[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi: 'Which god you like?' - USA 1959
Is there any question in anyone's mind which of these people is going to hell, and which lives in it daily? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: Be careful what you quote, for you just might find that it is material I have mined. Mined is the word. Crookedness and mason is the synomym. Paul mason circulates quotes from Shri Guru Dev. How surprizing from a thief. Anyone who reads the books of this fellow, where he tries to make a few dollars from his aquintance with a saint, knows that he is happy to create his own quotes. Nothing new about this; the mason has been long exposed as a crook, many are aware of this. Innoscent buyers of his books will not necessarily know. mason, continue as you will according to your dharma, but please know this; your activity represents the lowest of the low and will naturally and eventually result in intense tamas for your sorry soul when it is time to drop the body.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi: 'Which god you like?' - USA 1959
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Dec 13, 2008, at 7:58 PM, raunchydog wrote: I've seen your website before. It's beautiful. Thank you. I'm a TM teacher, as are a few others here and perhaps you are as well. So my POV won't be new to anyone. I've heard Maharishi dodge questions about the selection of the mantra before and I recently saw as link to John Knapp's website showing a similar dodge from a TM teacher. IMO the purpose of the dodge, is to keep the energy positive by making light of the inquiry and help the person about to be initiated have an effortless and innocent experience of transcending. If Maharishi had explained the process exactly, he would have removed one layer of innocence and an opportunity for wonder and surprise. In addition, I guarantee another question would follow immediately afterward. So it's OK to deceive people if you can come up with a good excuse afterwards? You learned your TM ethics well, raunch. Sal, I never expected to get such a sour response to my post. Oh well, it's Sal. Let's talk about deception for a moment, shall we? Deceiving someone would be to set a condition prior to initiation that would prevent an innocent experience. For example, if I told someone all the steps of initiation in great detail and invited them to question me endlessly to mutual exhaustion, they would either walk out and never start TM or their mind would be focused on the intellectual steps of initiation it would prevent an innocent experience. Deception would be a failure to respect the process of teaching that I agreed to honor and cheating someone from learning TM as it was meant to be taught. If I taught any old way, I would be a fraud, a deceiver and a betrayer of Maharishi's trust. Like it or not, that's how I feel about it. Hey Raunch, Did you ever instruct any women in TM? As a 'feminist,' doesn't it ever bother you that you were standing there repeating the phrase I bow down to a bunch of MEN from a tradition that does not allow women to be part of it? Doesn't it bother you that you are referring to these men as Lord and as rulers among yogis and to one of the great male chauvinist pigs of human his- tory (Shankara) as the the personified glory of the Lord and the emancipator of the Lord, at whose door the whole galaxy of gods pray for perfection day and night? Doesn't it bother you that you then say, Having bowed down to him, we gain fulfillment? How DOES that jibe with your so-called 'feminist' sensi- bilities, eh? How do you reconcile telling your female students that Guru Dev (the person who would not allow women to be in his presence) was dispelling the cloud of ignorance of the people, and a gentle emancipator? What are these women you instructed to make of you, a supposed 'feminist,' making offering after offering to the lotus feet of this guy who would not even allow women to catch sight of him? I mean, this is the guy that you are telling your female students (albeit in Sanskrit) is the remover of the blinding darkness of ignorance, and yet he would never have allowed them to be in the same room that he was in. During the course of the puja, you said the phrase I bow down to these men TWENTY-FIVE TIMES, and then you did so physically. Then you ended the teaching session by inviting the women you were taught to kneel and ALSO bow down to these MEN. Given how vocal you have been on this forum about your supposed 'feminist' principles, don't you think that this behavior is a little strange? Or is feeling that you are not being a fraud, a deceiver and a betrayer of Maharishi's trust more important than betraying your own 'feminist' principles? Curious minds want to know.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi: 'Which god you like?' - USA 1959
And Raunch, before you answer and say something like I was merely repeating the Sanskrit I had been taught, may I remind you that TM teachers were instructed to have the *meaning* of these phrases lively in their minds as they recited the puja. I'm just curious as to how you're going to balance your sometimes over-the-top radical feminism with what you were actually *saying* and *doing* each time you performed the puja for these other women you were teaching TM to. And how you balance the realities of the tradition you were initiating them INTO with the things you've been spouting here more recently. What would your sisters on the radical feminist websites you like to hang out on think of you if *they* knew what you were repeating each time you taught other women to meditate? Mere food for thought, a buffet of cognitive dis- sonance for you to chew on. Enjoy the meal... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: Hey Raunch, Did you ever instruct any women in TM? As a 'feminist,' doesn't it ever bother you that you were standing there repeating the phrase I bow down to a bunch of MEN from a tradition that does not allow women to be part of it? Doesn't it bother you that you are referring to these men as Lord and as rulers among yogis and to one of the great male chauvinist pigs of human his- tory (Shankara) as the the personified glory of the Lord and the emancipator of the Lord, at whose door the whole galaxy of gods pray for perfection day and night? Doesn't it bother you that you then say, Having bowed down to him, we gain fulfillment? How DOES that jibe with your so-called 'feminist' sensi- bilities, eh? How do you reconcile telling your female students that Guru Dev (the person who would not allow women to be in his presence) was dispelling the cloud of ignorance of the people, and a gentle emancipator? What are these women you instructed to make of you, a supposed 'feminist,' making offering after offering to the lotus feet of this guy who would not even allow women to catch sight of him? I mean, this is the guy that you are telling your female students (albeit in Sanskrit) is the remover of the blinding darkness of ignorance, and yet he would never have allowed them to be in the same room that he was in. During the course of the puja, you said the phrase I bow down to these men TWENTY-FIVE TIMES, and then you did so physically. Then you ended the teaching session by inviting the women you were teaching to kneel and ALSO bow down to these MEN. Given how vocal you have been on this forum about your supposed 'feminist' principles, don't you think that this behavior is a little strange? Or is feeling that you are not being a fraud, a deceiver and a betrayer of Maharishi's trust more important than betraying your own 'feminist' principles? Curious minds want to know.
[FairfieldLife] Cognitive Dissonance
A few weeks ago I stumbled upon one of the best- written Wikipedia articles I'd ever seen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance I repost the link because I think it's relevant to recent discussions in which otherwise rational TMers, people who *know* the meaning of the puja and the realities of the tradition from which TM springs AND the realities of the lifestyle and the restrictions that the TMO imposes on its members insist that TM is not a religion. I mean, we've got Nabby saying that Paul Mason is definitely, without a question going to Hell for taking the teachings of Guru Dev and making them public, whereas Maharishi is one of the greatest Masters in history for doing the same thing. In the past we've had people who have such an adverse reaction to the TM-siddhis that they can- not practice them personally say that they are safe and recommended for others. We've had women who claim to be radical feminists brush off the realities of performing a puja that requires them to bow down to a bunch of men who would never have allowed a woman to be in the same room with them. We've had people who never became TM teachers claim to know what those who did were taught about how to handle objections. We have guys like Nabby claiming that those who believe differently than he does are going straight to Hell, do not pass Go, do not collect $200, while *he* is leading a spiritual lifestyle for wishing fervently that they go to Hell. In the political arena, we have people decrying one candidate for stretching the truth while going *out of their way* to defend their candidate when she does *exactly* the same thing. And above all, we have people still claiming that TM is the fastest, most effective pathway to enlight- enment while having not a *single* person certified by the TM movement as an example of an enlightened being. And we've got people still claiming that TMers are going to be flying Any Day Now and that World Peace and Heaven On Earth are right around the corner, as close as the sound of the next thud of a butt-bouncer landing on foam or the next chant of pundits locked behind barbed wire in a compound in Fairfield. I guess what I'm suggesting is that if there is any- thing that the TM technique and its long-term practice CAN be recognized as teaching, and teaching well, it is how to live with cognitive dissonance. Long-term practitioners of TM have learned to *ignore* this cognitive dissonance so well that they don't even see it when it is held up in front of their eyes. Now THAT is an achievement.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi: 'Which god you like?' - USA 1959
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: Of all the lowly creatures that post on FFL Paul Mason is the perhaps the lowliest, utterly devoted as he is to make a cheap little dollar. Mr. paul Mason, and Mr Nablusoss. What did Maharishi say wrong in this explanation? Honestly, I actually do not see what is wrong with any of it. Can someone explain this to me? The quoted statement makes perfect sense. Nature is very natural, mantras are good, but the MOST important thing is the 'correct angle' and let go...as Maharishi used to say. The 'correct angle' did not mean the 'perfect mantra', it only meant the 'path of least resistance', and that is in the technique, not the sound given, but the system for applying it. I honestly don't see why Paul Mason or Nablussos has a problem with what was quoted of Maharishi by Paul Mason here? Please explain. OffWorld Off; what makes you think that the quotes paul mason is referring to are real quotes ? Please explain.
[FairfieldLife] Vegetarianism and All Isms Through Spiritual 'Ism' - Maharishi 1957
Vegetarianism and All Isms Through Spiritual 'Ism' Address of His Holiness Maharishi Bal Brahmachari Mahesh Yogi delivered at the 15th Session of the World Vegetarian Congress held at Madras on 30 -11-1957 My own Self as Representatives of East and West: We are here today to find a solution for a complicated problem of existence, confronting the whole humanity on the civilised world - the problem of safety of life, of love, protection, peace and happiness: not only of individuals but of the whole creation and of nature too. All the creatures are sprung from God. Man is probably the polished son of God. And so unto him the great responsibility. Man must be sensible enough to look to the protection of life on earth, the precious property of the Great Father. Vegetarianism is a direct means to this, is the claim of this World Vegetarian Congress. True it is. Accepted that Vegetarianism leads man for all Good. Accepting all values of Vegetarianism, the question arises how we are going to establish it. How are we going to change the 'Killing world' of today into a non-killing world of tomorrow? How are we going to change the spirit of killing, the spirit of aggression, the spirit of violence into the spirit of kindness and love - overflowing love for the whole creation? How are we going to change hardness and cruelty of heart to softness and overflowing love for everybody? .. Full transcript at:- ../../../message/%20http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/Vegetarianism_Tor\ ch_Divine.htm http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/Vegetarianism_Torch_Divine.htm http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/Vegetarianism_Torch_Divine.htm ../../../message/%20http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/Vegetarianism_Tor\ ch_Divine.htm
[FairfieldLife] Countdown: Thom Hartmann on the GOP Busting Unions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tuo1iG6eF-M
[FairfieldLife] Vegetarianism and All Isms Through Spiritual 'Ism' - Maharishi 1957
Vegetarianism and All Isms Through Spiritual 'Ism' Address of His Holiness Maharishi Bal Brahmachari Mahesh Yogi delivered at the 15th Session of the World Vegetarian Congress held at Madras on 30 -11-1957 My own Self as Representatives of East and West: We are here today to find a solution for a complicated problem of existence, confronting the whole humanity on the civilised world - the problem of safety of life, of love, protection, peace and happiness: not only of individuals but of the whole creation and of nature too. All the creatures are sprung from God. Man is probably the polished son of God. And so unto him the great responsibility. Man must be sensible enough to look to the protection of life on earth, the precious property of the Great Father. Vegetarianism is a direct means to this, is the claim of this World Vegetarian Congress. True it is. Accepted that Vegetarianism leads man for all Good. Accepting all values of Vegetarianism, the question arises how we are going to establish it. How are we going to change the 'killing world' of today into a non-killing world of tomorrow? How are we going to change the spirit of killing, the spirit of aggression, the spirit of violence into the spirit of kindness and love - overflowing love for the whole creation? How are we going to change hardness and cruelty of heart to softness and overflowing love for everybody? .. Full transcript at:- http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/Vegetarianism_Torch_Divine.htm
[FairfieldLife] 'Domestic PSOPS?'
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi: 'Which god you like?' - USA 1959
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... I'm a TM teacher, as are a few others here and perhaps you are as well. So my POV won't be new to anyone. I've heard Maharishi dodge questions about the selection of the mantra before and I recently saw as link to John Knapp's website showing a similar dodge from a TM teacher. IMO the purpose of the dodge, is to keep the energy positive by making light of the inquiry and help the person about to be initiated have an effortless and innocent experience of transcending. If Maharishi had explained the process exactly, he would have removed one layer of innocence and an opportunity for wonder and surprise. In addition, I guarantee another question would follow immediately afterward. If someone has many questions, the best way to proceed is to move the process along as quickly as possible, get them initiated, and let the experience be the proof they desire. No amount of explaining will teach the taste of a strawberry. Only experience removes doubt. Very few people who come for initiation what to play 20 questions about how to pick a mantra. Most come with an attitude of openness and expectation that something good will happen. I've taught about 200 people and only one person didn't have a satisfying experience. He came for initiation rather drunk. I credit Maharishi for instilling a great love for Guru Dev in my heart and I am grateful to him for that. Maharishi was humble. Whenever anyone one tried to thank him for anything he always deferred to Guru Dev saying, All glory to Guru Dev or Jai Guru Dev. I got the message deep in my soul that Guru Dev is indeed the custodian of the Holy Tradition to which I bow down, not Maharishi. Some may accuse me of magical thinking, but I don't care. I feel what I feel. I always feel that singing the Puja, in a very tangible way, (not so tangible to some folks reading this post) connects me with the lineage of the Holy Tradition and invokes the presence of the Masters of the Holy Tradition. When teaching, my heart is full with gratitude and it is from this simple space of innocence I believe the mantra becomes infused with power to allow a person to transcend. I haven't taught anyone TM in many years but I still love to do the Puja for myself from time to time. Jai Guru Dev raunchydog Very nice ! Thank you for posting this.
[FairfieldLife] Vegetarianism and All Isms Through Spiritual 'Ism' - Maharishi 1957
Vegetarianism and All Isms Through Spiritual 'Ism' Address of His Holiness Maharishi Bal Brahmachari Mahesh Yogi delivered at the 15th Session of the World Vegetarian Congress held at Madras on 30 -11-1957 My own Self as Representatives of East and West: We are here today to find a solution for a complicated problem of existence, confronting the whole humanity on the civilised world - the problem of safety of life, of love, protection, peace and happiness: not only of individuals but of the whole creation and of nature too. All the creatures are sprung from God. Man is probably the polished son of God. And so unto him the great responsibility. Man must be sensible enough to look to the protection of life on earth, the precious property of the Great Father. Vegetarianism is a direct means to this, is the claim of this World Vegetarian Congress. True it is. Accepted that Vegetarianism leads man for all Good. Accepting all values of Vegetarianism, the question arises how we are going to establish it. How are we going to change the 'Killing world' of today into a non-killing world of tomorrow? How are we going to change the spirit of killing, the spirit of aggression, the spirit of violence into the spirit of kindness and love - overflowing love for the whole creation? How are we going to change hardness and cruelty of heart to softness and overflowing love for everybody? .. Full transcript at:- http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/Vegetarianism_Torch_Divine.htm ../../../../../message/%20http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/Vegetariani\ sm_Torch_Divine.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: Vegetarianism and All Isms Through Spiritual 'Ism' - Maharishi 1957
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandp...@... wrote: Vegetarianism and All Isms Through Spiritual 'Ism' Address of His Holiness Maharishi Bal Brahmachari Mahesh Yogi delivered at the 15th Session of the World Vegetarian Congress held at Madras on 30 -11-1957 My own Self as Representatives of East and West: We are here today to find a solution for a complicated problem of existence, confronting the whole humanity on the civilised world - the problem of safety of life, of love, protection, peace and happiness: not only of individuals but of the whole creation and of nature too. All the creatures are sprung from God. Man is probably the polished son of God. And so unto him the great responsibility. Man must be sensible enough to look to the protection of life on earth, the precious property of the Great Father. Vegetarianism is a direct means to this, is the claim of this World Vegetarian Congress. True it is. Accepted that Vegetarianism leads man for all Good. Accepting all values of Vegetarianism, the question arises how we are going to establish it. How are we going to change the 'Killing world' of today into a non-killing world of tomorrow? How are we going to change the spirit of killing, the spirit of aggression, the spirit of violence into the spirit of kindness and love - overflowing love for the whole creation? How are we going to change hardness and cruelty of heart to softness and overflowing love for everybody? .. Full transcript at:- ../../../../../message/%20http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/Vegetariani\ sm_Torch_Divine.htm That link seems screwed Paul? S/b: http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/Vegetarianism_Torch_Divine.htm
[FairfieldLife] QM explanation of YF?
If I got it right, according to recent research, about 95% of the mass of baryons consists of the movement of quarks. I think the first part of YF-suutra somehow eliminates or neutralizes that mass, and the remaining 5% is neutralized by the second part of YF-suutra. Naah, just kidding! :D
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi: 'Which god you like?' - USA 1959
Offworld, I don't have a problem with what Maharishi said about selection of mantras, I merely put the recording up because I thought it would interest FFL'ers and because it also illustrated the link between TM and religion, which for me is not a problem. That was the issue, that the TM movement is still trying to convince itself of the lack of such a connection. For me that is a bit like saying that water is not wet. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: Of all the lowly creatures that post on FFL Paul Mason is the perhaps the lowliest, utterly devoted as he is to make a cheap little dollar. Mr. paul Mason, and Mr Nablusoss. What did Maharishi say wrong in this explanation? Honestly, I actually do not see what is wrong with any of it. Can someone explain this to me? The quoted statement makes perfect sense. Nature is very natural, mantras are good, but the MOST important thing is the 'correct angle' and let go...as Maharishi used to say. The 'correct angle' did not mean the 'perfect mantra', it only meant the 'path of least resistance', and that is in the technique, not the sound given, but the system for applying it. I honestly don't see why Paul Mason or Nablussos has a problem with what was quoted of Maharishi by Paul Mason here? Please explain. OffWorld
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi: 'Which god you like?' - USA 1959
On Dec 14, 2008, at 3:46 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: What are these women you instructed to make of you, a supposed 'feminist,' making offering after offering to the lotus feet of this guy who would not even allow women to catch sight of him? I mean, this is the guy that you are telling your female students (albeit in Sanskrit) is the remover of the blinding darkness of ignorance, and yet he would never have allowed them to be in the same room that he was in. Gee Raunch, I'd let you bow at my feet for FREE! Please don't forget to take out the garbage when you're done.
