[FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sun...@... wrote: Rick Archer rick@ wrote: OK. I think I get what you're saying. You're just saying that he chose his words carefully so he wouldn't be guilty of out-and-out lying, while still conveying the impression that he was celibate. Judy: Yes! Sheesh! This strikes me as very unlikely, even preposterous. So Mahrishi, at least during his period of sexual activity was careful not to implicate himself as a celibate so that he could say he never claimed to be celibate should the subject come up, or that he could have some degree of plausible denialability.? Wowzer. While such a theory is possible, it's also possible that it was thought up by someone with a history of doing the same thing. Who else *could* think of it? I am giving this a 1% liklihood. But if you want to hang your hat on a 1% possibility, be my guest. After all, it's not as if the person who has just written 31 posts on the subject in a single day has any investment in the idea, right? It's all just in the interest of discovering the truth, right? :-) I'm gonna go with parsing words. Y'know...like pre- tending that dissing several people who just coinci- dentally happen to think that a more likely theory is that Maharishi was just a liar, and systematically trying to present *them* as liars and without ethics and thus having no credence has nothing whatsoever to do with the particular subject she's obsessing on. :-) For some, parsing words is a mechanism to preserve their illusions. For others, it's a veritable lifestyle. The part I don't understand about this particular parsing words theory is how -- if it were true, which those of us who actually met him and spent time in rooms listening to him talk know it isn't -- lying by omission or lying by allowing others to believe what they want to believe, despite the fact that it isn't true presents Maharishi in a better light than just plain overt lying. Perhaps the inventor of the Parser Principle Theory can explain this to us. :-) For me, the whole scene reminds me of TM teachers who came back from TTC trained to respond to the question Are you personally enlightened? by giggling and looking shy saying We don't talk about our personal states of consciousness. Yes, it avoids telling an overt lie. But yes, it's also just another form of lie, one designed to lead the questioner to assuming a particular (and false) answer to his question. Y'know...a lot like I have no investment in this issue, said by someone who is clearly obsessing on it. To me such behavior does not in any way mitigate the lie; it compounds it. It shows that the person using this dodge is not only willing to lie by omission or lie by misdirection to others, but is willing to lie overtly to themselves. Just my opinion...
[FairfieldLife] Chicken or the egg problem re wrong action in enlightenment
I've found myself wondering lately which comes first in theories of enlightenment that propose that the enlightened cannot (by definition) do anything that is wrong or contrary to the laws of nature. Did the people who propose such a theory glom onto it because they thoroughly believe the theory and it only coincidentally lets them off the hook for anything they do that is wrong, or did they glom onto the theory because they lack the ability to self-assess, and are incapable of conceiving the possibility that things they do could possibly *be* wrong? In Maharishi's case, I'm going to go with the latter theory. I did not, in all the years I spent around him, see even a single indication that he had the ability to self-assess. He just *assumed* that everything he did was right. And he managed to do so in situations in which even an idiot could see that he wasn't. I suspect that he was drawn to the the enlightened can do no wrong theory because he was so narcissistic that he could not possibly even *imagine* any of his own actions being wrong. As opposed to believing in the theory first and over time coming to believe that it applied to him, as an enlightened one. My suspicion is that if we were able to go back and interview monks who knew him in Guru Dev's ashram, they would describe him as *always* assuming that his actions were perfectly correct, long before there was any possibility of him being considered enlightened. In other words, I'm thinkin' that it's a case of glomming onto a theory that supports (and even glorifies) one's pre-existing condition of narcissism, rather than learn- ing the theory and then, once enlightened, finding it to be true. And, for the record, I don't think Maharishi was alone in this particular chicken or the egg situation. Almost with- out exception the spiritual teachers I've met or heard of who have been described as raging narcissists by their critics and/or former disciples tended to believe and promote the dogma that the enlightened can do no wrong. I'm suggesting that the idea that *they* personally can do no wrong is based in narcissism, and *preceded* them believing and espousing dogma that supports this idea, not the other way around. Your mileage may vary on this...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sun...@... wrote: Rick Archer rick@ wrote: OK. I think I get what you're saying. You're just saying that he chose his words carefully so he wouldn't be guilty of out-and-out lying, while still conveying the impression that he was celibate. Judy: Yes! Sheesh! This strikes me as very unlikely, even preposterous. So Mahrishi, at least during his period of sexual activity was careful not to implicate himself as a celibate so that he could say he never claimed to be celibate should the subject come up, or that he could have some degree of plausible denialability.? Wowzer. I am giving this a 1% liklihood. But if you want to hang your hat on a 1% possibility, be my guest. I can propose a reason *why* someone might want to hang their hat on the idea of Maharishi trying to not get caught in telling an overt lie. Say...just theoretically, you understand...there was a person here on Fairfield Life who had made a *career* of saying, Aha! I have caught Person X in a lie. That means that NOTHING Person X EVER says can be relied upon to be the truth! Once a liar, always a liar. If such a person existed, and they had advanced this argument for, say, 16 years, would that person have some resistance to the person they'd like to believe about some things being caught in a lie about other things? Duh. Judy's whole modus operandi on the Internet, for over 16 years now, has been to use this Liar once, liar always theory to say that those who disagree with her have no credibility. It's pretty much her whole ACT. So might the person for whom it *is* their whole act intuitively feel that if the teacher they want to con- tinue believing on other matters is caught in a lie, someone might use her *own* Liar once, liar always theory against *him*, and call into question his many pronouncements about consciousness or enlightenment or...well...anything else? Think about it. Might this intuitive fear that her whole act of screaming Liar once, liar always might be turned against Maharishi have something to do with her obsessing on the subject of him possibly lying about being celibate? Obsessing on it so strongly as to write 32 posts in 26 hours trying to come up with a scenario in which she can claim that he *didn't* lie overtly? Can you say, Desperately trying to find a way to keep from being hoist on one's own petard? I think you can...
[FairfieldLife] The Mathematics Of Lying, Lie, and Liar
Just for fun, a few liar statistics to follow up on my theory below, based on two 10-second searches. On alt.meditation.transcendental, number of hits on jst...@panix.com using the words lie or lying or liar -- 2020. On Fairfield Life, number of hits on authfriend using the words lie or lying or liar -- 1513. Delving into these posts, much if not most of the time these words have been used to demonize someone who disagrees with her, promoting the idea that if one has been caught in a lie once (even if caught only in her own mind), their credibility is nil and anything the liar says should be regarded as false, or at the very least regarded with suspicion. Now this same person is (rather obsessively) trying to promote the idea that Maharishi never lied overtly about being celibate. You do the math. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: Rick Archer rick@ wrote: OK. I think I get what you're saying. You're just saying that he chose his words carefully so he wouldn't be guilty of out-and-out lying, while still conveying the impression that he was celibate. Judy: Yes! Sheesh! This strikes me as very unlikely, even preposterous. So Mahrishi, at least during his period of sexual activity was careful not to implicate himself as a celibate so that he could say he never claimed to be celibate should the subject come up, or that he could have some degree of plausible denialability.? Wowzer. I am giving this a 1% liklihood. But if you want to hang your hat on a 1% possibility, be my guest. I can propose a reason *why* someone might want to hang their hat on the idea of Maharishi trying to not get caught in telling an overt lie. Say...just theoretically, you understand...there was a person here on Fairfield Life who had made a *career* of saying, Aha! I have caught Person X in a lie. That means that NOTHING Person X EVER says can be relied upon to be the truth! Once a liar, always a liar. If such a person existed, and they had advanced this argument for, say, 16 years, would that person have some resistance to the person they'd like to believe about some things being caught in a lie about other things? Duh. Judy's whole modus operandi on the Internet, for over 16 years now, has been to use this Liar once, liar always theory to say that those who disagree with her have no credibility. It's pretty much her whole ACT. So might the person for whom it *is* their whole act intuitively feel that if the teacher they want to con- tinue believing on other matters is caught in a lie, someone might use her *own* Liar once, liar always theory against *him*, and call into question his many pronouncements about consciousness or enlightenment or...well...anything else? Think about it. Might this intuitive fear that her whole act of screaming Liar once, liar always might be turned against Maharishi have something to do with her obsessing on the subject of him possibly lying about being celibate? Obsessing on it so strongly as to write 32 posts in 26 hours trying to come up with a scenario in which she can claim that he *didn't* lie overtly? Can you say, Desperately trying to find a way to keep from being hoist on one's own petard? I think you can...
[FairfieldLife] The Curious Phenomenon Of And Possible Tragedy Of SHD
Selective Hearing Disorder. It's part and parcel of the spiritual path. The teacher saying something from his or her level and the student hearing it on quite another. This phenomenon can manifest in benevolent and understandable ways, such as the teacher speaking about enlightenment based on having been there, done that, and the student hearing it based on never been there, never done that, only heard about it. Like I said, part and parcel of the spiritual path. But I see the same phenomenon manifesting in possibly less benevolent and far less understandable ways. For example, hearing the spiritual teacher say something obviously false and either refusing to hear it at the time, or practicing revisionist history on what one heard after the fact. To illustrate this phenomenon, I will try to avoid being further characterized as a Maharishi-basher by being instead a Rama-basher. :-) Rama - Fred Lenz, like Maharishi, once appeared on the Larry King show. This was during a period of time when he was being hounded in the press by people calling him (with some justi- fication, in retrospect) a cult leader. I remember, sitting in a room with other Rama students, watching this show and seeing Larry ask two questions, and Rama answer them. Larry's questions were (paraphrased from memory): - Your critics have said that you told your students to sever their ties with their family if those families didn't approve of them studying with you? Is this true? - These critics have also said that you have claimed to be one of only twelve enlightened beings on this planet. True? Rama's replies: - Absolutely not. - (laughing, as if that was the silliest thing he'd ever heard) Of course not. Both replies were lies. Everyone sitting in the room with me watching the show knew they were lies. They had either been in the room when he said these things, or they owned tapes on which he could be heard saying them over and over and over. Afterwards, I asked a few of them whether they noticed any- thing funny or off about these two answers. They looked at me like I was crazy. TO THIS DAY, if I run into these people and ask Did Rama ever, in your experience, lie? they respond with a firm, incontrovertible, thought-stopping Absolutely not. Go figure, eh. And you see this ALL OVER the spiritual smorgasbord, with students of a spiritual teacher refusing to hear him saying (or remember him saying) something he shouldn't oughta have been saying, if he was so perfect and all. I'm betting that -- like me -- a few people here can remember back to having done this ourselves. This is one reason I don't place much value in scriptures, and the supposed words of spiritual teachers throughout the ages. Very, very few of these books were ever written by the teachers themselves; most were written by students, who wrote down what they heard. Or claim to have heard, through the filter of Selective Hearing Disorder. Personally, I have seen no evidence that any two people, sitting in the same room hearing a talk by a supposedly enlightened person, would agree afterwards on what was actually said, or remember it the same way, let alone in the same words. This leads me to believe that most of the students trying to write down the exact words of Jesus or Buddha or any spiritual teacher had similar Selective Hearing Disorder going for them.
