page, it's been too long since I read the SDB):


http://tinyurl.com/e4q48

"Bija" means "seed" -- these are powerful mantras, which when planted 
properly, result in the growth of consciousness in the initiate, so 
their proper use needs to be guided by a teacher, just as you would 
check with an expert gardener if you had some seeds you wanted to 
plant and enjoy optimal growth of the plant.

[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


> The question is, where do the TM bija mantras come from?

According to Swami Yogananda from the vibrations of the spinal chakras
which, incidentally also make up the Sanskrit (Devanagari) alphabet.
Fifty petals or vibratory sounds in the lower 6 chakras and 50X20 in
the seventh or the 1000 petaled lotus/Sahasrara.



> From Swami Brahmanand Saraswati? From a book? Did the
> Marshy just make up some non-sense gibberish and then
> call them bijas? If he got them from his teacher, the 
> question becomes, where did the Marshy's teacher get 
> the bija mantras? Was Brahmmanand a tantric?

Good questions, I've heard it hear they are found in the Upanishads.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe01/sbe01239.htm
 
> What, exactly, is a bija mantra anyway?

A vibratory sound that has its source in the spinal chakras and helps
to form the Sanskrit Alphabet, (simplified).
 
> Do bija mantras always have to be recieved in one-on-one
> initiation from a genuine tantric guru? 


No, since MMY is not a tantric guru and the mantras appear to work! We
do know however TM is not a Diksha Initiation since this initiation
requires the student to be advanced enough to receive actual God
communion from his enlightened (Sat-guru) Guru.  MMY is not a personal
Guru. A chela not ready for Diksha would injure himself from the power
ful vibrations of God Consciousness hence he would NOT be Initiated!

> Are bija mantras
> effective if you find them in a book? 

Probably.
 
> Why all the secrecy about bija mantras?

I don't know why!

According to whoeverpostedthis they're in the Upanishads!?! 

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe01/sbe01239.htm

[FairfieldLife] Re: World War III?

[Richard J. Williams]

do.rflex wrote:
> CBS Poll: Overwhelming Support for SCHIP
> 
Giving families a refundable tax credit or deduction 
against payroll taxes to buy health insurance would 
let them choose a plan that meets their needs, a plan 
that included the coverage and doctors they want. 
Also, if they change or lose their job, it would be 
portable and they wouldn't lose their coverage.

Read more:

After The Veto, Let Uninsured Have A Choice:
http://tinyurl.com/32oqz8

[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn

[biosoundbill]

What, exactly, is a bija mantra anyway?
> 
> Do bija mantras always have to be recieved in one-on-one
> initiation from a genuine tantric guru? Are bija mantras
> effective if you find them in a book? 
> 
> Why all the secrecy about bija mantras?
>

I think by getting an initiation from from a TM Teacher,or from 
genuine tantric guru - if you can find one, you are removing all the 
uncertainty. I transcended for the first time 3 days after 
learning,so for me TM is a sure thing.
I don't agree with the price for learning nowadays,and I think the 
TMO is weird,but for me the technique is still brilliant.
I regularly chant longer mantras for different purposes in life,but 
always do my twice daily 20mins of TM.

Tantrics tend to chant mantras internally.All mantras can be used 
without initiation,but they are more effective when given by a 
realised guru or with his blessing.

Billy

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> biosoundbill wrote:
> > After all is said and done, I can't complain about 
> > the way I was taught to meditate in TM, or even about 
> > the mantra I got, meaningless or otherwise. 
> >
> But I didn't say that your mantra was "meaningless".
> According to several informants here, you got the nick
> name of a Hindu demi-God to repeat in your meditation.
> The two Barry's seem to agree with this and so does Vaj
> the Nath. Mr. Manning even taught this when he was a TM
> teacher. But apparently Judy doesn't agree with this. 
> 
> > It works for me, and even though the organization that 
> > propagates TM has become ultra commercial, the technique 
> > still holds good. 
> >
> > So I won't distrust the method or the mantra I got. 
> > It came at the right time in my life, saved my life, 
> > and continues to work in my life. What more can I say, 
> > except I don't want an advanced technique, the basic one 
> > is working fine!
> > 
> You don't get any more mantras in the advanced technique,
> according to Judy. You get only one mantra in TM - the 
> other add-on phrases are just plain Sanskrit words like, 
> Sri, Namah, etc.
> 
> The question is, where do the TM bija mantras come from?
> From Swami Brahmanand Saraswati? From a book? Did the
> Marshy just make up some non-sense gibberish and then
> call them bijas? If he got them from his teacher, the 
> question becomes, where did the Marshy's teacher get 
> the bija mantras? Was Brahmmanand a tantric?
> 
> What, exactly, is a bija mantra anyway?
> 
> Do bija mantras always have to be recieved in one-on-one
> initiation from a genuine tantric guru? Are bija mantras
> effective if you find them in a book? 
> 
> Why all the secrecy about bija mantras?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: ..."the first ruler of the universe..."

[bob_brigante]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante  
wrote:
> >
> > GGN
> > http://tinyurl.com/yoxxwo
> >
> > "We have been administering the world for the last few years 
under 
> > the spell of the Constitution of the Universe, 
> 


> Thanks, just in time for Halloween!
> 
> >snipped, the usual stuff.
>


***


Lord Shiva has goblins in his retinue, so you'll be OK...

[FairfieldLife] Re: World War III?

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 10/21/07 4:33:16 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> >  Well then it must be the will of the people that they do it.
> 
> Nope.  
> 
> Much of the legislation the GOP has blocked has been  overwhelmingly
> supported by the American people. The Webb amendment for  longer breaks
> for our troops and the extension of SCHIP are just two  examples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I suppose you have some evidence to back that claim up. 


CBS Poll: Overwhelming Support for SCHIP

CBS News is out with a new poll (PDF format) that makes it clear how
popular SCHIP - the State Children's Health Insurance Program - is
among the American people.  How about these numbers?

WOULD YOU FAVOR OR OPPOSE EXPANDING SCHIP?
Favor 81%
Oppose 15

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/CBS_news_poll_101707.pdf
Via: http://www.raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=10960

===

Apparently there was no public poll on the Webb Amendment. However it
was backed by the Military Officers Association of America
representing over 370,000 military officers.

---The fact that the GOP blocked this amendment speaks loudly of
their colossally hypocritical claims of "supporting the troops" and
falsely and repeatedly bloviating that the Democrats don't.---

In a written statement presented to the Senate Armed Services
Committee in March, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. Conway said
that "[t]he current deployment cycle requires commanders to focus
solely on those skill sets required to accomplish the mission in Iraq
and Afghanistan," adding, "[t]he result of this strain is evident in
the Marine Corps' limited ability to provide trained forces to project
power in support of other contingencies. ... To fulfill our mandate to
be 'most ready when the Nation is least ready,' our deployment cycles
must not only support training for irregular warfare, they must also
provide sufficient time for recovery, maintenance, and training for
other contingency missions." 

While active-duty Marines currently spend seven months deployed in
return for six months or less at home, Conway told the Senate Armed
Services Committee that he would like to return to a 1:2
"deployment-to-dwell" ratio -- spending two months at home for each
month deployed -- under which the Marines previously operated.

Similarly, in answers to the advance questions that Gen. George W.
Casey submitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee in February as
part of his nomination to become Army chief of staff, Casey stated
that "the Army minimum goal for Active Component units" is a 1:2
"deployment-to-dwell" ratio. 

Casey said: "we've returned units to Iraq with less than 12 months at
home station in order to meet the requirements on the ground. However,
this pace exacts a toll on the force--on equipment, on Soldiers, and
on their families." 

Links here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200709200011

[FairfieldLife] Fire in town with SV houses

[bob_brigante]

In the last fire that hit SoCal town Ramona, which has a group of SV 
homes, none of the homes was hit by the fire, altho it came very close, 
right up to the property line. Fire is again impacting Ramona, and it 
will be interesting to see if the SV homes escape again:

http://www.euronews.net/index.php?page=info&article=449710&lng=1

If we don't hear from the SV homeowners there, I guess that means that 
the homes were not spared.

[FairfieldLife] Re: ..."the first ruler of the universe..."

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> GGN
> http://tinyurl.com/yoxxwo
>
> "We have been administering the world for the last few years under 
> the spell of the Constitution of the Universe, 

Thanks, just in time for Halloween!

>snipped, the usual stuff.

[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn

[Richard J. Williams]

biosoundbill wrote:
> After all is said and done, I can't complain about 
> the way I was taught to meditate in TM, or even about 
> the mantra I got, meaningless or otherwise. 
>
But I didn't say that your mantra was "meaningless".
According to several informants here, you got the nick
name of a Hindu demi-God to repeat in your meditation.
The two Barry's seem to agree with this and so does Vaj
the Nath. Mr. Manning even taught this when he was a TM
teacher. But apparently Judy doesn't agree with this. 

> It works for me, and even though the organization that 
> propagates TM has become ultra commercial, the technique 
> still holds good. 
>
> So I won't distrust the method or the mantra I got. 
> It came at the right time in my life, saved my life, 
> and continues to work in my life. What more can I say, 
> except I don't want an advanced technique, the basic one 
> is working fine!
> 
You don't get any more mantras in the advanced technique,
according to Judy. You get only one mantra in TM - the 
other add-on phrases are just plain Sanskrit words like, 
Sri, Namah, etc.

The question is, where do the TM bija mantras come from?
>From Swami Brahmanand Saraswati? From a book? Did the
Marshy just make up some non-sense gibberish and then
call them bijas? If he got them from his teacher, the 
question becomes, where did the Marshy's teacher get 
the bija mantras? Was Brahmmanand a tantric?

What, exactly, is a bija mantra anyway?

Do bija mantras always have to be recieved in one-on-one
initiation from a genuine tantric guru? Are bija mantras
effective if you find them in a book? 

Why all the secrecy about bija mantras?

[FairfieldLife] ..."the first ruler of the universe..."

