[FairfieldLife] Re: Bhoja-vRtti translation?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_re...@... wrote: but Fairfield Life group owner or server did not want to accept my gift [:(] http://www.vedicbooks.net/advanced_search_result.php?search_in_descript\ ion=1inc_subcat=1keywords=Govind%20Sastri so give me a hint how I can sent it to you c a r d e m a i s t e r (a t) y a h o o . c o m TIA! schoenen Tag noch:Diese Art der Auseinandersetzung ist eine Gratwan- derung zwischen Uebung (abhyaasa) und Gleichmut (vairaagya).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bhoja-vRtti translation?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_re...@... wrote: Has anybody got a translation of Bhoja-vRtti (English, German, Swedish, Russian)? Just noticed that Bhoja's comment for instance on 'saMprajñaata-samaadhi' (YS I 17) is *way more* detailed (16 rows in DN) than that of Vyaasa's (3 rows). right While largely concurring with the interpretations of the Tattva-Vaisharadi, Bhoja occasionally offers original exegetical observations. Patanjali's Yoga Aphorisms, or Yoga Sutras, are rather like algebraic formulas. They are hardly comprehensible without a commentary. The commentary of Bhoja Raja is the clearest and simplest one known, and thus was chosen by the first translators of the Yoga Sutras. The better known commentary by Vyasa, and its sub-commentaries, are more complex and difficult. Here is the first, and still the only complete translation of Bhoja Raja's commentary. Although not an easy text, it provides what is perhaps the most comprehensible description of the ancient science of meditation found in the Yoga Aphorisms of Patanjali. [file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/ADMINI%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-12.png] see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/photos/album/51392758/pic/li\ st or buy at http://www.vedicbooks.net/yogasutras-of-patanjali-with-bhojavrtti-called\ -rajamartanda-p-14242.html http://tinyurl.com/2czpcgy http://www.amazon.co.jp/Yoga-Aphorisms-Patanjali-Commentary-Bhoja/dp/089\ 5819880/ref=sr_1_3?s=english-booksie=UTF8qid=1283434868sr=1-3 http://tinyurl.com/2e9h8aq BTW Bhoja-Vritti also called RAJA-MARTANDA (Royal Sun); a commentary by King Bhoja on the Yoga-Bhashya. Tried to send you : Yoga Sutra with the Commentary of Bhoja Raja (translated by Rajendralala Mitra)and http://www.vedicbooks.net/advanced_search_result.php?search_in_descript\ ion=1inc_subcat=1keywords=Govind%20Sastri Yoga-Sutras of Patanjali with Bhojavrtti called Rajamartanda by Ballantyne http://www.vedicbooks.net/advanced_search_result.php?search_in_descript\ ion=1inc_subcat=1keywords=Ballantyne and J.R. Deva http://www.vedicbooks.net/advanced_search_result.php?search_in_descript\ ion=1inc_subcat=1keywords=J.R.%20%20Deva and Govind Sastri http://www.vedicbooks.net/advanced_search_result.php?search_in_descript\ ion=1inc_subcat=1keywords=Govind%20Sastri http://www.vedicbooks.net/advanced_search_result.php?search_in_descript\ ion=1inc_subcat=1keywords=Govind%20Sastri but Fairfield Life group owner or server did not want to accept my gift [:(] http://www.vedicbooks.net/advanced_search_result.php?search_in_descript\ ion=1inc_subcat=1keywords=Govind%20Sastri so give me a hint how I can sent it to you schoenen Tag noch:Diese Art der Auseinandersetzung ist eine Gratwan- derung zwischen Uebung (abhyaasa) und Gleichmut (vairaagya).
[FairfieldLife] Light therapy with gems
http://www.gemlight.dk/eng/page4/page4.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Palin's Temper
Ahem. I'm not convinced that a self-professed Zionist and Tea Party fan should be throwing around derogatory terms for intellectual Other than as contrast to his own views and limited ability to think, that is. Only in America (and in China during Mao's great purge) is the term intellectual used to define the enemy the way a hunting dog points at his prey. Some people -- intellectuals -- feel that they should develop their own ideas, after investi- gating all sides of the story. Others, such as Zionists, Tea Partiers and cultists, are content believing what they've been told to believe. IMO the latter hate the former not because of their beliefs, but because they displayed the ability to arrive at those beliefs on their own. How does it feel being reduced to a label, eh? :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge no_re...@... wrote: I'm not sure if America will line up to re-elect the current supremo who truely is the very definition of an intellectual In short: an intellectual is a self-inflated, self-congratulatory, lover of self; a person so in thrall to beautiful theories that he is incapable of correction and impervious to evidence. Superman had kryptonite, but an intellectual's shield of self-assurance cannot be breached by any known substance, especially fact -Thomas Sowell Talk about self-referral
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: God did not create the Universe
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_...@... wrote: For a scientist, Hawking makes a lot of stupid comments. He's either trying to sell his new book or is already senile. He's making science the new religion of the masses. His statements are full of of faith in theories that are not even proven. It's about time he stepped down as head of the science department of his university. JohnR wants Hawking to resign because he states (accurately) that no God is necessary when post- ulating the creation of the universe. One assumes JohnR would like all Buddhists in the world to resign from their positions as well, because they've been pointing out this obvious fact for centuries. Isn't it fascinating how quickly God freaks turn into Inquisitors when someone questions the exis- tence of their imaginary friend? :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifuxero@ wrote: The Intelligent Design key point - fine tuning - seems to be even less compelling as an argument, says Hawking. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_life/us_britain_hawking
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bhoja-vRtti translation?Book Banning ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@ wrote: but Fairfield Life group owner or server did not want to accept my gift [:(] http://www.vedicbooks.net/advanced_search_result.php?search_in_descript\ \ ion=1inc_subcat=1keywords=Govind%20Sastri so give me a hint how I can sent it to you c a r d e m a i s t e r (a t) y a h o o . c o m TIA! schoenen Tag noch:Diese Art der Auseinandersetzung ist eine Gratwan- derung zwischen Uebung (abhyaasa) und Gleichmut (vairaagya). GOT BOTH? enjoy it whole hearted (may I add , please do consider the kind of (huhh) theosophical backround- IMHO something MMY was trying to get rid of -all(at least in the last35+of) his life--prob. in vain; but this may be open to discussion, of course ) seems that Archer Rick and/or Alex Stanley do not like it to have it on this FFL forum - this fairy field live forever [:)] or may be- do not want it to have it in FFL library ...donated by me merudanda afraid of the man with the stick?? nay!? BTW:Missä miljoonaa?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bhoja-vRtti translation?Book Banning ?
Ah. The unmistakable behavior of the species Cultus Fanaticus. Wave a book and claim that the people are afraid of it, and him. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_re...@... wrote: ...seems that Archer Rick and/or Alex Stanley do not like it to have it on this FFL forum - this fairy field live forever [:)] or may be- do not want it to have it in FFL library ...donated by me merudanda afraid of the man with the stick?? nay!? BTW:Missä miljoonaa?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Djwahl Khul
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifux...@... wrote: http://www.crystalinks.com/djwhalkhul.html Nice, thanks for posting this !
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bhoja-vRtti translation?Book Banning ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: Ah. The unmistakable behavior of the species Cultus Fanaticus. hahaha thanks for the flowers (haven't got any more since MMY passing) Cultus eius fanaticus tempore belli? nay-- me maybe more a Crocus banaticus [:D] species Wave a book and claim that the people are afraid of it, yeah right you got it just read about a self-published book http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/255953 and him. :-) noo no here you got its wrong look at the pic of the book the book has all heaven reason to be afraid of me!! but good to know there are someone somewhere in a alert state of uhh forgot the cultus fanaticae [#-o] noun ...mind? ahh it's not the fairy field it's the weather in Spain in his reigning plain at least with some grain --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@ wrote: ...seems that Archer Rick and/or Alex Stanley do not like it to have it on this FFL forum - this fairy field live forever [:)] or may be- do not want it to have it in FFL library ...donated by me merudanda afraid of the man with the stick?? nay!? BTW:Missä miljoonaa?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: God did not create the Universe
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptyb...@... wrote: Very few scientists have any training in Western philosophy, much less Eastern. The same goes for training (or even basic classes) in the philosophy of science. Most of them look even more foolish when they open their mouths and demonstrate how totally ignorant they are about theology. They show a lot of arrogance and do so without any sense of self-reflection You make a good point IMO! Hawking says this apparently: Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist, Hawking writes. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going. There seems to be a lack of curiousity about what kind of thing a *law* might be. If so, that's very negligent from a philosophical point of view! In this physicist's tale, the *law* appears to *be* some kind of *thing* whose existence is in some sense *prior* to that of the universe. What a puzzle of ontology! This kind of thinking about laws seems to me to be just another turtle-style explanation for the existence of everything-as-we-know-it (ironic really, as Hawking refers to this in his Brief History of Time). Just replace turtles by laws: William James, father of American psychology, tells of meeting an old lady who told him the Earth rested on the back of a huge turtle. But, my dear lady, Professor James asked, as politely as possible, what holds up the turtle? Ah, she said, that's easy. He is standing on the back of another turtle. Oh, I see, said Professor James, still being polite. But would you be so good as to tell me what holds up the second turtle? It's no use, Professor, said the old lady, realizing he was trying to lead her into a logical trap. It's turtles-turtles-turtles, all the way! Then again, as well as the ontological headache, philosophy geeks will feel the need to scratch that darn epistemological itch triggered by talk of *laws*. A *law* implies some kind of non-trivial *necessity*. How could we ever *know* neccesity except in the trivial sense - when something is true by virtue of the meaning of words (all bachelors are unmarried men is necessarily true, but does not tell us anything about *reality*. only about the meaning of some words in English). I guess Hawking would say that his *law (laws?) are mathematical *things*, and the necessity of the fundamental laws of physics is the reflected glory of the necessity that the laws of mathematics appear to possess (is this so far from Plato?). But rather like 'turtles upon turtles', all this achieves is to shove the mystery of that peculiar thing necessity one level on i.e. from physics to mathematics. 'Cos when it comes down to it, our *knowledge* of mathematics is a very odd, puzzling thing indeed! (IMO of course, and only if you have an inclination to be bothered by such things. Probably better to just chop wood and carry water?).