[FairfieldLife] Apologies in advance for having a life
I posted a few things today in my traditional Sunday cafe raps that may draw comment. As always, I reserve the right to not comment on the comments; I said what I had to say in my first posts, and probably will feel neither the need to defend it nor the desire to expand upon it. But this is even more true today, because I suffer from the heartbreaking samskara of having a life. Today is a kinda Big Deal in Sitges, having-a-life-wise. I mean, not only is Spain playing in the final game of the World Cup tonight, the Gay Pride thang is going on, meaning that one can also attend the High Heel Race, the Sunday Cabaret Drag Show, the Miss Drag Queen Sitges contest, or a concert by performer Jose Galisteo on the promenade, followed by dancing on the beach. Less appeal- ing to me personally is the late-night Underwear Party at the Man Bar. Like Chauncey Gardner, I like to watch. Today in Sitges is a veritable voyeur's paradise. So this is notice that whether you come up with a thoughtful response to something I wrote this morning, whether you come up with a stinging and devastating rebuttal to it, or (more likely and more wisely) just ignore anything I said as just more meaning- less cafe drivel, I'm not gonna be here. In a few minutes I'm going to be heading out to have lunch with some good friends, then watch the High Heel Race, then watch the game, and afterward hopefully check out some of the other loco mayor (major crazy) going on around town. Especially if Spain wins. I think it'll be fun. And I'm sorry, but fun trumps almost everything else for me, especially keeping up on FFL. See you either late tonight or tomorrow, if I survive the beach dancing at my age. And if I don't, so long and thanks for all the fish. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque
On Jul 11, 2010, at 3:34 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Think about it. Might this intuitive fear that her whole act of screaming Liar once, liar always might be turned against Maharishi have something to do with her obsessing on the subject of him possibly lying about being celibate? Obsessing on it so strongly as to write 32 posts in 26 hours trying to come up with a scenario in which she can claim that he *didn't* lie overtly? Can you say, Desperately trying to find a way to keep from being hoist on one's own petard? Actually this whole defense mechanism in Judy has been obvious for many, many years. And those who champion her seem to be ones who need to maintain a similar defense strategy to keep the whole stack of cards from falling (Nabby being a prime example). At the same time, if she could actually see herself as others see her it would probably too much for her to handle. After all, when you build an illusory world around yourself for most of your life, it's nigh on impossible to let it go, so you just keep movingsometimes obsessively, defensively and...repeatedly.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The MMY Paradox/Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: Actually not really. I wish I could remember where I read this but there is a lengthy discussion (was it here?) written by someone who seemed to know MMYs every move after Guru Dev died in '53. MMY was only really in that little underground room in Uttar Kashi a matter of a few months. According to Paul Mason's bio, it was a year and a half. I based the above on excerpts from a chapter in Paul's bio found here: http://www.srigurudev.net/maharishi/biography.html Paul is quoted as writing: After the year and a half or so spent in seclusion at Gyan Mandir, Brahmachari Mahesh took to the road in order to follow his inspiration to visit southern India. But on his own Web site, it turns out, Paul says something quite different: Some believe that Brahmachari Mahesh spent years in seclusion, but it is likely that he actually stayed in Uttarkashi for no more than a matter of months before leaving to accompany an ailing lady from Calcutta (allegedly a wealthy widow by the name of Sita Saraf) to a medical facility near Bangalore in southern India. It is recorded that during his sojourn in Madanapalle, sometime in June or July of 1954 he began teaching local people to meditate. http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/introduction.htm (It's about halfway down the page.) This may be what Joe is remembering. I don't know why there are two different accounts from Paul, but if what's on his Web site is correct, then both Joe and Barry were right, MMY didn't spend much time in seclusion--less than a year, at any rate.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque
It may be that you have to have a FB account, I don't know. Nope, that does it. Thanks. You can purchase a copy of Judith's book on the www - you do not need a Facebook account - all you need is a PayPal or other type of credit card. Click on the 'Buy Now' button. http://www.robesofsilkfeetofclay.com/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jul 11, 2010, at 3:34 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Think about it. Might this intuitive fear that her whole act of screaming Liar once, liar always might be turned against Maharishi have something to do with her obsessing on the subject of him possibly lying about being celibate? Obsessing on it so strongly as to write 32 posts in 26 hours trying to come up with a scenario in which she can claim that he *didn't* lie overtly? Can you say, Desperately trying to find a way to keep from being hoist on one's own petard? Actually this whole defense mechanism in Judy has been obvious for many, many years. Says Vaj in response to a post in which Barry tells a number of obvious and easily documentable lies, including that I made 32 posts about whether MMY lied about his sexual activity, when there were in fact no more than half a dozen (and that many only because some folks didn't get what I was saying in the first one). And those who champion her seem to be ones who need to maintain a similar defense strategy to keep the whole stack of cards from falling (Nabby being a prime example). Looks like the defense strategy in question is that of Barry and Vaj, desperately trying to maintain some shred of credibility in the face of a well-established record of lying. Caught in a lie? Try to discredit the person who's caught you! Trouble is, when one has a long record of lying, this defense makes it appear that one is saying there's nothing *wrong* with lying and that it *shouldn't* diminish one's credibility. At the same time, if she could actually see herself as others see her it would probably too much for her to handle. After all, when you build an illusory world around yourself for most of your life, it's nigh on impossible to let it go, so you just keep moving sometimes obsessively, defensively and...repeatedly. One wonders what Vaj's fantasy about my living in an illusory world involves. I guess he too was hoping I'd deny that MMY had sex with his followers and simply cannot deal with the cognitive dissonance of finding out that I haven't.
[FairfieldLife] Amazing new Crop Circle, reported 9th July 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TykJRFZT35gfeature=player_embedded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TykJRFZT35gfeature=player_embedded Stonehenge Crop Circle, reported 9th May 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQmZ96ql69oNR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQmZ96ql69oNR=1
[FairfieldLife] Re: Apologies in advance for having a life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: ..I think it'll be fun. And I'm sorry, but fun trumps almost everything else for me, ... Hey ( young)dude over there: YES, that's the right spirit of ZEN: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/251251 Hey dude don't make it bad Hey dude don't be afraid hope You still have your bottle of Mas de Masos for this occasion http://www.capafons-osso.com/eng/index_esp.html TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:..if I survive the beach dancing .. You're waiting for someone to perform with And don't you know that it's just you Hey dude you'll do watching Ibiza - Bora Bora Beach Bar - WM 2006 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMf29cPgrU4 we may ask :Do we have to be worried about your heart and other circulationary condition? therefore take care... [:D] we haven't made your tombstone yet -with your desired inscription: Here lies Barry Wright. Dude really made us laugh. so:And any time you feel the pain, Hey dude, refrain and do not forget you promised to watch only ...uuups...like your mentor the gardener JeJa (Jerry Jarvis), who BTW will be now already on his recertification course h on second thought may be you should give him the bottle of Mas de Masos ..?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque
If I had set this up *deliberately* to induce Barry to make a complete idiot of himself, I couldn't have done any better. I knew he'd latch onto this and make himself look like a dope, but he's *far* exceeded my expectations in this regard. His problem is that he wants desperately to be able to put me down for denying that MMY wasn't celibate, and he can't do that because I obviously haven't denied it. *Nobody* here is denying it, and it's making Barry even crazier than usual; the cognitive dissonance is intolerable. He had been *so* looking forward to Bourque's book coming out so he could dump on the TMers on FFL for claiming it couldn't be true. But none of them have, so he has to *invent* stuff to dump on them about. (Note, by the way, that everybody who actually reads the traffic is aware that he's inventing stuff, but they're all too afraid of him to challenge him on it. Such moral courage!) Gonna put my responses to all three of Barry's posts on this topic in one single post; they all cover pretty much the same absurd ground. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: Rick Archer rick@ wrote: OK. I think I get what you're saying. You're just saying that he chose his words carefully so he wouldn't be guilty of out-and-out lying, while still conveying the impression that he was celibate. Judy: Yes! Sheesh! This strikes me as very unlikely, even preposterous. So Mahrishi, at least during his period of sexual activity was careful not to implicate himself as a celibate so that he could say he never claimed to be celibate should the subject come up, or that he could have some degree of plausible denialability.? Wowzer. While such a theory is possible, it's also possible that it was thought up by someone with a history of doing the same thing. Who else *could* think of it? Steve has a history of doing the same thing? Because he's the one who thunk it up. My theory had nothing whatsoever to do with plausible deniability. As Steve himself notes, that notion is preposterous on its face. Should MMY have been discovered back then to have been having illicit sex, having lied about it would have been the least of his problems. I am giving this a 1% liklihood. But if you want to hang your hat on a 1% possibility, be my guest. After all, it's not as if the person who has just written 31 posts on the subject in a single day has any investment in the idea, right? It's all just in the interest of discovering the truth, right? :-) Of course, not only didn't I hang my hat on Steve's theory, I made no more than half a dozen posts about whether MMY overtly lied. I'm gonna go with parsing words. Y'know...like pre- tending that dissing several people who just coinci- dentally happen to think that a more likely theory is that Maharishi was just a liar, and systematically trying to present *them* as liars and without ethics and thus having no credence has nothing whatsoever to do with the particular subject she's obsessing on. :-) Except that this never happened. I haven't dissed anybody for saying MMY lied about having sex. Barry made that up out of whole cloth. For some, parsing words is a mechanism to preserve their illusions. For others, it's a veritable lifestyle. The part I don't understand about this particular parsing words theory is how -- if it were true, which those of us who actually met him and spent time in rooms listening to him talk know it isn't -- lying by omission or lying by allowing others to believe what they want to believe, despite the fact that it isn't true presents Maharishi in a better light than just plain overt lying. Perhaps the inventor of the Parser Principle Theory can explain this to us. :-) Perhaps Barry can explain to us why he's asking me to explain something I explicitly said wasn't the case, several times, e.g., to Hugo: My theory is that he was so uncomfortable with what he was doing that he went to considerable pains not to *compound* the misbehavior by flat- out lying about it. (Not that this somehow made him more honorable; it would have been more like knocking wood, almost superstitious.) For me, the whole scene reminds me of TM teachers who came back from TTC trained to respond to the question Are you personally enlightened? by giggling and looking shy saying We don't talk about our personal states of consciousness. Yes, it avoids telling an overt lie. But yes, it's also just another form of lie, one designed to lead the questioner to assuming a particular (and false) answer to his question. Y'know...a lot like I have no investment in this issue, said by someone who is clearly obsessing on it. Only reason I made as many posts about it as I did is that folks kept misunderstanding what I was talking about. It was never anything more than a speculation on my
[FairfieldLife] Crop Circles, June 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxnnIKOwyC8feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11ww5B791yAfeature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSdA-X-x0dEfeature=related An interesting comment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HngOE0VZCqEfeature=related
[FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: snip [I wrote:] If MMY refrained from actually lying, it would have been only to reduce his guilt in his own eyes. Clinton refrained from lying because he didn't want to be impeached, convicted, and thrown out of office, and possibly subject to jail time. Seems plausible to me. Whatever the actual situation, he was playing a dangerous game. I've long suspected that these affairs had a lot to do with the culture of secrecy that developed in the movement. You're suggesting the need to keep the affairs secret was sort of extrapolated into a culture of secrecy? Was there less secrecy before the affairs started? (We don't really know when they started, do we?) I know that Vernon Katz knew what was going on, because he talked Rob McCutcheon out of publishing his book by the same title back in the 70's (Rob gave Judith permission to use the title). Great title. I wonder if Jerry, Bevan, Neil Paterson, and others knew? I'm quite sure MMY never volunteered the information, but I may be wrong. He may have had a few trusted confidants. I can't believe they didn't all knew. They couldn't possibly have avoided hearing the rumors, and one or another of them surely must have investigated further, if only in an attempt to squash the rumors--and they wouldn't have been able to do that. They'd just have encountered more and more reports from credible people the longer they looked into it. It wouldn't surprise me that MMY had a few confidants, but they would have been the *least* likely to spread it around, seems to me, even if asked directly by one of the Big Deals. On the other hand, there were more and more people over time who knew firsthand without the slightest doubt what was going on--the women themselves. For instance, the passage in the book where Tat Wala Baba was massaging MMY's feet the day after his first time with Judith made it sound as though MMY had told him. Wouldn't you have loved to be a fly on the wall for *that* conversation!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque
Paul: In Nancy Cooke de Herrera's book, she tells of a monk who told her that her future guru would be partially divine and partially human... According to Ned Wynn, there were many participants on the Majjorca TTC that were sexually active, so apparently, Judith was not the only one with a high degree of sexuality! 'We Will Always Live in Beverly Hills' By Ned Wynn Penguin, 1990 http://tinyurl.com/29omkab So, it looks like the Mahesh Yogi simply decided to join in the fun with all the others. Good for him - yogis are supposed to enjoy, not to suffer! For me, this is a non-issue, as the Maharishi was not my 'guru', just one of several meditation teachers. But, the Mahesh Yogi's sexual laisons simply pale in comparison to the sexual antics of Swami Rama, Trungpa Tulku, Kalu Rinpoche, or Bhagavan Rajneesh Osho! In my religion, 'Tantric Yoga', those who do not participate in any sexual activities are considered to be not normal, if not perverted to a certain degree! Tantra is Life, what it does to you, and what you do back. Just keep in mind that you're only going to get as much 'enlightenment' as you are going to get! LOL!!!
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Curious Phenomenon Of And Possible Tragedy Of SHD
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: Selective Hearing Disorder. snip But I see the same phenomenon manifesting in possibly less benevolent and far less understandable ways. For example, hearing the spiritual teacher say something obviously false and either refusing to hear it at the time, or practicing revisionist history on what one heard after the fact. To illustrate this phenomenon, I will try to avoid being further characterized as a Maharishi-basher by being instead a Rama-basher. :-) Rama - Fred Lenz, like Maharishi, once appeared on the Larry King show. snip Personally, I have seen no evidence that any two people, sitting in the same room hearing a talk by a supposedly enlightened person, would agree afterwards on what was actually said, or remember it the same way, let alone in the same words. This leads me to believe that most of the students trying to write down the exact words of Jesus or Buddha or any spiritual teacher had similar Selective Hearing Disorder going for them. Utterly useless example, since there are transcripts of all the Larry King shows made directly from the videotapes, and thus no disputes about what was or wasn't said that can't be easily resolved.