[FairfieldLife] Cognitive Dissonance As A Good Thing
Having rapped once this morning about cognitive dissonance as something...uh...possibly less than admirable, when it is denied, I feel it my duty to expound upon cognitive dissonance as a Good Thing, as one of the greatest tools in the arsenal of a spiritual seeker. Cognitive dissonance is what happens when you realize that you are holding in your mind two completely contradictory ideas or belief systems. In most people, this realization causes dis-ease, or absolute discomfort, and many of them react by making the cognitive dissonance go away. They do this by rationalizing it away, or by literally forgetting that it exists, by putting it out of their minds, or by any number of other clever means. But, just for the sake of argument, what would happen if you *didn't* put it out of your mind? What would happen if you, in fact, *embraced* it and reveled in it? What would happen has a name. It is called Tantra. Tantra is the study of seeming opposites, and the reconciliation of them by *embracing* them, not ignoring them. Personally, I think it's just the bees' knees, the coolest tool by far in the spiritual arsenal. Your mileage may vary. Take the example of conflicting belief systems. Most of you out there are alive, walking around, thinking and functioning in a world that seems to be real and tangible. You touch it, you taste it, and you interface with it using all of your other senses. You think about it constantly, and your mind takes it so seriously that sometimes it even gets into argu- ments with what seem to be other minds in this seemingly real and tangible world about which of you is right and which of you is wrong about the things you think about the world. And yet. And yet quite a few of you out there believe to the core of your being that this world I've just been describing DOES NOT EXIST. You believe completely that it is an illusion, Maya. As is the person perceiving it. Fess up. Some of you really do believe this, right? And yet you walk around in this world that you do not believe exists, using a self that you also do not believe exists to interface with the world you do not believe exists, and you walk around in it every single day. Now THAT is cognitive dissonance. And isn't it COOL? Yes, your daily perception that the world is real and so is the self perceiving it. You make plans for the future in this real world, that's how much you believe it exists. Yes, some of you believe that none of it is real, and that the whole thing is a big holy hologram, nothing but the dance of Maya or the hiccup of God. Two instances of Yes. No instance of No. You believe in and act upon BOTH, *knowing* that they are irreconcilable belief systems. Cognitive dissonance. Cool. A real opportunity. A lot of people might react to being reminded that they hold two irreconcilable belief systems with dis-ease. But isn't that kinda sad, and unproductive? Wouldn't it be so much cooler to just RELAX about it, and ADMIT to your self (which you don't believe exists) that your mind (which you also don't think exists) holds two irreconcilable belief systems to be true, at the same time? Wouldn't it make for a really cool spiritual AA meeting? Newb: Hi. My name is Ralph and I'm cognitively dissonant. Group: Hi, Ralph. I'll let you fill in the rest of the dialog yourself. Can't you think of a few contradictory beliefs that you hold at the same time that you could talk about at the meeting? Things that fall into the category of, I believe X to be completely true, an accurate model of how everything works. And yet, at the same time, I believe Y, which negates X. There is magic in that And yet. Learning not to react to it with dis-ease is the beginning of ease.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitive Dissonance
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: A few weeks ago I stumbled upon one of the best- written Wikipedia articles I'd ever seen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance I repost the link because I think it's relevant to recent discussions in which otherwise rational TMers, people who *know* the meaning of the puja and the realities of the tradition from which TM springs AND the realities of the lifestyle and the restrictions that the TMO imposes on its members insist that TM is not a religion. I mean, we've got Nabby saying that Paul Mason is definitely, without a question going to Hell for taking the teachings of Guru Dev and making them public, whereas Maharishi is one of the greatest Masters in history for doing the same thing. In the past we've had people who have such an adverse reaction to the TM-siddhis that they can- not practice them personally say that they are safe and recommended for others. We've had women who claim to be radical feminists brush off the realities of performing a puja that requires them to bow down to a bunch of men who would never have allowed a woman to be in the same room with them. We've had people who never became TM teachers claim to know what those who did were taught about how to handle objections. We have guys like Nabby claiming that those who believe differently than he does are going straight to Hell, do not pass Go, do not collect $200, while *he* is leading a spiritual lifestyle for wishing fervently that they go to Hell. In the political arena, we have people decrying one candidate for stretching the truth while going *out of their way* to defend their candidate when she does *exactly* the same thing. And above all, we have people still claiming that TM is the fastest, most effective pathway to enlight- enment while having not a *single* person certified by the TM movement as an example of an enlightened being. And we've got people still claiming that TMers are going to be flying Any Day Now and that World Peace and Heaven On Earth are right around the corner, as close as the sound of the next thud of a butt-bouncer landing on foam or the next chant of pundits locked behind barbed wire in a compound in Fairfield. I guess what I'm suggesting is that if there is any- thing that the TM technique and its long-term practice CAN be recognized as teaching, and teaching well, it is how to live with cognitive dissonance. Long-term practitioners of TM have learned to *ignore* this cognitive dissonance so well that they don't even see it when it is held up in front of their eyes. Now THAT is an achievement. Barry, Murder my unicorn to your cynical little heart's content. It must be driving you crazy that people who practice TM and don't bother to inspect the lint in their navel can actually have an enjoyable life. Let it go bro.
[FairfieldLife] Vegetarianism and All Isms Through Spiritual 'Ism' - Maharishi 1957
Vegetarianism and All Isms Through Spiritual 'Ism' Address of His Holiness Maharishi Bal Brahmachari Mahesh Yogi delivered at the 15th Session of the World Vegetarian Congress held at Madras on 30 -11-1957 My own Self as Representatives of East and West: We are here today to find a solution for a complicated problem of existence, confronting the whole humanity on the civilised world - the problem of safety of life, of love, protection, peace and happiness: not only of individuals but of the whole creation and of nature too. All the creatures are sprung from God. Man is probably the polished son of God. And so unto him the great responsibility. Man must be sensible enough to look to the protection of life on earth, the precious property of the Great Father. Vegetarianism is a direct means to this, is the claim of this World Vegetarian Congress. True it is. Accepted that Vegetarianism leads man for all Good. Accepting all values of Vegetarianism, the question arises how we are going to establish it. How are we going to change the 'Killing world' of today into a non-killing world of tomorrow? How are we going to change the spirit of killing, the spirit of aggression, the spirit of violence into the spirit of kindness and love - overflowing love for the whole creation? How are we going to change hardness and cruelty of heart to softness and overflowing love for everybody? .. Full transcript at:- http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/Vegetarianism_Torch_Divine.htm %20http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/Vegetarianism_Torch_Divine.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: Vegetarianism and All Isms Through Spiritual 'Ism' - Maharishi 1957
Thanks for sorting out the link... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: Vegetarianism and All Isms Through Spiritual 'Ism' Address of His Holiness Maharishi Bal Brahmachari Mahesh Yogi delivered at the 15th Session of the World Vegetarian Congress held at Madras on 30 -11-1957 My own Self as Representatives of East and West: We are here today to find a solution for a complicated problem of existence, confronting the whole humanity on the civilised world - the problem of safety of life, of love, protection, peace and happiness: not only of individuals but of the whole creation and of nature too. All the creatures are sprung from God. Man is probably the polished son of God. And so unto him the great responsibility. Man must be sensible enough to look to the protection of life on earth, the precious property of the Great Father. Vegetarianism is a direct means to this, is the claim of this World Vegetarian Congress. True it is. Accepted that Vegetarianism leads man for all Good. Accepting all values of Vegetarianism, the question arises how we are going to establish it. How are we going to change the 'Killing world' of today into a non-killing world of tomorrow? How are we going to change the spirit of killing, the spirit of aggression, the spirit of violence into the spirit of kindness and love - overflowing love for the whole creation? How are we going to change hardness and cruelty of heart to softness and overflowing love for everybody? .. Full transcript at:- ../../../../../message/%20http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/Vegetariani\ sm_Torch_Divine.htm That link seems screwed Paul? S/b: http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/Vegetarianism_Torch_Divine.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi: 'Which god you like?' - USA 1959
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Dec 14, 2008, at 3:46 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: What are these women you instructed to make of you, a supposed 'feminist,' making offering after offering to the lotus feet of this guy who would not even allow women to catch sight of him? I mean, this is the guy that you are telling your female students (albeit in Sanskrit) is the remover of the blinding darkness of ignorance, and yet he would never have allowed them to be in the same room that he was in. Gee Raunch, I'd let you bow at my feet for FREE! Please don't forget to take out the garbage when you're done. Vaj, Sexist Oinker in Chief, tuck yourself into a big plastic garbage bag with the potato peelings and tissues, get nice and slimy stewing in the moldering stench, and I'll take you out to the curb for trash pick up on Wednesday. Cancel that. You belong in the green recycling bin. Waste Management sends Oinker trash to Pakistan where it rightly belongs with the Taliban.
[FairfieldLife] Prop 8 - The Musical
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones LINK
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi: 'Which god you like?' - USA 1959
On Dec 14, 2008, at 9:11 AM, raunchydog wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Dec 14, 2008, at 3:46 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: What are these women you instructed to make of you, a supposed 'feminist,' making offering after offering to the lotus feet of this guy who would not even allow women to catch sight of him? I mean, this is the guy that you are telling your female students (albeit in Sanskrit) is the remover of the blinding darkness of ignorance, and yet he would never have allowed them to be in the same room that he was in. Gee Raunch, I'd let you bow at my feet for FREE! Please don't forget to take out the garbage when you're done. Vaj, Sexist Oinker in Chief, tuck yourself into a big plastic garbage bag with the potato peelings and tissues, get nice and slimy stewing in the moldering stench, and I'll take you out to the curb for trash pick up on Wednesday. Cancel that. You belong in the green recycling bin. Waste Management sends Oinker trash to Pakistan where it rightly belongs with the Taliban. Hey, if you could throw in a back rub, I'd really appreciate it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi: 'Which god you like?' - USA 1959
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Dec 14, 2008, at 9:11 AM, raunchydog wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Dec 14, 2008, at 3:46 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: What are these women you instructed to make of you, a supposed 'feminist,' making offering after offering to the lotus feet of this guy who would not even allow women to catch sight of him? I mean, this is the guy that you are telling your female students (albeit in Sanskrit) is the remover of the blinding darkness of ignorance, and yet he would never have allowed them to be in the same room that he was in. Gee Raunch, I'd let you bow at my feet for FREE! Please don't forget to take out the garbage when you're done. Vaj, Sexist Oinker in Chief, tuck yourself into a big plastic garbage bag with the potato peelings and tissues, get nice and slimy stewing in the moldering stench, and I'll take you out to the curb for trash pick up on Wednesday. Cancel that. You belong in the green recycling bin. Waste Management sends Oinker trash to Pakistan where it rightly belongs with the Taliban. Hey, if you could throw in a back rub, I'd really appreciate it. You've been recycled to Pakistan, buddy, where you can despise and belittle women all you want. Beat and threaten the women in burkas with death if they don't take care of your personal needs and dutifully cook for you, but be sure to hire a food taster.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi: 'Which god you like?' - USA 1959
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Dec 14, 2008, at 9:11 AM, raunchydog wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Dec 14, 2008, at 3:46 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: What are these women you instructed to make of you, a supposed 'feminist,' making offering after offering to the lotus feet of this guy who would not even allow women to catch sight of him? I mean, this is the guy that you are telling your female students (albeit in Sanskrit) is the remover of the blinding darkness of ignorance, and yet he would never have allowed them to be in the same room that he was in. Gee Raunch, I'd let you bow at my feet for FREE! Please don't forget to take out the garbage when you're done. Vaj, Sexist Oinker in Chief, tuck yourself into a big plastic garbage bag with the potato peelings and tissues, get nice and slimy stewing in the moldering stench, and I'll take you out to the curb for trash pick up on Wednesday. Cancel that. You belong in the green recycling bin. Waste Management sends Oinker trash to Pakistan where it rightly belongs with the Taliban. Hey, if you could throw in a back rub, I'd really appreciate it. You've been recycled to Pakistan, buddy, where you can despise and belittle women all you want. Beat and threaten the women in burkas with death if they don't take care of your personal needs and dutifully cook for you, but be sure to hire a food taster. Meanwhile, Raunchydog will be here at home inviting other women to join her in bowing down to men who would not allow her to be in the same room with them. ( Just as a question, given her own standards as expressed on this forum, wouldn't Raunch's line about hiring a food taster constitute a death threat against Vaj? ) Also, regarding the language she is using to refer to Vaj, I think I'm having a wee flashback to something I said just last week: The thing is, the women crying misogyny often drop seamlessly into misandry as they're doing so. *AS* they are decrying some guy for using misogynist language, they think nothing of calling him every stereotyped term they can possibly think of that is demeaning to men. (We guys usually don't call them on it because we're not wimps.) Raunchy, You'll have to pardon me for saying so, but it appears to me that my comments about the nature of the puja and what you are doing when you perform it have stirred up some *major* cognitive dissonance in you. And it further appears to me that rather than dealing with it, you have chosen to lash out at the men who *pointed out* what you are doing during the puja instead of dealing with it. All I did was point out that you were, in fact, repeating the words I bow down 25 TIMES during each puja to a tradition of men who were so sexist that they would never have allowed you to join it, or even be in the same room with them. You accused me of murdering your unicorn by pointing it out. You are now in the process of calling Vaj every demeaning name you can think of after he followed up on my point by poking fun at you. Seems to me it would be much easier and a lot more sane to just admit that you've got a few cognitive dissonance issues and deal with them.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Vegetarianism and All Isms Through Spiritual 'Ism' - Maharishi 1957
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandp...@... wrote: Thanks for sorting out the link... Full transcript at:- http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/Vegetarianism_Torch_Divine.htm Vegetarianism and All Isms Through Spiritual 'Ism' Address of His Holiness Maharishi Bal Brahmachari Mahesh Yogi delivered at the 15th Session of the World Vegetarian Congress held at Madras on 30 -11-1957 Yes by definition, is religious. Religious vegetarianism. By definition: ..that religions or religious beliefs are those that are based upon a power or being, or upon a faith, to which all else is subordinate or upon which all else is ultimately dependent. United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 176 (1965); see also Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 339-40 (1970). One commonly accepted re-phrasing of this test breaks it into three questions: 1. Does the practice or belief in question address[] fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters? 2. Is the practice or belief in question comprehensive in nature? Does it consist[] of a belief-system as opposed to an isolated teaching? 3. Does the practice or belief in question have certain formal and external signs, such as formal services, ceremonial functions, the existence of clergy, structure and organization, efforts at propagation, observance of holidays and other similar manifestations associated with traditional religion? Africa v. Pennsylvania, 662 F.2d 1025, 1032, 1035 (3d Cir. 1981). http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/201469 My own Self as Representatives of East and West: We are here today to find a solution for a complicated problem of existence, confronting the whole humanity on the civilised world - the problem of safety of life, of love, protection, peace and happiness: not only of individuals but of the whole creation and of nature too. All the creatures are sprung from God. Man is probably the polished son of God. And so unto him the great responsibility. Man must be sensible enough to look to the protection of life on earth, the precious property of the Great Father. Vegetarianism is a direct means to this, is the claim of this World Vegetarian Congress. True it is. Accepted that Vegetarianism leads man for all Good. Accepting all values of Vegetarianism, the question arises how we are going to establish it. How are we going to change the 'Killing world' of today into a non-killing world of tomorrow? How are we going to change the spirit of killing, the spirit of aggression, the spirit of violence into the spirit of kindness and love - overflowing love for the whole creation? How are we going to change hardness and cruelty of heart to softness and overflowing love for everybody? .. Full transcript at:- http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/Vegetarianism_Torch_Divine.htm
Re: [FairfieldLife] Fairfield_Lifers sure are DUMB.
On Dec 14, 2008, at 1:33 AM, off_world_beings wrote: Fairfield_Lifers sure are DUMB. Yes, that would be you RanchDawg, PornoSal, John Curtis Wayne, Peter Pan in tights, ShemptheSheepShagger...and others. Sure nice to see all that radiant joy and positivity your many years of TM have left you with, off. :) Keep up the good work...or something. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi: 'Which god you like?' - USA 1959
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: snip Raunchy, You'll have to pardon me for saying so, but it appears to me that my comments about the nature of the puja and what you are doing when you perform it have stirred up some *major* cognitive dissonance in you. And it further appears to me that rather than dealing with it, you have chosen to lash out at the men who *pointed out* what you are doing during the puja instead of dealing with it. How does Barry cope with the cognitive dissonance that what he hoped would happen didn't happen? Simple. He just pretends it *did* happen.
[FairfieldLife] Deepak remembers MMY.