[bob_brigante]

GGN
http://tinyurl.com/yoxxwo

'And I am with the ruler, the first ruler of the universe, on the 
ground of total Natural Law, the state of consciousness, silent rule.

* 

"We have been administering the world for the last few years under 
the spell of the Constitution of the Universe, Veda, the Will of God. 
The Will of God is with us in the script of the Veda. Veda is 
inscribed in Atma.Veda is inscribed in Atma. 'A' is the first 
syllable of Atma, and the same 'A' is the first syllable of Veda. The 
whole Veda is concentratedly lively in 'A', which is the expression 
of Atma. Everyone's Atma is lively in Total Knowledge, the Veda. And 
the Total Knowledge has infinite organizing power in it—infinite 
organizing power inherent in the first syllable of Veda, 'A', which 
is the impulse of Atma. 

'Total Knowledge and total organizing power. The characteristic 
quality of Total Knowledge is total organizing power. The power of 
Total Knowledge is lively in the power of total action. Action is 
vibrant, dynamic; knowledge, self-referral silence. And the self-
referral value also has its basis in organizing power. It holds onto 
itself. It holds onto itself. It remains in the self-referral state, 
in the state of Being, and that Being is directed to itself. 

'Self-referral Being is the steady administrative skill of the 
universe, uni-verse, ever-expanding universe. How it is administered? 
It is administered by the inward status of the administrator, the 
Purusha. Fortunately, with the blessings of Guru Dev, the technique 
of administration came to us in the characteristic quality of Purusha—
inward. Purusha, inward. Prakriti, outward, and inward. Outward and 
inward, they are two opposite directions of dynamism—outward, inward. 

'Outwardness is opposed to inwardness. Inwardness is opposed to 
outwardness. Summation of the two, unity of the two, is that grand 
principle of Being. Being balances inward becoming and outward 
becoming. Becoming in opposite direction is balanced by Being—Being, 
self-referral, and that has been named Purusha. So the rule of 
Purusha, the rule of Purusha, that handles the self-referral state of 
Being and the object-referral state of becoming, Being and becoming—
the balance, the grand balance between the two, is the secret of 
diversity governed by unity. Otherwise diversity will fall apart in 
all directions. Nothing will remain. 

'But everything remains. Everything remains [in the] outward 
direction, outwardly directed; and everything remains inwardly 
directed at the same time. Unity centralizes all diversity, and in 
centralizing all diversity, it maintains order in the flow of 
diversity. Otherwise, the outward flow will make the whole thing null 
and void. But outward and inward, outward and inward, outward and 
inward—two opposite directions—activity is that most perfect, most 
balanced state of administration that upholds infinite diversity of 
the ever-expanding universe in its steadiness. 

'This is Brahm. Our Guiding Light, Guru Dev, Brahmanand Saraswati. 
Saraswati is the steady, non-flowing flow of total intelligence that 
spontaneously maintains order in creation. That system of 
administration is coming back, and that is the dawn of light, after 
the long darkness of the night, coming back. So the administration in 
all our world family is getting to be from that most basic level, 
which is the level of Purusha, containing Prakriti within itself. 
Beautiful time for the world is coming. And it's not ''will come''. 
It is coming. It has started its value. Our aspiration is to quickly 
establish this most natural system of maintaining order in all our 
countries in the world. 

'Today is the Vijaya Dashami day, the day of victory, victory of the 
sun over the darkness of the night. It's a beautiful, beautiful 
fortune of ours that we got today's Vijaya Dashami day to do the Puja 
to Guru Dev, and we have done Puja to Guru Dev. 

'And I am with the ruler, the first ruler of the universe, on the 
ground of total Natural Law, the state of consciousness, silent rule. 

*

"We are in that atmosphere of total order, total order maintained by 
the Constitution of the Universe, the Veda, 'A', which is the flow of 
Atma, Atma. Aham Atma, I am Atma. Aham Atma, I am Atma. I am Veda—
Veda Aham. And one more ''I am''—I am the extension of the Veda, 
which is Vishwa, Vishwa the universe, I am the extension of the Veda. 
So Veda Aham, Aham Vishwam, Aham Brahm, Totality. 

'What is this Totality? We have been talking with Purusha. 
Purusha is aware of what this Totality is. Totality is infinity and 
point in togetherness, togetherness of infinity and point. And where 
is this togetherness? On the level of memory—Smriti, Smriti. Infinity 
has memory of the point value 'Ma'. 'A', infinity, has memory of the 
point value, 'Ma'. 'Ma' is point value. Point of infinity is 'Ma'. So 
the relationship between the infinity and its point is a moving 
relationship. 'A', infinity, move

RE: [FairfieldLife] MDix -- where you at? (Bush: I am relevant.)

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Duveyoung
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 3:21 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] MDix -- where you at? (Bush: I am relevant.)

 

Do you think 9-11 was a terrorist act or was it instead an inside job?

When Joe Biden was in FF someone asked him if he thought 9/11 was an inside
job. He said “Yes.” He realized there were no reporters there.


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.5/1084 - Release Date: 10/21/2007
3:09 PM
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn

[bob_brigante]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG."  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > For me, no effort or will whatsoever is involved.
> > > The whole thing is automatic, completely
> > > spontaneous. *Samyama* involves effort, but not
> > > dhyan.
> > 
> > TM is Samyama! Effortless Dharana (poorly translated as
> > concentration), leading to Dhyana (sublime spontaneous 
contemplation
> > on the Divine), and finally Samadhi (actual merging into oneness 
with
> > the object of contemplation, pure consciousness or the Divine).
> > 
> > So what happens down the road Judy (advanced techniques), when the
> > mantra is instructed to be thought at a certain 'chakra' 
location?  Is
> > that using effort?
> 



> Everything about TM becomes automatic after a short practise.
>


*

Right. TM is a natural technique -- natural meaning conducted by 
nature, so all you have to do make yourself available for a remake by 
nature. Effort is opposed to enjoyment, so to gain the concentrated 
happiness that is bliss consciousness, effort is not wanted.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Identification and saturational clarity

[t3rinity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Curtis, et al,
> 
> To me, this "refining an atheistic stance" is merely a waste of time
> like having a discussion about where's the best place to stand in a
> cesspool.  "Oh, stand over here, cuz the puke stench is easier to bear
> than than the doo-doo stink over there." 

Well I don't know about the way you put it Edg, but basically,
principally I agree with you. Out of reasons I have already tried to
point out, and that particularely directed at a 'Rationalist Atheist'.
The moment you deny an ultimate ground / being / mystery at the basis
of creation which cannot be rationally contained (for a rationalist
its only a matter of time till science will understand it all), you
have no way of attaining anything, or evolving towards a 'higher
goal', like the mystic would do. All the fine-edging on yur
intellecual POV will be mute, as it is clear what becomes of you in
the end: A dissipation into the inconsciousness.

I am not sure though, if Curtis is really in this category. It seems
he is still on his quest.



> Major AWE can only come from seeing Pure Being's manifested diversity
> as ALIVE, not MERELY an almost infinite, glorious, incredible
> clockworks a'tickin'.  It's all the difference between looking at the
> Mona Lisa, and looking at the Mona Lisa and understanding that she's
> actually there looking back at you -- and her smile now blazes at one.  
> 
> That's the difference between an atheist's awe and enlightenment's awe.

I think thats the bottom line for me: Religion /spirituality is all
about living it and practising. An atheist may be in awe, but
basically (Unless he is a Buddhist or Taoist)he is just exploring a
kind of a metaphysical study. So he may be in awe, yes. But he cannot
LOVE reality as such, and he cannot develop a passion about it. (maybe
some out there regard or sense this passion as something dangerous)
There is no one there to love, except of course his spouse, his
children etc. He can love everything in the objective world, but of
course he cannot love the WHOLE  Essence in a personified way.
Similarely, a Buddhist, being an atheist (soft one)can have all the
detachment in the world, but whatever awe Curtis or barry may have, it
cannot translate into love - not at least in a unfified way towards
the essence of everything. A believer to the contrary is more
interested in loving God than proving him/her.

An atheist is under the dictate of th mind - he can gauge what the
mind can know and what the mind cannot know. A believer does not trust
the rationale, he trusts his heart only. He is not interested in the
truth of his mind, if he/she is practising, he will trust the truth of
his heart/soul. This is completely internal and has no relationship to
external reality. I am very much a fan of Kierkegaard when it comes to
his views on subjectivity and choice:

"We cannot think our choices in life, we must live them; and even
those choices that we often think about become different once life
itself enters into the picture. For Kierkegaard, the type of
objectivity that a scientist or historian might use misses the
point—humans are not motivated and do not find meaning in life through
pure objectivity. Instead, they find it through passion, desire, and
moral and religious commitment. These phenomena are not objectively
provable—nor do they come about through any form of analysis of the
external world; they come about through inward reflection, a way of
looking at one's life that evades objective scrutiny. Instead, true
self-worth originates in a relation to something that transcends human
powers, something that provides a meaning because it inspires awe and
wonder and demands total and absolute commitment in achieving it."

"Johannes Climacus, in Concluding Unscientific Postscript to
Philosophical Fragments, writes the following cryptic line:
"Subjectivity is Truth". To understand Climacus's concept of the
individual, it is important to look at what he says regarding
subjectivity. What is subjectivity? In very rough terms, subjectivity
refers to what is personal to the individual—what makes the individual
who he is in distinction from others. It is what is inside—what the
individual can see, feel, think, imagine, dream, etc. It is often
opposed to objectivity—that which is outside the individual, which the
individual and others around can feel, see, measure, and think about.
Another way to interpret subjectivity is the unique relationship
between the subject and object."

"Scientists and historians, for example, study the objective world,
hoping to elicit the truth of nature—or perhaps the truth of history.
In this way, they hope to predict how the future will unfold in
accordance with these laws. In terms of history, by studying the past,
the individual can perhaps elicit the laws that determine how events
will unfold—in this way the individual can predict the future with
more exactness and perhaps take c

[FairfieldLife] Re: Who is "in control" of our lives?