[FairfieldLife] The eternal Venus de Milo, a sight which no one has ever seen be
Watching with a deep-drawn sigh: View the true form of the beautiful Venus de Milo, a sight which no one has ever seen before. http://www.futureishere.biz/museumofbeauty/ ...so beautiful and yet so scarred... but nevertheless looking forward to see more additional art insights from the Louvre or other museum around the world
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chicken or the egg problem re wrong action in enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: I've found myself wondering lately which comes first in theories of enlightenment that propose that the enlightened cannot (by definition) do anything that is wrong or contrary to the laws of nature. Before Barry gets going here, let's recall that according to MMY's theory, what might be wrong in terms of human ethical standards could very well be right as far as the laws of nature are concerned. Remember the banana peel analogy? In the rest of his post, Barry consistently conflates the two. He's never understood the implications of the theory, so his comments are way off track. (Ironically, he could have made a much better case had he worked from the *real* theory rather than his own mangled version.) Did the people who propose such a theory glom onto it because they thoroughly believe the theory and it only coincidentally lets them off the hook for anything they do that is wrong, or did they glom onto the theory because they lack the ability to self-assess, and are incapable of conceiving the possibility that things they do could possibly *be* wrong? In Maharishi's case, I'm going to go with the latter theory. snip My suspicion is that if we were able to go back and interview monks who knew him in Guru Dev's ashram, they would describe him as *always* assuming that his actions were perfectly correct, long before there was any possibility of him being considered enlightened. Not according to MMY himself: Just about two and a half years for my thoughts to be mainly flowing in tune with [Guru Dev's] - how much perfectly, there was no way to measure, but I knew I was making very, very rare mistakes, no mistakes almost. Conceivably by the end of that two and a half years, he thought he was no longer making mistakes (although he says there was no way to measure), but he clearly indicates that this hadn't been the case all along; it was something that developed over time. (And these would have been relative mistakes, BTW.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The MMY Paradox/Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay
Joe: I meant to include this e-mail from Ned Wynn, possibly his best. (Again, here's a guy in a position to knowsomeone who was literally, as the expression was in those days on the door): So, I wonder why Ned didn't include this information in his book? It would sure have made more interesting reading. But, in his book Ned describes only one sexual adventure - his own. Maybe Ned and Casey were NOT in the know, and NOT on the door, but actually in a bed themselves. Go figure. Sat, 31 Aug 2002 20:50:43 -0700 From: Ned Wynn Subject: Re: E-mail and its power Casey,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chicken or the egg problem re wrong action in enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: I've found myself wondering lately which comes first in theories of enlightenment that propose that the enlightened cannot (by definition) do anything that is wrong or contrary to the laws of nature. Before Barry gets going here, let's recall that according to MMY's theory, what might be wrong in terms of human ethical standards could very well be right as far as the laws of nature are concerned. Remember the banana peel analogy? Bhagavad Gita Chapter 7, Verse 15 http://alturl.com/kowec ? http://alturl.com/7w265 ? http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/YM45TAn8twU5-_2FklSNM-gBfvG9UQQlgE1-tgDeuPf\ EpBvQICzAlWnE9DTRHF3fqX9dWvOEXp7fHxcRe3orE9_5OcShTEs/Bhagavad%20Gita%2C%\ 20Chapter%207/Gita7.15a.JPG http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/YM45TPtryQ85-_2FrDKL9sgBnVaH1ai4zffxUrKc4DV\ 5Fy-LHj7lBVO-uKSmTGTU_SP25Xhm6O2R1yMN8_7YHFDg1qcoUAo/Bhagavad%20Gita%2C%\ 20Chapter%207/Gita7.15b.jpg From what I understand, the remaining chapters are not avaible anymore.. again..? h...
[FairfieldLife] Re: The MMY Paradox/Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay
Yes, that's it, that's what I remembered. The reason for the discrepancy is simple. Paul is continually looking for new information on (mostly) Guru Dev, and (less so) on MMY. What is in the book was written before he wrote the more detailed account on his site. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: Actually not really. I wish I could remember where I read this but there is a lengthy discussion (was it here?) written by someone who seemed to know MMYs every move after Guru Dev died in '53. MMY was only really in that little underground room in Uttar Kashi a matter of a few months. According to Paul Mason's bio, it was a year and a half. I based the above on excerpts from a chapter in Paul's bio found here: http://www.srigurudev.net/maharishi/biography.html Paul is quoted as writing: After the year and a half or so spent in seclusion at Gyan Mandir, Brahmachari Mahesh took to the road in order to follow his inspiration to visit southern India. But on his own Web site, it turns out, Paul says something quite different: Some believe that Brahmachari Mahesh spent years in seclusion, but it is likely that he actually stayed in Uttarkashi for no more than a matter of months before leaving to accompany an ailing lady from Calcutta (allegedly a wealthy widow by the name of Sita Saraf) to a medical facility near Bangalore in southern India. It is recorded that during his sojourn in Madanapalle, sometime in June or July of 1954 he began teaching local people to meditate. http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/introduction.htm (It's about halfway down the page.) This may be what Joe is remembering. I don't know why there are two different accounts from Paul, but if what's on his Web site is correct, then both Joe and Barry were right, MMY didn't spend much time in seclusion--less than a year, at any rate.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Divine Weapons, part 1
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge no_re...@... wrote: Swastika was a nice touch, only a tiny bit distracting and creepy You mean like the one in this picture to the left of Guru Dev? [Portrait of Guru Dev] Picture of Guru Dev: http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/sources/photos/puja.jpg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: Paula Gloria, a former TMer, comments on the Mahabharata. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVADjFUnrdofeature=related
[FairfieldLife] Re: The MMY Paradox/Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay
Nice try, but lame. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: Joe: I meant to include this e-mail from Ned Wynn, possibly his best. (Again, here's a guy in a position to knowsomeone who was literally, as the expression was in those days on the door): So, I wonder why Ned didn't include this information in his book? It would sure have made more interesting reading. But, in his book Ned describes only one sexual adventure - his own. Maybe Ned and Casey were NOT in the know, and NOT on the door, but actually in a bed themselves. Go figure. Sat, 31 Aug 2002 20:50:43 -0700 From: Ned Wynn Subject: Re: E-mail and its power Casey,
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: COREXIT is Eating Through Boats in the Gulf
authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AVyw93sf88annotation_id=annotation_934611feature=iv My *God*, the amount of misinformation in that video is staggering. And that's even though a good half of it, or more, repeats the same clips over and over and over. The insistent, deliberate repetition is what should tell you it's propaganda rather than honest reporting, even if you don't actually know what the facts are. Can you be more specific about what misinformation is given? Not without practically writing a book. But two quick points: It's not the case that almost all the folks who worked on the Exxon Valdez cleanup have died; and it's not the case that BP defied the EPA in continuing to use Corexit. BTW, the style of this video is to use various clips to make their point. So they start with a statement of position then refer back to it again when there is a contradiction. Nothing wrong with that. Sure maybe you prefer just a straight ahead report but this probably plays better to a younger crowd. It's a propaganda technique, Bhairitu. You'd realize this instantly if it were promoting something you disagreed with. And what is it that you disagree with? I don't think it's a propaganda technique but a form of video journalism. There are a lot of such videos on the web. It's become a popular form in the last few years. As for misinformation I've heard a lot about this over the past few weeks from people raising flags when Corexit was first sprayed in that what it does is sink the oil or clump it so it is not so visible. IOW, it is NOT really solving the problem but getting it out of the picture. Nobody ever said it solved the problem. It's a tradeoff between two problems: it disperses the oil so it doesn't kill the wetlands and marshes; but it creates oxygen-poor areas in the ocean where fish and other sea creatures spawn, killing them, and the oil and gas molecules that don't get eaten also kill the sea life. It doesn't make the oil clump together, it *disperses* it so the oil-eating microbes in the ocean can get at it more easily. That process is what depletes the oxygen. I've heard the contrary and I've also heard that the BP doesn't want microbes to eat the oil because they want to salvage it. Dispersant is never a *good* choice, it can only be a *less- bad* choice. Current thinking is that the areas of the deep ocean affected by the dispersed oil will eventually be able to clean themselves up so that it will support sea life again, but once the marshes and wetlands are destroyed, there's no way to bring them back. And besides the birds and fish and other wildlife they support, they also help protect the Gulf Coast from hurricanes. I've heard this argument too but you really sound like a BP apologist though we all know you'll deny it as you have in the past. It's like you have a lot of stock in BP. You've also mentioned in the past that you don't like laissez-faire capitalism. This is a good opportunity to turn the masses against it and I hope it does. We'll be doing the oligarchs a favor otherwise there will be an uprising that will make the Bolshevik revolution look like at Sunday picnic.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: COREXIT is Eating Through Boats in the Gulf
authfriend wrote: Bhairitu, here's the EPA's FAQ on dispersant use in the Gulf: http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants.html#q7 Scroll about a third of the way down past the lists of documents and so on for the start of the FAQ. We all remember that the EPA told us the air around ground zero was safe, and it turned out not to be, but remember who was running the government back then. There are much better folks at EPA now than there were after 9/11. I'm not recommending blind trust, but I think there's reason to be less suspicious. I don't trust our government anymore. Too much lobbying by big money interests. The USA is effectively a zombie nation. I'll trust the folks I listen to on progressive talk radio and the folks they interview. Those include Thom Hartmann, Mike Papantonio, Robert F Kennedy, etc. Many of these folks have interviewed people in the oil business. But I don't have OCD about this either. My ego doesn't need to become an expert on the BP oil spill. :-D
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chicken or the egg problem re wrong action in enlightenment
TurquoiseB: I've found myself wondering lately which comes first in theories of enlightenment According to historians, the first 'theory' of enlightenment derives from the teaching of Gotama Buddha, who was born around 560 B.C. - he was the first historical yogin in India. Shakya the Muni was the founder of the 'enlightenment tradition', which, according to Eliade, is native to India and occurs nowhere else at this period in history. that propose that the enlightened cannot (by definition) do anything that is wrong or contrary to the laws of nature. This is not the theory proposed by the Buddha - his definition of enlightenment is spelled out in The Four Noble Truths. The first theory of enlightenment is based on the theory of Karma or Causation. In Buddha's Karma theory, actions not only produce reactions on the physical plane, but also on the mental plane as well - in other words, Buddha taught moral reciprocity based on volition. Did the people who propose such a theory glom onto it because they thoroughly believe the theory The first people to 'glom' onto Buddha's enlightenment theory were the authors of the early Upanishads, and later the author of the Bhagavad Gita. and it only coincidentally lets them off the hook for anything they do that is wrong, or did they glom onto the theory because they lack the ability to self-assess, and are incapable of conceiving the possibility that things they do could possibly *be* wrong? In the Bhagavad Gita, which came after the historical Buddha, the result of actions also also based on Karma, but there is also the theory of Dharma, and on the theory of selfless actions, hardly an example of a lack of self-assessment! LOL! I did not, in all the years I spent around him... snip Talk about being narcissistic! You spent what, all of two minutes alone with the Maharishi, if that, in over fourteen years working for the TMO. Everyone knows that you didn't get any closer to the Maharishi than about a thousand feet. The nearest you ever got to Rama was to stand beside him in a public latrine! From what I've read, the Maharishi wasn't even around during your TTC - he was flown into Majorrca on a helicopter, according Ned Wynn, and then the Maharishi returned to his hotel in Switzerland. LOL!
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of authfriend
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 9:01 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque
You're suggesting the need to keep the affairs secret
was sort of extrapolated into a culture of secrecy?
Was there less secrecy before the affairs started?
There was. MMY and TMO policies grew increasing paranoid and secretive over
the years.
(We don't really know when they started, do we?)
No. They were going on when the Beatles were in Rishikesh (early '68), but
who knows when they started.
I wonder if Jerry, Bevan, Neil Paterson, and others knew?
I'm quite sure MMY never volunteered the information, but
I may be wrong. He may have had a few trusted confidants.
I can't believe they didn't all knew. They couldn't possibly
have avoided hearing the rumors, and one or another of
them surely must have investigated further, if only in an
attempt to squash the rumors--and they wouldn't have been
able to do that. They'd just have encountered more and
more reports from credible people the longer they looked
into it.
They may have chosen not to look. I heard the rumors from the time I was a
new meditator ('68) but I dismissed them as preposterous for 30+ years,
because they were so at odds with my perception of MMY. I remember one time
in 1974 or 75, I was waiting outside MMY's door for a long time while he was
in there with a very pretty woman from S. Africa named Vicky. When she came
out, her face was flushed and the thought crossed my mind that she looked
like she had been sexually aroused, but it was a fleeting thought which I
didn't take too seriously.
