date:20110301

Interesting article, by Yasmin Mogahed, on Huffpost. I like it because
it deals with one of the phenomena that has most struck me about
Fairfield Life and similar cyberforums: how can people get so
*obsessive* about how they are perceived, and on a forum that is
regularly read by maybe 20 to 30 people, most of whom they have never
met?

The answer seems to be (in this author's opinion) inherent in the medium
itself, and the fact that it lures people into focusing on the self,
that self's seeming importance, and its supremacy over other selves on
the same forum. The mere fact that people can easily, using desktop
technology, seem to control or spin their own self image entices them
to do just that. People used to have to hire publicists to spin their
images; now everyone can do it. And the winner in all these exercises
in image control? The self. In other words, spending a great deal of
time on cyberforums that entice one to focus on self may just be the
worst enemy of self realization ever invented.
Faith and Facebook: The Spiritual Pitfalls of an Online Existence
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yasmin-mogahed/facebook-the-hidden-dange_\
b_828928.html We live in an iWorld. Surrounded by iPhones, iPads,
MYspace, YOUtube, the focus is clear: Me, my, I. One need not look far
to see this obsession with the self. In order to sell, advertisers must
appeal to the ego. For example, many ads appeal to the part of us that
loves power and being in charge. DirectTV tells you: Don't watch TV,
direct TV! Yogurtland says: You rule! Welcome to the land of endless
yogurt possibilities, where you rule the portions, the choices and the
scene.
But advertisers aren't the only ones who appeal to our ego. There is a
global phenomenon that provides a breeding ground and platform for that
ego. And it's called Facebook. Now, I'll be the first to assert that
Facebook can be a powerful tool for good. It is, like many other things,
what you make of it. A knife can be used to cut food which feeds the
hungry, or it can be used to kill someone. Facebook can be used for
great good -- after all it was Facebook that helped facilitate the
toppling of a dictator. Facebook can be used as a powerful tool to
organize, call, remind and unite. Facebook can also be used to
strengthen our connection to God and to each other ... or Facebook can
be used to strengthen the hold of our ego.

The Facebook phenomenon is an interesting one. In each and every one of
us is an ego. It is the part of ourselves that must be suppressed (if we
are to avoid Anakin's fate of turning to the dark side, that is). The
danger of feeding the ego is that, as the ego is fed, it becomes strong.
When it becomes strong, it begins to rule us.

The ego is the part of us that loves power. It is the part that loves to
be seen, recognized, praised, and adored. Facebook provides a powerful
platform for this. It provides a platform by which every word, picture,
or thought I have can be seen, praised, 'liked'. As a result, I begin to
seek this. But then it doesn't just stay in the cyber world. I begin
even to live my life with this visibility in mind. Suddenly, I live
every experience, every photo, every thought, as if it's being watched,
because in the back of my mind I'm thinking, I'll put it on Facebook.
This creates a very interesting state of being, almost a constant sense
that I am living my life on display. I become ever conscious of being
watched, because everything can be put up on Facebook for others to see
and comment on.

More importantly, it creates a false sense of self-importance, where
every insignificant move I make is of international importance. Soon I
become the focus, the one on display. The message is: I am so important.
My life is so important. Every move I make is so important. The result
becomes an even stronger me-focused world, where I am at the center.

As it turns out, this result is diametrically opposed to the Reality of
spiritual existence. The goal of that existence is to realize the Truth
of God's greatness and my own insignificance and need before Him. The
goal is to take myself out of the center and put Him there instead. But
Facebook perpetuates the illusion of the exact opposite. It strengthens
my belief that because of my own importance, every inconsequential move
or thought should be on display. Suddenly what I ate for breakfast or
bought at the grocery store is news important enough to publish. When I
put up a picture, I wait for compliments; I wait for acknowledgement and
recognition. With the number of likes or comments, even physical beauty
becomes something that can now be quantified. When I put up a post, I
wait for it to be 'liked'. And I am ever conscious of -- and even
compete in -- the number of friends I have. (Friends, here, is in
quotation marks because no one knows 80% of their friends on
Facebook.)

Facebook also strengthens another dangerous focus: the focus on other
people, what they're doing, what they like. What they think of

[FairfieldLife] Re: Srikanta Bharati Swami's write-up on early days w/MMY, first ever TTC, meeting w/ Guru Dev

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote:

 In the end the CIA simply gave up getting to Him. They saw 
 it was impossible having tried for years and years working 
 not only on their own but with other agencies as well, 
 particularily the germans. 
 
 By the early 90's they had given up altogetther; Mission 
 Impossible.

Neither consistency nor rational thought seem
to be Nabby's long suit.  :-)

I think it's important to remember that the lines
above were written *by the person who has claimed
dozens of times on FFL that one or more of its
members was on the CIA payroll*.

When evidence that Maharishi was paranoid enough
to need bodyguards *in his own house* surfaces, 
Nabby feels the need to excuse that away by 
making up stories that it was all about fulfilling
the karmic needs of the bodyguards. 

Then, when it suits him to thus portray Maharishi
as *not* paranoid, or *not* needing to be, he 
rescinds the very paranoia he has been preaching
on FFL for years, without even noticing he's doing
it. And within a few weeks, he'll be back to claim-
ing that FFL is full of people working for the CIA 
again. And he won't notice that he's reversed
himself *then*, either.

Fanatics are nothing if not entertaining.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Srikanta Bharati Swami's write-up on early days w/MMY, first ever TTC, meeting w/ Guru Dev

2011-03-01 Thread nablusoss1008



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote:
 
  In the end the CIA simply gave up getting to Him. They saw 
  it was impossible having tried for years and years working 
  not only on their own but with other agencies as well, 
  particularily the germans. 
  
  By the early 90's they had given up altogetther; Mission 
  Impossible.
 
 Neither consistency nor rational thought seem
 to be Nabby's long suit.  :-)
 
 I think it's important to remember that the lines
 above were written *by the person who has claimed
 dozens of times on FFL that one or more of its
 members was on the CIA payroll*.
 
 When evidence that Maharishi was paranoid enough
 to need bodyguards *in his own house* surfaces, 
 Nabby feels the need to excuse that away by 
 making up stories that it was all about fulfilling
 the karmic needs of the bodyguards. 
 
 Then, when it suits him to thus portray Maharishi
 as *not* paranoid, or *not* needing to be, he 
 rescinds the very paranoia he has been preaching
 on FFL for years, without even noticing he's doing
 it. And within a few weeks, he'll be back to claim-
 ing that FFL is full of people working for the CIA 
 again. And he won't notice that he's reversed
 himself *then*, either.
 
 Fanatics are nothing if not entertaining.  :-)



The Turq trying to word his way out of facts and supporting the CIA ?

Nothing new, same old, same old.

How utterly boring, doesn't he have anything better to do ?
Probably not.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it be so bad if Maharishi was just a guy?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
  My dogs are certified pound pets, and thus
  their breed or mix of breeds is kinda uncertain.
  I actually posted a photo of them before, all
  dressed up in their Christmas costumes. I have
  now moved it to your new folder.
 
 I just saw that picture.  Those are not the type of dogs I 
 had pictured in my mind that you would have.  I had pictured 
 something more like German Shepards.  

Sorta like you've been picturing me lately in your
mind as intolerant?  :-)

 Those guys are really cute.  

My bad for not uploading a photo of me leading two
snarling German Shepherds, aiming them at TMers,
and shouting Sic 'em, boys.  :-) 

WSIWYG, dude. Emphasis on What you SEE is what
you get, with no relation to What I see is
what's really going on.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A checklist of psychological traits (was: ...if Maharishi was just a guy)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote:

 Maharishi is dead and gone. I'll repeat that and see if it 
 sinks in: Maharishi is dead and gone. Trying to ascribe this 
 or that to him at this point is like trying to walk around 
 in a lost pair of shoes. 

Leaving the DSM-IV criteria in place below, I have a
question to ask of you, Jimbo. Did you ever actually
*meet* Maharishi? Were you ever in the same room with
him, or spend days, weeks, months, or years watching
him interact with people, and thus be capable of 
determining whether he either meets or does not not
meet these criteria? 

 I guess he made much more of an impression on you (line etched 
 in stone) than he did me. I just do TM and don't think twice 
 about it, or Maharishi. Why not get over it? :-)

Some would say that you don't think twice about much
of *anything*, Jimbo. And you consistently react to
anyone who suggests that maybe it would be in your
interest *to* try thinking for a change by trying to 
demonize them. Why not just get over it?

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
 
  Interesting post, Michael. I cannot help but agree with many of your
  points. Just as an exercise in open-mindedness, compare the following
  list of personality traits with your own personal list of gurus I have
  known up close. You may include or not include Maharishi...your call:
  
  * Glibness and Superficial Charm.
  
  * Manipulative and Cunning. They never recognize the rights of others
  and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be
  charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim
  as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate
  their victims.
  
  * Grandiose Sense of Self. Feels entitled to certain things as their
  right.
  
  * Pathological Lying. Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is
  almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can
  create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers
  and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector
  tests.
  
  * Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt. A deep seated rage, which is split
  off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as
  people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they
  have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always
  justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
  
  * Shallow Emotions. When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love
  and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an
  ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining
  unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not
  genuine, neither are their promises.
  
  * Incapacity for Love.
  
  * Need for Stimulation. Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and
  physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.
  
  * Callousness/Lack of Empathy. Unable to empathize with the pain of
  their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and
  readily taking advantage of them.
  
  * Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature. Rage and abuse, alternating
  with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle
  for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim.
  Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no
  sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.
  
  * Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency. Usually has a history of
  behavioral and academic difficulties, yet gets by by conning others.
  Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as
  cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.
  
  * Irresponsibility/Unreliability. Not concerned about wrecking others'
  lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they
  cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for
  acts they obviously committed.
  
  * Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity. Promiscuity, child sexual
  abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.
  
  * Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle. Tends to move around
  a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic
  but exploits others effectively.
  
  * Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility. Changes their image as needed
  to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.
  
  * Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them.
  
  * Authoritarian.
  
  * Secretive.
  
  * Paranoid.
  
  * Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where
  their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired.
  
  * Goal of enslavement of their victim(s).
  
  * Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life.
  
  * Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs
  their victim's affirmation (respect,

[FairfieldLife] Re: A checklist of psychological traits (was: ...if Maharishi was just a guy)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Flatley untilbeyond@... wrote:

 Thank you, Turk.
 
 To be always questioning everything, to be starved for 
 substantive information, can become tiresome.  

Not quite as tiresome as being demonized for question-
ing itself, but I get your point.  :-)

 The allure of a system that presented a world of answers...

Pat answers. Answers presented as if they were Truth
Incarnate, and never to be questioned, on peril of 
being excommunicated.

 ...is what made me vulnerable.  Answers are like a drug.  

Exactly. My point is that many here are WAY strung 
out on the pat answers they've been parroting for
decades, and at this point cannot live without them.
They react to those who suggest that the pat answers
ARE drugs exactly the same way that junkies react to
those might suggest that their neighborhood dealers
are not nice guys who are merely filling a societal
need.  :-)

 And drugs can be extremely helpful in moderation. The 
 risk is getting addicted, right?

Exactly. Pat answers are fine *in their place*, and
recognized as the temporary learning aids they are.
Few would argue that the simplistic pat answers they
were given in kindergarten or grade school presented
the whole story, or were all that they ever need to
learn about a given subject. But you have people doing
that here with regard to the simplistic pat answers
given to them by Maharishi. 

 In shamanic cultures, they had no tolerance for self-
 importance. The value of a tyrant is in their ability to 
 illustrate and magnify self-importance. Tyrants facilitate 
 awareness.  
 
 In The Fire Within, Castenada did a great job of explaining 
 how vital it was to locate a petty tyrant, to practice being 
 senior... his teachers made it clear that if we can't overcome 
 a human tyrant in this realm, then we will be ill-prepared for 
 dealing with more signifigant predators on the other side.  

Ahem. While I agree that Carlos Castaneda wrote well
and compellingly about many things, I met the dude and
I've spent some time with folks who studied with him
closely for years. Suffice it to say that he rarely
walked his own talk. Much of what he wrote was creative
fiction, and had nothing to do with the cultures he
attributed it to, modern or ancient. That said, there
is still much to be learned from his writings IMO.

 ... I noticed that most of y'all are beyond the righteous 
 indignation, and have a playful attitude about the foolishness 
 we bought into for as long as we did. We sucked hard and long 
 and pretended to love it. I do see the humor now.

As much as I poke and prod at the exceptions on this
forum -- those who cannot get past regarding the pat
answers they were given as The Answers -- I agree with
you, Michael. One of the reasons I like this place is
that many seem to have developed a sense of humor about
the stuff we went through, and *our own part in it*. 

No one could have really *forced* us to believe in the
guff we believed in for decades and submit to many of
the indignities of life in the TMO. We did so willingly,
because we had come to believe the end justifies the
means, and had stopped analyzing the means themselves,
and what they *said* about us, and our values. Now, 
belatedly, many are beginning to question our decades
of non-questioning and obeisance. 

I think that's a healthy process, and applaud it. Some
on this forum use every opportunity presented to them
to put it down and demonize it. Go figure.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Table Bluff Hotel and Saloon

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

 1889
 http://www.museumsyndicate.com/images/5/49787.jpg

My kinda saloon.  :-)

I particularly like the bear foot chair. And doncha
wonder whether the boar bar stool was reserved for
the biggest bore?

[FairfieldLife] Double Attention and Two Minds

Since we are having this discussion here about splitting the mind, and the 
topic of Gurdjieff came up, as an example of practises *not* to do in TM 
theory/dogma, I think it's worth having a second look on it, what it actually 
means from a proponent of Gurdjeffs teaching. It is easy to misinterpret a 
teaching on the basis of half-knowledge and hear say. So I found the following 
video, explaining double attention, and, you know what, it actually makes 
sense. Our awareness is naturally able do perceive many things at a time, once 
we are in the witness mode. But once we concentrate on something, it tends to 
occupy are mind more or less exclusively, we get identified and are not 
in-the-flow. See the video and you will see that it is something we actually do 
all the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdk_JnZ4y0I

In this context: Are there two minds? This is from a Castaneda book. Castaneda 
quite likely was also influenced by Gurdjieff, and many of his ideas he 
collected from him. Read this and compare:

http://www.prismagems.com/castaneda/donjuan12.html

We are not naturally petty and contradictory. Our pettiness and contradictions 
are, rather, the result of a transcendental conflict that afflicts every one of 
us, but of which only sorcerers are painfully and hopelessly aware: the 
conflict of our two minds! One is our true mind, the product of all our life 
experiences, the one that rarely speaks because it has been defeated and 
relegated to obscurity. The other, the mind we use daily for everything we do, 
is a foreign installation.
  
To resolve the conflict of the two minds is a matter of intending it. 
Sorcerers beckon intent by voicing the word intent loud and clear. Intent is a 
force that exists in the universe. When sorcerers beckon intent, it comes to 
them and sets up the path for attainment, which means that sorcerers always 
accomplish what they set out to do.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Srikanta Bharati Swami's write-up on early days w/MMY, first ever TTC, meeting w/ Guru Dev



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote:

 innumerable times He would simply not get in the car, on the boat or on the 
 plane, not because the bodygyards told him not to but because the timing 
 wasn't right or perhaps it was unsafe to do so. 

