[FairfieldLife] Re: Navy Seals were on a mission to kill Osama bin Laden

[John]

Raunchydog,

You're absolutely correct.  They got their man.  And, Osama is dead.  Case 
closed.

JR

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> "The team of US Special Operations Forces who killed Osama bin Laden in a 
> pre-dawn raid on a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, were led by elite Navy 
> SEALS from the Joint Special Operations Command. Operators from SEAL Team 
> Six, also known as the Naval Special Warfare Development Group, or just 
> DevGru, are widely considered to be the most elite warriors in the US 
> national security apparatus.
> 
> Col. W. Patrick Lang, a retired Special Forces officer with extensive 
> operational experience throughout the Muslim world, described JSOC's forces 
> as "sort of like Murder, Incorporated." He told The Nation: "Their business 
> is killing Al Qaeda personnel. That's their business. They're not in the 
> business of converting anybody to our goals or anything like that." Shortly 
> after the operation was made public, retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey called 
> JSOC's operators the 'most dangerous people on the face of the earth.'"
> 
> Read more:
> "JSOC: The Black Ops Force That Took Down Bin Laden"
> Jeremy Scahill
> May 2, 2011 
> http://www.thenation.com/blog/160332/jsoc-black-ops-force-took-down-bin-laden
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dark Lord

[John]

emptybill,

Are you trying to scare me?  I think this scenario has been played by all 
religions in the world.  Vishnu has the vishnu dhutas to protect believers 
against the asuras.  The Christians have the Archangel Michael to fight against 
the minions of Satan.  In all of these cases, the forces of evil have been 
defeated.

For the same reason, the vedic literature states Krishna came to the world to 
restore dharma when evil has predominated.  Similarly, the Gospels write that 
Christ incarnated into the world to restore the rightful place of human beings 
in Paradise. 

You are playing this game here on this forum.  There is enough intelligence 
here to see what your intentions are.  You need to reread what MMY has said 
about the art of living and science of Being. 

JR



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
>
> 
> I have no faith "in" the Dark Lord  … only "of" him
> and of his transcendent longing.
> 
> I do find it humorous that you insist on seeing proof about what he is
> really like. Should I pray to one of the gang lords to come and visit
> with you? Should he ask, on your behalf, if you could have the Dark
> Lord's personal darshan?
> 
> …
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> >
> > emptybill,
> >
> > You're making assertions without proof. You appear to be expressing
> your faith in this entity. But why? You should get a reality check,
> dude.
> >
> > JR
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes I know him well. I keep his secret close to my heart - unlike
> > > bitches that whore themselves. He is the supreme lover of God,
> exiled
> > > though he is.
> > >
> > > FWIW … his love is more pure and clear than any human can bear
> and
> > > still remain human. He has lost the "love of his life" yet
> > > remains enthralled by the taste of the last command from the "One
> > > Most High".
> > >
> > > "Leave!"
> > >
> > >
> > > This was the last command he received from "the One". If we
> > > could experience such love we would dissolve and lose all identity.
> > >
> > > Don't believe the X-gen bullshit you've been fed. His troth is
> > > more faithful than any human promises could be. His love of the
> > > "Most High" is the penultimate among all created beings.
> > >
> > > Let us wish for just a taste of such love.
> > >
> > >
> > > …
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > emptybill,
> > > >
> > > > Are you saying that you had a revelation from the Dark Angel
> himself?
> > > How do we know you're not hallucinating? Do you a verifiable source
> > > that we can review?
> > > >
> > > > JR
> > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Puleeez.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are no fairies flitting around here to describe hell or
> > > heaven.
> > > > > How would they know anyway?
> > > > >
> > > > > And who else would have told me about the blessed rain except
> > > Himself ... the dark angel, the lord of wrath, the secret lover of
> god?
> > > > >
> > > > > ..
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> >
> > Curtis,
> > 
> > 1.> > So far, we have not gotten a definite answer from you if you agree 
> > with the first premise or not.
> > > 
> > > I'm gunna go with a no on this one because the universe itself is the 
> > > most obvious example of something that we don't know if it has a cause.  
> > > It also seems to be in contradiction with the conservation of matter and 
> > > energy principle.  The universe may have arisen out of a different form 
> > > of matter state than we find today without cause other than the nature of 
> > > the laws of matter unfolding.
> > > 
> > > The first premise might sound OK to most people who didn't think about it 
> > > very hard.  Most things in our world do seem to be caused by something 
> > > else. Until we get to matter and energy as a fundamental.  Then our 
> > > natural intuition leads us astray. Matter and energy do not have to have 
> > > a cause, they may just be a primary principle in the world.  The universe 
> > > has begun to exist in its present form of matter at an historical point 
> > > in time, but the matter it is made out of may have preceded it in a 
> > > different form.  
> > > 
> > > <  If we have a clear position from you with the first premise, then we 
> > > can move on to the second premise.>
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I don't accept the first assertion so I don't see how moving on helps.  
> > > But I am willing to hang if you can answer my objections to the first 
> > > assertion. >
> > 
> > 
> > It sounds like you disagree with the first premise:  "Whatever begins to 
> > exist has a cause". 
> 

Curtis,

A. > It really doesn't seem that you are reading what I am writing.
> 
> 
Your statements above states that you disagree with the first premise.  If 
you're not disagreeing, what then is your position.  I don't think you can 
straddle the fence on this one.


B.> < If so, how can anything or something come from nothing? >
> 
> I don't know.  This is yet another assertion that lacks any context.  In my 
> creative life this is exactly what happens on a daily basis.>

Can you give us a specific example of what happens to you on a daily basis that 
describes the condition above?


C.> < It should be understood that common experience>
> 
> This is the appeal that some of the promoters of the idea are pitching but it 
> is simply not true.  We are not discussing common experience here you are 
> asserting universals.>


IMO, there is a close connection between the two fields of experience.


D.> < and scientific evidence confirm the first premise.>
> 
> No scientific evidence worthy of the name uses inductive logic in this manor. 
> As far as I am aware this assertion is not only not a result of any 
> "evidence" nor is it an axioum of first principles in any branch of science.>


IMO, scientific evidence follows the laws of cause and effect.  


E.> But I could be wrong, what are you referring to?>

We're still trying to understand what is your true position regarding the first 
premise.  So far, you appear to vacillate on your position.


F.> I don't know what you background is in philosophy John, but mine is meager. 
 An undergraduate degree from some small college in the Midwest whose name 
eludes me at the moment but it begins with an N...no...wait it is an M, 
definitely and M.>

I'm not a philosophy major.  But I have taken a few courses in philosophy while 
in college.  I have a degree in accounting at a university here in San 
Francisco, CA.


G.> What is going on here is that an old school rationalist argument is being 
proposed based on an unproven assumption.  This is not a self-evident first 
principle.  It just sounds truthy to you.  When people get serious about first 
principles to base an argument on they start with as Socrates did "all I know 
is that I know nothing at all" or Decarte's famous "I think therefore I am."  
These are self-evident principles that most people agree with.  They are not 
scientific statements of truth and were not derived from experiment they are 
assertions like your first one.  But they are not universals you notice, and 
they aren't chock full of assumptions about how the world works that science 
has not proven.>
> 

We're still waiting for your true position on the first premise of the KCA.

JR

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > JR
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > We can discuss the other two premises after this premise is 
> > > > > > resolved.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > JR
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> 

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robin Carlsen on TM-Free Blog

[Rick Archer]

Someone should invite him here.

 

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of seventhray1
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 10:32 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robin Carlsen on TM-Free Blog

 

  

Cool


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"
 wrote:
>
> In case anyone's interested, Robin Carlsen is posting in the comments on
TM-Free Blog as "maskedzebra".
>

RE: [FairfieldLife] "Omnisubjective"

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf Of Yifu
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 11:03 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] "Omnisubjective"

 

  

There may be some jewels of wisdom in the Carlsen blogs, but maybe not. We'll 
see.
Here's a new one I learned: "Omnisubjective"; which can easily be incorporated 
into the FFL lexicon of Spiritual jargon and MMY-talk, along with 
"Lagrangian"

from the Maskedzebra blog, and respones:

" I do firmly believe there is a truth out there about Robin Carlsen and his 
behaviour while he was convinced of his enlightenment, but since I am not 
omnisubjective [knowing what the experience is of being every other person in 
existence], nor even objective about my own subjectivity as a person (how 
accurately and completely am I apprehending myself, others, and reality from 
the point of view of the person that I am), I remain doubtful of the validity 
of any exerciseâ€"at this point at least in my lifeâ€"which attempts to tell 
the story of myself as a controversial cult leader. For starters, I have plenty 
of evidence that I am still naive and deceived with respect to who I really am. 
After all, I at one point thought I was perfect.

Sounds like he has grown a lot. Some humility has dawned.

[FairfieldLife] "Omnisubjective"

[Yifu]

There may be some jewels of wisdom in the Carlsen blogs, but maybe not.  We'll 
see.
Here's a new one I learned: "Omnisubjective"; which can easily be incorporated 
into the FFL lexicon of Spiritual jargon and MMY-talk, along with 
"Lagrangian"

from the Maskedzebra blog, and respones:

" I do firmly believe there is a truth out there about Robin Carlsen and his 
behaviour while he was convinced of his enlightenment, but since I am not 
omnisubjective [knowing what the experience is of being every other person in 
existence], nor even objective about my own subjectivity as a person (how 
accurately and completely am I apprehending myself, others, and reality from 
the point of view of the person that I am), I remain doubtful of the validity 
of any exerciseâ€"at this point at least in my lifeâ€"which attempts to tell 
the story of myself as a controversial cult leader. For starters, I have plenty 
of evidence that I am still naive and deceived with respect to who I really am. 
After all, I at one point thought I was perfect.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin Carlsen on TM-Free Blog

[Yifu]

Something's fishy about his message blogs. He seems to be supporting a type of 
Divine Mother worship, which is fine with me. (I'm a Kali devotee). 
Buutthere's nothing specific about the content, attesting to 
the actual practice.  Maybe an occasional mention of the Virgin Mary. He just 
doesn't seem to be emanating Divine Mother vibes [like, say - Ramakrishna]. 
There's no specific Sadhana, just ranting about TM, MMY, Bobby Roth, etc; which 
leads me to believe he's "stuck on the time track"...to use a Scientology 
phrase.
...IOW, if he's "anti" TM, TMO, MMY, etc; to the point of being fixated on 
that, well...he's still living in the 70's. Same old Robin.
...
what's your take on the guy?  Maybe he can post something on this forum.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> Someone should invite him here.
> 
>  
> 
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of seventhray1
> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 10:32 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robin Carlsen on TM-Free Blog
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> Cool
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"
>  wrote:
> >
> > In case anyone's interested, Robin Carlsen is posting in the comments on
> TM-Free Blog as "maskedzebra".
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin Carlsen on TM-Free Blog

[seventhray1]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> Someone should invite him here.

Buck should inv... oh well.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin Carlsen on TM-Free Blog

[seventhray1]

Cool


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"
 wrote:
>
> In case anyone's interested, Robin Carlsen is posting in the comments
on TM-Free Blog as "maskedzebra".
>

RE: [FairfieldLife] George Harrison: Remembering “the quiet Beatle”

[Rick Archer]

>From a friend:

 

Ya, but it is important to know and
acknowledge, that George was into Hare Krshna
after TM and the maharishi, and stayed there
most of his life.

The Hare Krshnas even lived in the compound of
John Lennon, and The Beatles produced their
single Hit Hare Krshna and the following LP.

And George gave them the money to raise their
London HQ.

Its not good to only focus on the
short episodes of George and TM:


It sometimes feels, as if the TM
needs these people more than they need the TM.

 

 

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf Of merlin
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 6:26 PM
To: undisclosed recipients:
Subject: [FairfieldLife] George Harrison: Remembering “the quiet Beatle”

 

  


 

George Harrison: 

Remembering 'the quiet Beatle'
by Keith Deboer

Transcendental Meditation - USA 
www.TM.org/blog   3 May 2011

Of course George Harrison is best known for the role he played as lead 
guitarist of one of the most popular, influential musical groups in modern 
history. And his own beautiful compositions ensure he will remain a beloved 
part of our modern music tradition. As the 10th anniversary of his passing 
approaches, it's sweet to remember George, his music and his humanity. 

We're also thankful to George for the influence he had on our society's 
interest in meditation. It was his fascination with the ancient knowledge 
tradition of India that led the Beatles to meet  
 Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and to learn the  
 Transcendental Meditation program. 


''I had got to the point where I thought I would like to meditate; I'd read 
about it and I knew I needed a mantra—a password to get through to the other 
world.'' — George Harrison 

It all started when in 1967 George's wife, Patti Boyd, learned the 
Transcendental Meditation technique in London while George was away on tour 
with the Beatles. 'I loved meditating and I found the effects remarkable,' 
Patti said. And it was her enthusiasm that led George to encourage the Beatles 
to hear a lecture in London by Maharishi. 

This meeting led to a lifelong dedication to meditation and the quest for 
higher states of consciousness—one that would set the tone of his personal and 
professional life. And it certainly influenced his music. 

Some of his great contributions to the musical heritage of the Beatles came as 
a result of his experience studying Transcendental Meditation with Maharishi in 
India. His compositions that resulted from that special period include ''Here 
Comes the Sun,'' ''While My Guitar Gently Weeps,'' and ''Something''—a song 
that John Lennon and Paul McCartney, the two principal songwriting members of 
the band, felt was among the very best the group recorded. It was also the 
second most covered (i.e., recorded by other artists) songs after 
''Yesterday.'' 

George's interest in the Transcendental Meditation program and the widespread 
adoption of Maharishi's revival of Vedic wisdom continued throughout his life. 

In 1992, to show his support for Maharishi's effort to help raise the 
consciousness of society, George performed at a benefit concert at London's 
Royal Albert Hall. George was also enthused and engaged in Maharishi's revival 
of the ancient Vedic science of health,  
 
''Ayur-Veda''. He regularly visited the   
Maharishi Ayurveda Health Center in Lancaster, Massachusetts, USA. 

During the 1990s, George also visited Maharishi at Maharishi University in 
Holland. Dr. Bevan Morris, the president of   Maharishi 
University of Management, was present during George's visit and recalled with 
fondness the way George approached Maharishi ''with great respect and 
tenderness. It was very sweet to see George's humility, and how deeply he 
appreciated being in Maharishi's presence.'' 

In our modern world where celebrity often overshadows the integrity of a 
person's basic character, George's life was one of simple dedication to high 
ideals. In the words of Dr. Morris, ''George was a very fine, spiritual, humble 
and enlightened man.'' 

''Everybody's looking for something. . . . We don't have to look anywhere—it's 
right there within ourselves.'' — George Harrison, Press Conference, Los 
Angeles, 1974 

http://www.tm.org/blog/people/george-harrison/ 


Related posts: 

1.   Dear Prudence: Won't You 
Come Out to Play? 

2.   
Paul McCartney remembers his first meditation with Maharishi 

© Copyright 2011 Maharishi Foundation USA 

[FairfieldLife] Navy Seals were on a mission to kill Osama bin Laden

[raunchydog]

"The team of US Special Operations Forces who killed Osama bin Laden in a 
pre-dawn raid on a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, were led by elite Navy 
SEALS from the Joint Special Operations Command. Operators from SEAL Team Six, 
also known as the Naval Special Warfare Development Group, or just DevGru, are 
widely considered to be the most elite warriors in the US national security 
apparatus.

Col. W. Patrick Lang, a retired Special Forces officer with extensive 
operational experience throughout the Muslim world, described JSOC's forces as 
"sort of like Murder, Incorporated." He told The Nation: "Their business is 
killing Al Qaeda personnel. That's their business. They're not in the business 
of converting anybody to our goals or anything like that." Shortly after the 
operation was made public, retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey called JSOC's operators 
the 'most dangerous people on the face of the earth.'"

