[FairfieldLife] Funny or mean? You decide.

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm just wondering if this disapproval of mocking religious
> > claims extends to TV cartoon satires cuz that would pretty
> > much knock out my favorite shows on Sunday night, the
> > Simpsons and the Family Guy.
> 
> Are they really funny, or are they just mean?

The fact that THE CORRECTOR cannot tell
the difference makes Curtis' whole point
about her compulsively defending "privileged" 
religious beliefs that do not need defending.

The Simpsons is the longest-running American 
sitcom, the longest-running American animated 
program, and in 2009 it surpassed Gunsmoke as 
the longest running American primetime enter-
tainment series. The Simpsons has won dozens 
of awards since it debuted as a series, including 
25 Primetime Emmy Awards, 26 Annie Awards and a 
Peabody Award. Time magazine's December 31, 1999 
issue named it the 20th century's best television 
series.

The only thing THE CORRECTOR can see is someone
being "mean" to people by mocking their "privileged"
religious claims.

One of the points that Curtis has been trying to
make is that the compulsive "defenders" of religion
(especially when it's theoretically not their *own* 
religion they are compulsively defending) are basic-
ally closet Victorians. As in the description of 
codependency I posted not long ago, they view people
as being *unable to defend themselves or take care
of themselves*. The codependent activist feels that
it is his or her *job* to defend these weak people
that others are being "mean" to. But the whole bot-
tom line of the disorder is that the "defense" is 
a closet way of putting them down. "They're too weak 
to stand up for themselves, so I have to do it."

The religions in question that have been mocked by
The Simpsons have wisely *laughed along* with the
mockery, and hopefully in a few cases even learned
from it. An exception, of course, is Scientology,
which tried to adopt THE CORRECTOR's approach and
have the episode mocking them *banned*.

THAT is what her stance is really about. She is 
trying desperately to make Curtis the Bad Guy for
mocking something that just *screams* to be mocked.
Her goal on FFL is to encourage one or more other
posters to post something critical of Curtis for
expressing his stance. In this she has FAILed as
completely as she has when trying the same thing
with other posters she was trying to demonize over 
the years. 

The wisest promoters *of* the beliefs being mocked
realize not only the unprovable but also the ridic-
ulous nature of many of their beliefs, and thus
laugh along with the audience when they are poked
fun at well. All that THE CORRECTOR can see is 
someone being "mean" to weak people that she, being
"strong," must defend. What a crock. What self-
serving, self-important crap.

THE CORRECTOR had several paths open to her when
Curtis began his latest round of challenging and
poking fun at certain religious beliefs like karma,
reincarnation, and the caste system. She could have 
laughed along with the mockery (like the millions 
who laugh along when The Simpsons make fun of belief
systems equally tenuous and unprovable). She could 
have gone all "serious" and tried to make a case for 
karma and reincarnation and the caste system episto-
mologically or philosophically, and thus put her 
*own* opinion and ass on the line. But she didn't.
But she chose the easiest and the laziest path of
all -- she chose to try to make Curtis out to be a
Bad Guy for mocking beliefs *she* is too lazy to 
actually defend intellectually. 

It's always the same -- when someone says something
that gets a laugh on this forum, *especially* if the
laughter is justified because it reveals the shaky
foundations of a belief system she secretly believes
in but is afraid to admit to believing in herself,
the only reason she can think of for provoking the
laughter is someone being "mean." It *challenges*
her that someone has poked fun at a belief, and 
rather than take the adult route when so challenged
and either laugh along at the fun-poking or refute
it intellectually, she goes *almost every time* for
trying to demonize the comic.

I think that THE CORRECTOR has by far the 
LAZIEST mind on this forum. Her responses are 
predictable because by now *everyone* knows what 
they will be. She will take the "low road" and 
play "kill the messenger" rather than deal with 
the challenge to the message EVERY TIME. 

Once caught doing it, she will deny that's what she
is doing forever, hoping to prolong the discussion
so that she can get in several more "strategic strikes"
against "the enemy" before everyone tires of the
argument. THAT is what is going on in this argument.

Meanwhile Curtis is still in the same place he was 
when he started the ball rolling -- having fun with
the exploration of ideas. He started by challenging 
something that rarely gets challenged here, and he's 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Lakshmanju and Maharishi

[lurkernomore20002000]

She stole that from Buzz Lightyear, "To infinity and beyond"!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shukra69"  wrote:
>
> Swami Lakshmanju
> 
> Swami Lakshmanju (1907–1991) was the last Acharya of the Kashmir Shaiva 
> tradition. Written accounts of conversations with Swami Lakshmanju include 
> the following comments about Maharishi:
> 
> "If you ask me, Maharishi's teaching starts where mine ends and it goes 
> from there to Infinity." Then he added, "Maharishi is the greatest saint to 
> walk the Earth in ten thousand years!"
> 
> http://www.srigurudev.net/maharishi/stories.html
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[lurkernomore20002000]

Again. It's hard to believe that they can get away with this, without being 
castagated across the board, but maybe I'm just that naive about it.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "authfriend" 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "lurkernomore20002000"
>  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Here is the Fox version -- screencapture from the video of Fox and
> > > > Friends:
> > > > http://screencast.com/t/NDYxZGM5ZjYt
> 
> > > >   >
> > > >
> > > > ...compared to the actual cover -- 
> http://screencast.com/t/YzNiZTRmYW 
> > > >   >
> > > >
> > > That is disturbing. And would seem to be blantant
> > > misrepresentation.
> >
> > Not to defend Fox, but it seems a bit unlikely they'd
> > deliberately attempt such a blatant misrepresentation
> > *during an interview with Ventura about the book*.
> >
> > It's not impossible that they were sent a preliminary
> > mock-up of the cover in a package of promotional
> > materials from the publisher (which is very small)
> > before the book came out, and that in the interim the
> > cover was changed, but it never occurred to the
> > production folks at Fox to check to see if what they
> > were sent was the final cover. They just used what
> > they were sent to make the slide because it was handy.
> 
> Of course, your explanation occurred to me immediatley I saw the
> interview and backed it up to look to have a double-take at the book
> cover, but I doubt that cover ever existed as it stands there.
> 
> Fox manipulates every image they show:
> 
> ""Steinberg's teeth have been yellowed, his nose and chin widened, and
> his ears made to protrude further. ""
> 
> 
> 
> ""Similarly, a comparison of the photo of Reddicliffe used by Fox News
> and the original photo
>  com%2Fwp%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2006%2F12%2F27reddi.jpg>  suggests
> that Reddicliffe's teeth have been yellowed, dark circles have been
> added under his eyes, and his hairline has been moved back. ""
> 
> 
> 
> http://mediamatters.org/research/200807020002
> 
> 
> OffWorld
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Christians Urged to Boycott Glenn Beck

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/christians-urged-to-boycott-gl
> enn-beck/?hp
>

This is great news for TM initiations!

If everyone was to leave churches that preached "social justice" the only 
church left to go to would be the TM Church because as we all know the TM 
organisation NEVER, EVER does anything in the social field.

[FairfieldLife] Christians Urged to Boycott Glenn Beck

[Rick Archer]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/christians-urged-to-boycott-gl
enn-beck/?hp 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[lurkernomore20002000]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:

> Not to defend Fox, but it seems a bit unlikely they'd
> deliberately attempt such a blatant misrepresentation
> *during an interview with Ventura about the book*.

Right.  It would seem unlikely to me.
>
> It's not impossible that they were sent a preliminary
> mock-up of the cover in a package of promotional
> materials from the publisher (which is very small)
> before the book came out, and that in the interim the
> cover was changed, but it never occurred to the
> production folks at Fox to check to see if what they
> were sent was the final cover. They just used what
> they were sent to make the slide because it was handy.
>
> The Fox woman interviewer, BTW, was holding a copy of
> the actual book with the actual cover during the
> interview:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adftynBiZ18
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chesterton & the intolerance of religion

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap"  wrote:
>

> Thanks Merudanda. I enjoyed Chesterton's short essay:
> http://chesterton.org/gkc/philosopher/revivalpPhilosophy.htm
> 
> I wonder if the following is at all relevant to the recent 
> Curtis::Judy religion debate? (I'm not sure because I'm not 
> clear as to how far Curtis wants his views about myths, 
> superstitions and fairy tales to be enshrined, "hard-wired" as 
> it were into *modern society*):

I don't know where or whether it fits into the debate,
but he makes an excellent point! Thanks for the quote.
I went and read the whole essay and recommend it.


> << Thus, when so brilliant a man as Mr. H. G. Wells-Delta-
> Blues says that such supernatural ideas have become impossible 
> "for intelligent people", he is (for that instant) not talking 
> like an intelligent person. In other words, he is not talking 
> like a philosopher; because he is not even saying what he 
> means. What he means is, not "impossible for intelligent men", 
> but, "impossible for intelligent monists", or, "impossible for 
> intelligent determinists". But it is not a negation of 
>  to hold any coherent and logical conception of 
> so mysterious a world. It is not a negation of intelligence to 
> think that all experience is a dream. It is not unintelligent 
> to think it a delusion, as some Buddhists do; let alone to 
> think it a product of creative will, as Christians do. >>
> 
> And I really love this quote from Chesterton (but I doubt
> Curtis will!). Like all good mysterians Chesterton upholds
> the primacy of poetry over mechanics, of the "qualitative"
> over the "quantitive":
> 
> << All the terms used in the science books, 'law,' 
> 'necessity,' 'order,' 'tendency,' and so on, are really 
> unintellectual  The only words that ever satisfied me as 
> describing Nature are the terms used in the fairy books, 
> 'charm,' 'spell,' 'enchantment.' They express the 
> arbitrariness of the fact and its mystery. A tree grows fruit 
> because it is a MAGIC tree. Water runs downhill because it is 
> bewitched. The sun shines because it is bewitched. I deny 
> altogether that this is fantastic or even mystical. We may 
> have some mysticism later on; but this fairy-tale language 
> about things is simply rational and agnostic. >>
> 
> That should put the cat amongst the pigeons. (Or the bio-
> chemical hunting and sleeping machine amongst the 
> robotic, aerodynamic, statue-shitters if you you prefer).

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "authfriend" 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "lurkernomore20002000"
 wrote:
> >
> > > Here is the Fox version -- screencapture from the video of Fox and
> > > Friends:
> > > http://screencast.com/t/NDYxZGM5ZjYt

> > >  >
> > >
> > > ...compared to the actual cover -- 
http://screencast.com/t/YzNiZTRmYW 
> > >  >
> > >
> > That is disturbing. And would seem to be blantant
> > misrepresentation.
>
> Not to defend Fox, but it seems a bit unlikely they'd
> deliberately attempt such a blatant misrepresentation
> *during an interview with Ventura about the book*.
>
> It's not impossible that they were sent a preliminary
> mock-up of the cover in a package of promotional
> materials from the publisher (which is very small)
> before the book came out, and that in the interim the
> cover was changed, but it never occurred to the
> production folks at Fox to check to see if what they
> were sent was the final cover. They just used what
> they were sent to make the slide because it was handy.

Of course, your explanation occurred to me immediatley I saw the
interview and backed it up to look to have a double-take at the book
cover, but I doubt that cover ever existed as it stands there.

Fox manipulates every image they show:

""Steinberg's teeth have been yellowed, his nose and chin widened, and
his ears made to protrude further. ""



""Similarly, a comparison of the photo of Reddicliffe used by Fox News
and the original photo
  suggests
that Reddicliffe's teeth have been yellowed, dark circles have been
added under his eyes, and his hairline has been moved back. ""



http://mediamatters.org/research/200807020002


OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Lakshmanju and Maharishi

[shukra69]

Swami Lakshmanju

Swami Lakshmanju (1907–1991) was the last Acharya of the Kashmir Shaiva 
tradition. Written accounts of conversations with Swami Lakshmanju include the 
following comments about Maharishi:

"If you ask me, Maharishi's teaching starts where mine ends and it goes 
from there to Infinity." Then he added, "Maharishi is the greatest saint to 
walk the Earth in ten thousand years!"

http://www.srigurudev.net/maharishi/stories.html

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:

> What blew my mind in the latest CORRECTORFAIL 
> attempting yet again to make herself look smart 
> by trying to make someone else look stupid is the 
> trotting out of the term "antireligionists." Other 
> than a *very* few very vocal atheists who use this 
> stance to sell their books and lecture tours, I 
> can't think of anyone who fits that description.
> Certainly not anyone on this forum.

Can't imagine what Barry thinks I meant by
"antireligionist" that would upset him so.

I was using the term to refer to people who make it
a point to criticize religion. That certainly applies
to Curtis, and Barry, and a few other people here.
It's quite common among progressives in this country.

It's not a pejorative, and if Barry thinks it makes 
him look stupid, that's his problem.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on India

[authfriend]

I've never been to India and don't have a dog in this fight, but I
followed the link Kelly provided to one of the comments he received, and
I thought it was pretty interesting.

Kelly writes:

The day before yesterday I received yet another email about my recent
writings on India. Kim, the author, has graciously agreed to let me post
the letter in toto. He makes some excellent points about India and my
perception of the country, or rather, he points out some of the faults
in my perception of the country. Here it is:


Sadly, embarrassedly true.

BUT—and here's where you are quite myopic—you're judging
India from a narrow American point of view. You equate cleanliness, good
infrastructure, lack of bureaucracy, etc, with progressiveness. And,
from some perspectives, you may be right. But that's just
material/industrial progressiveness (on the other side of which is a
myriad of damaging problems—fractured communities, gaps between
haves and have-nots, an exploited environment, etc.). And that's not
the entire story.

First, it's not true that Indians don't care or are complacent,
as if that were a cultural genetic problem. The majority of us do care.
Hindu philosophy preaches cleanliness next to godliness. The problem is
that the task appears too gargantuan to handle in the middle of our
attempts to survive. Anyone who has lived in India (as opposed to
visiting India) knows that it's like going to war everyday as we
fight our way from dawn to dusk—dealing with traffic, bureaucracy,
overcrowded workplaces, poor salaries (so you feel unappreciated),
rising prices, etc. It is mentally, emotionally, and physically
exhausting. This isn't an excuse. It simply means that this is the
kind of society most of us were born into—we inherited it. It's
easy to praise the British legacy of railways and bridges and forget
that they ignored rural India (which is the largest part of the
country). That lack of emphasis created a massive influx into the major
cities, thus exacerbating and even causing most of the problems.

In the U.S, for example, you could live quite comfortably in a town of
50,000 to 100,000—good universities (therefore decent fine arts
performances, global speakers, and other educative programming), car
dealerships, malls, Thai restaurants, parks and recreation events, good
doctors, hospitals, etc. In India, that's little better than a
village and everyone wants to get the hell out of Dodge and head to
Mumbai or any of the other metropoli!

In other words, it isn't easy to find an incentive to clear up the
mess, which would take a herculean effort (no exaggeration)!