Very convincing argument: that he didn't get into the car shows that it would 
have blown up. Sure.

 By the early 90's they had given up altogetther; Mission Impossible.


Agent to central: Object cannot be destroyed. Object doesn't exist. Mission 
impossible.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Srikanta Bharati Swami's write-up on early days w/MMY, first ever TTC, meeting w/ Guru Dev



On Feb 28, 2011, at 10:58 PM, Tom Pall wrote:

Hmm.  I have to rehink the bit about Maharishi congnizing the vedas  
and discovering the true Vastu, Joytish, Ayurveda and yagyas.  Also  
the sidhis.  If he was omniscient, why on earth would he need two  
stalwart bodyguards?  Sort of like when he said there were CIA  
agents at a meeting at the ?Indian Express?.  What is it he said  
when someone asked why Maharishi didn't just point the CIA agents  
out?  If Maharishi didn't know when someone would attack him or his  
plane (if Nabby can be believed about getting his plane blown up)  
them what can we believe he did cognize?  The mantras?  The  
advanced techniques?  The A of E techniques?



If you haven't figured out that he cognized nothing by now, I'm not  
sure what to say.


The only text alleged to have been cognized by Mahesh is his  
apaurusheya bhasya of Rig Veda. He was still working on it when he  
died. I seriously doubt we'll ever see it.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Double Attention and Two Minds



On Mar 1, 2011, at 6:41 AM, blusc0ut wrote:

Since we are having this discussion here about splitting the mind,  
and the topic of Gurdjieff came up, as an example of practises  
*not* to do in TM theory/dogma, I think it's worth having a second  
look on it, what it actually means from a proponent of Gurdjeffs  
teaching. It is easy to misinterpret a teaching on the basis of  
half-knowledge and hear say. So I found the following video,  
explaining double attention, and, you know what, it actually makes  
sense. Our awareness is naturally able do perceive many things at a  
time, once we are in the witness mode. But once we concentrate on  
something, it tends to occupy are mind more or less exclusively, we  
get identified and are not in-the-flow. See the video and you will  
see that it is something we actually do all the time.



From the POV of Mahasandhi (Dzogchen), choosing silence over  
movement (of thoughts) is what creates the false division. When one's  
established in the nondual state of presence (vidya or rigpa),  
streams of thoughts can be meditation as well. Therefore, from the  
POV of the Natural State, one could say it's dualistic meditational  
practices that divide the mind, not it's own natural tendency:



When we practice habitually in this way for a long time, the mere
arising of thoughts becomes the meditation itself. It makes no  
difference

whether thoughts arise or do not arise. The boundaries between
the calm state and the movement of thoughts collapses completely.
The movement of thoughts is now seen directly as indescribable light,
the manifestation of the clear luminosity of the Base which is the
Primordial State. These movements bring no harm or disturbance to
the profound calm at the center. Rather than movement occurring as
discursive thoughts that are inherently limited and restrictive, it  
occurs

as a direct and immediate knowledge or gnosis (ye-shes) that is
everywhere directly penetrating (zang-thal). Thoughts spontaneously
manifest as this directly penetrating knowledge (ye-shes zang-thal)
without any intervening process of transforming impure karmic vision
into pure vision, as is the case with the Tantra system of practice.
Nevertheless, to the outside observer, the mind of the Siddha
may look deceptively like an ordinary mind because very mundane
thoughts continue to arise; but all is not sweetness and light here.
The Yogin continues to lust, hunger, and defecate as long as he is in a
physical body, the product of past karma. Even though the morning
sun strikes the glacier, the ice does not melt immediately; similarly,
all the qualities of enlightenment do not immediately manifest, even
though the mind has realized enlightenment. But whereas the ordinary
individual is forever trying to create or suppress thoughts (dgag
sgrub) and so continues to accumulate the energy of the samskaras
(unconscious impulses), the Yogin realizes the liberation of these same
thoughts precisely at the moment when they arise.

from The Arising of Thoughts Becomes the Meditation
in:
The Golden Letters
The Three Statements of Garab Dorje,
the first teacher of Dzogchen,
together with a commentary by
Dza Patrul Rinpoche
entitled The Special Teaching of the
Wise and Glorious King

[FairfieldLife] Re: Would it be so bad if Maharishi was just a guy?

2011-03-01 Thread seventhray1



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:
  I just saw that picture. Those are not the type of dogs I
  had pictured in my mind that you would have. I had pictured
  something more like German Shepards.

 Sorta like you've been picturing me lately in your
 mind as intolerant? :-)

Yea, I was thinking about that all yesterday, and chuckling to myself
about it.



  Those guys are really cute.

 My bad for not uploading a photo of me leading two
 snarling German Shepherds, aiming them at TMers,
 and shouting Sic 'em, boys. :-)

 WSIWYG, dude. Emphasis on What you SEE is what
 you get, with no relation to What I see is
 what's really going on.

[FairfieldLife] Fwd: Worthy Puns

 From: erin.paull.schwi...@gmail.com
To: shi...@charon-ind.com
CC:  rog...@msn.com, s.beversl...@precmed.net, 
stuart.branni...@btinternet.com,  geo...@microphotonics.com, 
dgr...@texasmolecular.com, 
natalie.gar...@yum.com,  wle...@aol.com, rmedea...@aol.com, 
janetkuiv...@aol.com,  
shim...@muohio.edu
Sent: 3/1/2011 7:52:47 A.M. Eastern Standard  Time
Subj: Re: Worthy Puns

Got quite a few chuckles out of this :) Thanks!

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Harry B. Shimp _shimph@charon-ind.com_ 
(mailto:shi...@charon-ind.com)   wrote:

Worthy  Puns  

Those who jump off a bridge in  Paris are in Seine.

A man's home is his castle, in a manor of  speaking.

Dijon vu - the same mustard as  before.

Practice safe eating - always use  condiments.

Shotgun wedding - A case of wife or death.

A  man needs a mistress just to break the monogamy.

A hangover is  the wrath of grapes.

Dancing cheek-to-cheek is really a form of  floor play.

Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?

Condoms  should be used on every conceivable occasion.

Reading while  sunbathing makes you well red.

When two egotists meet, it's an  I for an I.

A bicycle can't stand on its own because it is two  tired.

What's the definition of a will? (It's a dead give  away.)

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a  banana.

In democracy your vote counts. In feudalism your count  votes

She was engaged to a boyfriend with a wooden leg but  broke it off.

A chicken crossing the road is poultry in  motion.

If you don't pay your exorcist, you get  repossessed

With her marriage, she got a new name and a  dress.

The man who fell into an upholstery machine is fully  recovered

You feel stuck with your debt if you can't budge  it.

Local Area Network in Australia - the LAN down  under.

Every calendar's days are numbered.

A lot of  money is tainted - It taint yours and it taint mine.

A boiled  egg in the morning is hard to beat

He had a photographic memory  that was never developed.

A midget fortune-teller who escapes  from prison is a small medium at large.

Once you've seen one  shopping centre, you've seen a mall.

Bakers trade bread recipes  on a knead-to-know basis..

Santa's helpers are subordinate  clauses.

Acupuncture is a jab well  done.

-- 
Formerly Erin K. Paull (_erinpaull@gmail.com_ (mailto:erinpa...@gmail.com) )

_erin.paull.schwille@gmail.com_ (mailto:erin.paull.schwi...@gmail.com) 
412.427.9570

Re: [FairfieldLife] Faith and Facebook: The Spiritual Pitfalls of an Online Existence

2011-03-01 Thread Sal Sunshine

On Mar 1, 2011, at 3:29 AM, turquoiseb wrote:

 The ego is the part of us that loves power. It is the part that loves to be 
 seen, recognized, praised, and adored.

Barry I submit that this is a somewhat (ahem) Age of 
Ignorance view.  The ego might be that part, it is also
the part of us that creates healthy self-esteem and tells
us when some bogus charlatan is trying to put one over,
like this guy.  If his ego wasn't out-of-control why would
he be lecturing his readers?

 Facebook provides a powerful platform for this.

Ah yes...when in doubt, blame Facebook.

 It provides a platform by which every word, picture, or thought I have can be 
 seen, praised, 'liked'. As a result, I begin to seek this. But then it 
 doesn't just stay in the cyber world. I begin even to live my life with this 
 visibility in mind. Suddenly, I live every experience, every photo, every 
 thought, as if it's being watched, because in the back of my mind I'm 
 thinking, I'll put it on Facebook. This creates a very interesting state of 
 being, almost a constant sense that I am living my life on display. I become 
 ever conscious of being watched, because everything can be put up on Facebook 
 for others to see and comment on.
 
 More importantly, it creates a false sense of self-importance, where every 
 insignificant move I make is of international importance. Soon I become the 
 focus, the one on display. The message is: I am so important. My life is so 
 important. Every move I make is so important. The result becomes an even 
 stronger me-focused world, where I am at the center.
 
 As it turns out, this result is diametrically opposed to the Reality of 
 spiritual existence. The goal of that existence is to realize the Truth of 
 God's greatness and my own insignificance and need before Him.

When in even greater doubt, pompously assert that you
know the Truth, and then masochistically self-flagellate yourself
to prove how spiritual you are.

My ego tells me this pompous ass needs to get back 
on his medication.
Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Faith and Facebook: The Spiritual Pitfalls of an Online Existence

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@... wrote:

 On Mar 1, 2011, at 3:29 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
 
  The ego is the part of us that loves power. It is the part 
  that loves to be seen, recognized, praised, and adored.
 
 Barry I submit that this is a somewhat (ahem) Age of 
 Ignorance view.  The ego might be that part, it is also
 the part of us that creates healthy self-esteem and tells
 us when some bogus charlatan is trying to put one over,
 like this guy.  If his ego wasn't out-of-control why would
 he be lecturing his readers?

Gal, but point taken. :-) 

  Facebook provides a powerful platform for this.
 
 Ah yes...when in doubt, blame Facebook.

Whenever possible, yes. :-)
 
 . . . 
 When in even greater doubt, pompously assert that you
 know the Truth, and then masochistically self-flagellate yourself
 to prove how spiritual you are.

I'm not a big fan of all her God Talk, but I think
she's got a valid point about the ego-inflating
qualities of social networking. That's the part of
what she said I thought was interesting.

 My ego tells me this pompous ass needs to get back 
 on his medication.

Her medication, but possibly. Then again, I think
that of pretty much anyone who talks about knowing
stuff like the Reality of spiritual existence, and
claiming to know stuff like The goal of that 
existence is to realize the Truth of God's greatness 
and my own insignificance and need before Him.

That, in my opinion, is a kind of reverse ego, in
which one asserts that one knows God's will, and
submits to it because, after all, God is the Big Guy
and I'm small potatoes by comparison.  :-)

In other words, I chose to pick and choose in what
she wrote, and enjoy only the parts I agree with. 
That's probably ego on my part, and fueled by Face-
book, but so be it.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Srikanta Bharati Swami's write-up on early days w/MMY, first ever TTC, meeting w/ Guru Dev


  Sort of like when he said there were CIA agents at a meeting at the ?Indian
  Express?.  What is it he said when someone asked why Maharishi didn't just
  point the CIA agents out?  If Maharishi didn't know when someone would
  attack him or his plane 
 
 
 In the end the CIA simply gave up getting to Him. They saw it was impossible 
 having tried for years and years working not only on their own but with other 
 agencies as well, particularily the germans. 


Wasn't the CIA just monitoring the TMO?  Mostly in response to the Jonestown 
massacre?


Or were they out to get him?   The IRS wanted to get him for tax evasion.  Was 
there a serious campaign to put him on trial for tax evasion, or just looking 
to scare him away from USA?


Also: Nixon was the best president ever for the USA, and Carter was the worst.  
He loved Nixon, hated Carter.  What was the deal with praising Nixon so much, 
even after he resigned in disgrace, and why wasn't this more of a flag for 
conscious TMers?  Liberal-minded meditators were flipping sides upon 
discovering MMY's assessments.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Srikanta Bharati Swami's write-up on early days w/MMY, first ever TTC, meeting w/ Guru Dev

2011-03-01 Thread Sal Sunshine

On Mar 1, 2011, at 3:38 AM, turquoiseb wrote:

 Fanatics are nothing if not entertaining.  :-)

Except in his case.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Faith and Facebook: The Spiritual Pitfalls of an Online Existence

We've never seen an addiction this popular, or this addictive ever.

People are sleeping with their device, and responding to shit in the middle of 
the night.
It's more pervasive with the 15-25 year-olds.  

We were already addicted to media before social media.  I guess this is how 
humanity is becoming aware of the pitfalls of self-importance.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:

 Interesting article, by Yasmin Mogahed, on Huffpost. I like it because
 it deals with one of the phenomena that has most struck me about
 Fairfield Life and similar cyberforums: how can people get so
 *obsessive* about how they are perceived, and on a forum that is
 regularly read by maybe 20 to 30 people, most of whom they have never
 met?
 
 The answer seems to be (in this author's opinion) inherent in the medium
 itself, and the fact that it lures people into focusing on the self,
 that self's seeming importance, and its supremacy over other selves on
 the same forum. The mere fact that people can easily, using desktop
 technology, seem to control or spin their own self image entices them
 to do just that. People used to have to hire publicists to spin their
 images; now everyone can do it. And the winner in all these exercises
 in image control? The self. In other words, spending a great deal of
 time on cyberforums that entice one to focus on self may just be the
 worst enemy of self realization ever invented.
 Faith and Facebook: The Spiritual Pitfalls of an Online Existence
 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yasmin-mogahed/facebook-the-hidden-dange_\
 b_828928.html We live in an iWorld. Surrounded by iPhones, iPads,
 MYspace, YOUtube, the focus is clear: Me, my, I. One need not look far
 to see this obsession with the self. In order to sell, advertisers must
 appeal to the ego. For example, many ads appeal to the part of us that
 loves power and being in charge. DirectTV tells you: Don't watch TV,
 direct TV! Yogurtland says: You rule! Welcome to the land of endless
 yogurt possibilities, where you rule the portions, the choices and the
 scene.
 But advertisers aren't the only ones who appeal to our ego. There is a
 global phenomenon that provides a breeding ground and platform for that
 ego. And it's called Facebook. Now, I'll be the first to assert that
 Facebook can be a powerful tool for good. It is, like many other things,
 what you make of it. A knife can be used to cut food which feeds the
 hungry, or it can be used to kill someone. Facebook can be used for
 great good -- after all it was Facebook that helped facilitate the
 toppling of a dictator. Facebook can be used as a powerful tool to
 organize, call, remind and unite. Facebook can also be used to
 strengthen our connection to God and to each other ... or Facebook can
 be used to strengthen the hold of our ego.
 
 The Facebook phenomenon is an interesting one. In each and every one of
 us is an ego. It is the part of ourselves that must be suppressed (if we
 are to avoid Anakin's fate of turning to the dark side, that is). The
 danger of feeding the ego is that, as the ego is fed, it becomes strong.
 When it becomes strong, it begins to rule us.
 