Read more:
"JSOC: The Black Ops Force That Took Down Bin Laden"
Jeremy Scahill
May 2, 2011 
http://www.thenation.com/blog/160332/jsoc-black-ops-force-took-down-bin-laden

[FairfieldLife] Re: Changing the Osama Narrative

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> When the story of Osama's death first broke, one of the things that help 
> identify Osama's location was the fact that the occupants of the compound 
> always burned their trash and had no internet or telephone connections. 
> Curiously, the media now reports the raid on the compound yielded a "treasure 
> trove" of computers and hard drives stored with loads of information. So 
> Osama had all this computer equipment and no internet access, what's up with 
> that? 
> 
> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54151.html
> 
> The White House also changed its story that portrayed Osama as a coward 
> resisting capture:
> 
> "The White House backed away Monday evening from key details in its narrative 
> about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, including claims by senior U.S. 
> officials that the Al Qaeda leader had a weapon and may have fired it during 
> a gun battle with U.S. forces.
> 
> Officials also retreated from claims that one of bin Laden's wives was killed 
> in the raid and that bin Laden was using her as a human shield before she was 
> shot by U.S. forces...
> 
> The White House didn't offer a reason for any of the changes. However, 
> Brennan noted during his televised briefing that his information came from 
> reports from the scene as well as live video feeds of the raid."
> 

"The official narrative on the raid on Osama bin Laden's hideout has completely 
unraveled. First it was a hard-core firefight with precision Navy SEAL 
commandos encountering human shields and a hail of bullets, deftly avoiding 
harm and hitting their targets. Now this has devolved into a scene where the 
SEALs took the compound completely by surprise, and nobody had the opportunity 
to fight back. According to MSNBC only one man was armed in the entire 
compound, which was populated mostly by women and children." 

"Narrative on Bin Laden Raid Collapses"
http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/05/05/narrative-on-bin-laden-raid-collapses/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Changing the Osama Narrative

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> >
> > However, Brennan noted during his televised briefing that
> > his information came from reports from the scene as well
> > as live video feeds of the raid."
> > 
> > http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54162.html
> > 
> > I had wondered how much of the bloody mess Obama's national 
> > security team had witnessed. Apparently, they saw the entire
> > 38 minutes of the take down.
> 
> Not according to the NYTimes story this morning, as I
> noted in my earlier post, at least not the folks in the
> Situation Room. Panetta apparently had access to the live
> video feed and relayed what he was seeing to the SitRoom
> people from where he was. They may all have seen it *now*,
> but not while it was unfolding.
> 
> Nobody to my knowledge has said where the camera was
> located. One camera couldn't have covered everything that
> was going on in the compound, and I seriously doubt they
> had multiple camerapeople running around shooting
> everything that was happening.
>

There were as many camera shots as there were Navy Seals running around with 
cameras affixed to their helmets.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13276467
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42906279/ns/world_news-death_of_bin_laden/

"Obama watched live video of bin Laden raid, U.S. official says"

"We were able to monitor on a real-time basis the progress of the operation, 
from its commencement, to its time on target, to the extraction of the 
remains," Brennan said. "We were able to have regular updates to ensure that we 
had real-time visibility into the progress of the operation."

The White House and Central Intelligence Agency didn't have access to a live 
audio feed, but they were able to tap other communications, a U.S. official 
told CNN. There was some live video, though the official declined to elaborate 
on the nature of that footage.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-02/tech/bin.laden.video_1_bin-terrorist-leader-cia-director-leon-panetta?_s=PM:TECH

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count

[Sal Sunshine]

On May 5, 2011, at 8:27 PM, Alex Stanley wrote:


> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, FFL PostCount  wrote:
>> 
>> Fairfield Life Post Counter
>> ===
>> Start Date (UTC): Sat Apr 30 00:00:00 2011
>> End Date (UTC): Sat May 07 00:00:00 2011
>> 601 messages as of (UTC) Fri May 06 00:11:41 2011
>> 
>> 57 Buck 
> 
> No more Buckian post cascades until the evening of May 13th.

Jai guru Alex.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dark Lord

[Yifu]

Thx, nope. No malefic 9-th house. I've had encounters with many types of 
Spirits, even groups of animals coming into my awareness requesting prayers for 
them.  John, you're misinterpreting the "situation". Such entities are in need 
of assistance, otherwise - we might might adopt (as a poor choice); a world in 
which we separate the universe into groups of "Special" people: Good vs evil, 
Enlightened vs ignorant, Christians or Muslims vs others; etc.
...
Become a "true-Buddhist"! Embrace the universe as a whole, and all of its 
inhabitants. That's an ideal of course. There are obvious practical/tactical 
limitations, but the journey starts with one step at a time.
...
Now for some brief comments on world-views. For the first few years of my 
short-lived career as a MMY TB (which lasted only until 1973 at which time I 
was fired from SIMS by Jerry personally), the world-view of TM'ers was a. those 
who practice TM vs b. everybody else. btw I hold nothing against Jerry - he's a 
friend of mine.
...
At any rate, still creeping into this form is the us vs them formulation in 
terms of E'd people vs those not. This orientation can be constructive imo in 
terms of goal orientation but can have an elitist type of drawback, remedied by 
"True Buddhism" [of Nichiren].
...
To briefly explain: There are living entities in the Universe, all of whom have 
desires, many of whom yearn for some type of Salvation, and most desire 
Happiness.
...
Instead of limiting ourselves to "Enlightened vs those not"; we expand the 
arena of activity to embrace: DESIRES. Then: any types of DESIRES and the 
fulfillment thereof are legitimate concerns. Say a person wants to become a 
Navy Seal. Fine, go to it!.
...
Cockroaches have desires, Brahma has desires, Jesus has desires.
By expanding the world-view to embrace desires as a whole, we give lesser 
considerations to separating out good vs evil, E'd vs un-E'd, etc.; although 
such divisions have merit on their own level.
...
In short, by way of example: in 1971 I might have looked down on "non-TM'ers"; 
now I no longer do so. Everybody has desires. The universe expands in some 
mysterious way to accommodate them, whatever they may be. That's Nichiren's 
"true Buddhism", vs Traditional Buddhism.

 


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> Yifu,
> 
> It sounds like your jyotish chart has some malefic planets in the 9th house.  
> These are accounting for your dreams/visions of demonic spirits.  You should 
> consult with your current guru or jyotishi to mitigate the effects of these 
> dreams or visions.
> 
> JR
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
> >
> > note: if the entity is "Satan" - I had an extremely powerful experience 
> > with Him on Aug 12-th, 1998.  Totally mind-blowing, visually astounding 
> > beyond belief; but more important, changed my opinion(s) of this "entity" 
> > [but again, not sure what entity emptybill is referring to].
> > ...
> > At any rate, my experience entailed the perception/realization and 
> > "grokking", that Satan's mission is one of benevolence, to in reality, 
> > "save" the various creatures (and I use the term very broadly since some of 
> > the hideous entities I saw were definitely not human); that are "unsaved" 
> > by YHVH/Jesus. In other words, such devilish entities under the protective 
> > umbrella of Satan, along with unbelievers in general, do indeed have a 
> > chance at Salvation (another term that must be translated into broader 
> > terms, encompassing basically: the chance to evolve into a higher level.)
> > ...
> > Just last week a young girl (looking like about 8) appeared to me in the 
> > dream state, and man, she was gllyy...; She was looking for 
> > somebody to pray for her, which I have done. The Jesus Heaven is not for 
> > her, but Satan may help save this "Soul".  The girl conveyed to me the 
> > message that due to her many "sins", she had an ugly astral appearance but 
> > she wants to turn over a new leaf. Being an unbeliever in Jesus, that 
> > particular Heaven is not an option for her, but Satan can help get her into 
> > what is now a NEW type of Heaven, separate from the Jesus (or other 
> > Heavens); but open to all unbelievers. 
> > 
> >   The Sshe 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > >
> > > emptybill,
> > > 
> > > You're making assertions without proof.  You appear to be expressing your 
> > > faith in this entity.  But why?  You should get a reality check, dude.
> > > 
> > > JR
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > Yes I know him well. I keep his secret close to my heart - unlike
> > > > bitches that whore themselves. He is the supreme lover of God, exiled
> > > > though he is.
> > > > 
> > > > FWIW … his love is more pure and clear than any human can bear and
> > > > still remain human. He has lost the "love of his life" yet
> > > > remains enthralled by th

[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, FFL PostCount  wrote:
>
> Fairfield Life Post Counter
> ===
> Start Date (UTC): Sat Apr 30 00:00:00 2011
> End Date (UTC): Sat May 07 00:00:00 2011
> 601 messages as of (UTC) Fri May 06 00:11:41 2011
> 
> 57 Buck 

No more Buckian post cascades until the evening of May 13th.

[FairfieldLife] Robin Carlsen on TM-Free Blog

[Alex Stanley]

In case anyone's interested, Robin Carlsen is posting in the comments on 
TM-Free Blog as "maskedzebra".

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dark Lord

[Yifu]

right emptybill!  Though having thrown my Bible away and not being a scholar, 
I'm going by my direct cognitive experiences, mere hints from the Bible and 
other sources, including logic.  Starting with Exodus and the Garden of Eden, 
certain statements simply don't make sense.  Then there's the supposed 
statement of Satan where He says something like "I will be placed 'On High'" 
i.e. fallen, kicked out of the YHVH Heaven, but then regained and surpassing  
His former  Brilliance & Glory as a steward of all entities rejected by others.
...
One of my strongest objections to the Orthodox pov relates to the dualistic 
overtones of "Us" vs "them": only certain special people are to be Saved while 
others have no chance at all and are doomed to some variant of Hell: the 
traditional fiery place, a pit of darkness, or worse yet: total non-existence 
[whatever, from their pov.].
...
Sorry (addressing Eschatological dualist Fundies, but their worldview is 
Scatological) and indeed by no means Gnostic.
...
Being true to Gnosticism as that Tradition formed and evolved after the first 5 
centures AD, and then beyond into the age of the Cathars; everybody, all 
entities, can be Saved - a position more consistent with Buddhism.
...
I might add that such concepts of Gnostic Salvation embrace two concepts: 
First, (common to Advaita and Buddhism), one can say that "Salvation" is not 
really in a "place" [i.e. some type of Heaven such as the Pure Land]; but 
rather in the Realization of one's innate Self =  "pure unalloyed Happiness" 
[to repeat a favorite phrase of Ramana's equating Self-Realization with 
"Happiness".] That is, Happiness regardless of circumstances.
...
But then, why not tack on "circumstances"? Why not relative Heaven everywhere? 
As to this pov, we simply splice together Gnostic Realization with subtle 
existence in some "realm" after physical death: such as the Pure Land, Jesus 
Heaven, or other Heavens mentioned in Autobiography of a Yogi. And of course 
"Heaven on Earth'.
[but as of this day, 5-6-11, we're not even close to that]; although Babaji may 
disagree.
...
The existence of such Heavens has been attested to by various Yogis such as Sri 
Yukteswar, and Nityananda, the Guru of Muktananda.
That Self-Realized persons should have a relative "place" to live can be 
considered a natural continuation of life, with more options than simply 
"blinking out" [i.e. non-existence].
...
But ymmv when it comes to choices!! Jerry Jarvis believes that after attaining 
Unity, the purpose of evolution has been fulfilled and there's no further 
existence, relatively speaking. I refuse to believe that. There's evidence that 
various "Heavens" exist in the subtle planes. After all, Ramana Maharshi stated 
that he had 20 transformation bodies in different dimensions. Why not have at 
least one such body?.  Might be fun! Of course, if somebody simply wants 
no-existence whatsoever, that's their business and choice. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
>
> 
> You chain yourself to gospel mythologies and then proffer yourself as
> pro-gnostic.
> 
> Go back to the bright lights of the stage and your Bugatti. Count your
> Reichmarks and pray yhvh doesn't remember you or your pathetic,
> womanly stories.
> 
> \
> ..
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert"  wrote:
> >
> > Jesus called this entity: 'A murderer since the beginning of time!'
> >
> > This entity is the same one that possessed Hitler and bin Laden and
> the other ones that are called the 'Sons of Darkenss'...
> >
> > This is the time prophesized as the time when:
> >
> > 'The 'Sons of Light' would challenge the 'Sons of Darkness'...
> >
> > And so it is...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes I know him well. I keep his secret close to my heart - unlike
> > > bitches that whore themselves. He is the supreme lover of God,
> exiled
> > > though he is.
> > >
> > > FWIW … his love is more pure and clear than any human can bear
> and
> > > still remain human. He has lost the "love of his life" yet
> > > remains enthralled by the taste of the last command from the "One
> > > Most High".
> > >
> > > "Leave!"
> > >
> > >
> > > This was the last command he received from "the One". If we
> > > could experience such love we would dissolve and lose all identity.
> > >
> > > Don't believe the X-gen bullshit you've been fed. His troth is
> > > more faithful than any human promises could be. His love of the
> > > "Most High" is the penultimate among all created beings.
> > >
> > > Let us wish for just a taste of such love.
> > >
> > >
> > > …
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > emptybill,
> > > >
> > > > Are you saying that you had a revelation from the Dark Angel
> himself?
> > > How do we know you're not hallucinat

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dark Lord

[emptybill]

I have no faith "in" the Dark Lord  … only "of" him
and of his transcendent longing.

I do find it humorous that you insist on seeing proof about what he is
really like. Should I pray to one of the gang lords to come and visit
with you? Should he ask, on your behalf, if you could have the Dark
Lord's personal darshan?

…


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> emptybill,
>
> You're making assertions without proof. You appear to be expressing
your faith in this entity. But why? You should get a reality check,
dude.
>
> JR
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > Yes I know him well. I keep his secret close to my heart - unlike
> > bitches that whore themselves. He is the supreme lover of God,
exiled
> > though he is.
> >
> > FWIW … his love is more pure and clear than any human can bear
and
> > still remain human. He has lost the "love of his life" yet
> > remains enthralled by the taste of the last command from the "One
> > Most High".
> >
> > "Leave!"
> >
> >
> > This was the last command he received from "the One". If we
> > could experience such love we would dissolve and lose all identity.
> >
> > Don't believe the X-gen bullshit you've been fed. His troth is
> > more faithful than any human promises could be. His love of the
> > "Most High" is the penultimate among all created beings.
> >
> > Let us wish for just a taste of such love.
> >
> >
> > …
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > >
> > > emptybill,
> > >
> > > Are you saying that you had a revelation from the Dark Angel
himself?
> > How do we know you're not hallucinating? Do you a verifiable source
> > that we can review?
> > >
> > > JR
> >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@
wrote:
> >
> > > > Puleeez.
> > > >
> > > > There are no fairies flitting around here to describe hell or
> > heaven.
> > > > How would they know anyway?
> > > >
> > > > And who else would have told me about the blessed rain except
> > Himself ... the dark angel, the lord of wrath, the secret lover of
god?
> > > >
> > > > ..
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dark Lord

[John]

Yifu,

It sounds like your jyotish chart has some malefic planets in the 9th house.  
These are accounting for your dreams/visions of demonic spirits.  You should 
consult with your current guru or jyotishi to mitigate the effects of these 
dreams or visions.

JR

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
>
> note: if the entity is "Satan" - I had an extremely powerful experience 
> with Him on Aug 12-th, 1998.  Totally mind-blowing, visually astounding 
> beyond belief; but more important, changed my opinion(s) of this "entity" 
> [but again, not sure what entity emptybill is referring to].
> ...
> At any rate, my experience entailed the perception/realization and 
> "grokking", that Satan's mission is one of benevolence, to in reality, "save" 
> the various creatures (and I use the term very broadly since some of the 
> hideous entities I saw were definitely not human); that are "unsaved" by 
> YHVH/Jesus. In other words, such devilish entities under the protective 
> umbrella of Satan, along with unbelievers in general, do indeed have a chance 
> at Salvation (another term that must be translated into broader terms, 
> encompassing basically: the chance to evolve into a higher level.)
> ...
> Just last week a young girl (looking like about 8) appeared to me in the 
> dream state, and man, she was gllyy...; She was looking for 
> somebody to pray for her, which I have done. The Jesus Heaven is not for her, 
> but Satan may help save this "Soul".  The girl conveyed to me the message 
> that due to her many "sins", she had an ugly astral appearance but she wants 
> to turn over a new leaf. Being an unbeliever in Jesus, that particular Heaven 
> is not an option for her, but Satan can help get her into what is now a NEW 
> type of Heaven, separate from the Jesus (or other Heavens); but open to all 
> unbelievers. 
> 
>   The Sshe 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> >
> > emptybill,
> > 
> > You're making assertions without proof.  You appear to be expressing your 
> > faith in this entity.  But why?  You should get a reality check, dude.
> > 
> > JR
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > Yes I know him well. I keep his secret close to my heart - unlike
> > > bitches that whore themselves. He is the supreme lover of God, exiled
> > > though he is.
> > > 
> > > FWIW … his love is more pure and clear than any human can bear and
> > > still remain human. He has lost the "love of his life" yet
> > > remains enthralled by the taste of the last command from the "One
> > > Most High".
> > > 
> > > "Leave!"
> > > 
> > > 
> > > This was the last command he received from "the One". If we
> > > could experience such love we would dissolve and lose all identity.
> > > 
> > > Don't believe the X-gen bullshit you've been fed. His troth is
> > > more faithful than any human promises could be. His love of the
> > > "Most High" is the penultimate among all created beings.
> > > 
> > > Let us wish for just a taste of such love.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > …
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > emptybill,
> > > >
> > > > Are you saying that you had a revelation from the Dark Angel himself? 
> > > How do we know you're not hallucinating?  Do you a verifiable source
> > > that we can review?
> > > >
> > > > JR
> > > 
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > Puleeez.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are no fairies flitting around here to describe hell or
> > > heaven.
> > > > > How would they know anyway?
> > > > >
> > > > > And who else would have told me about the blessed rain except
> > > Himself ... the dark angel, the lord of wrath, the secret lover of god?
> > > > >
> > > > > ..
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dark Lord

[emptybill]

You chain yourself to gospel mythologies and then proffer yourself as
pro-gnostic.