BUT—we should make that herculean effort, no question. And the
largest impediment to that is the lack of education. For all the Nobel
Laureates, scientists, philosophers, etc. that India has produced the
sad fact is that millions of Indians are impoverished and uneducated.
Here are some depressing statistics from a few years ago:

average number of students per teacher: 220
- people partaking of higher education: 1 person out of every 14,000
- number of pupils at the City Montessori school in Lucknow, Uttar
Pradesh, 2002:
26,312 pupils (world record) [GBoWR]
- number of Indians going as students to Britain: 17,000 per year
- number of Indians going as students to the US: 14,000 per year

people below poverty line: about 260 million (acc. to AB Vajpayee feb
04)
- poor living in India: one quarter of the world's poor [BBC Aug 04]
- people living on less than 1 Euro per day (50-55 Rs) 2004: about 30 %
of population
- * number of people in India living on less than 50 pence per day:
about 300 million
[BBC News Night, Oct 2006]
- number of people living in slums: 150 million [BBC 15 sep 2004]
- people in Mumbai living in shanty towns, open spaces, or on pavements:
50% of
Mumbai's population [BBC, Nov 2005]
- world's largest slum: located in Mumbai; Dharavi, 432 acres
- number of inhabited buildings declared as dangerous or dilapidated in
Mumbai:
19,000 [BBC; Sep 2005]
- number of children in India who die before the age of 5: 63 out of
1000 according
to UN report [BBC; Sep 2005]
- children under 3 years of age in Orissa severely malnourished: 21 %
(Feb 04, acc to
National Family Health Survey); or 3.8 % (acc. to data collected by the
state)
- tribal children below the age of six who have died of
malnourishment-related causes
in 15 districts of Maharashtra: 9,000 (between Apr 2003 and May 2004)
- number of street children in Delhi: 150,000 estimate [BBC; Sep 2005]

Now, before you think this is an excuse (and before you suggest that
these problems were caused by complacency), I'd like to inform you
that it isn't easy to locate the sources responsible for these
facts. It is also a fact that India is trying. There have been
significant improvements to the numbers of people being offered
education opportunities, but it is difficult to overcome centuries of
tradition and ignorance. We had recycling systems among ALL levels of
society (most of them becaus

[FairfieldLife] Re: "Mental sinking" and TM

[shukra69]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Mar 12, 2010, at 6:21 AM, cardemaister wrote:
> 
> > IMHO, that seems to claim doing kuNDali-yoga (kundalini-yoga)
> > is useless if one "replaces" it with saMyama on the "nose-interior- 
> > middle" (naasikaa-antar-madhya) or something like that. But I might  
> > be utterly wrong...
> 
> 
> It's been explained to you several times Card that according to the  
> last Pundit  of Kashmir Shaivism, and one of the Maharishi's gurus, complete 
> fabrication  
> samyama in the SS has a completely different meaning than in the YS.  
> They're different darshanas or Ways-of Seeing. Knowledge is different  
> in different darshanas.
> 
> You should stop deliberately spreading misinformation to fit your TM- 
> promoting agenda.
> 
> Are you on Purusha by chance?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> I'm just wondering if this disapproval of mocking religious
> claims extends to TV cartoon satires cuz that would pretty
> much knock out my favorite shows on Sunday night, the
> Simpsons and the Family Guy.

Are they really funny, or are they just mean?


> 
> I have a feeling this is a Curtis-only policy.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
wrote:
>  
> > Here is the Fox version -- screencapture from the video of Fox and
> > Friends:
> > http://screencast.com/t/NDYxZGM5ZjYt
> > 
> > 
> > ...compared to the actual cover --  http://screencast.com/t/YzNiZTRmYW
> > 
> > 
> That is disturbing. And would seem to be blantant 
> misrepresentation.

Not to defend Fox, but it seems a bit unlikely they'd
deliberately attempt such a blatant misrepresentation
*during an interview with Ventura about the book*.

It's not impossible that they were sent a preliminary
mock-up of the cover in a package of promotional
materials from the publisher (which is very small)
before the book came out, and that in the interim the
cover was changed, but it never occurred to the
production folks at Fox to check to see if what they
were sent was the final cover. They just used what
they were sent to make the slide because it was handy.

The Fox woman interviewer, BTW, was holding a copy of
the actual book with the actual cover during the
interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adftynBiZ18

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "mainstream20016"
 wrote:

> When you return, you might apologize to Curtis. His writing
> isn't a crock, yet you are full of _ _ i t, the discomfort
> of which perhaps drives you to create unfounded citations of
> deficiencies in others' logical expressions,  and to imagine
> misrepresentation of your 'position'.


A few selections from mainstream's posts, grouped by topic...


Hillary will run as Obama's VP so she can murder Obama and become
president (three examples of many):

No, [Hillary] didn't want to be VP. Yet she would have temporarily taken
the job, just long enough to find a way to dispatch Obama, and ascend to
the top spot.

The correct term at this stage of the campaign is "the Dem VP spot",
which HIllary now covets, as having it would offer her the most direct
path to the Presidency - after an 'accident' to Obama.

Hillary is determined to become President, at any cost. Obama must keep
her off of his ticket, lest he risk his life to her ambition.


Hillary and Bill Clinton want McCain to win:

Hillary and Bill will each speak, primetime, to the Dem convention.
Watch for a lukewarm endorsement of Obama from the Clintons, as Hillary
and Bill are working for a McCain victory in Novemeber, to set Hillary
up for another run in 2012.


Hillary will run with McCain as his VP (three examples of many):

Hillary is poised to join the aging McCain, who will agree to HIllary's
demand now to give up the WH after just one term to allow Hillary to
ascend to her rightful throne

I predicted the McCain / Hillary ticket March 22nd. Today is August
23rd, and you still consider the idea delusional. Unless Hillary teams
with McCain, she'll never be President... that thought will move HIllary
to make the pitch shortly.

In August, when BHO actually selects someone other than Hillary as his
VP, she will announce that everything has changed, is now different, and
HRC and McCain will team as P and VP at the Rep convention in September,
as McCain's woeful campaign will be
desperate for a boost, from any quarter.


Chelsea Clinton is Web Hubbel's daughter:

Speaking of terrible, terrible judgment..HIllary's dalliances with
Webster Hubbel of the Rose Law firm likely contributed the DNA of her
only offspring.

Hillary and Bill now deserve to hear a full dose of questions about
Chelsea's DNA - their daughter looks much more like Webster Hubbel
(Hillary's superior at the Rose Law firm) than Bill.


Judy and raunchy are the same person:

There's a certain odor that permeates raunchydog's posts - smells just
like author's friend.


Judy somehow manipulated the Post Count:

FFL Post Count is greatly at variance with the Yahoo Advanced Search
count. FFL Post Count is undercounting posts. e.g. - Yahoo Advanced
showed authfriend got off 71 posts last week, and 60 the week before.

(To his credit, mainstream *did* apologize, once it was explained to him
why his own count was so far off.)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[lurkernomore20002000]

 
> Here is the Fox version -- screencapture from the video of Fox and
> Friends:
> http://screencast.com/t/NDYxZGM5ZjYt
> 
> 
> ...compared to the actual cover --  http://screencast.com/t/YzNiZTRmYW
> 
> 
That is disturbing. And would seem to be blantant misrepresentation.

[FairfieldLife] Revisting- Re: Did you have this experience in India ?

[lurkernomore20002000]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
 wrote:

> It is his rejection of that cruel ideology that makes his thinking so
attractive to me. He is saying something that is the opposite view of
the karmic belief system, "it's not fair!" They didn't earn this
suffering by their bad deeds in a past life, they just drew the short
straw in life by chance.  I've just been thinking about this.  A phrase
that has been used often to explain things that don't make sense to us,
is,  "God in his infinite wisdom has..such and such"  Which is
another way of saying, I haven't the foggiest idea why.  Any maybe this
weak explanation works for many people. But for others it doesn't.  But
I am thinking that an equally absurd explanation is that, "The random
universe in its randomness has resulted in.. such and such,
and so and so.  Please give me a sensible explanation of good and bad
things happening,  action and reaction in the world of human life
without introducing the concept of reincarnation.  I cannot, and that is
why I subscribe to this concept. Andwe can act to change this
unfairness.
>
> I think it is fascinating that you are promoting a guy who explicitly
states that he does not belief in God and whose views are so much more
inline with Gandhi than Guru Dev.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > > But it did demonstrate one of my main points (thanks Sam
> > > Harris) which is that religious ideas are held in a
> > > protected class. They are shielded by people who don't
> > > believe in them as if the people who believe them are
> > > delicate children whose feelings must not be hurt by
> > > someone challenging the idea as unsupported by reasonable
> > > evidence.
> > 
> > This is a crock, and Curtis knows it's a crock.
> 
> No, your claiming it is a crock is a crock. You know
> perfectly well what points this is in reference to and
> it isn't the one you are providing. 

Oh, what crap. Never did I say anything even remotely
like what you claim above.

> > Yesterday:
> > 
> > Curtis:
> > > > > That is the shield I am talking about.  Claiming that
> > > > > someone is out of line for questioning the claims of
> > > > > religion as if they were any other claim we evaluate.
> > > > 
> > Me:
> > > > No, that isn't what I said. I said I thought it was
> > > > pointless--impractical, ineffective--in the context of
> > > > opposing bad behavior.
> > > 
> > Curtis:
> > > OK
> 
> As you know Judy, your quote was not in the posts (or
> part of the post) where you castigate me for mocking
> religion. If you let it go at this statement I wouldn't
> agree, but I couldn't accuse you of shielding religious
> beliefs.  But if you accuse me of using "insulting
> language" you are doing exactly what I said above,
> shielding the religious children from bad Curtis and
> his mockery of their precious beliefs.

Let's look at exactly what you said above:

"[Religious beliefs] are shielded by people who don't
believe in them as if the people who believe them are
delicate children whose feelings must not be hurt by
someone *challenging the idea as unsupported by 
reasonable evidence*" (emphasis added).

Nothing about mockery or insults. You're referring
there to challenging religious ideas epistemologically.

And indeed, it's entirely possible to "challenge the
idea as unsupported by reasonable evidence" *without
being insulting*, without *mocking*. I've never
"castigated" you for making epistemological challenges;
I just don't think it works to remedy bad behavior.

To "castigate" you for insulting and mocking has
nothing to do with trying to shield religious beliefs
from challenge. You're conflating two very different
things in an attempt to mislead about your first
misrepresentation--and blaming *me* for the conflation.
That's really low, Curtis.

I think *both* insults/mockery *and* straightforward
epistemological challenge are counterproductive in the
context of trying to change bad behavior. But the 
insults and the mockery are just mean, hostile smartass
stuff; they even foul up the straightforward
epistemological challenge by introducing exaggeration, 
oversimplification, and straw men, not to mention
getting people's backs up so they're even less inclined
to listen to a straightforward challenge.

If you were George Carlin, maybe you could get away
with it. But your mockery isn't funny enough to make
the medicine go down, IMHO, even for mature adults.

> You have gone way beyond the case you made above to
> show your disapproval of my tone, my phrases, and
> the fairness of my criticism from your point of view.

Mockery and insults are unfair criticism virtually by
definition. Yours certainly are. But what I've said
has nothing to do with thinking believers are
"delicate children whose feelings must not be hurt."
You made that up out of whole cloth. As I said, it's
a crock, and you knew it was a crock when you posted it.

My position has to do with what works best to counter
bad behavior, and unfair criticism of beliefs is even
less likely to work than straightforward epistemological
criticism, IMHO.

> You were using personal shame as a sophist's trick to
> mask a weak counterargument.

Oh, brother. You sure as hell aren't in a position to
call anybody a sophist.

You're a dirty fighter, Curtis. You have been ever since
I've known you. And that *is* a shame, because you're
more than smart enough and tough enough to fight fair.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , Sal Sunshine 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mar 12, 2010, at 5:32 PM, off_world_beings wrote:
> >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , Sal Sunshine 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mar 11, 2010, at 9:38 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Enlighten me. How was the picture photoshopped?  I don't have
> the experience, and would like to know.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know the answer to that, lurk,
> > > > but do you really get your news off the
> > > > Drudge Report or Fox News?  Color me
> > > > disillusioned.
> > > >
> > > > Sal
> > > >
> > >
> > > Both of which have used photoshopped photos as if they are real for
> years.
> > >
> > > Here is a shot of Jesse Ventura's new book cover: 
> http://screencast.com/t/YzNiZTRmYW 
> > >
> > > Here is a screenshot of the fake cover that Fox and Friends used 3
> days ago:http://screencast.com/t/MTMwZWI3Z
> >
> > The Fox page was gone, but I can imagine.
> > It's disillusioning when intelligent people fall
> > for that crap.
> >
> > Sal
> >
> 
> Here is the Fox version -- screencapture from the video of Fox and
> Friends:
> http://screencast.com/t/NDYxZGM5ZjYt
> 
> 
> ...compared to the actual cover --  http://screencast.com/t/YzNiZTRmYW
> 
> 
> I know the actual cover is also a trumped up version of Ventura, like> any 
> author picture, but the Fox and Friends version went out of their> way to 
> make him look dweeby. News organizations are not supposed to do> that.
> 
> OffWorld
>

FOX is a news organization?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , Sal Sunshine 
wrote:
>
> On Mar 12, 2010, at 5:32 PM, off_world_beings wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , Sal Sunshine 
wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mar 11, 2010, at 9:38 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Enlighten me. How was the picture photoshopped?  I don't have
the experience, and would like to know.
> > >
> > > I don't know the answer to that, lurk,
> > > but do you really get your news off the
> > > Drudge Report or Fox News?  Color me
> > > disillusioned.
> > >
> > > Sal
> > >
> >
> > Both of which have used photoshopped photos as if they are real for
years.
> >
> > Here is a shot of Jesse Ventura's new book cover: 
http://screencast.com/t/YzNiZTRmYW 
> >
> > Here is a screenshot of the fake cover that Fox and Friends used 3
days ago:http://screencast.com/t/MTMwZWI3Z
>
> The Fox page was gone, but I can imagine.
> It's disillusioning when intelligent people fall
> for that crap.
>
> Sal
>

Here is the Fox version -- screencapture from the video of Fox and
Friends:
http://screencast.com/t/NDYxZGM5ZjYt


...compared to the actual cover --  http://screencast.com/t/YzNiZTRmYW


I know the actual cover is also a trumped up version of Ventura, like
any author picture, but the Fox and Friends version went out of their
way to make him look dweeby. News organizations are not supposed to do
that.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): Sat Mar 06 00:00:00 2010
End Date (UTC): Sat Mar 13 00:00:00 2010
635 messages as of (UTC) Fri Mar 12 23:32:48 2010

52 nablusoss1008 
50 authfriend 
48 WillyTex 
48 TurquoiseB 
48 ShempMcGurk 
39 curtisdeltablues 
38 Vaj 
34 lurkernomore20002000 
30 off_world_beings 
27 Bhairitu 
26 Buck 
25 "do.rflex" 
21 tartbrain 
18 merudanda 
14 Joe 
13 cardemaister 
 9 sgrayatlarge 
 8 Sal Sunshine 
 8 Rick Archer 
 8 Mike Dixon 
 8 It's just a ride 
 7 AnkhAton 
 7 Alex Stanley 
 6 metoostill 
 6 John 
 4 scienceofabundance 
 4 mainstream20016 
 4 PaliGap 
 4 Dick Mays 
 4 BillyG 
 3 Irmeli 
 2 uns_tressor 
 2 merlin 
 2 m 13 
 2 Duveyoung 
 1 shukra69 
 1 peterklutz 
 1 fillosofree 
 1 azgrey 
 1 Zoran Krneta 
 1 Pamela Paradowski 

Posters: 41
Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
=
Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
Standard Time (Winter):
US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[Sal Sunshine]

On Mar 12, 2010, at 5:32 PM, off_world_beings wrote:

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
> >
> > On Mar 11, 2010, at 9:38 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:
> > > 
> > > Enlighten me. How was the picture photoshopped?  I don't have the 
> > > experience, and would like to know.
> > 
> > I don't know the answer to that, lurk,
> > but do you really get your news off the 
> > Drudge Report or Fox News?  Color me
> > disillusioned.
> > 
> > Sal
> >
> 
> Both of which have used photoshopped photos as if they are real for years.
> 
> Here is a shot of Jesse Ventura's new book cover:  
> http://screencast.com/t/YzNiZTRmYW
> 
> Here is a screenshot of the fake cover that Fox and Friends used 3 days 
> ago:http://screencast.com/t/MTMwZWI3Z

The Fox page was gone, but I can imagine.
It's disillusioning when intelligent people fall
for that crap.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , Sal Sunshine 
wrote:
>
> On Mar 11, 2010, at 9:38 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:
> >
> > Enlighten me. How was the picture photoshopped?  I don't have the
experience, and would like to know.
>
> I don't know the answer to that, lurk,
> but do you really get your news off the
> Drudge Report or Fox News?  Color me
> disillusioned.
>
> Sal
>

Both of which have used photoshopped photos as if they are real for
years.