Everything around MMY was on a need to know basis. Neil Paterson once joked
to me that he couldn't even tell me what kind of toothpaste he used. MMY
only allowed people to get really close to him if they were really good at
keeping secrets. Apparently about half of MMY's personal secretaries during
this period had no clue this was going on, while the other half picked up on
it. Perhaps even some of them were told by the others.
For instance, the passage in the book where Tat Wala Baba
was massaging MMY's feet the day after his first time
with Judith made it sound as though MMY had told him.
Wouldn't you have loved to be a fly on the wall for
*that* conversation!
You would have to have been a Hindi-speaking fly.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The MMY Paradox/Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay
So, I wonder why Ned didn't include this information in his book? It would sure have made more interesting reading. But, in his book Ned describes only one sexual adventure - his own. Maybe Ned and Casey were NOT in the know, and NOT on the door, but actually in a bed themselves. Go figure. Joe: Nice try, but lame. Well, I admit Ned's book was lame, but apparently he did not suspect anything or he would have mention it. Either he was NOT an insider as he claimed, or he was totally blind drunk most of the time. But, I wonder about the others - none of these sexual activities were mentioned on Usenet by Mike Doughney or John Knapp or Joe Kellett or Don Krieger. Tom Anderson, who was so close to the Maharishi that he once saw the name on Maharishi's passport. As Maharishi's 'secretary' for five years you'd think that Tom would have mentioned Judith at the Majorrca TTC. And you'd think that 'God's Little Clown', Connie Larsson would have mentioned the Maharishi's sexual proclivities but he did not. And that's with the Maharishi's door open and unlocked! So, we've got what, one single person reporting sexual incidents. I'm just saying that there may have been a lot of people with sex on their mind at TTC, but only one who actually saw anything. Go figure. I'm not saying Maharishi didn't have any sexual relations, all I'm saying is that I am now more impressed with him than ever before - this guy was a POWERHOUSE - up all night and day, working 24x7, and with still some time left over to have some fun with Judith. Very impressive!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque
Wouldn't you have loved to be a fly on the wall for *that* conversation! Rick Archer: You would have to have been a Hindi-speaking fly. Judith could speak Hindi?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque
He was speaking of the conversation between Tatwalla Baba and MMY of course. You're being an even bigger idiot than usual today Tex. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: Wouldn't you have loved to be a fly on the wall for *that* conversation! Rick Archer: You would have to have been a Hindi-speaking fly. Judith could speak Hindi?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque
Wouldn't you have loved to be a fly on the wall for *that* conversation! You would have to have been a Hindi-speaking fly. Judith could speak Hindi? Joe: He was speaking of the conversation between Tatwalla Baba and MMY of course. So, you're thinking Judith was NOT at Rishkesh TTC? You're being an even bigger idiot than usual today Tex. So, you thought the Maharishi was a celibate guru, who could teach you how to get enlightened and so you spent thousands of dollars learning how to fly and months and months on TTCs, but I'm the bigger 'idiot'? Go figure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Divine Weapons, part 1
Traditionally, the swastika is a sign of good luck among the Hindus. Somehow, Hitler picked up on this sign for his Third Reich movement since he thought it came from the Aryans who invaded India. There's also a Tai Chi movement in China which uses the swastika for its insignia. Needless to say, this movement is not doing very well in the USA. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rf...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge no_reply@ wrote: Swastika was a nice touch, only a tiny bit distracting and creepy You mean like the one in this picture to the left of Guru Dev? [Portrait of Guru Dev] Picture of Guru Dev: http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/sources/photos/puja.jpg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: Paula Gloria, a former TMer, comments on the Mahabharata. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVADjFUnrdofeature=related
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of WillyTex Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 12:42 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque Wouldn't you have loved to be a fly on the wall for *that* conversation! You would have to have been a Hindi-speaking fly. Judith could speak Hindi? Joe: He was speaking of the conversation between Tatwalla Baba and MMY of course. So, you're thinking Judith was NOT at Rishkesh TTC? She was never on any TTC, and has made that clear. You're being an even bigger idiot than usual today Tex. So, you thought the Maharishi was a celibate guru, who could teach you how to get enlightened and so you spent thousands of dollars learning how to fly and months and months on TTCs, but I'm the bigger 'idiot'? Go figure. You didn't? Never got the sidhis?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque
It sounds very much like this was going on in the early 60's. In Joyce-Collin
Smith's book Call No Man Master she speaks of the change in the London center
where MMY lived from his open door policy to occasionally locking his door
alone with attractive young women.
Whether it ever happened in India before he came to the west we'll probably
never know but I kind of doubt it, since word would have leaked out not to
mention all of the cultural restrictions. In the west, he could get away with
the helping your evolution or energy transfer line. Speaking of lines, it
appears his was Come, I'll give you my love.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote:
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of authfriend
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 9:01 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque
You're suggesting the need to keep the affairs secret
was sort of extrapolated into a culture of secrecy?
Was there less secrecy before the affairs started?
There was. MMY and TMO policies grew increasing paranoid and secretive over
the years.
(We don't really know when they started, do we?)
No. They were going on when the Beatles were in Rishikesh (early '68), but
who knows when they started.
I wonder if Jerry, Bevan, Neil Paterson, and others knew?
I'm quite sure MMY never volunteered the information, but
I may be wrong. He may have had a few trusted confidants.
I can't believe they didn't all knew. They couldn't possibly
have avoided hearing the rumors, and one or another of
them surely must have investigated further, if only in an
attempt to squash the rumors--and they wouldn't have been
able to do that. They'd just have encountered more and
more reports from credible people the longer they looked
into it.
They may have chosen not to look. I heard the rumors from the time I was a
new meditator ('68) but I dismissed them as preposterous for 30+ years,
because they were so at odds with my perception of MMY. I remember one time
in 1974 or 75, I was waiting outside MMY's door for a long time while he was
in there with a very pretty woman from S. Africa named Vicky. When she came
out, her face was flushed and the thought crossed my mind that she looked
like she had been sexually aroused, but it was a fleeting thought which I
didn't take too seriously.
Everything around MMY was on a need to know basis. Neil Paterson once joked
to me that he couldn't even tell me what kind of toothpaste he used. MMY
only allowed people to get really close to him if they were really good at
keeping secrets. Apparently about half of MMY's personal secretaries during
this period had no clue this was going on, while the other half picked up on
it. Perhaps even some of them were told by the others.
For instance, the passage in the book where Tat Wala Baba
was massaging MMY's feet the day after his first time
with Judith made it sound as though MMY had told him.
Wouldn't you have loved to be a fly on the wall for
*that* conversation!
You would have to have been a Hindi-speaking fly.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The eternal Venus de Milo, a sight which no one has ever seen be
That was a great clip! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_re...@... wrote: Watching with a deep-drawn sigh: View the true form of the beautiful Venus de Milo, a sight which no one has ever seen before. http://www.futureishere.biz/museumofbeauty/ ...so beautiful and yet so scarred... but nevertheless looking forward to see more additional art insights from the Louvre or other museum around the world
[FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque
Doesn't take much figuring on that score Tex. You're the biggest idiot on this forum. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: Wouldn't you have loved to be a fly on the wall for *that* conversation! You would have to have been a Hindi-speaking fly. Judith could speak Hindi? Joe: He was speaking of the conversation between Tatwalla Baba and MMY of course. So, you're thinking Judith was NOT at Rishkesh TTC? You're being an even bigger idiot than usual today Tex. So, you thought the Maharishi was a celibate guru, who could teach you how to get enlightened and so you spent thousands of dollars learning how to fly and months and months on TTCs, but I'm the bigger 'idiot'? Go figure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque
Rick, actually Judith was on TTC in Rshikesh and she was made a teacher. In the book she notes that when MMY and she met in MMY's underground puja room in his Rishikesh villa on the day he was to give her the teaching mantras, there was no funny business at all. Both took this aspect very seriously. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of WillyTex Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 12:42 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque Wouldn't you have loved to be a fly on the wall for *that* conversation! You would have to have been a Hindi-speaking fly. Judith could speak Hindi? Joe: He was speaking of the conversation between Tatwalla Baba and MMY of course. So, you're thinking Judith was NOT at Rishkesh TTC? She was never on any TTC, and has made that clear. You're being an even bigger idiot than usual today Tex. So, you thought the Maharishi was a celibate guru, who could teach you how to get enlightened and so you spent thousands of dollars learning how to fly and months and months on TTCs, but I'm the bigger 'idiot'? Go figure. You didn't? Never got the sidhis?
[FairfieldLife] Re: COREXIT is Eating Through Boats in the Gulf
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: snip As for misinformation I've heard a lot about this over the past few weeks from people raising flags when Corexit was first sprayed in that what it does is sink the oil or clump it so it is not so visible. IOW, it is NOT really solving the problem but getting it out of the picture. Nobody ever said it solved the problem. It's a tradeoff between two problems: it disperses the oil so it doesn't kill the wetlands and marshes; but it creates oxygen-poor areas in the ocean where fish and other sea creatures spawn, killing them, and the oil and gas molecules that don't get eaten also kill the sea life. It doesn't make the oil clump together, it *disperses* it so the oil-eating microbes in the ocean can get at it more easily. That process is what depletes the oxygen. I've heard the contrary You heard wrong. Why do you think it's called dispersant instead of clumpant? Jeez. and I've also heard that the BP doesn't want microbes to eat the oil because they want to salvage it. That's so absurd I don't know where to start. If BP doesn't want microbes to eat the oil, it shouldn't let oil get in the water where they can eat it to start with. Once the oil's in the water, microbes will eat it whether or not dispersant has been applied. They'll just be able to eat it *faster* with the dispersant. Were you thinking that BP can salvage the oil if it gets clumped up? Because that's wrong too. It clumps up because it's gotten weathered, and then it's no longer usable as oil. Plus which, collecting even freshly spilled oil costs *way* more than they could get from selling what they collect. Dispersant is never a *good* choice, it can only be a *less- bad* choice. Current thinking is that the areas of the deep ocean affected by the dispersed oil will eventually be able to clean themselves up so that it will support sea life again, but once the marshes and wetlands are destroyed, there's no way to bring them back. And besides the birds and fish and other wildlife they support, they also help protect the Gulf Coast from hurricanes. I've heard this argument too but you really sound like a BP apologist though we all know you'll deny it as you have in the past. It's like you have a lot of stock in BP. Well, of course I'll deny it, because it isn't true. That's a pretty dumb way to try to discredit what I'm telling you, Bhairitu. (And I have no stock in BP.) In any case, the above sure isn't an argument that puts BP in a good light. If it hadn't allowed the blowout to happen, the oil wouldn't be a problem, obviously. Now we're faced with nothing but bad choices; nobody--including BP--has ever planned for a spill like this, and we simply don't have effective ways to clean it up. If you want to discredit what I'm telling you, cite some verifiable facts. What are your facts? Who are your sources? Mine's the EPA--I gave you the link in another post-- but if you don't trust the EPA, here's a page on dispersants from the Wildlife Society: http://joomla.wildlife.org/index.php?option=com_contenttask=viewid=670Itemid=321 http://tinyurl.com/24qcjjg Here's one from ProPublica: http://www.propublica.org/article/bp-gulf-oil-spill-dispersants-0430#14879 http://tinyurl.com/2a8acsq Do your homework. You have a major tendency to go off half-cocked; it's the basis for most of your conspiracy theories. You just don't bother to inform yourself. You listen to wild-eyed catastrophists who don't have the vaguest idea what they're talking about and swallow everything they tell you without questioning it.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joe Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 1:05 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque Rick, actually Judith was on TTC in Rshikesh and she was made a teacher. In the book she notes that when MMY and she met in MMY's underground puja room in his Rishikesh villa on the day he was to give her the teaching mantras, there was no funny business at all. Both took this aspect very seriously. I got mixed up. I thought Willy was talking about Judy Stein, not being on TTC, which she wasn't. Should have read more carefully, but that's sometimes difficult with Willy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Apologies in advance for having a life
Don't do anything I wouldn't do. And, let us know if rumours of your demise has been greatly exaggerated. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: I posted a few things today in my traditional Sunday cafe raps that may draw comment. As always, I reserve the right to not comment on the comments; I said what I had to say in my first posts, and probably will feel neither the need to defend it nor the desire to expand upon it. But this is even more true today, because I suffer from the heartbreaking samskara of having a life. Today is a kinda Big Deal in Sitges, having-a-life-wise. I mean, not only is Spain playing in the final game of the World Cup tonight, the Gay Pride thang is going on, meaning that one can also attend the High Heel Race, the Sunday Cabaret Drag Show, the Miss Drag Queen Sitges contest, or a concert by performer Jose Galisteo on the promenade, followed by dancing on the beach. Less appeal- ing to me personally is the late-night Underwear Party at the Man Bar. Like Chauncey Gardner, I like to watch. Today in Sitges is a veritable voyeur's paradise. So this is notice that whether you come up with a thoughtful response to something I wrote this morning, whether you come up with a stinging and devastating rebuttal to it, or (more likely and more wisely) just ignore anything I said as just more meaning- less cafe drivel, I'm not gonna be here. In a few minutes I'm going to be heading out to have lunch with some good friends, then watch the High Heel Race, then watch the game, and afterward hopefully check out some of the other loco mayor (major crazy) going on around town. Especially if Spain wins. I think it'll be fun. And I'm sorry, but fun trumps almost everything else for me, especially keeping up on FFL. See you either late tonight or tomorrow, if I survive the beach dancing at my age. And if I don't, so long and thanks for all the fish. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: COREXIT is Eating Through Boats in the Gulf
authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: snip As for misinformation I've heard a lot about this over the past few weeks from people raising flags when Corexit was first sprayed in that what it does is sink the oil or clump it so it is not so visible. IOW, it is NOT really solving the problem but getting it out of the picture. Nobody ever said it solved the problem. It's a tradeoff between two problems: it disperses the oil so it doesn't kill the wetlands and marshes; but it creates oxygen-poor areas in the ocean where fish and other sea creatures spawn, killing them, and the oil and gas molecules that don't get eaten also kill the sea life. It doesn't make the oil clump together, it *disperses* it so the oil-eating microbes in the ocean can get at it more easily. That process is what depletes the oxygen. I've heard the contrary You heard wrong. Why do you think it's called dispersant instead of clumpant? Jeez. No, I didn't hear wrong. It's mentioned in the G4 report you obviously didn't watch. G4 is a gamers cable network I believe owned by Comcast. Gamers are a cynical bunch so they had to be more careful in their reporting. Yes it is also called a dispersant and I've also heard that the BP doesn't want microbes to eat the oil because they want to salvage it. That's so absurd I don't know where to start. If BP doesn't want microbes to eat the oil, it shouldn't let oil get in the water where they can eat it to start with. Once the oil's in the water, microbes will eat it whether or not dispersant has been applied. They'll just be able to eat it *faster* with the dispersant. Were you thinking that BP can salvage the oil if it gets clumped up? Because that's wrong too. It clumps up because it's gotten weathered, and then it's no longer usable as oil. Plus which, collecting even freshly spilled oil costs *way* more than they could get from selling what they collect. I think the argument (pardon the pun) holds water because they probably some other use for the oil. Some of the commentators have mentioned this. And they have also mentioned that the dispersant interferes with the microbes. Dispersant is never a *good* choice, it can only be a *less- bad* choice. Current thinking is that the areas of the deep ocean affected by the dispersed oil will eventually be able to clean themselves up so that it will support sea life again, but once the marshes and wetlands are destroyed, there's no way to bring them back. And besides the birds and fish and other wildlife they support, they also help protect the Gulf Coast from hurricanes. I've heard this argument too but you really sound like a BP apologist though we all know you'll deny it as you have in the past. It's like you have a lot of stock in BP. Well, of course I'll deny it, because it isn't true. That's a pretty dumb way to try to discredit what I'm telling you, Bhairitu. (And I have no stock in BP.) In any case, the above sure isn't an argument that puts BP in a good light. If it hadn't allowed the blowout to happen, the oil wouldn't be a problem, obviously. Now we're faced with nothing but bad choices; nobody--including BP--has ever planned for a spill like this, and we simply don't have effective ways to clean it up. If you want to discredit what I'm telling you, cite some verifiable facts. What are your facts? Who are your sources? Mine's the EPA--I gave you the link in another post-- but if you don't trust the EPA, here's a page on dispersants from the Wildlife Society: http://joomla.wildlife.org/index.php?option=com_contenttask=viewid=670Itemid=321 http://tinyurl.com/24qcjjg Here's one from ProPublica: http://www.propublica.org/article/bp-gulf-oil-spill-dispersants-0430#14879 http://tinyurl.com/2a8acsq Do your homework. You have a major tendency to go off half-cocked; it's the basis for most of your conspiracy theories. You just don't bother to inform yourself. You listen to wild-eyed catastrophists who don't have the vaguest idea what they're talking about and swallow everything they tell you without questioning it. You are SO GULLIBLE and take yourself way TOO SERIOUSLY. It's fun to push your buttons and watch you go off. You're like a little windup toy. I bother to inform myself and from very good sources. You would do well to learn some humility but everyone on FFL knows it's not in your vocabulary. Maybe in the 10 more lifetimes. :-D
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque
Cultural Restrictions? That's the one thing I notice about a lot of the people on FFL is they apparently have never made the acquaintance of Indians outside of MMY and maybe a few of the monks that hung out around him. A few may have visited India and some of them apparently with blinders on. What East Indians SAY and what they DO are two different things. I bet there are people here who believe that India is a big holy land. Try thinking of it more as a carnival midway and you'll have it right. For some reason I make friends easily in the Indian community. They are a very open bunch and we often discuss things like godmen (the Indian cynical term for money grubbing gurus). It's good to get an understanding of the community and how it is changing as they decided to dump centuries of spiritual practices and become more western. Another good source of understanding the Indian community is to watch some Bollywood movies especially some of the new ones that deal with modern India coming of age. Some of these are even available on Netflix WI. I've also rented and purchased DVDs from local Indian groceries. Those films can be a hoot to watch (though I often click for the next chapter to skip over the dancing around trees). The average Indian would not be surprised at all at a godman dumping his celibate vows. Money can easily sway Indians and so can sex. ;-) Joe wrote: It sounds very much like this was going on in the early 60's. In Joyce-Collin Smith's book Call No Man Master she speaks of the change in the London center where MMY lived from his open door policy to occasionally locking his door alone with attractive young women. Whether it ever happened in India before he came to the west we'll probably never know but I kind of doubt it, since word would have leaked out not to mention all of the cultural restrictions. In the west, he could get away with the helping your evolution or energy transfer line. Speaking of lines, it appears his was Come, I'll give you my love. -
[FairfieldLife] Re: Divine Weapons, part 1
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_...@... wrote: Traditionally, the swastika is a sign of good luck among the Hindus. Somehow, Hitler picked up on this sign for his Third Reich movement since he thought it came from the Aryans who invaded India. There's also a Tai Chi movement in China which uses the swastika for its insignia. Needless to say, this movement is not doing very well in the USA. The swastika is much more than a good luck sign to the religions of the East. The swastika is considered extremely holy and auspicious by all Hindus, and is regularly used to decorate items related to Hindu culture. It is used in Hindu yantras and religious designs. Throughout the subcontinent of India, it can be seen on the sides of temples, religious scriptures, gift items, and letterheads. The Hindu deity Ganesh is often shown sitting on a lotus flower on a bed of swastikas. ~ The swastika (from Sanskrit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit svastika) is an equilateral http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equilateral cross http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross with its arms bent at right angles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle#Types_of_angles , in either right-facing (å) form or its mirrored left-facing (å) form. Archaeological evidence of swastika-shaped ornaments dates from the Neolithic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic period. It occurs today in the modern day culture of India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India , sometimes as a geometrical motif and sometimes as a religious symbol; it remains widely used in Eastern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_religions and Dharmic religions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmic_religions such as Hinduism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism , Buddhism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism and Jainism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism . Historically, the swastika became a sacred symbol in Hinduism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism , Buddhism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism , Jainism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism , Mithraism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism Shamanism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanism ; religions with a total of more than a billion adherents worldwide, making the swastika ubiquitous in both historical and contemporary society. The symbol was introduced to Southeast Asia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia by Hindu kings and remains an integral part of Balinese Hinduism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_in_Indonesia to this day, and it is a common sight in Indonesia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia . and The symbol rose to importance in Buddhism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism during the Mauryan Empire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauryan_Empire and in Hinduism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism with the decline of Buddhism in India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_Buddhism_in_India during the Gupta Empire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gupta_Empire . With the spread of Buddhism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road_transmission_of_Buddhism , the Buddhist swastika reached Tibet and China. The use of the swastika by the indigenous Bön http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%B6n faith of Tibet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet , as well as syncretic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism religions, such as Cao Dai http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cao_Dai of Vietnam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam and Falun Gong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong of China, is thought to be borrowed from Buddhism as well. The symbol can also be found on many Buddhist temples throughout Korea. Hinduism [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/Swastika_doors\ tep_crop.jpg/220px-Swastika_doorstep_crop.jpg] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Swastika_doorstep_crop.jpg Swastika on the doorstep of an apartment in Maharashtra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharashtra , India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India In Hinduism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism , the two symbols represent the two forms of the creator god Brahma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma : facing right it represents the evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_%28philosophy%29 of the universe (Devanagari: Pravritti), facing left it represents the involution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involution_%28esoterism%29 of the universe (Devanagari: Nivritti). It is also seen as pointing in all four directions (north, east, south and west) and thus signifies grounded stability. Its use as a Sun symbol can first be seen in its representation of the god Surya http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surya (Devanagari: Sun). The swastika is considered extremely holy and auspicious by all Hindus, and is regularly used to decorate items related to Hindu culture. It is used in all Hindu yantras http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yantra and religious designs. Throughout the subcontinent of India, it can be seen on the sides of temples,
[FairfieldLife] Re: COREXIT is Eating Through Boats in the Gulf
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: authfriend wrote: snip It doesn't make the oil clump together, it *disperses* it so the oil-eating microbes in the ocean can get at it more easily. That process is what depletes the oxygen. I've heard the contrary You heard wrong. Why do you think it's called dispersant instead of clumpant? Jeez. No, I didn't hear wrong. *What* you heard was wrong. It's an idiom. It's mentioned in the G4 report you obviously didn't watch. G4 is a gamers cable network I believe owned by Comcast. Gamers are a cynical bunch so they had to be more careful in their reporting. BWAHAHAHA!! You're getting your information about dispersants from *gamers*?? No wonder you've got everything bassackwards. If that's an example, they need to be WAY WAY WAY more careful in their reporting. Yes it is also called a dispersant Dispersants are called dispersants because they *disperse* the oil. That's the whole point. and I've also heard that the BP doesn't want microbes to eat the oil because they want to salvage it. That's so absurd I don't know where to start. If BP doesn't want microbes to eat the oil, it shouldn't let oil get in the water where they can eat it to start with. Once the oil's in the water, microbes will eat it whether or not dispersant has been applied. They'll just be able to eat it *faster* with the dispersant. Were you thinking that BP can salvage the oil if it gets clumped up? Because that's wrong too. It clumps up because it's gotten weathered, and then it's no longer usable as oil. Plus which, collecting even freshly spilled oil costs *way* more than they could get from selling what they collect. I think the argument (pardon the pun) holds water because they probably some other use for the oil. Reread my last paragraph above, please. *Whatever* you're imagining they might use it for, it would *still* cost way more to collect than it would be worth. And that's in addition to the other two points. Some of the commentators have mentioned this. And they have also mentioned that the dispersant interferes with the microbes. You need to find some different commentators who know what they're talking about. These guys haven't a clue, if you're reporting what they said accurately. What *does* happen when there's a lot of dispersed oil is that the microbes gorge on it, and in the gorging process they use up the oxygen in the water, and then they starve because they can't continue to eat the oil, or anything else, without oxygen. But before that happens, they've gotten rid of huge quantities of the oil, much more than would have been possible without the dispersant breaking it down into molecules for them. I dare you to go register at TheOilDrum.com and post some of what you've heard. But you don't have the cojones to put your information to the test. And lest you think the folks there are pro-BP shills, here's what the most highly respected commenter on the site, who has his own oil drilling company and 30 years of experience in the oil patch, has to say: With few exceptions everyone I know wants to see BP crucified. And then have its tongue cut out while hanging there. And then set on fire. And then have the fire put out before it kills them. And then throw salt on them.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Apologies in advance for having a life
TurquoiseB: I posted a few things today in my traditional Sunday cafe raps... So, you went to a cafe Sunday. Around town: http://tinyurl.com/d8h68m Tejano Music Awards Municipal Auditorium June 11, 2010 San Antonio, Texas Jim Cullum Jazz Band The Landing on the Riverwalk June 11, 2010 San Antonio, Texas Asleep at the Wheel June 11, 2010 Mi Casa Cantina Boerne, Texas Weird Al Yankovich Sunken Garden Theater July 24, 2010 San Antonio, Texas Charlie Daniels Band Majestic Theater August 1, 2010 San Antonio, Texas Carrie Underwood ATT Center October 7, 2010 San Antonio, Texas Patti Labelle Majestic Theater August 14, 2010 San Antonio, Texas Asia Majestic Theater August 23, 2010 San Antonio, Texas Foreigner Whitwater Amphitheater August 28, 2010 San Antonio, Texas Rush ATT Center September 23, 2010 San Antonio, Texas Shakira Toyota Center October 8, 2010 San Antonio, Texas B.B. King Majestic Theater October 10, 2010 San Antonio, Texas Robert Plant Mitchell Pavilion July 26, 2010 Austin, Texas Joan Baez Stubb's August 6, 2010 Austin, Texas Black Crowes Stubb's September 25, 2010 Aerosmith Mitchell Pavilion August 5, 2010 Houston, Texas Brad Paisley Mitchell Pavilion August 6, 2010 Houston, Texas Christina Aguilere Mitchell Pavilion August 7, 2010 Houston, Texas Sheryl Crow Mitchell Pavilion August 27, 2010 Houston, Texas John Mayer Mitchell Pavilion September 5, 2010 Houston, Texas ZZ Top Mitchell Pavilion September 24, 2010 Houston, Texas
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divine Weapons, part 1
On Jul 11, 2010, at 1:55 PM, do.rflex wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_...@... wrote: Traditionally, the swastika is a sign of good luck among the Hindus. Somehow, Hitler picked up on this sign for his Third Reich movement since he thought it came from the Aryans who invaded India. There's also a Tai Chi movement in China which uses the swastika for its insignia. Needless to say, this movement is not doing very well in the USA. The swastika is much more than a good luck sign to the religions of the East. Who gives a crap about any of that? It has since been co-opted by the Nazis (who knew what they were doing in terms of white superiority, etc) and has since become the most hated symbol in the world. Any attempt to paint rosier pictures is just plain creepy. End of story. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Apologies in advance for having a life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: I posted a few things today in my traditional Sunday cafe raps that may draw comment. As always, I reserve the right to not comment on the comments; I said what I had to say in my first posts, and probably will feel neither the need to defend it nor the desire to expand upon it. Translation: After all, I made most of it up, and the rest is full of REELY STOPID mistakes and slapdash thinking, so they'd be awfully tough to defend. Plus which, I spent five hours of my day beavering away writing those six long posts, and I don't want to have to confront the fact that nobody responded to them (except Judy, but she's a nonperson, even though four of the six posts are *about* her).