Go back to the bright lights of the stage and your Bugatti. Count your
Reichmarks and pray yhvh doesn't remember you or your pathetic,
womanly stories.

\
..

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert"  wrote:
>
> Jesus called this entity: 'A murderer since the beginning of time!'
>
> This entity is the same one that possessed Hitler and bin Laden and
the other ones that are called the 'Sons of Darkenss'...
>
> This is the time prophesized as the time when:
>
> 'The 'Sons of Light' would challenge the 'Sons of Darkness'...
>
> And so it is...
>
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > Yes I know him well. I keep his secret close to my heart - unlike
> > bitches that whore themselves. He is the supreme lover of God,
exiled
> > though he is.
> >
> > FWIW … his love is more pure and clear than any human can bear
and
> > still remain human. He has lost the "love of his life" yet
> > remains enthralled by the taste of the last command from the "One
> > Most High".
> >
> > "Leave!"
> >
> >
> > This was the last command he received from "the One". If we
> > could experience such love we would dissolve and lose all identity.
> >
> > Don't believe the X-gen bullshit you've been fed. His troth is
> > more faithful than any human promises could be. His love of the
> > "Most High" is the penultimate among all created beings.
> >
> > Let us wish for just a taste of such love.
> >
> >
> > …
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > >
> > > emptybill,
> > >
> > > Are you saying that you had a revelation from the Dark Angel
himself?
> > How do we know you're not hallucinating? Do you a verifiable source
> > that we can review?
> > >
> > > JR
> >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@
wrote:
> >
> > > > Puleeez.
> > > >
> > > > There are no fairies flitting around here to describe hell or
> > heaven.
> > > > How would they know anyway?
> > > >
> > > > And who else would have told me about the blessed rain except
> > Himself ... the dark angel, the lord of wrath, the secret lover of
god?
> > > >
> > > > ..
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?

[John]

Barry,


1. > Can you give us a specific example that presents your 
> > case and does not follow the statement under the first 
> > premise?
> 
> I'm out in the Anza-Borrego desert, at night,
> in a certain canyon I know of. Sometimes, when
> I go there, there is a certain rock face in the
> side of a mountain that is just a rock face in
> the side of a mountain. But at other times it
> transforms into a portal through which one can
> glimpse other worlds, and beings of light who
> live in those other worlds.
> 
> I've caught glimpses of these other worlds in
> this place maybe half a dozen times over the
> years. Haven't got a clue what it means, or
> if it means anything. What I find more inter-
> esting is that sometimes it was a rock face
> and sometimes it was a portal. Nothing I can
> think of acted as a "cause" to create one per-
> ception or the other. It either happened or
> it didn't, on its own schedule, not mine. 
> 
> So what's the "cause" of such a phenomenon or
> perception? More important, were the portals
> always there, and I only noticed them from
> time to time, or did they come into being 
> (begin to exist) only when I noticed them?

It doesn't appear that this example is a refutation of the first premise:  
"Whatever begins to exist has a cause."  IMO, what you saw never existed in the 
first place.  You imagined that a portal appeared to you.  But it actually is 
just a product of your overactive imagination.  Or, it could be that you were 
hallucinting?

What was the cause of your hallucination?  For all we know, you could have been 
high of some drug, mushroom or marijuana.

As such, your argument against the first premise does not hold.  You should 
reconsider your position before continuing with the rest of the KCA.

JR






> :-)
>

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): Sat Apr 30 00:00:00 2011
End Date (UTC): Sat May 07 00:00:00 2011
601 messages as of (UTC) Fri May 06 00:11:41 2011

57 Buck 
50 authfriend 
48 turquoiseb 
36 whynotnow7 
30 seventhray1 
28 WillyTex 
27 Mike Dixon 
25 tartbrain 
24 curtisdeltablues 
24 Yifu 
23 Ravi Yogi 
21 Bhairitu 
20 cardemaister 
18 Vaj 
18 John 
17 nablusoss1008 
15 Tom Pall 
15 Sal Sunshine 
12 raunchydog 
12 Rick Archer 
10 Peter 
 9 emptybill 
 7 merudanda 
 7 merlin 
 7 Alex Stanley 
 6 Robert 
 5 PaliGap 
 4 wayback71 
 4 shanti2218411 
 4 Peter L Sutphen 
 3 brianbmurr 
 3 Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
 2 martyboi 
 2 Yifu Xero 
 2 "do.rflex" 
 1 ultrarishi 
 1 pranamoocher 
 1 feste37 
 1 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 1 Duveyoung 
 1 Brian Murray 

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

[FairfieldLife] Portal to other dimensions

[Yifu]

http://indigosociety.com/showthread.php?37719-Natural-Spring-Pictures-Portal-to-another-dimension

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?

[whynotnow7]

The question is dude, have you ever been to the Anza-Borrego Desert WITHOUT 
Rama? 

and if that is the case, and you continue to see "a portal with beings of light 
walking around in it" on a rock face, I suggest you empty the bottle, put out 
the roach and find a nearby motel to sleep it off...:-)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> >
> > Barry,
> > 
> > 1.>  Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
> > > > 
> > > > Do you agree with this premise or not?  
> > > 
> > > I'm going back to play "catch up" after traveling 
> > > for the last couple of days, but I'll answer. The
> > > first premise has the same problem as the second.
> > > The problem is not with the word "cause" but with
> > > the phrase "begins to exist." 
> > > 
> > > That presupposes the condition that something came
> > > into existence which had not existed before. 
> > > 
> > > I have had many experiences in my life that cannot
> > > be described by this phrase. I have seen things 
> > > that as far as I can tell were always present. Me
> > > noticing them did not cause them to "come into
> > > existence." Nor did anything "cause" them to 
> > > happen. Therefore my own experience does not lead
> > > me to believe that this is a true statement.
> > 
> > Can you give us a specific example that presents your 
> > case and does not follow the statement under the first 
> > premise?
> 
> I'm out in the Anza-Borrego desert, at night,
> in a certain canyon I know of. Sometimes, when
> I go there, there is a certain rock face in the
> side of a mountain that is just a rock face in
> the side of a mountain. But at other times it
> transforms into a portal through which one can
> glimpse other worlds, and beings of light who
> live in those other worlds.
> 
> I've caught glimpses of these other worlds in
> this place maybe half a dozen times over the
> years. Haven't got a clue what it means, or
> if it means anything. What I find more inter-
> esting is that sometimes it was a rock face
> and sometimes it was a portal. Nothing I can
> think of acted as a "cause" to create one per-
> ception or the other. It either happened or
> it didn't, on its own schedule, not mine. 
> 
> So what's the "cause" of such a phenomenon or
> perception? More important, were the portals
> always there, and I only noticed them from
> time to time, or did they come into being 
> (begin to exist) only when I noticed them?
> 
> :-)
>

[FairfieldLife] George Harrison: Remembering “the quiet Beatle”

[merlin]

George Harrison: 
Remembering 'the quiet Beatle'
by Keith Deboer

Transcendental Meditation - USA 
www.TM.org/blog   3 May 2011

Of course George Harrison is best known for the role he played as lead 
guitarist of one of the most popular, influential musical groups in modern 
history. And his own beautiful compositions ensure he will remain a beloved 
part of our modern music tradition. As the 10th anniversary of his passing 
approaches, it's sweet to remember George, his music and his humanity. 

We're also thankful to George for the influence he had on our society's 
interest in meditation. It was his fascination with the ancient knowledge 
tradition of India that led the Beatles to meet Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and to 
learn the Transcendental Meditation program. 


''I had got to the point where I thought I would like to meditate; I'd read 
about it and I knew I needed a mantra—a password to get through to the other 
world.'' — George Harrison 

It all started when in 1967 George's wife, Patti Boyd, learned the 
Transcendental Meditation technique in London while George was away on tour 
with the Beatles. 'I loved meditating and I found the effects remarkable,' 
Patti said. And it was her enthusiasm that led George to encourage the Beatles 
to hear a lecture in London by Maharishi. 

This meeting led to a lifelong dedication to meditation and the quest for 
higher states of consciousness—one that would set the tone of his personal and 
professional life. And it certainly influenced his music. 

Some of his great contributions to the musical heritage of the Beatles came as 
a result of his experience studying Transcendental Meditation with Maharishi in 
India. His compositions that resulted from that special period include ''Here 
Comes the Sun,'' ''While My Guitar Gently Weeps,'' and ''Something''—a song 
that John Lennon and Paul McCartney, the two principal songwriting members of 
the band, felt was among the very best the group recorded. It was also the 
second most covered (i.e., recorded by other artists) songs after 
''Yesterday.'' 

George's interest in the Transcendental Meditation program and the widespread 
adoption of Maharishi's revival of Vedic wisdom continued throughout his life. 

In 1992, to show his support for Maharishi's effort to help raise the 
consciousness of society, George performed at a benefit concert at London's 
Royal Albert Hall. George was also enthused and engaged in Maharishi's revival 
of the ancient Vedic science of health, ''Ayur-Veda''. He regularly visited the 
Maharishi Ayurveda Health Center in Lancaster, Massachusetts, USA. 

During the 1990s, George also visited Maharishi at Maharishi University in 
Holland. Dr. Bevan Morris, the president of Maharishi University of Management, 
was present during George's visit and recalled with fondness the way George 
approached Maharishi ''with great respect and tenderness. It was very sweet to 
see George's humility, and how deeply he appreciated being in Maharishi's 
presence.'' 

In our modern world where celebrity often overshadows the integrity of a 
person's basic character, George's life was one of simple dedication to high 
ideals. In the words of Dr. Morris, ''George was a very fine, spiritual, humble 
and enlightened man.'' 

''Everybody's looking for something. . . . We don't have to look anywhere—it's 
right there within ourselves.'' — George Harrison, Press Conference, Los 
Angeles, 1974 

http://www.tm.org/blog/people/george-harrison/ 

Related posts: 

1. Dear Prudence: Won't You Come Out to Play? 

2. Paul McCartney remembers his first meditation with Maharishi 

© Copyright 2011 Maharishi Foundation USA 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dark Lord

[Yifu]

note: if the entity is "Satan" - I had an extremely powerful experience 
with Him on Aug 12-th, 1998.  Totally mind-blowing, visually astounding beyond 
belief; but more important, changed my opinion(s) of this "entity" [but again, 
not sure what entity emptybill is referring to].
...
At any rate, my experience entailed the perception/realization and "grokking", 
that Satan's mission is one of benevolence, to in reality, "save" the various 
creatures (and I use the term very broadly since some of the hideous entities I 
saw were definitely not human); that are "unsaved" by YHVH/Jesus. In other 
words, such devilish entities under the protective umbrella of Satan, along 
with unbelievers in general, do indeed have a chance at Salvation (another term 
that must be translated into broader terms, encompassing basically: the chance 
to evolve into a higher level.)
...
Just last week a young girl (looking like about 8) appeared to me in the dream 
state, and man, she was gllyy...; She was looking for somebody to 
pray for her, which I have done. The Jesus Heaven is not for her, but Satan may 
help save this "Soul".  The girl conveyed to me the message that due to her 
many "sins", she had an ugly astral appearance but she wants to turn over a new 
leaf. Being an unbeliever in Jesus, that particular Heaven is not an option for 
her, but Satan can help get her into what is now a NEW type of Heaven, separate 
from the Jesus (or other Heavens); but open to all unbelievers. 

  The Sshe 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> emptybill,
> 
> You're making assertions without proof.  You appear to be expressing your 
> faith in this entity.  But why?  You should get a reality check, dude.
> 
> JR
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Yes I know him well. I keep his secret close to my heart - unlike
> > bitches that whore themselves. He is the supreme lover of God, exiled
> > though he is.
> > 
> > FWIW … his love is more pure and clear than any human can bear and
> > still remain human. He has lost the "love of his life" yet
> > remains enthralled by the taste of the last command from the "One
> > Most High".
> > 
> > "Leave!"
> > 
> > 
> > This was the last command he received from "the One". If we
> > could experience such love we would dissolve and lose all identity.
> > 
> > Don't believe the X-gen bullshit you've been fed. His troth is
> > more faithful than any human promises could be. His love of the
> > "Most High" is the penultimate among all created beings.
> > 
> > Let us wish for just a taste of such love.
> > 
> > 
> > …
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > >
> > > emptybill,
> > >
> > > Are you saying that you had a revelation from the Dark Angel himself? 
> > How do we know you're not hallucinating?  Do you a verifiable source
> > that we can review?
> > >
> > > JR
> > 
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote:
> > 
> > > > Puleeez.
> > > >
> > > > There are no fairies flitting around here to describe hell or
> > heaven.
> > > > How would they know anyway?
> > > >
> > > > And who else would have told me about the blessed rain except
> > Himself ... the dark angel, the lord of wrath, the secret lover of god?
> > > >
> > > > ..
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> Curtis,
> 
> 1.> > So far, we have not gotten a definite answer from you if you agree with 
> the first premise or not.
> > 
> > I'm gunna go with a no on this one because the universe itself is the most 
> > obvious example of something that we don't know if it has a cause.  It also 
> > seems to be in contradiction with the conservation of matter and energy 
> > principle.  The universe may have arisen out of a different form of matter 
> > state than we find today without cause other than the nature of the laws of 
> > matter unfolding.
> > 
> > The first premise might sound OK to most people who didn't think about it 
> > very hard.  Most things in our world do seem to be caused by something 
> > else. Until we get to matter and energy as a fundamental.  Then our natural 
> > intuition leads us astray. Matter and energy do not have to have a cause, 
> > they may just be a primary principle in the world.  The universe has begun 
> > to exist in its present form of matter at an historical point in time, but 
> > the matter it is made out of may have preceded it in a different form.  
> > 
> > <  If we have a clear position from you with the first premise, then we can 
> > move on to the second premise.>
> > 
> > 
> > I don't accept the first assertion so I don't see how moving on helps.  But 
> > I am willing to hang if you can answer my objections to the first 
> > assertion. >
> 
> 
> It sounds like you disagree with the first premise:  "Whatever begins to 
> exist has a cause". 

It really doesn't seem that you are reading what I am writing.


< If so, how can anything or something come from nothing? >

I don't know.  This is yet another assertion that lacks any context.  In my 
creative life this is exactly what happens on a daily basis.

< It should be understood that common experience>

This is the appeal that some of the promoters of the idea are pitching but it 
is simply not true.  We are not discussing common experience here you are 
asserting universals.

< and scientific evidence confirm the first premise.>

No scientific evidence worthy of the name uses inductive logic in this manor. 
As far as I am aware this assertion is not only not a result of any "evidence" 
nor is it an axioum of first principles in any branch of science.  

But I could be wrong, what are you referring to?


I don't know what you background is in philosophy John, but mine is meager.  An 
undergraduate degree from some small college in the Midwest whose name eludes 
me at the moment but it begins with an N...no...wait it is an M, definitely and 
M.

What is going on here is that an old school rationalist argument is being 
proposed based on an unproven assumption.  This is not a self-evident first 
principle.  It just sounds truthy to you.  When people get serious about first 
principles to base an argument on they start with as Socrates did "all I know 
is that I know nothing at all" or Decarte's famous "I think therefore I am."  
These are self-evident principles that most people agree with.  They are not 
scientific statements of truth and were not derived from experiment they are 
assertions like your first one.  But they are not universals you notice, and 
they aren't chock full of assumptions about how the world works that science 
has not proven.