[Marek Reavis]

Judy, I don't want to prolong this because I do understand that you 
feel that if Barry just stopped acting the way you don't agree with 
then you wouldn't have to point out to everyone that he's 
acting/writing the way you don't agree with.

But there is a world of difference (IMO) between Barry posting on 
FFL, no matter how loose you believe he may be with a fact or how 
soft his argument may be or provocative his rhetoric is, as compared 
to Bush, Al Qaeda, Sai Baba, Maharishi, or Muktananda and the level 
of influence and power they exercise in world affairs.

But, to address one of your points directly, I am always 
dissappointed when Barry makes a point of needling you or criticising 
you gratuitously, too.  The knee-jerk reaction you both exhibit 
regarding the other has some other underlying motivation that is, I 
feel, other than what either of you state is the particular reason 
you are writing about in any particular post.

For my part, I've come to appreciate you and your contributions 
tremendously, but feel that this reactive behavior diminishes your 
influence, that's all.

Marek

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> 
> [Marek wrote:]
> > > As has been pointed out before, you are not going to change 
> > > Barry's style and everyone else is just as likely to recognize
> > > it and either comment on it or ignore it as they see fit; so 
> > > why waste your time with constant carping? Nothing is going to
> > > change there.
> > 
> > Someone once asked Maharishi why, in the scriptures the Gods and
> > Demons are always fighting. He said something to the effect that 
> > they needed that intensity of activity to avoid slipping into the
> > Absolute, and thus dissolving creation. Maybe Barry and Judy need
> > to fight to maintain the structure of their egos, and there's
> > some fear of ego dissolution associated with each relaxing and 
> > allowing the other to be what they are without criticism or 
> > judgment.
> 
> Or maybe not.
> 
> Note once again the astounding *moral equivalence*
> inherent in Rick's vacuuous little speculation:
> between a hypocritical phony completely lacking in
> any scruples about fairness and honesty, and the
> person who is calling attention to his behavior--
> neither, in Rick's mind, apparently more deserving
> of criticism or judgment than the other (although
> what criticism there is typically is directed at
> me).
> 
> Say, why don't we all relax and allow the Bushies
> to be what they are without criticism or
> judgment? And Al Qaeda too, while we're at it?
> 
> How about we relax and allow Maharishi be what
> he is without criticism or judgment? Or Bevan?
> Or Sai Baba or Sri Chinmoy or Muktananda?
> 
> Let's just ignore all ethical lapses lest we
> get in the way of our own precious enlightenment.
> Yeah, that's the ticket.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Identification and saturational clarity

[Duveyoung]

Curtis,

Shame on you.  I gave you a chance to really dig in and try to pony up
a defense of atheism (your brand) but you've just continued the
personal attacks on me instead of addressing the incredible concepts I
tried to convey.  I thought you were a cut above Barry, but, like
Barry-as-Judy-just-recently-described-him you're running away from a
debate when it gets subtle and hard.  I stand by every word I've
written below.  Show me, and show this community where you think
you've got better proofs or logic that your POV has more power to
explain ALL THIS better than Advaita's "story."  Atheism is an
outlander, rogue, arrested development, personality disorder.

I just erased a bunch of questions aimed at nailing down your POV,
cuz, given you below, you've proved to me that you're just set on
flaming my ass -- no real chance of discussion with you from this
point on.

I may be many things, and I've confessed my weaknesses here more than
most, but you are a moral coward -- a runner like Barry.

And to hell with the concepts I've presented being mine -- this is
Advaita as I understand it, and if you cannot counter Advaita, don't
bother showing where I may need more clarity about Advaita, cuz it'll
just be non-sense if you can't debate the concepts in general.

I'm calling you out, Punk.  I don't think you have the guts for a true
dialog.  It's okay if you are addicted to flaming, but could you for
for once use your brain for something other than playing music and
kissing Barry's ungodly ass?

Edg



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> >
> > Curtis, et al,
> > 
> > To me, this "refining an atheistic stance" is merely a waste of time
> > like having a discussion about where's the best place to stand in a
> > cesspool.  "Oh, stand over here, cuz the puke stench is easier to bear
> > than than the doo-doo stink over there." 
> 
> Wow I'm impressed.  Your contribution to the discussion is doo doo Ka
> ka.  You just read enough of other posts to fly off into your own
> world don't you? I am tempted to just dismiss you as a person without
> the capacity to understand any POV but his own, but you are being such
> a dick about it I think I will hang for the humor factor. 
> > 
> > Oh, I'm being haughty, don't bother smacking the me-ego on this, but
> > atheism's appreciation of ALL THIS can, at best, be but a hollow and
> > lifeless POV which can yield but scant awe. 
> 
> I wonder what your mind conceives as "atheism". You are not only being
> haughty, you sound like every fundamentalist of every religion I have
> ever talked to. 
>  
> > 
> > Proof?  Look into the night sky.  
> > 
> > Such majesty, right?  Boggling, glory.
> 
> Yes the natural physical world is a wonderful place.  Glad you
> noticed.  Atheists can see it and enjoy it too.
> 
> > 
> > Bored yet?  Getting your shoes on to make a run down to a Spanish Bar?
> 
> Oh, a dig at Barry.  How clever. 
> 
> > 
> > The average person but glances at the night sky's display despite
> > knowing that one is peering as deeply as thirteen billion years into
> > the past, or that there's two hundred billion stars "next door" and
> > that there's two hundred billion other galaxies with their two hundred
> > billion stars,
> 
> Yes we know this from science.  This is another area that the world's
> scriptures are clueless about.
> 
>  or that perhaps the eyes of hundreds of millions of
> > ancient god-like civilizations are peering back.
> 
> 
> Could be.
> 
> > 
> > That's the rub.  All that, right there for the looking at, and, "I'm
> > bored," say most folks.  So much for the inspiration and passion that
> > relative majesty can trigger.
> 
> WTF?  Are you imagining a person bored by the beauty of the night sky"
>  Never met such a person. Sure would make your post make some sense if
> there was one right?
> > 
> > Major AWE can only come from seeing Pure Being's manifested diversity
> > as ALIVE, not MERELY an almost infinite, glorious, incredible
> > clockworks a'tickin'.  It's all the difference between looking at the
> > Mona Lisa, and looking at the Mona Lisa and understanding that she's
> > actually there looking back at you -- and her smile now blazes at
one.  
> > 
> > That's the difference between an atheist's awe and enlightenment's
awe.
> 
> You don't have a clue about atheist's awe for two reasons.  One, you
> don't understand atheism and two you can't imagine another person's
> POV that differs from your own.
> 
> > 
> > Despite many here supporting Advaita, it's hard to find many posts
> > that keep on the front burner the concept that the EXPERIENCE of Pure
> > Being is relative and merely a symbol of silence (cuz the gunas are
> > balanced and no diversity is manifesting during the EXPERIENCE.) It's
> > a brain buzz though -- an activity.  Something a robot can do. 
> > 
> > I don't see anyone here being a very good proponent of Advaita --

[FairfieldLife] MDix -- where you at? (Bush: I am relevant.)

[Duveyoung]

MDix,

I tried to scan about a dozen posts-of-yours to see if I could quickly
decide where your head is actually at about BushCo, Iraq War, etc. 
Came up short.  Could you give us a rundown of some of your actual
stances?

Do you agree that the Iraq war was about oil and the euro?

Do you think waterboarding is okay?

Do you think the last two elections were fixed?

Do you think 9-11 was a terrorist act or was it instead an inside job?

Are you anti-congress just because they're all scum suckers for
GlobalBiz, or merely because you think of yourself as a republican?

Would you vote for Ron Paul?  Kucinich?

How would you compare Bill Clinton's
do-nothing-let-half-a-million-be-hacked-to-death policy about Dafur
compared to Bush's "kill anyone in Iraq between me and the oil" policy?

Are you pro-choice or pro-life?

Would you allow stem cell research?

Is Global Warming caused by man-made pollutants?

Edg

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 10/22/07 1:51:34 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> Harry  Reid's favorability rating in Nevada is down to 
> 32 percent, which is lower  than President Bush's. 51 
> percent of Nevada voters rate Reid unfavorably,  
> according to a poll by the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
> 
> 'Reid it and  weep'
> Posted by John Hindraker:
> _http://www.powerlinhttp://wwwhttp://wwwhttp://www.powehtt_ 
> (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2007/10/018820.php) 
> 
> John  posted:
> > "Bush's job approval rating fell to 24 percent from last  
> > month's record low for a Zogby poll of 29 percent."  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how each person that uses this poll leaves out the sentence that  
> follows , that says Congress has a paltry 11% approval  rating.
> 
> 
> 
> ** See what's new at
http://www.aol.com
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn

[biosoundbill]

After all is said and done, I can't complain about the way I was 
taught to meditate in TM, or even about the mantra I got, 
meaningless or otherwise. It works for me, and even though the 
organization that propagates TM has become ultra commercial, the 
technique still holds good. So I won't distrust the method or the 
mantra I got. It came at the right time in my life, saved my life, 
and continues to work in my life. What more can I say, except I 
don't want an advanced technique, the basic one is working fine!
Namaste,
Billy



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> BillyG wrote:
> > I can see the clueless nitwit now, with his Sony laptop 
> > under the bridge posting to FFL using wireless satellite 
> > (or stealing the signal from others).  :-)
> >
> You idiot, Murphy - I have an Apple MacBook Pro! The connection
> is free - no bridges. But I am a nitwit to ask where the Marshy
> got the TM bija mantras. :-)
> 
> > > Sal Sunshine wrote:
> > > > --anyone who doesn't know that "bija mantras" are 
> > > > used in TM 
> > > > 
> > > So, Sal, where do you think the TM bija mantras come from?
> > > 
> > > > is a clueless nitwit who lives under a bridge.
> > > >
> Richard J. Williams wrote:
> > > > If you are so smart, why don't tell us the name of the 
> > > > tantric guru that taught them to the Marshy.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bush: I am relevant.....(has a Nixon ring to it!)