The Observer, Sunday 14 December 2008 The guru who introduced Transcendental Meditation to the west died on 5 February aged 91. He's remembered by the renowned spiritual writer, a close friend for more than 20 years Deepak Chopra Maharishi Mahesh Yogi started out as one kind of cultural curiosity - a lone Hindu monk who aimed to teach meditation to the world - and ended up as a different kind of cultural curiosity: the one-time guru to the Beatles. He came remarkably close to fulfilling his original intent. Millions of westerners learned Transcendental Meditation (TM), and a new word, 'mantra', was added to the English language. He survived long after the departure of the Fab Four, who decamped almost as soon as they sniffed the thin air of Maharishi's Himalayan retreat (excluding George Harrison, who turned into a genuine seeker and quiet ally). Maharishi owed his survival to two things. He was sincerely a guru, a 'dispeller of darkness', who had the good of the world at heart, despite the wags who turned TM into the McDonald's of meditation and the caricatures that morphed his white-bearded image into a pop cliché. Sincerity would have served him little if Maharishi hadn't also been a gifted teacher of India's ancient tradition of Vedanta. Many visitors who came to gawk went away moved by both qualities. Beginning in the mid-Eighties, I had the opportunity to know Maharishi as a friend. Whenever my medical practice permitted, I joined his inner circle. It wasn't necessary to be reverent in his presence. He made a point of not being seen as a religious figure but as a teacher of consciousness. Of the many memories I could offer, here is the most intense ... Maharishi had fallen mysteriously and gravely ill on a visit to India in 1991. My father, a prominent cardiologist in New Delhi, ordered him to be rushed to England for emergency care. Soon, I was standing outside the London Heart Hospital, watching an ambulance navigate the snarled traffic, sirens wailing. Just before it arrived on the hospital's doorstep, one of the accompanying doctors ran up with the news that Maharishi had suddenly died. I rushed to the ambulance, picking up Maharishi's body - he was frail and light by this time - and carrying him in my arms through London traffic. I laid him on the floor inside the hospital's doors and called for a cardio assist. Within minutes he was revived and rushed to intensive care on a respirator and fitted with a pacemaker that took over his heartbeat. I became his primary caretaker during this crisis, tending to him personally at a private home outside London. It quickly became apparent that he was totally indifferent to his illness, and there was an astonishingly rapid recovery. The hospital expected lasting health problems, but there were apparently none. Within a few months Maharishi was back to his round-the-clock schedule - he rarely slept more than three or four hours a night. When I approached him one day to remind him to take his medications, he gave me a penetrating look. In it I read a message: 'Do you really think I am this body?' For me, that was a startling moment, a clue about what higher consciousness may actually be like. As he saw himself, Maharishi knew that he had come tantalisingly close to changing the world, as close as any non-politician can who doesn't wage war. He held that humanity could be saved from destruction only by raising collective consciousness. In that sense he was the first person to talk about tipping points and critical mass. If enough people meditated and turned into peaceful citizens of the world, Maharishi believed, walls of ignorance and hatred would fall as decisively as the Berlin Wall. This was his core teaching in the post-Beatles phase of his long career before he died peacefully in seclusion in Holland, at the age of about 91, his following much shrunken, his optimism still intact. -- Here's the article with a picture you've probably only seen a million times: http://tinyurl.com/6f5wc9 Or: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/dec/14/deepak-chopra-remembers- maharishi-mahesh-yogi
[FairfieldLife] Letters From an Enlightened Man
Robin Woodsworth Carlsen issued a series of long-winded letters in 1978, two years after his TM enlightenment on September the 19th at 1:25 PM, 1976. This guy sure did love to write! The 183 page book is typeset in a small 9 point font and is single-spaced and includes Robin's own glossary of TM-speak and the newer Robin-speak. The preface describes the collection as completely unprecedented and claims to reconcile the Buddha's search for Nirvana with Hamlet's quest for self-knowledge. The book begins with an intro letter which also serves as an intro to the book. The second letter, excerpted here, is a letter directly addressed to his teacher, HH the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and concerns the condition of the personality of his teachers [of Transcendental Meditation] and the tamasic pseudo- serenity they seemed to be manifesting. While from one POV you can hear the fanatic tone of the TM-cultist, on the other the objective reader will also recognize the sterility and heartlessness so common within it's most fanatical adherents. As with most Carlsen letters, it begins with a quotation. (A third letter which follows this one is addressed to all TM teachers and governors.) --- All Excerpts © Robin Woodsworth Carlsen, 1978. The book has no ISBN. I am the necessary angel of the earth, Since, in my sight, you see the earth again, Cleared of its stiff and stubborn, man-locked set... Wallace Stevens July 9, 1978 Dear Maharishi, Today we received a call from the Victoria Center informing us of a phone call from you at noon. Some of us here at Sunnyside were working, but five of us came down to the Center to await that magical moment when we would hear your voice live. As it turned out we waited for about two hours and then you came through. I had hoped to hear a more personal message, but in spite of the specific theme of your talk, Invincibility Campaign in B.C., the sound of your voice connected us with the most beautiful personalized expression of Being. In those few minutes when you spoke all of us felt the nourishing influence of that human being who had given us the power to break out of the horrible prison of ignorance. I also realized, perhaps more vividly than ever before, how you have created activities for all your teachers so that they might stay on the Path and continue to raise the level of sattva in world consciousness. It is as if you have taken thousands of crippled children on your knee and are nurturing them to the point of being able to walk. That you could gain the utter devotion and loyalty of tens of thousands of individuals raised in a civilization that has lost its traditional roots and which glorifies a small 'i' individual, is nothing short of miraculous. The consciousness and physiological purity of your teachers places them in a class by themselves. No doubt they are transforming the environment in a way that is going to alter the course of history. Today, however, I witnessed a phenomenon that has reached what I perceive to be a most critical and dangerous stage. I refer to the tragic condition of the teachers' personalities. Somehow in absolutely placing all their attention on meditation and teaching they have assumed a passive role within the evolutionary challenges that present themselves within activity. We know that Creative Intelligence dances in every cell of the universe, and that every sphere within Creation has its own laws, the violation of which injures Creation and brings suffering to the doer. In spite of all their very real devotion and creativity, the teachers have, for the most part, ignored the domain of life in which there is the highest concentration of divine energy and love: Relationship. Initiators, knowing that they are in possession of the perfect technology for Self-realization, invest no attention in the art of communication. Whereas someone else is bereft of the knowledge and procedures for transcendence that you have conferred upon us, he may exert more effort in being responsible for what he does; his suffering and helplessness may drive him to more extreme forms of expressiveness within his relationships with those he loves. Whatever the case, initiators by and large carry on blithely unaware of how conditioned and anaesthetized they are within the spectacular dance of relationship. It is as if their contact with pure consciousness is so fulfilling and their vision of activity so simplified ( meditate and act'') they lose the spur of individuation, the evolutionary desire to unfold the full flowering of their personalities, their divine uniqueness. They are so caught up in the vision of the Goal, the bliss of their programs, the Movement dogma, that they are, given the refined quality of their nervous systems, insensitive to the sacred and mysterious drama of the Relative and the challenge to awaken to the
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield_Lifers sure are DUMB.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_re...@... wrote: Fairfield_Lifers sure are DUMB. Yes, that would be you RanchDawg, PornoSal, John Curtis Wayne, Peter Pan in tights, ShemptheSheepShagger...and others. Porno Sal! Shemp the sheep shagger! Have I missed something?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield_Lifers sure are DUMB.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Dec 14, 2008, at 1:33 AM, off_world_beings wrote: Fairfield_Lifers sure are DUMB. Yes, that would be you RanchDawg, PornoSal, John Curtis Wayne, Peter Pan in tights, ShemptheSheepShagger...and others. Sure nice to see all that radiant joy and positivity your many years of TM have left you with, off. :) Sorry, I thought you liked being called PornoSal...My bad. OffWorld Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi: 'Which god you like?' - USA 1959
SNIP I think the aggression towards him is quite in keeping with the way Maharishi trained his followers. Somehow I managed to miss all that training. I personally criticize Paul because I find many of his criticisms of MMY unfair and biased, and in some cases just plain dishonest. I wonder why...mmm...did you perhaps miss teacher training Judy and all the messages to teachers in centers about how to deal with specific threats? If that's what you mean, you need to specify teachers. Followers includes non-teachers. And others here use that same mantra to dismiss all those who criticize TM critics. The implication is that they don't have any justification for criticizing the critics. Pretty cheap way to avoid actually dealing with the criticisms. I guess I never think of you as a Maharishi follower Judy. You are a defender. But I thought you always made a point that you purposely didn't spend time around the guy running hither and thither. Not that you owe me an explanation, but I think it is interesting. You certainly aren't a stickler for accepting some of his fundamental premises on face value from what I can tell. I get the point about using your lack of TTF as a block for discussion, and if used on a point that has nothing to do with TTC, that sounds wrong. But the truth is there were parallel movement teachings and many issues for teachers here have nothing to do with the movement you know. snip Guru Dev was an abstract figurehead meant to legitimize Maharishi's teaching. A closer look might lead one to conclude that he actually represented the opposite, a tradition that would never let Maharishi run as wild as he did through the world selling his wares. Or, one might conclude that what MMY wanted to do was strip Guru Dev's teachings about the nature and mechanics of consciousness of their religious packaging and his social conservatism. Or appear to for marketing purposes in the West for a while. The cat is pretty far out of the bag now. Marharishi enforced his social conservatism on anyone he had direct power over and instructed his minions to do the same with fulltime people. Yeah, you're gonna git 'im one way or t'other, aintcha? (Your two attempts above have nothing to do with each other, just for the record.) I think that phrase git 'im one way or t'other is an attempt to minimize the points I made. Maharishi WAS the opposite of Guru Dev in many ways, not the least of which was his relationship with money. But he was also LIKE Guru Dev in that he taught strict prudery as virtue... for others. interesting guy. He seeks no conflict here and has no agenda other than to share what he has found. If he has no agenda, why did he promote here the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi: Separating Fact from Fiction post he made on John Knapp's TMFree blog? That sounds like another agenda that I missed. I guess he is advocating his point of view. I was using the term agenda more as negitive spin as was Nabby and accept your correction of its true meaning. Disingenuous. I meant negative spin too, and you know it. Like many of your challenges this post send me back to the dictionary and I had some trouble finding the spin on it that is in common usage. I think what is being left out is the full phrase hidden agenda which clarifies the darkness of the motives. But I don't think it applies to you, or me, or Paul Mason because all of our agendas are overt. We are all expressing our POV on these topics and at this point might be able to write each other's responses we know each other's agendas so well. Paul is expressing a POV on the relationship between Maharishi and Guru Dev's teachings. I don't really get a sinister vibe from that. I don't see anything that should make us think he is a minion for dark forces as Nabby does just because he has this POV. Given your own lack of guru worship, I'm surprised to see you react as strongly as you do, but I have forgotten the history of your posts with Paul so perhaps there are personal reasons beyond his intellectual POV. I wanted to defend Paul because like Rauncy (but for different reasons) I dig his site and the preservation work he has done. As a former teacher who enjoyed pujas to this guy for years it is really nice to know more about him. And I agree with Raunchy that puja is a blast. During the period of Maharishi's funeral I sang along with everyone out of nostalgia more than reverence, but I enjoyed it. it is one of the most interesting things Maharishi taught me and never fails to blow the minds of Indian cabbies in DC when I bust out a few verses! This post has gone far afield but how we all react to Paul Mason here is interesting isn't it?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sun...@... wrote: I my only comment on this continuing discussion with Barry, and ED, and Raunchy, and Judy, and Ruth, is that FFL is immensely more enjoyable with the input of these awesome women. Your check's in the mail, Lurk.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Off_World now refers to himself in the third person
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote: Re: Off_World now refers to himself in the third person No, that's the other one, not me. Look at my profile pic. Its the one on the right that refers to himself as 'They'. I'm the one on the left. OffWorld --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: You did not answer the question. Ron Paul and Obama were against the war. You, Raunchy, Richard, Mdixon, and a couple of others are the only people left on the planet who do not admit the Iraq war was wrong. I feel sorry for you and your hate-filled-friend you cuddle up to at night. OffWorld Where did you get the idea I thought the Iraq war O.K.? er..because you supported it? Ifyou are a Ron Paul hold out, and you think Obama will give him the recognition you think his deserves, you are mistaken. OffWorld has seldom been wrong in a prediction, and I will stick my neck out now, and save the post, and if you are still around a year from now randy, I will point you back to this very post which states: OffWorld predicts Ron Paul will be sought out by Obama as an advisor within a year to 15 months from now. Note the date dog. Its an Official OffWorld prediction. You're playing with the Big Boys now rauncher. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sundur@ wrote: I my only comment on this continuing discussion with Barry, and ED, and Raunchy, and Judy, and Ruth, is that FFL is immensely more enjoyable with the input of these awesome women. Your check's in the mail, Lurk. I meant to thank you for this as well. In lieu of a check I will send a photo of myself in drag so that you can feel easier about including me as one of these awesome women. My beard may cause some cognitive dis- onance, but just ignore it and pretend that it isn't there. That's the TM Way. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters From an Enlightened Man
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: While from one POV you can hear the fanatic tone of the TM-cultist, on the other the objective reader will also recognize the sterility and heartlessness so common within it's most fanatical adherents. Sounds to me as though he nailed the teachers he was with, but because he was such an asshole, he just got their backs up, and they accused him of mood-making.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield_Lifers sure are DUMB.
On Dec 14, 2008, at 9:23 AM, Hugo wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_re...@... wrote: Fairfield_Lifers sure are DUMB. Yes, that would be you RanchDawg, PornoSal, John Curtis Wayne, Peter Pan in tights, ShemptheSheepShagger...and others. Porno Sal! Shemp the sheep shagger! Have I missed something? Obviously, Hugo. Pay attention next time, man, OK? :) Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield_Lifers sure are DUMB.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Dec 14, 2008, at 9:23 AM, Hugo wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Fairfield_Lifers sure are DUMB. Yes, that would be you RanchDawg, PornoSal, John Curtis Wayne, Peter Pan in tights, ShemptheSheepShagger...and others. Porno Sal! Shemp the sheep shagger! Have I missed something? Obviously, Hugo. Pay attention next time, man, OK? :) Excellent advice. Those who don't pay attention get to be the sheep.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi: 'Which god you like?' - USA 1959
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , Paul Mason premanandp...@... wrote: Offworld, I don't have a problem with what Maharishi said about selection of mantras, I merely put the recording up because I thought it would interest FFL'ers and because it also illustrated the link between TM and religion, which for me is not a problem. That was the issue, that the TM movement is still trying to convince itself of the lack of such a connection. For me that is a bit like saying that water is not wet. So you do have a problem with what Maharishi said? I don't get it. You seem to have a problem with what he said. Did he mention religion? What is the connection to religion here? A religion is an organization that: 1. Bars you being part of any other religion. 2. Worships an imaginary being. 3. States that its god is the real god, and others are not as great as its god. How is TM a religion if there are Jews, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Atheists, who all practice the technique together, no-one is required to worship a god (unless they feel like it), and for whom god is an abstract word of little importance. OffWorld --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: Of all the lowly creatures that post on FFL Paul Mason is the perhaps the lowliest, utterly devoted as he is to make a cheap little dollar. Mr. paul Mason, and Mr Nablusoss. What did Maharishi say wrong in this explanation? Honestly, I actually do not see what is wrong with any of it. Can someone explain this to me? The quoted statement makes perfect sense. Nature is very natural, mantras are good, but the MOST important thing is the 'correct angle' and let go...as Maharishi used to say. The 'correct angle' did not mean the 'perfect mantra', it only meant the 'path of least resistance', and that is in the technique, not the sound given, but the system for applying it. I honestly don't see why Paul Mason or Nablussos has a problem with what was quoted of Maharishi by Paul Mason here? Please explain. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Great Auto Bailout Circus
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: (quite frankly, I don't know what the difference between a capitalist and a free marketer would be). A free market is the playing field where the capitalist has a chance to get rich and it thrives if the capitalist is unregulated by government. Capitalism made America great but it has a down side, if totally unregulated, the rich to get richer and the poor get poorer. Government regulates markets to protect its citizens against fraud, check the power of monopolies and make laws concerning tariffs, taxes, safety, environmental requirements, etc. Reagan put his Republican stamp of approval on unregulated capitalism and screwed the poor when he got us to believe this famous line, The nine most terrifying words in the English language are I'm from the Government and I'm here to help. Laissez faire capitalist, Grover Norquist, must have been having a Republican wet dream when said, My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub. Unregulated capitalism is why we are in such an economic mess today and why I am a Democrat in the tradition of FDR as was Hillary. I hope that Obama will step into FDR's shoes and fill them well. raunchydog Back when gas was in the sixteen cent range, no one thought too much about the price but, even then there were some serious experiments onto mileage improvements. Now,fifty years later, the mileage hasn't improved much and I doubt it is totally the fault of the auto industry. They have made some real losers over the years but are not the only reason for the present state of the economy. N.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters From an Enlightened Man