> 
> JR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > JR
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > We can discuss the other two premises after this premise is resolved.
> > > > > 
> > > > > JR
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > MY point was about your second premise. You
> > > > > > > > > > have no way of knowing whether the universe
> > > > > > > > > > was "created," in the sense that it didn't
> > > > > > > > > > exist one moment and then existed the next.
> > > > > > > > > > Buddhists (or at least some of them) believe
> > > > > > > > > > that the universe was never created, that it
> > > > > > > > > > has always been, is now, and always will be.
> > > > > > > > > > There has never been a time when it was not.
> > > > > > > > > > There will never be a time when it is not.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Therefore the

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dark Lord

[John]

emptybill,

You're making assertions without proof.  You appear to be expressing your faith 
in this entity.  But why?  You should get a reality check, dude.

JR



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
>
> 
> Yes I know him well. I keep his secret close to my heart - unlike
> bitches that whore themselves. He is the supreme lover of God, exiled
> though he is.
> 
> FWIW … his love is more pure and clear than any human can bear and
> still remain human. He has lost the "love of his life" yet
> remains enthralled by the taste of the last command from the "One
> Most High".
> 
> "Leave!"
> 
> 
> This was the last command he received from "the One". If we
> could experience such love we would dissolve and lose all identity.
> 
> Don't believe the X-gen bullshit you've been fed. His troth is
> more faithful than any human promises could be. His love of the
> "Most High" is the penultimate among all created beings.
> 
> Let us wish for just a taste of such love.
> 
> 
> …
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> >
> > emptybill,
> >
> > Are you saying that you had a revelation from the Dark Angel himself? 
> How do we know you're not hallucinating?  Do you a verifiable source
> that we can review?
> >
> > JR
> 
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote:
> 
> > > Puleeez.
> > >
> > > There are no fairies flitting around here to describe hell or
> heaven.
> > > How would they know anyway?
> > >
> > > And who else would have told me about the blessed rain except
> Himself ... the dark angel, the lord of wrath, the secret lover of god?
> > >
> > > ..
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] 'Oil and Gold Mkts. Plunge!'

[Robert]

Must be 'Kali' on slow-mo...

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fake photo of Osama's death

[Tom Pall]

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Mike Dixon  wrote:

>
>
> Why do you think he's dead? Raunchy could be right. He may have been
> captured alive and  being water boarded as we speak while everyone believes
> he's dead and buried.
>
>
Why would you think of waterboarding.  That's a torture that leaves no
marks, physical scars.  If they have him captured alive, why worry about
marks and scars?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > > > Besides, as stated, even if one could conclude 
> > > > that a "Deity" created the Universe, which One...
> > > >
> > John:
> > > IMO, the Supreme Being is not limited to any human 
> > > religions.
> > > 
> > So, now it's a metaphysical argument?
> 
> 
> Yes, it appears that way.  Science takes a very long time to prove anything 
> to be true--and understandably so.  But that wouldn't stop people from using 
> the metaphysical argument to determine how the universe started and what 
> happened before the Big Bang.>

According to Rgveda (X 129, 1?):

naasadaasiin no sadaasiittadaaniim

(pada-paaTha: na asat aasiit na u sat aasiit tadaaniim)

not non-being was, not being was then?


> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > In physics, causation is the relationship between 
> > any single event and a subsequent event (cause and 
> > effect). 
> > 
> > Cause and effect is understood to be a consequence of 
> > the first event and the second event is understood to 
> > be the effect of the first. Causation is a basic 
> > assumption of science. 
> > 
> > All instances of cause and effect are valid for human 
> > experience. Unless you want to bring an intelligent
> > agent into the argument, basic human experiences will
> > suffice for the proof simple causation.
> > 
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] "something from nothing"

[Yifu]

note: "nothing" in physics is actually something, i.e. the vacuum of deep outer 
space for example that contains latent energy. "Nothing" in mathematics may 
refer to the null set.
...
But an eternal universe doesn't rely on "nothing" as a null-set. Even without a 
physical universe, various higher dimensional components may exist, out of 
which physical universe may suddenly arise.
...
Also, to make things even more interesting, there's the possibility of backward 
causation.

Refer to Wiki, "Emergent":

" Professor Jeffrey Goldstein in the School of Business at Adelphi University 
provides a current definition of emergence in the journal, Emergence (Goldstein 
1999). Goldstein initially defined emergence as: "the arising of novel and 
coherent structures, patterns and properties during the process of 
self-organization in complex systems" (Corning 2002).

Goldstein's definition can be further elaborated to describe the qualities of 
this definition in more detail:

"The common characteristics are: (1) radical novelty (features not previously 
observed in systems); (2) coherence or correlation (meaning integrated wholes 
that maintain themselves over some period of time); (3) A global or macro 
"level" (i.e. there is some property of "wholeness"); (4) it is the product of 
a dynamical process (it evolves); and (5) it is "ostensive" (it can be 
perceived). For good measure, Goldstein throws in supervenience -- downward 
causation." (Corning 2002)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> >
> > Barry,
> > 
> > 1.>  Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
> > > > 
> > > > Do you agree with this premise or not?  
> > > 
> > > I'm going back to play "catch up" after traveling 
> > > for the last couple of days, but I'll answer. The
> > > first premise has the same problem as the second.
> > > The problem is not with the word "cause" but with
> > > the phrase "begins to exist." 
> > > 
> > > That presupposes the condition that something came
> > > into existence which had not existed before. 
> > > 
> > > I have had many experiences in my life that cannot
> > > be described by this phrase. I have seen things 
> > > that as far as I can tell were always present. Me
> > > noticing them did not cause them to "come into
> > > existence." Nor did anything "cause" them to 
> > > happen. Therefore my own experience does not lead
> > > me to believe that this is a true statement.
> > 
> > Can you give us a specific example that presents your 
> > case and does not follow the statement under the first 
> > premise?
> 
> I'm out in the Anza-Borrego desert, at night,
> in a certain canyon I know of. Sometimes, when
> I go there, there is a certain rock face in the
> side of a mountain that is just a rock face in
> the side of a mountain.

Something like this?

http://kuvat2.huuto.net/c/43/689924f37eb06753ff78d1d491494-orig.jpg

[FairfieldLife] Re: Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened!

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:


> Which proves conclusively that this is a photo of a dark-skinned dude
with a
> beard, wearing a white outfit, surrounded by some other dark-skinned
people,
> also wearing outfits, some white, some colorful. And there's a
corrugated
> metal building in the background.



Hehe, very funny Rick, you do have a  sense of humour after all, bless
your heart man !

I posted these photos of Maitreya The Buddha as He materialized in
Nairobi Kenya for the benefit of the possible occasional lurker on FFL
who might be blessed with the eye of knowledge.

That's all. They are not posted to prove anything or back up any claim
but for the benefit of the openminded viewers only.



"Heaven will walk on earth in this generation"

-His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> Barry,
> 
> 1.>  Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
> > > 
> > > Do you agree with this premise or not?  
> > 
> > I'm going back to play "catch up" after traveling 
> > for the last couple of days, but I'll answer. The
> > first premise has the same problem as the second.
> > The problem is not with the word "cause" but with
> > the phrase "begins to exist." 
> > 
> > That presupposes the condition that something came
> > into existence which had not existed before. 
> > 
> > I have had many experiences in my life that cannot
> > be described by this phrase. I have seen things 
> > that as far as I can tell were always present. Me
> > noticing them did not cause them to "come into
> > existence." Nor did anything "cause" them to 
> > happen. Therefore my own experience does not lead
> > me to believe that this is a true statement.
> 
> Can you give us a specific example that presents your 
> case and does not follow the statement under the first 
> premise?

I'm out in the Anza-Borrego desert, at night,
in a certain canyon I know of. Sometimes, when
I go there, there is a certain rock face in the
side of a mountain that is just a rock face in
the side of a mountain. But at other times it
transforms into a portal through which one can
glimpse other worlds, and beings of light who
live in those other worlds.

I've caught glimpses of these other worlds in
this place maybe half a dozen times over the
years. Haven't got a clue what it means, or
if it means anything. What I find more inter-
esting is that sometimes it was a rock face
and sometimes it was a portal. Nothing I can
think of acted as a "cause" to create one per-
ception or the other. It either happened or
it didn't, on its own schedule, not mine. 

So what's the "cause" of such a phenomenon or
perception? More important, were the portals
always there, and I only noticed them from
time to time, or did they come into being 
(begin to exist) only when I noticed them?

:-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?

[John]

Curtis,

1.> > So far, we have not gotten a definite answer from you if you agree with 
the first premise or not.
> 
> I'm gunna go with a no on this one because the universe itself is the most 
> obvious example of something that we don't know if it has a cause.  It also 
> seems to be in contradiction with the conservation of matter and energy 
> principle.  The universe may have arisen out of a different form of matter 
> state than we find today without cause other than the nature of the laws of 
> matter unfolding.
> 
> The first premise might sound OK to most people who didn't think about it 
> very hard.  Most things in our world do seem to be caused by something else. 
> Until we get to matter and energy as a fundamental.  Then our natural 
> intuition leads us astray. Matter and energy do not have to have a cause, 
> they may just be a primary principle in the world.  The universe has begun to 
> exist in its present form of matter at an historical point in time, but the 
> matter it is made out of may have preceded it in a different form.  
> 
> <  If we have a clear position from you with the first premise, then we can 
> move on to the second premise.>
> 
> 
> I don't accept the first assertion so I don't see how moving on helps.  But I 
> am willing to hang if you can answer my objections to the first assertion. >


It sounds like you disagree with the first premise:  "Whatever begins to exist 
has a cause".  If so, how can anything or something come from nothing?  It 
should be understood that common experience and scientific evidence confirm the 
first premise.

JR








> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > JR
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > We can discuss the other two premises after this premise is resolved.
> > > > 
> > > > JR
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > MY point was about your second premise. You
> > > > > > > > > have no way of knowing whether the universe
> > > > > > > > > was "created," in the sense that it didn't
> > > > > > > > > exist one moment and then existed the next.
> > > > > > > > > Buddhists (or at least some of them) believe
> > > > > > > > > that the universe was never created, that it
> > > > > > > > > has always been, is now, and always will be.
> > > > > > > > > There has never been a time when it was not.
> > > > > > > > > There will never be a time when it is not.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Therefore the whole issue of "What was around
> > > > > > > > > before the First Creation that enabled Creation
> > > > > > > > > to happen?" is moot. Without the notion of a 
> > > > > > > > > First Creation, this whole argument falls apart.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > My point is that humans, out of their fear and
> > > > > > > > > lack of understanding of their own birth and
> > > > > > > > > death, project a similar birth and death onto
> > > > > > > > > the universe. The fact that they do so doesn't
> > > > > > > > > make it so. 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > C'mon, John...say it. I know you can. :-) IF
> > > > > > > > > the universe is eternal, and was never "created,"
> > > > > > > > > then this whole argument is hooey.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb 
> > > > > > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This part of the discussion reminds me of the Kalam 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Cosmological 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Argument which goes like this:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1.  Whatever begins to exist has a beginning.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2.  The universe began to exist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3.  Therefore, the universe has a cause.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Ahem. Might I point out that point #2 is merely
> > > > > > > > > > > an assumption on your part, one caused by not 
> > > > > > > > > > > being able to conceive of the universe as eternal
> > > > > > > > > > > and never-created? 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > If the universe is eternal, point #2 is invalid, 
> > > > > > > > > > > and thus point #3 is invalid. 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Puny humans, because they have a beginning and
> > > > 

[FairfieldLife] on causation

[Yifu]

from Wiki, "Cosmological argument", objections to the causation premise.

"Even though causality applies to the known world, it does not necessarily 
apply to the universe at large. In other words, it is unwise to draw 
conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience.[13]

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened!

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of nablusoss1008
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 3:20 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened!

 

  

These photos are the closest to  how Maitreya the Buddha actually looks like
in His "incarnation" today, that's why.

I have studied this and other photos of Maitreya Buddha published by
http://www.shareintl.org/magazine/old_issues/2011/2011-04.htm very closely
in Photoshop and have found no indication of "doctored photo" whatsoever.

Which proves conclusively that this is a photo of a dark-skinned dude with a
beard, wearing a white outfit, surrounded by some other dark-skinned people,
also wearing outfits, some white, some colorful. And there's a corrugated
metal building in the background. 

If you could substansiate your claim I would be all ears.

    

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?

[John]

Barry,


1.>  Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
> > 
> > Do you agree with this premise or not?  
> 
> I'm going back to play "catch up" after traveling 
> for the last couple of days, but I'll answer. The
> first premise has the same problem as the second.
> The problem is not with the word "cause" but with
> the phrase "begins to exist." 
> 
> That presupposes the condition that something came
> into existence which had not existed before. 
> 
> I have had many experiences in my life that cannot
> be described by this phrase. I have seen things 
> that as far as I can tell were always present. Me
> noticing them did not cause them to "come into
> existence." Nor did anything "cause" them to 
> happen. Therefore my own experience does not lead
> me to believe that this is a true statement.

Can you give us a specific example that presents your case and does not follow 
the statement under the first premise?

JR





> 
> > I used a human example to illustrate the point.  If you 
> > don't agree, why not?
> > 
> > We can discuss the other two premises after this premise 
> > is resolved.
> 
> I think I resolved it as far as I'm concerned, and
> explained why not. Now move on to the point you are
> avoiding like the plague, trying to extrapolate from
> this "human example" to a cosmic one, and making the
> assumption that the universe was "created."
> 
> As I've said several times, I do not believe that 
> this is the case. Therefore the entire argument, 
> which hinges not on "cause" but on "begins to
> exist," is fallacious and moot. If the universe
> never "began to exist" for the simple reason that
> it has always existed, exists now, and will exist
> at all times in the future, then the whole argu-
> ment is without basis.
> 
> I have already stated what I think is at the basis
> of people *making* this baseless argument -- they
> project their own birth and eventual death onto 
> the universe and assume "As below, so above." I
> think this is anthropomorphism of the worst kind.
> 
> But I think there is another factor at work in
> those who believe this. That is their aversion to
> the relative world, and the decades-long programming
> they have received from Maharishi and others to 
> *look down on* the relative as "lesser" than the
> absolute. That, after all, is at the basis of the
> desire to "get off the wheel" and end the process
> of incarnation. 
> 
> In other words, I think that subconsciously the
> desire of a seeker to personally end incarnation,
> end experience of the relative, and become the 
> "drop merging with the ocean" is what they think
> happens to the universe as well. They believe that
> the relative is a "lesser" state than the absolute
> on its own, and thus want to believe that there
> is/was a point in time when only it existed.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened!

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
>
> Creme's Maitreya needs to substantiate his physical existence by having a 
> Utube appearance, at least; with more recent photos. Also, Why does  nutcase 
> Creme "channel" that A-hole Maitreya when the latter should show up himself?


Oh, I see, it's all about your personal issues. Sorry about that, for a moment 
I took you seriously.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened!

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
>
> Creme's Maitreya needs to substantiate his physical 
> existence by having a Utube appearance, at least; 
> with more recent photos. Also, Why does nutcase Creme 
> "channel" that A-hole Maitreya when the latter should 
> show up himself?

Oh ye shameful unbeliever.

One may as well ask, "Why do these aliens, who are like
so way more advanced and evolved than we are, continue 
to scratch out their messages to us by squishing down
plants in corn fields? They've never heard of Twitter?" 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened!

[Yifu]

Creme's Maitreya needs to substantiate his physical existence by having a Utube 
appearance, at least; with more recent photos. Also, Why does  nutcase Creme 
"channel" that A-hole Maitreya when the latter should show up himself?
http://www.startlingart.com/Viewer.asp?ImageSource=fine_art&FileName=BubbleBoy
 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
> >
> > doctored photo below. That's all you can come up with after 30 years?
> What trash!...more fake stuff coming from Kenya.
> > Here's the real Creme's Maitreya:
> > http://www.feebleminds-gif.com/mutant-dragon.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These photos are the closest to  how Maitreya the Buddha actually looks
> like in His "incarnation" today, that's why.
> 
> I have studied this and other photos of Maitreya Buddha published by
> http://www.shareintl.org/magazine/old_issues/2011/2011-04.htm
>   very
> closely in Photoshop and have found no indication of "doctored photo"
> whatsoever.
> 
> If you could substansiate your claim I would be all ears.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened!