Here is a shot of Jesse Ventura's new book cover: 
http://screencast.com/t/YzNiZTRmYW 

Here is a screenshot of the fake cover that Fox and Friends used 3 days
ago: http://screencast.com/t/MTMwZWI3Z


...in this interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIczKqAewRo


OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] MGF Chat Summary - Raja Luis and Dr. Robert Roth

[merlin]

--- Maharishi's Global Family Chat 
 





Fascinating news came in  from Raja Luis and Dr Bobby Roth.
 
Raja Luis told of three countries in Latin America that have requested TM 
implementation in rehabilitation. Guyana is starting with 2-300 at-risk 
students, Guatemala has proposed its entire prison population, and Argentina a 
large prison project. Two countries have requested implementation in their 
police forces, which are highly militarized.
All these programmes will include twice daily practice in groups. They are a 
wave of coherence running through the destructive aspects of society which is 
complementing the coherence on the positive side in schools and colleges.
Dr Roth said the most amazing thing these days is how many people are coming 
forward and offering to help put on concerts and help spread Maharishi’s 
knowledge. Russell Simmons has put a very clear and powerful commitment to TM 
on his website and is keen to start CBE schools throughout Africa and charter 
schools throughout the US. He says they can be in his name because that will 
draw the students, but the essential aspect is TM and the credit should go to 
Maharishi.
Dr Roth said about 50 artists and promoters have come forward in the past 1-2 
months – 15 or 20 of them really high level, like Ringo’s publicist, who says 
this is what she wants to do for the rest of her life.
A TM Teacher Training Course is starting for US and Candian citizens - 28 June 
to 15 November 2010. Interested? Email educat...@tm.org
Jai Guru Dev
Visit the Maharishi's Global Family Chat Archives
Contribute to the Maharishi Channel

jai guru dev

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen 
Massenmails. 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

[FairfieldLife] Re: "Mental sinking" and TM

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Mar 12, 2010, at 6:09 AM, cardemaister wrote:
> 
> > It seems to me Maharishi thinks the slowing down and occasional
> > stoppage of breathing during TM is what Pata�jali means by caturthaH 
> > (praaNaayaamaH), because that prolly is (almost?) the conditio sine qua non 
> > of dhaaraNaa (the first "part" of saMyama)
> 
> 
> No, the fourth is irrespective of time and completely under the will. In TM 
> such apnea episode only:
> 
> -occur only in certain people
> 
> -are brief
> 
> -cannot be done at will, they are happenstance.
>

The suutras in question go like this:

baahyaabhyantara-viSayaakSepii caturthaH (II 51)

tataH kSiiyate prakaashaavaraNam (52)

dhaaraNaasu ca yogyataa manasaH (53)

Because it would seem absurd that the conjunction 'ca' (and) would
refer to the predicate verb 'kSiiyate' (which BTW is one
of the very rare occurrences of *finite* verb forms in YS),
it must refer to the adverb 'tataH' (from that). So, the
last suutra above should IMO be thought of as 'from the
fourth (praaNaayaama follows) the fitness of the mind for
concentration (based on Taimni's translation). 

It's somewhat peculiar that the noun 'dhaaraNaa' here is in the locative 
*plural* (the suffix -su). Taimni "explains" it in his vocabulary thusly: 'for 
(*stages of*) concentration' (emph. added).

So, at least from MMY's POV it would seem like "the fourth" is
necessary for 'dhaaraNaa-s' and thus, for saMyama/siddhi-s,
and meditating transcendentally results to it. Otherwise
he wouldn't have accepted people to the siddhis course after
only two months(?) of regular PVTM, would he?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[WillyTex]

> > Anyone who believes things like that should be 
> > silenced, put away, or punished.
> >
Curtis:
> I thought we were beyond this inflammatory bullshit 
> 
So, you post messages questioning everyone's personal, 
religious beliefs, mock their spiritual path, and their
holy texts, and judge them on their birth circumstances,
but I'm posting 'inflammatory bullshit'?
 
> Do you believe that the Koran is the holy word of God?
> Do you make offerings to Greek Gods every day or do 
> you view them as myths?  Which ideas believed to be 
> the holy word of God have YOU rejected in favor of 
> others.  
>
So, you have a bias against Muslims and Greeks.
 
> If you have decided that some scriptures are not the 
> holy word of God, and therefore, the ideas in that 
> book should be treated like any other human ideas, 
> then you share my exact feelings about the Hindu 
> scriptures. 
>
So, you are prejudiced against Hindus.

> People can and do believe what they like.  But if you 
> don't believe every religion's scriptures and practice 
> every direct command from their word of God, then you 
> have made the same choices I have.
>
Are all devil worshippers as nosey as you are, Curtis?

I'm not asking you to give up your religious ideas or
questioning your spiritual beliefs or practices. 
 
So, you're in not favor of personal privacy and you 
would like to change the U.S. Constitution so that 
candidates must defend their personal, religious beliefs, 
in order to be elected to public office. 

But, who exactly, would be doing the questioning? 

Maybe we could set up am inquisition to ferret out all 
the Mormons and Catholics. What do you think about that
idea? 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: "Mental sinking" and TM

[Vaj]

On Mar 12, 2010, at 6:09 AM, cardemaister wrote:

> It seems to me Maharishi thinks the slowing down and occasional
> stoppage of breathing during TM is what Patañjali means by caturthaH 
> (praaNaayaamaH), because that prolly is (almost?) the conditio sine qua non 
> of dhaaraNaa (the first "part" of saMyama)


No, the fourth is irrespective of time and completely under the will. In TM 
such apnea episode only:

-occur only in certain people

-are brief

-cannot be done at will, they are happenstance.

[FairfieldLife] Wingnut Hero

[do.rflex]

Cartoon link: http://www.bartcop.com/massa-hero.jpg

[FairfieldLife] Health Care Reform has its Losers

[do.rflex]

Cartoon link:  http://www.bartcop.com/hc-bites.jpg

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe"  wrote:

I'm just wondering if this disapproval of mocking religious claims extends to 
TV cartoon satires cuz that would pretty much knock out my favorite shows on 
Sunday night, the Simpsons and the Family Guy.

I have a feeling this is a Curtis-only policy.



>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > > But it did demonstrate one of my main points (thanks Sam
> > > Harris) which is that religious ideas are held in a
> > > protected class. They are shielded by people who don't
> > > believe in them as if the people who believe them are
> > > delicate children whose feelings must not be hurt by
> > > someone challenging the idea as unsupported by reasonable
> > > evidence.
> > 
> > This is a crock, and Curtis knows it's a crock.
> > 
> Ahh yes, it's See All, Know All Judy. Don't forget Curtis, she KNOWS what you 
> are thinking. (And she knows whether you've been naughty or nice, for 
> goodness sake.)
>

[FairfieldLife] Cardinal says celibacy partly to blame for clerical sex abuse

[do.rflex]

Cardinal Schönborn says celibacy partly to blame for clerical sex
abuseRichard Owen, Rome, and Ruth Gledhill


A cardinal seen as a future candidate for the papacy
has broken a Vatican taboo by raising the possibility
that priestly celibacy is among the causes
of the sex abuse scandal sweeping
the Roman Catholic Church.


  [Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn]
(Osservatore Romano)
Cardinal Christoph Schönborn
is seen as a future candidate
for the papacy


 A senior cardinal has called for priestly celibacy to be
re-examined in the  light of sex scandals sweeping the Roman Catholic
Church. Cardinal Christoph  Schönborn, conservative Archbishop of
Vienna and a protégé of the Pope,  shocked the Vatican by
suggesting that it should carry out an "unflinching 
examination" of causes of the scandal.

These included "the issue of priests' training", he wrote in
his archdiocese  magazine, "the question of priest celibacy and the
question of personality  development. It requires a great deal of
honesty, both on the part of the  Church and of society as a whole".

The Vatican said the remarks had been misinterpreted. "Priestly
celibacy is a  gift of the Holy Spirit," Cardinal Claudio Hummes,
prefect of the  Congregation for the Clergy, said at a theological
convention on priestly  fidelity.

Cardinal Schönborn's spokesman, Erich Leitenberger, issued a
clarification  later claiming that the cardinal was not "in any way
seeking to question the  Catholic Church's celibacy rule".
Sources in Rome said he had been obliged  to issue his
"clarification" under pressure from the Holy See.
The cardinal, a respected conservative theologian, has a history of
sparking  controversy. He is an ordinary — or bishop — to
Austria's Eastern Rite  Catholics, whose priests are allowed to
marry, just as priests in the new  Anglican Ordinariates being set up
around the world for ex-Anglican clergy  will be allowed to marry. Last
year in Rome, Cardinal Schönborn, who has  always been close to the
Pope, presented a petition signed by leading  Austrian lay Catholics
calling for the abolition of the requirement for  priestly celibacy.
Cardinal Schönborn told Vatican Radio last year that he did not agree
with the  petition's conclusions, which also included a demand for
women deacons, but  added: "It is important for someone in Rome to
know what some of our lay  people are thinking about the problems of the
Church."

Despite calls by a number of theologians and lay Catholic organisations
for  priestly celibacy to be abolished or made optional, it has been
repeatedly  reaffirmed by successive Popes, including Pope Benedict XVI.
However,  Cardinal Hummes, from Brazil, once observed that celibacy was
"not dogma".

The celibacy rule for priests was not part of the early Christian Church
but  was introduced in the Middle Ages. A number of early Church fathers
were  married, including St Peter himself, according to St Mark's
Gospel.

In his article, Cardinal Schönborn said he could understand the
frustration of  many of the faithful over the paedophilia scandals.
"Enough is enough.  That's what many people are saying and
thinking."

The Pope is due to issue a pastoral letter to the faithful in Ireland on
the  sex abuse issue after meeting Irish bishops last month.


The scandal has come  closer to the pontiff after it emerged that a
former chorister in Regensburg  — where the Pope once taught —
had claimed he was abused while he was a  member of the Cathedral choir,
which was led for three decades by Georg  Ratzinger, the Pope's
older brother. Monsignor Ratzinger this week admitted  he had
"slapped" choirboys but said he knew nothing of sexual abuse.

Today the Pope is to meet Robert Zollitsch, head of the German
bishops'  conference, to discuss the growing crisis over clerical
sex abuse in several  countries including the Pope's native Germany.
Archbishop Zollitsch has  described clerical abuse as
"outrageous" and asked the victims for  forgiveness, but has
denied any link between sex abuse and celibacy.

An article in L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, by the
historian  Lucetta Scaraffia, suggested that having more women in
high-level  decision-making bodies would have helped to lift the
"veil of masculine  secrecy" over clerical sex-abuse cases.

This week the dissident theologian Father Hans Küng, who was stripped
of his  licence to teach Catholic theology in 1979 after he rejected the
doctrine of  Papal infallibility, said in The Tablet that denials of any
link between  abuse and celibacy were "erroneous".

He said celibacy was not the only cause of the misconduct but described
it as  "the most important and structurally the most decisive"
expression of the  Church's repressive attitude to sex.

Last November the Vatican said its new rules allowing the conversion of 
Anglicans, including married Anglican priests, did not "signify any
change"  in its rules for priestly celibacy.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[mainstream20016]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:

> 
> This is a crock, and Curtis knows it's a crock.
> 

> 
> He doesn't agree with my position, but yesterday he made
> it clear that he understood what it was.
> 
> Today he egregiously and quite deliberately misrepresents
> it.
> 
> That's 50 for me. I'll respond more this evening or
> tomorrow.
>

When you return, you might apologize to Curtis. His writing isn't a crock, yet
you are full of _ _ i t, the discomfort of which perhaps drives you to create 
unfounded citations of deficiencies in others' logical expressions,  and to 
imagine
misrepresentation of your 'position'. 
Please assume a position for a self-administered laxative enema and purge 
before returning.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[Joe]

Yessiree Tex, you nailed it. Things are exactly as you say. Damn Tex, how did 
you get to be so doggone brilliant?


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
>> 
> > > ...don't you just hate those stupid believers!
> > >
> Joe:
> > ...the hate is mostly reserved for Texas trolls
> > 
> So, we are in agreement: you just hate those stupid 
> believers, mostly the Texas trolls, and the Jews, 
> the Christians, Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists! 
> 
> > > Don't you just hate those religous people, like 
> > > the Jews, the Christians, Hindus, Muslims and 
> > > Buddhists.  
> > > 
> > > Why are these people allowed to think like that? 
> > > 
> > > Anyone who believes things like that should be 
> > > silenced, put away, or punished. But, the worst 
> > > are those cultists that believe in that new age 
> > > spiritual snake-oil. They are criminals! 
> > > 
> > > How do they get away with peddling all that 
> > > superstitious crap? We should do something about 
> > > these kinds of believers. 
> > >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[mainstream20016]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:

 
> This is a crock, and Curtis knows it's a crock.  