I only wish to point this out to you, Maharishi, that you might know the sadness within Creation that such beautiful and noble souls as the teachers were that gathered here are being so maliciously duped by anti-Being intelligence, and how unlikely it is the Maya of it will be lifted before they drop the body. Then, of course, they will discover that it is not so much the merit they have accumulated from initiating, or the purity they have acquired from flying, but the extent to which they have brought the Dance of Creative Intelligence into each cell of their Being and thus into each moment of their life, that they might give glory to Creation within the microcosmic reality designed by the Creator. Check out the they'll-be-sorry-when-they-die threat so popular with Nabby and Guru Dev! In his grandiosity he reveals his mental condition. I feel for the guy. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: Robin Woodsworth Carlsen issued a series of long-winded letters in 1978, two years after his TM enlightenment on September the 19th at 1:25 PM, 1976. This guy sure did love to write! The 183 page book is typeset in a small 9 point font and is single-spaced and includes Robin's own glossary of TM-speak and the newer Robin-speak. The preface describes the collection as completely unprecedented and claims to reconcile the Buddha's search for Nirvana with Hamlet's quest for self-knowledge. The book begins with an intro letter which also serves as an intro to the book. The second letter, excerpted here, is a letter directly addressed to his teacher, HH the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and concerns the condition of the personality of his teachers [of Transcendental Meditation] and the tamasic pseudo- serenity they seemed to be manifesting. While from one POV you can hear the fanatic tone of the TM-cultist, on the other the objective reader will also recognize the sterility and heartlessness so common within it's most fanatical adherents. As with most Carlsen letters, it begins with a quotation. (A third letter which follows this one is addressed to all TM teachers and governors.) --- All Excerpts © Robin Woodsworth Carlsen, 1978. The book has no ISBN. I am the necessary angel of the earth, Since, in my sight, you see the earth again, Cleared of its stiff and stubborn, man-locked set... Wallace Stevens July 9, 1978 Dear Maharishi, Today we received a call from the Victoria Center informing us of a phone call from you at noon. Some of us here at Sunnyside were working, but five of us came down to the Center to await that magical moment when we would hear your voice live. As it turned out we waited for about two hours and then you came through. I had hoped to hear a more personal message, but in spite of the specific theme of your talk, Invincibility Campaign in B.C., the sound of your voice connected us with the most beautiful personalized expression of Being. In those few minutes when you spoke all of us felt the nourishing influence of that human being who had given us the power to break out of the horrible prison of ignorance. I also realized, perhaps more vividly than ever before, how you have created activities for all your teachers so that they might stay on the Path and continue to raise the level of sattva in world consciousness. It is as if you have taken thousands of crippled children on your knee and are nurturing them to the point of being able to walk. That you could gain the utter devotion and loyalty of tens of thousands of individuals raised in a civilization that has lost its traditional roots and which glorifies a small 'i' individual, is nothing short of miraculous. The consciousness and physiological purity of your teachers places them in a class by themselves. No doubt they are transforming the environment in a way that is going to alter the course of history. Today, however, I witnessed a phenomenon that has reached what I perceive to be a most critical and dangerous stage. I refer to the tragic condition of the teachers' personalities. Somehow in absolutely placing all their attention on meditation and teaching they have assumed a passive role within the evolutionary challenges that present themselves within activity. We know that Creative Intelligence dances in every cell of the universe, and that every sphere within Creation has its own laws, the violation of which injures Creation and brings suffering to the doer. In spite of all their very real devotion and creativity, the teachers have, for the most part, ignored the domain of life in which there is the highest concentration of divine energy and love: Relationship. Initiators, knowing that they are in possession of the perfect technology for Self-realization, invest no attention in the art of communication. Whereas someone
[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitive Dissonance As A Good Thing
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: Having rapped once this morning about cognitive dissonance as something...uh...possibly less than admirable, when it is denied, I feel it my duty to expound upon cognitive dissonance as a Good Thing, as one of the greatest tools in the arsenal of a spiritual seeker. Cognitive dissonance is what happens when you realize that you are holding in your mind two completely contradictory ideas or belief systems. In most people, this realization causes dis-ease, or absolute discomfort, and many of them react by making the cognitive dissonance go away. They do this by rationalizing it away, or by literally forgetting that it exists, by putting it out of their minds, or by any number of other clever means. But, just for the sake of argument, what would happen if you *didn't* put it out of your mind? What would happen if you, in fact, *embraced* it and reveled in it? What would happen has a name. It is called Tantra. Tantra is the study of seeming opposites, and the reconciliation of them by *embracing* them, not ignoring them. Personally, I think it's just the bees' knees, the coolest tool by far in the spiritual arsenal. Your mileage may vary. Take the example of conflicting belief systems. Most of you out there are alive, walking around, thinking and functioning in a world that seems to be real and tangible. You touch it, you taste it, and you interface with it using all of your other senses. You think about it constantly, and your mind takes it so seriously that sometimes it even gets into argu- ments with what seem to be other minds in this seemingly real and tangible world about which of you is right and which of you is wrong about the things you think about the world. And yet. And yet quite a few of you out there believe to the core of your being that this world I've just been describing DOES NOT EXIST. You believe completely that it is an illusion, Maya. As is the person perceiving it. Fess up. Some of you really do believe this, right? And yet you walk around in this world that you do not believe exists, using a self that you also do not believe exists to interface with the world you do not believe exists, and you walk around in it every single day. Now THAT is cognitive dissonance. And isn't it COOL? Yes, your daily perception that the world is real and so is the self perceiving it. You make plans for the future in this real world, that's how much you believe it exists. Yes, some of you believe that none of it is real, and that the whole thing is a big holy hologram, nothing but the dance of Maya or the hiccup of God. Two instances of Yes. No instance of No. You believe in and act upon BOTH, *knowing* that they are irreconcilable belief systems. Cognitive dissonance. Cool. A real opportunity. A lot of people might react to being reminded that they hold two irreconcilable belief systems with dis-ease. But isn't that kinda sad, and unproductive? Wouldn't it be so much cooler to just RELAX about it, and ADMIT to your self (which you don't believe exists) that your mind (which you also don't think exists) holds two irreconcilable belief systems to be true, at the same time? Wouldn't it make for a really cool spiritual AA meeting? Newb: Hi. My name is Ralph and I'm cognitively dissonant. Group: Hi, Ralph. I'll let you fill in the rest of the dialog yourself. Can't you think of a few contradictory beliefs that you hold at the same time that you could talk about at the meeting? Things that fall into the category of, I believe X to be completely true, an accurate model of how everything works. And yet, at the same time, I believe Y, which negates X. There is magic in that And yet. Learning not to react to it with dis-ease is the beginning of ease. Barry, That was deep. Snaps for you and a poem. Living in the wonder Of all that exists and does not The course of starry galaxies Traverse the heavens unchanging Eternally embedded In the fabric of Being Absorbed by love Reborn anew as fairy dust As angels dancing on pins And make believe unicorns Keep the meter Their feet a-tapping To music only children hear Energized by surrender Falling softly in the maw Of I really don't know anything Words of caution Fall deafly in futility Calling me back to reality Warning me of doom The yin and yang of it The poo and tang of shit Woman, don't you get it? Yes, I do Magic purifies my heart And I am glad of it A paradox a pair of socks What's the difference? raunchydog
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi: 'Which god you like?' - USA 1959
As far as I can tell, everyone acts from good intentions, and that's no less true for Nablusoss108 than anyone else (including Maharishi). However, most of what you write below I agree with, even though I still dig the concept of Guru Dev that we received. Paul's site on him still generates a devotional buzz for me, regardless of how far it could be said I've deviated from the TMO trajectory. My working assumption is that whatever I loved about Maharishi was the apparently faithful and unfeigned mimic of Guru Dev that he was (at least when I was around him). I understand that we're all monkeys here, thrashing through our lives the best we can. Regardless of the examples of bad judgment and wrong action I deal with on a day to day basis, even so, most of those actors are equally capable of showing respect, consideration and compassion, just so long as they are able to recognize the other person as being part of a group that deserves it. Therein lies the rub; expanding the group that deserves respect, consideration and compassion. Thanks for the kind words, Curtis. Spiritual cretin, indeed. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: Nablusoss108, again I disagree with your fundamental premise here, namely that all Paul wants is to make money from his writings. I hope that he's successful in his writings and however much money he makes from that is entirely correlated with how much interest in his subjects the writing generates. Your criticism of him making money off of one of the most influential Masters could be (and has been) leveled against Maharishi, too. Thanks for speaking up for Paul so eloquently Marek. The guy doesn't deserve to be personally attacked for being the best source of direct information on Guru Dev on the Web. Even spiritual cretins like I am, enjoy reading that site as a memory of an interesting human. And his participation here has only been politeness and zero personal attacks. I think the aggression towards him is quite in keeping with the way Maharishi trained his followers. In this case it is so absurd that the only way Maharishi would have wanted us to know Guru Dev is through the few crumbs of stories that he sprinkled, mostly with self serving themes about how great a deal it is to serve a saint selflessly! When I read the translated quotes of Guru Dev I get a better idea of his traditional Hindu perspective. He sounds like so many Christian fundamentalists to me, serving up a menu of fear of sin and especially of dying in sin and of acts of sin and of doing anything not in the scriptures. A basic religious tightass. Perhaps this is why Maharishi said so little that came from him directly. Guru Dev was an abstract figurehead meant to legitimize Maharishi's teaching. A closer look might lead one to conclude that he actually represented the opposite, a tradition that would never let Maharishi run as wild as he did through the world selling his wares. (Oh yeah, I forgot this was about Paul!) Paul comes across as a sincere guy with an interesting mission to collect and preserve and make available (99% for free) the story of an interesting guy. He seeks no conflict here and has no agenda other than to share what he has found. The idea that the pathetically small number of books sold on this obscure guy, is his motivational is absurd. Especially since the biggest market (TM people) is hostile to him on reflex since it is not an official movement tome. But this personal hostility not unexpected from Nabby. If we look at how Nabby expresses what passes as his spirituality, and how Paul expresses his, I think we really know all we need to about these two guys. I've been fortunate enough to have a fair amount of correspondence with Paul about these matters, and he has expressed nothing but sincere interest in Maharishi and warm feelings for him. Paul's admiration and respect for Guru Dev is, I believe, of a higher caliber, yet. It seems clear to me that your own criticism of Paul is based on your own devotion to Maharishi and what you feel is unwarranted criticism of him. But I feel that Paul's point of view, though different than your own, may actually be in concert with the greater spiritual agenda you believe that Maharishi and Guru Dev were expressions and proponents for, as well. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: Nablusoss1008, I disagree with your point of view, here. That's OK Marek, but also understand that all Paul Mason wants is to make a few dollars from his contact with one of the most influential Masters of these times. Do you consider this activity as highworthy ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi: 'Which god you like?' - USA 1959
I understand, and we differ on this. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: I don't see him as a phony at all. Fine, that's your understanding. In my world he is a small vampire, a fellow bent on capitalizing on the energy of a gloriuous Master. How much lower can anyone get ? I see him as one who will enjoy intense tamas after dropping the body. I wright this not in a mood of revenge or whatever. What I have stated is simply the objectivity of what I see.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitive Dissonance As A Good Thing
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: Magic purifies my heart At the risk of sounding like Dr. Phil, How's that working for you lately? This is how pure your heart was just a few minutes ago: Vaj, Sexist Oinker in Chief, tuck yourself into a big plastic garbage bag with the potato peelings and tissues, get nice and slimy stewing in the moldering stench, and I'll take you out to the curb for trash pick up on Wednesday. Cancel that. You belong in the green recycling bin. Waste Management sends Oinker trash to Pakistan where it rightly belongs with the Taliban. You've been recycled to Pakistan, buddy, where you can despise and belittle women all you want. Beat and threaten the women in burkas with death if they don't take care of your personal needs and dutifully cook for you, but be sure to hire a food taster.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi: 'Which god you like?' - USA 1959
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavisma...@... wrote: As far as I can tell, everyone acts from good intentions, and that's no less true for Nablusoss108 than anyone else (including Maharishi). No meanies in your world? I perceive some meanness. However, most of what you write below I agree with, even though I still dig the concept of Guru Dev that we received. Paul's site on him still generates a devotional buzz for me, regardless of how far it could be said I've deviated from the TMO trajectory. My working assumption is that whatever I loved about Maharishi was the apparently faithful and unfeigned mimic of Guru Dev that he was (at least when I was around him). I understand that we're all monkeys here, thrashing through our lives the best we can. My favorite line! Regardless of the examples of bad judgment and wrong action I deal with on a day to day basis, even so, most of those actors are equally capable of showing respect, consideration and compassion, just so long as they are able to recognize the other person as being part of a group that deserves it. Therein lies the rub; expanding the group that deserves respect, consideration and compassion. That is not a universally shared agenda here. For some the goal is to limit that circle smaller and smaller until only they remain as OK. But I agree with this as a laudable goal no matter how imperfectly I pull it off. I'm sure in your work this ideal is pushed to the furthest limits Marek. I'll bet your clients notice this in your eyes the first time you meet them. Or maybe that is a bit naive an assumption considering who you are working with. Thanks for the kind words, Curtis. Spiritual cretin, indeed. Indeed! A man's got to know his limitations! Cretin is a fascinating word, I recommend a search for its history and meanings! ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: Nablusoss108, again I disagree with your fundamental premise here, namely that all Paul wants is to make money from his writings. I hope that he's successful in his writings and however much money he makes from that is entirely correlated with how much interest in his subjects the writing generates. Your criticism of him making money off of one of the most influential Masters could be (and has been) leveled against Maharishi, too. Thanks for speaking up for Paul so eloquently Marek. The guy doesn't deserve to be personally attacked for being the best source of direct information on Guru Dev on the Web. Even spiritual cretins like I am, enjoy reading that site as a memory of an interesting human. And his participation here has only been politeness and zero personal attacks. I think the aggression towards him is quite in keeping with the way Maharishi trained his followers. In this case it is so absurd that the only way Maharishi would have wanted us to know Guru Dev is through the few crumbs of stories that he sprinkled, mostly with self serving themes about how great a deal it is to serve a saint selflessly! When I read the translated quotes of Guru Dev I get a better idea of his traditional Hindu perspective. He sounds like so many Christian fundamentalists to me, serving up a menu of fear of sin and especially of dying in sin and of acts of sin and of doing anything not in the scriptures. A basic religious tightass. Perhaps this is why Maharishi said so little that came from him directly. Guru Dev was an abstract figurehead meant to legitimize Maharishi's teaching. A closer look might lead one to conclude that he actually represented the opposite, a tradition that would never let Maharishi run as wild as he did through the world selling his wares. (Oh yeah, I forgot this was about Paul!) Paul comes across as a sincere guy with an interesting mission to collect and preserve and make available (99% for free) the story of an interesting guy. He seeks no conflict here and has no agenda other than to share what he has found. The idea that the pathetically small number of books sold on this obscure guy, is his motivational is absurd. Especially since the biggest market (TM people) is hostile to him on reflex since it is not an official movement tome. But this personal hostility not unexpected from Nabby. If we look at how Nabby expresses what passes as his spirituality, and how Paul expresses his, I think we really know all we need to about these two guys. I've been fortunate enough to have a fair amount of correspondence with Paul about these matters, and he has expressed nothing but sincere interest in Maharishi and warm feelings for him. Paul's admiration and respect for Guru Dev is, I believe, of a higher caliber, yet. It seems clear to
[FairfieldLife] Re: An eyeful a day keeps the doctor away
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Nelson nelsonriddle2001@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Nelson nelsonriddle2001@ wrote: snip I thought this odd as I saw somewhere a while back that snopes was a total farce. Wow. In my understanding, it's one of the most respected sites on the Web. Apparently it managed to gore someone's ox. It seemed to have a suspicious agenda to it and, I had wondered who was funding it. I don't recall now where I read it but, I am pretty sure it was traced back to a couple of people working out of their house. Yup, a husband-and-wife team. But they do their research and document their findings. I've never seen them called out for making a mistake. As far as funding is concerned, you'll notice that the site is primitive, to put it politely. It hasn't changed, except for added pages, since I've been using it, a good 10 years. It does take ads, and apparently that's enough to keep Barbara Mikkelson employed full-time and David part-time working on the site. Check out the Wikipedia entry for Snopes.com: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes I get the impression the Mikkelsons lean left, but I don't believe that influences their actual research or conclusions, although it does find its way into their commentary at times. As we have noticed, some people are willing to believe stuff rather easily without questioning it. You bet. That's what Snopes is for, to give you the straight skinny. Just looked up their take on 9-11 pentagon and would observe that they might get some things right but in this case, they are following the party line.