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
>
> doctored photo below. That's all you can come up with after 30 years?
What trash!...more fake stuff coming from Kenya.
> Here's the real Creme's Maitreya:
> http://www.feebleminds-gif.com/mutant-dragon.jpg




These photos are the closest to  how Maitreya the Buddha actually looks
like in His "incarnation" today, that's why.

I have studied this and other photos of Maitreya Buddha published by
http://www.shareintl.org/magazine/old_issues/2011/2011-04.htm
  very
closely in Photoshop and have found no indication of "doctored photo"
whatsoever.

If you could substansiate your claim I would be all ears.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened!

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter  wrote:
>
> I think the need not to defend any "position" is the 
> hallmark of psychological maturity. Most defensive 
> behavior is simply for our own sake. Who actually is 
> "converted" by any argument. That is any argument that 
> doesn't involve torture! ;-) 

Some would suggest that argument IS a form or torture.

Hot air-boarding. 

:-)

> --- On Thu, 5/5/11, turquoiseb  wrote:
> 
> > From: turquoiseb 
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened!
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Thursday, May 5, 2011, 3:49 PM
> > Been on the road for a couple of days
> > and reading FFL
> > sporadically, so I missed this. Good thread, and good
> > comments all around.
> > 
> > The "need to defend" has always struck me as the anti-
> > thesis of awakening, not the essence of it.
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
> > Peter L Sutphen  wrote:
> > >
> > > If "you" are there, then "you" aren't here. In fact if
> > 
> > > there's you in any shape or form, then you're deep in
> > 
> > > the do of Maya. Perhaps quite sattvic, but still 
> > > projected into conditioned existence.
> > > 
> > > On May 5, 2011, at 10:45 AM, "martyboi"
> >  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > SSRS said something like awakening leads to "I
> > don't know." 
> > > > and since I definitely know that I don't know,
> > maybe I am 
> > > > "there" already? ;-)
> > > > 
> > > > My *guess* is that awakening doesn't encompass
> > the need to 
> > > > defend oneself or one's path or group...nor does
> > it invoke 
> > > > the need to criticize people who remain in a
> > group or move 
> > > > on from that group. I "imagine" it involves the
> > simple 
> > > > acceptance of what is: the knowingness that all
> > is wisely 
> > > > set and okay exactly as it is without the need to
> > modify, 
> > > > teach, enhance, understand, or fix anyone or
> > anything. 
> > > > 
> > > > This doesn't mean that you become a useless blob,
> > as we 
> > > > know from MMY's Bagavad gita - the enlightened
> > spontaneously 
> > > > work for the "welfare of the world" (Gives 'em
> > sumthin' to do, 
> > > > whilst "remaining eternally un-involved,"non-doer
> > immutable" 
> > > > and all that.)
> > > > 
> > > > Perhaps awakening also includes the understanding
> > that ones' 
> > > > experience of "consciousness" requires a POV
> > (think seer)and 
> > > > there's a multiplicity of POVs out there and so
> > defending 
> > > > one's viewpoint is just sort of a fun sport, but
> > not required? 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> >     fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
> > 
> > 
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> > > Besides, as stated, even if one could conclude 
> > > that a "Deity" created the Universe, which One...
> > >
> John:
> > IMO, the Supreme Being is not limited to any human 
> > religions.
> > 
> So, now it's a metaphysical argument?


Yes, it appears that way.  Science takes a very long time to prove anything to 
be true--and understandably so.  But that wouldn't stop people from using the 
metaphysical argument to determine how the universe started and what happened 
before the Big Bang.







> 
> In physics, causation is the relationship between 
> any single event and a subsequent event (cause and 
> effect). 
> 
> Cause and effect is understood to be a consequence of 
> the first event and the second event is understood to 
> be the effect of the first. Causation is a basic 
> assumption of science. 
> 
> All instances of cause and effect are valid for human 
> experience. Unless you want to bring an intelligent
> agent into the argument, basic human experiences will
> suffice for the proof simple causation.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened!

[Peter]

I think the need not to defend any "position" is the hallmark of psychological 
maturity. Most defensive behavior is simply for our own sake. Who actually is 
"converted" by any argument. That is any argument that doesn't involve torture! 
;-) 

--- On Thu, 5/5/11, turquoiseb  wrote:

> From: turquoiseb 
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened!
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, May 5, 2011, 3:49 PM
> Been on the road for a couple of days
> and reading FFL
> sporadically, so I missed this. Good thread, and good
> comments all around.
> 
> The "need to defend" has always struck me as the anti-
> thesis of awakening, not the essence of it.
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
> Peter L Sutphen  wrote:
> >
> > If "you" are there, then "you" aren't here. In fact if
> 
> > there's you in any shape or form, then you're deep in
> 
> > the do of Maya. Perhaps quite sattvic, but still 
> > projected into conditioned existence.
> > 
> > On May 5, 2011, at 10:45 AM, "martyboi"
>  wrote:
> > 
> > > SSRS said something like awakening leads to "I
> don't know." 
> > > and since I definitely know that I don't know,
> maybe I am 
> > > "there" already? ;-)
> > > 
> > > My *guess* is that awakening doesn't encompass
> the need to 
> > > defend oneself or one's path or group...nor does
> it invoke 
> > > the need to criticize people who remain in a
> group or move 
> > > on from that group. I "imagine" it involves the
> simple 
> > > acceptance of what is: the knowingness that all
> is wisely 
> > > set and okay exactly as it is without the need to
> modify, 
> > > teach, enhance, understand, or fix anyone or
> anything. 
> > > 
> > > This doesn't mean that you become a useless blob,
> as we 
> > > know from MMY's Bagavad gita - the enlightened
> spontaneously 
> > > work for the "welfare of the world" (Gives 'em
> sumthin' to do, 
> > > whilst "remaining eternally un-involved,"non-doer
> immutable" 
> > > and all that.)
> > > 
> > > Perhaps awakening also includes the understanding
> that ones' 
> > > experience of "consciousness" requires a POV
> (think seer)and 
> > > there's a multiplicity of POVs out there and so
> defending 
> > > one's viewpoint is just sort of a fun sport, but
> not required? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>     fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
> 
> 
> 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened!

[turquoiseb]

Been on the road for a couple of days and reading FFL
sporadically, so I missed this. Good thread, and good
comments all around.

The "need to defend" has always struck me as the anti-
thesis of awakening, not the essence of it.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter L Sutphen  
wrote:
>
> If "you" are there, then "you" aren't here. In fact if 
> there's you in any shape or form, then you're deep in 
> the do of Maya. Perhaps quite sattvic, but still 
> projected into conditioned existence.
> 
> On May 5, 2011, at 10:45 AM, "martyboi"  wrote:
> 
> > SSRS said something like awakening leads to "I don't know." 
> > and since I definitely know that I don't know, maybe I am 
> > "there" already? ;-)
> > 
> > My *guess* is that awakening doesn't encompass the need to 
> > defend oneself or one's path or group...nor does it invoke 
> > the need to criticize people who remain in a group or move 
> > on from that group. I "imagine" it involves the simple 
> > acceptance of what is: the knowingness that all is wisely 
> > set and okay exactly as it is without the need to modify, 
> > teach, enhance, understand, or fix anyone or anything. 
> > 
> > This doesn't mean that you become a useless blob, as we 
> > know from MMY's Bagavad gita - the enlightened spontaneously 
> > work for the "welfare of the world" (Gives 'em sumthin' to do, 
> > whilst "remaining eternally un-involved,"non-doer immutable" 
> > and all that.)
> > 
> > Perhaps awakening also includes the understanding that ones' 
> > experience of "consciousness" requires a POV (think seer)and 
> > there's a multiplicity of POVs out there and so defending 
> > one's viewpoint is just sort of a fun sport, but not required? 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened!

[Yifu]

doctored photo below. That's all you can come up with after 30 years? What 
trash!...more fake stuff coming from Kenya.
Here's the real Creme's Maitreya:
http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/mutant-dragon.jpg

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
> >
> > Creme's Maitreya:
> > http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/h3.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The living Maitreya Buddha as seen in Nairobi, Kenya:
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened!

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
>
> Creme's Maitreya:
> http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/h3.jpg





The living Maitreya Buddha as seen in Nairobi, Kenya:

[FairfieldLife] Re: Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened!

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7"  wrote:
>
> I think it is just coincidence - Vaj is just out to bash TM any chance he can 
> get. He'd be a fundamentalist regardless of his affiliation. 


Bingo !


> Barry on the other hand, is just a wet mess when it comes to beliefs. With 
> him it is more about his inability to form functional relationships on-line, 
> especially with women, so he opts for dysfunctional relationships instead. He 
> then proudly proclaims himself an asshole, a accurate self-assessment that 
> not one member of FFL has disagreed with. Very self-aware, that Barry. :-)


Haha, post of the week ! 

"Wet mess", hehe ;-)


> So bashing TM and Maharishi day after day, week after week, month after 
> month, year after year, has nothing to do with dabbling in Buddhism for these 
> two. It is all about their personality issues.




I know you are right about these two characters and Buddhism, but it was fun to 
entertain the idea for a while :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened!

[Yifu]

Creme's Maitreya:
http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/hp3.jpg

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
> >
> > Maitreya Buddha:
> >
> http://www.dharma-media.org/media/general/dwnld/thanka/buddhas/buddha_ma\
> itreya.jpg
>  aitreya.jpg>
> 
> 
> Maitreya:
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened!

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
>
> Maitreya Buddha:
>
http://www.dharma-media.org/media/general/dwnld/thanka/buddhas/buddha_ma\
itreya.jpg



Maitreya:

[FairfieldLife] Re: Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened!

[Ravi Yogi]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "martyboi"  wrote:
>
> SSRS said something like awakening leads to "I don't know." and since I 
> definitely know that I don't know, maybe I am "there" already? ;-)
> 

It is indeed "I don't know" on steroids, the beauty of the bottomless pit, that 
you don't have anything to stand on and you are not only ok with that but you 
actually revel in the joy and beauty of the this unknown, meeting each moment 
in it's pristine virginity.


> My *guess* is that awakening doesn't encompass the need to defend oneself or 
> one's path or group...nor does it invoke the need to criticize people who 
> remain in a group or move on from that group. I "imagine" it involves the 
> simple acceptance of what is: the knowingness that all is wisely set and okay 
> exactly as it is without the need to modify, teach, enhance, understand, or 
> fix anyone or anything. 
> 
> This doesn't mean that you become a useless blob, as we know from MMY's 
> Bagavad gita - the enlightened spontaneously work for the "welfare of the 
> world" (Gives 'em sumthin' to do, whilst "remaining eternally 
> un-involved,"non-doer immutable" and all that.)
> 
> Perhaps awakening also includes the understanding that ones' experience of 
> "consciousness" requires a POV (think seer)and there's a multiplicity of POVs 
> out there and so defending one's viewpoint is just sort of a fun sport, but 
> not required?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened!

[whynotnow7]

I think it is just coincidence - Vaj is just out to bash TM any chance he can 
get. He'd be a fundamentalist regardless of his affiliation. 

Barry on the other hand, is just a wet mess when it comes to beliefs. With him 
it is more about his inability to form functional relationships on-line, 
especially with women, so he opts for dysfunctional relationships instead. He 
then proudly proclaims himself an asshole, a accurate self-assessment that not 
one member of FFL has disagreed with. Very self-aware, that Barry. :-)

So bashing TM and Maharishi day after day, week after week, month after month, 
year after year, has nothing to do with dabbling in Buddhism for these two. It 
is all about their personality issues.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7"  wrote:
> >
> > yeah, I think there is something to that. 
> 
> 
> Two of the most ardent Maharishi-bashers and TM-haters, Vaj and the Turq are 
> both "Buddhists". Perhaps it's a coincidence, perhaps not.
> 
> 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sounds like A Commandment, huh? Some here on FFL would have us believe 
> > > > it is. I can understand if we were at the Pentagon or something, but 
> > > > this is FFL. In any case, since this shrill refrain has been heard 
> > > > several times on here lately, I thought I'd explore the possibilities 
> > > > why:
> > > > 
> > > > 1. Fear of exploitation. While this is something to look out for when 
> > > > someone is asking for money or anything else, this is not the case here 
> > > > on FFL. So I'm ruling this one out early. Besides no one who talks 
> > > > about enlightenment or self realization here ever asks for anything, 
> > > > even agreement - lol. It is more about the discussion, which some 
> > > > apparently cannot tolerate.
> > > > 
> > > > 2. Sour grapes. Could be. All of us here are on some path for personal 
> > > > development, which at some point contained the word "enlightenment". So 
> > > > if it isn't happening for some, perhaps they find it much more 
> > > > preferable if it is not discussed at all. (hint: wrong forum…).
> > > > 
> > > > 3. Doesn't conform to their idea of enlightenment. Possibly. Not a lot 
> > > > of control to exert when you learn that enlightenment is a self 
> > > > identified condition, with no outside agency needed for confirmation. 
> > > > Kind of mind blowing to some. No control to exert. Perhaps this is why 
> > > > some people's need to shut down others talking about being enlightened 
> > > > is increasing on FFL. It is the only control they have left: Thou Shall 
> > > > Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened - LOL.
> > > > 
> > > > 4. Doesn't conform to their idea of enlightenment, part 2. "I meditated 
> > > > too much once and was in Cosmic Consciousness for like two weeks. So 
> > > > what?". That's like saying backing out of the driveway is the same as 
> > > > driving cross-country.
> > > > 
> > > > 5. Doesn't conform to their idea of enlightenment, part 3.  "I think 
> > > > enlightenment is possible, just not by you. I don't judge you 
> > > > enlightened enough by my standards as I see them to allow you to be 
> > > > enlightened in my eyes, according to me". Speaks for itself.
> > > > 
> > > > 6. Doesn't give a shit about enlightenment. Nah, that's for the people 
> > > > who don't ever talk about it. `Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself 
> > > > Enlightened' screams interest in enlightenment, doesn't it?
> > > > 
> > > > Enlightenment is for the masses. Get used to it. :-)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Nice. And there are many other reasons some here feel threatened by 
> > > someone claiming enlightenment, some of which you briefly mentioned. 
> > > 
> > > Mainly it's obvious that the majority here are former TM'ers who have 
> > > stopped the practise. When someone who never stopped but rather patiently 
> > > continued TM claims enlightenment it reminds them of all the lost years, 
> > > and their failure to take one great pratice into frutition. It's an utter 
> > > failure for them obviously, one very frustrating experience indeed and 
> > > one which explains the close to anger anyone with a TM-background 
> > > receives from certain participants on this forum.
> > >
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened!

[Peter L Sutphen]

If "you" are there, then "you" aren't here. In fact if there's you in any shape 
or form, then you're deep in the do of Maya. Perhaps quite sattvic, but still 
projected into conditioned existence.

Peter


On May 5, 2011, at 10:45 AM, "martyboi"  wrote:

> SSRS said something like awakening leads to "I don't know." and since I 
> definitely know that I don't know, maybe I am "there" already? ;-)
> 
> My *guess* is that awakening doesn't encompass the need to defend oneself or 
> one's path or group...nor does it invoke the need to criticize people who 
> remain in a group or move on from that group. I "imagine" it involves the 
> simple acceptance of what is: the knowingness that all is wisely set and okay 
> exactly as it is without the need to modify, teach, enhance, understand, or 
> fix anyone or anything. 
> 
> This doesn't mean that you become a useless blob, as we know from MMY's 
> Bagavad gita - the enlightened spontaneously work for the "welfare of the 
> world" (Gives 'em sumthin' to do, whilst "remaining eternally 
> un-involved,"non-doer immutable" and all that.)
> 
> Perhaps awakening also includes the understanding that ones' experience of 
> "consciousness" requires a POV (think seer)and there's a multiplicity of POVs 
> out there and so defending one's viewpoint is just sort of a fun sport, but 
> not required? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened!

[Yifu]

Maitreya Buddha:
http://www.dharma-media.org/media/general/dwnld/thanka/buddhas/buddha_maitreya.jpg



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
> >
> > http://www.purelandbuddhism.com/amitabha.JPG
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Amitabha, perhaps one of the few persons The Buddha manage to 
> enlighten ?
> 
> "It is said that Lord Buddha made 500 people enlightened. I think we will do 
> better"
> 
> - His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, River Rhine, Buddha Yayanthi, 1982
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened!