[MDixon6569]

 
In a message dated 10/22/07 1:51:34 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Harry  Reid's favorability rating in Nevada is down to 
32 percent, which is lower  than President Bush's. 51 
percent of Nevada voters rate Reid unfavorably,  
according to a poll by the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

'Reid it and  weep'
Posted by John Hindraker:
_http://www.powerlinhttp://wwwhttp://wwwhttp://www.powehtt_ 
(http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2007/10/018820.php) 

John  posted:
> "Bush's job approval rating fell to 24 percent from last  
> month's record low for a Zogby poll of 29 percent."  
>



Funny how each person that uses this poll leaves out the sentence that  
follows , that says Congress has a paltry 11% approval  rating.



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

[FairfieldLife] Re: Who is "in control" of our lives?

[t3rinity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Marek Reavis
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 9:08 AM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Who is "in control" of our lives?
> 
>  
> 
> As has been pointed out before, you are not going to change Barry's
style
> and everyone 
> else is just as likely to recognize it and either comment on it or
ignore it
> as they see fit; so 
> why waste your time with constant carping? Nothing is going to
change there.
> 
> Someone once asked Maharishi why, in the scriptures the Gods and
Demons are
> always fighting. He said something to the effect that they needed that
> intensity of activity to avoid slipping into the Absolute, and thus
> dissolving creation. Maybe Barry and Judy need to fight to maintain the
> structure of their egos, and there's some fear of ego dissolution
associated
> with each relaxing and allowing the other to be what they are without
> criticism or judgment.

You mean both are in a symbiotic relationship of enlightenment
avoidance? Interesting theory. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Who is "in control" of our lives?

[curtisdeltablues]

Thanks to Main and T for expanding a point into a line.  What I mean
is that the point atheist has become a much more useful and
descriptive continuum of belief/disbelief.  I would like to add my 2
cents and follow Judy's point about how we apply this differently in
different contexts.  T's question is a good starting point:

t3rinity :"> One question I would have to Curtis would be: Would he
want to be a
> Rational Atheist? Is this sort of an ideal, or rather as what kind of
> atheist would he describe himself?"

Adding back the distinctions he referred to of "weak" and "strong"
Atheists I would answer this way:

I am a strong atheist concerning the God of the Old Testament.  I'll
bet there isn't a God believing poster here who believes in a jealous
God who takes sides in tribal territory wars and awards the victors
the right to rape and own the women in the beaten tribe.  So my first
point is that we are all atheist concerning this version of God.  This
is where calling God one name really gets silly.  

Concerning the version of God that T described, I am a soft atheist. 
I really don't know if he is interpreting his own experiences in the
way I would because they are too subjective to evaluate.  So here I
have to give it a big "I don't know".  When God is defined in the
abstract terms of Vedanta, or the way people here with compelling
subjective experiences of higher states, the only honest position I
can take is that I don't know.  I am inclined to add that no matter
how compelling the experience, I can't accept people's subjective
experiences at face value.  It is how we interpret them that matters,
and I have not decided how I view these experiences except to say that
they will always fascinate me even though I am on the bench this
inning.  (American baseball reference)

Getting back to the question of rational atheist vs someone who
believes everything...

This is all context dependent as Judy pointed out.  We use what we
think are appropriate criteria, sometimes just to support our already
held beliefs, and sometimes in a more sincere quest.  No one can exist
accepting everything or denying everything without solid proof.

When we go to the hospital everyone acts like an atheist. (Christian
Scientists exempted) I stole this from somebody, perhaps Dawkins. 
When we go to the hospital after a car accident, we don't tell the
doctor that we aren't going into the CAT scan because we had a vision
that everything is OK.  Even Jim doesn't act this way.  

A less dramatic example would be if I offered to sell you magic "Makes
you better in every way" pills.  The natural line of questioning about
the pills would roughly follow some of the rules of science.  What is
in them? Who else has taken them?  What is the evidence that they make
a person "better"? 

On the other hand I have taken vitamins every day since I was a kid. 
Through the years I have read all sorts of scientific opinions on this
and have settled on a fairly ordinary multi, a Omega 3 fish oil, and
some B12 (because I read that as we get older our stomachs aren't as
good at getting this from food and Madonna and Brittany get shots of
it before they perform for energy!)  I don't have 100% proof of any of
this but it is my best guess with what I have studied.  I don't feel a
need to wait till science understands this better, because I don't
think I am hurting myself, and it may help.  If I had cancer and you
offered me a drug to save my life that had lots of side effects, it
would be back to the books to try to find out if it was rational to
take it.  (I would choose whatever I heard my favorite cancer survivor
pop star took!)

I share atheism concerning certain Gods with people here.  I just
don't share the belief in whatever version people have chosen.  But I
figure that they used a similar mental process that I do for my
beliefs.  Perhaps I am insisting on a different level of evidence or
just a different criteria for accepting or rejecting this belief.  We
all do this in our lives.

I believe that atheists and believers are more similar than different
because of our shared human condition concerning proof for beliefs. 
We are always forced to fly by the seat of our pants concerning our
beliefs a bit, no matter how rigorous we try to be in selecting them.
 But thinking of people as completely different creatures because of
their choices in each context seems like another excuse to see people
as different from yourself and separate from the human tribe.  I am
not a fan seeing my fellow humans as fundamentally different from me.
 This discussion has really helped me focus on the continuum of
beliefs that we share, rather then the individual choices we have made
along it.

Group hug?  Hey, who just grabbed my ass?!

Do it again.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity  wrote:
> > >
> > > For me,w

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush: I am relevant.....(has a Nixon ring to it!)

[Richard J. Williams]

Harry Reid's favorability rating in Nevada is down to 
32 percent, which is lower than President Bush's. 51 
percent of Nevada voters rate Reid unfavorably, 
according to a poll by the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

'Reid it and weep'
Posted by John Hindraker:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2007/10/018820.php

John posted:
> "Bush's job approval rating fell to 24 percent from last 
> month's record low for a Zogby poll of 29 percent." 
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Who is "in control" of our lives?

[Bhairitu]

Marek Reavis wrote:
> Comment below:
>
> **
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> **snip**
>
>   
>>> Judy, I wasn't so much presenting a dichotomy as suggesting
>>> that the constant criticism of Barry's is at least partially,
>>> a function of your dislike of the personality that fronts his
>>> arguments or posts.  To me your use of the term "general
>>> phoniness" is dispositive of my feeling that Barry just gets
>>> under your skin; he speaks (writes) and you hear fingernails
>>> on the chalkboard, over and above any argument or point he
>>> might be making.
>>>   
>> If you think about it, Marek, how do we know
>> anyone's personality on an electronic forum
>> except via what they write? I have no reason
>> to dislike Barry other than how I feel about
>> what he writes.
>>
>> Unless I'm completely misunderstanding you,
>> it looks to me as if you have it backwards.
>> It's not that I don't like what he writes
>> because I dislike him, but rather that I
>> dislike him because I don't like what he
>> writes: his posts are, IMHO, intellectually
>> lazy, dishonest, hypocritical, and generally
>> phony--with a few exceptions here and there.
>>
>> 
> **snip**
>   
>> Also false is his claim that I disliked him
>> on sight because he was "doing everything that
>> TM and Maharishi considers wrong and getting
>> away with it." But the attitude exemplified by
>> phrases like this--the arrogance and self-
>> puffery--did have a lot to do with it, as well
>> as the dishonesty exemplified in his
>> characterization of why I dislike him.
>>
>> To the degree that my dislike of him has
>> anything to do with TM, it's because of his
>> misrepresentations of it and his propensity to
>> unfairly and dishonestly attack MMY and TMers.
>> But then, I don't much like anybody who
>> misrepresents people's perspectives and who
>> unfairly and dishonestly attacks them, no
>> matter who they are or what they believe.
>>
>> 
> **end**
>
> Judy, it is exactly your characterizations of Barry as being "arrogant" and 
> full of "self-
> puffery" that again indicate that it is, at least partially, his personality 
> that you don't like 
> over and above his content.  I agree with you that Barry sometimes plays fast 
> and loose 
> but that's his style of discourse and discussion; and it's a "style" that you 
> don't agree with 
> and that "style" of writing and argument appears to rankle you endlessly.
>
> As has been pointed out before, you are not going to change Barry's style and 
> everyone 
> else is just as likely to recognize it and either comment on it or ignore it 
> as they see fit; so 
> why waste your time with constant carping?  Nothing is going to change there.
>
> This has been hashed out many, many times and I apologize for renewing the 
> issue but it 
> is always so dismaying to me when you and Barry spend so much time and energy 
> taking 
> swipes at each other.  
>
> And I never commented on it before but I love the picture you posted of 
> yourself (version 
> #1).
>
> Marek
I think Barry unfortunately is still stuck in "Regional Coordinator" 
mode from over 30 years ago and still feels that he has to come in and 
"straighten things out" sometimes.   I bet he even did that in the Rama 
group.  I like Barry but sometimes that pretension creeps through and 
what probably alienates some people here.   There are others here who 
also held mucky-muck TMO positions who have gotten over being the 
administrative mode.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Who is "in control" of our lives?

[Richard J. Williams]

jstein wrote:
> Let's just ignore all ethical lapses lest we
> get in the way of our own precious enlightenment.
> Yeah, that's the ticket.
>
Yeah, that's the ticket, let's just ignore your ethical
lapse when you lied about me "living under a bridge" in 
a feeble attempt to interfere with the free flow of 
information about the TM bija mantras.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

> [Marek wrote:]
> > > As has been pointed out before, you are not going to change 
> > > Barry's style and everyone else is just as likely to recognize
> > > it and either comment on it or ignore it as they see fit; so 
> > > why waste your time with constant carping? Nothing is going to
> > > change there.
> > 
> > Someone once asked Maharishi why, in the scriptures the Gods and
> > Demons are always fighting. He said something to the effect that 
> > they needed that intensity of activity to avoid slipping into the
> > Absolute, and thus dissolving creation. Maybe Barry and Judy need
> > to fight to maintain the structure of their egos, and there's
> > some fear of ego dissolution associated with each relaxing and 
> > allowing the other to be what they are without criticism or 
> > judgment.
> 
> Or maybe not.
> 
> Note once again the astounding *moral equivalence*
> inherent in Rick's vacuuous little speculation:
> between a hypocritical phony completely lacking in
> any scruples about fairness and honesty, and the
> person who is calling attention to his behavior--
> neither, in Rick's mind, apparently more deserving
> of criticism or judgment than the other (although
> what criticism there is typically is directed at
> me).
> 
> Say, why don't we all relax and allow the Bushies
> to be what they are without criticism or
> judgment? And Al Qaeda too, while we're at it?
> 
> How about we relax and allow Maharishi be what
> he is without criticism or judgment? Or Bevan?
> Or Sai Baba or Sri Chinmoy or Muktananda?
> 
> Let's just ignore all ethical lapses lest we
> get in the way of our own precious enlightenment.
> Yeah, that's the ticket.
>

[FairfieldLife] Bush: I am relevant.....(has a Nixon ring to it!)