> 
> He doesn't agree with my position, but yesterday he made
> it clear that he understood what it was.
> 
> Today he egregiously and quite deliberately misrepresents
> it.
> 

> That's 50 for me. I'll respond more this evening or
> tomorrow.

When you return, you might apologize to Curtis.  He writing isn't a crock, yet 
you are full of _ _ i t,  the discomfort of which perhaps  drives you to create 
 unfounded  citations of deficiencies in others' logical expressions  and 
imagine misrepresentation of your 'position'. How about assuming a position for 
a self-administered laxative enema ? 
  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Reflections on India

[Bhairitu]

do.rflex wrote:
> The only two cities that could be considered sanitary in my journey were
> Trivandrum–the capital of Kerala–and Calicut. I don't know
> why this is. But I can assure you that at some point this pollution will
> cut into India's productivity, if it already hasn't. The
> pollution will hobble India's growth path, if that indeed is what
> the country wants. (Which I personally doubt, as India is far too
> conservative a country, in the small `c' sense.)
>   

He must not have visited Cochin in Kerala. That is a very modern city 
perhaps the most I visited there. I was going to post on that "did you 
experience this in India" thread my experiences and the cool contrast 
Kerala presented. But I was busy and didn't have time to reply. Here's 
the thing: Kerala was the first state to go communist in India yet I saw 
commerce and business thriving. Beggars? Saw none on the beach in 
Kovalum, Kerala but instead vendors selling fruit and cigarettes and 
wondered if they just enlisted people who would have been beggars to do 
that. I only encountered one beggar outside of a cafeteria in Cochin 
which two of us feeling the hungries for fish and chips decided to go to 
a 5 star hotel restaurant and get some which was a welcome break from 
Indian and Chinese food (the latter for pitta types like me).

I do have to cut India a break because they were quite oppressed under 
the British and then the Nehru dynasty. Indians who have been successful 
in the west and have returned home have been initiating efforts to pick 
up the country by its bootstraps. Their current leader ran on a platform 
of extending the prosperity the tech sector was bringing to the rest of 
India. People comment, at least still in the 1990s, that a lot of people 
live on $1 a day there. How much is that an hour? 50 cents, because they 
only have to work two hours a day to make ends meet. We should be so 
lucky. And that income is relative as it bought a helluva lot more there 
than $1 here would. And a vast majority of those living on $1 a day 
probably didn't have to pay any rent as they were living in home passed 
down through the family (especially in the villages where this figure 
holds up).

The best ice cream sundae I've ever had was in Calicut at a penthouse 
restaurant. Freshly made ice cream with fresh cashews and pistachios 
topped with chocolate liquor.





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:
fairfieldlife-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
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] Reflections on India

[do.rflex]

Reflections on India

by Sean Paul Kelley 


  [And People Wonder Why The Lights Go Out In Delhi So Often?] 
 If you are
Indian, or of Indian descent, I must preface this post with a clear
warning: you are not going to like what I have to say. My criticisms may
be very hard to stomach. But consider them as the hard words and loving
advice of a good friend. Someone who's being honest with you and
wants nothing from you.


These criticisms apply to all of India except Kerala and the places I
didn't visit, except that I have a feeling it applies to all of
India, except as I mentioned before, Kerala.


Lastly, before anyone accuses me of Western Cultural Imperialism, let me
say this: if this is what India and Indians want, then hey, who am I to
tell them differently. Take what you like and leave the rest. In the end
it doesn't really matter, as I get the sense that Indians, at least
many upper class Indians, don't seem to care and the lower classes
just don't know any better, what with Indian culture being so
intense and pervasive on the sub-continent. But here goes, nonetheless.

India is a mess. It's that simple, but it's also quite
complicated. I'll start with what I think are India's four major
problems–the four most preventing India from becoming a developing
nation–and then move to some of the ancillary ones.

First, pollution. In my opinion the filth, squalor and all around
pollution indicates a marked lack of respect for India by Indians. I
don't know how cultural the filth is, but it's really beyond
anything I have ever encountered. At times the smells, trash, refuse and
excrement are like a garbage dump.
  Right next door to the Taj Mahal was a pile of trash that
smelled so bad, was so foul as to almost ruin the entire Taj experience.
Delhi, Bangalore and Chennai to a lesser degree were so very polluted as
to make me physically ill. Sinus infections, ear infection, bowels
churning was an all to common experience in India.


Dung, be it goat, cow or human fecal matter was common on the streets.
In major tourist areas filth was everywhere, littering the sidewalks,
  the roadways, you name it. Toilets in the middle of the
road, men urinating and defecating anywhere, in broad daylight. Whole
villages are plastic bag wastelands. Roadsides are choked by it. Air
quality that can hardly be called quality.
  Far too much coal and far to few unleaded vehicles on the
road. The measure should be how dangerous the air is for one's
health, not how good it is. People casually throw trash in the streets,
on the roads.


The only two cities that could be considered sanitary in my journey were
Trivandrum–the capital of Kerala–and Calicut. I don't know
why this is. But I can assure you that at some point this pollution will
cut into India's productivity, if it already hasn't. The
pollution will hobble India's growth path, if that indeed is what
the country wants. (Which I personally doubt, as India is far too
conservative a country, in the small `c' sense.)

The second issue, infrastructure, can be divided into four
subcategories: roads, rails and ports and the electrical grid. The
electrical grid is a joke.
  Load shedding
is all too common, everywhere in India. Wide swaths of the country spend
much of the day without the electricity they actually pay for. With out
regular electricity, productivity, again, falls.


The ports are a joke. Antiquated, out of date, hardly even appropriate
for the mechanized world of container ports, more in line with the days
of longshoremen and the like.


Roads are an equal disaster. I only saw one elevated highway that would
be considered decent in Thailand, much less Western Europe or America.
And I covered fully two thirds of the country during my visit. There are
so few dual carriage way roads as to be laughable. There are no traffic
laws to speak of, and if there are, they are rarely obeyed, much less
enforced. A drive that should take an hour takes three. A drive that
should take three takes nine. The buses are at least thirty years old,
  if not older.



Everyone in India, or who travels in India raves about the railway
system. Rubbish. It's awful. Now, when I was there in 2003 and then
late 2004 it was decent. But in the last five years the traffic on the
rails has grown so quickly that once again, it is threatening
productivity.


Waiting in line just to ask a question now takes thirty minutes. Routes
are routinely sol

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[Joe]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> 
> > But it did demonstrate one of my main points (thanks Sam
> > Harris) which is that religious ideas are held in a
> > protected class. They are shielded by people who don't
> > believe in them as if the people who believe them are
> > delicate children whose feelings must not be hurt by
> > someone challenging the idea as unsupported by reasonable
> > evidence.
> 
> This is a crock, and Curtis knows it's a crock.
> 
Ahh yes, it's See All, Know All Judy. Don't forget Curtis, she KNOWS what you 
are thinking. (And she knows whether you've been naughty or nice, for goodness 
sake.)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> 
> > But it did demonstrate one of my main points (thanks Sam
> > Harris) which is that religious ideas are held in a
> > protected class. They are shielded by people who don't
> > believe in them as if the people who believe them are
> > delicate children whose feelings must not be hurt by
> > someone challenging the idea as unsupported by reasonable
> > evidence.
> 
> This is a crock, and Curtis knows it's a crock.

No, your claiming it is a crock is a crock. You know perfectly well what points 
this is in reference to and it isn't the one you are providing. 

> 
> Yesterday:
> 
> Curtis:
> > > > That is the shield I am talking about.  Claiming that
> > > > someone is out of line for questioning the claims of
> > > > religion as if they were any other claim we evaluate.
> > > 
> Me:
> > > No, that isn't what I said. I said I thought it was
> > > pointless--impractical, ineffective--in the context of
> > > opposing bad behavior.
> > 
> Curtis:
> > OK

As you know Judy, your quote was not in the posts (or part of the post) where 
you castigate me for mocking religion. If you let it go at this statement I 
wouldn't agree, but I couldn't accuse you of shielding religious beliefs.  But 
if you accuse me of using "insulting language" you are doing exactly what I 
said above, shielding the religious children from bad Curtis and his mockery of 
their precious beliefs.  You have gone way beyond the case you made above to 
show your disapproval of my tone, my phrases, and the fairness of my criticism 
from your point of view. You were using personal shame as a sophist's trick to 
mask a weak counterargument.  

> 
> That's all he said in response: "OK."
> 
> He doesn't agree with my position, but yesterday he made
> it clear that he understood what it was.
> 
> Today he egregiously and quite deliberately misrepresents
> it.

And you are egregiously and quite deliberately misrepresenting which aspect of 
your many statements I was responding to specifically.  You don't get it both 
ways Judy.  You don't get to claim one thing and do another.  That privileged 
is reserved for religious people.

> 
> That's 50 for me. I'll respond more this evening or
> tomorrow.

I hope you do.  This has been an interesting ride.





>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[WillyTex]

> > ...don't you just hate those stupid believers!
> >
Joe:
> ...the hate is mostly reserved for Texas trolls
> 
So, we are in agreement: you just hate those stupid 
believers, mostly the Texas trolls, and the Jews, 
the Christians, Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists! 

> > Don't you just hate those religous people, like 
> > the Jews, the Christians, Hindus, Muslims and 
> > Buddhists.  
> > 
> > Why are these people allowed to think like that? 
> > 
> > Anyone who believes things like that should be 
> > silenced, put away, or punished. But, the worst 
> > are those cultists that believe in that new age 
> > spiritual snake-oil. They are criminals! 
> > 
> > How do they get away with peddling all that 
> > superstitious crap? We should do something about 
> > these kinds of believers. 
> > 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:

I think this post illustrates what I like about our discussion on this topic.  
A chance to separate the different choices we have made concerning religious 
beliefs. I don't have a problem with the choices you have made.  That doesn't 
seem to be reciprocal, but that is often what keeps these discussions going.

When it comes to speaking with someone personally I would favor your approach.  
Especially where it allows me to uncover what the person actually does believe 
without making them defensive.  At most in those situations I might bring up 
something I find contradictory about the belief and give them a chance to show 
me if they have a way to resolve it.  But I am more interested in rapport 
personally and I have little faith in my own ability to convince in religious 
areas.  I often find that by mentioning that I am not religious at all it 
offers a safe zone for them to raise their own doubts without the fear of being 
shamed for voicing them.

Writing here I feel more freedom to explore my own views without worrying that 
some believer will be offended.  If they ever read my posts they stopped long 
ago if that were the case.  I am a full disclosure writer here, people know 
what they are getting.  And that freedom allows me to use language that is 
meant to entertain.  I am choosing dramatic phrases that make me laugh.  
Phrases that in a personal context might offend.  But this is not a personal 
context except to the person I am writing to and that person is you.  There are 
topics that I discuss with you more carefully because I know they are ones that 
you hold personal beliefs about.  We can still discuss them but I do my best 
not to offend you about them.  I am not always successful but that is my 
intention.

One of the biggest distinctions I see in our points of view on this topic is 
the emphasis we are placing on epistemology.  For me this is a big deal and 
always has been.  My break from the movement is specifically a difference of 
opinion about what should allow us to be confident in what we know.  For me 
this is the central negative effect of not countering religious assertions.  It 
promotes a really poor epistemology and more than that elevates it above other 
(and to me better) ways of being confident about our knowledge.  At the very 
least is should instill the distinction between beliefs based on the level of 
earned probability. This has been reversed in society today.  The most baseless 
assertions are promoted as being the ones that we should never challenge.  And 
then we wonder why the public makes shitty choices about any political topic 
that involves science.

I respect your focus on behavior as being valuable, so why can't we have both? 
While speaking out against actions why can't we also speak out against the type 
of thinking that leads to them.  We are having some success with this approach 
in society concerning racism and sexism.  We not only challenge people who have 
done bad things to minorities but we go after the ignorant assumption that one 
person is intrinsically superior to another.  Yet this same view is a common 
tenant in religion and we let is slide as unfair to criticize.

I'll drop into your specific points now.


 
Judy quoting me> >  about how
> > > "absurd" it is for the folks who do to have "superstitious
> > > tribal beliefs."
> > 

Me:
> > So you think female circumcision should be respected
> > as just another belief option?  You don't think any of
> > the beliefs that relate to honor killing among tribes
> > in Afghanistan could be characterized this way?
> 
> Is that what I said?


I am giving you examples of what I mean specifically.  If I thought you said it 
I would precede it by "you said" or "Judith sayith."

> 
> See, here's the thing. If every religionist believed
> utterly in every word of the scripture of their
> faith according to precisely the same interpretation
> thereof and unfailingly observed every one of its
> commandments and prohibitions in the same way in their
> behavior, then you'd have a lot better case for going
> after the beliefs.

Of course this would be impossible given the contradictory nature of most 
scriptural advice.  Like most good literature there are many ways to interpret 
scripture and that is its virtue as art.  It makes a poor case for being the 
absolute word of god.  But the one thing that most of the disparate 
interpretations share is their approach to epistemology and that is my biggest 
problem with them. Particularly since most of my criticisms are just the 
standard intellectual conventions when evaluating knowledge in any other area 
of human knowledge including how we evaluate the accuracy of the morning paper. 

> 
> But that isn't the case. All these elements are all 
> over the lot, even the degree to which folks believe
> the scriptures are the authoritative word of God.
> There are as many belief systems as there are pe

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: "Mental sinking" and TM

[Bhairitu]

Vaj wrote:
>
> On Mar 12, 2010, at 8:45 AM, Irmeli wrote:
>
>> The basic TM-technique is a rather gentle technique. If someone gets 
>> problems from paracticing it 20 minutes twice a day for a while, I 
>> find it likely that the person has some sort of fragility in him. It 
>> must have manifested already in many other ways in his life.
>>
>> An emotionally balanced person does not create problems from such a 
>> gentle relaxing meditation practice.
>
> I disagree. There's simply no such thing as "one size fits all" 
> generic meditation. My mantra teacher taught us that this was why a 
> guru not only spends enough time around a student to see what they're 
> like, if necessary s/he changes the mantra when "unstressing" (to use 
> the TM lingo) happens.

That is the same thing as done in ayurveda though the guru may not know 
ayurveda.  You have about three basic groups that people fall into and 
you can give mantras to rebalance people. Sometimes these mantras aren't 
meant to be practiced for life.

The other method is where people are attracted to a path.  For instance 
they might have been attracted to TM to get relaxation (and may not have 
gotten "the goods").  And some paths have additional balancing 
techniques even though it is for one specific sadhana.