 The ego is the part of us that loves power. It is the part that loves to
 be seen, recognized, praised, and adored. Facebook provides a powerful
 platform for this. It provides a platform by which every word, picture,
 or thought I have can be seen, praised, 'liked'. As a result, I begin to
 seek this. But then it doesn't just stay in the cyber world. I begin
 even to live my life with this visibility in mind. Suddenly, I live
 every experience, every photo, every thought, as if it's being watched,
 because in the back of my mind I'm thinking, I'll put it on Facebook.
 This creates a very interesting state of being, almost a constant sense
 that I am living my life on display. I become ever conscious of being
 watched, because everything can be put up on Facebook for others to see
 and comment on.
 
 More importantly, it creates a false sense of self-importance, where
 every insignificant move I make is of international importance. Soon I
 become the focus, the one on display. The message is: I am so important.
 My life is so important. Every move I make is so important. The result
 becomes an even stronger me-focused world, where I am at the center.
 
 As it turns out, this result is diametrically opposed to the Reality of
 spiritual existence. The goal of that existence is to realize the Truth
 of God's greatness and my own insignificance and need before Him. The
 goal is to take myself out of the center and put Him there instead. But
 Facebook perpetuates the illusion of the exact opposite. It strengthens
 my belief that because of my own importance, every inconsequential move
 or thought should be on display. Suddenly what I ate for breakfast or
 bought at the grocery store is news important enough to publish. When I
 put up a picture, I wait for compliments; I wait for

[FairfieldLife] Re: Faith and Facebook: The Spiritual Pitfalls of an Online Existence

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:

 Interesting article, by Yasmin Mogahed, on Huffpost. I like
 it because it deals with one of the phenomena that has most
 struck me about Fairfield Life and similar cyberforums: how
 can people get so *obsessive* about how they are perceived,
 and on a forum that is regularly read by maybe 20 to 30 people,
 most of whom they have never met?

Actually, in describing Facebook, the article highlights
the *differences* between it and forums like FFL. The
latter are much more like a cocktail party, whereas
Facebook has no such analog in offline experience.

snip
 The mere fact that people can easily, using desktop
 technology, seem to control or spin their own self
 image entices them to do just that. People used to
 have to hire publicists to spin their images; now
 everyone can do it.

People are always spinning and have always spun their
images to those with whom they come in contact. The
only difference with technology is that they can come
in contact with people they would never meet face to
face. On a forum like FFL, it's a small group of
people who share certain interests and experiences;
on Facebook, it's vastly more promiscuous. The 
contacts are far less selective and the interaction
much less focused and intimate.

As a result, on Facebook, there are almost no curbs
on self-promotion and not much to compete with it.
On FFL-type forums, the whole point is mutual sharing
and interaction, which automatically limits self-
promotion.

Of course, those who are less interested in actual
human contact, in conversation and interaction, can
use a forum like FFL as a sort of junior Facebook
page devoted to self-promotion.

 More importantly, it creates a false sense of self-
 importance, where every insignificant move I make is of
 international importanceIt strengthens my belief
 that because of my own importance, every inconsequential
 move or thought should be on display.

Walking my dogs this morning, I found myself wondering...

I cognized this theory today while walking my dogs along
the beach.

It's just my attempt to tie together a few strands of
unrelated thought that flitted through my head while walking
my dogs.

...Last night I was out walking my dogs and, finding myself
a bit hungry, decided to find a restaurant in which to eat.
I was unsuccessful in this task

giggle

[FairfieldLife] Re: Double Attention and Two Minds

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@... wrote:

 Since we are having this discussion here about splitting
 the mind, and the topic of Gurdjieff came up, as an example
 of practises *not* to do in TM theory/dogma, I think it's
 worth having a second look on it, what it actually means
 from a proponent of Gurdjeffs teaching. It is easy to
 misinterpret a teaching on the basis of half-knowledge
 and hear say.

Just for the record, the person (moi) who mentioned to
blusc0ut what a TM teacher had said about Gurdjieffians
as an example of what TMers should not do was not
endorsing what the teacher said about them and explicitly
expressed doubt about its accuracy. The teacher's
Gurdjieff example had nothing to do with the point I was
making in any case. My point was not about the validity
of the TM teaching we were discussing, much less did it
suggest that the Gurdjieff example validated that teaching.

I'm hoping blusc0ut now understands this, as he didn't
at first.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A checklist of psychological traits (was: ...if Maharishi was just a guy)

2011-03-01 Thread whynotnow7


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote:
 
  Maharishi is dead and gone. I'll repeat that and see if it 
  sinks in: Maharishi is dead and gone. Trying to ascribe this 
  or that to him at this point is like trying to walk around 
  in a lost pair of shoes. 
 
 Leaving the DSM-IV criteria in place below, I have a
 question to ask of you, Jimbo. Did you ever actually
 *meet* Maharishi? Were you ever in the same room with
 him, or spend days, weeks, months, or years watching
 him interact with people, and thus be capable of 
 determining whether he either meets or does not not
 meet these criteria? 

**He's dead Turq. Not coming back. Finito. I sometimes think about what he 
said, but as to the whole controversy here about who he was, was he 
enlightened, was he crazy, and all that I leave to him and to  you.:-)
 
  I guess he made much more of an impression on you (line etched 
  in stone) than he did me. I just do TM and don't think twice 
  about it, or Maharishi. Why not get over it? :-)
 
 Some would say that you don't think twice about much
 of *anything*, Jimbo.

**What is that supposed to mean? Are you calling me thoughtless, or just 
clueless? - lol

 And you consistently react to
 anyone who suggests that maybe it would be in your
 interest *to* try thinking for a change by trying to 
 demonize them.

**No I don't dude. I welcome discussions here regularly, as long as they aren't 
a set up for a put down. You appear to be one of the most sensitive ones here 
to those expressing an alternative viewpoint to yours. 

Ideas don't get very far with you Turq. You express yourself, and if someone 
expresses an alternative opinion, you begin painting them as an unwholesome 
person in some regard.

I am making the point that you and others, who have been casting Maharishi and 
TM and TM Siddhis here in a bad light nearly every day, post after post, for 
years now, have not had any association with the man for *decades*, nor done 
his techniques. Its absurd. And Maharishi is dead. He passed away. Gone.

I am not demonizing you. I am pointing out a situation that doesn't make a lot 
of sense to me - this obsession of yours with Maharishi? :-) 

Why not just get over it?

**Yes, exactly. :-)
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
  
   Interesting post, Michael. I cannot help but agree with many of your
   points. Just as an exercise in open-mindedness, compare the following
   list of personality traits with your own personal list of gurus I have
   known up close. You may include or not include Maharishi...your call:
   
   * Glibness and Superficial Charm.
   
   * Manipulative and Cunning. They never recognize the rights of others
   and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be
   charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim
   as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate
   their victims.
   
   * Grandiose Sense of Self. Feels entitled to certain things as their
   right.
   
   * Pathological Lying. Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is
   almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can
   create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers
   and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector
   tests.
   
   * Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt. A deep seated rage, which is split
   off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as
   people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they
   have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always
   justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
   
   * Shallow Emotions. When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love
   and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an
   ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining
   unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not
   genuine, neither are their promises.
   
   * Incapacity for Love.
   
   * Need for Stimulation. Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and
   physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.
   
   * Callousness/Lack of Empathy. Unable to empathize with the pain of
   their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and
   readily taking advantage of them.
   
   * Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature. Rage and abuse, alternating
   with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle
   for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim.
   Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no
   sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.
   
   * Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency. Usually has a history of
   behavioral and academic difficulties, yet gets

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Double Attention and Two Minds

2011-03-01 Thread Tom Pall

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 10:18 AM, authfriend jst...@panix.com wrote:

 Just for the record, the person (moi) who mentioned to
 blusc0ut what a TM teacher had said about Gurdjieffians
 as an example of what TMers should not do was not
 endorsing what the teacher said about them and explicitly
 expressed doubt about its accuracy. The teacher's
 Gurdjieff example had nothing to do with the point I was
 making in any case. My point was not about the validity
 of the TM teaching we were discussing, much less did it
 suggest that the Gurdjieff example validated that teaching.

 I'm hoping blusc0ut now understands this, as he didn't
 at first.



I mentioned this before.  Maharishi devoted an entire evening expounding on
Gurdieff/Ouspensky.  His talk was condensed into a  tape I saw on a
residence course and during an advanced lecture.  Maharishi said that he was
listening to people who stopped in mid-sentence.  He asked why they were
doing that.  They explained that they were followers of Gurdieff/Ouspensky
and that they were witnessing what they said and did.  Maharishi tore into
them about dividing the mind and how it stressed out and tired the mind.
Maharishi then went on to talk at length about these people to his
followers.   He emphasized that this was dividing the mind and that doing
such tired and stressed out the mind and was counter-evolutionary.  He went
on to say that talking or listening to music while working divided the
mind.  He said that if you're going to do something, then do it and it
alone.  He also explained what real witnessing was and how it wasn't
dividing the mind using once again his analogy of PC  as the screen movies
are projected upon in a movie theater.  As the screen gets whiter and
whiter, brighter and brighter, the viewer sees both the movies and the
screen.  It's a totally effortless process.  It's an experiential and
perceptual thing. I've done most of my mantra japa while seated, whenever
possible with my eyes closed.  Sometimes I've done it while walking but
walking is mostly an automatic thing.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A checklist of psychological traits (was: ...if Maharishi was just a guy)

2011-03-01 Thread Joe

It appears Jim's answer is no. Jim, is that your final answer?

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote:
  
 Did you ever actually
  *meet* Maharishi? Were you ever in the same room with
  him, or spend days, weeks, months, or years watching
  him interact with people, and thus be capable of 
  determining whether he either meets or does not not
  meet these criteria? 
 
 **He's dead Turq. Not coming back. Finito. I sometimes think about what he 
 said, but as to the whole controversy here about who he was, was he 
 enlightened, was he crazy, and all that I leave to him and to  you.:-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Faith and Facebook: The Spiritual Pitfalls of an Online Existence

2011-03-01 Thread wayback71



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Flatley untilbeyond@... wrote:

 We've never seen an addiction this popular, or this addictive ever.
 
 People are sleeping with their device, and responding to shit in the middle 
 of the night.
 It's more pervasive with the 15-25 year-olds. 

I work with middle school aged children, and I can tell you that The Big 
problem right now is lack of sleep in many of our students.  Most kids these 
days by middle school have their own flat screen TV's in their rooms, a cell 
phone and gaming systems in their bedrooms as well as their laptop.  Do they 
sleep at night?  No way.  Kids are texting til 3 am, playng video games til 5 
am, and then either can't get up to go to school,or arrive and fall asleep in 
class.  This isn't going away, and parents don't seem to know what to do (lock 
up the items at night - cell, controls for games, laptop).  Kids just cannot 
seem to stop. 
 
 We were already addicted to media before social media.  I guess this is how 
 humanity is becoming aware of the pitfalls of self-importance.
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
 
  Interesting article, by Yasmin Mogahed, on Huffpost. I like it because
  it deals with one of the phenomena that has most struck me about
  Fairfield Life and similar cyberforums: how can people get so
  *obsessive* about how they are perceived, and on a forum that is
  regularly read by maybe 20 to 30 people, most of whom they have never
  met?
  
  The answer seems to be (in this author's opinion) inherent in the medium
  itself, and the fact that it lures people into focusing on the self,
  that self's seeming importance, and its supremacy over other selves on
  the same forum. The mere fact that people can easily, using desktop
  technology, seem to control or spin their own self image entices them
  to do just that. People used to have to hire publicists to spin their
  images; now everyone can do it. And the winner in all these exercises
  in image control? The self. In other words, spending a great deal of
  time on cyberforums that entice one to focus on self may just be the
  worst enemy of self realization ever invented.
  Faith and Facebook: The Spiritual Pitfalls of an Online Existence
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yasmin-mogahed/facebook-the-hidden-dange_\
  b_828928.html We live in an iWorld. Surrounded by iPhones, iPads,
  MYspace, YOUtube, the focus is clear: Me, my, I. One need not look far
  to see this obsession with the self. In order to sell, advertisers must
  appeal to the ego. For example, many ads appeal to the part of us that
  loves power and being in charge. DirectTV tells you: Don't watch TV,
  direct TV! Yogurtland says: You rule! Welcome to the land of endless
  yogurt possibilities, where you rule the portions, the choices and the
  scene.
  But advertisers aren't the only ones who appeal to our ego. There is a
  global phenomenon that provides a breeding ground and platform for that
  ego. And it's called Facebook. Now, I'll be the first to assert that
  Facebook can be a powerful tool for good. It is, like many other things,
  what you make of it. A knife can be used to cut food which feeds the
  hungry, or it can be used to kill someone. Facebook can be used for
  great good -- after all it was Facebook that helped facilitate the
  toppling of a dictator. Facebook can be used as a powerful tool to
  organize, call, remind and unite. Facebook can also be used to
  strengthen our connection to God and to each other ... or Facebook can
  be used to strengthen the hold of our ego.
  
  The Facebook phenomenon is an interesting one. In each and every one of
  us is an ego. It is the part of ourselves that must be suppressed (if we
  are to avoid Anakin's fate of turning to the dark side, that is). The
  danger of feeding the ego is that, as the ego is fed, it becomes strong.
  When it becomes strong, it begins to rule us.
  
  The ego is the part of us that loves power. It is the part that loves to
  be seen, recognized, praised, and adored. Facebook provides a powerful
  platform for this. It provides a platform by which every word, picture,
  or thought I have can be seen, praised, 'liked'. As a result, I begin to
  seek this. But then it doesn't just stay in the cyber world. I begin
  even to live my life with this visibility in mind. Suddenly, I live
  every experience, every photo, every thought, as if it's being watched,
  because in the back of my mind I'm thinking, I'll put it on Facebook.
  This creates a very interesting state of being, almost a constant sense
  that I am living my life on display. I become ever conscious of being
  watched, because everything can be put up on Facebook for others to see
  and comment on.
  
  More importantly, it creates a false sense of self-importance, where
  every insignificant move I make is of international importance. Soon I
  become the focus, the one on display. The message is: I am so

[FairfieldLife] Re: A checklist of psychological traits (was: ...if Maharishi was just a guy)

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

 It appears Jim's answer is no. Jim, is that your final answer?

I think that's a valid assumption, don't you?

And isn't it fascinating that, as far as I can tell,
the only two people who have objected to me posting
the DSM-IV criteria for diagnosing a particular mental
illness and inviting people to use those criteria to 
evaluate Maharishi, and have in fact suggested that 
there is something wrong with even asking the 
question, *never met the man*?

One could get the feeling that they don't like their
fantasies about Maharishi messed with because...duh...
that's all they have, never having met him. They'd
like to continue to think about what he said without
ever thinking about who it was that said it.

At least only one of them claims to be enlightened. :-)
Maybe he doesn't want these criteria used when assessing
whether Maharishi was enlightened, a sociopath, or a 
bit of both because he doesn't want people using the
same criteria when evaluating him.  

  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote:
   
   Did you ever actually
   *meet* Maharishi? Were you ever in the same room with
   him, or spend days, weeks, months, or years watching
   him interact with people, and thus be capable of 
   determining whether he either meets or does not not
   meet these criteria? 
  