[FairfieldLife] Jai Guru Dev
It is extremely odd that anyone should misunderstand my motives for researching and publishing on TM, Maharishi and Guru Dev. So here is an explanation, of sorts. It is really very simple. I was/am interested in the claim that this method of meditation is a viable alternative to recreational drugs (including alcohol) and that it can elevate one's level of consciousness. In 1970 I went to visit Maharishi in Rishikesh after hitch-hiking from England. Andreas Muller suggested I learn transcendental meditation, Bevan Morris gave me an explanatory talk about it, and I got initiated the next day. I got benefits from my periods of meditation, and one of the first I noticed was the increased confidence to express a point of view. After returning to the west I continued practicing meditation and looked into the teachings and lifestory of Maharishi. After being commissioned to write his biography by Element Books I wrote what I believed to be an unbiased and factual account of his life and teachings. It was then that I realised that the movement saw me as a threat when they tried to get the book withdrawn. A few years back I put together a website and have since fulfilled a longterm desire to translate the extant published teachings and lifestory of Guru Dev (although as yet I have not tidied up the work and published in book form). From time to time, sharing material on newsgroups I have been asked my opinion of Maharishi, TM etc and have given my responses. Under pressure from character attacks I have even blistered somewhat. So what? Apparently, at some time I wrote that I thought that Maharishi was a confidence trickster. Well, hearing this I thought about it again, and I still think he was. However, that does not mean that I think his teachings were all bad or that meditation is not worthwhile. I still find it very stimulating to get my head around his lectures, especially the early ones, but I don't believe he knew what he was talking about some of the time, but that never stopped him talking. I practice transcendental meditation to this day (I have only occasionally taken time off the practice in order to experiment - is that a bad thing? Maharishi was always experimenting with people to see what worked, what did not). It seems to me that had I been more polarised, showing support and admiration for the movement I could have sold millions of books or had I been polarised against the movement I would have sold even more, but the fact that I remain relatively neutral and just watch the river flow means that the only people who read my material are those that are genuinely interested. à¤à¤¯ à¤à¥à¤°à¥à¤¦à¥à¤µ jay gurudeva
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi: 'Which god you like?' - USA 1959
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: snip If that's what you mean, you need to specify teachers. Followers includes non-teachers. And others here use that same mantra to dismiss all those who criticize TM critics. The implication is that they don't have any justification for criticizing the critics. Pretty cheap way to avoid actually dealing with the criticisms. I guess I never think of you as a Maharishi follower Judy. You are a defender. But I thought you always made a point that you purposely didn't spend time around the guy running hither and thither. Right, but I think that's pretty much a quibble in this context. Not important. You've explained what you meant. Guru Dev was an abstract figurehead meant to legitimize Maharishi's teaching. A closer look might lead one to conclude that he actually represented the opposite, a tradition that would never let Maharishi run as wild as he did through the world selling his wares. Or, one might conclude that what MMY wanted to do was strip Guru Dev's teachings about the nature and mechanics of consciousness of their religious packaging and his social conservatism. Or appear to for marketing purposes in the West for a while. The cat is pretty far out of the bag now. Marharishi enforced his social conservatism on anyone he had direct power over and instructed his minions to do the same with fulltime people. Yeah, you're gonna git 'im one way or t'other, aintcha? (Your two attempts above have nothing to do with each other, just for the record.) I think that phrase git 'im one way or t'other is an attempt to minimize the points I made. It's an attempt to point out that your second point didn't address my response to your first point. Your first point suggested that MMY's teaching wasn't really derived from that of Guru Dev. Maharishi WAS the opposite of Guru Dev in many ways, not the least of which was his relationship with money. But he was also LIKE Guru Dev in that he taught strict prudery as virtue... for others. Sure, they were both Hindu conservatives (although MMY was a lot more flexible than Guru Dev with regard to Western thinking). So what? I'm just not particularly concerned with either's social (or even religious) views. All that really interests me is their take on the nature and mechanics of consciousness (NMC for short). From my perspective, that's all they had to offer anybody who wasn't a devout Hindu. For popular consumption--marketing purposes--MMY needed to abstract the NMC stuff from Guru Dev's religious and socially conservative packaging. That's why, I'm suggesting, he said so little that came from Guru Dev directly. It *does* mean that we have to take on faith that what he did present in terms of NMC came from Guru Dev. But even if he didn't, even if it was all MMY's own ideas, what real difference does it make? Guru Dev surely was his inspiration one way or another. So for me, that's just a nonissue. I think it misses the point big-time to point to what Guru Dev said that was recorded (certainly not all of what he said, and that in translation) and claim, as Paul has, that MMY's teaching wasn't identical to what was recorded and that therefore MMY was a confidence trickster. snip I think what is being left out is the full phrase hidden agenda which clarifies the darkness of the motives. But I don't think it applies to you, or me, or Paul Mason because all of our agendas are overt. Paul's is sometimes overt but mostly not. He makes a big deal of being objective, but he really isn't. That QA from TMFree is a dead giveaway. It's designed to make readers think badly of MMY, yet it pretends merely to separate fact from fiction. But there's as much fiction in Paul's answers as in the questions. Paul is expressing a POV on the relationship between Maharishi and Guru Dev's teachings. I don't really get a sinister vibe from that. Depends on what you mean by sinister. I don't see anything that should make us think he is a minion for dark forces as Nabby does just because he has this POV. Not *that* sinister, no! Given your own lack of guru worship, I'm surprised to see you react as strongly as you do, but I have forgotten the history of your posts with Paul so perhaps there are personal reasons beyond his intellectual POV. Not personal. It's my usual bugaboos, hypocrisy and lack of straightforwardness. Also unwillingness to engage in reasoned discussion when challenged, even when the challenges have been perfectly polite. I wanted to defend Paul because like Rauncy (but for different reasons) I dig his site and the preservation work he has done. He gets nothing but kudos for that from me, and I've said so many times.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi: 'Which god you like?' - USA 1959
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: Regardless of the examples of bad judgment and wrong action I deal with on a day to day basis, even so, most of those actors are equally capable of showing respect, consideration and compassion, just so long as they are able to recognize the other person as being part of a group that deserves it. Therein lies the rub; expanding the group that deserves respect, consideration and compassion. That is not a universally shared agenda here. For some the goal is to limit that circle smaller and smaller until only they remain as OK. In a way, this is what i've been trying to address in the series of cognitive dissonance raps today. The phenomenon of cognitive dissonance manifests not only when we realize that *we* hold irreconcilable things to be true, but also when we encounter *others* who hold things to be true that we perceive as irrec- oncilable with our view of what is true. HOW we react when this happens defines us. Some, like Curtis, are consistent at accepting the opposing point of view as valid, even if he doesn't believe it personally. Others, like Nabby, react as if the opposing point of view is some kind of heresy that must be eliminated and hopefully sent back to hell, from whence it came. My contention is that a sense of ease with our inter- nal lives comes as a result of being able to juggle conflicting ideas and beliefs in our own minds without freaking out about them and going postal. And that a sense of ease in society depends on being able juggle conflicting ideas and beliefs that we find in *others*, also without freaking out about them and going postal. If there is an idea that comes up here that pushes your buttons such that you can't discuss it calmly and rationally and while respecting the person who holds that idea, then IMO what you've got on your hands is a case of cognitive dissonance.
[FairfieldLife] Bush sneaks through host of laws to undermine Obama
Many of these are radical and appear to pay off big business allies of the Republican party. The lame-duck Republican team is rushing through radical measures, from coal waste dumping to power stations in national parks, that will take months to overturn Paul Harris The Observer [UK], Sunday 14 December 2008 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/14/george-bush-midnight-regulations http://snipurl.com/84brt After spending eight years at the helm of one of the most ideologically driven administrations in American history, George W. Bush is ending his presidency in characteristically aggressive fashion, with a swath of controversial measures designed to reward supporters and enrage opponents. By the time he vacates the White House, he will have issued a record number of so-called 'midnight regulations' - so called because of the stealthy way they appear on the rule books - to undermine the administration of Barack Obama, many of which could take years to undo. Dozens of new rules have already been introduced which critics say will diminish worker safety, pollute the environment, promote gun use and curtail abortion rights. Many rules promote the interests of large industries, such as coal mining or energy, which have energetically supported Bush during his two terms as president. More are expected this week. America's attention is focused on the fate of the beleaguered car industry, still seeking backing in Washington for a multi-billion-dollar bail-out. But behind the scenes, the 'midnight' rules are being rushed through with little fanfare and minimal media attention. None of them would be likely to appeal to the incoming Obama team. The regulations cover a vast policy area, ranging from healthcare to car safety to civil liberties. Many are focused on the environment and seek to ease regulations that limit pollution or restrict harmful industrial practices, such as dumping strip-mining waste. The Bush moves have outraged many watchdog groups. 'The regulations we have seen so far have been pretty bad,' said Matt Madia, a regulatory policy analyst at OMB Watch. 'The effects of all this are going to be severe.' Bush can pass the rules because of a loophole in US law allowing him to put last-minute regulations into the Code of Federal Regulations, rules that have the same force as law. He can carry out many of his political aims without needing to force new laws through Congress. Outgoing presidents often use the loophole in their last weeks in office, but Bush has done this far more than Bill Clinton or his father, George Bush sr. He is on track to issue more 'midnight regulations' than any other previous president. Many of these are radical and appear to pay off big business allies of the Republican party. One rule will make it easier for coal companies to dump debris from strip mining into valleys and streams. The process is part of an environmentally damaging technique known as 'mountain-top removal mining'. It involves literally removing the top of a mountain to excavate a coal seam and pouring the debris into a valley, which is then filled up with rock. The new rule will make that dumping easier. Another midnight regulation will allow power companies to build coal-fired power stations nearer to national parks. Yet another regulation will allow coal-fired stations to increase their emissions without installing new anti-pollution equipment. The Environmental Defence Fund has called the moves a 'fire sale of epic size for coal'. Other environmental groups agree. 'The only motivation for some of these rules is to benefit the business interests that the Bush administration has served,' said Ed Hopkins, a director of environmental quality at the Sierra Club. A case in point would seem to be a rule that opens up millions of acres of land to oil shale extraction, which environmental groups say is highly pollutant. There is a long list of other new regulations that have gone onto the books. One lengthens the number of hours that truck drivers can drive without rest. Another surrenders government control of rerouting the rail transport of hazardous materials around densely populated areas and gives it to the rail companies. One more chips away at the protection of endangered species. Gun control is also weakened by allowing loaded and concealed guns to be carried in national parks. Abortion rights are hit by allowing healthcare workers to cite religious or moral grounds for opting out of carrying out certain medical procedures. A common theme is shifting regulation of industry from government to the industries themselves, essentially promoting self-regulation. One rule transfers assessment of the impact of ocean-fishing away from federal inspectors to advisory groups linked to the fishing industry. Another allows factory farms to self-regulate disposal of pollutant run-off. The White House denies it is sabotaging the new administration. It says
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi: 'Which god you like?' - USA 1959
First, I've been enjoying this rap. Some, like Curtis, are consistent at accepting the opposing point of view as valid, even if he doesn't believe it personally. I don't think that is where I am at. Marek is probably closer to that ideal. I do judge many beliefs here as invalid. What I am attempting to do is to separate respect for the person who holds the belief and their right to believe and express it from my lack of belief, especially since most of these beliefs are ones that I myself held at one time. This premise of flawed from the start and I only pull it off occasionally with people who they themselves are playing by these same rules. When it works it feels great that I can vehemently disagree with the ideas but show respect for the person holding the ideas. It is sort of a basic principle in philosophical conversations but most people are too attached to their POV to give it enough room to breath. I can certainly relate to people here who view Maharishi and Guru Dev in a precious way. My memory is not so short that I can't get a good nostalgia buzz reading Raunchie's appreciation for the puja and the info on Paul's site. But there is a part of me that loves to goof on many of the ideas that I used to hold so precious. And that often draws fire from people who take it personally because they are personally attached to those ideas. I really can't blame them. But if someone wants to go after the ideas of existentialism, I don't feel personally threatened, even though this philosophy is very close to me. I enjoy reading such challenges and don't need to get personal to get them back. Getting personal makes me want to get personal. And the people who like to push those buttons here know that. I draw the line at the personal meanness and name calling game meant to hurt the feelings of the person directly. I am against that in myself and others. But many people enjoy that and some like you and Judy seem pretty thick skinned about it all, so you don't need my judgments on that. When I had pet ferrets I had to teach them that they couldn't bite me in their play the way they could their thick-skinned ferret buddies. I used to sit in wonder watching them go after each other with seemingly murderous intent, and then bounce away with ferret smiles on their faces from a good time had by all! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: Regardless of the examples of bad judgment and wrong action I deal with on a day to day basis, even so, most of those actors are equally capable of showing respect, consideration and compassion, just so long as they are able to recognize the other person as being part of a group that deserves it. Therein lies the rub; expanding the group that deserves respect, consideration and compassion. That is not a universally shared agenda here. For some the goal is to limit that circle smaller and smaller until only they remain as OK. In a way, this is what i've been trying to address in the series of cognitive dissonance raps today. The phenomenon of cognitive dissonance manifests not only when we realize that *we* hold irreconcilable things to be true, but also when we encounter *others* who hold things to be true that we perceive as irrec- oncilable with our view of what is true. HOW we react when this happens defines us. Some, like Curtis, are consistent at accepting the opposing point of view as valid, even if he doesn't believe it personally. Others, like Nabby, react as if the opposing point of view is some kind of heresy that must be eliminated and hopefully sent back to hell, from whence it came. My contention is that a sense of ease with our inter- nal lives comes as a result of being able to juggle conflicting ideas and beliefs in our own minds without freaking out about them and going postal. And that a sense of ease in society depends on being able juggle conflicting ideas and beliefs that we find in *others*, also without freaking out about them and going postal. If there is an idea that comes up here that pushes your buttons such that you can't discuss it calmly and rationally and while respecting the person who holds that idea, then IMO what you've got on your hands is a case of cognitive dissonance.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Bush sneaks through host of laws to undermine Obama
Bush is one of the biggest assholes in the history of the world. Ranks right up there with Hitler and Stalin. I can't wait to see his karma play out. do.rflex wrote: Many of these are radical and appear to pay off big business allies of the Republican party. The lame-duck Republican team is rushing through radical measures, from coal waste dumping to power stations in national parks, that will take months to overturn Paul Harris The Observer [UK], Sunday 14 December 2008 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/14/george-bush-midnight-regulations http://snipurl.com/84brt After spending eight years at the helm of one of the most ideologically driven administrations in American history, George W. Bush is ending his presidency in characteristically aggressive fashion, with a swath of controversial measures designed to reward supporters and enrage opponents. By the time he vacates the White House, he will have issued a record number of so-called 'midnight regulations' - so called because of the stealthy way they appear on the rule books - to undermine the administration of Barack Obama, many of which could take years to undo. Dozens of new rules have already been introduced which critics say will diminish worker safety, pollute the environment, promote gun use and curtail abortion rights. Many rules promote the interests of large industries, such as coal mining or energy, which have energetically supported Bush during his two terms as president. More are expected this week. America's attention is focused on the fate of the beleaguered car industry, still seeking backing in Washington for a multi-billion-dollar bail-out. But behind the scenes, the 'midnight' rules are being rushed through with little fanfare and minimal media attention. None of them would be likely to appeal to the incoming Obama team. The regulations cover a vast policy area, ranging from healthcare to car safety to civil liberties. Many are focused on the environment and seek to ease regulations that limit pollution or restrict harmful industrial practices, such as dumping strip-mining waste. The Bush moves have outraged many watchdog groups. 'The regulations we have seen so far have been pretty bad,' said Matt Madia, a regulatory policy analyst at OMB Watch. 'The effects of all this are going to be severe.' Bush can pass the rules because of a loophole in US law allowing him to put last-minute regulations into the Code of Federal Regulations, rules that have the same force as law. He can carry out many of his political aims without needing to force new laws through Congress. Outgoing presidents often use the loophole in their last weeks in office, but Bush has done this far more than Bill Clinton or his father, George Bush sr. He is on track to issue more 'midnight regulations' than any other previous president. Many of these are radical and appear to pay off big business allies of the Republican party. One rule will make it easier for coal companies to dump debris from strip mining into valleys and streams. The process is part of an environmentally damaging technique known as 'mountain-top removal mining'. It involves literally removing the top of a mountain to excavate a coal seam and pouring the debris into a valley, which is then filled up with rock. The new rule will make that dumping easier. Another midnight regulation will allow power companies to build coal-fired power stations nearer to national parks. Yet another regulation will allow coal-fired stations to increase their emissions without installing new anti-pollution equipment. The Environmental Defence Fund has called the moves a 'fire sale of epic size for coal'. Other environmental groups agree. 'The only motivation for some of these rules is to benefit the business interests that the Bush administration has served,' said Ed Hopkins, a director of environmental quality at the Sierra Club. A case in point would seem to be a rule that opens up millions of acres of land to oil shale extraction, which environmental groups say is highly pollutant. There is a long list of other new regulations that have gone onto the books. One lengthens the number of hours that truck drivers can drive without rest. Another surrenders government control of rerouting the rail transport of hazardous materials around densely populated areas and gives it to the rail companies. One more chips away at the protection of endangered species. Gun control is also weakened by allowing loaded and concealed guns to be carried in national parks. Abortion rights are hit by allowing healthcare workers to cite religious or moral grounds for opting out of carrying out certain medical procedures. A common theme is shifting regulation of industry from government to the industries themselves, essentially promoting self-regulation. One rule transfers assessment of the impact
Re: [FairfieldLife] Letters From an Enlightened Man
I find this letter to be absolutely insightful. Robin is trying to articulate that paradox that so many of us experienced (or experience) in the TMO. You have this incredible clarity and radiation of sattva from a powerful program that allows conscious contact with Being, but on the personal level all sorts of screwed-up things are going on. From another perspective this is the beginning of the fall of RWC. He progressively became more and more obsessed with the demonic and his battle against it until this is nearly all he saw in others. All in all, though, an amazing, insightful commentary about a huge problem in the TMO. --- On Sun, 12/14/08, Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net wrote: From: Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net Subject: [FairfieldLife] Letters From an Enlightened Man To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, December 14, 2008, 10:23 AM Robin Woodsworth Carlsen issued a series of long-winded letters in 1978, two years after his TM enlightenment on September the 19th at 1:25 PM, 1976. This guy sure did love to write! The 183 page book is typeset in a small 9 point font and is single-spaced and includes Robin's own glossary of TM-speak and the newer Robin-speak. The preface describes the collection as completely unprecedented and claims to reconcile the Buddha's search for Nirvana with Hamlet's quest for self-knowledge. The book begins with an intro letter which also serves as an intro to the book. The second letter, excerpted here, is a letter directly addressed to his teacher, HH the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and concerns the condition of the personality of his teachers [of Transcendental Meditation] and the tamasic pseudo-serenity they seemed to be manifesting. While from one POV you can hear the fanatic tone of the TM-cultist, on the other the objective reader will also recognize the sterility and heartlessness so common within it's most fanatical adherents. As with most Carlsen letters, it begins with a quotation. (A third letter which follows this one is addressed to all TM teachers and governors.) ---All Excerpts © Robin Woodsworth Carlsen, 1978. The book has no ISBN. I am the necessary angel of the earth, Since, in my sight, you see the earth again,Cleared of its stiff and stubborn, man-locked set... Wallace Stevens July 9, 1978 Dear Maharishi, Today we received a call from the Victoria Center informing us of a phone call from you at noon. Some of us here at Sunnyside were working, but five of us came down to the Center to await that magical moment when we would hear your voice live. As it turned out we waited for about two hours and then you came through. I had hoped to hear a more personal message, but in spite of the specific theme of your talk, Invincibility Campaign in B.C., the sound of your voice connected us with the most beautiful personalized expression of Being. In those few minutes when you spoke all of us felt the nourishing influence of that human being who had given us the power to break out of the horrible prison of ignorance. I also realized, perhaps more vividly than ever before, how you have created activities for all your teachers so that they might stay on the Path and continue to raise the level of sattva in world consciousness. It is as if you have taken thousands of crippled children on your knee and are nurturing them to the point of being able to walk. That you could gain the utter devotion and loyalty of tens of thousands of individuals raised in a civilization that has lost its traditional roots and which glorifies a small 'i' individual, is nothing short of miraculous. The consciousness and physiological purity of your teachers places them in a class by themselves. No doubt they are transforming the environment in a way that is going to alter the course of history. Today, however, I witnessed a phenomenon that has reached what I perceive to be a most critical and dangerous stage. I refer to the tragic condition of the teachers' personalities. Somehow in absolutely placing all their attention on meditation and teaching they have assumed a passive role within the evolutionary challenges that present themselves within activity. We know that Creative Intelligence dances in every cell of the universe, and that every sphere within Creation has its own laws, the violation of which injures Creation and brings suffering to the doer. In spite of all their very real devotion and creativity, the teachers have, for the most part, ignored the domain of life in which there is the highest concentration of divine energy and love: Relationship. Initiators, knowing that they are in possession of the perfect technology for Self-realization, invest no attention in the art of communication. Whereas someone else is bereft of the knowledge and procedures for transcendence that you have conferred upon us, he may exert more effort in being responsible for what he does; his suffering and helplessness may drive him to more
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Great Auto Bailout Circus
raunchydog wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote: (quite frankly, I don't know what the difference between a capitalist and a free marketer would be). A free market is the playing field where the capitalist has a chance to get rich and it thrives if the capitalist is unregulated by government. Capitalism made America great but it has a down side, if totally unregulated, the rich to get richer and the poor get poorer. Government regulates markets to protect its citizens against fraud, check the power of monopolies and make laws concerning tariffs, taxes, safety, environmental requirements, etc. Reagan put his Republican stamp of approval on unregulated capitalism and screwed the poor when he got us to believe this famous line, The nine most terrifying words in the English language are I'm from the Government and I'm here to help. Laissez faire capitalist, Grover Norquist, must have been having a Republican wet dream when said, My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub. Unregulated capitalism is why we are in such an economic mess today and why I am a Democrat in the tradition of FDR as was Hillary. I hope that Obama will step into FDR's shoes and fill them well. raunchydog CORRECT! And what I've been saying in various ways on FFL for some time. Shemp must like melamine in his fruit juice.