[John]

To all Members:

Do you remember Nixon saying, "I am not a crook."  Well, here's the 
latest from Bush.

Bush: 'I Am Relevant'

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com 
Wednesday, October 17, 2007; 1:10 PM 

A defensive President Bush insisted that he was still relevant this 
morning in a news conference dominated by his bitter complaints about 
the Democratic Congress. 

Asked how he found himself vetoing a children's health insurance bill 
that had passed Congress with bipartisan support, Bush insisted that 
using a veto is "one way to ensure I am relevant." 

 

When a reporter followed up and asked Bush if he felt he was losing 
leverage and relevance, Bush replied: "I've never felt more engaged 
and more capable of getting the American people to realize there's a 
lot of unfinished business." 

Which, let's be blunt, is hard to believe. 

Everything you need to know about today's hastily scheduled press 
conference was telegraphed by John Whitesides of Reuters: "Deepening 
unhappiness with President George W. Bush and the U.S. Congress 
soured the mood of Americans and sent Bush's approval rating to 
another record low this month, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll 
released on Wednesday. . . . 

"Bush's job approval rating fell to 24 percent from last month's 
record low for a Zogby poll of 29 percent. A paltry 11 percent gave 
Congress a positive grade, tying last month's record low." 

"There is a real question among Americans now about how relevant this 
government is to them," pollster John Zogby told Whitesides. "They 
tell us they want action on health care, education, the war and 
immigration, but they don't believe they are going to get it." 

Bush has now tied President Nixon's all-time low approval rating as 
measured by the Gallup Poll. But Congress is doing even worse. 

"Congress has little to show for all the time that has gone by" since 
Democrats gained control in January of both the House and the Senate, 
Bush said. 

At the end of the press conference, Bush celebrated what he called 
his "bully pulpit," telling reporters "I was trying to get your 
attention focused on the fact that major pieces of legislation aren't 
moving, and those that are, are at a snail's pace. And I hope I did 
that. I hope I was able to accomplish that." 

'Common Ground'


Bush said that "now it's time to put politics aside and seek common 
ground." But New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg asked: "This 
morning, you gave us a pretty scathing report card on 
Democrats. . . . I'm wondering, how would you assess yourself in 
dealing with Democrats this past year? How effective have you been in 
dealing with them on various issues? And do you think you've done a 
good job in finding common ground?" 

In his response, Bush demonstrated that his idea of common ground 
involves Democrats caving in and giving him whatever he asks for. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Who is "in control" of our lives?

[Sal Sunshine]

On Oct 22, 2007, at 9:36 AM, authfriend wrote:


If you recommend not criticizing Barry because his
"style" isn't going to change, why don't you apply
the same caveat to me? Why am I the one who should
change?--especially if I'm the one promoting
honesty, authenticity, etc., which you're
presumably in favor of?


It's a conspiracy, Judy, to drive off all the outspoken women. (I'm 
exempted, of course.)  Marek just joined up--welcome on board, Marek. 
:)


Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Who is "in control" of our lives?

[tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis]

New Morning posts snipped:
Big important issues (to you) -- and for which you have the time,
attention and sometimes money to investigate more deeply, deserve
deeper,more systematic investigations.

TomT:
On NPR this AM an interview about the changing of the guard at the
Chinese Politburo. Small decisions need to happen if front of a very
large audience. Big decisions happen in front of a very small group
and Very large decisions happen with no group. Seemed like a nice
comment on the way things work in some places. Tom

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Who is "in control" of our lives?

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of authfriend
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 11:42 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Who is "in control" of our lives?

 

Note once again the astounding *moral equivalence*
inherent in Rick's vacuuous little speculation:
between a hypocritical phony completely lacking in
any scruples about fairness and honesty, and the
person who is calling attention to his behavior--
neither, in Rick's mind, apparently more deserving
of criticism or judgment than the other (although
what criticism there is typically is directed at
me).

Say, why don't we all relax and allow the Bushies
to be what they are without criticism or
judgment? And Al Qaeda too, while we're at it?

How about we relax and allow Maharishi be what
he is without criticism or judgment? Or Bevan?
Or Sai Baba or Sri Chinmoy or Muktananda?

Let's just ignore all ethical lapses lest we
get in the way of our own precious enlightenment.
Yeah, that's the ticket.

You make good points and I was making a “vacuuous little speculation,” but
it may still be somewhat valid. I think the more adamant and “black and
white” we tend to be in our judgments, including those of Bush, Al Qaeda,
etc., the more locked into a narrow individual perspective and closed to the
nuanced nature of reality we tend to be. Can you admit that Barry possesses
many qualities you appreciate, because I’ll bet he does, and vice versa.


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.5/1084 - Release Date: 10/21/2007
3:09 PM
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Identification and saturational clarity

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Curtis, et al,
> 
> To me, this "refining an atheistic stance" is merely a waste of time
> like having a discussion about where's the best place to stand in a
> cesspool.  "Oh, stand over here, cuz the puke stench is easier to bear
> than than the doo-doo stink over there." 

Wow I'm impressed.  Your contribution to the discussion is doo doo Ka
ka.  You just read enough of other posts to fly off into your own
world don't you? I am tempted to just dismiss you as a person without
the capacity to understand any POV but his own, but you are being such
a dick about it I think I will hang for the humor factor. 
> 
> Oh, I'm being haughty, don't bother smacking the me-ego on this, but
> atheism's appreciation of ALL THIS can, at best, be but a hollow and
> lifeless POV which can yield but scant awe. 

I wonder what your mind conceives as "atheism". You are not only being
haughty, you sound like every fundamentalist of every religion I have
ever talked to. 
 
> 
> Proof?  Look into the night sky.  
> 
> Such majesty, right?  Boggling, glory.

Yes the natural physical world is a wonderful place.  Glad you
noticed.  Atheists can see it and enjoy it too.

> 
> Bored yet?  Getting your shoes on to make a run down to a Spanish Bar?

Oh, a dig at Barry.  How clever. 

> 
> The average person but glances at the night sky's display despite
> knowing that one is peering as deeply as thirteen billion years into
> the past, or that there's two hundred billion stars "next door" and
> that there's two hundred billion other galaxies with their two hundred
> billion stars,

Yes we know this from science.  This is another area that the world's
scriptures are clueless about.

 or that perhaps the eyes of hundreds of millions of
> ancient god-like civilizations are peering back.


Could be.

> 
> That's the rub.  All that, right there for the looking at, and, "I'm
> bored," say most folks.  So much for the inspiration and passion that
> relative majesty can trigger.

WTF?  Are you imagining a person bored by the beauty of the night sky"
 Never met such a person. Sure would make your post make some sense if
there was one right?
> 
> Major AWE can only come from seeing Pure Being's manifested diversity
> as ALIVE, not MERELY an almost infinite, glorious, incredible
> clockworks a'tickin'.  It's all the difference between looking at the
> Mona Lisa, and looking at the Mona Lisa and understanding that she's
> actually there looking back at you -- and her smile now blazes at one.  
> 
> That's the difference between an atheist's awe and enlightenment's awe.

You don't have a clue about atheist's awe for two reasons.  One, you
don't understand atheism and two you can't imagine another person's
POV that differs from your own.

> 
> Despite many here supporting Advaita, it's hard to find many posts
> that keep on the front burner the concept that the EXPERIENCE of Pure
> Being is relative and merely a symbol of silence (cuz the gunas are
> balanced and no diversity is manifesting during the EXPERIENCE.) It's
> a brain buzz though -- an activity.  Something a robot can do. 
> 
> I don't see anyone here being a very good proponent of Advaita --
> myself included -- because though I think I know some stuff, it is all
> secondarily acquired by mere intellectual study of Advaita. I'm not a
> knower of reality -- I am a not-very-humble parrot trained by Ramana.

False humility, does that work for you?

> 
> Pure Being is the noise OM.  That's the sound that contains all sounds
> -- perfectly harmonized.

Wow, you read an intro to a yoga book. Me too. 
  
> 
> But what/who receives/listens to this sound?
> 
> Most posters here stop conceptualizing at this point.


Because you are not making sense.
  
> 
> So many write confusingly about transcending and consider the
> experience of Pure Being to be the end-state of enlightenment -- a
> sustained samadhi seems to be "the best" that many here can imagine,
> whereas, Ramana Mahrishi contends that Pure Being is merely God, and
> to transcend is a ACT of unification with one's oversoul, God, Pure
> Being, but, THOUGH GOD IS PERFECT, it is still an act of WRONG
> IDENTIFICATION to think "so small." 
> 
> The word "act" here is poetic since the Absolute cannot have any
> qualities, including the dynamic "identification."  But we are forced
> to use words, so keep yer "poetry alert" warning light flashing.  
> 
> Pure Being DOES have qualities -- in fact, it has ALL QUALITIES.  Pure
> Being is a mote in the vastness of the Absolute, but if the Absolute
> wants to comb its hair, it has to look in the mirror of Pure Being. 
> While combing, the Absolute can be imagined saying, "Yeah, that looks
> like me, but where's all the missing vastness?"
> 
> Pure Being is defined as "relative vastness."  No brain can conceive
> of anything vaster or more complete, so of course brains think that
> they've found the Absolute when they trans

[FairfieldLife] Re: Who is "in control" of our lives?