[FairfieldLife] Negative Space
No, it's not the latest Hagelin theory. Negative space is what graphic designers sometimes use to create images with more than one meaning. I've been a fan of this tech- nique for years, and this page shows a bunch of very creative logos done using this technique. It even explains them, for those who tend to look at things and see one and only one way of seeing them. :-) http://www.logoblog.org/hidden-message-logos-2010/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Library and The Book
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, krysto kry...@... wrote: One thing to add: Rebecca seemed genuinely puzzled by what would motivate people to claim publicly that she is a banner of books, people who do not know her and do not know anything about the situation. I have seen much worse on this forum than the treatment of Rebecca. I could give her no good answer, other than this is something a certain group of people on FFLife just seem to enjoy. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, krysto krysto@ wrote: Let me close by saying that some of the denizens of Fairfield Life once again showed their nastiness and their terribly small-mindedness in the rush to judgment about Rebecca. A striking lack of willingness to find out what is really going on, preferring instead to apply snap judgments and to wail and posture and go on the attack. This is sad, and I think rather destructive of some of the values I personally wish we could be fostering. an old man tells: There are two wolves fighting in all of us, one stands for love hope care and happiness, the other stands for envy fear regret and lies. -Which one will win? the children ask -The one you feed Thom, it did get figured out evidently. Which is a worth of Rick Archer's FFL. Thanks for your part in it here too. Does takes a village, etc. Whose wolf you protecting here?
[FairfieldLife] Re: King Tony Cometh
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: King Tony, along with his wife and kids, is coming to Fairfield. The Mansion, which was purchased for $1 million years ago for him to live in (he lived there a few days) is being renovated. Bevan, Neil Paterson, and other bigwigs are also coming to stay there. How long they'll stay I don't know. Proly long enough to put a thumb-hold on Hagelin and Lynch. Hagelin was getting a little too progressive.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: God did not create the Universe
I'm not sure what exactly Hawking's position is on the creation of the universe, but I should point out that there are some physicists who don't believe that there ever was one. They are joined in this view by Buddhists, who believe that the universe has always been, is now, and will always be. In other words, there is no technical or scientific need to anthropomorphize the universe and assume that it either began at some point or will end at some point. Many humans -- including most religious people attached to their traditions' creation myths -- can't conceive of this. I find it no problem to conceive of an eternal universe. And once you do, the issue of What existed before Creation just fuckin' goes away, and along with it the need to postulate a God. Creation is IMO always being created, eternally, in many dimensions, some of them concurrent. I see no *need* to postulate a God, and a problem in doing so: Occam's Razor. Needing a God to explain things complicates something that has no need to be com- plicated, and thus is less likely than the simple explanation, that all of this is happening eternally in every moment, and that no imaginary friend ever had anything whatsoever to do with it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@ wrote: Very few scientists have any training in Western philosophy, much less Eastern. The same goes for training (or even basic classes) in the philosophy of science. Most of them look even more foolish when they open their mouths and demonstrate how totally ignorant they are about theology. They show a lot of arrogance and do so without any sense of self-reflection You make a good point IMO! Hawking says this apparently: Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist, Hawking writes. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going. There seems to be a lack of curiousity about what kind of thing a *law* might be. If so, that's very negligent from a philosophical point of view! In this physicist's tale, the *law* appears to *be* some kind of *thing* whose existence is in some sense *prior* to that of the universe. What a puzzle of ontology! This kind of thinking about laws seems to me to be just another turtle-style explanation for the existence of everything-as-we-know-it (ironic really, as Hawking refers to this in his Brief History of Time). Just replace turtles by laws: William James, father of American psychology, tells of meeting an old lady who told him the Earth rested on the back of a huge turtle. But, my dear lady, Professor James asked, as politely as possible, what holds up the turtle? Ah, she said, that's easy. He is standing on the back of another turtle. Oh, I see, said Professor James, still being polite. But would you be so good as to tell me what holds up the second turtle? It's no use, Professor, said the old lady, realizing he was trying to lead her into a logical trap. It's turtles-turtles-turtles, all the way! Then again, as well as the ontological headache, philosophy geeks will feel the need to scratch that darn epistemological itch triggered by talk of *laws*. A *law* implies some kind of non-trivial *necessity*. How could we ever *know* neccesity except in the trivial sense - when something is true by virtue of the meaning of words (all bachelors are unmarried men is necessarily true, but does not tell us anything about *reality*. only about the meaning of some words in English). I guess Hawking would say that his *law (laws?) are mathematical *things*, and the necessity of the fundamental laws of physics is the reflected glory of the necessity that the laws of mathematics appear to possess (is this so far from Plato?). But rather like 'turtles upon turtles', all this achieves is to shove the mystery of that peculiar thing necessity one level on i.e. from physics to mathematics. 'Cos when it comes down to it, our *knowledge* of mathematics is a very odd, puzzling thing indeed! (IMO of course, and only if you have an inclination to be bothered by such things. Probably better to just chop wood and carry water?).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: God did not create the Universe
Still riffing on this, I think that many people's issue with an eternal universe is not that it postulates No God (although that pushes a LOT of buttons because It just isn't *done* to question God's existence), but because it implies No Purpose. I think that a lot of folks are drawn to the God Meme because they'd like to believe that life has a Purpose. And therefore *their* lives have a Purpose, as a subset of God's Purpose. Am I weird because I don't feel the need to believe that there is any Purpose behind it all? Even the vague one of Lila (play) or the hopeful one of Expansion of Self Awareness? If so, I'm weird. (This will come as no shock to many.) I'm not saying definitively that there is no purpose to Life, the Universe, and Everything (other than trying to figure out the question that Douglas Adams answered with 42). I'm just saying that if there is such a purpose, I for one have never seen documentation of it or proof of it, and that I need neither. I'd be as happy with No Purpose But The One You Make Up For Yourself. Your mileage may vary. I'm not trying to sell my view or convince anyone of it, merely to state it. Those who claim that I *am* trying to sell them something, or that there IS documentation of God's existence and His/ Her/Its hand in creating Creation in books they consider holy can go suck hiranyagarbha (the cosmic egg). :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: I'm not sure what exactly Hawking's position is on the creation of the universe, but I should point out that there are some physicists who don't believe that there ever was one. They are joined in this view by Buddhists, who believe that the universe has always been, is now, and will always be. In other words, there is no technical or scientific need to anthropomorphize the universe and assume that it either began at some point or will end at some point. Many humans -- including most religious people attached to their traditions' creation myths -- can't conceive of this. I find it no problem to conceive of an eternal universe. And once you do, the issue of What existed before Creation just fuckin' goes away, and along with it the need to postulate a God. Creation is IMO always being created, eternally, in many dimensions, some of them concurrent. I see no *need* to postulate a God, and a problem in doing so: Occam's Razor. Needing a God to explain things complicates something that has no need to be com- plicated, and thus is less likely than the simple explanation, that all of this is happening eternally in every moment, and that no imaginary friend ever had anything whatsoever to do with it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@ wrote: Very few scientists have any training in Western philosophy, much less Eastern. The same goes for training (or even basic classes) in the philosophy of science. Most of them look even more foolish when they open their mouths and demonstrate how totally ignorant they are about theology. They show a lot of arrogance and do so without any sense of self-reflection You make a good point IMO! Hawking says this apparently: Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist, Hawking writes. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going. There seems to be a lack of curiousity about what kind of thing a *law* might be. If so, that's very negligent from a philosophical point of view! In this physicist's tale, the *law* appears to *be* some kind of *thing* whose existence is in some sense *prior* to that of the universe. What a puzzle of ontology! This kind of thinking about laws seems to me to be just another turtle-style explanation for the existence of everything-as-we-know-it (ironic really, as Hawking refers to this in his Brief History of Time). Just replace turtles by laws: William James, father of American psychology, tells of meeting an old lady who told him the Earth rested on the back of a huge turtle. But, my dear lady, Professor James asked, as politely as possible, what holds up the turtle? Ah, she said, that's easy. He is standing on the back of another turtle. Oh, I see, said Professor James, still being polite. But would you be so good as to tell me what holds up the second turtle? It's no use, Professor, said the old lady, realizing he was trying to lead her into a logical trap. It's turtles-turtles-turtles, all the way! Then again, as well as the ontological headache, philosophy geeks will feel the need to scratch that darn epistemological itch triggered by talk of
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bhoja-vRtti translation?Book Banning ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_re...@... wrote: seems that Archer Rick and/or Alex Stanley do not like it to have it on this FFL forum - this fairy field live forever [:)] or may be- do not want it to have it in FFL library ...donated by me merudanda afraid of the man with the stick?? nay!? I'm assuming you're referring to that batch of photos you uploaded to the Photos area. Here's the deal: FFL is set up so that uploads to the photo section have to be approved. Usually, I receive an email telling me of photos waiting for approval. I have received no such notice in recent days or weeks. Yesterday, I happened to go to the FFL website, and I saw that there were photos waiting for approval, and I approved the entire batch after seeing what they are. They're in the Photos section: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/photos In a folder named The Yoga Aphorisms of Patanjali with the http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/photos/album/51392758/pic/list Keep in mind that the Photos section is a members only area, so those links will only work with a browser that is logged into Yahoo with an ID that is subscribed to FFL.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Library and The Book
So denizen is name-calling? It may be an old-fashioned word, but I hardly think it is a slur. As for the other attributes I used, I should have made it clearer that it is only a rather small number of posters here that, in my opinion, exhibit those qualities rather frequently and sometimes rather intensely. Of course, a small number of posters also totally dominate FFLife, at least in terms of the post counts, and so the overall tone of the place can be drastically skewed by the few. The values I referred to do not preclude stating my direct reaction to posts that I read myself. I was objecting to presumptive mud-slinging involving a person and policies about which certain posters had no direct knowledge. I have seen before on this forum people get to work grinding up a person's public reputation with very little in the way of firm grounds. And no apparent interest in the full story. Convict first, then assess facts if they happen to appear later. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: Who is we? And what values do you think *you're* fostering when you name-call and refer to people you disagree with as denizens and their very valid concerns as wailing and posturing? Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Library and The Book