[FairfieldLife] Re: An eyeful a day keeps the doctor away
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Nelson nelsonriddle2...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip You bet. That's what Snopes is for, to give you the straight skinny. Just looked up their take on 9-11 pentagon and would observe that they might get some things right but in this case, they are following the party line. Seems to me the phrase following the party line indicates a pretty clear bias on your part. Were you able to find anything *contrafactual* in the information they presented?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitive Dissonance As A Good Thing
Someone needs to get laid, and it ain't Turq! --- On Sun, 12/14/08, TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: From: TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitive Dissonance As A Good Thing To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, December 14, 2008, 11:32 AM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: Magic purifies my heart At the risk of sounding like Dr. Phil, How's that working for you lately? This is how pure your heart was just a few minutes ago: Vaj, Sexist Oinker in Chief, tuck yourself into a big plastic garbage bag with the potato peelings and tissues, get nice and slimy stewing in the moldering stench, and I'll take you out to the curb for trash pick up on Wednesday. Cancel that. You belong in the green recycling bin. Waste Management sends Oinker trash to Pakistan where it rightly belongs with the Taliban. You've been recycled to Pakistan, buddy, where you can despise and belittle women all you want. Beat and threaten the women in burkas with death if they don't take care of your personal needs and dutifully cook for you, but be sure to hire a food taster. To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [FairfieldLife] QM explanation of YF?
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 5:03 AM, cardemaister no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: If I got it right, according to recent research, about 95% of the mass of baryons consists of the movement of quarks. I think the first part of YF-suutra somehow eliminates or neutralizes that mass, and the remaining 5% is neutralized by the second part of YF-suutra. Naah, just kidding! :D Actually, the explanation I heard years ago is simpler. Remember that in thermodynamics PV=nRT. Pressure is a function of the temperature of a gas because the gas is exhibiting Brownian motion: following a random walk/random collision trajectory at the molecular level as a function of heat energy All you need is to have is the molecules in a vibrating solid (solids are locked into place so they don't have the freedom that gas molecules do) all decide to go in the same direction at once: voila, the body is moving upward against the force of gravity. When I fly I don't so much feel gravity cut out as much as my body being pushed upwards.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Countdown: Thom Hartmann on the GOP Busting Unions
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 7:12 AM, do.rflex do.rf...@yahoo.com wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tuo1iG6eF-M http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_promises_to_stop_americas Obama Promises To Stop America's Shitty Jobs From Going Overseas
[FairfieldLife] Re: The equality of feminists vs. the inequality of 'feminists'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: snip So when I hear someone on FFL whining about how Hillary Clinton lost because of misogyny, I'm sorry, but I just have to laugh and shake my head. Except that nobody on FFL ever claimed Hillary lost because of misogyny. Barry's laughing and shaking his head at his own fantasies. The fact is, he's never really paid attention to what we *have* been saying here. All he did was register the general thrust, then constructed around it his own fantasies as to the specifics, so he'd have a rich supply of straw men with which to demonize us. To her credit, Hillary herself never seemed to play the misogyny card. She was a tough old bird who could probably handle anything said about her and laugh it off, as she has this latest victimization of a piece of cardboard silliness. To her discredit, she allowed her supporters not only to play the misogyny card for her, but to wallow in it. But of course there's no discredit in Barry's mind for Obama, who allowed *his* supporters (including Barry) to wallow in misogyny. *Being* misogynist, you see, is just fine. It's only calling attention to it that's a problem. snip The thing is, the women crying misogyny often drop seamlessly into misandry as they're doing so. But Vaj has told us that misogyny is an inappropriate term since it means hatred of all women. Misandry must therefore mean hatred of all men, so it's inappropriate for Barry to use it in this context, at least as far as Vaj is concerned. snicker Actually, Barry himself has used Vaj's argument in the past. Apparently he's learned something here as well: as the term is used by feminists these days, misogyny does not mean hatred of all women. snip But the bottom line of this puny little battle they're trying to fight over language is that they are demanding INEQUALITY. They want women to be treated differently than they themselves treat men. Uh, no. In the first place, it's not nearly as common as Barry suggests for women who are criticizing men for misogyny to use misandristic terms. In the second place, when they do, it's on a tit-for-tat basis. In other words, if the men weren't using misogynist terms, there would be no reason for the women to use misandrist terms. Equality either way. I think the operative word here is wimp. And pretty much every one of the successful women I worked with for 14 years in the Rama trip would use the same word. They would be *embarrassed* by women who feigned indignation and outrage over someone using a word that they've heard ten thousand times. Again note that Barry is so threatened by feminist indignation and outrage that he must portray them as feigned. How many times women have heard the misogynist terms is, of course, a complete red herring. They shouldn't have to hear them *once*. And they'd use the right analogy when describing this manufactured outrage: Do you think Barack Obama would get hysterical and lose it if someone called him a 'nigger?' Of course he wouldn't. Just as Hillary didn't get hysterical and lose it when she was called a bitch or a whole slew of other misogynist terms. But Obama's *supporters* would get hysterical and lose it--AS WOULD HILLARY'S SUPPORTERS. That's the difference here. Racist language is unacceptable across the political spectrum (even among gasp most Republicans), but misogynist language is perfectly acceptable among Obama supporters (and many Republicans as well). snip The 'feminist' wimps are still trying to get people to focus on the small shit. In my opinion, that's because they've never gotten past it themselves. We don't consider misogyny, including as it is expressed in the use of misogynist language, small shit, just as most people who aren't racists don't consider racism, including as it is expressed in the use of racist language, small shit. (But note that Barry has just contradicted himself: Throughout this and many of his other posts, he characterizes feminist outrage as feigned. Here, he inadvertently acknowledges it's quite real. He has terrible trouble keeping his many fantasies straight.) I always thought that the TM fixation with ladies was sexist, a perpetuation of the pedestal thang. Of course it is. But in general usage, it's a perfectly fine word, just as gentlemen is. Rama called the women gals and the guys guys. No connotation either way. Nor is there any connotation either way in contexts in which the male equivalent of ladies is gentlemen. In the TM context, the male equivalent is men. snip The idea of recluses like the TMO Purusha/MD would never have arisen because the *whole idea* was to interface with the world and be successful in it, as an integral part of being successful in one's self discovery. Different approaches to self-discovery, of course. The TMO, unlike Lenz's group, allows for both.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi: 'Which god you like?' - USA 1959
You're correct, there is quite a lot of meanness in the world in which I work. My days are steeped in stories of murder, torture, rape, abuse and neglect, and casual and chronic violence; my clients are the ones accused, and oftentimes I have to face and confront the victims on my clients' behalf. But, since it's also part of the process of my job, I often get to dissect with my cliet's the frame-by-frame sequence of what they were thinking and why at the moment they acted as they did. And lots of time, even if an instant later, they realized (and regretted) the action, nevertheless, at the time they were acting, it was out of some self-perceived rightness to the action. Unfortunately, and often, the sphere of what made the action right was limited to them alone and the immediate situation in which they were acting. In other words, very little (if any) consideration to anyone outside of themselves. That's what I was getting at about expanding the sphere of consideration. And as to cretin, quoting from my desk dictionary: one who is human despite deformities. So I can go along with you on that, too. From one cretin to another. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: As far as I can tell, everyone acts from good intentions, and that's no less true for Nablusoss108 than anyone else (including Maharishi). No meanies in your world? I perceive some meanness. However, most of what you write below I agree with, even though I still dig the concept of Guru Dev that we received. Paul's site on him still generates a devotional buzz for me, regardless of how far it could be said I've deviated from the TMO trajectory. My working assumption is that whatever I loved about Maharishi was the apparently faithful and unfeigned mimic of Guru Dev that he was (at least when I was around him). I understand that we're all monkeys here, thrashing through our lives the best we can. My favorite line! Regardless of the examples of bad judgment and wrong action I deal with on a day to day basis, even so, most of those actors are equally capable of showing respect, consideration and compassion, just so long as they are able to recognize the other person as being part of a group that deserves it. Therein lies the rub; expanding the group that deserves respect, consideration and compassion. That is not a universally shared agenda here. For some the goal is to limit that circle smaller and smaller until only they remain as OK. But I agree with this as a laudable goal no matter how imperfectly I pull it off. I'm sure in your work this ideal is pushed to the furthest limits Marek. I'll bet your clients notice this in your eyes the first time you meet them. Or maybe that is a bit naive an assumption considering who you are working with. Thanks for the kind words, Curtis. Spiritual cretin, indeed. Indeed! A man's got to know his limitations! Cretin is a fascinating word, I recommend a search for its history and meanings! ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: Nablusoss108, again I disagree with your fundamental premise here, namely that all Paul wants is to make money from his writings. I hope that he's successful in his writings and however much money he makes from that is entirely correlated with how much interest in his subjects the writing generates. Your criticism of him making money off of one of the most influential Masters could be (and has been) leveled against Maharishi, too. Thanks for speaking up for Paul so eloquently Marek. The guy doesn't deserve to be personally attacked for being the best source of direct information on Guru Dev on the Web. Even spiritual cretins like I am, enjoy reading that site as a memory of an interesting human. And his participation here has only been politeness and zero personal attacks. I think the aggression towards him is quite in keeping with the way Maharishi trained his followers. In this case it is so absurd that the only way Maharishi would have wanted us to know Guru Dev is through the few crumbs of stories that he sprinkled, mostly with self serving themes about how great a deal it is to serve a saint selflessly! When I read the translated quotes of Guru Dev I get a better idea of his traditional Hindu perspective. He sounds like so many Christian fundamentalists to me, serving up a menu of fear of sin and especially of dying in sin and of acts of sin and of doing anything not in the scriptures. A basic religious tightass. Perhaps this is why Maharishi said so little that came from him directly. Guru Dev was an abstract
[FairfieldLife] Question for Rick Archer
Rick, I ask the following questions because I understand you are in the search engine result-optimizer business (sorry if I am using an incorrect term to describe what your business is called, but you get the idea). When I do a Google search the results that come up seems to me to be listed in specific orders. For example, if I do a search on term insurance (see: http://tinyurl.com/6e98km ) we get the sponsored links on the right side as well as the sponsored links at the top on the left in the yellow shaded areas. Okay, I understand that; Google has to make money through the ads, which are the sponsored links. And they have two places where they put them on the results page. Great. But look at what comes in the regular results under the yellow shaded sponsored links: 1) the first entry appears legit: a Wikipedia entry for term insurance. Great, everyone loves Wiki and their entry is very clear and informative. 2) the next SEVEN results, however, are all commercial sites that are trying to sell you term insurance; sites such as statefarm.com, term4sale.com, quickquote.com, etc. It's only until we get to the 9th entry (the moneyalert.com website) is there another information article about term insurance that is not trying to sell me something. Question: are those seven results I refer to above coming up at or near the top of the results because those companies are paying Google to favor them? In other words, not only would I as, say, a life insurance company who is interested in selling term insurance pay google for a sponsored ad to the right or in the shaded yellow area but I could also pay them to prioritize my site as a result that would come out at the beginning of the list as the seven I point out above? Is this what I am seeing? If this is so, isn't this just another form of advertising through Google? Wwhat does Google call this type of advertising and how much does it cost? Are there other ways that Google makes money on advertising? I thank you in advance for your attention to these questions...
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Attention Vampire: An occult theory of energy management
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: snip I find it odd that I am perceived as smug and dismissive. I am confident enough in myself to know that I am neither. From my end, I find it frustrating when some TMers assume that my thinking is flawed or I don't get certain metaphysical concepts. No matter how often I say I get it, they never will believe me because they cannot conceive that I understand but simply do not agree. (Notice that Ruth apparently does not recognize the last sentence above as smug and dismissive.) No, that isn't why we don't believe her. We don't believe her because she *demonstrates* that she don't understand in the way she talks about what MMY taught. Not the fact of her disagreement with it, but the nature of her arguments against it. I'm sure she's had parallel experiences in arguments about, say, scientific research-- perhaps even on FFL--in which it's obvious to her that the person she's talking to doesn't get the fine points of statistical measurement or p-values or the importance of certain types of controls. Just because the person swears up and down that he gets it, is it therefore incumbent on Ruth to believe him despite the clear evidence that he doesn't? If he claimed that she could not conceive that he understood but simply did not agree, wouldn't she find that absurd? The problem with this is that it feels like I am being minimized, that my opinion and feelings are not as valid as the believers' opinions and feelings. Feelings per se are neither valid nor invalid; they're just feelings. Opinions, on the other hand, may or may not be valid; it depends on what informs them and how accurately the person holding them has interpreted the information to draw their conclusions. The hypothetical fellow with whom Ruth is discussing scientific research may well feel minimized because she doesn't consider his opinions as valid as hers. But it would be strange indeed if she backed down and allowed as how he might be right.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Secretary of state salary cut for Clinton
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_...@... wrote: snip Actually, Hillary stands to make about $12 million dollars to take this job. IMO, she made a deal with Obama to take this job in exchange for getting her campaign debt paid which amount to the figure mentioned above. Nope, wrong. The only deal made was a promise from Obama to use his donor email list to solicit contributions for her, and that wasn't in exchange for her becoming SoS. He made that promise after she endorsed him for president. And she's been working on her own to solicit funds from her own supporters; I've gotten an email from her organization about once a week asking for donations. Plus which, her debt is $7.5 million, not $12 million. There have been several stories recently about this. Here's one: http://cbs5.com/campaign08/hillary.clinton.debt.2.880466.html http://tinyurl.com/66pa7p Really, you should get your facts straight before you spout off.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi: 'Which god you like?' - USA 1959
On Dec 14, 2008, at 12:08 PM, Marek Reavis wrote: You're correct, there is quite a lot of meanness in the world in which I work. My days are steeped in stories of murder, torture, rape, abuse and neglect, and casual and chronic violence; my clients are the ones accused, and oftentimes I have to face and confront the victims on my clients' behalf. Marek, I was told once a few years ago by a divorce lawyer who then went into criminal law, that part of the reason she switched was her criminal clients were much more civilized and even more rational, in general, than the divorce ones. Basically, she simply couldn't take the meanness any more, so she fled into the relative tranquillity of criminal law. :) Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Prop 8 - The Musical
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:16 AM, Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net wrote: http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones LINK Catchy tune.