  **He's dead Turq. Not coming back. Finito. I sometimes 
  think about what he said, but as to the whole controversy 
  here about who he was, was he enlightened, was he crazy, 
  and all that I leave to him and to  you.:-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: A checklist of psychological traits (was: ...if Maharishi was just a guy)

Re-evaluation.



Normal human process.



I am grateful to have had my 14 years in the TMO.  It matched who I was at the 
time.
There is a recovery process from all the brainwashing... and that's okay.  Had 
there been no TMO, I probably would've become an est-hole (ie Werner Erhard's 
seminars) or similar.  Bottom line for me was finding a community of seekers.   
In '81, a friend took me to one of their introductory presentations.  Several 
hundred estholes showed up to encourage the small percentage of prospective 
estholes to get on board.

These people had tremendous similarities to TMO folks I felt at home with 
this group, similar to being around meditators.  I did not take the seminar... 
a few years later, I took the spin-off developed by Fernando Flores from 
Chile... it was terrific.  Fernando is now a senator in Chile, and est morphed 
into Landmark Education, which has stagnated similar to the way TMO got more 
cultish over time.



You guys (and one girl?) kick ass.  Funny as hell, smart as whips.



I am looking for a way to gain more understanding of the validity of mantra 
meditation in general as a way of clearing hidden interference and ideally: 
being more functional.  I am still open the possibility that some of the 
classic mantras: Ganesh or Gayatri for example : could be helpful.  Mantra is 
probably my version of prayer, and in times of trouble, I use mantra similar to 
others might use a stiff drink, or valium.  It's a decent coping mechanism, and 
it's not easy to really know if this is just pacifying my inner teenager, or 
doing more than that.  There is a deep question here, and that's part of why 
I'm here exploring what others have chosen.  My hunch is that I've probably 
overdosed on the TM mantra, and need
cross-training to balance it out.


Being highly functional throughout the aging process?  It does happen for some. 
 Indian philosophy has such an amazing scope on this subject, and now hatha 
yoga has gone mainstream.  So the other aspects of yoga will continue to 
proliferate. It's good learning.

Here's another irony.  So much of what made TM successful was the way it was 
presented as practical.  20-minutes twice day to improve every aspect of life.  
Instead of increasing the time allocation, wouldn't it have been more practical 
to look for a way trim it down?

We need routines that can promote heightened awareness in a few minutes.  That 
would be practical.  And we need something that can go into auto-pilot in the 
background of activity, or even sleep.  My understanding is that 125,000 
repetitions of a mantra puts it into auto-pilot.  The tissue will run that 
vibration as needed without conscious participation.  That might be why MMY 
felt that mantras failed in India.  People had no TV, radio, etc.  So there was 
plenty of time for mantra, and people learned dozens of them, and got it where 
too many were on auto-pilot, perhaps diluting potency.  That might've been what 
he was actually referring to with loss of purity.  Getting to experiment on 
thousands of westerners with a blank slate was a terrific discovery process.  
Now we're getting to a point where it should be possible to develop a treatise 
on how to optimize mantra methods.   


I greatly appreciate the opportunity to explore these topics and the sense of 
camaraderie.




-Michael

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Flatley untilbeyond@ wrote:
 
  Thank you, Turk.
  
  To be always questioning everything, to be starved for 
  substantive information, can become tiresome.  
 
 Not quite as tiresome as being demonized for question-
 ing itself, but I get your point.  :-)
 
  The allure of a system that presented a world of answers...
 
 Pat answers. Answers presented as if they were Truth
 Incarnate, and never to be questioned, on peril of 
 being excommunicated.
 
  ...is what made me vulnerable.  Answers are like a drug.  
 
 Exactly. My point is that many here are WAY strung 
 out on the pat answers they've been parroting for
 decades, and at this point cannot live without them.
 They react to those who suggest that the pat answers
 ARE drugs exactly the same way that junkies react to
 those might suggest that their neighborhood dealers
 are not nice guys who are merely filling a societal
 need.  :-)
 
  And drugs can be extremely helpful in moderation. The 
  risk is getting addicted, right?
 
 Exactly. Pat answers are fine *in their place*, and
 recognized as the temporary learning aids they are.
 Few would argue that the simplistic pat answers they
 were given in kindergarten or grade school presented
 the whole story, or were all that they ever need to
 learn about a given subject. But you have people doing
 that here with regard to the simplistic pat answers
 given to them by Maharishi. 
 
  In shamanic cultures, they had no tolerance for self-
  importance. The value of a tyrant is in their ability to

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Faith and Facebook: The Spiritual Pitfalls of an Online Existence

2011-03-01 Thread Tom Pall

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 11:22 AM, wayback71 waybac...@yahoo.com wrote:

 I work with middle school aged children, and I can tell you that The Big
 problem right now is lack of sleep in many of our students.  Most kids these
 days by middle school have their own flat screen TV's in their rooms, a cell
 phone and gaming systems in their bedrooms as well as their laptop.  Do they
 sleep at night?  No way.  Kids are texting til 3 am, playng video games til
 5 am, and then either can't get up to go to school,or arrive and fall asleep
 in class.  This isn't going away, and parents don't seem to know what to do
 (lock up the items at night - cell, controls for games, laptop).  Kids just
 cannot seem to stop.


We all compulsed over something.  Me, sports, working out, Latin and girls
 I would almost compulsively recite Cicero, practice declensions and
conjugations when not pursing other things.  But I didn't stay up at night
because of this.  I blame it on raging hormones.  That, and glowing up as a
victim a very severe child abuse.


Why are kids today so obsessed with Facebook and messaging?  I suspect it
has something to do with lack of love in the family.  Real, tough love that
tells the children they are loved.  Plus, strange limits placed on them in
school.  Do one thing, it's OK because to stop them would lot foster
self-esteem.  Do something else, the police march into school and arrest
them.   I don't see this obsessive behavior in kids who are home schooled.
 Then again, parents who home school show love for their kids.  They aren't
latchkey kids, their parents set limits early on, and they get attention in
a tradtional corriculum.  The most out of control kids?  The children of
rus, especially the ones who were left alone while parents were doing
program and were allowed to throw their tantrums and cry all they wanted,
even in public and social situations because, well, stopping them would
stress them out.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Asana, loosening effort and sanyama on the heart



On Feb 28, 2011, at 10:21 PM, emptybill wrote:




He probably meant Shavaasana rather than shivasana.

Yes, that's right. Probably the most relaxed, easy and effortless  
asana -- after all what is more effortless and stable than the  
position of a corpse?


Vyasa's comment alludes to it hidden behind the word paryanka  
(paryaGka):  bed.


Without an oral explanation, it is easily missed. But then that's the  
idea.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A checklist of psychological traits (was: ...if Maharishi was just a guy)

2011-03-01 Thread whynotnow7

Maybe he doesn't want these criteria used when assessing whether Maharishi was 
enlightened, a sociopath, or a bit of both because he doesn't want people using 
the same criteria when evaluating him.

Evaluate me all you want. At least I am alive - lol, unlike Maharishi, and you 
have, unlike Maharishi, interacted with me in the last 30 or 40 years. Why are 
you so obsessed with Maharishi? Is it because you interacted with him, what, 40 
years ago? That's a long time dude to not have moved on, don't you think? I do. 
:-)   

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote:
 
  It appears Jim's answer is no. Jim, is that your final answer?
 
 I think that's a valid assumption, don't you?
 
 And isn't it fascinating that, as far as I can tell,
 the only two people who have objected to me posting
 the DSM-IV criteria for diagnosing a particular mental
 illness and inviting people to use those criteria to 
 evaluate Maharishi, and have in fact suggested that 
 there is something wrong with even asking the 
 question, *never met the man*?
 
 One could get the feeling that they don't like their
 fantasies about Maharishi messed with because...duh...
 that's all they have, never having met him. They'd
 like to continue to think about what he said without
 ever thinking about who it was that said it.
 
 At least only one of them claims to be enlightened. :-)
 Maybe he doesn't want these criteria used when assessing
 whether Maharishi was enlightened, a sociopath, or a 
 bit of both because he doesn't want people using the
 same criteria when evaluating him.  
 
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote:

Did you ever actually
*meet* Maharishi? Were you ever in the same room with
him, or spend days, weeks, months, or years watching
him interact with people, and thus be capable of 
determining whether he either meets or does not not
meet these criteria? 
   
   **He's dead Turq. Not coming back. Finito. I sometimes 
   think about what he said, but as to the whole controversy 
   here about who he was, was he enlightened, was he crazy, 
   and all that I leave to him and to  you.:-)

[FairfieldLife] Poll: Wisconsin Voters Turn On Gov. Walker, Back State Unions

2011-03-01 Thread do.rflex


 Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) is rapidly losing support from 
his constituents as he continues to push budget proposals that would cut
collective bargaining rights and benefits for most of the states public 
employee unions, according to  new data from a PPP poll
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_WI_0301930.pdf , a
poll whose results TPM first reported on Monday
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/poll-wisconsin-voters-woudln\
t-elect-gov-walker-in-do-over.php .

His support has slipped so much that, after just two months in office, 
voters are now evenly divided over whether he should be recalled.
A majority of Wisconsin voters now disapprove of Walker's job 
performance, a reversal from the positive approval rating he enjoyed 
immediately after election day. Further, most voters support collective 
bargaining rights for the state's public employee unions, and oppose 
Walker's proposal to cut those same rights.

In the poll, 57% of respondents said public employees should have the 
right to collectively bargain, compared to 37% who said they should 
not. A similar majority, 55%, said the state's unions should have the 
same amount of rights or more than they already enjoy, a rebuke to 
Walker's efforts to roll back those rights.

Further, slim majorities said they side with the unions and senate 
Democrats -- who fled the state to delay a vote on Walker's bill -- over
the governor in the dispute.

Walker's job approval has fallen as the budget stalemate drags on. 
According to PPP, 52% of voters now disapprove of his job performance, 
while 46% approve of the job he is doing. That split mirrors another 
finding in the poll that PPP released Monday, which found Walker losing
in a hypothetical do-over election
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/poll-wisconsin-voters-woudln\
t-elect-gov-walker-in-do-over.php  against Democrat Tom Barret, 52% to
45%.

Also ominously for the governor, the state is evenly split at 48%  over
whether he should be recalled. It's unclear how viable that option 
would be, but the fact that almost half of voters would consider in 
theory is certainly a bad sign for Walker moving forward.

The PPP poll was conducted February 24-27 among 768 Wisconsin voters. It
has a margin of error of 3.5%.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/poll-wisconsin-voters-turn-on\
-gov-walker-back-state-unions.php?ref=fpblg
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/poll-wisconsin-voters-turn-o\
n-gov-walker-back-state-unions.php?ref=fpblg

[FairfieldLife] Haven't the wealthy suffered enough already?

2011-03-01 Thread do.rflex


Don't the schoolteachers and janitors understand that sacrifices must be made!

Take a look: 
http://www.salon.com/ent/comics/this_modern_world/2011/03/01/this_modern_world/story.jpg

[FairfieldLife] The Death of the Middle Class - What Changed?

2011-03-01 Thread do.rflex


What Changed? http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/03/01/what-changed/
by John Cole

Here's an email that I think is worth publishing in full:
Hi John,
I am a long time Balloon Juice reader since before the days of THE
DFH'S WERE RIGHT!  conversion. I occasionally post as
Cintibud but since I don't post  often I'm afraid it
might just get lost in the noise if I posted this.  However this is
something that I think is very important that younger  folks like you
just might not realize  just how things have changed for  the
middle class in the last 30 or so years. I think there are a ton of 
folks close to my age who have a similar story but it just isn't
being  examined.

I was born in 1955. My Father was never that well paid. He was a 
college professor at a Catholic university in the days that lay 
employees were expected to work for close to the same wages as the 
religious order that ran the University  that is, squat. However, 
consider:

My Mother didn't have to work outside the house. She stayed home and
raised 5 kids.

We lived in a nice house in a nice suburb  Kettering Ohio 
which could have been the setting for the Brady Bunch

All 5 kids went to Catholic (private) grade and High School

All 5 kids went to College (although my Father was a prof, we only  got
a 50% discount at that private University, which made the tuition  equal
to Ohio State or any other in-state school)

None of us had to take out a student loan to pay for college.

My parents NEVER refinanced their house.

We took a family vacation every Summer.

If you heard of a family doing all that today on one income, how  much
would you guess the solo wage earner was making? Quite a bit more  than
my Father's income, adjusted to today!

What changed? Did the US lose the cold war? Does Russia, China, Japan,
Europe tell us what we can or cannot do? Has our GDP been steadily
shrinking in that time? Productivity declining?

I'll leave the above questions as an exercise for the
reader to quote Mr. Wizard from many years ago, but you get the
point.

IMO, this decline of the middle class is  never discussed
enough in personal terms, just as some hypothetical  that doesn't
connect to folks under 50. People need to ask their parents  or
grandparents how they lived back in the day.

Thanks, just wanted to get that rant off my chest.

Cintibud

What changed?  How were our parents able to do it, but those our age and
younger are just treading water?

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/03/01/what-changed/
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/03/01/what-changed/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Haven't the wealthy suffered enough already?

2011-03-01 Thread jpgillam

I like the way state governments can fail to adequately 
fund their workers' pensions, and when the problem 
becomes critical, it's not the problem of the states, but 
of the workers. (I use the word like in the sense that 
it's reprehensible.)


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

 
 Don't the schoolteachers and janitors understand that sacrifices must be made!
 
 Take a look: 
 http://www.salon.com/ent/comics/this_modern_world/2011/03/01/this_modern_world/story.jpg

Re: [FairfieldLife] The Death of the Middle Class - What Changed?

2011-03-01 Thread Bhairitu

On 03/01/2011 11:15 AM, do.rflex wrote:
 What Changed?http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/03/01/what-changed/
 by John Cole

 Here's an email that I think is worth publishing in full:
 Hi John,
 I am a long time Balloon Juice reader since before the days of THE
 DFH'S WERE RIGHT!  conversion. I occasionally post as
 Cintibud but since I don't post  often I'm afraid it
 might just get lost in the noise if I posted this.  However this is
 something that I think is very important that younger  folks like you
 just might not realize – just how things have changed for  the
 middle class in the last 30 or so years. I think there are a ton of
 folks close to my age who have a similar story but it just isn't
 being  examined.

 I was born in 1955. My Father was never that well paid. He was a
 college professor at a Catholic university in the days that lay
 employees were expected to work for close to the same wages as the
 religious order that ran the University – that is, squat. However,
 consider:

 My Mother didn't have to work outside the house. She stayed home and
 raised 5 kids.

 We lived in a nice house in a nice suburb – Kettering Ohio –
 which could have been the setting for the Brady Bunch

 All 5 kids went to Catholic (private) grade and High School

 All 5 kids went to College (although my Father was a prof, we only  got
 a 50% discount at that private University, which made the tuition  equal
 to Ohio State or any other in-state school)

 None of us had to take out a student loan to pay for college.

 My parents NEVER refinanced their house.

 We took a family vacation every Summer.

 If you heard of a family doing all that today on one income, how  much
 would you guess the solo wage earner was making? Quite a bit more  than
 my Father's income, adjusted to today!

 What changed? Did the US lose the cold war? Does Russia, China, Japan,
 Europe tell us what we can or cannot do? Has our GDP been steadily
 shrinking in that time? Productivity declining?