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, krysto kry...@... wrote in an earlier post: Let me close by saying that some of the denizens of Fairfield Life once again showed their nastiness and their terribly small- mindedness in the rush to judgment about Rebecca. A striking lack of willingness to find out what is really going on, preferring instead to apply snap judgments and to wail and posture and go on the attack. This is sad, and I think rather destructive of some of the values I personally wish we could be fostering. And in this post followed up with: The values I referred to do not preclude stating my direct reaction to posts that I read myself. I was objecting to presumptive mud-slinging involving a person and policies about which certain posters had no direct knowledge. I have seen before on this forum people get to work grinding up a person's public reputation with very little in the way of firm grounds. And no apparent interest in the full story. Convict first, then assess facts if they happen to appear later. Ahem. See Alex's restrained and informative reply to merudanda in the following post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/255992 I assume you are going to rip merudanda a new one and suggest that he showed small-mindedness in his rush to judgment by implying that the moderators of FFL were censoring him. I assume you are going to similarly take him to task for doing this based on policies about which he obviously had no knowledge and while showing no apparent interest in the full story. Right? No, I thought not. merudanda is one of the FFL Good Guys. :-) My point is that a LOT of people here wear their I-know-who-the-Good-Guys-and-who-the-Bad-Guys-are- and-what-they-intended-when-they-did-or-said-this- colored glasses when reading FFL, not just those who have a less than favorable view of Maharishi or TM or the TMO. In this particular tempest in a pisspot, I laid low. In fact, I was one of the voices advising against a rush to judgment. So was I one of these nasty, small-minded denizens of FFL in this case, or was I one of the Good Guys (the ones you approve of)? Curious minds want to know. :-) I'm just messing with you, krysto. And wondering who you are because you seem to have a history of dropping in once a year or so to bitch about the vibe of FFL, then dropping out again. It's like a drive-by hooting. :-) I'm also wondering whether you actually *see* the place when you drop in or, like the denizens you rail against above, see instead what you expect to see. For example, in one of your drive-bys from 2008, you wrote to Rick: You focus on the Barry/Judy battles, and I agree that if one or both would just drop 100% of their personal fighting, cold turkey, permanently, it would be better for all the rest of us who read FFL. Did you notice during this latest drive-by that this had happened, at least from one side? Back on August 11th Barry said I rest my case about Judy, and rested it. I have not read or replied to her posts since, and intend to never do so again. Does that finally make me one of the FFL Good Guys? Again, curious minds want to know. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: God did not create the Universe
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: Still riffing on this, I think that many people's issue with an eternal universe is not that it postulates No God (although that pushes a LOT of buttons because It just isn't *done* to question God's existence), but because it implies No Purpose. Yes, that, I'm sure. But what about Justice? Thinking out loud here, but... Just as you could scarcely claim a difference between an English football fan and a drunk, it seems there might similarly be little difference between, say, a Buddhist and an atheist. But I wonder if the difference is this: Is there (ultimately) *Justice* in the world? For an atheist the answer I think has to be no. Any justice is justice we create. And against the backdrop of an uncaring, unfeeling universe, you might well wonder what's the point? Person 'A' comes into Being out of nothing, acts like a selfish, sadistic, exploitative bastard all his/her life, then snuffs it. Person 'B' comes into Being out of nothing, does his/her best but gets thoroughly screwed by the likes of 'A'. And yet saint-like, always turns the other cheek, and never turns cynical or bitter. Or whatever (you get my idea). An atheist's universe couldn't care less presumably. But I think religious folks have faith that in the end it will turn out right somehow. Plenty of religionistas think in terms of Hell and Heaven as justice of course. But others might prefer to believe that 'A' types just need the opportunity to learn the error of their ways (more lifetimes perhaps?) to overcome their ignorance (which is their real sin). Just thinking then - what is the *real* difference between being religious or atheist? The issue of a created or non-created universe is probably not the main point. Darwin versus Creationism is also a red herring I'd say. I think Dawkins (and maybe Hawking) want hegemony. So they *reduce* religion to something that has the appearance of a bad physical theory, and then abrogate that to their patch. It's empire building.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: God did not create the Universe
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/popular.html If you have never read it, then Max Tegmark's Parallel Universes is a mind blower. He's an astrophysical cosmologist at MIT who points out that cosmological theorizing still breaks down into Platonic and Aristotelian modes of thinking, which he then demonstrates with examples. One example of mind blowing is his demonstration of how to calculate the total number of atoms in our universe. Another is his demo of exactly how far away a complete copy of our entire universe would exist if the cosmos was limitless in its physical expanse. That means exact copies of you, me and Turq discussing this very point. His multiverse discussion of levels of enfoldment and complexity, of causality and correspondence will intellectually dissolve a lot of basic assumptions that we take for granted. http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/popular.html http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/popular.html --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@ wrote: Very few scientists have any training in Western philosophy, much less Eastern. The same goes for training (or even basic classes) in the philosophy of science. Most of them look even more foolish when they open their mouths and demonstrate how totally ignorant they are about theology. They show a lot of arrogance and do so without any sense of self-reflection You make a good point IMO! Hawking says this apparently: Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist, Hawking writes. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going. There seems to be a lack of curiousity about what kind of thing a *law* might be. If so, that's very negligent from a philosophical point of view! In this physicist's tale, the *law* appears to *be* some kind of *thing* whose existence is in some sense *prior* to that of the universe. What a puzzle of ontology! This kind of thinking about laws seems to me to be just another turtle-style explanation for the existence of everything-as-we-know-it (ironic really, as Hawking refers to this in his Brief History of Time). Just replace turtles by laws: William James, father of American psychology, tells of meeting an old lady who told him the Earth rested on the back of a huge turtle. But, my dear lady, Professor James asked, as politely as possible, what holds up the turtle? Ah, she said, that's easy. He is standing on the back of another turtle. Oh, I see, said Professor James, still being polite. But would you be so good as to tell me what holds up the second turtle? It's no use, Professor, said the old lady, realizing he was trying to lead her into a logical trap. It's turtles-turtles-turtles, all the way! Then again, as well as the ontological headache, philosophy geeks will feel the need to scratch that darn epistemological itch triggered by talk of *laws*. A *law* implies some kind of non-trivial *necessity*. How could we ever *know* neccesity except in the trivial sense - when something is true by virtue of the meaning of words (all bachelors are unmarried men is necessarily true, but does not tell us anything about *reality*. only about the meaning of some words in English). I guess Hawking would say that his *law (laws?) are mathematical *things*, and the necessity of the fundamental laws of physics is the reflected glory of the necessity that the laws of mathematics appear to possess (is this so far from Plato?). But rather like 'turtles upon turtles', all this achieves is to shove the mystery of that peculiar thing necessity one level on i.e. from physics to mathematics. 'Cos when it comes down to it, our *knowledge* of mathematics is a very odd, puzzling thing indeed! (IMO of course, and only if you have an inclination to be bothered by such things. Probably better to just chop wood and carry water?).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: God did not create the Universe
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Still riffing on this, I think that many people's issue with an eternal universe is not that it postulates No God (although that pushes a LOT of buttons because It just isn't *done* to question God's existence), but because it implies No Purpose. Yes, that, I'm sure. But what about Justice? Thinking out loud here, but... Just as you could scarcely claim a difference between an English football fan and a drunk... LOL. ...it seems there might similarly be little difference between, say, a Buddhist and an atheist. Actually, in terms of ethics there is sometimes little difference. Many of the atheists I've met who label themselves *as* atheists have a remarkably similar definition of ethics to many of the Buddhists I've met. That is, that ethics come from within. A belief or non-belief in God does not change that. In both cases the people choose to live ethically for the simple reason that it matters to *them*, not to some supposedly all-seeing Daddy or some omni- present and equally watchful set of Laws Of Nature. It's the same notion as Doing A Good Job Is More Fun Than Doing A Shitty Job. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bhoja-vRtti translation?Book Banning ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@ wrote: but Fairfield Life group owner or server did not want to accept my gift [:(] http://www.vedicbooks.net/advanced_search_result.php?search_in_descript\ \ ion=1inc_subcat=1keywords=Govind%20Sastri so give me a hint how I can sent it to you c a r d e m a i s t e r (a t) y a h o o . c o m TIA! schoenen Tag noch:Diese Art der Auseinandersetzung ist eine Gratwan- derung zwischen Uebung (abhyaasa) und Gleichmut (vairaagya). GOT BOTH? Yes, thank you! Bhoja's comments on I 17 and 18 seems to differ quite a lot of that of Taimni's. I wonder from where Taimni got the idea that between each stage of saMprajñaata samaadhi (vitarka, vicaara, and so on), in the gap(?), so to speak, is an asaMprajñaata stage. kind of (huhh) theosophical backround- IMHO something MMY was trying to get rid of -all(at least in the last35+of) his life--prob. in vain; but this may be open to discussion, of course ) seems that Archer Rick and/or Alex Stanley do not like it to have it on this FFL forum - this fairy field live forever [:)] or may be- do not want it to have it in FFL library ...donated by me merudanda afraid of the man with the stick?? nay!? BTW:Miss� miljoonaa? Entschuldigung! Kann nix das verstehen... : ) I mean, what are you referring to?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Palin's Temper
I always enjoy your analysis, you write well, at least from my limited perspective, I thought your Occultist trailer Trash Palin label was inspired, you would have made CW Leadbetter proud, in fact all the lodges would cheer you on. After I read your gem, I happen to notice that the unemployment rate rose to 9.6%, not exactly the Summer of Recovery that the administration touted in June. I suppose a true intellectual, regardless of how much internal firepower they pocess as a stand alone, simply can't know everything, and when someone like Obama who pocesses a high IQ coupled with unbridled narcissism, well, you have a recipe for disaster and We the People do suffer and will continue to suffer, so by the time the 2012 elections roll around, the first 50 names in the Walla Walla phone book would be preferrable. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: Ahem. I'm not convinced that a self-professed Zionist and Tea Party fan should be throwing around derogatory terms for intellectual Other than as contrast to his own views and limited ability to think, that is. Only in America (and in China during Mao's great purge) is the term intellectual used to define the enemy the way a hunting dog points at his prey. Some people -- intellectuals -- feel that they should develop their own ideas, after investi- gating all sides of the story. Others, such as Zionists, Tea Partiers and cultists, are content believing what they've been told to believe. IMO the latter hate the former not because of their beliefs, but because they displayed the ability to arrive at those beliefs on their own. How does it feel being reduced to a label, eh? :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge no_reply@ wrote: I'm not sure if America will line up to re-elect the current supremo who truely is the very definition of an intellectual In short: an intellectual is a self-inflated, self-congratulatory, lover of self; a person so in thrall to beautiful theories that he is incapable of correction and impervious to evidence. Superman had kryptonite, but an intellectual's shield of self-assurance cannot be breached by any known substance, especially fact -Thomas Sowell Talk about self-referral
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Tiger's Nest and kumbhaya mantra
On Sep 2, 2010, at 10:43 PM, emptybill wrote: Ever been to any part of the Shambhala mandala? Yes, quite beautiful and terrifying.