[authfriend]

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

[Marek wrote:]
> > As has been pointed out before, you are not going to change 
> > Barry's style and everyone else is just as likely to recognize
> > it and either comment on it or ignore it as they see fit; so 
> > why waste your time with constant carping? Nothing is going to
> > change there.
> 
> Someone once asked Maharishi why, in the scriptures the Gods and
> Demons are always fighting. He said something to the effect that 
> they needed that intensity of activity to avoid slipping into the
> Absolute, and thus dissolving creation. Maybe Barry and Judy need
> to fight to maintain the structure of their egos, and there's
> some fear of ego dissolution associated with each relaxing and 
> allowing the other to be what they are without criticism or 
> judgment.

Or maybe not.

Note once again the astounding *moral equivalence*
inherent in Rick's vacuuous little speculation:
between a hypocritical phony completely lacking in
any scruples about fairness and honesty, and the
person who is calling attention to his behavior--
neither, in Rick's mind, apparently more deserving
of criticism or judgment than the other (although
what criticism there is typically is directed at
me).

Say, why don't we all relax and allow the Bushies
to be what they are without criticism or
judgment? And Al Qaeda too, while we're at it?

How about we relax and allow Maharishi be what
he is without criticism or judgment? Or Bevan?
Or Sai Baba or Sri Chinmoy or Muktananda?

Let's just ignore all ethical lapses lest we
get in the way of our own precious enlightenment.
Yeah, that's the ticket.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: World War III?

[MDixon6569]

 
In a message dated 10/21/07 4:33:16 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

>  Well then it must be the will of the people that they do it.

Nope.  

Much of the legislation the GOP has blocked has been  overwhelmingly
supported by the American people. The Webb amendment for  longer breaks
for our troops and the extension of SCHIP are just two  examples.




Then I suppose you have some evidence to back that claim up. Remember, "the  
devil is in the details" of the proposed legisation.



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

[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn

[Richard J. Williams]

BillyG wrote:
> I can see the clueless nitwit now, with his Sony laptop 
> under the bridge posting to FFL using wireless satellite 
> (or stealing the signal from others).  :-)
>
You idiot, Murphy - I have an Apple MacBook Pro! The connection
is free - no bridges. But I am a nitwit to ask where the Marshy
got the TM bija mantras. :-)

> > Sal Sunshine wrote:
> > > --anyone who doesn't know that "bija mantras" are 
> > > used in TM 
> > > 
> > So, Sal, where do you think the TM bija mantras come from?
> > 
> > > is a clueless nitwit who lives under a bridge.
> > >
Richard J. Williams wrote:
> > > If you are so smart, why don't tell us the name of the 
> > > tantric guru that taught them to the Marshy.

[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sal Sunshine wrote:
> > --anyone who doesn't know that "bija mantras" are 
> > used in TM 
> > 
> So, Sal, where do you think the TM bija mantras come from?
> 
> > is a clueless nitwit who lives under a bridge.
> >
> > If you are so smart, why don't tell us the name of the 
> > tantric guru that taught them to the Marshy.

I can see the clueless nitwit now, with his Sony laptop under the
bridge posting to FFL using wireless satellite (or stealing the signal
from others).  :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn

[Bhairitu]

Vaj wrote:
>
> On Oct 21, 2007, at 11:24 PM, BillyG. wrote:
>
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Oct 21, 2007, at 9:43 PM, BillyG. wrote:
>> >
>> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > In the Hindu yogic tradition I practiced in, the "gap" or
>> > > > transcendent in TM speak is only just the beginning...and it's not
>> > > > truly transcendental consciousness, it's merely a thought-free
>> > > state.
>> > > > It is however an important sign that practice is ready to go to
>> > > > another level, one where the transcendent is nurtured and the 
>> "gap"
>> > > > becomes much longer. From what I've seen in TM research, the 
>> longest
>> > > > recorded by their "research" in just a couple of minutes. But 
>> for a
>> > > > yogin going deeply we're talking something that goes for several
>> > > > hours or much longer, at will. So a long or short mantra MAY 
>> make a
>> > > > little difference, one or two minutes compared to three or 
>> four, but
>> > > > in the big picture it's insignificant IME.
>> > >
>> > > Right on Vaj, I agree! Also, I haven't heard even one credible
>> > > account of kundalini rising in/from the TM group, probably because
>> > > most aren't advanced enough,not that it wouldn't happen some day but
>> > > "functioning from the home of all the laws of nature", GMAB!!
>> >
>> >
>> > Sorry to burst your bubble, but I know numerous people who've
>> > awakened at the prana-kundalini level.
>>
>> That and a buck wouldn't get you a cup of coffee at starbucks, so
>> let's see, that means YOU haven't RIGHT! Where's the beef, Amigo!
>
>
> Some people will have carried an awakening from a previous life, so 
> it's impossible to tell those who were previously awakened or if they 
> awakened from their practice in this life without investigating. But 
> usually if you ask closely, the person can tell you events throughout 
> childhood that indicated they carried their awakening from a prior 
> existence.
This is so true.  In fact I was even more mystified by people who after 
20-30 years of practicing meditation claimed they had yet to experience 
transcending since so many I knew had experienced it with the first TM 
instruction and even other techniques before that.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Identification and saturational clarity

[Duveyoung]

Curtis, et al,

To me, this "refining an atheistic stance" is merely a waste of time
like having a discussion about where's the best place to stand in a
cesspool.  "Oh, stand over here, cuz the puke stench is easier to bear
than than the doo-doo stink over there."  

Oh, I'm being haughty, don't bother smacking the me-ego on this, but
atheism's appreciation of ALL THIS can, at best, be but a hollow and
lifeless POV which can yield but scant awe.  

Proof?  Look into the night sky.  

Such majesty, right?  Boggling, glory.

Bored yet?  Getting your shoes on to make a run down to a Spanish Bar?

The average person but glances at the night sky's display despite
knowing that one is peering as deeply as thirteen billion years into
the past, or that there's two hundred billion stars "next door" and
that there's two hundred billion other galaxies with their two hundred
billion stars, or that perhaps the eyes of hundreds of millions of
ancient god-like civilizations are peering back.

That's the rub.  All that, right there for the looking at, and, "I'm
bored," say most folks.  So much for the inspiration and passion that
relative majesty can trigger.

Major AWE can only come from seeing Pure Being's manifested diversity
as ALIVE, not MERELY an almost infinite, glorious, incredible
clockworks a'tickin'.  It's all the difference between looking at the
Mona Lisa, and looking at the Mona Lisa and understanding that she's
actually there looking back at you -- and her smile now blazes at one.  

That's the difference between an atheist's awe and enlightenment's awe.

Despite many here supporting Advaita, it's hard to find many posts
that keep on the front burner the concept that the EXPERIENCE of Pure
Being is relative and merely a symbol of silence (cuz the gunas are
balanced and no diversity is manifesting during the EXPERIENCE.) It's
a brain buzz though -- an activity.  Something a robot can do. 

I don't see anyone here being a very good proponent of Advaita --
myself included -- because though I think I know some stuff, it is all
secondarily acquired by mere intellectual study of Advaita. I'm not a
knower of reality -- I am a not-very-humble parrot trained by Ramana.

Pure Being is the noise OM.  That's the sound that contains all sounds
-- perfectly harmonized.  

But what/who receives/listens to this sound?

Most posters here stop conceptualizing at this point.  

So many write confusingly about transcending and consider the
experience of Pure Being to be the end-state of enlightenment -- a
sustained samadhi seems to be "the best" that many here can imagine,
whereas, Ramana Mahrishi contends that Pure Being is merely God, and
to transcend is a ACT of unification with one's oversoul, God, Pure
Being, but, THOUGH GOD IS PERFECT, it is still an act of WRONG
IDENTIFICATION to think "so small." 

The word "act" here is poetic since the Absolute cannot have any
qualities, including the dynamic "identification."  But we are forced
to use words, so keep yer "poetry alert" warning light flashing.  

Pure Being DOES have qualities -- in fact, it has ALL QUALITIES.  Pure
Being is a mote in the vastness of the Absolute, but if the Absolute
wants to comb its hair, it has to look in the mirror of Pure Being. 
While combing, the Absolute can be imagined saying, "Yeah, that looks
like me, but where's all the missing vastness?"

Pure Being is defined as "relative vastness."  No brain can conceive
of anything vaster or more complete, so of course brains think that
they've found the Absolute when they transcend, unify, and pretend to
be silent while experiencing OM.  The ego is merely saying to itself,
"I'm perfect as long as I don't do anything but hum this tune."  And
it's true.  Transcending ordinary thinking and residing in amness is
as quiet as an ego can get, but who merely wants an obedient ego?  

As beautiful as a soul can be, it's prison.

The ego thinks it's the sentience that receives experiencing.  When it
finally gets over itself, then, this assumption of identity, this
assertion of sentience, ends.

Now, get this part, study this:  When the ego stops thinking it is
alive instead of being merely one sound in Pure Being's chorus, all
identifications, except one, end.  

Saturating one's robot with this experience of Pure Being eventually
gets the brain to be experiencing this home of all the laws of nature
as an all time reality.  This is an achievement of saintliness.

But being a saint is still an identity -- but now, not the robot's
ego, but GOD'S EGO is doing the identification.  The head is now THE
HEAD, and the aura becomes A HALO.

BillyG says it like this:  "TM is Samyama! Effortless Dharana, leading
to Dhyana (sublime spontaneous contemplation on the Divine), and
finally Samadhi (actual merging into oneness with the object of
contemplation, pure consciousness or the Divine)."

Residing in this state of saintliness, this perfection, this balance,
finally gives even God's Ego a chance at seeing OM for the noise 

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Who is "in control" of our lives?

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Marek Reavis
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 9:08 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Who is "in control" of our lives?