 I'll leave the above questions as an exercise for the
 reader to quote Mr. Wizard from many years ago, but you get the
 point.

 IMO, this decline of the middle class is  never discussed
 enough in personal terms, just as some hypothetical  that doesn't
 connect to folks under 50. People need to ask their parents  or
 grandparents how they lived back in the day.

 Thanks, just wanted to get that rant off my chest.

 Cintibud

 What changed?  How were our parents able to do it, but those our age and
 younger are just treading water?

 http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/03/01/what-changed/
 http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/03/01/what-changed/

The economy was last in balance around 1973. It became bloated and a 
false economy created based on credit. People spent way too much on 
houses, cars, trucks, etc. All of this due to the cheerleading of the 
robber barons of Wall Street. Remember Dubya after 9-11 told people to 
go shopping.

Our world is run by crooks. Don't believe it then watch Client 9 which 
is about Eliot Spitzer who was going after the crooks on Wall Street 
when he was forced out of office all because he had an affair with a 
call girl. The crimes of big business dwarf that. Amazingly on the video 
there are interviews with these Wall Street weasels whom Hollywood 
central casting couldn't have done a better job finding crime boss 
characters.

Netflixers can also watch it WI or rent the disk:
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Client_9_The_Rise_and_Fall_of_Eliot_Spitzer/70137776

Concentrated wealth should be illegal. We need incentives but maybe only 
for a few million dollar estate. Beyond that use taxes as a disincentive 
against concentrated wealth. The world belongs to the people not a few 
selfish money addicts.









To subscribe, send a message to:
fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
fairfieldlife-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
fairfieldlife-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Interesting trivia on the actual historical devil

This is so far-fetched, it could be true, since truth is often stranger than 
fiction:

http://www.zetatalk.com/call/c24.htm



I also assume that Rakshasas are real.  Just not physical to us, any more.  The 
hindu dieties could also have been more than myth.  If so, it would sure be 
swell to get an update on their whereabouts.  I bought and thoroughly enjoyed 
the hindu comic books when I attended the Int'l Symposium in Deli, 1980.


History channel's Ancient Aliens does a good job of explaining how much of 
the ancient dieties were astonauts from elsewhere.  Star Trek also played with 
this.  The greek gods could be more than just mythological.


History channel does a lot of shows on things like the Roswell incident, area 
51, etc.


Instead of an abrupt disclosure, there's been a gradual loosening of the whole 
subject.  Mature souls have just been waiting.  The fundamentalists are not 
psychologically prepared
to deal with this subject.  They beta-tested alien info. on some average joes 
back in the '50s and they flipped out.  So we needed fictional TV shows and 
movies to gradually introduce a modern awareness of something that's been 
brewing since the dawn of humanity.


Doesn't it look like we're getting close to major disclosure?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A checklist of psychological traits (was: ...if Maharishi was just a guy)



On Mar 1, 2011, at 12:28 PM, Michael Flatley wrote:

We need routines that can promote heightened awareness in a few  
minutes.  That would be practical.  And we need something that can  
go into auto-pilot in the background of activity, or even sleep.   
My understanding is that 125,000 repetitions of a mantra puts it  
into auto-pilot.  The tissue will run that vibration as needed  
without conscious participation.  That might be why MMY felt that  
mantras failed in India.  People had no TV, radio, etc.  So there  
was plenty of time for mantra, and people learned dozens of them,  
and got it where too many were on auto-pilot, perhaps diluting  
potency.  That might've been what he was actually referring to with  
loss of purity.  Getting to experiment on thousands of westerners  
with a blank slate was a terrific discovery process.  Now we're  
getting to a point where it should be possible to develop a  
treatise on how to optimize mantra methods.



Different mantra texts give different numbers. They're all rough  
estimates as to when you'll gain the siddhi of that mantra. But you  
can gain the siddhi much faster if you fast, etc.


I don't share any mantras I haven't done at least a million  
repetitions of.


I often recommend people into mantra practice subscribe to something  
like Snowlion news. They list all the Buddhist transmissions going on  
at any particular time or place. Then pick a force you dig and get a  
transmission. You'll typically get a seed mantra and the mantra  
chain, a visualization of the deity, etc., the teacher will take  
you to the place they're at, and then transmit the mantra and a  
practice text, sometimes a fire ritual. Often it's done for a mere  
donation and quite inexpensive. Even if you decide to never use it,  
it's a fun experience just the same.


You can do the same with many Hindu teachers as well, for example  
Amma gave me my TM mantra in it's full form...very lively, very nice.  
I had another teacher initiate me into Her yantra. You can do  
whatever you want.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Double Attention and Two Minds


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote:

 
 On Mar 1, 2011, at 6:41 AM, blusc0ut wrote:
 
  Since we are having this discussion here about splitting the mind,  
  and the topic of Gurdjieff came up, as an example of practises  
  *not* to do in TM theory/dogma, I think it's worth having a second  
  look on it, what it actually means from a proponent of Gurdjeffs  
  teaching. It is easy to misinterpret a teaching on the basis of  
  half-knowledge and hear say. So I found the following video,  
  explaining double attention, and, you know what, it actually makes  
  sense. Our awareness is naturally able do perceive many things at a  
  time, once we are in the witness mode. But once we concentrate on  
  something, it tends to occupy are mind more or less exclusively, we  
  get identified and are not in-the-flow. See the video and you will  
  see that it is something we actually do all the time.
 
 
  From the POV of Mahasandhi (Dzogchen), choosing silence over  
 movement (of thoughts) is what creates the false division. When one's  
 established in the nondual state of presence (vidya or rigpa),  
 streams of thoughts can be meditation as well. Therefore, from the  
 POV of the Natural State, one could say it's dualistic meditational  
 practices that divide the mind, not it's own natural tendency:
 
 
 When we practice habitually in this way for a long time, the mere
 arising of thoughts becomes the meditation itself. It makes no  
 difference
 whether thoughts arise or do not arise. The boundaries between
 the calm state and the movement of thoughts collapses completely.
 The movement of thoughts is now seen directly as indescribable light,
 the manifestation of the clear luminosity of the Base which is the
 Primordial State. These movements bring no harm or disturbance to
 the profound calm at the center. Rather than movement occurring as
 discursive thoughts that are inherently limited and restrictive, it  
 occurs
 as a direct and immediate knowledge or gnosis (ye-shes) that is
 everywhere directly penetrating (zang-thal). Thoughts spontaneously
 manifest as this directly penetrating knowledge (ye-shes zang-thal)
 without any intervening process of transforming impure karmic vision
 into pure vision, as is the case with the Tantra system of practice.
 Nevertheless, to the outside observer, the mind of the Siddha
 may look deceptively like an ordinary mind because very mundane
 thoughts continue to arise; but all is not sweetness and light here.
 The Yogin continues to lust, hunger, and defecate as long as he is in a
 physical body, the product of past karma. Even though the morning
 sun strikes the glacier, the ice does not melt immediately; similarly,
 all the qualities of enlightenment do not immediately manifest, even
 though the mind has realized enlightenment. But whereas the ordinary
 individual is forever trying to create or suppress thoughts (dgag
 sgrub) and so continues to accumulate the energy of the samskaras
 (unconscious impulses), the Yogin realizes the liberation of these same
 thoughts precisely at the moment when they arise.
 
 from The Arising of Thoughts Becomes the Meditation
 in:
 The Golden Letters
 The Three Statements of Garab Dorje,
 the first teacher of Dzogchen,
 together with a commentary by
 Dza Patrul Rinpoche
 entitled The Special Teaching of the
 Wise and Glorious King

This is truely amazing, Vaj, really great! Thanks for sharing it. 

I once had an experience after reading 'Mahamudra' of the 3rd Karmapa. Somebody 
told me I should read something Buddhist, so I went to the library and picked 
up this small pamphled. While reading my thoughts were pushed out, and I felt a 
stream of intuition coming through the top of my head. When I went home, the 
experience continued, I went to the kitchen to eat something, but I just stood 
there and stared, whatching this process inside of me. I then decided to go to 
my room and meditate, but I couldn't even get into meditation pose or start a 
mantra, I would have obstructed the process. This went on for at least two 
hours.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting trivia on the actual historical devil

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Flatley untilbeyond@... wrote:

 This is so far-fetched, it could be true, since truth is
 often stranger than fiction:
 
 http://www.zetatalk.com/call/c24.htm

The Devil is reputed to be a red creature with a pointed
tail and two horns, most often carrying a three pronged
fork. Is this a mythological creature, or does it have a
basis in reality, and if so, how did it come to be
associated with evil? In fact, the Devil is not far in
description from a real creature, who lives and breaths
today, albeit not on Earth. This creature visited Earth
in the past, and, to say the least, made an impression.
Why the three pronged fork, and does the number 3 have a 
significance? It does indeed.

The Devil of lore is a fairly accurate picture of an 
extraterrestrial who visited Earth millennia ago, briefly.
This visit preceded the time when the Bible was to be
written, and thus the memories of this entity were fresh
and strong.

Ooopsie.

Nowhere in the Bible, in either the Hebrew or Christian
Scriptures, is the devil physically described. (In fact,
in the Hebrew Scriptures there's not even an entity that
clearly corresponds to the Christian devil.)

Images of the devil similar to the one presented above--
a red creature with a pointed tail and two horns, most
often carrying a three pronged fork--didn't begin to
appear until the Middle Ages, and this was only one of
many variations. Medieval images of the devil are thought
to have been based on much earlier images of horned pagan
deities such as Pan and Dionysus.

So if these kinds of images are remnants of actual
memories of an extraterrestrial who visited Earth, he
must have made two visits--one to the pagans, long 
before the Bible was to be written, and one at the
beginning of the Middle Ages. Or he made only the
earlier visit, and the medieval artists got their 
notions of what he looked like from the pagan images.

Whichever one believe was the case, by the time the Bible
was being written (over a substantial period), any actual
memories of this creature's physical appearance had
already faded out completely.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Double Attention and Two Minds


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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@ wrote:
 
  Since we are having this discussion here about splitting
  the mind, and the topic of Gurdjieff came up, as an example
  of practises *not* to do in TM theory/dogma, I think it's
  worth having a second look on it, what it actually means
  from a proponent of Gurdjeffs teaching. It is easy to
  misinterpret a teaching on the basis of half-knowledge
  and hear say.
 
 Just for the record, the person (moi) who mentioned to
 blusc0ut what a TM teacher had said about Gurdjieffians
 as an example of what TMers should not do was not
 endorsing what the teacher said about them and explicitly
 expressed doubt about its accuracy. The teacher's
 Gurdjieff example had nothing to do with the point I was
 making in any case. My point was not about the validity
 of the TM teaching we were discussing, much less did it
 suggest that the Gurdjieff example validated that teaching.
 
 I'm hoping blusc0ut now understands this, as he didn't
 at first.

Judy, this was not addressed to you in particular. The topic came up, and it 
interests me. I see it in the context of my ongoing investigation of my own 
past conditioning, of our conditioning I might say, and as such I share it. I 
believe that terms like 'splitting the mind' are communicated and defined by 
such stories. If you thought they where accurate or not, it may have been such 
incidents who contributed to the whole set-up of the TM philosophy and 
structure. So don't bother, you may have brought it up, but its really not 
about you. I think its one of those stories that may have defined TM as it came 
down to us. Historically Maharishi went to colet house london, where RC Roles, 
a disciple of Ouspensky was studying, and came into contact with Maharishi. MMY 
wanted to make him the leader of the European movement and set up headquarters 
there, but Roles refused.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A checklist of psychological traits (was: ...if Maharishi was just a guy)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote:
 
  It appears Jim's answer is no. Jim, is that your final answer?
 
 I think that's a valid assumption, don't you?

Especially since he's said here many times that he
never met MMY. I think it's a valid assumption that
Barry knew that to start with, don't you?

 And isn't it fascinating that, as far as I can tell,
 the only two people who have objected to me posting
 the DSM-IV criteria for diagnosing a particular mental
 illness and inviting people to use those criteria to 
 evaluate Maharishi, and have in fact suggested that 
 there is something wrong with even asking the 
 question, *never met the man*?

I'm gonna take a wild guess that I'm one of the two
people Barry's referring to. But since he doesn't
read my posts, he's gotten things, um, a little wrong.

I did not object to his posting the criteria. I merely
pointed out that they weren't quoted from DSM-IV but
from a pop psychology book. (Oh, and just for the
record, sociopathy isn't a mental illness, it's a
personality disorder.)

With regard to asking whether a person has met MMY,
in some cases that may be appropriate, such as when
discussing MMY's personality characteristics--although
just meeting him probably wouldn't qualify one to
say much about his personality.

In most cases when Barry mentions it, however--such
as when discussing one of MMY's teaching points--it's
simply absurd. Barry uses never having met MMY as an
all-purpose mantra to discredit whatever a person he
doesn't like may say about MMY, whether having met
MMY is relevant or not.

There's a different question to be asked of those who
attempt to evaluate MMY's personality on the basis of
the DSM-IV criteria: Do you have a degree in
psychology?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Double Attention and Two Minds

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@... wrote:
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@ wrote:
  
   Since we are having this discussion here about splitting
   the mind, and the topic of Gurdjieff came up, as an example
   of practises *not* to do in TM theory/dogma, I think it's
   worth having a second look on it, what it actually means
   from a proponent of Gurdjeffs teaching. It is easy to
   misinterpret a teaching on the basis of half-knowledge
   and hear say.
  
  Just for the record, the person (moi) who mentioned to
  blusc0ut what a TM teacher had said about Gurdjieffians
  as an example of what TMers should not do was not
  endorsing what the teacher said about them and explicitly
  expressed doubt about its accuracy. The teacher's
  Gurdjieff example had nothing to do with the point I was
  making in any case. My point was not about the validity
  of the TM teaching we were discussing, much less did it
  suggest that the Gurdjieff example validated that teaching.
  
  I'm hoping blusc0ut now understands this, as he didn't
  at first.
 
 Judy, this was not addressed to you in particular.

I didn't think it was. I was addressing those who might
have seen my mention of Gurdjieff without having also
read my later explanation to you, after you had
misunderstood the point I had been making.

 The topic came up, and it interests me. I see it in the
 context of my ongoing investigation of my own past
 conditioning, of our conditioning I might say, and as
 such I share it.

That's fine with me. I'll be interested to watch the
video.

 I believe that terms like 'splitting
 the mind' are communicated and defined by such stories.
 If you thought they where accurate or not, it may have
 been such incidents who contributed to the whole set-up
 of the TM philosophy and structure.

Certainly possible, although I have the sense the 
rationale represented by the cloth-dying analogy and
dividing-the-mind concept was already established 
in MMY's teaching by the time MMY encountered the
Gurdjiffians and started using them as a horrible
example. (The tape Tom described is clearly what the
TM teacher I mentioned was thinking of, so it wasn't
just the teacher's weird idea, it was MMY's.)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting trivia on the actual historical devil

2011-03-01 Thread wgm4u



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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Flatley untilbeyond@ wrote:
 
  This is so far-fetched, it could be true, since truth is
  often stranger than fiction:
  
  http://www.zetatalk.com/call/c24.htm
 
 The Devil is reputed to be a red creature with a pointed
 tail and two horns, most often carrying a three pronged
 fork. Is this a mythological creature, or does it have a
 basis in reality, and if so, how did it come to be
 associated with evil? In fact, the Devil is not far in
 description from a real creature, who lives and breaths
 today, albeit not on Earth. This creature visited Earth
 in the past, and, to say the least, made an impression.
 Why the three pronged fork, and does the number 3 have a 
 significance? It does indeed.
 