[FairfieldLife] Colbert fans propose the perfect response to Glenn Beck's rally
Internet Petitions Stephen Colbert To Hold 'Restoring Truthiness' Rally At Lincoln Memorial http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/03/restoring-truthiness-colbert-r\ ally-beck_n_704578.html A grassroots campaign has begun to get Stephen Colbert to hold a rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to counter Glenn Beck's recent Restoring Honor event. The would-be rally has been dubbed Restoring Truthiness and was inspired by a recent post on Reddit http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/d7ntl/ive_had_a_vision_and_i_\ cant_shake_it_colbert/ , where a young woman wondered if the only way to point out the absurdity of the Tea Party's rally would be if Colbert mirrored it with his own Colbert Nation. Now with its own website http://www.colbertrally.com/ and Facebook group http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=150942998258775 with over 8,000 members, the call for Colbert to hold a rally is spreading through the Internet like wildfire. Aside from being a satire of Beck's rally, the petition claims the rally is necessary because, Recently our nation has suffered a truthiness drain. The website gives a history of the newly founded movement, with links to news stories and a poster for the rally, which proposes the date 10/10/10. The website also states: Restoring Truthiness is a true grassroots movement propelled by YOU, the citizens of the internetz. Our goal is simple: Petition Stephen Colbert to hold a Restoring Truthiness Rally for the American people. Given Colbert's love for his Nation and ability to satire the Right so effectively, this almost seems like something Colbert would have thought of himself. While he is on vacation at the moment, it will be interesting to see if he addresses the petition when he returns to host The Colbert Report next week. Those interested in furthering the movement have been asked to join the Facebook group, spread the word, or email supp...@colbertrally.com for more information.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: God did not create the Universe
So are you saying people are naturally good and will do the right (not shitty thing)? Or only Buddhists and atheists? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Still riffing on this, I think that many people's issue with an eternal universe is not that it postulates No God (although that pushes a LOT of buttons because It just isn't *done* to question God's existence), but because it implies No Purpose. Yes, that, I'm sure. But what about Justice? Thinking out loud here, but... Just as you could scarcely claim a difference between an English football fan and a drunk... LOL. ...it seems there might similarly be little difference between, say, a Buddhist and an atheist. Actually, in terms of ethics there is sometimes little difference. Many of the atheists I've met who label themselves *as* atheists have a remarkably similar definition of ethics to many of the Buddhists I've met. That is, that ethics come from within. A belief or non-belief in God does not change that. In both cases the people choose to live ethically for the simple reason that it matters to *them*, not to some supposedly all-seeing Daddy or some omni- present and equally watchful set of Laws Of Nature. It's the same notion as Doing A Good Job Is More Fun Than Doing A Shitty Job. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Leap of faith or folly?
He leaps with ease from wall to wall Doesn't stop to linger, Consider risk of taking fall, He clings by just one finger. Death defying, amazing feat, His name the stars have writ. Fortune, fame within his grasp, His last words were, Oh, shit! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PocMsI_mtWs
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: God did not create the Universe
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge no_re...@... wrote: So are you saying people are naturally good and will do the right (not shitty thing)? Or only Buddhists and atheists? I am saying that some people try to do the right thing, and that doing so has nothing whatsoever to do with whether they are Buddhists, atheists, or deists. They do it because it matters to them. Other people choose not to do the right thing. They do this because doing the right thing doesn't matter to them. Belief in God or non-belief in God has nothing to do with it. Neither does what any of them *say* they believe about doing the right thing. The only thing that matters is what they *do*. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Still riffing on this, I think that many people's issue with an eternal universe is not that it postulates No God (although that pushes a LOT of buttons because It just isn't *done* to question God's existence), but because it implies No Purpose. Yes, that, I'm sure. But what about Justice? Thinking out loud here, but... Just as you could scarcely claim a difference between an English football fan and a drunk... LOL. ...it seems there might similarly be little difference between, say, a Buddhist and an atheist. Actually, in terms of ethics there is sometimes little difference. Many of the atheists I've met who label themselves *as* atheists have a remarkably similar definition of ethics to many of the Buddhists I've met. That is, that ethics come from within. A belief or non-belief in God does not change that. In both cases the people choose to live ethically for the simple reason that it matters to *them*, not to some supposedly all-seeing Daddy or some omni- present and equally watchful set of Laws Of Nature. It's the same notion as Doing A Good Job Is More Fun Than Doing A Shitty Job. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Leap of faith or folly?
I've seen guys (and the occasional gal) doing this in Paris. It's almost a kind of street artform. They call it parkour or free running. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_running If you want to see it taken to the level of art, watch the opening sequence of the James Bond movie, Casino Royale. These are real guys doing the real stunts you see onscreen. No CGI. The guy doing most of the stunts got his start doing the same thing on the streets of Paris. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hss3L5QkoE --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: He leaps with ease from wall to wall Doesn't stop to linger, Consider risk of taking fall, He clings by just one finger. Death defying, amazing feat, His name the stars have writ. Fortune, fame within his grasp, His last words were, Oh, shit! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PocMsI_mtWs
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Palin's Temper
BTW, I might know some of those first 50 named. ;-) Although I voted for Obama I'm not happy with his Wall Street crew and doing little for Main Street. But I was not expecting miracles. Go back and look at my posts here in summer 2008 where I said that the Republicans had 30 years of destroying the US economy and the middle class and that they didn't want to win the election and that was the reason for the McCain-Palin joke ticket and that they knew the mess at hand. These scum have always hated the middle class for owning property. They are a spoiled little bunch who were the whiny kids in school. Bottom line: Republicans won't be able to clean their mess either. Not in 2012 nor any other time. America is finished. sgrayatlarge wrote: I always enjoy your analysis, you write well, at least from my limited perspective, I thought your Occultist trailer Trash Palin label was inspired, you would have made CW Leadbetter proud, in fact all the lodges would cheer you on. After I read your gem, I happen to notice that the unemployment rate rose to 9.6%, not exactly the Summer of Recovery that the administration touted in June. I suppose a true intellectual, regardless of how much internal firepower they pocess as a stand alone, simply can't know everything, and when someone like Obama who pocesses a high IQ coupled with unbridled narcissism, well, you have a recipe for disaster and We the People do suffer and will continue to suffer, so by the time the 2012 elections roll around, the first 50 names in the Walla Walla phone book would be preferrable. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: Ahem. I'm not convinced that a self-professed Zionist and Tea Party fan should be throwing around derogatory terms for intellectual Other than as contrast to his own views and limited ability to think, that is. Only in America (and in China during Mao's great purge) is the term intellectual used to define the enemy the way a hunting dog points at his prey. Some people -- intellectuals -- feel that they should develop their own ideas, after investi- gating all sides of the story. Others, such as Zionists, Tea Partiers and cultists, are content believing what they've been told to believe. IMO the latter hate the former not because of their beliefs, but because they displayed the ability to arrive at those beliefs on their own. How does it feel being reduced to a label, eh? :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge no_reply@ wrote: I'm not sure if America will line up to re-elect the current supremo who truely is the very definition of an intellectual In short: an intellectual is a self-inflated, self-congratulatory, lover of self; a person so in thrall to beautiful theories that he is incapable of correction and impervious to evidence. Superman had kryptonite, but an intellectual's shield of self-assurance cannot be breached by any known substance, especially fact -Thomas Sowell Talk about self-referral
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: God did not create the Universe
I don't think there is any guy in the sky micromanaging things which is what a lot of people believe. But one might call whatever the process of the universe's existence is in it's totality God or whang or whatever. Even the best and brightest of the human race is probably incapable of really conceiving the truth of the universe. We are sort of like weevils that have infested this planet and relatively have pea brains. We were probably engineered here as an experiment by extraterrestrials since no other species on this planet seems to be capable of the mess we create. TurquoiseB wrote: Still riffing on this, I think that many people's issue with an eternal universe is not that it postulates No God (although that pushes a LOT of buttons because It just isn't *done* to question God's existence), but because it implies No Purpose. I think that a lot of folks are drawn to the God Meme because they'd like to believe that life has a Purpose. And therefore *their* lives have a Purpose, as a subset of God's Purpose. Am I weird because I don't feel the need to believe that there is any Purpose behind it all? Even the vague one of Lila (play) or the hopeful one of Expansion of Self Awareness? If so, I'm weird. (This will come as no shock to many.) I'm not saying definitively that there is no purpose to Life, the Universe, and Everything (other than trying to figure out the question that Douglas Adams answered with 42). I'm just saying that if there is such a purpose, I for one have never seen documentation of it or proof of it, and that I need neither. I'd be as happy with No Purpose But The One You Make Up For Yourself. Your mileage may vary. I'm not trying to sell my view or convince anyone of it, merely to state it. Those who claim that I *am* trying to sell them something, or that there IS documentation of God's existence and His/ Her/Its hand in creating Creation in books they consider holy can go suck hiranyagarbha (the cosmic egg). :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: I'm not sure what exactly Hawking's position is on the creation of the universe, but I should point out that there are some physicists who don't believe that there ever was one. They are joined in this view by Buddhists, who believe that the universe has always been, is now, and will always be. In other words, there is no technical or scientific need to anthropomorphize the universe and assume that it either began at some point or will end at some point. Many humans -- including most religious people attached to their traditions' creation myths -- can't conceive of this. I find it no problem to conceive of an eternal universe. And once you do, the issue of What existed before Creation just fuckin' goes away, and along with it the need to postulate a God. Creation is IMO always being created, eternally, in many dimensions, some of them concurrent. I see no *need* to postulate a God, and a problem in doing so: Occam's Razor. Needing a God to explain things complicates something that has no need to be com- plicated, and thus is less likely than the simple explanation, that all of this is happening eternally in every moment, and that no imaginary friend ever had anything whatsoever to do with it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@ wrote: Very few scientists have any training in Western philosophy, much less Eastern. The same goes for training (or even basic classes) in the philosophy of science. Most of them look even more foolish when they open their mouths and demonstrate how totally ignorant they are about theology. They show a lot of arrogance and do so without any sense of self-reflection You make a good point IMO! Hawking says this apparently: Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist, Hawking writes. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going. There seems to be a lack of curiousity about what kind of thing a *law* might be. If so, that's very negligent from a philosophical point of view! In this physicist's tale, the *law* appears to *be* some kind of *thing* whose existence is in some sense *prior* to that of the universe. What a puzzle of ontology! This kind of thinking about laws seems to me to be just another turtle-style explanation for the existence of everything-as-we-know-it (ironic really, as Hawking refers to this in his Brief History of Time). Just replace turtles by laws: William James, father of American psychology, tells of meeting an old lady who told him the Earth rested on the back of a huge turtle. But, my dear lady,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Leap of faith or folly?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: I've seen guys (and the occasional gal) doing this in Paris. It's almost a kind of street artform. They call it parkour or free running. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_running If you want to see it taken to the level of art, watch the opening sequence of the James Bond movie, Casino Royale. These are real guys doing the real stunts you see onscreen. No CGI. The guy doing most of the stunts got his start doing the same thing on the streets of Paris. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hss3L5QkoE Daniel Craig is the sexiest James Bond ever. The torture scene was really hard to watch but really loved the movie. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: He leaps with ease from wall to wall Doesn't stop to linger, Consider risk of taking fall, He clings by just one finger. Death defying, amazing feat, His name the stars have writ. Fortune, fame within his grasp, His last words were, Oh, shit! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PocMsI_mtWs