 

As has been pointed out before, you are not going to change Barry's style
and everyone 
else is just as likely to recognize it and either comment on it or ignore it
as they see fit; so 
why waste your time with constant carping? Nothing is going to change there.

Someone once asked Maharishi why, in the scriptures the Gods and Demons are
always fighting. He said something to the effect that they needed that
intensity of activity to avoid slipping into the Absolute, and thus
dissolving creation. Maybe Barry and Judy need to fight to maintain the
structure of their egos, and there’s some fear of ego dissolution associated
with each relaxing and allowing the other to be what they are without
criticism or judgment.


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.5/1084 - Release Date: 10/21/2007
3:09 PM
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn

[Richard J. Williams]

biosoundbill wrote:
> In the text below you appear to be admitting that 
> bija mantras are used in TM!
> 
> Why the sudden change of mind,are you a little 
> confused?
>
No, I am not confused, but it would seem that several of the
informants here are confused, or at least ill-informed, and 
are attempting to confuse me.

The three tantric experts, the two Barry's and Vaj the Nath,
both seemed to want to discredit the notion that Marshy
learned the TM bija mantras from Swami Brahmanand Saraswati.
Vaj, in his zeal to discredit Marshy, seemed to imply that
there was no connection between Marshy and the Sri Vidya sect
at all. Vaj seemed to imply that Shankara never visited
Kashmir and had nothing to do with the Trika system.

Apparently none of the pundits here seem to be aware of the
source of the TM bija mantras. This seems to be somewhat
outrageous! Can you imagine adults spouting nonsense syllables
for years and years, and recruiting others to spout them
too, and yet never even knowing the source of the gibberish 
they spout? Apparently this is the case.

So, the question remains: Where, exactly, did the Marshy get 
the bija mantras. According to Mr. Bharat2, you can't get real
bija mantras from a book, you must be getting initiated by
a tantric guru. Is there any evidence that Marshy was initiated
by a tantric guru and recieved a bucketload of bijas to pass
out?

None of the informants wants to be honest about this - why I 
don't know. What's the big secret? And why are the TMers and 
ex-TMers always wanting to be so secretive? If the TM bija
mantras are the nicknames of the Hindu demi-Gods, that Marshy
read in a book, why not just be honest and say so?
 
Richard J. Williams wrote:
> > The TM tradition probably originated with the Nath
> > alchemists of medieval India, the so-called "Eighty-four
> > Mahasiddhas" and with Matsyendranath, the inventor of 
> > Hatha Yoga. This tradition was taken to Kashmir where 
> > it became the Trika system and then later to South
> > Asia to become the Sri Vidya tradition of Shankara.
> >
> > According to what I've read, Guru Dev's teacher was Swami
> > Krishanand Saraswati of Sringeri. If so, that means that 
> > Guru Dev was, like his teacher, a student of the Sri Vidya, 
> > which was established by Shankara at Sringeri. Apparently 
> > there are three TM bija mantras inscribed on the Sri 
> > Chakra, which is ensconced at the Sringeri temple.
> >
> > It is a fact that all the Saraswati Dasanamis worship 
> > the Sri Vidya.
> >
> > It is also a fact that the Sri Chakra is ensconced on the 
> > mandir at Dwarka and at the Kanchi Mathas. It is also a 
> > fact that all the Adwaita Sannyasins claim that Adi Shankara
> > established four mathas as seats of learning and for the 
> > worship of Sri Vidya. In addition, all the Shankaracharyas 
> > agree that Shankara composed the Soundaryalahari, with the 
> > TM bija mantras included among the thirteeen other bija
> > mantras.
> >
> > According to the Shankaracharya of Sringeri, the Adi 
> > Shankara placed the Sri Chakra, symbol of Tripurasundari, 
> > with the TM mantras inscribed thereon, at each of the seats 
> > of learning - Dwarka, Puri, Sringeri, Kanchi and at Jyotirmath.
> > The mantras of TM are DIRECTLY related to Sri Vidya. At least
> > three TM bija mantras appear inscribed on the Sri Chakra.
> >
> > According to Swami Rama, Guru Dev was fond of the Sri Chakra 
> > and used one in his puja. So, if the Sri Chakra has the TM 
> > mantras written on it, and Shankara wrote the Soundaryalahari,
> > with the thirteen bija mantras, three of which are used in 
> > the practice of TM, we can assume that the TM bija mantras 
> > used by MMY are derived from the Tantric Tradition of Shankara 
> > as practiced in Kerala State.
> > 

[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn

[Richard J. Williams]

Sal Sunshine wrote:
> --anyone who doesn't know that "bija mantras" are 
> used in TM 
> 
So, Sal, where do you think the TM bija mantras come from?

> is a clueless nitwit who lives under a bridge.
>
> If you are so smart, why don't tell us the name of the 
> tantric guru that taught them to the Marshy.

[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn

[Richard J. Williams]

biosoundbill wrote:
> >  Why the sudden change of mind,are you a little confused?
> >
jstein wrote:
> Billy...Richard lives under a bridge.
> 
Stop the lying, Judy. You know perfectly well that I live at
Radiance, the TM Ideal Village, just outside Austin, Texas.
Why you'd want to spread falsehoods like this is beyond me.
If you want to be a liar, fine, but do you have to be a 
hypocrite as well?

[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > For me, no effort or will whatsoever is involved.
> > The whole thing is automatic, completely
> > spontaneous. *Samyama* involves effort, but not
> > dhyan.
> 
> TM is Samyama! Effortless Dharana (poorly translated as
> concentration), leading to Dhyana (sublime spontaneous contemplation
> on the Divine), and finally Samadhi (actual merging into oneness with
> the object of contemplation, pure consciousness or the Divine).
> 
> So what happens down the road Judy (advanced techniques), when the
> mantra is instructed to be thought at a certain 'chakra' location?  Is
> that using effort?

Everything about TM becomes automatic after a short practise.

[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Is there any evidence of this?  Folks have measured the length of 
sojourn in TC? Wouldn't that also depend on the individual,  on length 
of practice and predisposition, to name just a few of the possible 
variables? a

Well, tiivra-saMvegaanaam aasannaH. (I 21)

But, mRdu-madhyaadhimaatratvaat tato 'pi visheSaH! (I 22)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn

[Vaj]

On Oct 22, 2007, at 10:34 AM, BillyG. wrote:


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

> For me, no effort or will whatsoever is involved.
> The whole thing is automatic, completely
> spontaneous. *Samyama* involves effort, but not
> dhyan.

TM is Samyama! Effortless Dharana (poorly translated as
concentration), leading to Dhyana (sublime spontaneous contemplation
on the Divine), and finally Samadhi (actual merging into oneness with
the object of contemplation, pure consciousness or the Divine).

So what happens down the road Judy (advanced techniques), when the
mantra is instructed to be thought at a certain 'chakra' location? Is
that using effort?



 The Horror!

[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn

[BillyG.]

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

> It's also not unusual for people to have imbalanced awakenings, esp.  
> people working indiscriminately with sexual practices. This is also  
> somewhat common among TMSP practitioners. It is important to have  
> guidance in such a path. Whether returning shakti to bindu would > 
  >>make  
> them "Christs" I can't say--never met the guy.

Christ wasn't a 'guy', Christ was a title given to Jesus as the
'annointed one' or one who had become a Christ. We all have the
potential to become Christs, once we realize the oversoul of the
Universe or that Purusha which is immanent IN creation as our own souls.

Returning shakti (Kriya) to bindu (Jnana) is nicely put, also, yes the
need for a Sat-Guru (guidance)becomes necessary in the final stages of
enlightenment where the radiant form of the Master/Guru appears in the
subtle astral and causal worlds to guide the chela to the
Almightyor so I've heard!
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Who is "in control" of our lives?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Comment below:
> 
> **
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> **snip**
> 
> > > Judy, I wasn't so much presenting a dichotomy as suggesting
> > > that the constant criticism of Barry's is at least partially,
> > > a function of your dislike of the personality that fronts his
> > > arguments or posts.  To me your use of the term "general
> > > phoniness" is dispositive of my feeling that Barry just gets
> > > under your skin; he speaks (writes) and you hear fingernails
> > > on the chalkboard, over and above any argument or point he
> > > might be making.
> > 
> > If you think about it, Marek, how do we know
> > anyone's personality on an electronic forum
> > except via what they write? I have no reason
> > to dislike Barry other than how I feel about
> > what he writes.
> > 
> > Unless I'm completely misunderstanding you,
> > it looks to me as if you have it backwards.
> > It's not that I don't like what he writes
> > because I dislike him, but rather that I
> > dislike him because I don't like what he
> > writes: his posts are, IMHO, intellectually
> > lazy, dishonest, hypocritical, and generally
> > phony--with a few exceptions here and there.
> > 
> **snip**
> > 
> > Also false is his claim that I disliked him
> > on sight because he was "doing everything that
> > TM and Maharishi considers wrong and getting
> > away with it." But the attitude exemplified by
> > phrases like this--the arrogance and self-
> > puffery--did have a lot to do with it, as well
> > as the dishonesty exemplified in his
> > characterization of why I dislike him.
> > 
> > To the degree that my dislike of him has
> > anything to do with TM, it's because of his
> > misrepresentations of it and his propensity to
> > unfairly and dishonestly attack MMY and TMers.
> > But then, I don't much like anybody who
> > misrepresents people's perspectives and who
> > unfairly and dishonestly attacks them, no
> > matter who they are or what they believe.
> >
> **end**
> 
> Judy, it is exactly your characterizations of Barry as
> being "arrogant" and full of "self-puffery" that again
> indicate that it is, at least partially, his personality
> that you don't like over and above his content.

I still don't get what distinction you think
you're making here, Marek, given what I said
above. *Of course* it's his personality, at
least as conveyed by his posts, that I dislike.

My point is that there's no way you can draw a
line between the two. Again, it isn't that I
dislike him and therefore I dislike his posts;
it's that I don't like his posts and therefore
I dislike him.

> I agree with you that Barry sometimes plays fast and loose 
> but that's his style of discourse and discussion; and it's 
> a "style" that you don't agree with and that "style" of
> writing and argument appears to rankle you endlessly.