[FairfieldLife] Re: "Mental sinking" and TM

[Irmeli]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Mar 12, 2010, at 8:45 AM, Irmeli wrote:
> 
> > The basic TM-technique is a rather gentle technique. If someone  
> > gets problems from paracticing it 20 minutes twice a day for a  
> > while, I find it likely that the person has some sort of fragility  
> > in him. It must have manifested already in many other ways in his  
> > life.
> >
> > An emotionally balanced person does not create problems from such a  
> > gentle relaxing meditation practice.
> 
> I disagree. There's simply no such thing as "one size fits all"  
> generic meditation. My mantra teacher taught us that this was why a  
> guru not only spends enough time around a student to see what they're  
> like, if necessary s/he changes the mantra when "unstressing" (to use  
> the TM lingo) happens.
> 
> I've seen many people unstress, that is become unbalanced, from TM  
> mantras. It can also cause physio-kundalini syndrome in some folks.
>

I have gone true many deep healing processes during my meditation practices. I 
have always seen this to be a sign that TM-meditation works well in me. It has 
helped me to heal myself in many ways.

I agree that changing mantra could help some unstable people to have less 
releases during meditation. But that does not help the basic problem, which is 
incapacity to naturally containing and integrating the releases,that could 
create real healing and more natural balance and stability in that person.

I find it wise to advice a person, who has difficulties to integrate in healthy 
way the releases during meditation, search for professional help to improve 
their skills in this regard. 

Irmeli

[FairfieldLife] Re: Swami Nithyananda Sex Scandal (Watch Video) | India

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> 
> > If you're so sure of your position BillyGee, please give us YOUR 
> > interpretation of the atrocities of mass slaughter of helpless prisoners, 
> > the mass slaughter of children and the taking possession of 32,000 virgins 
> > "for themselves."
> > 
> > This should be good...
> 
> 
> The context has been lost in antiquity or perverted during translation; I 
> don't really know what it means scripturally if anything at all. All of 
> scripture is full of ambiguity due to the lapse of time and change in social 
> mores.
> 
> To evaluate something like that with contemporary values and understandings 
> is kind of silly
>


That sounds to me like a pathetically lame excuse, BillyGee. Perhaps everything 
'sgrayatlarge' quoted is also "lost in antiquity or perverted during 
translation," eh? 

And the Ten Commandments then have also been "lost in antiquity or perverted 
during translation," eh? 

Or do you cherry-pick the Bible parts you like that suit your right wing 
Republican biases?

Do you think Jesus would approve of torturing detaineees too, BillyGee ???

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A possibly impossible task: Is there a cool area of Houston, TX?

[Bhairitu]

mainstream20016 wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>   
>> Rick Archer wrote:
>> 
>>> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
>>> On Behalf Of Buck
>>> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 12:29 PM
>>> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>>> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A possibly impossible task: Is there a cool
>>> area of Houston, TX?
>>>   
>>>   
 The greater FFL truth about Turq is, he's a CIA operative. A Jason Borne
 
 
>>> James Bond spy. Going to Houston? He posein' as a 'writer' in Spanish resort
>>> towns/ Says he got contracts with big company. You bet, Blackwater in
>>> Houston. He's clearly a Blackwater man. MMY saw through Turq's soul years
>>> ago and squeezed him out then. Uncovered him. Remember MMY talking about
>>> CIA? It evidently was Turq and his friends.
>>>   
>>>
>>> Really Turq, who else was CIA? It's been some decades now since the famous
>>> Thailand TM course where Maharishi turned out those CIA infiltrators. 
>>> The "CIA infiltrator" in Thailand wasn't anything of the sort. He was just
>>> an innocent guy on whom Maharishi chose to vent his paranoia. 
>>>   
>> On my TTC I had to go over to the other hotel one day without my buddy 
>> (who was sick) and they let me go alone.  On the way back I saw one of 
>> the course participants target practicing with a gun from his third 
>> story balcony.  He looked concerned because he didn't expect to see 
>> anyone else on the course walking back to the hotel at that time.  I 
>> probably should have asked the course coordinators why anyone would have 
>> a gun on the course. ;-)
>>
>> 
>
> Was it a handgun the CP was firing ?If so, it was probably Doug Birx, the 
> current Sidhis program administrator leading the Invincible America course in 
> the men's dome.  :)
> Doug supposedly loves handguns and fires them regularly.

Yes it was a handgun.  What he was doing with one on TTC was another matter.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A possibly impossible task: Is there a cool area of Houston, TX?

[Bhairitu]

Joe wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>   
>> Rick Archer wrote:
>> 
>>> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
>>> On Behalf Of Buck
>>> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 12:29 PM
>>> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>>> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A possibly impossible task: Is there a cool
>>> area of Houston, TX?
>>>   
>>>   
 The greater FFL truth about Turq is, he's a CIA operative. A Jason Borne
 
 
>>> James Bond spy. Going to Houston? He posein' as a 'writer' in Spanish resort
>>> towns/ Says he got contracts with big company. You bet, Blackwater in
>>> Houston. He's clearly a Blackwater man. MMY saw through Turq's soul years
>>> ago and squeezed him out then. Uncovered him. Remember MMY talking about
>>> CIA? It evidently was Turq and his friends.
>>>   
>>>
>>> Really Turq, who else was CIA? It's been some decades now since the famous
>>> Thailand TM course where Maharishi turned out those CIA infiltrators. 
>>> The "CIA infiltrator" in Thailand wasn't anything of the sort. He was just
>>> an innocent guy on whom Maharishi chose to vent his paranoia. 
>>>   
>> On my TTC I had to go over to the other hotel one day without my buddy 
>> (who was sick) and they let me go alone.  On the way back I saw one of 
>> the course participants target practicing with a gun from his third 
>> story balcony.  He looked concerned because he didn't expect to see 
>> anyone else on the course walking back to the hotel at that time.  I 
>> probably should have asked the course coordinators why anyone would have 
>> a gun on the course. ;-)
>>
>> 
> Really. And this target practice was going on while others were doing their 
> program? No one else noticed that they were transcending in a hail of 
> gunfire? You sure about this?

It was not during program but probably just before the afternoon class 
session.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Swami Nithyananda Sex Scandal (Watch Video) | India

[BillyG]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:

> If you're so sure of your position BillyGee, please give us YOUR 
> interpretation of the atrocities of mass slaughter of helpless prisoners, the 
> mass slaughter of children and the taking possession of 32,000 virgins "for 
> themselves."
> 
> This should be good...


The context has been lost in antiquity or perverted during translation; I don't 
really know what it means scripturally if anything at all. All of scripture is 
full of ambiguity due to the lapse of time and change in social mores.

To evaluate something like that with contemporary values and understandings is 
kind of silly

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:

> But it did demonstrate one of my main points (thanks Sam
> Harris) which is that religious ideas are held in a
> protected class. They are shielded by people who don't
> believe in them as if the people who believe them are
> delicate children whose feelings must not be hurt by
> someone challenging the idea as unsupported by reasonable
> evidence.

This is a crock, and Curtis knows it's a crock.

Yesterday:

Curtis:
> > > That is the shield I am talking about.  Claiming that
> > > someone is out of line for questioning the claims of
> > > religion as if they were any other claim we evaluate.
> > 
Me:
> > No, that isn't what I said. I said I thought it was
> > pointless--impractical, ineffective--in the context of
> > opposing bad behavior.
> 
Curtis:
> OK

That's all he said in response: "OK."

He doesn't agree with my position, but yesterday he made
it clear that he understood what it was.

Today he egregiously and quite deliberately misrepresents
it.

That's 50 for me. I'll respond more this evening or
tomorrow.

[FairfieldLife] Re: "Mental sinking" and TM

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Mar 12, 2010, at 6:21 AM, cardemaister wrote:
> 
> > IMHO, that seems to claim doing kuNDali-yoga (kundalini-yoga)
> > is useless if one "replaces" it with saMyama on the "nose-interior- 
> > middle" (naasikaa-antar-madhya) or something like that. But I might  
> > be utterly wrong...
> 
> 
> It's been explained to you several times Card that according to the  
> last Pundit  of Kashmir Shaivism, and one of the Maharishi's gurus,  
> samyama in the SS has a completely different meaning than in the YS.  

Would you please try to explain  the difference to me.


> They're different darshanas or Ways-of Seeing. Knowledge is different  
> in different darshanas.
> 
> You should stop deliberately spreading misinformation to fit your TM- 
> promoting agenda.
> 
> Are you on Purusha by chance?
>

No, absolutely not. I might say strictly speaking I'm not
even a TMer anymore, because I mostly meditate using a technique
that I figgered out by combining TM, Maharishi's take(?) on the
siddhis and the suutra above. 

But I sure couldn't have come up with "my own version" of meditation
without having done TM for several years.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Swami Nithyananda Sex Scandal (Watch Video) | India

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge  wrote:
> > >
> > > Boy you'd think the (in your words made up thing called God)that spoke of 
> > > laws and commandment but could not be seen at Sinai would not have been 
> > > so quickly rejected. Remember what happens..hint here is the where the 
> > > man made small gods come into play:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > "When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the 
> > > mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, "Come, make us gods [a] 
> > > who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of 
> > > Egypt, we don't know what has happened to him." 
> > >  2 Aaron answered them, "Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your 
> > > sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me." 3 So all the 
> > > people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. 4 He took what 
> > > they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, 
> > > fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, "These are your gods, [b] O 
> > > Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt." 
> > > 
> > >  5 When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and 
> > > announced, "Tomorrow there will be a festival to the LORD." 6 So the next 
> > > day the people rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented 
> > > fellowship offerings. [c] Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and 
> > > got up to indulge in revelry. note: reverly is code for orgies, typical 
> > > of worship back in the day
> > > 
> > >  7 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go down, because your people, whom you 
> > > brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. 8 They have been quick to 
> > > turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol 
> > > cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to 
> > > it and have said, 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out 
> > > of Egypt.' 
> > > 
> > > Exodus 32
> > > 
> > > The  Sinai event was unique in ancient and modern times.  
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > How about THIS part ??? 
> > 
> > Numbers 31:1-54 - Under God's direction, Moses' army defeats the 
> > Midianites. They kill all the adult males, but take the women and 
> > children captive. 
> > 
> > When Moses learns that they left some live, he angrily says: "Have you  
> > saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, and kill 
> > every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women 
> > children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for 
> > yourselves." 
> > 
> > So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed, 
> > killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000 
> > virgins -- Wow! 
> > 
> > - - Let's see... we have the mass slaughter of defenseless prisoners, mass 
> > infanticide and sexual slavery. 
> > 
> > Is THIS the kind of 'godly' behavior at the basis of your moral code Mr 
> > 'sgrayatlarge' ??? 
> > 
> > I'll bet you also approve of torturing the detainees, eh? ...for Jesus?
> 
> Mr. Do-Most scripture is written in allegory and symbolism, to take something 
> like that literally is..well, I think you should take a serious look at your 
> ability to think clearly. It appears your disdain for scripture has corrupted 
> your objectivity.
> 
> It's called reasoning FROM a conclusion and not TO a conclusion, don't you 
> remember Charlie saying that?  He said it often.
>


If you're so sure of your position BillyGee, please give us YOUR interpretation 
of the atrocities of mass slaughter of helpless prisoners, the mass slaughter 
of children and the taking possession of 32,000 virgins "for themselves."

This should be good...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[tartbrain]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> 
> > > I had a good run with this topic so I really can't complain.  
> > > Too bad I can't prove that Barry wrote the Bible! 
> > 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > If you could do that I'm pretty sure everyone
> > here knows that not only would she join you in
> > ragging on its ideas and their stupidity, she'd 
> > say it was bad writing. :-)
> 
> Yes mocking certain individuals is a moral duty but mocking ideas is a moral 
> failing.  I got the formula.
> 
> But it did demonstrate one of my main points (thanks Sam Harris) which is 
> that religious ideas are held in a protected class. They are shielded by 
> people who don't believe in them as if the people who believe them are 
> delicate children whose feelings must not be hurt by someone challenging the 
> idea as unsupported by reasonable evidence.  
> 
> In this one area of human "knowledge" alone are the standards of debating an 
> idea suspended, we must treat this class of ideas as beyond refutation or 
> criticism.

I wish. That is, I wish this was limited to one area. But our "conventional 
thinking" "common view" of many things are near sacred cows. If criticized, a 
number of sectors reel back in horror -- that anyone could possibly think 
something so outlandish. Quite a conversation stopper -- and certainly miles 
away from rational debate. So many such areas: socialism, capitalism, illegal 
immigrants, climate change, organic foods (thought this one is changing), race 
(much more so a generation back), the Greatest Generation, class, corporations, 
Wal-Mart, Republicans, Liberals, meat eating, vegan, Lincoln or Washington, etc.

Even on this list, where participants are presumably (and I know there is a lot 
of data counter to this) less attached to, less identity dependent on views, 
positions, etc., readily abandon rational debate to  make emotional, knee-jerk, 
canned, pre-programmed, not-well considered  reactions to any number of topics. 

Rationality, high standards of inquiry and debate, mutual seeking of truth not 
ego security, clinging to sacred ideals that are beyond criticism and debate 
are flourishing in so many areas. 




>  We must give the appearance of going alone with whatever cockamamie concept 
> is presented as the will of God even though we have a history of every other 
> claim about the natural world in scripture that can be refuted by science 
> having been proved false.
> 
> And most of all we must never challenge the virtue of people believing things 
> through faith alone, without evidence of any sort, by merely asserting that 
> it is so.  Even though this standard for knowledge is exactly the opposite 
> one from every other human intellectual discipline that we value in modern 
> society. 
> 
> Just tell the emperor his new clothes are magnificent like everybody else.   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Judy get off her high horse??? Never going to happen 
> > > > Curtis my man. But I admire your continued effort to 
> > > > have discourse with her being WAAY up there and you 
> > > > being a lowly blues singer and all...
> > > 
> > > I had a good run with this topic so I really can't complain.  
> > > Too bad I can't prove that Barry wrote the Bible! 
> > 
> > If you could do that I'm pretty sure everyone
> > here knows that not only would she join you in
> > ragging on its ideas and their stupidity, she'd 
> > say it was bad writing. :-)
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > > If you have decided that some scriptures are not the holy
> > > word of God, and therefore, the ideas in that book should
> > > be treated like any other human ideas, then you share my
> > > exact feelings about the Hindu scriptures.  People can
> > > and do believe what they like.  But if you don't believe
> > > every religion's scriptures and practice every direct
> > > command from their word of God, then you have made the
> > > same choices I have.
> > 
> > Speaking for myself, not exactly. I don't believe any of
> > them, but I haven't made the choice to rant
> 
> Pejorative characterization. Are you "ranting" about me?

Mildly, sure.

>  about how
> > "absurd" it is for the folks who do to have "superstitious
> > tribal beliefs."
> 
> So you think female circumcision should be respected
> as just another belief option?  You don't think any of
> the beliefs that relate to honor killing among tribes
> in Afghanistan could be characterized this way?

Is that what I said?

See, here's the thing. If every religionist believed
utterly in every word of the scripture of their
faith according to precisely the same interpretation
thereof and unfailingly observed every one of its
commandments and prohibitions in the same way in their
behavior, then you'd have a lot better case for going
after the beliefs.

But that isn't the case. All these elements are all 
over the lot, even the degree to which folks believe
the scriptures are the authoritative word of God.
There are as many belief systems as there are people.

They're a moving target. *Many* moving targets. You
can't get a fix on them.