 The Devil of lore is a fairly accurate picture of an 
 extraterrestrial who visited Earth millennia ago, briefly.
 This visit preceded the time when the Bible was to be
 written, and thus the memories of this entity were fresh
 and strong.
 
 Ooopsie.
 
 Nowhere in the Bible, in either the Hebrew or Christian
 Scriptures, is the devil physically described. (In fact,
 in the Hebrew Scriptures there's not even an entity that
 clearly corresponds to the Christian devil.)
 
 Images of the devil similar to the one presented above--
 a red creature with a pointed tail and two horns, most
 often carrying a three pronged fork--didn't begin to
 appear until the Middle Ages, and this was only one of
 many variations. Medieval images of the devil are thought
 to have been based on much earlier images of horned pagan
 deities such as Pan and Dionysus.
 
 So if these kinds of images are remnants of actual
 memories of an extraterrestrial who visited Earth, he
 must have made two visits--one to the pagans, long 
 before the Bible was to be written, and one at the
 beginning of the Middle Ages. Or he made only the
 earlier visit, and the medieval artists got their 
 notions of what he looked like from the pagan images.
 
 Whichever one believe was the case, by the time the Bible
 was being written (over a substantial period), any actual
 memories of this creature's physical appearance had
 already faded out completely.

The devil is symbolically red because 'he' lives in the blood as passion (or 
kama/lust in Sanskrit).  Additionally, some people 'have' devils of their own 
making, (in their auras), such as lust, anger and greed (gluttony).

This is where the idea of exorcism comes from along with actual evil spirits 
that attach themselves to 'weak' souls.  The continued expression of any vice 
creates in the Astral body an actual representation of that vice, in many 
people's Aura there are hideous forms that are visible to people who are 
clairvoyant.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Double Attention and Two Minds

2011-03-01 Thread emptybill




This is all loose talk.

Dividing the mind? Which mind? How?

Who/what would that be doing the dividing? Are they/that/it 
somehow different than the mind? How many minds do you suppose we
have?

Attention focuses upon it object. Whether course, subtle or causative,
the object is the point of relationship between the observer and
observed in the flow of attention. That object can be sensorial (a glass
of water) or mental (a thought or emotion). If there is no object to
observe during the flow of attention then attention suspends itself and
perception reverts to latency. Absence of mental activity can
then becomes the object of attention. If all forms of
attention are suspended then we go into deep sleep.

The point of using a mantra (without a meaning) is to give attention
just enough of a perceptual object to be alert yet indefinite enough in
quality to function and maintain an undirected activity. This
undirected, non-discriminatory (i.e. non-intellective) and purely
perceptual process is what allows attention to experience the mantra in
a less concrete manner. The mantra is a mere sound-form (a cognitive
reference) of vibratory value (combined musical value and specific human
verbal sound).

Japa is a process to maintain continuity of the surface level of mental
perception with the sound-form of a mantra. Japa can also arouse
attention to the referent of the mantra just like formal
meditation.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@... wrote:


 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@ wrote:
  
   Since we are having this discussion here about splitting
   the mind, and the topic of Gurdjieff came up, as an example
   of practises *not* to do in TM theory/dogma, I think it's
   worth having a second look on it, what it actually means
   from a proponent of Gurdjeffs teaching. It is easy to
   misinterpret a teaching on the basis of half-knowledge
   and hear say.
 
  Just for the record, the person (moi) who mentioned to
  blusc0ut what a TM teacher had said about Gurdjieffians
  as an example of what TMers should not do was not
  endorsing what the teacher said about them and explicitly
  expressed doubt about its accuracy. The teacher's
  Gurdjieff example had nothing to do with the point I was
  making in any case. My point was not about the validity
  of the TM teaching we were discussing, much less did it
  suggest that the Gurdjieff example validated that teaching.
 
  I'm hoping blusc0ut now understands this, as he didn't
  at first.
 
 Judy, this was not addressed to you in particular. The topic came up,
and it interests me. I see it in the context of my ongoing investigation
of my own past conditioning, of our conditioning I might say, and as
such I share it. I believe that terms like 'splitting the mind' are
communicated and defined by such stories. If you thought they where
accurate or not, it may have been such incidents who contributed to the
whole set-up of the TM philosophy and structure. So don't bother, you
may have brought it up, but its really not about you. I think its one of
those stories that may have defined TM as it came down to us.
Historically Maharishi went to colet house london, where RC Roles, a
disciple of Ouspensky was studying, and came into contact with
Maharishi. MMY wanted to make him the leader of the European movement
and set up headquarters there, but Roles refused.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A checklist of psychological traits (was: ...if Maharishi was just a guy)

2011-03-01 Thread whynotnow7

I'd like to use one of my lifelines and ask the audience, Regis...ha-ha! :-)

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

 It appears Jim's answer is no. Jim, is that your final answer?
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote:
   
  Did you ever actually
   *meet* Maharishi? Were you ever in the same room with
   him, or spend days, weeks, months, or years watching
   him interact with people, and thus be capable of 
   determining whether he either meets or does not not
   meet these criteria? 
  
  **He's dead Turq. Not coming back. Finito. I sometimes think about what he 
  said, but as to the whole controversy here about who he was, was he 
  enlightened, was he crazy, and all that I leave to him and to  you.:-)

[FairfieldLife] Fwd: Biting the bullet on Expenses

 From: lm...@cornell.edu
To: wle...@aol.com
Sent: 3/1/2011 12:02:59 P.M.  Eastern Standard Time
Subj: Fwd: Biting the bullet on Expenses

The President ordered the cabinet to cut a whopping $100  million from the 
$3.5 trillion federal budget! 

I'm so impressed by  this sacrifice that I have decided to do the same 
thing with my personal  budget. I spend about $2000 a month on groceries, 
medicine, bills, etc, but  it's time to get out the budget cutting ax, go line 
by 
line through my  expenses, and go to work. 

I'm going to cut my spending at exactly the  same ratio -1/35,000 of my 
total budget. After doing the math, it looks like  instead of spending $2000 a 
month; I'm going to have to cut that number by six  cents! 

Yes, I'm going to have to get by with $1999.94, but that's what  sacrifice 
is all about. I'll just have to do without some things, that are,  frankly, 
luxuries.

[FairfieldLife] Fwd: A wish . . .

 From: lm...@cornell.edu
To: wle...@aol.com
Sent: 3/1/2011 11:59:28 A.M.  Eastern Standard Time
Subj: Fwd: A wish . . .

A Wish To Live Forever

I met a fairy  today that said she would grant me one wish.

I want to live forever,  I said.

Sorry, said the fairy, I'm not allowed to grant wishes  like  that!

Fine, I said, then I want to die after Congress  get  their heads out of 
their asses!

You crafty bastard, said  the fairy.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A checklist of psychological traits (was: ...if Maharishi was just a guy)

2011-03-01 Thread WillyTex

  Leaving the DSM-IV criteria in place below, I have a
  question to ask of you, Jimbo. Did you ever actually
  *meet* Maharishi? Were you ever in the same room with
  him, or spend days, weeks, months, or years watching
  him interact with people, and thus be capable of 
  determining whether he either meets or does not not
  meet these criteria? 
 
whynotnow7
 **He's dead Turq. Not coming back. Finito...

Turq probably spent less than five minutes, at that, in
the direct company of MMY, face-to-face. From what I've
read, even on TTC, MMY was often not even on the premises,
like at Majorrca - he flew in on a helicopter for an hour
or so, then back to his own hotel. There's probably not a
single TM Teacher, except for a very few, that ever was
inside his bedroom.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Biting the bullet on Expenses

2011-03-01 Thread wgm4u



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WLeed3@... wrote:

 
 The President ordered the cabinet to cut a whopping $100  million from the 
 $3.5 trillion federal budget! 
 
 I'm so impressed by  this sacrifice that I have decided to do the same 
 thing with my personal  budget. I spend about $2000 a month on groceries, 
 medicine, bills, etc, but  it's time to get out the budget cutting ax, go 
 line by 
 line through my  expenses, and go to work. 
 
 I'm going to cut my spending at exactly the  same ratio -1/35,000 of my 
 total budget. After doing the math, it looks like  instead of spending $2000 
 a 
 month; I'm going to have to cut that number by six  cents! 
 
 Yes, I'm going to have to get by with $1999.94, but that's what  sacrifice 
 is all about. I'll just have to do without some things, that are,  frankly, 
 luxuries.

Pretty poor example of leadership..

[FairfieldLife] Re: A checklist of psychological traits (was: ...if Maharishi was just a guy)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Flatley untilbeyond@ wrote:
snip
  To be always questioning everything, to be starved for 
  substantive information, can become tiresome.  
 
 Not quite as tiresome as being demonized for question-
 ing itself, but I get your point.  :-)

Nobody here is demonized for questioning. But many
are demonized for being unwilling to assent to what
the questioners consider the right answers.

snip
 Exactly. My point is that many here are WAY strung 
 out on the pat answers they've been parroting for
 decades,

Not many. In fact, very few.

 and at this point cannot live without them.
 They react to those who suggest that the pat answers
 ARE drugs exactly the same way that junkies react to
 those might suggest that their neighborhood dealers
 are not nice guys who are merely filling a societal
 need.  :-)

Some here believe they are infallibly able to discern
which answers are pat, and they react to those who
suggest that they may not have grasped the depth of a
particular answer quite as well as they thought in
exactly the same way that junkies react to those who
might suggest that their neighborhood dealers, etc., etc.

snip
 No one could have really *forced* us to believe in the
 guff we believed in for decades and submit to many of
 the indignities of life in the TMO. We did so willingly,
 because we had come to believe the end justifies the
 means, and had stopped analyzing the means themselves,
 and what they *said* about us, and our values. Now, 
 belatedly, many are beginning to question our decades
 of non-questioning and obeisance.

And some--not naming any names--have been belatedly
questioning their decades of nonquestioning and
obeisance *for more decades than they spent not
questioning and obeying*. It seems that for them, 
they've simply switched addictions.

 I think that's a healthy process, and applaud it. Some
 on this forum use every opportunity presented to them
 to put it down and demonize it. Go figure.

Again, nobody demonizes it. Some wonder whether
it's healthy for the questioning to go on so very
long for a few people here, asking the same questions
over and over and over again and coming up with the
same answers each time.

Some think there may be more involved in these cases,
such as an insatiable need to put others down and/or
an intractable craving for agreement with their own
aswers to their questions.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A checklist of psychological traits (was: ...if Maharishi was just a guy)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:
snip
 Barry uses never having met MMY as an
 all-purpose mantra to discredit whatever a person he
 doesn't like may say about MMY, whether having met
 MMY is relevant or not.

It occurs to me that the reason Barry gets so upset with
TMers who never met MMY is that they were smart enough
not to get enough involved with the TMO to do so, and he
wasn't.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A checklist of psychological traits (was: ...if Maharishi was just a guy)

2011-03-01 Thread Peter

14 years? Hell, boy, that ain't even gittin' warmed up! 

--- On Tue, 3/1/11, Michael Flatley untilbey...@yahoo.com wrote:

 From: Michael Flatley untilbey...@yahoo.com
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A checklist of psychological traits (was: ...if 
 Maharishi was just a guy)
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2011, 12:28 PM
 Re-evaluation.

 Normal human process.

 I am grateful to have had my 14 years in the TMO.  It
 matched who I was at the time.
 There is a recovery process from all the brainwashing...
 and that's okay.  Had there been no TMO, I probably
 would've become an est-hole (ie Werner Erhard's seminars) or
 similar.  Bottom line for me was finding a community of
 seekers.   In '81, a friend took me to one of
 their introductory presentations.  Several hundred
 estholes showed up to encourage the small percentage of
 prospective estholes to get on board.

 These people had tremendous similarities to TMO folks I
 felt at home with this group, similar to being around
 meditators.  I did not take the seminar... a few years
 later, I took the spin-off developed by Fernando Flores from
 Chile... it was terrific.  Fernando is now a senator in
 Chile, and est morphed into Landmark Education, which has
 stagnated similar to the way TMO got more cultish over
 time.

 You guys (and one girl?) kick ass.  Funny as hell,
 smart as whips.

 I am looking for a way to gain more understanding of the
 validity of mantra meditation in general as a way of
 clearing hidden interference and ideally: being more
 functional.  I am still open the possibility that some
 of the classic mantras: Ganesh or Gayatri for example :
 could be helpful.  Mantra is probably my version of
 prayer, and in times of trouble, I use mantra similar to
 others might use a stiff drink, or valium.  It's a
 decent coping mechanism, and it's not easy to really know if
 this is just pacifying my inner teenager, or doing more than
 that.  There is a deep question here, and that's part
 of why I'm here exploring what others have chosen.  My
 hunch is that I've probably overdosed on the TM mantra, and
 need
 cross-training to balance it out.

 Being highly functional throughout the aging process? 
 It does happen for some.  Indian philosophy has such an
 amazing scope on this subject, and now hatha yoga has gone
 mainstream.  So the other aspects of yoga will continue
 to proliferate. It's good learning.

 Here's another irony.  So much of what made TM
 successful was the way it was presented as practical. 
 20-minutes twice day to improve every aspect of life. 
 Instead of increasing the time allocation, wouldn't it have
 been more practical to look for a way trim it down?

 We need routines that can promote heightened awareness in a
 few minutes.  That would be practical.  And we
 need something that can go into auto-pilot in the background
 of activity, or even sleep.  My understanding is that
 125,000 repetitions of a mantra puts it into
 auto-pilot.  The tissue will run that vibration as
 needed without conscious participation.  That might be
 why MMY felt that mantras failed in India.  People had
 no TV, radio, etc.  So there was plenty of time for
 mantra, and people learned dozens of them, and got it where
 too many were on auto-pilot, perhaps diluting potency. 
 That might've been what he was actually referring to with
 loss of purity.  Getting to experiment on thousands
 of westerners with a blank slate was a terrific discovery
 process.  Now we're getting to a point where it should
 be possible to develop a treatise on how to optimize mantra
 methods.   

 I greatly appreciate the opportunity to explore these
 topics and the sense of camaraderie.

 -Michael

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
 turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:

  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
 Michael Flatley untilbeyond@ wrote:

   Thank you, Turk.

   To be always questioning everything, to be
 starved for 
   substantive information, can become
 tiresome.  

  Not quite as tiresome as being demonized for
 question-
  ing itself, but I get your point.  :-)

   The allure of a system that presented a world of
 answers...

  Pat answers. Answers presented as if they were
 Truth
  Incarnate, and never to be questioned, on peril of 
  being excommunicated.

   ...is what made me vulnerable.  Answers are
 like a drug.  