Again, I'm mystified as to the difference you
see. If you want to class intellectual laziness,
dishonesty, hypocrisy, etc., as "style," fine,
yes, it's his "style" I don't like and am
criticizing.

In my view, *everyone* should be rankled endlessly
by such a "style," and I have to wonder about the
ethical standards of those who think otherwise.

> As has been pointed out before, you are not going to change
> Barry's style and everyone else is just as likely to recognize
> it and either comment on it or ignore it as they see fit; so 
> why waste your time with constant carping?  Nothing is going to
> change there.

Do you think those who criticize the administration
should just shut up about its "style" on the same
grounds?

> This has been hashed out many, many times and I apologize for 
> renewing the issue but it is always so dismaying to me when
> you and Barry spend so much time and energy taking 
> swipes at each other.

And yet somehow it always seems to be me you chide
about it.

If you recommend not criticizing Barry because his
"style" isn't going to change, why don't you apply
the same caveat to me? Why am I the one who should
change?--especially if I'm the one promoting
honesty, authenticity, etc., which you're
presumably in favor of?

> And I never commented on it before but I love the picture you 
> posted of yourself (version #1).

Thank you (although I'm rather fond of version
#2, myself). And thanks also (to you and Curtis)
for calling Kaladevi on her remarks about me.

[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn

[BillyG.]

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




> For me, no effort or will whatsoever is involved.
> The whole thing is automatic, completely
> spontaneous. *Samyama* involves effort, but not
> dhyan.

TM is Samyama! Effortless Dharana (poorly translated as
concentration), leading to Dhyana (sublime spontaneous contemplation
on the Divine), and finally Samadhi (actual merging into oneness with
the object of contemplation, pure consciousness or the Divine).

So what happens down the road Judy (advanced techniques), when the
mantra is instructed to be thought at a certain 'chakra' location?  Is
that using effort?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn

[Vaj]

On Oct 22, 2007, at 10:10 AM, BillyG. wrote:


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

> Some people will have carried an awakening from a previous life, so
> it's impossible to tell those who were previously awakened or if  
they

> awakened from their practice in this life without investigating. But
> usually if you ask closely, the person can tell you events  
throughout

> childhood that indicated they carried their awakening from a prior
> existence.

Let's just put it this way Vaj, most likely many have had glimpses or
partial awakening temporarily in just about any discipline, but actual
conscious transcending thru all 6 chakras and finally to Sahasrara
would make them Christs.


It's also not unusual for people to have imbalanced awakenings, esp.  
people working indiscriminately with sexual practices. This is also  
somewhat common among TMSP practitioners. It is important to have  
guidance in such a path. Whether returning shakti to bindu would make  
them "Christs" I can't say--never met the guy.




There are very few who have mastered kundalini that far living today,
IMO, and based on the paltry experiences I've heard reported and the
fact that MMY doesn't even talk about kundalini (anymore) leads me to
believe this is an experience that is far off for the average Yoga
practitioner today, (in whatever discipline).

Are there a few precocious individuals here and there? sure, maybe
MMY's nephew.


:-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn

[BillyG.]

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

> Some people will have carried an awakening from a previous life, so  
> it's impossible to tell those who were previously awakened or if they  
> awakened from their practice in this life without investigating. But  
> usually if you ask closely, the person can tell you events throughout  
> childhood that indicated they carried their awakening from a prior  
> existence.

Let's just put it this way Vaj, most likely many have had glimpses or
partial awakening temporarily in just about any discipline, but actual
conscious transcending thru all 6 chakras and finally to Sahasrara
would make them Christs.

There are very few who have mastered kundalini that far living today,
IMO, and based on the paltry experiences I've heard reported and the
fact that MMY doesn't even talk about kundalini (anymore) leads me to
believe this is an experience that is far off for the average Yoga
practitioner today, (in whatever discipline).

Are there a few precocious individuals here and there? sure, maybe
MMY's nephew.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Who is "in control" of our lives?

[Marek Reavis]

Comment below:

**

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

**snip**

> > Judy, I wasn't so much presenting a dichotomy as suggesting
> > that the constant criticism of Barry's is at least partially,
> > a function of your dislike of the personality that fronts his
> > arguments or posts.  To me your use of the term "general
> > phoniness" is dispositive of my feeling that Barry just gets
> > under your skin; he speaks (writes) and you hear fingernails
> > on the chalkboard, over and above any argument or point he
> > might be making.
> 
> If you think about it, Marek, how do we know
> anyone's personality on an electronic forum
> except via what they write? I have no reason
> to dislike Barry other than how I feel about
> what he writes.
> 
> Unless I'm completely misunderstanding you,
> it looks to me as if you have it backwards.
> It's not that I don't like what he writes
> because I dislike him, but rather that I
> dislike him because I don't like what he
> writes: his posts are, IMHO, intellectually
> lazy, dishonest, hypocritical, and generally
> phony--with a few exceptions here and there.
> 
**snip**
> 
> Also false is his claim that I disliked him
> on sight because he was "doing everything that
> TM and Maharishi considers wrong and getting
> away with it." But the attitude exemplified by
> phrases like this--the arrogance and self-
> puffery--did have a lot to do with it, as well
> as the dishonesty exemplified in his
> characterization of why I dislike him.
> 
> To the degree that my dislike of him has
> anything to do with TM, it's because of his
> misrepresentations of it and his propensity to
> unfairly and dishonestly attack MMY and TMers.
> But then, I don't much like anybody who
> misrepresents people's perspectives and who
> unfairly and dishonestly attacks them, no
> matter who they are or what they believe.
>
**end**

Judy, it is exactly your characterizations of Barry as being "arrogant" and 
full of "self-
puffery" that again indicate that it is, at least partially, his personality 
that you don't like 
over and above his content.  I agree with you that Barry sometimes plays fast 
and loose 
but that's his style of discourse and discussion; and it's a "style" that you 
don't agree with 
and that "style" of writing and argument appears to rankle you endlessly.

As has been pointed out before, you are not going to change Barry's style and 
everyone 
else is just as likely to recognize it and either comment on it or ignore it as 
they see fit; so 
why waste your time with constant carping?  Nothing is going to change there.

This has been hashed out many, many times and I apologize for renewing the 
issue but it 
is always so dismaying to me when you and Barry spend so much time and energy 
taking 
swipes at each other.  

And I never commented on it before but I love the picture you posted of 
yourself (version 
#1).

Marek

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I think that the basic TM technique is more powerful than the advanced techn

[Vaj]

On Oct 21, 2007, at 11:24 PM, BillyG. wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 21, 2007, at 9:43 PM, BillyG. wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > >
> > > In the Hindu yogic tradition I practiced in, the "gap" or
> > > transcendent in TM speak is only just the beginning...and  
it's not

> > > truly transcendental consciousness, it's merely a thought-free
> > state.
> > > It is however an important sign that practice is ready to go to
> > > another level, one where the transcendent is nurtured and the  
"gap"
> > > becomes much longer. From what I've seen in TM research, the  
longest
> > > recorded by their "research" in just a couple of minutes. But  
for a

> > > yogin going deeply we're talking something that goes for several
> > > hours or much longer, at will. So a long or short mantra MAY  
make a
> > > little difference, one or two minutes compared to three or  
four, but

> > > in the big picture it's insignificant IME.
> >
> > Right on Vaj, I agree! Also, I haven't heard even one credible
> > account of kundalini rising in/from the TM group, probably because
> > most aren't advanced enough,not that it wouldn't happen some  
day but

> > "functioning from the home of all the laws of nature", GMAB!!
>
>
> Sorry to burst your bubble, but I know numerous people who've
> awakened at the prana-kundalini level.

That and a buck wouldn't get you a cup of coffee at starbucks, so
let's see, that means YOU haven't RIGHT! Where's the beef, Amigo!



Some people will have carried an awakening from a previous life, so  
it's impossible to tell those who were previously awakened or if they  
awakened from their practice in this life without investigating. But  
usually if you ask closely, the person can tell you events throughout  
childhood that indicated they carried their awakening from a prior  
existence.

[FairfieldLife] Re: request for cardemaister

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "george_deforest" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> eki, i saw this durga yantra, covered in sanskrit;
> i am hoping you might translate for me? TIA!
> 
> 
> 
> http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a7/coolpraks/durgayant.jpg
>   
>

The text seems to be from "durga-sapta-sloki":

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/devi-mandir/61613-durga-
saptasloki-verse-2-does-child-really-deserve-my-help.html

Verse 2 durge smruta harasi bhitima seshajantoh svasthaih smruta
matimativa subham dadasi daridrya duhkha bhayaharini ka tvadanya
sarvopakara karanaya sadardrachitta 

Swamiji's Translation: Oh,
reliever of difficulties, remembering you the fearof all living
beings is dispelled. When remembered by those individuals in
the harmony of spiritual growth you increase their welfare and
intelligence. Who islike you, Oh dispeller of Poverty, Pain and Fear,
whose sympathetic demeanoralways extends compassionate assistance to
everyone? Exposer of consciousness,we bow to you. 

[FairfieldLife] Maharishi, what is the best posture to meditate in?

[BillyG.]

"When the neck and head are upright, in line with the *spine*, the
path of the breath (prana) is clear, inhalation and exhalation are
smooth and *unrestricted*". MMY Gita VIv13.

The importance here is to keep the channel of the sushumna
clear,(1/100th the width of a hair) ideally that would be the posture
the Guru Dev himself meditated in which would be padma-asana or the
Lotus posture. 

Most of the great Yogis are seated in this position, some day we too
will most likely adopt this posture to enable us to function
effortlessly from, "the home of all the laws of nature", like Guru Dev
was.

What we need is 8000 Guru Devs doing the Siddhis in a group, *really*
functioning from Aham Brahmasmi, now that's real power not this
nonsense we see today, it's a good start, (like everything with the
tmorg) but that is about it!

TM is 'Yoga-lite' for modernity, hence any comfortable sitting
position will suffice, at least initially