You *can* get a fix on bad behaviors.


>  I haven't chosen to
> > announce that society should "denounce" their beliefs.
> 
> You have just made different choices where to focus your
> attention.

That's right, that was my point. You said to Willytex:

"If you don't believe every religion's scriptures and
practice every direct command from their word of God,
then you have made the same choices I have."

In regard to my beliefs, yes. Not in regard to what I
do about them.


>  I
> > don't demean religious people by referring to their
> > "special books" and "imaginary friends."
> 
> But these are precise description.  They are considered 
> special books from any others men have written.  What
> exactly is your problem with this characterizations?

The tone of "special" is the problem regarding the books,
as in, "Well, isn't that special!" a la the Church Lady.
It's mockery.

> And if you don't believe in any of the versions of God
> then they are just as imaginary for you as they are for
> me.

That's right. But they're quite real for others. Lots of
things are real for others that aren't for me, and vice-
versa.

> Just because you haven't posted on this board about your
> POV doesn't make you superior.  You don't believe in them
> either you just don't speak up about it.

I've posted about my POV here many times. Guess you
missed those posts, huh? Maybe you didn't notice them
because they didn't use insulting language about the
beliefs and didn't express a desire to stamp them out.

Stamp out the *behaviors*. And you know what? If you can
convince somebody a behavior they believe was commanded
by God is wrong, you've put a wedge between them and
that belief, without ever having to attack the belief
itself.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Swami Nithyananda Sex Scandal (Watch Video) | India

[BillyG]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge  wrote:
> >
> > Boy you'd think the (in your words made up thing called God)that spoke of 
> > laws and commandment but could not be seen at Sinai would not have been so 
> > quickly rejected. Remember what happens..hint here is the where the man 
> > made small gods come into play:
> > 
> > 
> > "When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the 
> > mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, "Come, make us gods [a] who 
> > will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, 
> > we don't know what has happened to him." 
> >  2 Aaron answered them, "Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your 
> > sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me." 3 So all the 
> > people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. 4 He took what 
> > they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, 
> > fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, "These are your gods, [b] O 
> > Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt." 
> > 
> >  5 When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and 
> > announced, "Tomorrow there will be a festival to the LORD." 6 So the next 
> > day the people rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented 
> > fellowship offerings. [c] Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got 
> > up to indulge in revelry. note: reverly is code for orgies, typical of 
> > worship back in the day
> > 
> >  7 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go down, because your people, whom you 
> > brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. 8 They have been quick to 
> > turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast 
> > in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and 
> > have said, 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of 
> > Egypt.' 
> > 
> > Exodus 32
> > 
> > The  Sinai event was unique in ancient and modern times.  
> > 
> 
> 
> How about THIS part ??? 
> 
> Numbers 31:1-54 - Under God's direction, Moses' army defeats the 
> Midianites. They kill all the adult males, but take the women and 
> children captive. 
> 
> When Moses learns that they left some live, he angrily says: "Have you  saved 
> all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every 
> woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that 
> have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." 
> 
> So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed, 
> killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000 
> virgins -- Wow! 
> 
> - - Let's see... we have the mass slaughter of defenseless prisoners, mass 
> infanticide and sexual slavery. 
> 
> Is THIS the kind of 'godly' behavior at the basis of your moral code Mr 
> 'sgrayatlarge' ??? 
> 
> I'll bet you also approve of torturing the detainees, eh? ...for Jesus?

Mr. Do-Most scripture is written in allegory and symbolism, to take something 
like that literally is..well, I think you should take a serious look at your 
ability to think clearly. It appears your disdain for scripture has corrupted 
your objectivity.

It's called reasoning FROM a conclusion and not TO a conclusion, don't you 
remember Charlie saying that?  He said it often.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Swami Nithyananda Sex Scandal (Watch Video) | India

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:


> - - Let's see... we have the mass slaughter of defenseless prisoners, mass 
> infanticide and sexual slavery.


I used to have a book that separated the Bible stories by the category of 
atrocity.  They had a full chapter of mass murders directed by God.

And this is the book our president puts his hand on when being sworn in as our 
leader!  If people would just read what is in the Bible like any other book 
rather than selecting certain parts in between the Helter Skelter sections, 
they might not see it as something that we need to expose children to.  And 
certainly demote it from its revered position of moral authority offering 
guidance for our behavior today.


>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge  wrote:
> >
> > Boy you'd think the (in your words made up thing called God)that spoke of 
> > laws and commandment but could not be seen at Sinai would not have been so 
> > quickly rejected. Remember what happens..hint here is the where the man 
> > made small gods come into play:
> > 
> > 
> > "When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the 
> > mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, "Come, make us gods [a] who 
> > will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, 
> > we don't know what has happened to him." 
> >  2 Aaron answered them, "Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your 
> > sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me." 3 So all the 
> > people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. 4 He took what 
> > they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, 
> > fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, "These are your gods, [b] O 
> > Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt." 
> > 
> >  5 When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and 
> > announced, "Tomorrow there will be a festival to the LORD." 6 So the next 
> > day the people rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented 
> > fellowship offerings. [c] Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got 
> > up to indulge in revelry. note: reverly is code for orgies, typical of 
> > worship back in the day
> > 
> >  7 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go down, because your people, whom you 
> > brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. 8 They have been quick to 
> > turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast 
> > in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and 
> > have said, 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of 
> > Egypt.' 
> > 
> > Exodus 32
> > 
> > The  Sinai event was unique in ancient and modern times.  
> > 
> 
> 
> How about THIS part ??? 
> 
> Numbers 31:1-54 - Under God's direction, Moses' army defeats the 
> Midianites. They kill all the adult males, but take the women and 
> children captive. 
> 
> When Moses learns that they left some live, he angrily says: "Have you  saved 
> all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every 
> woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that 
> have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." 
> 
> So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed, 
> killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000 
> virgins -- Wow! 
> 
> - - Let's see... we have the mass slaughter of defenseless prisoners, mass 
> infanticide and sexual slavery. 
> 
> Is THIS the kind of 'godly' behavior at the basis of your moral code Mr 
> 'sgrayatlarge' ??? 
> 
> I'll bet you also approve of torturing the detainees, eh? ...for Jesus?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Swami Nithyananda Sex Scandal (Watch Video) | India

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge  wrote:
>
> Boy you'd think the (in your words made up thing called God)that spoke of 
> laws and commandment but could not be seen at Sinai would not have been so 
> quickly rejected. Remember what happens..hint here is the where the man made 
> small gods come into play:
> 
> 
> "When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, 
> they gathered around Aaron and said, "Come, make us gods [a] who will go 
> before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don't 
> know what has happened to him." 
>  2 Aaron answered them, "Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your 
> sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me." 3 So all the 
> people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. 4 He took what they 
> handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning 
> it with a tool. Then they said, "These are your gods, [b] O Israel, who 
> brought you up out of Egypt." 
> 
>  5 When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced, 
> "Tomorrow there will be a festival to the LORD." 6 So the next day the people 
> rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented fellowship offerings. 
> [c] Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in 
> revelry. note: reverly is code for orgies, typical of worship back in the day
> 
>  7 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go down, because your people, whom you 
> brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. 8 They have been quick to turn 
> away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the 
> shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have 
> said, 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.' 
> 
> Exodus 32
> 
> The  Sinai event was unique in ancient and modern times.  
> 


How about THIS part ??? 

Numbers 31:1-54 - Under God's direction, Moses' army defeats the 
Midianites. They kill all the adult males, but take the women and 
children captive. 

When Moses learns that they left some live, he angrily says: "Have you  saved 
all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every 
woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that 
have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." 

So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed, 
killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000 
virgins -- Wow! 

- - Let's see... we have the mass slaughter of defenseless prisoners, mass 
infanticide and sexual slavery. 

Is THIS the kind of 'godly' behavior at the basis of your moral code Mr 
'sgrayatlarge' ??? 

I'll bet you also approve of torturing the detainees, eh? ...for Jesus?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > 
> > > I had a good run with this topic so I really can't complain.  
> > > Too bad I can't prove that Barry wrote the Bible! 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > If you could do that I'm pretty sure everyone
> > here knows that not only would she join you in
> > ragging on its ideas and their stupidity, she'd 
> > say it was bad writing. :-)
> 
> Yes mocking certain individuals is a moral duty but mocking 
> ideas is a moral failing. I got the formula.

And only *certain* individuals. Mock Sarah Palin
or Hillary Clinton or Michael Jackson and that's 
a moral failing, too. 

I think the formula is that if you do it or I do
it, it's a moral failing, period.  :-)

> But it did demonstrate one of my main points (thanks Sam Harris) 
> which is that religious ideas are held in a protected class. They 
> are shielded by people who don't believe in them as if the people 
> who believe them are delicate children whose feelings must not be 
> hurt by someone challenging the idea as unsupported by reasonable 
> evidence.  
> 
> In this one area of human "knowledge" alone are the standards of 
> debating an idea suspended, we must treat this class of ideas as 
> beyond refutation or criticism.  We must give the appearance of 
> going alone with whatever cockamamie concept is presented as the 
> will of God even though we have a history of every other claim 
> about the natural world in scripture that can be refuted by 
> science having been proved false.
> 
> And most of all we must never challenge the virtue of people 
> believing things through faith alone, without evidence of any 
> sort, by merely asserting that it is so. Even though this 
> standard for knowledge is exactly the opposite one from every 
> other human intellectual discipline that we value in modern 
> society. 

Just today on this forum we've had someone assert 
the truth of something because they "know" it's
the truth. Not "believe," "know." And another per-
son quoted scripture as if it were history.

I reacted as you might have, by allowing them to
believe whatever cockamamie idea they want, but
unconvinced that their beliefs are anywhere even
*near* the ballpark of truth, let alone Truth.
Anyone who can't do better than this to sell their
ideas is never going to entice me to be a buyer.

And yes, I have the absolute right to mock their
ideas, just as they have the absolute right to
mock any of mine. 

> Just tell the emperor his new clothes are magnificent like 
> everybody else.   

What blew my mind in the latest CORRECTORFAIL 
attempting yet again to make herself look smart 
by trying to make someone else look stupid is the 
trotting out of the term "antireligionists." Other 
than a *very* few very vocal atheists who use this 
stance to sell their books and lecture tours, I 
can't think of anyone who fits that description.
Certainly not anyone on this forum.

Me, I think that religion can be blamed for most of
the world's wars and periods of persecution through-
out history. But that doesn't make me "anti" religion,
just suspicious of it and never likely to fall for 
any of its guff and willing to mock the guff whenever
it deserves being mocked. If the religion is *real*,
it can *handle* a little mockery. If its proponents
claim that it can't survive a little mockery, or
worse, if non-believers on the sidelines claim it
can't handle a little mockery, I don't see how they
can claim to make a case for the religion having 
any worth at all.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chief Catholic Exorcist : Satan Is in the Vatican

[WillyTex]

> > My wife told me the other day, that the 
> > priest at the church she attends said 
> > that when Robertson talks about the deal 
> > the Haitians...
> > 
Vaj:
> Actually they practice a combination of 
> voudoun and Catholicism...
>
So, you're prejudiced against Haitians AND
Tejanos, but not all Haitians are black.

> Although both cults do produce zombies.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: "Mental sinking" and TM

[Vaj]

On Mar 12, 2010, at 8:45 AM, Irmeli wrote:

The basic TM-technique is a rather gentle technique. If someone  
gets problems from paracticing it 20 minutes twice a day for a  
while, I find it likely that the person has some sort of fragility  
in him. It must have manifested already in many other ways in his  
life.


An emotionally balanced person does not create problems from such a  
gentle relaxing meditation practice.


I disagree. There's simply no such thing as "one size fits all"  
generic meditation. My mantra teacher taught us that this was why a  
guru not only spends enough time around a student to see what they're  
like, if necessary s/he changes the mantra when "unstressing" (to use  
the TM lingo) happens.


I've seen many people unstress, that is become unbalanced, from TM  
mantras. It can also cause physio-kundalini syndrome in some folks.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Swami Nithyananda Sex Scandal (Watch Video) | India

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge  wrote:

So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. 4 He took 
what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, 
fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, "These are your gods, [b] O Israel, 
who brought you up out of Egypt." 

Dude it's Nandi the divine bull sitting at the end of the yoni so the milk that 
gets poured over the lingum drips on him last! They just didn't get the puja 
sequence right.



>
> Boy you'd think the (in your words made up thing called God)that spoke of 
> laws and commandment but could not be seen at Sinai would not have been so 
> quickly rejected. Remember what happens..hint here is the where the man made 
> small gods come into play:
> 
> 
> "When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, 
> they gathered around Aaron and said, "Come, make us gods [a] who will go 
> before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don't 
> know what has happened to him." 
>  2 Aaron answered them, "Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your 
> sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me." 3 So all the 
> people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. 4 He took what they 
> handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning 
> it with a tool. Then they said, "These are your gods, [b] O Israel, who 
> brought you up out of Egypt." 
> 
>  5 When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced, 
> "Tomorrow there will be a festival to the LORD." 6 So the next day the people 
> rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented fellowship offerings. 
> [c] Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in 
> revelry. note: reverly is code for orgies, typical of worship back in the day
> 
>  7 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go down, because your people, whom you 
> brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. 8 They have been quick to turn 
> away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the 
> shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have 
> said, 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.' 
> 
> Exodus 32
> 
> The  Sinai event was unique in ancient and modern times.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey Curtis,
> > > 
> > > I pasted a link to a short 5 minute video created by my friend 
> > > Dennis Prager, talk show host, on what he considers the most 
> > > important verse of the Old Testament with regards to God, meaning, 
> > > and nature. You may find it interesting, food for thought:
> > > 
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_-E2OfFjpg
> > 
> > So much idiocy and suffering over the centuries,
> > just because humans can't deal with the concept
> > of "eternal." His entire theory depends upon 
> > there being not only a made-up thing called "God," 
> > but a made-up thing called "the beginning." 
> > 
> > If one merely postulates an eternal universe,
> > one without beginning or end, then there is no
> > need for a "creation," and no need for a 
> > "Creator." 
> > 
> > The entire need for "God" seems to come down to
> > humans being unable to keep from projecting the
> > it-began-and-someday-it-must-end-ness of their 
> > own puny lives onto the universe. 
> > 
> > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > > > > "When Man ceases to worship God he does not worship
> > > > > > > nothing but worships everything".
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > What a fantastic quote!
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote: 
> > > > > You do realize the quote is not recommending that one
> > > > > stop worshiping God, but rather the opposite, right?--- In 
> > > > 
> > > > I didn't have any context for the intention of the author but found it 
> > > > fit my experience of dropping theism pretty well. I guess I had it all 
> > > > wrong. Doing a bit of research and finding this version: "The first 
> > > > effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything."
> > > > 
> > > > I disagree with this statement and will have to do a bit more digging 
> > > > to see what was meant.  I don't see how seeing God as a man made myth 
> > > > makes you more gullible, it made me less.
> > > > 
> > > > What I found appealing in my mistaken impression of the first quote was 
> > > > that appreciating the world more was one of the results of me dropping 
> > > > out of theism.  Life itself became holy in a naturalistic sense of the 
> > > > word.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge  
> > > > > > wrote:
> > 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chief Catholic Exorcist : Satan Is in the Vatican