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
>
> http://www.purelandbuddhism.com/amitabha.JPG



Who is Amitabha, perhaps one of the few persons The Buddha manage to enlighten ?

"It is said that Lord Buddha made 500 people enlightened. I think we will do 
better"

- His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, River Rhine, Buddha Yayanthi, 1982

[FairfieldLife] Re: Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened!

[Yifu]

http://www.purelandbuddhism.com/amitabha.JPG

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7"  wrote:
> >
> > yeah, I think there is something to that. 
> 
> 
> Two of the most ardent Maharishi-bashers and TM-haters, Vaj and the Turq are 
> both "Buddhists". Perhaps it's a coincidence, perhaps not.
> 
> 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sounds like A Commandment, huh? Some here on FFL would have us believe 
> > > > it is. I can understand if we were at the Pentagon or something, but 
> > > > this is FFL. In any case, since this shrill refrain has been heard 
> > > > several times on here lately, I thought I'd explore the possibilities 
> > > > why:
> > > > 
> > > > 1. Fear of exploitation. While this is something to look out for when 
> > > > someone is asking for money or anything else, this is not the case here 
> > > > on FFL. So I'm ruling this one out early. Besides no one who talks 
> > > > about enlightenment or self realization here ever asks for anything, 
> > > > even agreement - lol. It is more about the discussion, which some 
> > > > apparently cannot tolerate.
> > > > 
> > > > 2. Sour grapes. Could be. All of us here are on some path for personal 
> > > > development, which at some point contained the word "enlightenment". So 
> > > > if it isn't happening for some, perhaps they find it much more 
> > > > preferable if it is not discussed at all. (hint: wrong forum…).
> > > > 
> > > > 3. Doesn't conform to their idea of enlightenment. Possibly. Not a lot 
> > > > of control to exert when you learn that enlightenment is a self 
> > > > identified condition, with no outside agency needed for confirmation. 
> > > > Kind of mind blowing to some. No control to exert. Perhaps this is why 
> > > > some people's need to shut down others talking about being enlightened 
> > > > is increasing on FFL. It is the only control they have left: Thou Shall 
> > > > Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened - LOL.
> > > > 
> > > > 4. Doesn't conform to their idea of enlightenment, part 2. "I meditated 
> > > > too much once and was in Cosmic Consciousness for like two weeks. So 
> > > > what?". That's like saying backing out of the driveway is the same as 
> > > > driving cross-country.
> > > > 
> > > > 5. Doesn't conform to their idea of enlightenment, part 3.  "I think 
> > > > enlightenment is possible, just not by you. I don't judge you 
> > > > enlightened enough by my standards as I see them to allow you to be 
> > > > enlightened in my eyes, according to me". Speaks for itself.
> > > > 
> > > > 6. Doesn't give a shit about enlightenment. Nah, that's for the people 
> > > > who don't ever talk about it. `Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself 
> > > > Enlightened' screams interest in enlightenment, doesn't it?
> > > > 
> > > > Enlightenment is for the masses. Get used to it. :-)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Nice. And there are many other reasons some here feel threatened by 
> > > someone claiming enlightenment, some of which you briefly mentioned. 
> > > 
> > > Mainly it's obvious that the majority here are former TM'ers who have 
> > > stopped the practise. When someone who never stopped but rather patiently 
> > > continued TM claims enlightenment it reminds them of all the lost years, 
> > > and their failure to take one great pratice into frutition. It's an utter 
> > > failure for them obviously, one very frustrating experience indeed and 
> > > one which explains the close to anger anyone with a TM-background 
> > > receives from certain participants on this forum.
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?

[Yifu]

By the Supreme Being you mean Brahman.  An eternal Brahman both both aspects: 
relative and Absolute; requires no "cause" other than Itself. It's self-caused. 
To repeat - refer to the Wiki on Cosmological arguments, specificically 
rebuttals to the major flaws of "causation". All aspects have been gone over 
with a fine-toothed comb for several thousand years and I doubt that 
contributors here will be able to rule out the eternal universe alternative.
...
Suck it it. There's no proof either way, just speculation.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> > > Besides, as stated, even if one could conclude 
> > > that a "Deity" created the Universe, which One...
> > >
> John:
> > IMO, the Supreme Being is not limited to any human 
> > religions.
> > 
> So, now it's a metaphysical argument?
> 
> In physics, causation is the relationship between 
> any single event and a subsequent event (cause and 
> effect). 
> 
> Cause and effect is understood to be a consequence of 
> the first event and the second event is understood to 
> be the effect of the first. Causation is a basic 
> assumption of science. 
> 
> All instances of cause and effect are valid for human 
> experience. Unless you want to bring an intelligent
> agent into the argument, basic human experiences will
> suffice for the proof simple causation.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened!

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7"  wrote:
>
> yeah, I think there is something to that. 


Two of the most ardent Maharishi-bashers and TM-haters, Vaj and the Turq are 
both "Buddhists". Perhaps it's a coincidence, perhaps not.


> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Sounds like A Commandment, huh? Some here on FFL would have us believe it 
> > > is. I can understand if we were at the Pentagon or something, but this is 
> > > FFL. In any case, since this shrill refrain has been heard several times 
> > > on here lately, I thought I'd explore the possibilities why:
> > > 
> > > 1. Fear of exploitation. While this is something to look out for when 
> > > someone is asking for money or anything else, this is not the case here 
> > > on FFL. So I'm ruling this one out early. Besides no one who talks about 
> > > enlightenment or self realization here ever asks for anything, even 
> > > agreement - lol. It is more about the discussion, which some apparently 
> > > cannot tolerate.
> > > 
> > > 2. Sour grapes. Could be. All of us here are on some path for personal 
> > > development, which at some point contained the word "enlightenment". So 
> > > if it isn't happening for some, perhaps they find it much more preferable 
> > > if it is not discussed at all. (hint: wrong forum…).
> > > 
> > > 3. Doesn't conform to their idea of enlightenment. Possibly. Not a lot of 
> > > control to exert when you learn that enlightenment is a self identified 
> > > condition, with no outside agency needed for confirmation. Kind of mind 
> > > blowing to some. No control to exert. Perhaps this is why some people's 
> > > need to shut down others talking about being enlightened is increasing on 
> > > FFL. It is the only control they have left: Thou Shall Not Proclaim 
> > > Oneself Enlightened - LOL.
> > > 
> > > 4. Doesn't conform to their idea of enlightenment, part 2. "I meditated 
> > > too much once and was in Cosmic Consciousness for like two weeks. So 
> > > what?". That's like saying backing out of the driveway is the same as 
> > > driving cross-country.
> > > 
> > > 5. Doesn't conform to their idea of enlightenment, part 3.  "I think 
> > > enlightenment is possible, just not by you. I don't judge you enlightened 
> > > enough by my standards as I see them to allow you to be enlightened in my 
> > > eyes, according to me". Speaks for itself.
> > > 
> > > 6. Doesn't give a shit about enlightenment. Nah, that's for the people 
> > > who don't ever talk about it. `Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself 
> > > Enlightened' screams interest in enlightenment, doesn't it?
> > > 
> > > Enlightenment is for the masses. Get used to it. :-)
> > 
> > 
> > Nice. And there are many other reasons some here feel threatened by someone 
> > claiming enlightenment, some of which you briefly mentioned. 
> > 
> > Mainly it's obvious that the majority here are former TM'ers who have 
> > stopped the practise. When someone who never stopped but rather patiently 
> > continued TM claims enlightenment it reminds them of all the lost years, 
> > and their failure to take one great pratice into frutition. It's an utter 
> > failure for them obviously, one very frustrating experience indeed and one 
> > which explains the close to anger anyone with a TM-background receives from 
> > certain participants on this forum.
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] 'And Pissed by use of name: Geronimo'

[Mike Dixon]

It is so Chic or is that *Sheik*, to be offended, makes one a victim, worthy of 
hugs, attention, and praise. If you haven't been offended in our society, 
you're 
a nobody or worse yet, the problem.




From: Robert 
To: fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, May 5, 2011 12:05:56 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] 'And Pissed by use of name: Geronimo'

  
 AP – FILE - This undated file photo shows the Chiricahua Apache Geronimo, late 
in his life. The leader of … 

By SUSAN MONTOYA BRYAN, Associated Press Susan Montoya Bryan, Associated Press 
– 
1 hr 9 mins ago
Geronimo. The U.S. Senate Indian Affairs Committee didn't know when it 
scheduled 
a hearing on racial stereotypes that members would have such an emotionally 
charged example to discuss. But the use of the Apache leader's moniker as a 
code 
name for Osama bin Laden has appalled many Native Americans and drawn calls for 
an apology.
A legendary warrior, Geronimo was known for his ability to walk without leaving 
footprints, allowing him to evade thousands of Mexican and U.S. soldiers, much 
like bin Laden evaded capture for the past decade.
But for Native Americans, there's an important difference: Geronimo was a hero 
— 
not a terrorist.
The issue has resulted in statements of disapproval from tribal leaders, scores 
of angry comments on social network sites and a call for President Barack Obama 
to apologize.
Thursday's hearing was scheduled long before details about the Geronimo code 
name became public. However, the committee will address the matter, said 
Loretta 
Tuell, staff director and chief counsel for the committee.
Many Native Americans say that while they are angered, they are not surprised. 
They say the code name is yet another insult in a long, tumultuous history with 
the federal government.
"We've been oppressed for so long, it just doesn't matter anymore," said Leon 
Curley, a Navajo and Marine veteran from Gallup, N.M. "The government does what 
it wants when it wants. The name calling is going to stay around forever. But 
when you think about it, this is an insult."
Even Jeff Houser, chairman of Geronimo's Fort Sill Apache Tribe, noted in a 
letter to Obama that the decision behind the code name stemmed from an ongoing 
cultural disconnect, not malice. But the damage is the same.
"We are quite certain that the use of the name Geronimo as a code for Osama bin 
Laden was based on misunderstood and misconceived historical perspectives of 
Geronimo and his armed struggle against the United States and Mexican 
governments," Houser wrote.
"However, to equate Geronimo or any other Native American figure with Osama bin 
Laden, a mass murderer and cowardly terrorist, is painful and offensive to our 
Tribe and to all Native Americans."
The White House referred questions on the matter to the U.S. Defense 
Department, 
which said no disrespect was meant to Native Americans.
The department wouldn't elaborate on the use of Geronimo's name but said code 
names typically are chosen randomly and allow those working on a mission to 
communicate without divulging information to adversaries.
The Apaches are not alone when it comes to battling the impact of stereotypes.
The Seminole Tribe of Florida is still waiting to for an apology from Obama 
over 
a court brief filed earlier this year that compared the tribe's ancestors to 
al-Qaida. The Defense Department clarified the use of the Seminole reference, 
but it wasn't enough for the tribe, Chairman Mitchell Cypress said in a letter 
to the president Wednesday.
"Once again, our nation's native people were categorized as terrorists," he 
wrote, referring to the Geronimo code name. "The time has never been more 
appropriate and necessary for you to issue an apology to Native America."
The U.S. military has a long tradition of naming weapons and helicopters after 
American Indian tribes, chiefs and artifacts, a policy that became official 
with 
a 1969 Army regulation. The rule was later rescinded, but a 2009 Army Times 
article said the practice continues today "as a way to honor America's war 
fighter heritage."
The military also has a history with the word Geronimo; American paratroopers 
in 
World War II started using it as a war cry in the early 1940s. It's possible 
they picked up the term from the Paramount Pictures movie "Geronimo!" — about a 
West Point graduate and his Army regiment's attempt to capture the warrior — 
which was released around the same time.
The reason behind the name's use in the bin Laden raid has been the subject of 
much speculation. 

Some think it's because the al-Qaida leader, like Geronimo, was able to elude 
capture for so many years. Others say it's because the government considered 
both men terrorists, and some have suggested the guerrilla-style raid on bin 
Laden's compound was reflective of the Apache's fighting techniques. 

Louis Maynahonah, a Navy veteran and chairman of the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, 
said he doesn't believe the 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Changing the Osama Narrative

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> > 
> > However, Brennan noted during his televised briefing that
> > his information came from reports from the scene as well
> > as live video feeds of the raid."
> > 
> > http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54162.html
> > 
> > I had wondered how much of the bloody mess Obama's national 
> > security team had witnessed. Apparently, they saw the entire
> > 38 minutes of the take down.
> 
> Not according to the NYTimes story this morning, as I
> noted in my earlier post, at least not the folks in the
> Situation Room. Panetta apparently had access to the live
> video feed and relayed what he was seeing to the SitRoom
> people from where he was. They may all have seen it *now*,
> but not while it was unfolding.
> 
> Nobody to my knowledge has said where the camera was
> located. One camera couldn't have covered everything that
> was going on in the compound, and I seriously doubt they
> had multiple camerapeople running around shooting
> everything that was happening.
> 
> > Now that I know they have a live video feed, I'd like to
> > see the video as well as photos of Osama's death. At the
> > very least the White house should show the video and
> > photos to members of Congress.
> 
> So what do *you* suspect went on that you need to see the
> video before you'll be convinced otherwise?
>

Since the initial announcement of Osama bin Laden's death, there have been 
several contradictory reports on how Osama died and exactly how much of the 
live feed the national security team actually saw. Meanwhile right-wingers 
managed to revive the glorification of waterboarding by shifting the story from 
giving credit to Obama, to giving Bush credit for using torture that lead to 
bin Laden. Nutbags. 

Then the story really got away from Obama after the Telegraph reported Osama's 
12 year old daughter saw her father captured live then shot and that only one 
of the five people killed in the raid was armed and ever fired a shot.
http://tinyurl.com/3u736nz
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8490860/Osama-bin-Ladens-daughter-watched-special-forces-shoot-him-dead.html

http://tinyurl.com/66b9mv5
http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/05/05/bin_laden_raid_details_white_house_officials_say_they_ve_provide.html

So now that we have Obama probably miffed the wingers stole his thunder, and 
too many eye-witnesses in Pakistan letting details slip through, the White 
house has gone silent on the raid and has Leon Panetta saying, "there was a 
25-minute blackout during which the live feed from cameras mounted on the 
helmets of the US special forces was cut off."

http://www.smh.com.au/world/doubts-grow-on-us-version-of-strike-against-bin-laden-20110505-1eaah.html#ixzz1LUU8nUvI

However, the New York Times dutifully reports the White House story:

"When the commandos reached the top floor, they entered a room and saw Osama 
bin Laden with an AK-47 and a Makarov pistol in arm's reach. They shot and 
killed him, as well as wounding a woman with him." 
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/us/politics/05binladen.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

The White House said the raid took 38 minutes. Panetta said they lost the live 
feed for 25 minutes. So there's a lot of speculation over exactly what everyone 
was looking at when they were photographed with tense expressions on their 
faces. It was obviously an official photo released to portray the intensity of 
feeling as they monitored the raid's progress. They're walking away from 
exactly how much of that 38 minutes they saw, but IMO Hillary let the cat out 
of the bag when asked about the photo:

"Those were 38 of the most intense minutes, I have no idea what any of us were 
looking at at that particular millisecond when the picture was taken. I'm 
somewhat sheepishly concerned it was my preventing one of my early Spring 
allergic coughs, so it may have no great meaning whatsoever."

IOW she watched the entire 38 minutes. Since they now claim most of the feed 
went dark they don't have to show it to anyone else and we'll never see the 
circumstances of Osama's death.

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > Hey John,
> > 
> > Well I guess I'll have to show the guts to engage in a friendly 
> > discussion with you having been challenged!
> > 
> > I was pointing out that you were going from a single instance 
> > to support the assertion of a universal and that this is a 
> > fallacious form of reasoning.  Just because we have a 
> > biological cause we can't automatically infer that a 
> > principle of universal causation exists.  In the case 
> > of existence itself, it may have primacy without needing 
> > a cause.
> > 
> > But I'll hang with the point if you are interested.  Have 
> > I missed something?
> 
> Curtis,
> 
> You're jumping ahead of the game.  We're still trying to 
> get a common understanding of the first premise:
> 
> 1.  Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
> 
> Do you agree with this premise or not?  

I'm going back to play "catch up" after traveling 
for the last couple of days, but I'll answer. The
first premise has the same problem as the second.
The problem is not with the word "cause" but with
the phrase "begins to exist." 

That presupposes the condition that something came
into existence which had not existed before. 