[FairfieldLife] Spain won the Finals - foretold by the pshycic Octopus Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya85knuDzp8
[FairfieldLife] Re: Divine Weapons, part 1
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Jul 11, 2010, at 1:55 PM, do.rflex wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: Traditionally, the swastika is a sign of good luck among the Hindus. Somehow, Hitler picked up on this sign for his Third Reich movement since he thought it came from the Aryans who invaded India. There's also a Tai Chi movement in China which uses the swastika for its insignia. Needless to say, this movement is not doing very well in the USA. The swastika is much more than a good luck sign to the religions of the East. Who gives a crap about any of that? Who? ...probably the likely billions of religious people who have lived over the ages who have considered it a sacred religious symbol long before the Nazis ever existed ...and those who still do consider it so within the original religious contexts. The fact that the Nazis in the last century dramatically distorted and twisted and horrifically shamed the accepted historic meanings of the swastika for a short time, doesn't erase or eliminate its centuries' long held significance and meaning to multiple cultures and religious traditions. It has since been co-opted by the Nazis (who knew what they were doing in terms of white superiority, etc) and has since become the most hated symbol in the world. Any attempt to paint rosier pictures is just plain creepy. End of story. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: The MMY Paradox/Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfr...@... wrote:
Yes, that's it, that's what I remembered. The reason for the discrepancy is
simple. Paul is continually looking for new information on (mostly) Guru Dev,
and (less so) on MMY. What is in the book was written before he wrote the
more detailed account on his site.
But it doesn't mean it is accurate. It doesn't make sense at all. Actually I
will be going to India in a few days, to Madanapalle, and will be by passing
the house of Chandrashekar Ayer many times, so I will ask him this question. As
I already mentioned, his father Narayan Ayer was initiated by Maharishi the
first time he came there. He only mentioned the year 1958, when I asked him 2
years back, but this was a revisit of MMY sort of passing by on the way to
Madras and initiating 50 people on one day. In Madras he was already using a
small plane (1958), which he would have normally missed, but which he
'miraculously' still catched (it was delayed).
It would be interesting to see of the postcard that Maharishi sent to his son
Chandrashekar from Rameshwara has a timestamp on it. I know that all documents
are about that time are kept in an Archive in Bangalore under the supervision
of the Indian movement. It is still possible that I could see it, but I would
have to go to Bangalore for it, I doubt I have the time for it this time around.
But from the narration it is clear that he brought the lady ('aunty' can be
about any female person in India) to the hospital, stayed a few days and then
moved on. There was no indication that he stayed a year there. I seem to
remember that Paul has never been to this place, so maybe he just made a wrong
connection in this regard.
1955, later half seems to be a plausible date for Madanapalle. It was at that
time a place of only 10.000 people (today about 100.000), relatively cool for
India. I remember from lectures that Maharishi said that he stayed about 5 days
in Kanya Kumari, visiting the temple there. I believe he wouldn't have stayed
much longer in Rameshwaram, let it be a week or so. Indians visit pilgrimage
places, but don't stay there. It is enough for them having seen the image and
then go. (It's actually quite funny) In Maharishis case, attuning to the energy
at the place may have played a role also, but the a few days were enough.
Then Trivandrum is only 80 kms hours from Kanya Kumari, that could be 2 bus
hours at the time. The date for the yajna was given around 20 October 1955.
Maharishi may have been in Guruvayur, another famous temple near Trivandrum
before.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote:
Actually not really. I wish I could remember where I read
this but there is a lengthy discussion (was it here?)
written by someone who seemed to know MMYs every move
after Guru Dev died in '53. MMY was only really in that
little underground room in Uttar Kashi a matter of a
few months.
According to Paul Mason's bio, it was a year and a half.
I based the above on excerpts from a chapter in Paul's
bio found here:
http://www.srigurudev.net/maharishi/biography.html
Paul is quoted as writing:
After the year and a half or so spent in seclusion at
Gyan Mandir, Brahmachari Mahesh took to the road in
order to follow his inspiration to visit southern India.
But on his own Web site, it turns out, Paul says
something quite different:
Some believe that Brahmachari Mahesh spent years in
seclusion, but it is likely that he actually stayed in
Uttarkashi for no more than a matter of months before
leaving to accompany an ailing lady from Calcutta
(allegedly a wealthy widow by the name of Sita Saraf)
to a medical facility near Bangalore in southern India.
It is recorded that during his sojourn in Madanapalle,
sometime in June or July of 1954 he began teaching
local people to meditate.
http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/introduction.htm
(It's about halfway down the page.)
This may be what Joe is remembering. I don't know why
there are two different accounts from Paul, but if
what's on his Web site is correct, then both Joe and
Barry were right, MMY didn't spend much time in
seclusion--less than a year, at any rate.
[FairfieldLife] No offense to Card and his YFfers theories or anything...
...but: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyZaJKWC3Qg Spain rules.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: At the same time, if she could actually see herself as others see her it would probably too much for her to handle. After all, when you build an illusory world around yourself for most of your life, it's nigh on impossible to let it go, so you just keep moving Now that is an interesting question isn't it? Why would it be more interesting for a person to see her/himself through the eyes of 'the' others, than to see oneself through her/his own eyes? This reminds me of the 'mirror stage', a stage in the childs development, when it sees itself the first time in a mirror, as others see it. According to Jacques Lacan, a french psychoanalysist and philosopher, it conceives itself as a *whole* for the first time, while all subjective experiences before are only fragmented. In this way, the perception of the others, the image of the child in the mirror, becomes the self-image of the child, which correspondents to the formation of the ego. This self image yet is derived from a location outside itself, the way the 'others' see it. It is therefore also an alienation from itself. According to Lacan, it is the 'I that is not the I', an imaginary I, as we in spiritual terms would call it the ego, not the true Self. The ego, in this theory, is the self reflected through the 'other', the other persons, who are not a homogeneity, but a multitude. As the big Other, it becomes society, law, which in psychoanalysis is represented by the father figure, which also represents language. The 'appeal to majority' fallacy is certainly dirived from the constant attempt to reflect and find oneself in the image of the other. In the psychology of Lacan there is no way to objectify the 'other'. It is an entirely imaginary unit of self-reflection. Apart from this, in yoga philosophy the Self is one unit, and entirely within, always a whole, and the removal of the ego-sense, the self that is reflected in the other, amounts to the final liberation. So, who is to decide what is the 'correct'view of oneself? The majority of the 'others'. As there is no uniformity of opinion, not even on Judy Stein, here on FFL, it i not even clear, as the majority of the lurkers may be different than the majority of active posters. Or the sense of some ethical values, social norms of this society, to which will be appealed, which are again dependend on the country and the prevailing culture and the times. It is difficult to see for people that the opinions they favour are to a great deal derived from the prevailing culture, and that these ideals and values greatly vary in other societies, let's say between India and the west. Anyway, whats the point of this in yoga, seeing youreslf as the others see you, especially if there are not THE others. But this is probably not what you wanted to say.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque
The idea that the ego vanishes is an umbrella concept, overly broad, since it covers more than one concept. The only thing that vanishes is the innate identification with ego. ... Assuming MMY was Self-Realized, it would be absurd to state that he had no projective or social ego. This ego is composed of innate, ongoing tendencies, including latent karma, that existed before Self-Realization and continues through until the body dies. Thus, if MMY had some repressed sexual urges shoved underground by years of monkish behavior that only became expressed when circimstances provoked some response; well,...this can occur even after Self-Realization. It appears you are a Neo-Advaitin in the Ramana Maharshi school. I will state it outright: his claim as to the vanishing of the ego is incorrect. A more appropriate statement or statements would be found among the BATGAPPERS, especially those associated with the Waking Down School. The ego is simply recognized as an ongoing complex associated with the body/mind and is not the core Self. But it goes on and on and on...like the bunny battery. .. The notion that the projective ego (associated with the rising astrological sign and sun sign especially) vanishes is simply an urban Neo-Advaitic myth, mainly perpetuated by HWL Poonja and continued through his many disciples. FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mahavid3h no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: At the same time, if she could actually see herself as others see her it would probably too much for her to handle. After all, when you build an illusory world around yourself for most of your life, it's nigh on impossible to let it go, so you just keep moving Now that is an interesting question isn't it? Why would it be more interesting for a person to see her/himself through the eyes of 'the' others, than to see oneself through her/his own eyes? This reminds me of the 'mirror stage', a stage in the childs development, when it sees itself the first time in a mirror, as others see it. According to Jacques Lacan, a french psychoanalysist and philosopher, it conceives itself as a *whole* for the first time, while all subjective experiences before are only fragmented. In this way, the perception of the others, the image of the child in the mirror, becomes the self-image of the child, which correspondents to the formation of the ego. This self image yet is derived from a location outside itself, the way the 'others' see it. It is therefore also an alienation from itself. According to Lacan, it is the 'I that is not the I', an imaginary I, as we in spiritual terms would call it the ego, not the true Self. The ego, in this theory, is the self reflected through the 'other', the other persons, who are not a homogeneity, but a multitude. As the big Other, it becomes society, law, which in psychoanalysis is represented by the father figure, which also represents language. The 'appeal to majority' fallacy is certainly dirived from the constant attempt to reflect and find oneself in the image of the other. In the psychology of Lacan there is no way to objectify the 'other'. It is an entirely imaginary unit of self-reflection. Apart from this, in yoga philosophy the Self is one unit, and entirely within, always a whole, and the removal of the ego-sense, the self that is reflected in the other, amounts to the final liberation. So, who is to decide what is the 'correct'view of oneself? The majority of the 'others'. As there is no uniformity of opinion, not even on Judy Stein, here on FFL, it i not even clear, as the majority of the lurkers may be different than the majority of active posters. Or the sense of some ethical values, social norms of this society, to which will be appealed, which are again dependend on the country and the prevailing culture and the times. It is difficult to see for people that the opinions they favour are to a great deal derived from the prevailing culture, and that these ideals and values greatly vary in other societies, let's say between India and the west. Anyway, whats the point of this in yoga, seeing youreslf as the others see you, especially if there are not THE others. But this is probably not what you wanted to say.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chicken or the egg problem re wrong action in enlightenment