[FairfieldLife] Machete: today's the day
Robert Rodriguez's latest film Machete releases in the US today. We discussed this and it's controversial trailer here a couple months back. I plan to see it but probably not until Tuesday to avoid the Labor Day crowds and especially opening day crowds.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Palin's Temper
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: Bottom line: Republicans won't be able to clean their mess either. Not in 2012 nor any other time. America is finished. Very possibly, he says from Europe. :-) As you've possibly noticed, I don't get into many of the political phlegmfests here because...uh... I Don't Really Give A Shit. I read here and in the media about the Latest Thing that Americans are obsessing over and I get this mental image that I'm watching a Bad Soap Opera set on the Titanic. I'm just hoping that when the ship finally goes down that the house band plays the Stones' You Can't Always Get What You Want instead of Nearer My God To Thee. :-) sgrayatlarge wrote: I always enjoy your analysis, you write well, at least from my limited perspective, I thought your Occultist trailer Trash Palin label was inspired, you would have made CW Leadbetter proud, in fact all the lodges would cheer you on. After I read your gem, I happen to notice that the unemployment rate rose to 9.6%, not exactly the Summer of Recovery that the administration touted in June. I suppose a true intellectual, regardless of how much internal firepower they pocess as a stand alone, simply can't know everything, and when someone like Obama who pocesses a high IQ coupled with unbridled narcissism, well, you have a recipe for disaster and We the People do suffer and will continue to suffer, so by the time the 2012 elections roll around, the first 50 names in the Walla Walla phone book would be preferrable. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Ahem. I'm not convinced that a self-professed Zionist and Tea Party fan should be throwing around derogatory terms for intellectual Other than as contrast to his own views and limited ability to think, that is. Only in America (and in China during Mao's great purge) is the term intellectual used to define the enemy the way a hunting dog points at his prey. Some people -- intellectuals -- feel that they should develop their own ideas, after investi- gating all sides of the story. Others, such as Zionists, Tea Partiers and cultists, are content believing what they've been told to believe. IMO the latter hate the former not because of their beliefs, but because they displayed the ability to arrive at those beliefs on their own. How does it feel being reduced to a label, eh? :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge no_reply@ wrote: I'm not sure if America will line up to re-elect the current supremo who truely is the very definition of an intellectual In short: an intellectual is a self-inflated, self-congratulatory, lover of self; a person so in thrall to beautiful theories that he is incapable of correction and impervious to evidence. Superman had kryptonite, but an intellectual's shield of self-assurance cannot be breached by any known substance, especially fact -Thomas Sowell Talk about self-referral
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: God did not create the Universe
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: I don't think there is any guy in the sky micromanaging things which is what a lot of people believe. But one might call whatever the process of the universe's existence is in it's totality God or whang or whatever. Wouldn't work. Can you imagine the Baptist choir in Buttcrack, Mississippi singing Praise Whang from whom all blessings flow...? Just not gonna happen. :-) Even the best and brightest of the human race is probably incapable of really conceiving the truth of the universe. Amen, brother Bhairitu. We are sort of like weevils that have infested this planet and relatively have pea brains. We were probably engineered here as an experiment by extraterrestrials since no other species on this planet seems to be capable of the mess we create. An interesting scenario. We were probably the result of an experiment by the Space Brothers counterpart of BP. Some- where out there in space, some bureaucrat from this company is in front of that planet's Congress, explaining why things went so wrong.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tiger's Nest and kumbhaya mantra
Orgyen Kusum Lingpa, my first Tibetan teacher, lived in Golok, Tibet (now part of China). He believed in Shambhala quite literally. In fact when he first came to the West (1994) and saw blond haired people he thought they were from Shambhala. He was a terton and saw many such people in the Shambhala mandala. He got a good laugh at his own assumptions when he found out it weren't necessarily so. He also had advice for people who considered the subtle Shambhala mandala a place to be reborn. Don't be reborn there, because there will be fierce warfare involving Shambhala. His advice was rather to choose Sukhavati since it was a direct route to Bodhi. Exactly how Shambhala is positioned in Bhu-mandala/Chakravada, I'm not sure. Going upwards goes to a series of subtle mountain ranges. Descend downward into the closest valley and into the dark black center and the perceiver pops out into the empty space of our solar system. I believe that this type of perception (which is quite simple) is how/why the Indian yogins described the cosmology of Sumeru in the way they did. Although it is confounding to Westerners practitioners, particularly new Buddhists, it is an attempt to overlap Geo-sensory perception with an elementary form of yogi-pratyaksha. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Sep 2, 2010, at 10:43 PM, emptybill wrote: Ever been to any part of the Shambhala mandala? Yes, quite beautiful and terrifying.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Leap of faith or folly?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: I've seen guys (and the occasional gal) doing this in Paris. It's almost a kind of street artform. They call it parkour or free running. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_running If you want to see it taken to the level of art, watch the opening sequence of the James Bond movie, Casino Royale. These are real guys doing the real stunts you see onscreen. No CGI. The guy doing most of the stunts got his start doing the same thing on the streets of Paris. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hss3L5QkoE Daniel Craig is the sexiest James Bond ever. Also the closest to the James Bond of the novels. Cold-blooded killer...but with style. [ Forgive me for saying this, Saint Sean, but it's true. You had more style, but you just didn't have that cold-blooded killer thang down. Craig does. ] The torture scene was really hard to watch but really loved the movie. The torture scene is in the original book. Which is something you can't say about a *lot* of the stuff in James Bond movies. I'm hoping they continue the franchise with Daniel Craig. He is a very interesting actor. Have you ever seen Layer Cake? Or Sylvia, or Defiance? The man is a damned good actor. He is currently listed to be playing Mikael Blomkvist in the American remake of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. That, plus the fact that it's to be directed by David Fincher, make me want to see it. Plus, every mame actress under 30 in the whole world wanted to play Lizbeth. But all of them would have come to the role carrying the baggage of their former roles, and this would have diminished their chances of accomplishing an almost-impossible task: being in the acting universe as Noomi Rapace. The producers (or Fincher) made the right choice. They chose a relative unknown, Rooney Mara. I wish her luck. She has some big high-heeled combat boots to fill. Daniel Craig works for me as Blomqvist. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: He leaps with ease from wall to wall Doesn't stop to linger, Consider risk of taking fall, He clings by just one finger. Death defying, amazing feat, His name the stars have writ. Fortune, fame within his grasp, His last words were, Oh, shit! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PocMsI_mtWs
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: God did not create the Universe
Huh? Post-ulating? It sounds indecent. Is this what they do with each other in Europe? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: For a scientist, Hawking makes a lot of stupid comments. He's either trying to sell his new book or is already senile. He's making science the new religion of the masses. His statements are full of of faith in theories that are not even proven. It's about time he stepped down as head of the science department of his university. JohnR wants Hawking to resign because he states (accurately) that no God is necessary when post- ulating the creation of the universe. One assumes JohnR would like all Buddhists in the world to resign from their positions as well, because they've been pointing out this obvious fact for centuries. Isn't it fascinating how quickly God freaks turn into Inquisitors when someone questions the exis- tence of their imaginary friend? :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifuxero@ wrote: The Intelligent Design key point - fine tuning - seems to be even less compelling as an argument, says Hawking. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_life/us_britain_hawking
[FairfieldLife] Re: Leap of faith or folly?
I am so gonna tell their mothers about this! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: He leaps with ease from wall to wall Doesn't stop to linger, Consider risk of taking fall, He clings by just one finger. Death defying, amazing feat, His name the stars have writ. Fortune, fame within his grasp, His last words were, Oh, shit! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PocMsI_mtWs
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: God did not create the Universe
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptyb...@... wrote: Huh? Post-ulating? It sounds indecent. Is this what they do with each other in Europe? It is indecent, and is considered such everywhere in Europe (and on a par with necrophilia) except The Netherlands. I'm into pre-ulating myself. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: For a scientist, Hawking makes a lot of stupid comments. He's either trying to sell his new book or is already senile. He's making science the new religion of the masses. His statements are full of of faith in theories that are not even proven. It's about time he stepped down as head of the science department of his university. JohnR wants Hawking to resign because he states (accurately) that no God is necessary when post- ulating the creation of the universe. One assumes JohnR would like all Buddhists in the world to resign from their positions as well, because they've been pointing out this obvious fact for centuries. Isn't it fascinating how quickly God freaks turn into Inquisitors when someone questions the exis- tence of their imaginary friend? :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifuxero@ wrote: The Intelligent Design key point - fine tuning - seems to be even less compelling as an argument, says Hawking. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_life/us_britain_hawking
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: God did not create the Universe
Fair enough, but when does it start to matter to them, and where do they get the notion of what is the right thing to do? When one raises a child, do we say well you know the right thing to do, just do it! Or are they taught right from wrong, what are good actions and what are bad- manners, behavior, character development,do unto others, charity,kindness,goodness, strong value system.Where did the parents learn these good values/virtues? It has to come from somewhere, and for most, not all it comes from our culture, founded on, dare I say, Judeo Christian values. That's what this country was founded on, certain principles, right actions, not from feelings and what feels right. This is built into our DNA, but now in our post Christian secular culture, we think it just comes naturally within. Now we stop teaching right from wrong, we are taught other values, and it will be lost, and people won't know how to act. Action, I could care less what you think of me or label me, just treat me at least with some degree of civility. We are living in a culure of entitlement and victimhood, and when the money runs out, what is left? What does one fall back on? Strong character development? No, the trend doesn't look good. Wisdom is not valued anymore, we have a President who is devoid of wisdom, he is smart but nobody says, look at our president, he really reminds me of Washington or Lincoln. He had a great opportunity, but he seems distracted from wars, putting our military in harms way, and as far as fundamentally transforming our country, I see a tearing apart of our foundational fabric. But he has good intentions, it feels good and I guess nowadays that's all that counts, is happy talk! Consequences be damned. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge no_reply@ wrote: So are you saying people are naturally good and will do the right (not shitty thing)? Or only Buddhists and atheists? I am saying that some people try to do the right thing, and that doing so has nothing whatsoever to do with whether they are Buddhists, atheists, or deists. They do it because it matters to them. Other people choose not to do the right thing. They do this because doing the right thing doesn't matter to them. Belief in God or non-belief in God has nothing to do with it. Neither does what any of them *say* they believe about doing the right thing. The only thing that matters is what they *do*. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Still riffing on this, I think that many people's issue with an eternal universe is not that it postulates No God (although that pushes a LOT of buttons because It just isn't *done* to question God's existence), but because it implies No Purpose. Yes, that, I'm sure. But what about Justice? Thinking out loud here, but... Just as you could scarcely claim a difference between an English football fan and a drunk... LOL. ...it seems there might similarly be little difference between, say, a Buddhist and an atheist. Actually, in terms of ethics there is sometimes little difference. Many of the atheists I've met who label themselves *as* atheists have a remarkably similar definition of ethics to many of the Buddhists I've met. That is, that ethics come from within. A belief or non-belief in God does not change that. In both cases the people choose to live ethically for the simple reason that it matters to *them*, not to some supposedly all-seeing Daddy or some omni- present and equally watchful set of Laws Of Nature. It's the same notion as Doing A Good Job Is More Fun Than Doing A Shitty Job. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: God did not create the Universe