[FairfieldLife] Re: New section on TM and Cults posted on Truth About TM
We all need to bear in mind that Vaj is perfectly capable of making up elaborate stories about what he's seen and heard of TMers. If it weren't for the fact that coldbluice left two posts on FFL in April that completely contradicted Vaj's recent account of coldbluice's experiences, we'd never know Vaj had made up his own account. Vaj had apparently forgotten that we already had the story (true or false) from the horse's mouth. But we can't count on having that kind of solid evidence of Vaj's fabrications; that we know Vaj's coldbluice story was fabricated was a lucky accident. Vaj is usually careful to make up stories that can't be so easily refuted. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: snip A turning point for me--and a good touchstone for any meditative org--was to see up close how people who practice a certain teaching fully actually are. In the 80's I popped in with an old friend at Purusha headquarters in the Catskills. I've never seen such a sadly [sic] looking bunch of people in my life. snip
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi: 'Which god you like?' - USA 1959
On Dec 14, 2008, at 11:06 AM, off_world_beings wrote: How is TM a religion if there are Jews, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Atheists, who all practice the technique together, no-one is required to worship a god (unless they feel like it), and for whom god is an abstract word of little importance. TM or in it's more traditional lingo, manasika-japa, mental repetition of mantra, is transcendental mental worship of a god or goddess, deva or devata (or shakti). That's what you're transcending to: the bindu which is the end-point of the sound of all TM mantras (aka, the chandra-bindu). It's more a personal god / gnostic religion presented as a scientific procedure set within a group which (often implicitly) carries with it a number of traditional Brahmanical religious assumptions (e.g. svargakamo yajeta: one desirous of heaven/the unified-field should perform [or pay for] yagnas.). So it's not the same as going to church in Scotland or Vermont or Temple. It's more internal--and that's also why it has a greater potential for danger to the individual psyche. It's a religion that's literally inside your head.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Attention Vampire: An occult theory of energy management
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: snip Ruth, here's a fun thing to do if you ever run into such a person in real life (or even the next time you run into them on this board). When the person suggests that you just don't understand, say to them: Just to prove to me that *you* are not being 'smug and dismissive,' can you say aloud the words, 'There is a possibility that the things Maharishi has taught are wrong.' I have not the slightest problem saying that. As Barry knows, I've always referred to those aspects of MMY's teaching that I accept as valid as my working hypotheses, subject to disproof (or simply a good argument against) at any time.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hillary: mediocre senator from New York
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: Paglia nails it again. Great article. snip If she gets as little traction in world affairs as Condoleezza Rice has, Hillary will be flushed down the rabbit hole with her feckless husband and effectively neutralized as a future presidential contender. If that's Obama's clever plan, is it worth the gamble? The amusing thing about Paglia and her Obama- idolizing, Clinton-hating fans is that in order to continue to demean Hillary as an uncredentialed, incompetent drama queen, they are automatically demeaning Obama as well for having chosen her for SOS. This is an example of cognitive dissonance *par excellence*. They have to *block out* what it would say about Obama's character and judgment if he had gambled with the country's welfare, at this extraordinarily critical time in its history, by using the position of SoS as a token in a clever political game. When you hate somebody so much that you're willing to demean someone you greatly admire just for the sake of dumping on the hatee, you're in very deep psychological doo-doo indeed. snip Given Obama's elaborate deference to the Clintons, beginning with his over-accommodation of them at the Democratic convention in August, a nagging question has floated around the Web: What do the Clintons have on him? Poor Obama, what a wuss! snicker FWIW, I haven't seen this nagging question floating around the Web, and I read a *lot* of blogs. It appears that Paglia *wants* it to be floating around the Web and is hopeful that she has been able to launch it successfully with this comment.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Curtis?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: For extra credit, if you're so inclined: Do you think Barry really believes this? If so, what might his basis be for believing it? If I assume Turq is just fucking with you on 100 posts to you, just to get a rise, I'll be right 99. So it's perfectly OK with you if Barry lies about me (and raunchy) because he's just fucking with us; and you don't seem to have any problem with Vaj making up a story about coldbluice out of whole cloth. But if I use the word tweak rather than shot to describe one of my posts, that's dishonest and warrants a long scolding from you. Curtis, I think you really believe you try to be fair, but you're too often blind to your own double standards.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question for Rick Archer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote: Rick, I ask the following questions because I understand you are in the search engine result-optimizer business (sorry if I am using an incorrect term to describe what your business is called, but you get the idea). When I do a Google search the results that come up seems to me to be listed in specific orders. For example, if I do a search on term insurance (see: http://tinyurl.com/6e98km ) we get the sponsored links on the right side as well as the sponsored links at the top on the left in the yellow shaded areas. Okay, I understand that; Google has to make money through the ads, which are the sponsored links. And they have two places where they put them on the results page. Great. But look at what comes in the regular results under the yellow shaded sponsored links: 1) the first entry appears legit: a Wikipedia entry for term insurance. Great, everyone loves Wiki and their entry is very clear and informative. 2) the next SEVEN results, however, are all commercial sites that are trying to sell you term insurance; sites such as statefarm.com, term4sale.com, quickquote.com, etc. It's only until we get to the 9th entry (the moneyalert.com website) is there another information article about term insurance that is not trying to sell me something. Question: are those seven results I refer to above coming up at or near the top of the results because those companies are paying Google to favor them? No, that's not the case. No one can pay for those links. They are known as organic listings - and although Google's algorithm for this is secret, the ranking is a function of (a) information content in the site's web pages and (b) an evaluation of the links on other sites pointing to those pages (think of them as votes for those pages. However it is the quality of those links as much as the quantity of links that counts). Unfortunately computers, even when powered by Google, are rather stupid. So organic listings are often iffy. But the brilliance of Google is that a purely robotic procedure is nevertheless able to have a pretty good stab at estimating page relevance in a way which we all find incredibly useful. In other words, not only would I as, say, a life insurance company who is interested in selling term insurance pay google for a sponsored ad to the right or in the shaded yellow area but I could also pay them to prioritize my site as a result that would come out at the beginning of the list as the seven I point out above? Is this what I am seeing? If this is so, isn't this just another form of advertising through Google? Wwhat does Google call this type of advertising and how much does it cost? Are there other ways that Google makes money on advertising? I thank you in advance for your attention to these questions...
[FairfieldLife] Quid pro quo, Hillary, Obama, and blogovich
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: snip Actually, Hillary stands to make about $12 million dollars to take this job. IMO, she made a deal with Obama to take this job in exchange for getting her campaign debt paid which amount to the figure mentioned above. Nope, wrong. The only deal made was a promise from Obama to use his donor email list to solicit contributions for her, and that wasn't in exchange for her becoming SoS. He made that promise after she endorsed him for president. [snip] I'd like to contrast what Judy says above with what Illinois Governor blogovich (or whatever his name is) is accused of. I don't mean this as an indictment of Hillary, Obama, or the Democrats because this sort of thing happens across party lines. Blogovich is accused of selling his appointment of a senator for Obama's vacated senate seat to the highest bidder. As much as one million dollars according to one report. But nowhere have I seen it reported that the money received would actually go into Blogovich's pocket but, rather, into his campaign coffers. Assuming that what Judy reports above is accurate, how does that differ from what Hillary got in exchange for access to the donor list and Obama's promise to use it to raise funds for her? Sure, there may be nothing written down that there is a quid pro quo between Hilllary and Obama but there isn't anything necessarily written down in the blogovich case either...just the wiretaps. Does anyone doubt there wasn't a quid pro quo between Hillary and Obama over these lists and Obama's promise to help reduce her campaign debt? Again, I'm not trying to implicate Hillary or Barky; these types of things happen across the board. But blogovich's crime appears to be - - at least on what I've heard and seen of those tapes -- that he speaks frankly and NOT with forked tongue. The right to appoint a senator is, indeed, golden, as blogovich is taped saying, don't you agree? And don't you agree it is something that he should give away for nothing? I would say that Obama's mailing list is also golden and in the netherworld of campaign finance, Obama shouldn't give away for nothing his list to Hillary, should he? I'm sure he feels the same way and only gave it to her because he got something in exchange for it. Quid pro quo. Com'n. This sort of thing is standard operating procedure in American politics. Perhaps blogovich actually did something that is putting money in his pocket and, if so, he should be punished to the full extent of the law. But if all he is doing is being honest and was taped saying what, essentially, any politician in his position does, then why is everyone getting upset?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi: 'Which god you like?' - USA 1959
Sal, that's what everyone says, and it's true to my experience, too. For a short time I had a solo practice, and although I focused on Crim, I felt obliged to take in paying clients whenever, and so I did a fair amount of what's euphemistically called Family Law -- divorce law. It is brutal! Coming and going, upside, downside, and every which way -- it is intense and unhappy law. Clients, their immanent/imminent exes, the opposing scumbag -- I mean, opposing *counsel* -- the judges, the bailiffs and the entire court staff, the whole scene teems with unhappy people. My criminal clients (I mean the ones charged with serious crimes, as opposed to standard DUIs and petty theft, and low-level type misdemeanors), on the other hand, are generally very composed and often very easy-going and well-tempered. I trust almost all of them completely. That's within the confines of our relationship, of course, but it is no less authentic. I'm sincerely there to help them and they pick up on the vibe pretty quickly. Particularly so if the person is an experienced con; those guys are acutely adept at reading people. It's a mandatory prison skill. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Dec 14, 2008, at 12:08 PM, Marek Reavis wrote: You're correct, there is quite a lot of meanness in the world in which I work. My days are steeped in stories of murder, torture, rape, abuse and neglect, and casual and chronic violence; my clients are the ones accused, and oftentimes I have to face and confront the victims on my clients' behalf. Marek, I was told once a few years ago by a divorce lawyer who then went into criminal law, that part of the reason she switched was her criminal clients were much more civilized and even more rational, in general, than the divorce ones. Basically, she simply couldn't take the meanness any more, so she fled into the relative tranquillity of criminal law. :) Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Curtis?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: For extra credit, if you're so inclined: Do you think Barry really believes this? If so, what might his basis be for believing it? If I assume Turq is just fucking with you on 100 posts to you, just to get a rise, I'll be right 99. So it's perfectly OK with you if Barry lies about me (and raunchy) because he's just fucking with us; First of all you are assuming I read beyond the first shot fired between you guys, I rarely do. It is not my battle, I enjoy each of you for different reasons and don't enjoy the ill will between you. But my point was that you are taking the content seriously when in fact I believe it is mostly a formulaic attack designed to get you to fire back. You want me to take the content seriously and I can't do that. Plus you are assuming that each of us has a some kind of police role here. You guys seem to be doing a good enough job on your own of defending yourselves. I can't get into the oneupsmanship aspect of that particular fight, although I am not immune to its charms in some other exchanges.. and you don't seem to have any problem with Vaj making up a story about coldbluice out of whole cloth. I have a vague memory of him accusing that person of being someone else? I haven't followed that closely enough to comment. But if I use the word tweak rather than shot to describe one of my posts, that's dishonest and warrants a long scolding from you. That got my attention because I read almost all your posts not directed to Barry. I thought that you were being unfair by taunting John, and then when he responded in defense, you claimed he STARTED it. I made my point. It was not about you taking the shot is was how you tried to play it off as his fault that I didn't buy. It was my unsolicited busybody opinion and I gave you a chance to give your side, which you did. Curtis, I think you really believe you try to be fair, but you're too often blind to your own double standards. I find that easy to believe. This is a bit of a mosh pit and I'm not above anything that goes on here. But by your standard of fairness you could be accused of not speaking out about Nabby being aggressive personally against me and other posters. But we each pick our battles here don't we? There is a limit to how much busy body activities I can tolerate in myself. I'm not trying to post out at the beginning of the week so I'm not going to speak up in situations that I don't care about. So in that little skirmish, I had some history of feeling that Nabby is a name-caller and a mean-spirited personal attacker. So when I saw him pulling that on Paul I spoke up. Likewise you have a history with Paul and corrected me in my attempt to saint him. All valid choices IMO. I enjoyed your points and agreed with some of them that corrected my POV. That process is what makes this place fun for me. You are one of my most reliable responders to make me think about what I am writing in a different way. Can you really blame me that I spend most of my time in that kind of exchange here and pick my dogfights carefully?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Letters From an Enlightened Man
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net wrote: Dudes and Dudettes, I assure you that Carlsen is succinct and very staid compared to the intense psychopathology exhibited by participants of Invincible America. Just one case in point. A foreigner who had gained 100 pounds because he was doing extra long programs, often flying for 3-6 hours at a time, missing meals at Annipura so going back to his trailer and eating lemon biscuits and ghee he bought at the Dome Store. I could tell you a hundred stories about the utter stangeness, the mania, the extreme depths of depression, the I am God. IMO the rounding on IA is much too intense and the results in people experience much to dangerous. Returning home and having a nervous breakdown is very common. Devco is not told of these so the people return for a stint of more intense rounding. I am amazed that nothing really dangerous has happened yet and hope nothing does.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quid pro quo, Hillary, Obama, and blogovich
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote: snip But nowhere have I seen it reported that the money received would actually go into Blogovich's pocket but, rather, into his campaign coffers. Oh, gee, that's been very widely reported, Shemp. Assuming that what Judy reports above is accurate, how does that differ from what Hillary got in exchange for access to the donor list and Obama's promise to use it to raise funds for her? From what I've read, she didn't get access to the donor list. Rather, Obama's people used it on her behalf. I suppose the biggest differences are that she isn't *guaranteed* any money from Obama's supporters, and those who do donate aren't going to get anything in return for it. snip Perhaps blogovich actually did something that is putting money in his pocket and, if so, he should be punished to the full extent of the law. But if all he is doing is being honest and was taped saying what, essentially, any politician in his position does, then why is everyone getting upset? Partly it's the old saw about not wanting to have to see the sausage being made. But it wasn't just the campaign contributions; he was looking at all sorts of other potential enrichment deals, including a high-paying job for his wife, in exchange for the Senate appointment. And there were other deals covered by the transcripts, including Blago giving state financial resources to the Tribune Company in exchange for its firing its editorial board, which had been critical of Blago; and withholding funds from a children's hospital because the hospital CEO hadn't contributed to Blago's campaign. Plus which, Fitz certainly didn't make public everything he had learned about Blago's dealings. He focused on the Senate appointment because it was so clear-cut. Also, he's reportedly very concerned with the legitimacy of government. If a senator had been appointed and Blago's maneuverings were revealed only later on as part of a larger and more conclusive case, the senator's legitimacy would be in question.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Curtis?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: I find that easy to believe. This is a bit of a mosh pit and I'm not above anything that goes on here. But by your standard of fairness you could be accused of not speaking out about Nabby being aggressive Curtis; I'm sorry that I hurt your feeling by calling you a Hillbilly. But agressive ? Not so much...
[FairfieldLife] Iraqi reporter throws shoes at Bush, calls him dog
Video at link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081214/india_nm/india370284 BAGHDAD (Reuters) An Iraqi reporter called visiting U.S. President George W. Bush a dog in Arabic on Sunday and threw his shoes at him during a news conference in Baghdad. Iraqi security officers and U.S. secret service agents leapt at the man and dragged him struggling and screaming out of the room where Bush was giving a news conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. The shoes missed their target about 15 feet (4.5 metres) away. One sailed over Bush's head as he stood next to Maliki and smacked into the wall behind him. Bush smiled uncomfortably and Maliki looked strained. It doesn't bother me, Bush said, urging everyone to calm down as a ruckus broke out in the conference room. When asked about the incident shortly after, Bush made light of it. I didn't feel the least threatened by it, he said. Other Iraqi journalists apologised on behalf of their colleague, a television journalist. Bush arrived in Baghdad earlier on Sunday on a farewell visit before he leaves office in January. The U.S.-led invasion in 2003 to topple Saddam Hussein triggered years of sectarian bloodshed and insurgency in Iraq, killing tens of thousands.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Curtis?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I find that easy to believe. This is a bit of a mosh pit and I'm not above anything that goes on here. But by your standard of fairness you could be accused of not speaking out about Nabby being aggressive Curtis; I'm sorry that I hurt your feeling by calling you a Hillbilly. But agressive ? Not so much... And I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings when I called you a mean-spirited old coot whose only pleasure comes from feeling superior to other people through your spiritual delusions Nabby.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Countdown: Thom Hartmann on the GOP Busting Unions
do.rflex wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tuo1iG6eF-M Some of us longtime Hartmann listeners think Thom has gone a little goofy since the Obama win. Sometimes I blame it on winter in the northwest (he lives in Portland, Oregon now) and his vegan diet which probably isn't balancing him for the weather there. It's like he is super-vata and is talking over callers and guests. The reason I believe the latter is this has happened before as winter approached. He is fairly idealistic and sticks to those ideals often over the good sense he used to display. He did however question some of Obama's appointments once Obama took office. The other thing that bugs us is his show is starting to sound like an infomercial for his books (and I've bought some) and we would like him to stop saying every other sentence I wrote a book on that. Unfortunately for some progressive talk show hosts it seems like they gone drunk since Obama won and believe they have some kind of political capital are not discussing but pontificating. I do think he did better on this interview which I watched on Friday.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quid pro quo, Hillary, Obama, and blogovich
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: snip But nowhere have I seen it reported that the money received would actually go into Blogovich's pocket but, rather, into his campaign coffers. Oh, gee, that's been very widely reported, Shemp. It's been reported that the money is going into his pocket? With actual quotes to back it up? Gee, I've missed that. Can you reproduce it, please? Assuming that what Judy reports above is accurate, how does that differ from what Hillary got in exchange for access to the donor list and Obama's promise to use it to raise funds for her? From what I've read, she didn't get access to the donor list. Rather, Obama's people used it on her behalf. Regardless of who is actually using the list, Hillary is still benefitting from it, no? I suppose the biggest differences are that she isn't *guaranteed* any money from Obama's supporters, and those who do donate aren't going to get anything in return for it. If guaranteeing means putting something in writing or an explicit oral guarantee, I can assure you that blogovich didn't ask or get that either. At least I haven't seen any allegations about that. And that's pretty much the point: that's the way these things are done...not with an iron-clad guarantee but with a wink and a nudge because if you DO write these things done, you get caught. snip Perhaps blogovich actually did something that is putting money in his pocket and, if so, he should be punished to the full extent of the law. But if all he is doing is being honest and was taped saying what, essentially, any politician in his position does, then why is everyone getting upset? Partly it's the old saw about not wanting to have to see the sausage being made. But it wasn't just the campaign contributions; he was looking at all sorts of other potential enrichment deals, including a high-paying job for his wife, in exchange for the Senate appointment. ...another thing that's done ALL the time. Clinton tried to get Monica a job at one of those perfume companies, remember? To shut her up. Offered through that black/civil rights lawyer (forget his name). However, this was never, ever offered as one of the indictable offenses against Clinton during MonicaGate nor was it part of the articles of impeachment. And there were other deals covered by the transcripts, including Blago giving state financial resources to the Tribune Company in exchange for its firing its editorial board, which had been critical of Blago; and withholding funds from a children's hospital because the hospital CEO hadn't contributed to Blago's campaign. I find the Tribune thing much more unsettling than the children's hospital thing simply because it is dealing with freedom of the press and free speech. Plus which, Fitz certainly didn't make public everything he had learned about Blago's dealings. He focused on the Senate appointment because it was so clear-cut. I really don't think it's clear cut. Again, I think if he's guilty of anything, he's guilty of being honest. Also, he's reportedly very concerned with the legitimacy of government. If a senator had been appointed and Blago's maneuverings were revealed only later on as part of a larger and more conclusive case, the senator's legitimacy would be in question. Yes, that's a good reason to work on the thing now instead of later.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Letters From an Enlightened Man