Enlightenment is an English term used for the 17th Century turn to rationalism and secularism. There has never been and there is not now any such thing as a spiritual enlightenment - which is an invented term mostly found only in the 20th Century. In itself this term has no reference to any kind of spiritual value. Moksha means release from bondage (like a slave set free) notenlightenment. Kaivalya means aloneness not enlightenment. Bodhi means awakened, not enlightened and Gautama Buddha taught the goal of Awakening, not enlightenment. Nirvana means extinguished in the Buddhist context of desire, hatred, illusion. There was no Shakya the Muni. Gautama, later called Buddha (the Awakened) was a muni (silent sage) of the Shakya clan - that is all. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: According to historians, the first 'theory' of enlightenment derives from the teaching of Gotama Buddha, who was born around 560 B.C. - he was the first historical yogin in India. Shakya the Muni was the founder of the 'enlightenment tradition', which, according to Eliade, is native to India and occurs nowhere else at this period in history. This is not the theory proposed by the Buddha - his definition of enlightenment is spelled out in The Four Noble Truths. The first theory of enlightenment is based on the theory of Karma or Causation. In Buddha's Karma theory, actions not only produce reactions on the physical plane, but also on the mental plane as well - in other words, Buddha taught moral reciprocity based on volition.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mahavid3h no_re...@... wrote: snip But this is probably not what you wanted to say. It's *definitely* not what he wanted to say. I'm sure you got that Vaj doesn't like me very much. What you may not know is that he boasts that he doesn't read my posts. Problem is, he does read posts by others commenting on my posts and sees bits and pieces of what they've quoted from those posts. As in this case--when Vaj read Barry's post and a snippet Barry quoted from the post of mine Barry was commenting on--Vaj has a tendency to jump to incorrect conclusions about the missing context, since he doesn't read my original posts. The results are often hilarious. In this case they were compounded by the fact that Barry had deliberately *misrepresented* what was in my post, so poor Vaj was further misled and ended up making a comment that was not, to put it mildly, grounded in reality. And the funniest part of all this is that he'll never know he made this huge blooper. He may well even continue to make it in later posts.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque
On Jul 11, 2010, at 7:25 PM, mahavid3h wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: At the same time, if she could actually see herself as others see her it would probably too much for her to handle. After all, when you build an illusory world around yourself for most of your life, it's nigh on impossible to let it go, so you just keep moving Now that is an interesting question isn't it? Why would it be more interesting for a person to see her/himself through the eyes of 'the' others, than to see oneself through her/his own eyes? This reminds me of the 'mirror stage', a stage in the childs development, when it sees itself the first time in a mirror, as others see it. According to Jacques Lacan, a french psychoanalysist and philosopher, it conceives itself as a *whole* for the first time, while all subjective experiences before are only fragmented. In this way, the perception of the others, the image of the child in the mirror, becomes the self-image of the child, which correspondents to the formation of the ego. This self image yet is derived from a location outside itself, the way the 'others' see it. It is therefore also an alienation from itself. According to Lacan, it is the 'I that is not the I', an imaginary I, as we in spiritual terms would call it the ego, not the true Self. The ego, in this theory, is the self reflected through the 'other', the other persons, who are not a homogeneity, but a multitude. As the big Other, it becomes society, law, which in psychoanalysis is represented by the father figure, which also represents language. The 'appeal to majority' fallacy is certainly dirived from the constant attempt to reflect and find oneself in the image of the other. In the psychology of Lacan there is no way to objectify the 'other'. It is an entirely imaginary unit of self-reflection. Apart from this, in yoga philosophy the Self is one unit, and entirely within, always a whole, and the removal of the ego-sense, the self that is reflected in the other, amounts to the final liberation. So, who is to decide what is the 'correct'view of oneself? The majority of the 'others'. As there is no uniformity of opinion, not even on Judy Stein, here on FFL, it i not even clear, as the majority of the lurkers may be different than the majority of active posters. Or the sense of some ethical values, social norms of this society, to which will be appealed, which are again dependend on the country and the prevailing culture and the times. It is difficult to see for people that the opinions they favour are to a great deal derived from the prevailing culture, and that these ideals and values greatly vary in other societies, let's say between India and the west. Anyway, whats the point of this in yoga, seeing youreslf as the others see you, especially if there are not THE others. But this is probably not what you wanted to say. Yes, you missed the intention pretty completely. The gist of what I was saying was from the Scottish poet Robert Burns: O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us. ...the point being is some people are unable to see themselves objectively, often because of being so invested in some thing, some mindset -- while this same mindset (whatever that may be) is painfully obvious to those around them (or those being forced to listen to them, over and over). So it's really about one's ability to be honest with oneself. Sadly, IMO, the more one lives alone, without a partner or the companionship of real friends (or lacking the ability of honest self-reflection), the less one sees oneself objectively--as others might see you. Sadly also, spiritual practice can actually hamper this objectivity. Taken to the extreme, it seems to even induce a style of infantile megalomania.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: COREXIT is Eating Through Boats in the Gulf
authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: authfriend wrote: snip It doesn't make the oil clump together, it *disperses* it so the oil-eating microbes in the ocean can get at it more easily. That process is what depletes the oxygen. I've heard the contrary You heard wrong. Why do you think it's called dispersant instead of clumpant? Jeez. No, I didn't hear wrong. *What* you heard was wrong. It's an idiom. Oh I see, up is down and down is up? It's mentioned in the G4 report you obviously didn't watch. G4 is a gamers cable network I believe owned by Comcast. Gamers are a cynical bunch so they had to be more careful in their reporting. BWAHAHAHA!! You're getting your information about dispersants from *gamers*?? No wonder you've got everything bassackwards. Which says you didn't watch the video. If that's an example, they need to be WAY WAY WAY more careful in their reporting. Yes it is also called a dispersant Dispersants are called dispersants because they *disperse* the oil. That's the whole point. Yeah, so? and I've also heard that the BP doesn't want microbes to eat the oil because they want to salvage it. That's so absurd I don't know where to start. If BP doesn't want microbes to eat the oil, it shouldn't let oil get in the water where they can eat it to start with. Once the oil's in the water, microbes will eat it whether or not dispersant has been applied. They'll just be able to eat it *faster* with the dispersant. Were you thinking that BP can salvage the oil if it gets clumped up? Because that's wrong too. It clumps up because it's gotten weathered, and then it's no longer usable as oil. Plus which, collecting even freshly spilled oil costs *way* more than they could get from selling what they collect. I think the argument (pardon the pun) holds water because they probably some other use for the oil. Reread my last paragraph above, please. *Whatever* you're imagining they might use it for, it would *still* cost way more to collect than it would be worth. And that's in addition to the other two points. So you're now in the oil business expert? Sort of like being a TM expert? Some of the commentators have mentioned this. And they have also mentioned that the dispersant interferes with the microbes. You need to find some different commentators who know what they're talking about. These guys haven't a clue, if you're reporting what they said accurately. And you've listened to them or are you reviewing their opinions without listening to them? Wind, wind, wind... ;-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] No offense to Card and his YFfers theories or anything...
TurquoiseB wrote: ...but: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyZaJKWC3Qg Spain rules. Bread and circuses
[FairfieldLife] New Machete Trailer
Gee, where's Lindsay? http://members.rottentomatoes.com/dor/objects/14343587/machete/videos/machete_trl_070810.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] New Machete Trailer
On Jul 11, 2010, at 7:36 PM, Bhairitu wrote: Gee, where's Lindsay? In jail. For 90 days, unless she beats the rap. Again. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: The MMY Paradox/Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay
Please do share what you find...with us and also with Paul. He's all about
getting accurate information.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, confmkeinst no_re...@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote:
Yes, that's it, that's what I remembered. The reason for the discrepancy is
simple. Paul is continually looking for new information on (mostly) Guru
Dev, and (less so) on MMY. What is in the book was written before he wrote
the more detailed account on his site.
But it doesn't mean it is accurate. It doesn't make sense at all. Actually I
will be going to India in a few days, to Madanapalle, and will be by passing
the house of Chandrashekar Ayer many times, so I will ask him this question.
As I already mentioned, his father Narayan Ayer was initiated by Maharishi
the first time he came there. He only mentioned the year 1958, when I asked
him 2 years back, but this was a revisit of MMY sort of passing by on the way
to Madras and initiating 50 people on one day. In Madras he was already using
a small plane (1958), which he would have normally missed, but which he
'miraculously' still catched (it was delayed).
It would be interesting to see of the postcard that Maharishi sent to his son
Chandrashekar from Rameshwara has a timestamp on it. I know that all
documents are about that time are kept in an Archive in Bangalore under the
supervision of the Indian movement. It is still possible that I could see it,
but I would have to go to Bangalore for it, I doubt I have the time for it
this time around.
But from the narration it is clear that he brought the lady ('aunty' can be
about any female person in India) to the hospital, stayed a few days and then
moved on. There was no indication that he stayed a year there. I seem to
remember that Paul has never been to this place, so maybe he just made a
wrong connection in this regard.
1955, later half seems to be a plausible date for Madanapalle. It was at that
time a place of only 10.000 people (today about 100.000), relatively cool for
India. I remember from lectures that Maharishi said that he stayed about 5
days in Kanya Kumari, visiting the temple there. I believe he wouldn't have
stayed much longer in Rameshwaram, let it be a week or so. Indians visit
pilgrimage places, but don't stay there. It is enough for them having seen
the image and then go. (It's actually quite funny) In Maharishis case,
attuning to the energy at the place may have played a role also, but the a
few days were enough.
Then Trivandrum is only 80 kms hours from Kanya Kumari, that could be 2 bus
hours at the time. The date for the yajna was given around 20 October 1955.
Maharishi may have been in Guruvayur, another famous temple near Trivandrum
before.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote:
Actually not really. I wish I could remember where I read
this but there is a lengthy discussion (was it here?)
written by someone who seemed to know MMYs every move
after Guru Dev died in '53. MMY was only really in that
little underground room in Uttar Kashi a matter of a
few months.
According to Paul Mason's bio, it was a year and a half.
I based the above on excerpts from a chapter in Paul's
bio found here:
http://www.srigurudev.net/maharishi/biography.html
Paul is quoted as writing:
After the year and a half or so spent in seclusion at
Gyan Mandir, Brahmachari Mahesh took to the road in
order to follow his inspiration to visit southern India.
But on his own Web site, it turns out, Paul says
something quite different:
Some believe that Brahmachari Mahesh spent years in
seclusion, but it is likely that he actually stayed in
Uttarkashi for no more than a matter of months before
leaving to accompany an ailing lady from Calcutta
(allegedly a wealthy widow by the name of Sita Saraf)
to a medical facility near Bangalore in southern India.
It is recorded that during his sojourn in Madanapalle,
sometime in June or July of 1954 he began teaching
local people to meditate.
http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/introduction.htm
(It's about halfway down the page.)