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifuxero@ wrote: The Intelligent Design key point - fine tuning - seems to be even less compelling as an argument, says Hawking. The best argument I can think of for a lack of intelligent design at work in the universe is seeing Steven Hawking's mind trapped in that feeble body while my modest to lame brain is given a body dancing around the earth like a teenager. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@ wrote: Huh? Post-ulating? It sounds indecent. Is this what they do with each other in Europe? It is indecent, and is considered such everywhere in Europe (and on a par with necrophilia) except The Netherlands. I'm into pre-ulating myself. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: For a scientist, Hawking makes a lot of stupid comments. He's either trying to sell his new book or is already senile. He's making science the new religion of the masses. His statements are full of of faith in theories that are not even proven. It's about time he stepped down as head of the science department of his university. JohnR wants Hawking to resign because he states (accurately) that no God is necessary when post- ulating the creation of the universe. One assumes JohnR would like all Buddhists in the world to resign from their positions as well, because they've been pointing out this obvious fact for centuries. Isn't it fascinating how quickly God freaks turn into Inquisitors when someone questions the exis- tence of their imaginary friend? :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifuxero@ wrote: The Intelligent Design key point - fine tuning - seems to be even less compelling as an argument, says Hawking. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_life/us_britain_hawking
[FairfieldLife] Re: Palin's Temper
Vote Pelosi and Reid out, keep Obama but have a Republican Congress, just like Clinton had, better times ahead. Also once Pelosi took over Congress, big downturn, have a balance, all is not lost. Maybe I should have said Yakima, you know folks there too? How about Forks or Snoqualmie? Hood Canal? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: BTW, I might know some of those first 50 named. ;-) Although I voted for Obama I'm not happy with his Wall Street crew and doing little for Main Street. But I was not expecting miracles. Go back and look at my posts here in summer 2008 where I said that the Republicans had 30 years of destroying the US economy and the middle class and that they didn't want to win the election and that was the reason for the McCain-Palin joke ticket and that they knew the mess at hand. These scum have always hated the middle class for owning property. They are a spoiled little bunch who were the whiny kids in school. Bottom line: Republicans won't be able to clean their mess either. Not in 2012 nor any other time. America is finished. sgrayatlarge wrote: I always enjoy your analysis, you write well, at least from my limited perspective, I thought your Occultist trailer Trash Palin label was inspired, you would have made CW Leadbetter proud, in fact all the lodges would cheer you on. After I read your gem, I happen to notice that the unemployment rate rose to 9.6%, not exactly the Summer of Recovery that the administration touted in June. I suppose a true intellectual, regardless of how much internal firepower they pocess as a stand alone, simply can't know everything, and when someone like Obama who pocesses a high IQ coupled with unbridled narcissism, well, you have a recipe for disaster and We the People do suffer and will continue to suffer, so by the time the 2012 elections roll around, the first 50 names in the Walla Walla phone book would be preferrable. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Ahem. I'm not convinced that a self-professed Zionist and Tea Party fan should be throwing around derogatory terms for intellectual Other than as contrast to his own views and limited ability to think, that is. Only in America (and in China during Mao's great purge) is the term intellectual used to define the enemy the way a hunting dog points at his prey. Some people -- intellectuals -- feel that they should develop their own ideas, after investi- gating all sides of the story. Others, such as Zionists, Tea Partiers and cultists, are content believing what they've been told to believe. IMO the latter hate the former not because of their beliefs, but because they displayed the ability to arrive at those beliefs on their own. How does it feel being reduced to a label, eh? :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge no_reply@ wrote: I'm not sure if America will line up to re-elect the current supremo who truely is the very definition of an intellectual In short: an intellectual is a self-inflated, self-congratulatory, lover of self; a person so in thrall to beautiful theories that he is incapable of correction and impervious to evidence. Superman had kryptonite, but an intellectual's shield of self-assurance cannot be breached by any known substance, especially fact -Thomas Sowell Talk about self-referral
[FairfieldLife] Re: Leap of faith or folly?
Really hard to imagine anyone following in the shadow of Noomi Rapace's Lisbeth. Hers was (is..just saw the second in the series) a force of nature performance. Rooney Mara has big balls taking this on. I wish her luck! (Barry is the third film out in Europe yet?) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: I've seen guys (and the occasional gal) doing this in Paris. It's almost a kind of street artform. They call it parkour or free running. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_running If you want to see it taken to the level of art, watch the opening sequence of the James Bond movie, Casino Royale. These are real guys doing the real stunts you see onscreen. No CGI. The guy doing most of the stunts got his start doing the same thing on the streets of Paris. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hss3L5QkoE Daniel Craig is the sexiest James Bond ever. Also the closest to the James Bond of the novels. Cold-blooded killer...but with style. [ Forgive me for saying this, Saint Sean, but it's true. You had more style, but you just didn't have that cold-blooded killer thang down. Craig does. ] The torture scene was really hard to watch but really loved the movie. The torture scene is in the original book. Which is something you can't say about a *lot* of the stuff in James Bond movies. I'm hoping they continue the franchise with Daniel Craig. He is a very interesting actor. Have you ever seen Layer Cake? Or Sylvia, or Defiance? The man is a damned good actor. He is currently listed to be playing Mikael Blomkvist in the American remake of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. That, plus the fact that it's to be directed by David Fincher, make me want to see it. Plus, every mame actress under 30 in the whole world wanted to play Lizbeth. But all of them would have come to the role carrying the baggage of their former roles, and this would have diminished their chances of accomplishing an almost-impossible task: being in the acting universe as Noomi Rapace. The producers (or Fincher) made the right choice. They chose a relative unknown, Rooney Mara. I wish her luck. She has some big high-heeled combat boots to fill. Daniel Craig works for me as Blomqvist. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: He leaps with ease from wall to wall Doesn't stop to linger, Consider risk of taking fall, He clings by just one finger. Death defying, amazing feat, His name the stars have writ. Fortune, fame within his grasp, His last words were, Oh, shit! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PocMsI_mtWs
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: God did not create the Universe
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge no_re...@... wrote: Fair enough, but when does it start to matter to them, and where do they get the notion of what is the right thing to do? A good question. Hopefully, in my ideal society, they never get a lecture on what is the right thing to do. Especially presented in terms of Do this and you'll go to heaven or Don't do this and you'll burn in Hell. The world has had several millennia to prove the wisdom of either Promise a reward in the next life if you do the right thing or Promise hell if you do the wrong thing. The whole of human history is the result -- an unending tapestry of people doing the wrong thing. It Just Doesn't Fuckin' Work. In my experience, only wanting -- as your own idea -- to do the right thing works. The carrot-on-a-stick promise of heaven or enlightenment has been proven not to work, and the whip of implied hell has similarly been proven not to work. Both merely perpetuated doing the wrong thing. When one raises a child, do we say well you know the right thing to do, just do it! I do, with the child I'm helping to raise. Or are they taught right from wrong, what are good actions and what are bad- manners, behavior, character development, do unto others, charity,kindness,goodness, strong value system. You mean taught what some people believe are right from wrong, what are the good actions and what are bad manners, etc., right? I think it would be more useful to teach the kids mindfulness, so as to more easily detect for them- selves which actions they perform raise their overall state of attention, and which actions they perform lower it. That's a skill they can use at any time, without having to rely on anyone else's view of right or wrong. Where did the parents learn these good values/virtues? It has to come from somewhere... No, it really doesn't. Morality has to come from somewhere. Ethics does not. There is a difference.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Leap of faith or folly?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfr...@... wrote: Really hard to imagine anyone following in the shadow of Noomi Rapace's Lisbeth. Hers was (is..just saw the second in the series) a force of nature performance. Rooney Mara has big balls taking this on. I wish her luck! (Barry is the third film out in Europe yet?) Been out for some time. I've found all three as torrents, but the third is the hardest to find. I agree about Noomi Rapace -- a force majeure. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: I've seen guys (and the occasional gal) doing this in Paris. It's almost a kind of street artform. They call it parkour or free running. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_running If you want to see it taken to the level of art, watch the opening sequence of the James Bond movie, Casino Royale. These are real guys doing the real stunts you see onscreen. No CGI. The guy doing most of the stunts got his start doing the same thing on the streets of Paris. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hss3L5QkoE Daniel Craig is the sexiest James Bond ever. Also the closest to the James Bond of the novels. Cold-blooded killer...but with style. [ Forgive me for saying this, Saint Sean, but it's true. You had more style, but you just didn't have that cold-blooded killer thang down. Craig does. ] The torture scene was really hard to watch but really loved the movie. The torture scene is in the original book. Which is something you can't say about a *lot* of the stuff in James Bond movies. I'm hoping they continue the franchise with Daniel Craig. He is a very interesting actor. Have you ever seen Layer Cake? Or Sylvia, or Defiance? The man is a damned good actor. He is currently listed to be playing Mikael Blomkvist in the American remake of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. That, plus the fact that it's to be directed by David Fincher, make me want to see it. Plus, every mame actress under 30 in the whole world wanted to play Lizbeth. But all of them would have come to the role carrying the baggage of their former roles, and this would have diminished their chances of accomplishing an almost-impossible task: being in the acting universe as Noomi Rapace. The producers (or Fincher) made the right choice. They chose a relative unknown, Rooney Mara. I wish her luck. She has some big high-heeled combat boots to fill. Daniel Craig works for me as Blomqvist. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: He leaps with ease from wall to wall Doesn't stop to linger, Consider risk of taking fall, He clings by just one finger. Death defying, amazing feat, His name the stars have writ. Fortune, fame within his grasp, His last words were, Oh, shit! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PocMsI_mtWs
[FairfieldLife] Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape
review: Indeed, our failure to address questions of meaning and morality through science has now become the most common justificati9on for religious faith. It is also the primary reason why so many secularists and religious moderates feel obligated to respect the hardened superstitions of their more devout neighbors. In this explosive new book, etc. Essentially, Harris will attempt to tear down the wall between scientific facts and human values.; and then presumably to incorporate morals/values into the scientific model, providing abundant evidence for morality without the need for a God. I haven't read the book yet, but I'll get it. As to Richard Dawkins, his latest book is The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Re: on the eternal universe idea a review of the Hawking/Mlodinow new book says For example, Mlodinow and Hawking show that according to quantum theory, the cosmos does not have just a single existence or history, but rather that every possible history of the universe exists simultaneously. So it appears that Harris will be left to account for the origins of morals in the context of of a reasonable scientific hypothesis, in his usual style, peppered with some evidence. I'll will await... adhave
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape
latest Harris essays: http://www.samharris.org/ --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifux...@... wrote: review: Indeed, our failure to address questions of meaning and morality through science has now become the most common justificati9on for religious faith. It is also the primary reason why so many secularists and religious moderates feel obligated to respect the hardened superstitions of their more devout neighbors. In this explosive new book, etc. Essentially, Harris will attempt to tear down the wall between scientific facts and human values.; and then presumably to incorporate morals/values into the scientific model, providing abundant evidence for morality without the need for a God. I haven't read the book yet, but I'll get it. As to Richard Dawkins, his latest book is The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Re: on the eternal universe idea a review of the Hawking/Mlodinow new book says For example, Mlodinow and Hawking show that according to quantum theory, the cosmos does not have just a single existence or history, but rather that every possible history of the universe exists simultaneously. So it appears that Harris will be left to account for the origins of morals in the context of of a reasonable scientific hypothesis, in his usual style, peppered with some evidence. I'll will await... adhave
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bhoja-vRtti translation?Book Banning ?