I have had many experiences in my life that cannot
be described by this phrase. I have seen things 
that as far as I can tell were always present. Me
noticing them did not cause them to "come into
existence." Nor did anything "cause" them to 
happen. Therefore my own experience does not lead
me to believe that this is a true statement.

> I used a human example to illustrate the point.  If you 
> don't agree, why not?
> 
> We can discuss the other two premises after this premise 
> is resolved.

I think I resolved it as far as I'm concerned, and
explained why not. Now move on to the point you are
avoiding like the plague, trying to extrapolate from
this "human example" to a cosmic one, and making the
assumption that the universe was "created."

As I've said several times, I do not believe that 
this is the case. Therefore the entire argument, 
which hinges not on "cause" but on "begins to
exist," is fallacious and moot. If the universe
never "began to exist" for the simple reason that
it has always existed, exists now, and will exist
at all times in the future, then the whole argu-
ment is without basis.

I have already stated what I think is at the basis
of people *making* this baseless argument -- they
project their own birth and eventual death onto 
the universe and assume "As below, so above." I
think this is anthropomorphism of the worst kind.

But I think there is another factor at work in
those who believe this. That is their aversion to
the relative world, and the decades-long programming
they have received from Maharishi and others to 
*look down on* the relative as "lesser" than the
absolute. That, after all, is at the basis of the
desire to "get off the wheel" and end the process
of incarnation. 

In other words, I think that subconsciously the
desire of a seeker to personally end incarnation,
end experience of the relative, and become the 
"drop merging with the ocean" is what they think
happens to the universe as well. They believe that
the relative is a "lesser" state than the absolute
on its own, and thus want to believe that there
is/was a point in time when only it existed.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Apology to the forum, and thanks for responses

[whynotnow7]

You have made that abundantly clear over the years. LOL

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
> >
> > But it is a group of assholes. :)
> 
> And we are proud (but humble) about our assholiness. 
> 
>  
> > On May 4, 2011, at 4:25 PM, Peter wrote:
> > 
> > Brian, this is far, far from a group of true believers!
> > 
> > --- On Wed, 5/4/11, brianbmurr  wrote:
> > 
> > > From: brianbmurr 
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Apology to the forum, and thanks for responses
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > Date: Wednesday, May 4, 2011, 2:23 PM
> > > I am very sorry for my second post to
> > > this forum and want to thank those that overlooked my post
> > > and responded with info about spirituality in Fairfield.
> > > 
> > > The only excuse I can provide is that I had wrongly pegged
> > > this forum as a group of true believers. I guess I was just
> > > looking for an excuse to flame out on the TB crowd.
> > > 
> > > Many of your informative posts made it evident that I was
> > > wrong and you correctly labeled me an asshole. I wrongly
> > > judged you and you returned the favor by labeling me.
> > > 
> > > Thanks very much for the info. 
> > > 
> > > I think the TMO is at a crossroads. One of 2 things will
> > > happen:
> > > 
> > > 1. They will collapse under their own weight of lies,
> > > deceit, false research, and extravagant claims (I was at MIU
> > > when the first "study" came out showing increased longevity.
> > > MIU made posters and started a whole new slogan of
> > > immortality.a bit of a stretch imo:)
> > > 
> > > If/when they collapse, I was feeling out what other
> > > spiritual endeavors are supported by the FF community. Buck,
> > > thanks for that link.
> > > 
> > > 2. They will be forced to evolve and start doing honest
> > > research and open it up to legitimate scientific
> > > collaboration on consciousness research, which is becoming
> > > really hot right now. Sadly, they could have been at the
> > > forefront of a huge thrust of current research if they did
> > > not have such a closed ideology from the start. That is why
> > > Larry Domash left. That is why Marvin Minsky from MIT ripped
> > > them a new a-hole in an on campus interview that I was at.
> > > That tape will never see the light of day.
> > > 
> > > Again, sorry for misjudging this group!!!
> > > 
> > > Brian
> > > 
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Apology to the forum, and thanks for responses

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
>
> But it is a group of assholes. :)

And we are proud (but humble) about our assholiness. 

 
> On May 4, 2011, at 4:25 PM, Peter wrote:
> 
> Brian, this is far, far from a group of true believers!
> 
> --- On Wed, 5/4/11, brianbmurr  wrote:
> 
> > From: brianbmurr 
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Apology to the forum, and thanks for responses
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Wednesday, May 4, 2011, 2:23 PM
> > I am very sorry for my second post to
> > this forum and want to thank those that overlooked my post
> > and responded with info about spirituality in Fairfield.
> > 
> > The only excuse I can provide is that I had wrongly pegged
> > this forum as a group of true believers. I guess I was just
> > looking for an excuse to flame out on the TB crowd.
> > 
> > Many of your informative posts made it evident that I was
> > wrong and you correctly labeled me an asshole. I wrongly
> > judged you and you returned the favor by labeling me.
> > 
> > Thanks very much for the info. 
> > 
> > I think the TMO is at a crossroads. One of 2 things will
> > happen:
> > 
> > 1. They will collapse under their own weight of lies,
> > deceit, false research, and extravagant claims (I was at MIU
> > when the first "study" came out showing increased longevity.
> > MIU made posters and started a whole new slogan of
> > immortality.a bit of a stretch imo:)
> > 
> > If/when they collapse, I was feeling out what other
> > spiritual endeavors are supported by the FF community. Buck,
> > thanks for that link.
> > 
> > 2. They will be forced to evolve and start doing honest
> > research and open it up to legitimate scientific
> > collaboration on consciousness research, which is becoming
> > really hot right now. Sadly, they could have been at the
> > forefront of a huge thrust of current research if they did
> > not have such a closed ideology from the start. That is why
> > Larry Domash left. That is why Marvin Minsky from MIT ripped
> > them a new a-hole in an on campus interview that I was at.
> > That tape will never see the light of day.
> > 
> > Again, sorry for misjudging this group!!!
> > 
> > Brian
> > 
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] The Unmanifested Always Existing Universe by Mr. Barely Right

[whynotnow7]

Barry: "My intuition tells me that the universe has always been, is now, and 
will always be, both in its manifest and unmanifest states."

Wow, so the universe is always here, even if it isn't? I'll transfer my billion 
euros into your account immediately. Oh wait, the euros are unmanifested, is 
that a problem? 




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Barry,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > The first premise should be read as follows:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 1.  Whatever begins to exist has a CAUSE.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Let us know if you agree with this.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > It sounds to me as if it's something that a 
> > > > > > determinist might think up. I have no idea
> > > > > > whether it's true or not, and neither do you.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Let us talk about the first premise.  Don't you agree 
> > > > > that you were born through your mother who conceived you 
> > > > > with your father?  As such, you as a physical being had 
> > > > > a CAUSE.  Correct?  If yes, then you would agree with 
> > > > > the first premise.>
> > > > 
> > > > Fallacy of inductive reasoning.
> > > 
> > > Exactly. "Because humans come into existence because
> > > someone fucked someone else, the universe must have
> > > also come into existence the same way." That is
> > > *exactly* the projection-reasoning I described.
> > > 
> > > John simply cannot *conceive* of a universe that 
> > > didn't have a beginning. So he's unable to address
> > > the fact that his point #2 is an *assumption*, and
> > > quite possibly an invalid one. If it *is* an invalid
> > > assumption, then the whole line of reasoning falls
> > > apart. 
> > > 
> > > On one level he's trying to suggest "As below, so
> > > above." That is, "Because humans born and die, the
> > > universe has to as well." 
> > > 
> > > My bet is that he will be completely unable to say
> > > that an eternal, never-created universe is even a 
> > > *possibility*. And why? Because Bronze-age teachers
> > > he considers infallible made up a bunch of creation
> > > myths and he believes they're not only true, but
> > > Truth. 
> > > 
> > > Me, I prefer to think for myself.
> > 
> > Barry,
> > 
> > Don't give us the run-around.  Please, answer the question 
> > that I posed?  
> 
> You first. I asked my question of you first, after all.
> You *dodging* it is the "run-around." All you have to
> do is answer the question of "Was the universe 'created,'
> in the sense that there was a first creation,' and that
> previous to that 'first creation' moment it did not exist?"
> This requires only a simple Yes or No answer.
> 
> My corollary question, which you seem to be doing every-
> thing in your power to avoid, is, "Do you consider it
> *possible* that the universe is eternal and never-
> created?" This also requires only a Yes or No answer.
> 
> 
> > Were you born to a human mother or not?  If yes, then 
> > you had a beginning and a cause.  Isn't that so?
> 
> If so, so what? As both Curtis and I have pointed out,
> you are attempting to practice inductive reasoning. You
> are trying to claim "As below, so above," and attempting
> to claim that because human beings may have a cause and
> thus a "birth" or beginning, so too does the universe.
> 
> I do not hold this to be true. My intuition tells me that
> the universe has always been, is now, and will always be,
> both in its manifest and unmanifest states. There has 
> never been a time when it was not. Therefore any argument
> that pins its conclusion on "There must have been a first
> creation" is fallacious and a bunch of hooey.
> 
> YMMV. It's *OK* for you to say that you believe in a first
> creation. It's *OK* for you to say that you cannot conceive
> of any other situation. It's even *OK* for you to say that
> you believe this because you hold certain old books to be
> the Absolute Truth and *they* said there was a first creation.
> 
> What is not so OK is you dodging the real issue and claiming
> that I'm the one doing it.
> 
> If you want an answer to your question, you have to answer
> mine first. End of story. It's not a lot to ask -- if I've
> gotten your beliefs right from what you've posted in the
> past, all it'll require from you is one Yes and one No, 
> in that order.  :-)
> 
> > > > > > MY point was about your second premise. You
> > > > > > have no way of knowing whether the universe
> > > > > > was "created," in the sense that it didn't
> > > > > > exist one moment and then existed the next.
> > > > > > Buddhists (or at lea

[FairfieldLife] Re: Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened!

[martyboi]

SSRS said something like awakening leads to "I don't know." and since I 
definitely know that I don't know, maybe I am "there" already? ;-)

My *guess* is that awakening doesn't encompass the need to defend oneself or 
one's path or group...nor does it invoke the need to criticize people who 
remain in a group or move on from that group. I "imagine" it involves the 
simple acceptance of what is: the knowingness that all is wisely set and okay 
exactly as it is without the need to modify, teach, enhance, understand, or fix 
anyone or anything. 

This doesn't mean that you become a useless blob, as we know from MMY's Bagavad 
gita - the enlightened spontaneously work for the "welfare of the world" (Gives 
'em sumthin' to do, whilst "remaining eternally un-involved,"non-doer 
immutable" and all that.)

Perhaps awakening also includes the understanding that ones' experience of 
"consciousness" requires a POV (think seer)and there's a multiplicity of POVs 
out there and so defending one's viewpoint is just sort of a fun sport, but not 
required? 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Barry,
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > The first premise should be read as follows:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 1.  Whatever begins to exist has a CAUSE.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Let us know if you agree with this.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > It sounds to me as if it's something that a 
> > > > > > > > determinist might think up. I have no idea
> > > > > > > > whether it's true or not, and neither do you.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Let us talk about the first premise.  Don't you agree that you 
> > > > > > > were born through your mother who conceived you with your father? 
> > > > > > >  As such, you as a physical being had a CAUSE.  Correct?  If yes, 
> > > > > > > then you would agree with the first premise.>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Fallacy of inductive reasoning.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Curtis,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Please, explain why you think the first premise is incorrect.  Or, 
> > > > > why my example is incorrect.
> > > > 
> > > > Hey John,
> > > > 
> > > > Well I guess I'll have to show the guts to engage in a friendly 
> > > > discussion with you having been challenged!
> > > > 
> > > > I was pointing out that you were going from a single instance to 
> > > > support the assertion of a universal and that this is a fallacious form 
> > > > of reasoning.  Just because we have a biological cause we can't 
> > > > automatically infer that a principle of universal causation exists.  In 
> > > > the case of existence itself, it may have primacy without needing a 
> > > > cause.
> > > > 
> > > > But I'll hang with the point if you are interested.  Have I missed 
> > > > something?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Curtis,
> > > 
> > > You're jumping ahead of the game.  We're still trying to get a common 
> > > understanding of the first premise:
> > > 
> > > 1.  Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
> > > 
> > > Do you agree with this premise or not? 
> >
> 
> Curtis,
> 
> 1.> It sounds like a premise that requires a context to be useful.  I'm not 
> sure this is even a part of material physics understanding.  And I don't know 
> what you mean by cause in this context.  Plus you have an embedded premise by 
> including "begins".>  
> 
> The KCA can be discussed using logic and reason.  The latest developments in 
> physics and cosmology can be used in the discussion.  However, IMO, these 
> latest developments have not be proven or agreed to by all the experts in the 
> field.  As such, actual science has a more rigorous criteria for acceptance 
> of proof.
> 
> Specifically, the Big Bang Theory still has not been proved, although it is 
> the most widely accepted cosmological model to describe the universe.  Also, 
> science does not have a method as of date to prove any speculations relating 
> to what happened before the Big Bang.

Agreed that science has rigorous criteria for acceptance of proof.  But this 
discussion is trying to use the tool of formal logic to make a proof.  So we 
haven't stepped down from rigor as long as we are using formal tools.
> 
> 
> 2.> I think you are trying to have a technical discussion within a casual 
> context.  So I suppose I am being invited to wing it.  Is this the from 
> William Lane Craig?  If so then his "intuitive" start has problems.>
> 
> Yes, Dr. Craig has been credited in developing the KCA.  However, he 
> mentioned that an Arab philosopher by the name of Al-Ghazali has thought of 
> these premises.  Also, he said that the ontological argument of Aquinas plays 
> a major role in the KCA as well.

Aquinas did give it the old college try didn't he trying to rise to the 
challenge of Plato and Aristotle.  
> 
> 
> 3.> First when matter of the density of pre big bang transforms into the 
> matter that we know and love (especially when it forms breast tissue) then 
> the whole intuitive concept of causation is irrelevant.  We are talking about 
> a state of matter that is literally inconceivable.  So applying our intuitive 
> concepts is dead on arrival.  We don't know why it blew but we are in no 
> position to speculate at this stage of human knowledge. It is a fallacious 
> presupposition to as

[FairfieldLife] Re: Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened!

[whynotnow7]

yeah, I think there is something to that.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7"  wrote:
> >
> > Sounds like A Commandment, huh? Some here on FFL would have us believe it 
> > is. I can understand if we were at the Pentagon or something, but this is 
> > FFL. In any case, since this shrill refrain has been heard several times on 
> > here lately, I thought I'd explore the possibilities why:
> > 
> > 1. Fear of exploitation. While this is something to look out for when 
> > someone is asking for money or anything else, this is not the case here on 
> > FFL. So I'm ruling this one out early. Besides no one who talks about 
> > enlightenment or self realization here ever asks for anything, even 
> > agreement - lol. It is more about the discussion, which some apparently 
> > cannot tolerate.
> > 
> > 2. Sour grapes. Could be. All of us here are on some path for personal 
> > development, which at some point contained the word "enlightenment". So if 
> > it isn't happening for some, perhaps they find it much more preferable if 
> > it is not discussed at all. (hint: wrong forum…).
> > 
> > 3. Doesn't conform to their idea of enlightenment. Possibly. Not a lot of 
> > control to exert when you learn that enlightenment is a self identified 
> > condition, with no outside agency needed for confirmation. Kind of mind 
> > blowing to some. No control to exert. Perhaps this is why some people's 
> > need to shut down others talking about being enlightened is increasing on 
> > FFL. It is the only control they have left: Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself 
> > Enlightened - LOL.
> > 
> > 4. Doesn't conform to their idea of enlightenment, part 2. "I meditated too 
> > much once and was in Cosmic Consciousness for like two weeks. So what?". 
> > That's like saying backing out of the driveway is the same as driving 
> > cross-country.
> > 
> > 5. Doesn't conform to their idea of enlightenment, part 3.  "I think 
> > enlightenment is possible, just not by you. I don't judge you enlightened 
> > enough by my standards as I see them to allow you to be enlightened in my 
> > eyes, according to me". Speaks for itself.
> > 
> > 6. Doesn't give a shit about enlightenment. Nah, that's for the people who 
> > don't ever talk about it. `Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened' 
> > screams interest in enlightenment, doesn't it?
> > 
> > Enlightenment is for the masses. Get used to it. :-)
> 
> 
> Nice. And there are many other reasons some here feel threatened by someone 
> claiming enlightenment, some of which you briefly mentioned. 
> 
> Mainly it's obvious that the majority here are former TM'ers who have stopped 
> the practise. When someone who never stopped but rather patiently continued 
> TM claims enlightenment it reminds them of all the lost years, and their 
> failure to take one great pratice into frutition. It's an utter failure for 
> them obviously, one very frustrating experience indeed and one which explains 
> the close to anger anyone with a TM-background receives from certain 
> participants on this forum.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Thou Shall Not Proclaim Oneself Enlightened!