  Exactly. My point is that many here are WAY strung 
  out on the pat answers they've been parroting for
  decades, and at this point cannot live without them.
  They react to those who suggest that the pat
 answers
  ARE drugs exactly the same way that junkies react to
  those might suggest that their neighborhood dealers
  are not nice guys who are merely filling a societal
  need.  :-)

   And drugs can be extremely helpful in moderation.
 The 
   risk is getting addicted, right?

  Exactly. Pat answers are fine *in their place*, and
  recognized as the

[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting trivia on the actual historical devil

2011-03-01 Thread emptybill



This is a straight copy from Childhood's End by Authur C. Clark.

It must have snookered a lot of people.


 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Flatley untilbeyond@
wrote:

 
  http://www.zetatalk.com/call/c24.htm

 The Devil is reputed to be a red creature with a pointed
 tail and two horns, most often carrying a three pronged
 fork. Is this a mythological creature, or does it have a
 basis in reality, and if so, how did it come to be
 associated with evil? In fact, the Devil is not far in
 description from a real creature, who lives and breaths
 today, albeit not on Earth. This creature visited Earth
 in the past, and, to say the least, made an impression.
 Why the three pronged fork, and does the number 3 have a
 significance? It does indeed.

 The Devil of lore is a fairly accurate picture of an
 extraterrestrial who visited Earth millennia ago, briefly.
 This visit preceded the time when the Bible was to be
 written, and thus the memories of this entity were fresh
 and strong.

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

2011-03-01 Thread FFL PostCount

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): Sat Feb 26 00:00:00 2011
End Date (UTC): Sat Mar 05 00:00:00 2011
333 messages as of (UTC) Tue Mar 01 23:26:22 2011

46 authfriend jst...@panix.com
29 turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com
28 Tom Pall thomas.p...@gmail.com
26 yifuxero yifux...@yahoo.com
19 whynotnow7 whynotn...@yahoo.com
17 Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net
14 seventhray1 steve.sun...@sbcglobal.net
14 blusc0ut no_re...@yahoogroups.com
13 WillyTex willy...@yahoo.com
12 Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net
11 Joe geezerfr...@yahoo.com
10 wgm4u wg...@yahoo.com
10 cardemaister no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 8 wayback71 waybac...@yahoo.com
 8 Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@lisco.com
 8 Michael Flatley untilbey...@yahoo.com
 8 do.rflex do.rf...@yahoo.com
 7 sparaig lengli...@cox.net
 6 emptybill emptyb...@yahoo.com
 6 wle...@aol.com
 6 Rick Archer r...@searchsummit.com
 5 seekliberation seekliberat...@yahoo.com
 4 Peter drpetersutp...@yahoo.com
 2 shainm307 shainm...@yahoo.com
 2 nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 2 m 13 meowthirt...@yahoo.com
 2 James Peterson enjoyhumanbe...@yahoo.com
 2 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 1 randyanand ra...@rocketmail.com
 1 martyboi marty...@yahoo.com
 1 jpgillam jpgil...@yahoo.com
 1 gullible fool ffl...@yahoo.com
 1 giveabighand no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 1 dharmacentral no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 1 Yifu Xero yifux...@yahoo.com
 1 John jr_...@yahoo.com

Posters: 36
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] Fwd: FW: Sharpen A Knife with a Cup.

 From: p...@triad.rr.com
To: p...@triad.rr.com
Sent: 2/28/2011 11:53:19  A.M. Eastern Standard Time
Subj: FW: Sharpen A Knife with a Cup. 

From: John Ward  [mailto:hocuspocusfoo...@aol.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011  10:12 AM
To: hocuspocusfoo...@aol.com
Subject: Fwd:  Sharpen A Knife with a Cup.  
Here's  your kitchen tip for the day 

Sharpen  A Knife with a Cup. 

_http://www.dump.com/2010/12/08/how-to-sharpen-your-knife-with-a-cup-video/_

(http://www.dump.com/2010/12/08/how-to-sharpen-your-knife-with-a-cup-video/)

[FairfieldLife] Facebook Linked To One In Five Divorces in the United States

2011-03-01 Thread Tom Pall

http://scienceblog.com/43196/facebook-linked-to-one-in-five-divorces-in-the-united-states/
http://tinyurl.com/4jad6ez

on February 28, 2011

If you’re single, Facebook and other social networking sites can help you
meet that special someone. However, for those in even the healthiest of
marriages, improper use can quickly devolve into a marital disaster.

A recent survey by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers found that
Facebook is cited in one in five divorces in the United States. Also, more
than 80 percent of divorce lawyers reported a rising number of people are
using social media to engage in extramarital affairs.

“We’re coming across it more and more,” said licensed clinical psychologist
Steven Kimmons, Ph.D., of Loyola University Medical Center in Maywood, Ill.
“One spouse connects online with someone they knew from high school. The
person is emotionally available and they start communicating through
Facebook. Within a short amount of time, the sharing of personal stories can
lead to a deepened sense of intimacy, which in turn can point the couple in
the direction of physical contact.”

Though already-strained marriages are most vulnerable, a couple doesn’t have
to be experiencing marital difficulties in order for an online relationship
to blossom from mere talk into a full-fledged affair, Kimmons said. In most
instances, people enter into online relationships with the most innocent of
intentions.

“I don’t think these people typically set out to have affairs,” said
Kimmons, whose practice includes couples therapy and marriage counseling. “A
lot of it is curiosity. They see an old friend or someone they dated and
decide to say ‘hello’ and catch up on where that person is and how they’re
doing.”

It all boils down to the amount of contact two people in any type of
relationships –
including online – have with each other, Kimmons said. The more contact they
have, the more likely they are to begin developing feelings for each other.

“If I’m talking to one person five times a week versus another person one
time a week, you don’t need a fancy psychological study to conclude that I’m
more likely to fall in love with the person I talk to five times a week
because I have more contact with that person,” Kimmons said.

Stories of people whose marriages were destroyed by affairs that began on
social networking sites abound on the Internet. It’s enough to make some
people swear off online technology for life. Though there are no
hard-and-fast rules to follow, there are some safeguards couples can apply
to decrease the chance of online relationships getting out of control. For
starters, do a self-assessment of why you’re using online sites.

“Look at the population of the people who are your online friends,” Kimmons
said. “Is it a good mixture of men and women? Do you spend more time talking
to females versus males or do you favor a certain type of friend over
another? That can tell you something about how you’re using social networks.
You may not even be aware that you’re heading down a road that can get
quickly get pretty dangerous, pretty fast to your marriage.”

Another safeguard is to spell out from the beginning with your online
contacts what your expectations are of social networking relationships.
Also, it’s a good idea to not engage in intimate conversation with someone
who is not your spouse.

“From the start tell your online friend that you’re not looking for anything
more than establishing old contacts with people to find out how they’re
doing,” Kimmons said.

In some instances, couples could share passwords with each other and place
the computer in a common area in the house or apartment.

“It’s not that people are going to read what you’re writing but they’ll see
what you’re doing,” he said. “Then it’s not a secret.”

Couples can also set parameters around how much time and when they are
online each day.

“If you’re doing this at 2 o’clock in the morning with no one watching
because you don’t want anyone else to know about it, that should be a signal
to you that this is something approaching a boundary line or you’re at least
moving in that direction,” Kimmons said.

http://scienceblog.com/tag/time/

[FairfieldLife] Re: A checklist of psychological traits (was: ...if Maharishi was just a guy)

I knew a Hare Krishna who said he chanted a million Maha Mantras (Hare 
Krishna, etc...); but then quit, saying he preferred sex and drugs.
...
Re: the autopilot angle, I recommend immersion in the following CD's which can 
be put on auto running all night while you're asleep, at a low volume:

1. Veda Parayana (evening version) - has the Rudram chanted by Pundits of 
Ramanasramam. 
2. Gayatri mantra, chanted by Karunamayi and also by Shree Maa.
3. Navarna mantra chanted by Shree Maa

Then try to get in 1/2 hour per day chanting your favorite mantra. (say the 
Gayatri, along with listening to the tape).
Do this for 1 month then note the results.
http://www.museumsyndicate.com/item.php?item=49869

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Flatley untilbeyond@... wrote:

 Re-evaluation.
 
 
 
 Normal human process.
 
 
 
 I am grateful to have had my 14 years in the TMO.  It matched who I was at 
 the time.
 There is a recovery process from all the brainwashing... and that's okay.  
 Had there been no TMO, I probably would've become an est-hole (ie Werner 
 Erhard's seminars) or similar.  Bottom line for me was finding a community of 
 seekers.   In '81, a friend took me to one of their introductory 
 presentations.  Several hundred estholes showed up to encourage the small 
 percentage of prospective estholes to get on board.
 
 These people had tremendous similarities to TMO folks I felt at home with 
 this group, similar to being around meditators.  I did not take the 
 seminar... a few years later, I took the spin-off developed by Fernando 
 Flores from Chile... it was terrific.  Fernando is now a senator in Chile, 
 and est morphed into Landmark Education, which has stagnated similar to the 
 way TMO got more cultish over time.
 
 
 
 You guys (and one girl?) kick ass.  Funny as hell, smart as whips.
 
 
 
 I am looking for a way to gain more understanding of the validity of mantra 
 meditation in general as a way of clearing hidden interference and ideally: 
 being more functional.  I am still open the possibility that some of the 
 classic mantras: Ganesh or Gayatri for example : could be helpful.  Mantra is 
 probably my version of prayer, and in times of trouble, I use mantra similar 
 to others might use a stiff drink, or valium.  It's a decent coping 
 mechanism, and it's not easy to really know if this is just pacifying my 
 inner teenager, or doing more than that.  There is a deep question here, and 
 that's part of why I'm here exploring what others have chosen.  My hunch is 
 that I've probably overdosed on the TM mantra, and need
 cross-training to balance it out.
 
 
 Being highly functional throughout the aging process?  It does happen for 
 some.  Indian philosophy has such an amazing scope on this subject, and now 
 hatha yoga has gone mainstream.  So the other aspects of yoga will continue 
 to proliferate. It's good learning.
 
 Here's another irony.  So much of what made TM successful was the way it was 
 presented as practical.  20-minutes twice day to improve every aspect of 
 life.  Instead of increasing the time allocation, wouldn't it have been more 
 practical to look for a way trim it down?
 
 We need routines that can promote heightened awareness in a few minutes.  
 That would be practical.  And we need something that can go into auto-pilot 
 in the background of activity, or even sleep.  My understanding is that 
 125,000 repetitions of a mantra puts it into auto-pilot.  The tissue will run 
 that vibration as needed without conscious participation.  That might be why 
 MMY felt that mantras failed in India.  People had no TV, radio, etc.  So 
 there was plenty of time for mantra, and people learned dozens of them, and 
 got it where too many were on auto-pilot, perhaps diluting potency.  That 
 might've been what he was actually referring to with loss of purity.  
 Getting to experiment on thousands of westerners with a blank slate was a 
 terrific discovery process.  Now we're getting to a point where it should be 
 possible to develop a treatise on how to optimize mantra methods.   
 
 
 I greatly appreciate the opportunity to explore these topics and the sense of 
 camaraderie.
 
 
 
 
 -Michael
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Flatley untilbeyond@ 
  wrote:
  
   Thank you, Turk.
   
   To be always questioning everything, to be starved for 
   substantive information, can become tiresome.  
  
  Not quite as tiresome as being demonized for question-
  ing itself, but I get your point.  :-)
  
   The allure of a system that presented a world of answers...
  
  Pat answers. Answers presented as if they were Truth
  Incarnate, and never to be questioned, on peril of 
  being excommunicated.
  
   ...is what made me vulnerable.  Answers are like a drug.  
  
  Exactly. My point is that many here are WAY strung 
  out on the pat answers they've been parroting for
  decades, and at

[FairfieldLife] railcart trip to Nome with dogs

1912, trip to Nome, Alaska
http://www.museumsyndicate.com/images/5/49620.jpg

[FairfieldLife] Re: A checklist of psychological traits (was: ...if Maharishi was just a guy)

2011-03-01 Thread wgm4u



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

 I knew a Hare Krishna who said he chanted a million Maha Mantras (Hare 
 Krishna, etc...); but then quit, saying he preferred sex and drugs.

Ha, ha, well I don't think it's that easy. Once you see the light there's no 
turning back, ignorance is bliss you know.

[FairfieldLife] Slot machine spectators

1938, Pilottown
http://www.museumsyndicate.com/images/5/49864.jpg

[FairfieldLife] Re: A checklist of psychological traits (was: ...if Maharishi was just a guy)

Easy to quit? Actually, after the demise of AC Bhaktivedanta, a certain 
Ramesh took over the LA Temple for a while but then quit, going into real 
estate.  And then, there's the chosen successor of Bhaktivedanta (forgot his 
name), convicted of murder; and a number of others convicted of lesser 
charges such as child molestation.
...
In the Sant Mat tradition, people have quit after 30 years of practice and not 
making significant progress meditating on their 5 Names (Jot Niranjan, Omkar, 
Rarankar, Sohang, Sat Nam).
...
...and don't forget the Krishna Guru Prakashanand, allegedly (touching?...court 
case pending, don't know for sure) some female devotees. Such lapses in 
judgement/action can be considered a form of quitting. 
...
and countless TM'ers who have quit after a number of decades.
Scientologists too.
Perhaps somebody can write a PhD thesis on the reasons for why people maintain 
a practice for decades without much apparent progress, and why they finally 
decide to quit.  Should be an interesting study.
...
On another topic, I had a direct encounter with Satan on Aug 12, 1998 in the 
dream state (an extremely powerful lucid dream).  His first statement was that 
I was devoted to him in a previous life (I'm not  certain which one(s); maybe 
the one as a Mafioso member, or perhaps working for the Papacy to silence 
apostates.
...
At any rate, regarding his form; Satan is capable of temporarily appearing in 
any disguise, but his projected disguise was a rather normal looking dude 
reminding me of Jeff Bridges. He was wearing a corduroy coat. Underneath this 
veneer, I could sense that his real appearance had a dark red radiance, and 
somehow he also was able to radiate Black (although I'm not sure how since 
Blackness is devoid of colors.  But neat trick in actually making Black a 
radiant color. (perhaps a black light is similar in our world).
...
Next, Satan gave me the basic message that he's been misjudged, and then went 
on to show me some very ugly non-human creatures whom he was taking care of.  
Reminded me of the Island of Dr. Moreau movie.
He also stated that he was taking care of such creatures because nobody else 
would (including Jesus).
...
Then I saw a game room where people were playing cards and indulging in other 
amusements.
The grand finale came with a brilliantly lit up Cross which I saw in the 
distance appearing to be formed of countless writing snakes.  I ventured closer 
for a better look and discovered that the snakes were actually countless people 
having intercourse.  Indeed, what a brilliant invention! That Satan is a 
creative Genius.
...
I've seen him on two other occasions, one in which he was wrestling with Jesus 
as to the control of some Souls.
His message to everybody at FFL: he's a much misaligned person, wishes 
everybody well, and is in fact, a Buddhist, having forgone his former evil 
ways.  His mission is to help the countless Souls not chosen or fated to be 
Saved under the umbrella of other Agents; especially those Souls whom Jesus 
rejects.


e...@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u wgm4u@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifuxero@ wrote:
 
  I knew a Hare Krishna who said he chanted a million Maha Mantras (Hare 
  Krishna, etc...); but then quit, saying he preferred sex and drugs.
 