He's Theosophist. He made it up! What else would you expect? When I read this back in '76 it didn't make sense to me and after I found the classical commentaries it was obviously his attempt to supply speculation for understanding. This is why I questioned you about using Taimini and why I don't read him. What do you think about Edwin F. Bryant's translation and commentary? It quotes from all the major classical commentators including Al-Biruni. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@ wrote: but Fairfield Life group owner or server did not want to accept my gift [:(] http://www.vedicbooks.net/advanced_search_result.php?search_in_descript\ \ \ ion=1inc_subcat=1keywords=Govind%20Sastri so give me a hint how I can sent it to you c a r d e m a i s t e r (a t) y a h o o . c o m TIA! schoenen Tag noch:Diese Art der Auseinandersetzung ist eine Gratwan- derung zwischen Uebung (abhyaasa) und Gleichmut (vairaagya). GOT BOTH? Yes, thank you! Bhoja's comments on I 17 and 18 seems to differ quite a lot of that of Taimni's. I wonder from where Taimni got the idea that between each stage of saMprajñaata samaadhi (vitarka, vicaara, and so on), in the gap(?), so to speak, is an asaMprajñaata stage. kind of (huhh) theosophical backround- IMHO something MMY was trying to get rid of -all(at least in the last35+of) his life--prob. in vain; but this may be open to discussion, of course ) seems that Archer Rick and/or Alex Stanley do not like it to have it on this FFL forum - this fairy field live forever [:)] or may be- do not want it to have it in FFL library ...donated by me merudanda afraid of the man with the stick?? nay!? BTW:Miss� miljoonaa? Entschuldigung! Kann nix das verstehen... : ) I mean, what are you referring to?
[FairfieldLife] ET morality
Who has written or theorized about morality in our possible future contacts with ET-s? How could we even evaluate them enough to judge if there is any form of moral code. That means no human analogues. WTF?
[FairfieldLife] Charles Darwin on morals
... When two tribes of primeval man, living in the same country, came into competition, if (other circumstances being equal) the one tribe included a great number of courageous, sympathetic and faithful members, who were always ready to warn each other of danger, to aid and defend each other, this tribe would succeed better and conquer the other. ... imo pretty straightforward...and the need for God?
[FairfieldLife] The Multiverse Hierarchy
The Multiverse Hierarchy, by Max Tegmark http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1283 Tegmark admits that there's a severe measurement problem. ... IMO that's where genuine Seers may come in; but I haven't seen many showing up lately.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Glenn Buck
The context is the Idiocrats hating America. sgrayatlarge wrote: They or you hating America? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: Yup, the Idiocrats are very sad. Why do they hate America? sgrayatlarge wrote: How sad --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: The old wingnut switcheroo, eh? Avoid answering a question by asking another one? I'm not falling for that one. So you must be Tea Partier? IOW, an Idiocrat. Do you actually believe that Glenn Beck is bringing kindness and decency to the world or Rupert Murdoch for that matter or the Koch brothers? Under those terms you would have thought that Hitler and Mussolini were your kind of guys. sgrayatlarge wrote: The question is are you worth anything? What is your worth? What are you doing to bring goodness and decency to the world? What acts of kindness have you done lately? Question everyone has to ask about themselves --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: I can't believe that anyone on FFL would be so ignorant as to think that Glenn Beck is worth anything? Did you miss the intellect sutra? sgrayatlarge wrote: Re: Glenn Buck BTW, you and your left leaning friends need to know that little boilerplate rant of your won't be tolerated anymore. You see when you can't articulate an argument you fall into the SIX HIRB, what is that? Well glad you asked, when in doubt and you simply want to shut down an argument here is what happens: Your personal attack goes something like this, label the following, choose your weapon: S-Label as Sexist I-Label is Intolerant X-label as Xenophobic H-Label as Homophobic I-Label as Islamophobic R-Label as Racist B-Label as Bigot It's easy to remember SIX HIRB, so just continue your little tantrums, attack personally and know that it has lost it's , shall we say in Tantric terms- SHAKTI --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge no_reply@ wrote: Hey just turn off the channel and breath Bhairitu, it will be OK --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: Of course this is all about money not any real political thing. Glenn Beck is worth $32 million. A case of a sleaze ball millionaire doing the bidding of his master Rupert Murdoch who wants to maintain the status quo which is really against the interests of his followers the Idiocrats (TeaPartiers). Such people are a drag on society as someone we all knew would call them.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Palin's Temper
I'll give you booting Pelosi and Reid out but replacing them with younger more up to date people and not oligarchists (Republicans). I even would like to see someone worth electing to replace my congressman George Miller. Problem is these people are legislating things for technology, something being a software developer, I'm very close to and they don't understand it. They only legislate for the lobbyists of the recording, moving and telecom industries. A rare congressman will stand up and say this does nothing for consumers. Count Al Franken (who you probably don't like) among those because he questions the telecoms trying to kill Net Neutrality. IMO, Obama is a little under experienced for the job. But it's a job nobody wants. The country is in crisis and I wouldn't expect the Republicans to be able to do any better. We've allowed a small group of people to accumulate a lot of wealth thus creating an oligarchy in this country. Nabby likes to quote MMY on the fall of communism and capitalism. Looks like the aftermath of both will be the same. I'm from Washington so I know folks in Yakima, Forks (former school teacher friend moved there and taught), Snoqualmie and yup even Hood Canal. Lived in Seattle pretty much from 1965 to 1982. Moved back again in 1989 to Redmond and then California in summer 91. I don't miss the Washington winters. Grew up near Walla Walla (the name is Nez Perce Indian plural for water, Walla, meaning a place where rivers converged). sgrayatlarge wrote: Vote Pelosi and Reid out, keep Obama but have a Republican Congress, just like Clinton had, better times ahead. Also once Pelosi took over Congress, big downturn, have a balance, all is not lost. Maybe I should have said Yakima, you know folks there too? How about Forks or Snoqualmie? Hood Canal? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: BTW, I might know some of those first 50 named. ;-) Although I voted for Obama I'm not happy with his Wall Street crew and doing little for Main Street. But I was not expecting miracles. Go back and look at my posts here in summer 2008 where I said that the Republicans had 30 years of destroying the US economy and the middle class and that they didn't want to win the election and that was the reason for the McCain-Palin joke ticket and that they knew the mess at hand. These scum have always hated the middle class for owning property. They are a spoiled little bunch who were the whiny kids in school. Bottom line: Republicans won't be able to clean their mess either. Not in 2012 nor any other time. America is finished. sgrayatlarge wrote: I always enjoy your analysis, you write well, at least from my limited perspective, I thought your Occultist trailer Trash Palin label was inspired, you would have made CW Leadbetter proud, in fact all the lodges would cheer you on. After I read your gem, I happen to notice that the unemployment rate rose to 9.6%, not exactly the Summer of Recovery that the administration touted in June. I suppose a true intellectual, regardless of how much internal firepower they pocess as a stand alone, simply can't know everything, and when someone like Obama who pocesses a high IQ coupled with unbridled narcissism, well, you have a recipe for disaster and We the People do suffer and will continue to suffer, so by the time the 2012 elections roll around, the first 50 names in the Walla Walla phone book would be preferrable. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Ahem. I'm not convinced that a self-professed Zionist and Tea Party fan should be throwing around derogatory terms for intellectual Other than as contrast to his own views and limited ability to think, that is. Only in America (and in China during Mao's great purge) is the term intellectual used to define the enemy the way a hunting dog points at his prey. Some people -- intellectuals -- feel that they should develop their own ideas, after investi- gating all sides of the story. Others, such as Zionists, Tea Partiers and cultists, are content believing what they've been told to believe. IMO the latter hate the former not because of their beliefs, but because they displayed the ability to arrive at those beliefs on their own. How does it feel being reduced to a label, eh? :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge no_reply@ wrote: I'm not sure if America will line up to re-elect the current supremo who truely is the very definition of an intellectual In short: an intellectual is a self-inflated, self-congratulatory, lover of self; a person so in thrall to beautiful theories that he is incapable of correction and impervious to evidence. Superman had kryptonite, but an intellectual's shield of self-assurance cannot be breached by any known substance, especially fact
[FairfieldLife] A great opportunity for service
Invite David Lynch to your country: http://dlf.tv/2009/change-begins-within-benefit-concert-highlights/
[FairfieldLife] Jersey Shore, 1905
http://citypaper.net/blogs/clog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/jshore1905.jpg
[FairfieldLife] An earlier Manhattan in BW
http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5010page=1
[FairfieldLife] Was this man Awakened?