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
wrote:
>
> 
> An important lesson to remember during this subprime mess.  There was an
> article about the person who did not pay their exorcist, and they were
> repossessed.
> 


That warrants a  



> Just sayin.
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> >
> >
> > Chief exorcist Father Gabriele Amorth says Devil is in the Vatican
> > From The Times - March 11, 2010
> > Richard Owen in Rome
> >
> > [Gabriele Amorth, an exorcist in the diocese of Rome poses in Rome,
> > 2005.] Giulio Napolitano, AFP / Getty Images Rev. Gabriele Amorth, who
> > served as
> > the Catholic Church's chief exorcist for
> > 25 years, claims the devil has infiltrated
> > the Vatican.
> > Sex abuse scandals in the Roman Catholic Church are proof that
> > that "the Devil is at work inside the Vatican", according to the Holy
> > See's chief exorcist.
> >
> > Father Gabriele Amorth, 85, who has been the Vatican's chief exorcist
> > for 25 years and says he has dealt with 70,000 cases of demonic
> > possession, said that the consequences of satanic infiltration
> included
> > power struggles at the Vatican as well as "cardinals who do not
> believe
> > in Jesus, and bishops who are linked to the Demon".
> >
> > He added: "When one speaks of 'the smoke of Satan' [a phrase coined by
> > Pope Paul VI in 1972] in the holy rooms, it is all true –
> including
> > these latest stories of violence and paedophilia."
> >
> > He claimed that another example of satanic behaviour was the Vatican
> > "cover-up" over the deaths in 1998 of Alois Estermann, the then
> > commander of the Swiss Guard, his wife and Corporal Cedric Tornay, a
> > Swiss Guard, who were all found shot dead. "They covered up everything
> > immediately," he said. "Here one sees the rot".
> >
> > A remarkably swift Vatican investigation concluded that Corporal
> Tornay
> > had shot the commander and his wife and then turned his gun on himself
> > after being passed over for a medal. However Tornay's relatives have
> > challenged this. There have been unconfirmed reports of a homosexual
> > background to the tragedy and the involvement of a fourth person who
> > was never identfied.
> >
> > Father Amorth, who has just published Memoirs of an Exorcist, a series
> > of interviews with the Vatican journalist Marco Tosatti, said that the
> > attempt on the life of Pope John Paul II in 1981 had been the work of
> > the Devil, as had an incident last Christmas when a mentally disturbed
> > woman threw herself at Pope Benedict XVI at the start of Midnight
> Mass,
> > pulling him to the ground.
> >
> > Father José Antonio Fortea Cucurull, a Rome-based exorcist, said
> that
> > Father Amorth had "gone well beyond the evidence" in claiming that
> > Satan had infiltrated the Vatican corridors.
> >
> > "Cardinals might be better or worse, but all have upright intentions
> and
> > seek the glory of God," he said. Some Vatican officials were more
> pious
> > than others, "but from there to affirm that some cardinals are members
> > of satanic sects is an unacceptable distance."
> >
> > Father Amorth told La Repubblica that the devil was "pure spirit,
> > invisible. But he manifests himself with blasphemies and afflictions
> in
> > the person he possesses. He can remain hidden, or speak in different
> > languages, transform himself or appear to be agreeable. At times he
> > makes fun of me."
> >
> > He said it sometimes took six or seven of his assistants to to hold
> down
> > a possessed person. Those possessed often yelled and screamed and spat
> > out nails or pieces of glass, which he kept in a bag. "Anything can
> > come out of their mouths – finger-length pieces of iron, but also
> > rose petals."
> >
> > He said that he hoped every diocese would eventually have a resident
> > exorcist. Under Church Canon Law any priest can perform exorcisms, but
> > in practice they are carried out by a chosen few trained in the rites.
> >
> > Father Amorth was ordained in 1954 and became an official exorcist in
> > 1986. In the past he has suggested that Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin
> > were possessed by the Devil. He was among Vatican officials who warned
> > that J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter novels made a "false distinction
> > between black and white magic".
> >
> > He approves, however, of the 1973 film The Exorcist, which although
> > "exaggerated" offered a "substantially exact" picture of possession.
> >
> > In 2001 he objected to the introduction of a new version of the
> exorcism
> > rite, complaining that it dropped centuries-old prayers and was "a
> > blunt sword" about which exorcists themselves had not been consulted.
> > The Vatican said later that he and other exorcists could continue to
> > use the old ritual.
> >
> > He is the president of honour of the Association of Exorcists.
> >
> >
> > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7056689.ece
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[curtisdeltablues]

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 

> > I had a good run with this topic so I really can't complain.  
> > Too bad I can't prove that Barry wrote the Bible! 
> 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> If you could do that I'm pretty sure everyone
> here knows that not only would she join you in
> ragging on its ideas and their stupidity, she'd 
> say it was bad writing. :-)

Yes mocking certain individuals is a moral duty but mocking ideas is a moral 
failing.  I got the formula.

But it did demonstrate one of my main points (thanks Sam Harris) which is that 
religious ideas are held in a protected class. They are shielded by people who 
don't believe in them as if the people who believe them are delicate children 
whose feelings must not be hurt by someone challenging the idea as unsupported 
by reasonable evidence.  

In this one area of human "knowledge" alone are the standards of debating an 
idea suspended, we must treat this class of ideas as beyond refutation or 
criticism.  We must give the appearance of going alone with whatever cockamamie 
concept is presented as the will of God even though we have a history of every 
other claim about the natural world in scripture that can be refuted by science 
having been proved false.

And most of all we must never challenge the virtue of people believing things 
through faith alone, without evidence of any sort, by merely asserting that it 
is so.  Even though this standard for knowledge is exactly the opposite one 
from every other human intellectual discipline that we value in modern society. 

Just tell the emperor his new clothes are magnificent like everybody else.   




> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Judy get off her high horse??? Never going to happen 
> > > Curtis my man. But I admire your continued effort to 
> > > have discourse with her being WAAY up there and you 
> > > being a lowly blues singer and all...
> > 
> > I had a good run with this topic so I really can't complain.  
> > Too bad I can't prove that Barry wrote the Bible! 
> 
> If you could do that I'm pretty sure everyone
> here knows that not only would she join you in
> ragging on its ideas and their stupidity, she'd 
> say it was bad writing. :-)
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: "Mental sinking" and TM

[WillyTex]

> > > If people want a simple meditation that will 
> > > enable them to develop and maintain peace of 
> > > mind 
>
Vaj:
> In the oral tradition of Patanjali it is taught 
> that the finest meditation is meditation on the 
> patch of skin between the nostrils...
>
You probably got this meditation mixed up with the 
oral tradition of the Naths Siddhas. 

According to Patanjali, the *finest* meditation is 
on the invisible sound current, the Shabd, which is 
personified as Vac, the progenitor of human speech. 

In contrast, the meditation on skin is gross, 
somewhere on the level of concentration on the space 
between the eyebrows or staring at a candle flame 
for hour on end. 

According to my Patanjali guru, this later will give 
you a really bad headache.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Swami Nithyananda Sex Scandal (Watch Video) | India

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge  wrote:
>
> Boy you'd think the (in your words made up thing called God)that
> spoke of laws and commandment but could not be seen at Sinai would 
> not have been so quickly rejected. Remember what happens..hint here 
> is the where the man made small gods come into play:
> 
> "When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the 
> mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, "Come, make us gods 
> [a] who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us 
> up out of Egypt, we don't know what has happened to him." 
>  2 Aaron answered them, "Take off the gold earrings that your 
> wives, your sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to 
> me." 3 So all the people took off their earrings and brought them 
> to Aaron. 4 He took what they handed him and made it into an idol 
> cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they 
> said, "These are your gods, [b] O Israel, who brought you up out of 
> Egypt." 
> 
> 5 When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and 
> announced, "Tomorrow there will be a festival to the LORD." 6 So 
> the next day the people rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings 
> and presented fellowship offerings. [c] Afterward they sat down to 
> eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry. note: reverly is 
> code for orgies, typical of worship back in the day
> 
>  7 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go down, because your people, whom 
> you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. 8 They have been 
> quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made 
> themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed 
> down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, 'These are your 
> gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.' 
> 
> Exodus 32
> 
> The  Sinai event was unique in ancient and modern times.  

It was also almost certainly fiction. If you can
prove otherwise, please do. I'll wait.


> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey Curtis,
> > > 
> > > I pasted a link to a short 5 minute video created by my friend 
> > > Dennis Prager, talk show host, on what he considers the most 
> > > important verse of the Old Testament with regards to God, meaning, 
> > > and nature. You may find it interesting, food for thought:
> > > 
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_-E2OfFjpg
> > 
> > So much idiocy and suffering over the centuries,
> > just because humans can't deal with the concept
> > of "eternal." His entire theory depends upon 
> > there being not only a made-up thing called "God," 
> > but a made-up thing called "the beginning." 
> > 
> > If one merely postulates an eternal universe,
> > one without beginning or end, then there is no
> > need for a "creation," and no need for a 
> > "Creator." 
> > 
> > The entire need for "God" seems to come down to
> > humans being unable to keep from projecting the
> > it-began-and-someday-it-must-end-ness of their 
> > own puny lives onto the universe. 
> > 
> > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > > > > "When Man ceases to worship God he does not worship
> > > > > > > nothing but worships everything".
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > What a fantastic quote!
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote: 
> > > > > You do realize the quote is not recommending that one
> > > > > stop worshiping God, but rather the opposite, right?--- In 
> > > > 
> > > > I didn't have any context for the intention of the author but found it 
> > > > fit my experience of dropping theism pretty well. I guess I had it all 
> > > > wrong. Doing a bit of research and finding this version: "The first 
> > > > effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything."
> > > > 
> > > > I disagree with this statement and will have to do a bit more digging 
> > > > to see what was meant.  I don't see how seeing God as a man made myth 
> > > > makes you more gullible, it made me less.
> > > > 
> > > > What I found appealing in my mistaken impression of the first quote was 
> > > > that appreciating the world more was one of the results of me dropping 
> > > > out of theism.  Life itself became holy in a naturalistic sense of the 
> > > > word.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge  
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In this day and age why would anyone follow a guru? 
> > > > > > > Enlightenment? Liberation? Burn Karma? Not likely folks,
> > > > > > > wake up and smell the chai
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > To quote the great GK Chesterton-
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > "When Man ceases to worship God he does not worship
> > > > > > > nothing but worships 

[FairfieldLife] Re: "Do the enlightened benefit the world?" - A Call For Opinions

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > Here is my question to the members of FFL:
> > 
> > "Do you personally believe that someone who is
> > enlightened intrinsically has any more positive 
> > effect on the world around them than someone 
> > who is not enlightened?"
> > 
> >snip for brevity<
> >
> > I look forward to someone trying, but 
> > after 40+ years of seeing how pervasive "the enlight-
> > ened are special" meme has become, and the rote 
> > justification of the meme by "appeal to authority,"
> > I honestly don't expect anyone to even try. 
> > 
> > Prove me wrong. If you believe it, try to put WHY 
> > you believe it into words -- your OWN words --
> > without a single "appeal to authority." 
> > 
> > Thanks in advance for your participation. Or not.
> > Whatever.
> 
> Dear Turq, last time i answered one of these spiritually 
> yearning questions of yours here you got real upset with 
> where it went.  

You are incorrect on two fronts. First, I do 
not "yearn." I yearneth not. My questions to
this forum are posed for fun. Period. Second,
I have never gotten upset at anything you said
to me directly; I have merely gotten tired of
your act. I think you have more potential than
you display here by being afraid to say what
you really feel, and hiding behind sham TB
points of view. 

> You may not 'look forward' to this one neither. Right now, 
> at this point, you might just avert your eyes and may be 
> save your finer level of feeling around the subject.

You also have a tendency to inflate your own
self importance and think that your words have
a greater effect than they do. Just sayin'...  

> The answer here is simple. I don't believe it, I know it.
> I'm sorry that it has not been your experience.

And my answer to your answer is that we must
agree to disagree on this. You do NOT "know"
in my opinion; you merely believe. 

I can tell the difference. You seem not to be
able to.

But at least you didn't "appeal to authority,"
other than your own. You'll have to forgive me
is I don't agree with you on your authoritative-
ness on this or any other matter.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Swami Nithyananda Sex Scandal (Watch Video) | India

[sgrayatlarge]

Boy you'd think the (in your words made up thing called God)that spoke of laws 
and commandment but could not be seen at Sinai would not have been so quickly 
rejected. Remember what happens..hint here is the where the man made small gods 
come into play:


"When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, 
they gathered around Aaron and said, "Come, make us gods [a] who will go before 
us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don't know what 
has happened to him." 
 2 Aaron answered them, "Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your sons 
and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me." 3 So all the people took 
off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. 4 He took what they handed him 
and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a 
tool. Then they said, "These are your gods, [b] O Israel, who brought you up 
out of Egypt." 

 5 When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced, 
"Tomorrow there will be a festival to the LORD." 6 So the next day the people 
rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented fellowship offerings. 
[c] Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry. 
note: reverly is code for orgies, typical of worship back in the day

 7 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go down, because your people, whom you brought 
up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. 8 They have been quick to turn away from 
what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a 
calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, 'These are 
your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.' 

Exodus 32

The  Sinai event was unique in ancient and modern times.  