 Ha, ha, well I don't think it's that easy. Once you see the light there's no 
 turning back, ignorance is bliss you know.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting trivia on the actual historical devil

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@... wrote:
 
 This is a straight copy from Childhood's End by Authur C. Clark.
 
 It must have snookered a lot of people.

Er, well, no, it isn't. The passage I quoted and critiqued
appears nowhere in my copy of the book.

The *idea* is in the book, but not nearly as specifically;
and not even the idea was original with Clarke.


  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Flatley untilbeyond@ wrote:
  
   http://www.zetatalk.com/call/c24.htm
 
[quoted by moi from the page at Michael's URL:]
  The Devil is reputed to be a red creature with a pointed
  tail and two horns, most often carrying a three pronged
  fork. Is this a mythological creature, or does it have a
  basis in reality, and if so, how did it come to be
  associated with evil? In fact, the Devil is not far in
  description from a real creature, who lives and breaths
  today, albeit not on Earth. This creature visited Earth
  in the past, and, to say the least, made an impression.
  Why the three pronged fork, and does the number 3 have a
  significance? It does indeed.
 
  The Devil of lore is a fairly accurate picture of an
  extraterrestrial who visited Earth millennia ago, briefly.
  This visit preceded the time when the Bible was to be
  written, and thus the memories of this entity were fresh
  and strong.

my critique of the passage's historical inaccuracies
snipped by emptybill

[FairfieldLife] How the rich have soaked the rest of us

2011-03-01 Thread Bhairitu

Good article from the UK Guardian that explains with graphs how the 
American rich have soaked Americans by shifting the tax burden:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/01/us-taxation-public-finance

[FairfieldLife] Pearljam

by Tom Tomorrow
http://www.thismodernworld.com/portfoliofolder/backspacer.jpg

[FairfieldLife] Re: A checklist of psychological traits (was: ...if Maharishi was just a guy)

2011-03-01 Thread seventhray1


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:
 Exactly. My point is that many here are WAY strung
 out on the pat answers they've been parroting for
 decades, and at this point cannot live without them.
 They react to those who suggest that the pat answers
 ARE drugs exactly the same way that junkies react to
 those might suggest that their neighborhood dealers
 are not nice guys who are merely filling a societal
 need. :-)
I've got to say, this strikes me as a harsh assessment, and I really
don't recogize anyone who fits this description.  I mean Nabby trots out
the party line on regular basis and Shukra does it on occassion, but for
those who regularly engage in discussion I don't see it.  As you
challenged me recently to give evidence of a statement I made, would you
care to offer some evidence of this, your statement?

[FairfieldLife] Pinhead Roman Sarcophagus

2011-03-01 Thread Yifu Xero





--
Subject: Pinhead Roman Sarcophagus


http://zippythepinhead.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PRODProduct_Code=romanCategory_Code=cfpsProduct_Count=6

[FairfieldLife] A checklist of Turq's psychological traits, cry for help

I haven't posted here in a while but Turq's messages look like a cry for
help for me.
He regularly posts provocative stuff in order to get others, that shows
his  exhibitionist behavior and need to be at the center of the
attention. He definitely suffers from some kind of a personality
disorder. I would humbly request the likes of Judy and Jim to stop
responding to him and feeding his paranoid behavior. He certainly craves
for the negative attention so he can perpetuate his paranoid delusional
behavior.
I have lived with someone who had paranoid personality disorder, so I
can easily recognize the flags here.
I wrote my article on Small Penis disorder, half in jest and half in
seriousness but we need to definitely examine it again.
Here's a list of characteristics that I have noticed which mostly are
histrionic and paranoid personality disorders.

* Exhibitionist and need to be the center of attention (Histrionic
personality disorder)
* Constant seeking of reassurance or approval (Histrionic personality
disorder)
* Excessive dramatics with exaggerated
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaggerated  displays of emotions
(Histrionic personality disorder)
* Excessive sensitivity to criticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism  or disapproval. (Histrionic
personality disorder)
* Strong feelings of inadequacy (Avoidant but easily applies to
Paranoid as well)
* Tendency to bear grudges indefinitely (Paranoid personality
disorder)
* Excessive sensitivity to setbacks and rebuffs (Paranoid personality
disorder)
* Tendency to experience excessive self-importance, manifest in a
persistent self-referential attitude (Paranoid personality disorder)


I'm leaning towards Histrionic Personality disorder
Cluster B (dramatic, emotional or erratic disorders)Histrionic
personality disorder: pervasive attention-seeking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention-seeking  behavior including
inappropriate sexual seductiveness and shallow or exaggerated emotions.
These individuals are lively, dramatic, enthusiastic, and
flirtatious.They may be inappropriately sexually provocative, express
strong emotions with an impressionistic style, and be easily influenced
by others. Associated features may include egocentrism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentrism , self-indulgence, continuous
longing for appreciation, and persistent manipulative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_manipulation  behavior to
achieve their own needs.



Hope he gets the help he surely deserves. I haven't posted in the last
several weeks but this is the main reason I have stopped responding to
his messages.
Love - Ravi Yogi, wearing his therapist hat.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting trivia on the actual historical devil

Does it ring true that human development on earth was greatly quickened by 
genetic engineering?

And does it make sense that we've always had visitors from elsewhere?

[FairfieldLife] Re: A checklist of Turq's psychological traits, cry for help

This is interesting and fits Turq perfectly - PRAISE ME
Mnemonic
A mnemonic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mnemonic  that can be used to
remember the criteria for histrionic personality disorder is PRAISE
ME:[10]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histrionic_personality_disorder#cite_note-\
9 [11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histrionic_personality_disorder#cite_note-\
10

* P - provocative (or seductive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seductive ) behavior
* R - relationships, considered more intimate than they are
* A - attention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention , must be at
center of
* I - influenced easily
* S - speech (style) - wants to impress, lacks detail
* E - emotional lability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labile_affect
, shallowness

* M - make-up - physical appearance used to draw attention to self
* E - exaggerated emotions - theatrical

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histrionic_personality_disorder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histrionic_personality_disorder
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi Chivukula
raviyogi@... wrote:
I haven't posted here in a while but Turq's messages look like a cry for
help for me.
He regularly posts provocative stuff in order to get others, that shows
his  exhibitionist behavior and need to be at the center of the
attention. He definitely suffers from some kind of a personality
disorder. I would humbly request the likes of Judy and Jim to stop
responding to him and feeding his paranoid behavior. He certainly craves
for the negative attention so he can perpetuate his paranoid delusional
behavior.
I have lived with someone who had paranoid personality disorder, so I
can easily recognize the flags here.
I wrote my article on Small Penis disorder, half in jest and half in
seriousness but we need to definitely examine it again.
Here's a list of characteristics that I have noticed which mostly are
histrionic and paranoid personality disorders.

* Exhibitionist and need to be the center of attention (Histrionic
personality disorder)
* Constant seeking of reassurance or approval (Histrionic personality
disorder)
* Excessive dramatics with exaggerated
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaggerated  displays of emotions
(Histrionic personality disorder)
* Excessive sensitivity to criticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism  or disapproval. (Histrionic
personality disorder)
* Strong feelings of inadequacy (Avoidant but easily applies to
Paranoid as well)
* Tendency to bear grudges indefinitely (Paranoid personality
disorder)
* Excessive sensitivity to setbacks and rebuffs (Paranoid personality
disorder)
* Tendency to experience excessive self-importance, manifest in a
persistent self-referential attitude (Paranoid personality disorder)


I'm leaning towards Histrionic Personality disorder
Cluster B (dramatic, emotional or erratic disorders)Histrionic
personality disorder: pervasive attention-seeking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention-seeking  behavior including
inappropriate sexual seductiveness and shallow or exaggerated emotions.
These individuals are lively, dramatic, enthusiastic, and
flirtatious.They may be inappropriately sexually provocative, express
strong emotions with an impressionistic style, and be easily influenced
by others. Associated features may include egocentrism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentrism , self-indulgence, continuous
longing for appreciation, and persistent manipulative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_manipulation  behavior to
achieve their own needs.



Hope he gets the help he surely deserves. I haven't posted in the last
several weeks but this is the main reason I have stopped responding to
his messages.
Love - Ravi Yogi, wearing his therapist hat.

 I haven't posted here in a while but Turq's messages look like a cry
for
 help for me.
 He regularly posts provocative stuff in order to get others, that
shows
 his  exhibitionist behavior and need to be at the center of the
 attention. He definitely suffers from some kind of a personality
 disorder. I would humbly request the likes of Judy and Jim to stop
 responding to him and feeding his paranoid behavior. He certainly
craves
 for the negative attention so he can perpetuate his paranoid
delusional
 behavior.
 I have lived with someone who had paranoid personality disorder, so I
 can easily recognize the flags here.
 I wrote my article on Small Penis disorder, half in jest and half in
 seriousness but we need to definitely examine it again.
 Here's a list of characteristics that I have noticed which mostly are
 histrionic and paranoid personality disorders.

 * Exhibitionist and need to be the center of attention (Histrionic
 personality disorder)
 * Constant seeking of reassurance or approval (Histrionic
personality
 disorder)
 * Excessive dramatics with exaggerated
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaggerated  displays of emotions
 (Histrionic personality disorder)
 * Excessive sensitivity to

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dark Rishi Experience


So from this, I see that many have come around to allowing for higher 
consciousness combined with negative behavior. 

Is anyone here familiar with the RA Materiel, or similar channelling?  it's 
available on-line for free.

Here's a brief summary:  the two different orientations- service to self, and 
service to others, continues on the higher levels, except we don't have to live 
on the same planet.  Earth has had both together so that people get a chance to 
polarize one way, or the other.  In the near future, Earth will shift, we won't 
be mixed any more.   

The negatively oriented will go to a higher level of what they enjoy: merging 
thru competition, fighting for control, etc.  

The negative side is considered a food chain. They grow thru assimilation, like 
the borg.  Positive side is friendly, enjoys helping others, merges without 
deception or trickery.  Both sides move toward unity.  Eventually, there is no 
distinction.
That is called 7th density.  We are now transitioning out of 3rd density.  4th 
density is around the corner, which partly explains the acceleration of change. 

 
 Taken from Getting Unstuck from TM: The Mystique of Maharishi's  
 Vibrations comments at:
 
 http://tmfree.blogspot.com/2011/02/getting-unstuck-from-tm-mystique- 
 of.html
 
 Several comments posit some sort of Dark or Demonic rishi  
 experiences, even though one person who was close on several courses  
 felt the demonic forces were the power behind his odd, shaktic  
 darshan and his negative enlightenment (not to be picky, but  
 shouldn't that be enDARKenment?):
 
 Comment from maskedzebra [RWC?]
 
 
 Ah! finally some meat to really dig into. Right out front I want to  
 confess that I aim to use your essay as the means to unload lots of  
 ideas and memories that I have never, since abjuring Maharishi,  
 revealed to anyone. Yep, right here on this blog I am really going to  
 let things flyeven at the risk of being thought out of my mind, and  
 addled-brained.
 
 I just love this essay for what it contains that I can relate to.  
 Relate to, that is, as the most significant experience of my entire  
 life.
 
 First of all, in the main body of your essay you have captured my own  
 experience perfectly. I doubt I can add anything to what you have  
 already said here: maybe a saint, maybe God incarnate, direct  
 line to Ultimate Truth, God's messenger, amazing aura, physical  
 energy field, laser beam gaze.
 
 But let me try to respond to your survey.
 
 (...)
 
 (b) Did you think he was enlightened? Divine? A saint or prophet?
 
 Answer: Yes, I definitely think he was enlightened. And I believe  
 there really is such a state of consciousness. However, I believe it  
 (Enlightenment) to be constituted of an aggregate of mystical and  
 magical deceit, that malevolent and mischievous intelligences  
 completely take over one's consciousness and create the illusion of  
 wholeness and unity, and Maharishi himself was the ultimate victim of  
 these intelligenceseven as his pride and vanity made him ripe for  
 the taking. The Vedic gods that are the mantras can indeed put one in  
 a higher state of consciousness, but such a state, such an experience 
 with the accompanying demonstration of remarkably inspired actionis,  
 however fixed and stable, a metaphysical illusion. Maharishi more  
 than anyone else (personal belief being expressed here) who has ever  
 lived, personified this mystical integrityan integrity that for so  
 long was essentially unchallengeablenot one person ever received  
 support [from the cosmos?] in approaching Maharishi in a critical  
 frame of mind. He blew off all skeptics with the most casual and  
 suave wave of his hand (that is, the dexterity and irony and wit that  
 his consciousness provided him in the presence of any would-be  
 adversary). He was certainly divine according to the Vedic/Hindu  
 paradigm, but in terms of the actual structure of reality and the  
 universe, No, I think on the contraryas his latter years would prove 
 he was the antithesis of the divine. Meaning: if there really is a  
 divine level of reality, Maharishi's person, life and consciousness  
 was the most brilliant counterfeit of that supernatural reality. As  
 to being a saint or prophet, the answer is unequivocally NO. Like  
 Saint Francis of Assisi? like Ignatius of Loyola? like Teresa of  
 Avila? like Ezekiel? like Isaiah? I never saw Maharishi perform a  
 single act of humility. Maharishi's arrogance was something out of  
 this world, to be sure, but I thinklet us just speak figuratively  
 herethe gates of heaven were closed to him when his body and soul  
 were rent asunder.
 
 (c) Or do you think he was evil, possessed, working with a dark  
 power, etc?
 
 Answer: You betcha.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A checklist of psychological traits (was: ...if Maharishi was just a guy)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
  Exactly. My point is that many here are WAY strung
  out on the pat answers they've been parroting for
  decades, and at this point cannot live without them.
  They react to those who suggest that the pat answers
  ARE drugs exactly the same way that junkies react to
  those might suggest that their neighborhood dealers
  are not nice guys who are merely filling a societal
  need. :-)
 
 I've got to say, this strikes me as a harsh assessment...

I've got to say that I really don't care how it strikes you. :-)

 ...and I really don't recogize anyone who fits this description.  
 I mean Nabby trots out the party line on regular basis and Shukra 
 does it on occassion, but for those who regularly engage in 
 discussion I don't see it. As you challenged me recently to 
 give evidence of a statement I made, would you care to offer 
 some evidence of this, your statement?

One word: effortlessness.

Think back to the interminable number of arguments
here over whether TM was truly effortless, and
the level of fanaticism and attachment brought to
those arguments by those who believe it is. They
continue to believe this *in spite of quotes from 
Maharishi* that it isn't effortless, merely
minimal effort in the direction of no effort.

Call that what you want. I call it addiction to
dogma and to the pat answer sold to them in
their youth, which they have never challenged.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting trivia on the actual historical devil

Michael,
My answers below...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Flatley
untilbeyond@... wrote:

 Does it ring true that human development on earth was greatly
quickened by genetic engineering?

Yes indeed !! We just have to to continue our miserable lives and
through the combination of genetic engineering and the help of Zinokese
we will all be liberated in 2012 and the world will be at peace for the
rest of the eternity.
 And does it make sense that we've always had visitors from elsewhere?


Yes - regular incursions from the Planet Zinooka.
Love - Ravi Yogi.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dark Rishi Experience