On Dec 14, 2008, at 2:35 PM, I am the eternal wrote: On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net wrote: Dudes and Dudettes, I assure you that Carlsen is succinct and very staid compared to the intense psychopathology exhibited by participants of Invincible America. Just one case in point. A foreigner who had gained 100 pounds because he was doing extra long programs, often flying for 3-6 hours at a time, missing meals at Annipura so going back to his trailer and eating lemon biscuits and ghee he bought at the Dome Store. I could tell you a hundred stories about the utter stangeness, the mania, the extreme depths of depression, the I am God. IMO the rounding on IA is much too intense and the results in people experience much to dangerous. Returning home and having a nervous breakdown is very common. Devco is not told of these so the people return for a stint of more intense rounding. I am amazed that nothing really dangerous has happened yet and hope nothing does. If you could share and document these stories here (or offlist) it could be of some help to others. It's of little help if they just remain in the closet. What you're claiming is extremely disturbing to me, but something that has been repeatedly hinted at here, albeit in the past tense in terms of actual examples. And there has been extremely pointed attempts at refutation of those claims from the TB Tom, Dick and Judys of this list. Will you please share some examples, of course preserving the anonymity of those mentioned and of course, your self? What you're describing is a laboratory for mental illness. Surely you exaggerate? Thanks in advance for what you're able to share. May it benefit others.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Great Auto Bailout Circus
shempmcgurk wrote: Capitalism is a very common sense thing, so you are quite right. Perhaps you would feel more comfortable with the term free-marketer (quite frankly, I don't know what the difference between a capitalist and a free marketer would be). I thought that Raunchy (for once) answered that quite well. You seem to be a businessman that doesn't like regulations. I can only agree with you on some that are needless but put there by business only as a way to either let them control the market and keep out competitors or keep some companies in business. Here's an example of that latter: when I lived in Washington state and wanted to register a business name all I had to do was fill out a simple form with three choices for a business name. The first choice available you got and they sent back a postcard indicating it had been registered (so nobody else in the state could use it). In California I had to fill out a form with the county and also go to one of the local newspaper and place an advertisement. There are legal notices papers that do that. The woman at the legal notices paper told me she had lots people tell her this wasn't necessary in other states. Now whadya bet that these little newspapers, some time ago, went together and lobbied for this requirement as a gravy train for them? It is a totally unnecessary step especially my specialized field which nobody reading the ad could afford to use and I get all my business by referrals anyway.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Curtis?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I find that easy to believe. This is a bit of a mosh pit and I'm not above anything that goes on here. But by your standard of fairness you could be accused of not speaking out about Nabby being aggressive Curtis; I'm sorry that I hurt your feeling by calling you a Hillbilly. But agressive ? Not so much... And I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings when I called you a mean-spirited old coot whose only pleasure comes from feeling superior to other people through your spiritual delusions Nabby. Don't worry about it curtis, I rather enjoyed it ! :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Iraqi reporter throws shoes at Bush, calls him dog
That's what our cowardly MSM journalists should have been doing the last 8 years! Bravo to the journalist. Good pitch too. do.rflex wrote: Video at link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081214/india_nm/india370284 BAGHDAD (Reuters) – An Iraqi reporter called visiting U.S. President George W. Bush a dog in Arabic on Sunday and threw his shoes at him during a news conference in Baghdad. Iraqi security officers and U.S. secret service agents leapt at the man and dragged him struggling and screaming out of the room where Bush was giving a news conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. The shoes missed their target about 15 feet (4.5 metres) away. One sailed over Bush's head as he stood next to Maliki and smacked into the wall behind him. Bush smiled uncomfortably and Maliki looked strained. It doesn't bother me, Bush said, urging everyone to calm down as a ruckus broke out in the conference room. When asked about the incident shortly after, Bush made light of it. I didn't feel the least threatened by it, he said. Other Iraqi journalists apologised on behalf of their colleague, a television journalist. Bush arrived in Baghdad earlier on Sunday on a farewell visit before he leaves office in January. The U.S.-led invasion in 2003 to topple Saddam Hussein triggered years of sectarian bloodshed and insurgency in Iraq, killing tens of thousands. To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:fairfieldlife-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: fairfieldlife-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitive Dissonance As A Good Thing
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutp...@... wrote: Someone needs to get laid, and it ain't Turq! --- On Sun, 12/14/08, TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: From: TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitive Dissonance As A Good Thing To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, December 14, 2008, 11:32 AM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Magic purifies my heart At the risk of sounding like Dr. Phil, How's that working for you lately? This is how pure your heart was just a few minutes ago: Vaj, Sexist Oinker in Chief, tuck yourself into a big plastic garbage bag with the potato peelings and tissues, get nice and slimy stewing in the moldering stench, and I'll take you out to the curb for trash pick up on Wednesday. Cancel that. You belong in the green recycling bin. Waste Management sends Oinker trash to Pakistan where it rightly belongs with the Taliban. You've been recycled to Pakistan, buddy, where you can despise and belittle women all you want. Beat and threaten the women in burkas with death if they don't take care of your personal needs and dutifully cook for you, but be sure to hire a food taster. Barry knows damn well I'm returning fire on Vaj but conveniently snipped Vaj's sexist attack on me. Not that it will make any difference in your dismissive attitude toward me, Peter, but for the sake of fairness I'll restore the snips in context. So far as matters of the heart and TM is concerned, it's a magical PROCESS of purification I thoroughly enjoy. I don't question the process and don't make a big deal out of it. If Barry wants to murder my unicorn, fine. It doesn't diminish my experience if that is what he wants. What DOES he want? Context restoring Vaj's attacks: http://tinyurl.com/5avnwa http://tinyurl.com/5paspz
RE: [FairfieldLife] Question for Rick Archer
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of shempmcgurk Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 12:11 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Question for Rick Archer 2) the next SEVEN results, however, are all commercial sites that are trying to sell you term insurance; sites such as statefarm.com, term4sale.com, quickquote.com, etc. It's only until we get to the 9th entry (the moneyalert.com website) is there another information article about term insurance that is not trying to sell me something. Question: are those seven results I refer to above coming up at or near the top of the results because those companies are paying Google to favor them? In other words, not only would I as, say, a life insurance company who is interested in selling term insurance pay google for a sponsored ad to the right or in the shaded yellow area but I could also pay them to prioritize my site as a result that would come out at the beginning of the list as the seven I point out above? Is this what I am seeing? No one is paying Google to be listed in the free or organic results. Some have wondered whether Google might favor sites that also buy advertizing, but that correlation has never been proven. The sites which come up highest in the free listings do so because Google's algorithm detects that those sites are most closely related to the search term. That relationship is determined by both on-page criteria - the site content and the way in which site pages have been optimized for various keywords - and off-site criteria, namely, link popularity. The latter is especially influenced by keyword-rich links from respected, well-established sites. There's nothing wrong with commercial sites ranking well in the organic listings, since very often, they offer what people are looking for.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quid pro quo, Hillary, Obama, and blogovich
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: snip But nowhere have I seen it reported that the money received would actually go into Blogovich's pocket but, rather, into his campaign coffers. Oh, gee, that's been very widely reported, Shemp. It's been reported that the money is going into his pocket? Sorry, I misread. I thought you were saying it hadn't been reported that it *wouldn't* go into his pocket. snip From what I've read, she didn't get access to the donor list. Rather, Obama's people used it on her behalf. Regardless of who is actually using the list, Hillary is still benefitting from it, no? Depends on whether his donors respond to it. I suppose the biggest differences are that she isn't *guaranteed* any money from Obama's supporters, and those who do donate aren't going to get anything in return for it. If guaranteeing means putting something in writing or an explicit oral guarantee, I can assure you that blogovich didn't ask or get that either. No, Obama *can't* guarantee she'll get any money from Obama's donors even if he wanted to. snip Partly it's the old saw about not wanting to have to see the sausage being made. But it wasn't just the campaign contributions; he was looking at all sorts of other potential enrichment deals, including a high-paying job for his wife, in exchange for the Senate appointment. ...another thing that's done ALL the time. Clinton tried to get Monica a job at one of those perfume companies, remember? Not in exchange for a Senate seat. snip Plus which, Fitz certainly didn't make public everything he had learned about Blago's dealings. He focused on the Senate appointment because it was so clear-cut. I really don't think it's clear cut. Again, I think if he's guilty of anything, he's guilty of being honest. I meant clear-cut as in easy to understand. I don't think they can convict him of anything with regard to the Senate seat given what's been made public so far. But there are still lots of holes in what we know.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Letters From an Enlightened Man
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: snip If you could share and document these stories here (or offlist) it could be of some help to others. It's of little help if they just remain in the closet. What you're claiming is extremely disturbing to me, but something that has been repeatedly hinted at here, albeit in the past tense in terms of actual examples. And there has been extremely pointed attempts at refutation of those claims from the TB Tom, Dick and Judys of this list. (As Vaj knows, I'm not a TB.) If Vaj is referring to his story about coldbluice's testing experiences, my pointed attempt to refute Vaj's version was by reposting what coldbluice himself had said, which contradicted what Vaj claimed.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi: 'Which god you like?' - USA 1959
On Dec 14, 2008, at 1:22 PM, Marek Reavis wrote: Sal, that's what everyone says, and it's true to my experience, too. For a short time I had a solo practice, and although I focused on Crim, I felt obliged to take in paying clients whenever, and so I did a fair amount of what's euphemistically called Family Law -- divorce law. It is brutal! Coming and going, upside, downside, and every which way -- it is intense and unhappy law. Clients, their immanent/imminent exes, the opposing scumbag -- I mean, opposing *counsel* -- the judges, the bailiffs and the entire court staff, the whole scene teems with unhappy people. My criminal clients (I mean the ones charged with serious crimes, as opposed to standard DUIs and petty theft, and low-level type misdemeanors), on the other hand, are generally very composed and often very easy-going and well-tempered. I trust almost all of them completely. That's within the confines of our relationship, of course, but it is no less authentic. I'm sincerely there to help them and they pick up on the vibe pretty quickly. Particularly so if the person is an experienced con; those guys are acutely adept at reading people. It's a mandatory prison skill. Interesting! Thanks for the detailed reply, Marek. Makes a lot of sense the way you describe it. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Iraqi reporter throws shoes at Bush, calls him dog
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: That's what our cowardly MSM journalists should have been doing the last 8 years! Bravo to the journalist. Good pitch too. FWIW, hitting somebody with your shoe is considered one of the worst possible insults in Middle Eastern countries. Remember the footage when Saddam's statue fell and people were smacking its head with their shoes?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Curtis?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip and you don't seem to have any problem with Vaj making up a story about coldbluice out of whole cloth. I have a vague memory of him accusing that person of being someone else? I haven't followed that closely enough to comment. I've made at least a half-dozen posts on that, two of them containing quotes from the contradictory posts. How could you have missed all of them? No, it has nothing to do with accusing coldbluice of being someone else. It has to do with Vaj having blatantly misrepresented what coldbluice had reported of his experiences, telling an entirely different story, as if from what coldbluice had said, when in fact he had said something virtually the opposite. But if I use the word tweak rather than shot to describe one of my posts, that's dishonest and warrants a long scolding from you. That got my attention because I read almost all your posts not directed to Barry. Except those directed at Vaj, apparently. I thought that you were being unfair by taunting John, and then when he responded in defense, you claimed he STARTED it. Well, we never finished that discussion. You didn't respond to my last post in it. I think you way exaggerated my sin in that instance. My point is that you let all kinds of crap, flat-out lying and gross unfairness, go by with Barry and Vaj because, as you told me recently, you have offlist contact with them and therefore know them better as people. But I don't lie, and I do my best not to be unfair, and you jump on me when your idea of fairness doesn't happen to quite coincide with mine. That's the double standard I was talking about.
[FairfieldLife] Re: An eyeful a day keeps the doctor away
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Nelson nelsonriddle2001@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip You bet. That's what Snopes is for, to give you the straight skinny. Just looked up their take on 9-11 pentagon and would observe that they might get some things right but in this case, they are following the party line. Seems to me the phrase following the party line indicates a pretty clear bias on your part. Were you able to find anything *contrafactual* in the information they presented? I guess it must be a biased outlook but, I have to wonder where they got their facts from after looking at the pictures of the event. Look up the USS-Liberty- a failed false flag event- the party line or fact sheet seems to be BS in some cases.
[FairfieldLife] Re: An eyeful a day keeps the doctor away
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Nelson nelsonriddle2...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Nelson nelsonriddle2001@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip You bet. That's what Snopes is for, to give you the straight skinny. Just looked up their take on 9-11 pentagon and would observe that they might get some things right but in this case, they are following the party line. Seems to me the phrase following the party line indicates a pretty clear bias on your part. Were you able to find anything *contrafactual* in the information they presented? I guess it must be a biased outlook but, I have to wonder where they got their facts from after looking at the pictures of the event. Look up the USS-Liberty- a failed false flag event- the party line or fact sheet seems to be BS in some cases. False flag? Boy, that's not how I'd characterize the Liberty controversy. You sure that's the event you're thinking of? And that's a *very* complicated story anyway, with strong evidence on both sides--that it was a mistake by Israel, on one hand, and that the Israeli attack was deliberate, on the other. In any case, that there have been false-flag operations in the past doesn't tell us anything about whether 9/11 was one such.
[FairfieldLife] Re: An eyeful a day keeps the doctor away
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Nelson nelsonriddle2001@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Nelson nelsonriddle2001@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip You bet. That's what Snopes is for, to give you the straight skinny. Just looked up their take on 9-11 pentagon and would observe that they might get some things right but in this case, they are following the party line. Seems to me the phrase following the party line indicates a pretty clear bias on your part. Were you able to find anything *contrafactual* in the information they presented? I guess it must be a biased outlook but, I have to wonder where they got their facts from after looking at the pictures of the event. Look up the USS-Liberty- a failed false flag event- the party line or fact sheet seems to be BS in some cases. False flag? Boy, that's not how I'd characterize the Liberty controversy. You sure that's the event you're thinking of? And that's a *very* complicated story anyway, with strong evidence on both sides--that it was a mistake by Israel, on one hand, and that the Israeli attack was deliberate, on the other. In any case, that there have been false-flag operations in the past doesn't tell us anything about whether 9/11 was one such. The point was, I don't think snopes is a reliable authority from any of the rulings it has made that I have seen. A lot of people agree with them which is ok- I don't. A lot of people think 9/11 was an inside job- I agree with them.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Letters From an Enlightened Man
On Dec 14, 2008, at 12:42 PM, Peter wrote: I find this letter to be absolutely insightful. Robin is trying to articulate that paradox that so many of us experienced (or experience) in the TMO. You have this incredible clarity and radiation of sattva from a powerful program that allows conscious contact with Being, but on the personal level all sorts of screwed- up things are going on. RWC really tuned into the dryness that resulted from the TM technique--esp. in it's primary exemplars, it's initiators and long- term rounders--and how that was a result of an eastern technique being experienced in the bodies (or nervous systems) of people who genetically and socially westerners 'at heart'. What westerners therefore needed was a personal god (Skt: Ishvara), not a faceless absolute (Skt: Brahman). It was the faceless absolute that resulted in the dryness which allowed remaining samskaras to congregate as anti- Being, or the Demonic. At best the 'faceless absolute' was that principle which made initiators dry, heartless and (affectively) flat. Bizarrely, this same idea of a god-with-form and a formless-god IS found in the basis of western religion: Judaism. Kabbalists call it the small face and the large face (of IHVH). Some religions like Islam, feign the large face, the formless don't-you-dare-have-any- representations-of-me aspect as their god (Allah) despite the fact they're mind-numbed fundies. So that's the real interplay or personal vs. impersonal that I see in the West. As a further bizarre counterpoint, RWC had a very close and personal meeting with primary, historical Islamic figures, namely the Ayatollah Khomeni (thus his book The Imam and His Islamic Revolution: A Journey into Heaven and Hell). In one of his later sutras, RWC declares: Islam is necessary (I don't have the exact source in front of me, so that may be a paraphrase). From another perspective this is the beginning of the fall of RWC. He progressively became more and more obsessed with the demonic and his battle against it until this is nearly all he saw in others. All in all, though, an amazing, insightful commentary about a huge problem in the TMO. Well this thesis bears little example in is actual writings (if you can share something I'm not familiar with, I'd love to hear/see it). He actually remains quite even-keel about this anti-Being revelation across his writings from what I can tell (ignoring of course the videos, which I have seen, of him physically hitting his students).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi: 'Which god you like?' - USA 1959
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandp...@... wrote: Questioner - Maharishi, how may a person find, you know, which of the, of the, the five materials [elements?] are predominant in them? Maharishi Mahesh Yogi - They, they have their method of, uh, oh, from the tendencies they know, from the, from the cut of the face they know. From the tendency. From the tendency. Q - Do you take that into consideration when you give the person a mantra? M M Y - I don't go into all these vibrations, botherations. I ask him Which god you like? He says Shiva - Okay, Shiva! [Maharishi laughs, very loudly] Where is the time to go into complications and all that? Ask him What he like? and that is it. [more laughter, the laughter now sounding strained] And somebody comes, Oh my, I don't have any liking for anybody, then I trace behind, And then, When you were young? and Which temple you were going more? and What your father was worshipping? and then he comes round. [Maharishi resumes the laughter] Q - How would you apply this to the westerners? M M Y - Oh here we don't go into these minute details. [more strained laughter] We get the mantra direct and that does all good for him. [yet more laughter] In to.. not into so much details. To listen to this use the following link: http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/sources/mp3s/Maharishi1959USA.mp3 The most interesting comment is, ...and so far it has been found to be working, which confirms the contention by Domash that MMY devised TM himself (emphasis on *so far*). Also underscoring the significance of the lack of a Parampara or Guru Disciple lineage. That being said, it really isn't earth shattering, as MMY himself stated that you could use the word mic (as in microphone) to meditate. You must remember MMY had devised a simple technique for 'householders', and he never claimed he was a Guru. TM is a simple technique using a Sanskrit mantra. If you feel you deserve better than go to a genuine 'Guru' and see what's in store for you, you probably won't last the week, TM is Yoga-lite for modernity.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Iraqi reporter throws shoes at Bush, calls him dog
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: That's what our cowardly MSM journalists should have been doing the last 8 years! Bravo to the journalist. Good pitch too. FWIW, hitting somebody with your shoe is considered one of the worst possible insults in Middle Eastern countries. Remember the footage when Saddam's statue fell and people were smacking its head with their shoes? I know, but killing him is the Lord's work!! Makes perfect sense!
[FairfieldLife] Mantras..one means of tuning in with Divine forces-Yogananda
From the realization of the potencies of these vibratory bija or seed sounds, the rishis devised mantras that, when properly intoned, activate these creative forces (chakras) to produce the desired result. Mantras, therefore are one means of tuning in with subtle or divine forces. Swami Yogananda BG