http://www.revelinnewyork.com/sites/default/files/capone6.jpg
[FairfieldLife] Dylan's Infidels outtakes
Lossless versions of Dylan's Infidels sessions are circulating on the net and well worth the large download. The album is not only produced by Mark Knopfler, but includes his signature style as guitarist on many songs. Some of the songs on the outtakes are already included on The Bootleg Series, Vols. 1-3 (Rare Unreleased) 1961-1991, but these are all earlier mixes. One of the endearing qualities of this outtake collection is not only does Dylan use different lyrics in some of the songs (Jokerman being a prime example), the early mix gives one insight into the creative process and some of the cool licks, layers and fills that were later stripped from the album release. The version of what many consider a Dylan classic, Blind Willie McTell, is electric slide on the outtakes, while the original is acoustic guitar and piano. Jokerman (lossless AIFF/WAV). Outfidel Intakes (power and greed and corruptable seed) 4/11/83 - 5/8/83 The Power Station NYC remastered Rough Cuts and Outfidel Intakes Infidels studio outtakes CD-R 24 bit remaster including cedar noise reduction and t.c. electronics M5 mulitband dynamics, eq, and dither master CD-Rs plextor DAE FLAC Disc one 1 Sweetheart Like You 2 Someone's Got A Hold Of My Heart 3 Lord Protect My Child 4 Angel Flying Too Close To The Ground 5 Foot Of Pride 6 I And I 7 Tell Me 8 Union Sundown 9 Julius And Ethel 10 Jokerman 11 License To Kill 12 Man Of Peace 13 Don't Fall Apart On Me Tonight Disc two 1 Neighborhood Bully 2 Blind Willie McTell (electric) 3 This Was My Love (Jim Harbert) 4 This Was My Love 5 Angel Flying Too Close To The Ground 6 Dark Groove 7 Don't Fly Unless It's Safe 8 Clean Cut Kid 9 Death Is Not The End 10 Sweetheart Like You 11 Union Sundown 12 Sweetheart Like You (Several rehearsals)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Tiger's Nest and kumbhaya mantra
On Sep 3, 2010, at 12:42 PM, emptybill wrote: Orgyen Kusum Lingpa, my first Tibetan teacher, lived in Golok, Tibet (now part of China). He believed in Shambhala quite literally. In fact when he first came to the West (1994) and saw blond haired people he thought they were from Shambhala. He was a terton and saw many such people in the Shambhala mandala. He got a good laugh at his own assumptions when he found out it weren't necessarily so. He also had advice for people who considered the subtle Shambhala mandala a place to be reborn. Don't be reborn there, because there will be fierce warfare involving Shambhala. His advice was rather to choose Sukhavati since it was a direct route to Bodhi. Exactly how Shambhala is positioned in Bhu-mandala/Chakravada, I'm not sure. Going upwards goes to a series of subtle mountain ranges. Descend downward into the closest valley and into the dark black center and the perceiver pops out into the empty space of our solar system. I believe that this type of perception (which is quite simple) is how/why the Indian yogins described the cosmology of Sumeru in the way they did. Although it is confounding to Westerners practitioners, particularly new Buddhists, it is an attempt to overlap Geo-sensory perception with an elementary form of yogi-pratyaksha. I don't know that I'd say that Pure Vision (dag sNan) is quite simple even though it is perfectly natural. Astral imaginings, mediumistic abilities and astral projection a la western esotericism is quite simple, but should not be confused with Pure Vision. One should also not assume that models of reality or geographical maps of reality hold any intrinsic value IMO. They merely represent the particular realization of a yogin(i) and what he passed onto his or her body of students to help those close to him or her awaken quickly and completely. Most tantras start out as rather simplified affairs and only later become large collections of writings and teachings. For example many tantras vary considerably in their descriptions of the chakras. There is no right or wrong here, each one is relatively true unto itself. Yet some people actually believe here are 7 chakras as some absolute subtle body, as if 7 were some magic number of chakras. Not so. Since the number of sentient beings are effectively infinite, so are the numbers of pure mandalas that can be expressed, along with their own geographies and bioenergetic bodies.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Charles Darwin on morals
This is ordinary tribalism. What does this have to do with morality? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifux...@... wrote: ... When two tribes of primeval man, living in the same country, came into competition, if (other circumstances being equal) the one tribe included a great number of courageous, sympathetic and faithful members, who were always ready to warn each other of danger, to aid and defend each other, this tribe would succeed better and conquer the other. ... imo pretty straightforward...and the need for God?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Charles Darwin on morals
Morals are born of behavior. There is an intrinsic Dharma in the Universe; but one should be careful about defining morals in terms of a set of a priori morals. They may not exist. In the context of Nichiren's Buddhism, morals would simply be an offshoot of an outcome of collective desires, and individual desires within a closed society; where people must interact with each other. The evolutionary outcome of individual desires (in which person A's desire may go against person B's and so on); leads in time to a set of behaviors (say, among chimps, humans); that people call morals. ... To investigate morals, one should look at the context and source of morals as Darwin seems to have done. Such survical mechanisms lead to morals; but don't start with morals first. Look first into the evolutionary experiment and the history of cultures in the Middle East, Far East, etc. Look especially into the I-Ching and Confucious. Seek, and ye shall find. Open your Chinese fortune cookie and you will find the origins of morals. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptyb...@... wrote: This is ordinary tribalism. What does this have to do with morality? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifuxero@ wrote: ... When two tribes of primeval man, living in the same country, came into competition, if (other circumstances being equal) the one tribe included a great number of courageous, sympathetic and faithful members, who were always ready to warn each other of danger, to aid and defend each other, this tribe would succeed better and conquer the other. ... imo pretty straightforward...and the need for God?
[FairfieldLife] Post Count
Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): Sat Aug 28 00:00:00 2010 End Date (UTC): Sat Sep 04 00:00:00 2010 521 messages as of (UTC) Fri Sep 03 23:47:19 2010 50 Joe geezerfr...@yahoo.com 49 WillyTex willy...@yahoo.com 49 TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com 36 Rick Archer r...@searchsummit.com 26 Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net 25 yifuxero yifux...@yahoo.com 20 emptybill emptyb...@yahoo.com 18 cardemaister no_re...@yahoogroups.com 17 Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@lisco.com 17 John jr_...@yahoo.com 16 Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net 15 sgrayatlarge no_re...@yahoogroups.com 15 nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 13 curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com 13 Robert babajii...@yahoo.com 12 Buck dhamiltony...@yahoo.com 10 wgm4u wg...@yahoo.com 10 seventhray1 steve.sun...@sbcglobal.net 10 do.rflex do.rf...@yahoo.com 9 PaliGap compost...@yahoo.co.uk 9 Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com 8 Peter drpetersutp...@yahoo.com 8 Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com 7 wayback71 waybac...@yahoo.com 6 raunchydog raunchy...@yahoo.com 6 Tom Pall thomas.p...@gmail.com 5 Jason jedi_sp...@yahoo.com 4 merudanda no_re...@yahoogroups.com 4 feste37 fest...@yahoo.com 3 shukra69 shukr...@yahoo.ca 3 pranamoocher bh...@hotmail.com 3 nadarrombus royboyun...@yahoo.com 3 krysto kry...@natel.net 3 gullible fool ffl...@yahoo.com 3 wle...@aol.com 3 Peter L Sutphen drpetersutp...@yahoo.com 2 ditzyklanmail carc...@yahoo.co.in 1 tartbrain no_re...@yahoogroups.com 1 shanti2218411 kc...@epix.net 1 parsleysage meowthirt...@yahoo.com 1 johnlasher20002000 johnlasher20002...@yahoo.com 1 geezerfreak geezerfr...@yahoo.com 1 azgrey no_re...@yahoogroups.com 1 I am the eternal l.shad...@gmail.com 1 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 1 Duveyoung no_re...@yahoogroups.com 1 David Lawson ldlaw...@comcast.net 1 steve.brennon steve.bren...@yahoo.com Posters: 48 Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times = Daylight Saving Time (Summer): US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM Standard Time (Winter): US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Palin's Temper
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge no_re...@... wrote: After I read your gem, I happen to notice that the unemployment rate rose to 9.6%, not exactly the Summer of Recovery that the administration touted in June. I suppose a true intellectual, regardless of how much internal firepower they pocess as a stand alone, simply can't know everything, and when someone like Obama who pocesses a high IQ coupled with unbridled narcissism, well, you have a recipe for disaster and We the People do suffer and will continue to suffer, so by the time the 2012 elections roll around, the first 50 names in the Walla Walla phone book would be preferrable. 100 billlion/yr. for the last 7 yrs. Plus, how many killed, how many grievously wounded? That's what you have on the other side of the equation. Who is better off with Saddam Hussein out of power? The handful of people he subjucated? The word on the street in Bagdad is that Iraq proably needs a strong personality to keep order.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Palin's Temper
Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@... wrote: ROFLMAO! What's the old saying? It takes a Jimmy Carter to make a Ronald Reagan. Well, it takes a Barrack Hussein Obama to create a Sarah Palin! Dix, tell me again what was so grand about George Bush and Dick Cheney, and their War on Terror we heard about day in and day out for 7 years. And wasn't Obama going to lower the shield, and leave the US open to attack? Are you disappointed this hasn't happened? George Bush, and Dick Cheney are conservatives? Are you kidding? In what way? Maybe Obama isn't living up to my expectations. Maybe he is throwing a lot of money around. But look at what we had prior to this. Tell me again. What was so great about George Bush and Dick Cheney? But then again Dix, I notice that you typically ignore, or don't read or at least respond to my posts.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dylan's Infidels outtakes
Brilliant! Huge thank you Vaj! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: Lossless versions of Dylan's Infidels sessions are circulating on the net and well worth the large download. The album is not only produced by Mark Knopfler, but includes his signature style as guitarist on many songs. Some of the songs on the outtakes are already included on The Bootleg Series, Vols. 1-3 (Rare Unreleased) 1961-1991, but these are all earlier mixes. One of the endearing qualities of this outtake collection is not only does Dylan use different lyrics in some of the songs (Jokerman being a prime example), the early mix gives one insight into the creative process and some of the cool licks, layers and fills that were later stripped from the album release. The version of what many consider a Dylan classic, Blind Willie McTell, is electric slide on the outtakes, while the original is acoustic guitar and piano. Jokerman (lossless AIFF/WAV). Outfidel Intakes (power and greed and corruptable seed) 4/11/83 - 5/8/83 The Power Station NYC remastered Rough Cuts and Outfidel Intakes Infidels studio outtakes CD-R 24 bit remaster including cedar noise reduction and t.c. electronics M5 mulitband dynamics, eq, and dither master CD-Rs plextor DAE FLAC Disc one 1 Sweetheart Like You 2 Someone's Got A Hold Of My Heart 3 Lord Protect My Child 4 Angel Flying Too Close To The Ground 5 Foot Of Pride 6 I And I 7 Tell Me 8 Union Sundown 9 Julius And Ethel 10 Jokerman 11 License To Kill 12 Man Of Peace 13 Don't Fall Apart On Me Tonight Disc two 1 Neighborhood Bully 2 Blind Willie McTell (electric) 3 This Was My Love (Jim Harbert) 4 This Was My Love 5 Angel Flying Too Close To The Ground 6 Dark Groove 7 Don't Fly Unless It's Safe 8 Clean Cut Kid 9 Death Is Not The End 10 Sweetheart Like You 11 Union Sundown 12 Sweetheart Like You (Several rehearsals)
[FairfieldLife] Re: ET morality
Correct. Phone home. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptyb...@... wrote: Who has written or theorized about morality in our possible future contacts with ET-s? How could we even evaluate them enough to judge if there is any form of moral code. That means no human analogues. WTF?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bhoja-vRtti translation?Book Banning ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptyb...@... wrote: He's Theosophist. He made it up! What else would you expect? When I read this back in '76 it didn't make sense to me and after I found the classical commentaries it was obviously his attempt to supply speculation for understanding. This is why I questioned you about using Taimini and why I don't read him. I mainly use it because it has nice devanaagarii Sanskrit, very accurate transliteration and cool vocabulary. I think Taimni is at least as trustworthy as, say, VidyaaraNya, whose comments on YS in Jiivanmuktiviveka are IMO a bit like an ayatollah commenting on the Bible, heh... For instance, he doesn't seem to have the guts to even mention e.g. saMyama! Or does he?