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge  wrote:
> >
> > Hey Curtis,
> > 
> > I pasted a link to a short 5 minute video created by my friend 
> > Dennis Prager, talk show host, on what he considers the most 
> > important verse of the Old Testament with regards to God, meaning, 
> > and nature. You may find it interesting, food for thought:
> > 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_-E2OfFjpg
> 
> So much idiocy and suffering over the centuries,
> just because humans can't deal with the concept
> of "eternal." His entire theory depends upon 
> there being not only a made-up thing called "God," 
> but a made-up thing called "the beginning." 
> 
> If one merely postulates an eternal universe,
> one without beginning or end, then there is no
> need for a "creation," and no need for a 
> "Creator." 
> 
> The entire need for "God" seems to come down to
> humans being unable to keep from projecting the
> it-began-and-someday-it-must-end-ness of their 
> own puny lives onto the universe. 
> 
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > > > > "When Man ceases to worship God he does not worship
> > > > > > nothing but worships everything".
> > > > > 
> > > > > What a fantastic quote!
> > > >
> > > 
> > > FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote: 
> > > > You do realize the quote is not recommending that one
> > > > stop worshiping God, but rather the opposite, right?--- In 
> > > 
> > > I didn't have any context for the intention of the author but found it 
> > > fit my experience of dropping theism pretty well. I guess I had it all 
> > > wrong. Doing a bit of research and finding this version: "The first 
> > > effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything."
> > > 
> > > I disagree with this statement and will have to do a bit more digging to 
> > > see what was meant.  I don't see how seeing God as a man made myth makes 
> > > you more gullible, it made me less.
> > > 
> > > What I found appealing in my mistaken impression of the first quote was 
> > > that appreciating the world more was one of the results of me dropping 
> > > out of theism.  Life itself became holy in a naturalistic sense of the 
> > > word.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In this day and age why would anyone follow a guru? 
> > > > > > Enlightenment? Liberation? Burn Karma? Not likely folks,
> > > > > > wake up and smell the chai
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > To quote the great GK Chesterton-
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > "When Man ceases to worship God he does not worship
> > > > > > nothing but worships everything".
> > > > > 
> > > > > What a fantastic quote!
> > > > 
> > > > You do realize the quote is not recommending that one
> > > > stop worshiping God, but rather the opposite, right?
> > > > 
> > > > (Also, it's not actually from Chesterton, but that's 
> > > > another story.)
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: "Do the enlightened benefit the world?" - A Call For Opinions

[Buck]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> Here is my question to the members of FFL:
> 
> "Do you personally believe that someone who is
> enlightened intrinsically has any more positive 
> effect on the world around them than someone 
> who is not enlightened?"
> 
>snip for brevity<
>
>I look forward to someone trying, but 
> after 40+ years of seeing how pervasive "the enlight-
> ened are special" meme has become, and the rote 
> justification of the meme by "appeal to authority,"
> I honestly don't expect anyone to even try. 
> 
> Prove me wrong. If you believe it, try to put WHY 
> you believe it into words -- your OWN words --
> without a single "appeal to authority." 
> 
> Thanks in advance for your participation. Or not.
> Whatever.
>


Dear Turq, last time i answered one of these spiritually yearning questions of 
yours here you got real upset with where it went.  You may not 'look forward' 
to this one neither.  Right now, at this point, you might just avert your eyes 
and may be save your finer level of feeling around the subject.

 The answer here is simple.  I don't believe it, I know it.
I'm sorry that it has not been your experience.


JGD,
-Buck in FF 

[FairfieldLife] Re: "Mental sinking" and TM

[Irmeli]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Mar 12, 2010, at 6:02 AM, Irmeli wrote:
> 
> > Adam's description makes me think that he maybe incapable of  
> > naturally in a healing way contain the emotional releases TM- 
> > practice has activated in him.
> >
> > Through his Buddhist practices he can continue escaping connection  
> > in a feeling level to his emotions by intellectually distancing  
> > himself.
> >
> > More than anything else he would probably need to start seeing a  
> > psychotherapist, who could help him feel into his emotions in a  
> > healing way.
> 
> 
> That's an unusual interpretation of what Adam is sharing Irmeli: he  
> didn't jive with TM, so he's somehow defective and therefore needs to  
> see a psychotherapist! TM itself isn't to blame, nor are the unique  
> differences and preferences we all carry, but the messenger should be  
> instead 'shot on sight', and then dragged off to the looney bin!
> 
> Yikes!
> 
> Al Qaeda meets SCI. Should we make him go to a mandatory Vedic madrasa?
>

The basic TM-technique is a rather gentle technique. If someone gets problems 
from paracticing it 20 minutes twice a day for a while, I find it likely that 
the person has some sort of fragility in him. It must have manifested already 
in many other ways in his life.

An emotionally balanced person does not create problems from such a gentle 
relaxing meditation practice.

I don't claim myself being absolutely certain of this, but I find it likely.

Irmeli

[FairfieldLife] Chesterton & the intolerance of religion

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  
wrote:
> 
> Some original quotes by G. K. Chesterton:
> 
> "A man who refuses to have his own philosophy will only
> have the used-up scraps of somebody else's
> philosophy; which the beasts do not
> have to inherit; hence their happiness. Men have always
> one of two things: either a complete and conscious 
> philosophy or the unconscious acceptance of the broken
> bits of some incomplete and  shattered and often
> discredited philosophy" ["The Revival of
> Philosophy,Why?]

Thanks Merudanda. I enjoyed Chesterton's short essay:
http://chesterton.org/gkc/philosopher/revivalpPhilosophy.htm

I wonder if the following is at all relevant to the recent 
Curtis::Judy religion debate? (I'm not sure because I'm not 
clear as to how far Curtis wants his views about myths, 
superstitions and fairy tales to be enshrined, "hard-wired" as 
it were into *modern society*):

<< Thus, when so brilliant a man as Mr. H. G. Wells-Delta-
Blues says that such supernatural ideas have become impossible 
"for intelligent people", he is (for that instant) not talking 
like an intelligent person. In other words, he is not talking 
like a philosopher; because he is not even saying what he 
means. What he means is, not "impossible for intelligent men", 
but, "impossible for intelligent monists", or, "impossible for 
intelligent determinists". But it is not a negation of 
 to hold any coherent and logical conception of 
so mysterious a world. It is not a negation of intelligence to 
think that all experience is a dream. It is not unintelligent 
to think it a delusion, as some Buddhists do; let alone to 
think it a product of creative will, as Christians do. >>

And I really love this quote from Chesterton (but I doubt
Curtis will!). Like all good mysterians Chesterton upholds
the primacy of poetry over mechanics, of the "qualitative"
over the "quantitive":

<< All the terms used in the science books, 'law,' 
'necessity,' 'order,' 'tendency,' and so on, are really 
unintellectual  The only words that ever satisfied me as 
describing Nature are the terms used in the fairy books, 
'charm,' 'spell,' 'enchantment.' They express the 
arbitrariness of the fact and its mystery. A tree grows fruit 
because it is a MAGIC tree. Water runs downhill because it is 
bewitched. The sun shines because it is bewitched. I deny 
altogether that this is fantastic or even mystical. We may 
have some mysticism later on; but this fairy-tale language 
about things is simply rational and agnostic. >>

That should put the cat amongst the pigeons. (Or the bio-
chemical hunting and sleeping machine amongst the 
robotic, aerodynamic, statue-shitters if you you prefer).

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: "Mental sinking" and TM

[Vaj]

On Mar 12, 2010, at 6:21 AM, cardemaister wrote:


IMHO, that seems to claim doing kuNDali-yoga (kundalini-yoga)
is useless if one "replaces" it with saMyama on the "nose-interior- 
middle" (naasikaa-antar-madhya) or something like that. But I might  
be utterly wrong...



It's been explained to you several times Card that according to the  
last Pundit  of Kashmir Shaivism, and one of the Maharishi's gurus,  
samyama in the SS has a completely different meaning than in the YS.  
They're different darshanas or Ways-of Seeing. Knowledge is different  
in different darshanas.


You should stop deliberately spreading misinformation to fit your TM- 
promoting agenda.


Are you on Purusha by chance?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: "Mental sinking" and TM

[Vaj]

On Mar 12, 2010, at 6:09 AM, cardemaister wrote:


It seems to me Maharishi thinks the slowing down and occasional
stoppage of breathing during TM is what Patañjali means by caturthaH
(praaNaayaamaH), because that prolly is (almost?) the conditio sine  
qua non of dhaaraNaa (the first "part" of saMyama).



He unfortunately wasn't much of an authority. Please remember the  
angas of mantra yoga are very different from the angas of Patanjali.


Remember the 4th pranayama is done with out respect to length of time  
and can be performed at will. In other words, it implies a profound  
mastery not seen in many people, let alone in TM meditators.


It's not an easy skill to learn and definitely should not be confused  
with TMer's apnea episodes.


It's also important to remember that TM proponents like to push vague  
suggestions without knowledge of what they're implying regarding  
minute changes or fabricated ideas. They think it's good for the brand.


Can you site a source where Maharishi associates the brief apnea  
episodes with the fourth pranayama? You do know they were caught  
trying to use people with known central sleep apnea, right?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: "Mental sinking" and TM

[Vaj]

On Mar 12, 2010, at 6:02 AM, Irmeli wrote:

Adam's description makes me think that he maybe incapable of  
naturally in a healing way contain the emotional releases TM- 
practice has activated in him.


Through his Buddhist practices he can continue escaping connection  
in a feeling level to his emotions by intellectually distancing  
himself.


More than anything else he would probably need to start seeing a  
psychotherapist, who could help him feel into his emotions in a  
healing way.



That's an unusual interpretation of what Adam is sharing Irmeli: he  
didn't jive with TM, so he's somehow defective and therefore needs to  
see a psychotherapist! TM itself isn't to blame, nor are the unique  
differences and preferences we all carry, but the messenger should be  
instead 'shot on sight', and then dragged off to the looney bin!


Yikes!

Al Qaeda meets SCI. Should we make him go to a mandatory Vedic madrasa?

[FairfieldLife] Re: "Mental sinking" and TM

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Mar 11, 2010, at 5:02 PM, cardemaister wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > >
> > 
> > > If people want a simple meditation that will enable them to develop 
> > > and maintain peace of mind I would recommend that they try to attend 
> > > introductory classes on Buddhist meditation which will introduce them 
> > > to breathing meditation as taught in most traditions of Buddhism.
> > >
> > 
> > Does that type of meditation eventually "produce" the fourth
> > praaNaayaama? For me that's about the only objective indication
> > of whether a meditation technique is effective or not. YMMV, of course!
> 
> 
> In the oral tradition of Patanjali it is taught that the finest meditation is 
> meditation on the patch of skin between the nostrils.

Reminds me of the last suutra of (Kashmir Shaivism) Shiva-suutras
(the first 14[?] suutras of PaaNini's aSTaadhyaayii -grammar are also called 
Shiva-suutras):

naasikaantarmadhyasaMyamaat kimatra savyaapasavyasauSumneSu.

IMHO, that seems to claim doing kuNDali-yoga (kundalini-yoga)
is useless if one "replaces" it with saMyama on the "nose-interior-middle" 
(naasikaa-antar-madhya) or something like that. But I might be utterly wrong...



 It is believed that dhyana on this spot is the quickest way to access the 
avadhuti or sushumna (but there are even faster ways).
> 
> This is identical to vipassana. In fact that etymology of the word is said to 
> conceal this secret. In Pali it is called AnApAna-sati, in Sanskrit 
> prAnApAna-smRti).
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: "Mental sinking" and TM

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Mar 11, 2010, at 4:57 PM, cardemaister wrote:
> 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > >
> > 
> > > If people want a simple meditation that will enable them to develop 
> > > and maintain peace of mind I would recommend that they try to attend 
> > > introductory classes on Buddhist meditation which will introduce them 
> > > to breathing meditation as taught in most traditions of Buddhism.
> > >
> > 
> > Does that type of meditation eventually "produce" the fourth
> > praaNaayaama? For me that's about the only objective indication
> > of whether a meditation technique is effective or not. YMMV, of course!
> 
> 
> The fourth pranayama is produced by mastering kumbhaka and meditation.
> 
> Are you claiming to have experienced the fourth pranayama Card?
>

It seems to me Maharishi thinks the slowing down and occasional
stoppage of breathing during TM is what Patañjali means by caturthaH 
(praaNaayaamaH), because that prolly is (almost?) the conditio sine qua non of 
dhaaraNaa (the first "part" of saMyama).

[FairfieldLife] Re: "Mental sinking" and TM

[Irmeli]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
>  From "Adam"
> 
> I am against TM having had a bad experience of it. At the age of 14 I  
> read a book called `Tranquility without Pills' which was all about  
> Transcendental Meditation. I was extremely inspired and set about  
> trying to find someone who could initiate me into the technique. I  
> found someone who could teach me the technique for about £300, and  
> although this must have represented my entire paperound salary for  
> ten weeks I don't remember being put off by this (and have nothing to  
> say one way or the other on this count).
> 
> Anyway, I went along to learn about it and was taught about the  
> different levels of mind and how we normally sought to solve problems  
> on the conscious level of mind which just ended in us going around in  
> conceptual circles. Instead, I was taught, we needed to solve our  
> problems by absorbing into an subtler level of mind.
> 
> TM, I was taught, was different from other forms of meditation in  
> which the emphasis was on concentration in that it taught people to  
> reach a subtler level of mind, which wasn't possible with  
> concentration alone.
> 
> I was taught a mantra which I was requested to promise to keep secret  
> (a promise I have kept and I have no particular problem with this  
> either), and I was taught to meditate on this mantra by relaxing into  
> it and allowing it to become subtler and subtler.
> 
> TM definitely induces and extremely relaxing state of body and mind,  
> but it induces mental fogginess. From a Buddhist point of view it is  
> basi
cally training in mental sinking which is a state of meditative  
> concentration in which we have hold on the object of meditation but  
> in which our clarity of it is fading. Mental sinking is a form of  
> faulty concentration and yet is the essence of the practice of TM.
> 
> The effect of TM on me was to make me increasingly angry and  
> confused. I started shouting at my family more and more. Eventally  
> after a year and a half or so I decided to give it up without knowing  
> quite why – a decision I am very grateful for.
> 
> Susequently I started going to Buddhist classes and was taught a very  
> simple breathing meditation which has helped me far more than TM ever  
> did. Although the money has never been an issue of me, it is perhaps  
> worth noting that for the Buddhist classes I was only charged £4 per  
> class – significantly less than I paid for TM.
> 
> What really was significant for me was that the simple breathing  
> meditation taught to me through Buddhism was far better for me in  
> terms of gaining a sense of clarity of mind than TM had ever been.  
> Also of vital significance was that far from telling me that  
> conscious though was the problem Buddhism taught me to use conscious  
> thought to understand and resolve my problems, both in and outside of  
> meditation.
> 
> People need to be discerning customers when it comes to meditation as  
> not all meditations are the same. Any meditation technique can be  
> harmful if practised over-zealously.
> 
> If people want a simple meditation that will enable them to develop  
> and maintain peace of mind I would recommend that they try to attend  
> introductory classes on Buddhist meditation which will introduce them  
> to breathing meditation as taught in most traditions of Buddhism.
>

Adam's description makes me think that he maybe incapable of naturally in a 
healing way contain the emotional releases TM-practice has activated in him.

Through his Buddhist practices he can continue escaping connection in a feeling 
level to his emotions by intellectually distancing himself.

More than anything else he would probably need to start seeing a 
psychotherapist, who could help him feel into his emotions in a healing way.

Irmeli

[FairfieldLife] Re: Tiger incident corrected

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  wrote:
>
> You are looking not into the eyes of the tiger but at the
> backs of two lithe models. And the jaw of the beautiful
> beast is actually the shapely posterior of a third. The
> unique Ð and utterly momentary  work of art was created by
> body-painter Craig Tracy at the request of a charity
> determined to save the subject of the picture. This year
> the United Nations has put the tiger at the top of its list
> of 'most important' endangered animals to be saved in 2010

The only way this affects the original story is that Rik Cooke
would have needed three bullets. Four if he wanted to bag
the photographer, too.