This may be what Joe is remembering. I don't know why
there are two different accounts from Paul, but if
what's on his Web site is correct, then both Joe and
Barry were right, MMY didn't spend much time in
seclusion--less than a year, at any rate.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: snip ...the point being is some people are unable to see themselves objectively, often because of being so invested in some thing, some mindset -- while this same mindset (whatever that may be) is painfully obvious to those around them (or those being forced to listen to them, over and over). What did I just tell you, mahavid, about his continuing to make the same mistake? So it's really about one's ability to be honest with oneself. Sadly, IMO, the more one lives alone, without a partner or the companionship of real friends (or lacking the ability of honest self-reflection) Note that Vaj is careful to offer a *choice* here. If it were to turn out that I do have a partner and the companionship of real friends (as is the case), he can always fall back on the claim that I lack the ability of honest self-reflection, since that's not subject to factual verification. giggle
Re: [FairfieldLife] Divindra and Sattyanand
On Jul 11, 2010, at 8:44 PM, Joe wrote: All this talk of being (or NOT being) a brahmachari these past few days, has me wondering what became of MMY's two most famous Indian Brahmachari's, Divindra and Sattyanand. I recall reading a sad story about Divindrathat he, after being abandon by MMY, ended up being a waiter in an Indian restaurant in London. Is this correct? And where did I read that story? Last I remember hearing, he was sent to a cave or to solitary retreat--feeling he would follow some imagined path that Guru Dev and Mahesh had followed--only to end up with little or no instruction on what to do and ending up on the edge of insanity because of it. I seem to remember hearing of him leaving and feeling resentment because of the lack of instruction and/or being so gullible as to believe Mahesh could or would provide the necessary instruction.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfr...@... wrote: All this talk of being (or NOT being) a brahmachari these past few days, has me wondering what became of MMY's two most famous Indian Brahmachari's, Divindra and Sattyanand. I recall reading a sad story about Divindrathat he, after being abandon by MMY, ended up being a waiter in an Indian restaurant in London. Is this correct? And where did I read that story? And how about Bramachary Sattyanand? Here's the same thread, started by you 4 years ago: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/111844
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Alex Stanley Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 8:00 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Joe geezerfr...@... wrote: All this talk of being (or NOT being) a brahmachari these past few days, has me wondering what became of MMY's two most famous Indian Brahmachari's, Divindra and Sattyanand. I recall reading a sad story about Divindrathat he, after being abandon by MMY, ended up being a waiter in an Indian restaurant in London. Is this correct? And where did I read that story? And how about Bramachary Sattyanand? Here's the same thread, started by you 4 years ago: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/111844 Here's my comment on Devendra from that thread: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/111891
[FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand
Wow...hey, you'll all get old and forgetful too one day! Thanks AlexI had this feeling that I had asked about this before. Unfortunately, the answers don't get any better. Sad. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: All this talk of being (or NOT being) a brahmachari these past few days, has me wondering what became of MMY's two most famous Indian Brahmachari's, Divindra and Sattyanand. I recall reading a sad story about Divindrathat he, after being abandon by MMY, ended up being a waiter in an Indian restaurant in London. Is this correct? And where did I read that story? And how about Bramachary Sattyanand? Here's the same thread, started by you 4 years ago: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/111844
[FairfieldLife] Re: Divine Weapons, part 1
Yep just like the picture --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rf...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge no_reply@ wrote: Swastika was a nice touch, only a tiny bit distracting and creepy You mean like the one in this picture to the left of Guru Dev? [Portrait of Guru Dev] Picture of Guru Dev: http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/sources/photos/puja.jpg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: Paula Gloria, a former TMer, comments on the Mahabharata. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVADjFUnrdofeature=related
[FairfieldLife] Re: Divine Weapons, part 1
Hitler had ruined this symbol --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rf...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Jul 11, 2010, at 1:55 PM, do.rflex wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: Traditionally, the swastika is a sign of good luck among the Hindus. Somehow, Hitler picked up on this sign for his Third Reich movement since he thought it came from the Aryans who invaded India. There's also a Tai Chi movement in China which uses the swastika for its insignia. Needless to say, this movement is not doing very well in the USA. The swastika is much more than a good luck sign to the religions of the East. Who gives a crap about any of that? Who? ...probably the likely billions of religious people who have lived over the ages who have considered it a sacred religious symbol long before the Nazis ever existed ...and those who still do consider it so within the original religious contexts. The fact that the Nazis in the last century dramatically distorted and twisted and horrifically shamed the accepted historic meanings of the swastika for a short time, doesn't erase or eliminate its centuries' long held significance and meaning to multiple cultures and religious traditions. It has since been co-opted by the Nazis (who knew what they were doing in terms of white superiority, etc) and has since become the most hated symbol in the world. Any attempt to paint rosier pictures is just plain creepy. End of story. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chicken or the egg problem re wrong action in enlightenment
emptybill: There has never been and there is not now any such thing as a spiritual enlightenment... In the Zen Buddhist tradition, anyone is capable of achieving enlightenment, even if they don't understand how to speak Pali, Sanskrit, or Tibetan. Enlightenment is a translation of the Pali and Sanskrit word bodhi, which means a state of freedom from suffering, desire and ignorance... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_(spiritual) This is not the theory proposed by the Buddha - his definition of enlightenment is spelled out in The Four Noble Truths. The first theory of enlightenment is based on the theory of Karma or Causation. In Buddha's Karma theory, actions not only produce reactions on the physical plane, but also on the mental plane as well - in other words, Buddha taught moral reciprocity based on volition.
[FairfieldLife] For UFO lobbyist, truth is out there
(BTW, so nobody worries about me, I'll be away for the next few days, back Friday.) (This has no connection to the story below.) For UFO lobbyist, truth is out there By: Erika Lovley July 6, 2010 04:35 AM EDT The airspace above the U.S. Capitol is a no-fly zone, but Wilbur Allen says he regularly sees unidentified flying objects overhead. At dusk, Allen often sits quietly at the base of the Reflecting Pool, his camera pointed toward the Capitol dome, waiting for something, anything, to travel through one of the most heavily secured skylines in the world. When it grows dark here, things can get bizarre, he says matter of factly, peering through the lens of his camera. Allen is among a small, persistent group of activists invested in exopolitics the study of the social- political implications of human contact with extraterrestrials. Like many exopoliticos, Allen believes that Congress should disclose to the American public that the government is aware of the existence of other life forms and that it needs to develop a game plan in case actual contact is made. Allen, who has a master's degree from Howard University and used to work as an engineer for a local news outlet, is practically part of the Capitol landscape, and his photos, taken over a period of years, do appear to show different lights, bulbs and flying objects hovering around the Capitol dome. There's never been a solid explanation of them, but Allen's images have so disturbed him that he regularly sends his latest photos to the U.S. Capitol Police. He doesn't get much of a reaction. Technically, the Capitol's airspace is not considered within police jurisdiction. Capitol Police do a great job, but they are not prepared to deal with extraterrestrial life forms, Allen says with a shrug. And most members of Congress are nonbelievers. They don't want to believe that something outside the box could happen. No comment, said a spokeswoman for the Capitol Police. As a general matter, things are looking up in the exopolitical world. In 2007, the French government announced it would release all of its UFO documentation. The chief astronomer for the Vatican recently said that the existence of extraterrestrial life was not outside the realm of plausibility. A recent Reuters poll showed that one in five people in 22 countries believe in extraterrestrials. Official Washington remains skeptical. Though the Internet is filled with stories about UFO sightings in Washington in 1952, Senate historian Donald Ritchie says he has no record of it. The only UFO I've seen at the Capitol was in the movie `Mars Attacks,' Ritchie says. Stephen Bassett continues to be the only registered lobbyist on the issue, attending congressional hearings, writing letters and attempting to land meetings with members. Bassett's Paradigm Research Group is dedicated to pushing the government toward disclosure and includes a fundraising arm Extraterrestrial Phenomena PAC. Earlier this month, Bassett hosted X-Conference 2010 at the National Press Club, during which he and other experts called for disclosure. While every member of Congress and representatives from the White House were invited, the 130-person crowd contained mostly scientists and believers. For most lawmakers, UFOs are an intergalactic third rail a concept they can't touch for fear of looking like overgrown Trekkies. I have met with members of Congress, but the overall situation is always the same. They will not publicly address the issue, says Bassett. People on the Hill are largely taken up with raising money and getting reelected. They aren't going to say something that will hurt them.They'll get clobbered pretty badly. The problem is, I don't know if [extraterrestrials] are registered in my district, says Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas), an avid supporter of space exploration. Members typically tend to deal with problems we already have. Maybe someday we'll deal with this, but we'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it. Bassett's lobbying records show little to no activity; for the past several years, he's spent less than $5,000, lobbying the House, the Senate and the executive branch. This year, he says, the X-Conference lost $35,000, which Bassett now needs to make up. Michael Salla, executive director of the Exopolitics Institute, says he and others in the field have tried to reach out to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta, National Security Adviser Jim Jones and members of Congress. Podesta, who heads the Center for American Progress and orchestrated the Obama administration's transition, has in the past called for the government to be more transparent about its records. It's a politically dangerous topic for politicians, said Darrell West, director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution. They have to be careful they don't get labeled
[FairfieldLife] Prof.TurquoiseA+B:SPAIN REIGNING PLAIN
On behalf of the FFL servants of the poor Professor TurquoiseA+B! Music by Frederick Loewe (apologize) Poor Professor TurquoiseA+B! Night and day He slaves away! Oh, poor Professor TurquoiseA+B! All day long On his feet; Up and down until he's numb; Doesn't rest; Doesn't eat; Doesn't touch a crumb! Poor Professor TurquoiseA+B! Poor Professor TurquoiseA+B! On he plods Against all odds; Oh, poor Professor TurquoiseA+B! Nine p.m. Ten p.m. On through midnight ev'ry night. One a.m. Two a.m. Three...! Quit, Professor TurquoiseA+B! Quit, Professor TurquoiseA+B! Hear our plea Or payday we Will quit, Professor TurquoiseA+B! Ay not I, O not Ow, Pounding pounding in our reign. Ay not I, O not Ow, Don't say brain, say Reign... He'll reign in Spain and plans to stay mainly in his reigning plain! Judy by St.George, he's got it! By St. George, he's got it! Now, once again where does he reign? TurquoiseA+B in Spain! On his reigning plain! Judy And where he'll soggy reign? TurquoiseA+B In Spain! In Spain! Let's sing together: He'll reign in Spain and plans to stay mainly in his reigning plain He'll reign in Spain and plans to stay mainly in his reigning plain !Judy In Hartford, Hereford, and Hampshire., Fairfield..? TurquoiseA+B Hurricanes hardly happen. How kind of you to let me come! Oh TurquoiseA+B Now once again, where does he reign in Spain? TurquoiseA+B on his reigning plain! The beach is his reigning plain! Judy And where's that blasted reigning plain? TurquoiseA+B In Spain! In Spain! Let's sing together: He'll reign in Spain and plans to stay mainly in his reigning plain! He'll reign in Spain and plans to stay mainly in his reigning plain! My Fair Lady, sung by the professor's employees http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkUvp1hC_J0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkUvp1hC_J0 YouDid It (My Fair Lady - 1964) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RT3cx1b9ZMfeature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RT3cx1b9ZMfeature=related TurquoiseB ! hope You're still weinselig(vinous) salute
[FairfieldLife] Re: Divine Weapons, part 1
Paula Gloria or her real last name Tsconas has no business displaying such types of religious symbols that holds immense power and when abused you can see what happened, unleashed destructive forces. She has no idea what she is doing. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rf...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Jul 11, 2010, at 1:55 PM, do.rflex wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: Traditionally, the swastika is a sign of good luck among the Hindus. Somehow, Hitler picked up on this sign for his Third Reich movement since he thought it came from the Aryans who invaded India. There's also a Tai Chi movement in China which uses the swastika for its insignia. Needless to say, this movement is not doing very well in the USA. The swastika is much more than a good luck sign to the religions of the East. Who gives a crap about any of that? Who? ...probably the likely billions of religious people who have lived over the ages who have considered it a sacred religious symbol long before the Nazis ever existed ...and those who still do consider it so within the original religious contexts. The fact that the Nazis in the last century dramatically distorted and twisted and horrifically shamed the accepted historic meanings of the swastika for a short time, doesn't erase or eliminate its centuries' long held significance and meaning to multiple cultures and religious traditions. It has since been co-opted by the Nazis (who knew what they were doing in terms of white superiority, etc) and has since become the most hated symbol in the world. Any attempt to paint rosier pictures is just plain creepy. End of story. Sal
[FairfieldLife] So calm, so cool, no lover's fool, Running every show.
Besides the poor Prof. Higgins song (Spains WM title+TurquoiseB)another tune stays with me during my breakfast: He the one who's always been So calm, so cool, no lover's fool, Running every show. I don't know how to love him. What to do, how to move him. I've been changed, yes really changed. In these past few years, when I've seen myself, I seem like someone else. I don't know how to take this. I don't see why He moves me. IS He a man? Is He just a man? Should I bring us down? Should I scream and shout? Should I speak of love, Let my feelings out? I never thought I'd come to this. What's it all about? Don't you think it's rather funny, We should be in this position. He the one who's always been So calm, so cool, no lover's fool, Running every show. He scares me so. I never thought I'd come to this. What's it all about? Yet, if he said he loved me, I'd be lost. I'd be frightened. I couldn't cope, just couldn't cope. I'd turn my head. I'd back away. I wouldn't want to know. He scares me so. I want him so. I love him so. ..but rather not so funny ... makes me sad for the lost and frightened and scared one...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand
When I was visiting Rishikesh a few years ago, I was told that Sattyanand had moved from Rishikesh to Noida and was staying there. It appeared that he was not doing much in Noida, but was looked upon as one of the movemements' elders. He died a few years ago. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfr...@... wrote: Wow...hey, you'll all get old and forgetful too one day! Thanks AlexI had this feeling that I had asked about this before. Unfortunately, the answers don't get any better. Sad. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: All this talk of being (or NOT being) a brahmachari these past few days, has me wondering what became of MMY's two most famous Indian Brahmachari's, Divindra and Sattyanand. I recall reading a sad story about Divindrathat he, after being abandon by MMY, ended up being a waiter in an Indian restaurant in London. Is this correct? And where did I read that story? And how about Bramachary Sattyanand? Here's the same thread, started by you 4 years ago: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/111844