[whynotnow7]

I wish...

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" 
> wrote:
> > Enlightenment is for the masses. Get used to it. :-)
> >
> Now THAT  could be the start of a new TM marketing campaign.
> 
> "Got Enlightenment?"
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Fairfield Ecumenical Group Meditation

[WillyTex]

Sal Sunshine:
> Bruce,
> Don't be concerned if you aren't following
> these idiotic posts.  "Buck" is a local troll
> who spends most of his time either responding
> to his own messages, or endlessly "cataloguing"
> others' messages.  Most people here ignore him,
> which is probably why he replies to his own 
> crap.
> 
> Anyway, Rick and Alex, that makes 57 for Buck
> for this week.  Na na na na, na na na na, hey, 
> hey...
>
Just tell us what it's like living in Fairfield, 
Sal, that's all Bruce wants to know. Can a person 
make a decent living in Fairfield? Why is that so
difficult for you to do? 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?

[WillyTex]

> > Besides, as stated, even if one could conclude 
> > that a "Deity" created the Universe, which One...
> >
John:
> IMO, the Supreme Being is not limited to any human 
> religions.
> 
So, now it's a metaphysical argument?

In physics, causation is the relationship between 
any single event and a subsequent event (cause and 
effect). 

Cause and effect is understood to be a consequence of 
the first event and the second event is understood to 
be the effect of the first. Causation is a basic 
assumption of science. 

All instances of cause and effect are valid for human 
experience. Unless you want to bring an intelligent
agent into the argument, basic human experiences will
suffice for the proof simple causation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'And Pissed by use of name: Geronimo'

[WillyTex]

Robert:
> 'And Pissed by use of name: Geronimo'
>
Apparently Geronimo was not the real name
of the Chiricahua Apache leader - that name 
is a Mexican word which means 'Saint Jerome'. 

"But say what you will about the history of 
wildly misappropriated terms for Native 
Americans — Washington Redskins, anyone? — 
the objection boils down to the fact that a 
code name for Osama that referenced anything 
with any redeeming qualities whatever would 
be drawing fire from some quarter..."

Washington Post:
http://tinyurl.com/6a5jelf

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Fairfield Ecumenical Group Meditation

[Sal Sunshine]

Bruce,
Don't be concerned if you aren't following
these idiotic posts.  "Buck" is a local troll
who spends most of his time either responding
to his own messages, or endlessly "cataloguing"
others' messages.  Most people here ignore him,
which is probably why he replies to his own crap.

Anyway, Rick and Alex, that makes 57 for Buck
for this week.  Na na na na, na na na na, hey, hey...

On May 5, 2011, at 6:13 AM, Buck wrote:

> Clearly, we need more numbers.
> 

For, when one per cent of the individuals in a nation practise meditation, or 
the square root of one per cent of the population collectively practises 
advanced meditation, the influence of orderliness and harmony they produce is 
sufficient to uplift the entire consciousness, neutralising negative trends and 
enhancing positivity throughout the nations.

> 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?

[WillyTex]

> > Ah ha!.  You've done it Curtis.  You have proved 
> > John's point with Barry's own words.  It is a 
> > small bang that creates human life, but it is the 
> > big bang that creates the universe. Case closed!
> >
turquoiseb:
> Not at all. I'm frankly surprised that you're so
> simplistic. What if the "big bang" is merely a 
> local phenomenon, spawning a local universe that
> is merely a tiny part of a much larger one that
> never went out of existence? What if the big bang
> were nothing more than a pimple on the young, teen-
> aged face of the larger universe?
> 
> My original point was that human beings seem to 
> find it impossible to conceive of the universe *not*
> having a beginning. So they make up creation myths
> about that beginning. They have endless debates on
> what was present *before* the beginning that made
> it possible. But almost no one ever takes on the
> underlying assumption -- THAT there was a beginning.
> 
> THAT is what I'm taking on. THAT is what John's 
> argument depends on. Take that away, and the entire
> argument is meaningless.
>
John's original idea was that everything that happens 
has a cause. You stated that there was an uncaused 
cause, which was your assumption. You posited an 
eternal substance and erroneously attributed it to 
the Buddhist philosophy.

But, John can point to many thousands of proofs for 
causation - proofs that everyone experiences every 
day. 

We all observe that human excrement always flows 
downstream, not up. And, we observe gravity, the law 
of thermodynamics, and a host of other events based 
on cause and effect.

You are going to have a very difficult time debating 
any theory that denies causation! This is where
Barry falls down, because we all know that he is not
a logician or trained philosopher.

Can you cite a single proof of an uncaused cause? 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Fairfield Ecumenical Group Meditation

[Buck]

>
> Clearly, we need more numbers.
>

For, when one per cent of the individuals in a nation practise meditation, or 
the square root of one per cent of the population collectively practises 
advanced meditation, the influence of orderliness and harmony they produce is 
sufficient to uplift the entire consciousness, neutralising negative trends and 
enhancing positivity throughout the nations.
 
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > > 
> > > >
> > > > Like SRF on the West Coast would there be a coordinating ecumenical 
> > > > meditation out on the East coast for those people to sit with?  The 
> > > > National Cathedral or National Science Foundation?  There was once the 
> > > > Pentagon Meditation Club.  8:30AM and 6:30PM would put East coast 
> > > > meditators with the Fairfield ecumenical group meditation.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > When a group meditation maintains the square root of one per cent of the 
> > > world's population, 7,000 people, creating coherence in national and 
> > > world consciousness and bringing support of Nature to the nations, 
> > > Natural Law will support national law and the nations will enjoy 
> > > unrestricted progress, prosperity, and invincibility. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > "Oh the Unified Field, Our Unified Field, before thee we must be
> > > > > watchful by daylight, rouse our souls from deep sleep.  Free them from
> > > > > drowsiness, that we may be rightfully mindful of thee."
> > > > > 
> > > > > >> Before dawn, the birds have just started singing and the ecumenical
> > > > > meditators of Fairfield have begun again.  It's spiritually fabulous 
> > > > > in
> > > > > Fairfield.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Buck
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The Fairfield Ecumenical Meditation,
> > > > > > > > there are between two and three thousand living together in that
> > > > > > > community.
> > 
> > It's not enough.
> > 
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   "Scientific research has shown that group practice of meditation
> > > > > > > creates coherence in collective consciousness, eliminates 
> > > > > > > collective
> > > > > > > stress, and raises life to be increasingly in accord with Natural
> > > > > Law,
> > > > > > > as indicated by reduction of crime, accidents, violence, and
> > > > > sickness,
> > > > > > > as well as improved economic trends and quality of life."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Minimum of an hour and quarter meditation each. Also
> > > > > recommended
> > > > > > > up to two and a quarter hours.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > the larger Fairfield ecumenical meditation starts daily at
> > > > > > > 7:30AM and 5:00PM.  A longer meditation starts 20 earlier.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Time and again as steps in progress, group
> > > > > meditation
> > > > > > > evidently drags
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > consciousness out of darkness:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You know, "Scientific research has shown that group
> > > > > > > practice of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > meditation creates coherence in collective
> > > > > consciousness,
> > > > > > > eliminates
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > collective stress, and raises life to be 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > increasingly
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > accord with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Natural Law, as indicated by reduction of crime,
> > > > > > > accidents, violence,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and sickness, as well as improved economic trends 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > quality of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > life."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > SRF (Self-Realization Fellowship) out on the West coast host
> > > > > group
> > > > > > > meditations during the week that are open to people practicing a
> > > > > silent
> > > > > > > meditation.  Those are real nice and long meditations too.  Lot of
> > > > > > > people meditate with them for a group meditation. Nice places. Can
> > > > > walk
> > > > > > > in and just sit down.6:30pm a lot of days, pacific coast time.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Though they don't really want many of us as meditators
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > the domes, the larger Fairfield ecumenical meditation starts daily
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > 7:30AM and 5:00PM.  A longer meditation starts 20 minutes earlier 
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course individual times vary some.  But it is 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > amazing
> > > > > > > grace every morning

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Fairfield Ecumenical Group Meditation

[Buck]

Clearly, we need more numbers.

> 
> 
> >
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Like SRF on the West Coast would there be a coordinating ecumenical 
> > > meditation out on the East coast for those people to sit with?  The 
> > > National Cathedral or National Science Foundation?  There was once the 
> > > Pentagon Meditation Club.  8:30AM and 6:30PM would put East coast 
> > > meditators with the Fairfield ecumenical group meditation.
> > >
> > 
> > When a group meditation maintains the square root of one per cent of the 
> > world's population, 7,000 people, creating coherence in national and world 
> > consciousness and bringing support of Nature to the nations, Natural Law 
> > will support national law and the nations will enjoy unrestricted progress, 
> > prosperity, and invincibility. 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > "Oh the Unified Field, Our Unified Field, before thee we must be
> > > > watchful by daylight, rouse our souls from deep sleep.  Free them from
> > > > drowsiness, that we may be rightfully mindful of thee."
> > > > 
> > > > >> Before dawn, the birds have just started singing and the ecumenical
> > > > meditators of Fairfield have begun again.  It's spiritually fabulous in
> > > > Fairfield.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Buck
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Fairfield Ecumenical Meditation,
> > > > > > > there are between two and three thousand living together in that
> > > > > > community.
> 
> It's not enough.
> 
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >   "Scientific research has shown that group practice of meditation
> > > > > > creates coherence in collective consciousness, eliminates collective
> > > > > > stress, and raises life to be increasingly in accord with Natural
> > > > Law,
> > > > > > as indicated by reduction of crime, accidents, violence, and
> > > > sickness,
> > > > > > as well as improved economic trends and quality of life."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Minimum of an hour and quarter meditation each. Also
> > > > recommended
> > > > > > up to two and a quarter hours.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" 
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > the larger Fairfield ecumenical meditation starts daily at
> > > > > > 7:30AM and 5:00PM.  A longer meditation starts 20 earlier.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Time and again as steps in progress, group
> > > > meditation
> > > > > > evidently drags
> > > > > > > > > > > > > consciousness out of darkness:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You know, "Scientific research has shown that group
> > > > > > practice of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > meditation creates coherence in collective
> > > > consciousness,
> > > > > > eliminates
> > > > > > > > > > > > > collective stress, and raises life to be increasingly
> > > > in
> > > > > > accord with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Natural Law, as indicated by reduction of crime,
> > > > > > accidents, violence,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and sickness, as well as improved economic trends and
> > > > > > quality of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > life."
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > SRF (Self-Realization Fellowship) out on the West coast host
> > > > group
> > > > > > meditations during the week that are open to people practicing a
> > > > silent
> > > > > > meditation.  Those are real nice and long meditations too.  Lot of
> > > > > > people meditate with them for a group meditation. Nice places. Can
> > > > walk
> > > > > > in and just sit down.6:30pm a lot of days, pacific coast time.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Though they don't really want many of us as meditators
> > > > in
> > > > > > the domes, the larger Fairfield ecumenical meditation starts daily
> > > > at
> > > > > > 7:30AM and 5:00PM.  A longer meditation starts 20 minutes earlier or
> > > > > > later.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Of course individual times vary some.  But it is amazing
> > > > > > grace every morning and evening around here by virtue of the larger
> > > > > > meditating community here.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > -Buck
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Lot of people do a second meditation starting around
> > > > 10:30AM
> > > > > > too.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"
> > > > yifuxero@
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Charisma, May 2011; p. 31:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "From AD 555 until the AD 800's [i.e. invasions by
> > 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Fairfield Ecumenical Group Meditation

[Buck]

>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> >
> > Like SRF on the West Coast would there be a coordinating ecumenical 
> > meditation out on the East coast for those people to sit with?  The 
> > National Cathedral or National Science Foundation?  There was once the 
> > Pentagon Meditation Club.  8:30AM and 6:30PM would put East coast 
> > meditators with the Fairfield ecumenical group meditation.
> >
> 
> When a group meditation maintains the square root of one per cent of the 
> world's population, 7,000 people, creating coherence in national and world 
> consciousness and bringing support of Nature to the nations, Natural Law will 
> support national law and the nations will enjoy unrestricted progress, 
> prosperity, and invincibility. 
> 
> 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > "Oh the Unified Field, Our Unified Field, before thee we must be
> > > watchful by daylight, rouse our souls from deep sleep.  Free them from
> > > drowsiness, that we may be rightfully mindful of thee."
> > > 
> > > >> Before dawn, the birds have just started singing and the ecumenical
> > > meditators of Fairfield have begun again.  It's spiritually fabulous in
> > > Fairfield.
> > > >
> > > > -Buck
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Fairfield Ecumenical Meditation,
> > > > > > there are between two and three thousand living together in that
> > > > > community.

It's not enough.

> > > > > >
> > > > >   "Scientific research has shown that group practice of meditation
> > > > > creates coherence in collective consciousness, eliminates collective
> > > > > stress, and raises life to be increasingly in accord with Natural
> > > Law,
> > > > > as indicated by reduction of crime, accidents, violence, and
> > > sickness,
> > > > > as well as improved economic trends and quality of life."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Minimum of an hour and quarter meditation each. Also
> > > recommended
> > > > > up to two and a quarter hours.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > the larger Fairfield ecumenical meditation starts daily at
> > > > > 7:30AM and 5:00PM.  A longer meditation starts 20 earlier.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Time and again as steps in progress, group
> > > meditation
> > > > > evidently drags
> > > > > > > > > > > > consciousness out of darkness:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > You know, "Scientific research has shown that group
> > > > > practice of
> > > > > > > > > > > > meditation creates coherence in collective
> > > consciousness,
> > > > > eliminates
> > > > > > > > > > > > collective stress, and raises life to be increasingly
> > > in
> > > > > accord with
> > > > > > > > > > > > Natural Law, as indicated by reduction of crime,
> > > > > accidents, violence,
> > > > > > > > > > > > and sickness, as well as improved economic trends and
> > > > > quality of
> > > > > > > > > > > > life."
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > SRF (Self-Realization Fellowship) out on the West coast host
> > > group
> > > > > meditations during the week that are open to people practicing a
> > > silent
> > > > > meditation.  Those are real nice and long meditations too.  Lot of
> > > > > people meditate with them for a group meditation. Nice places. Can
> > > walk
> > > > > in and just sit down.6:30pm a lot of days, pacific coast time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Though they don't really want many of us as meditators
> > > in
> > > > > the domes, the larger Fairfield ecumenical meditation starts daily
> > > at
> > > > > 7:30AM and 5:00PM.  A longer meditation starts 20 minutes earlier or
> > > > > later.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Of course individual times vary some.  But it is amazing
> > > > > grace every morning and evening around here by virtue of the larger
> > > > > meditating community here.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -Buck
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Lot of people do a second meditation starting around
> > > 10:30AM
> > > > > too.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"
> > > yifuxero@
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Charisma, May 2011; p. 31:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "From AD 555 until the AD 800's [i.e. invasions by
> > > the
> > > > > Vikings],
> > > > > > > > > > > > there was a 24/7 prayer watch of as many as 3,000
> > > people
> > > > > in Bangor,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ireland, that transformed the country and took the
> > > gospel
> > > > > to other
> > > > > > > > > > > > European nations".
> 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Fairfield Ecumenical Group Meditation

[Buck]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> Like SRF on the West Coast would there be a coordinating ecumenical 
> meditation out on the East coast for those people to sit with?  The National 
> Cathedral or National Science Foundation?  There was once the Pentagon 
> Meditation Club.  8:30AM and 6:30PM would put East coast meditators with the 
> Fairfield ecumenical group meditation.
>

When a group meditation maintains the square root of one per cent of the 
world's population, 7,000 people, creating coherence in national and world 
consciousness and bringing support of Nature to the nations, Natural Law will 
support national law and the nations will enjoy unrestricted progress, 
prosperity, and invincibility. 


> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > "Oh the Unified Field, Our Unified Field, before thee we must be
> > watchful by daylight, rouse our souls from deep sleep.  Free them from
> > drowsiness, that we may be rightfully mindful of thee."
> > 
> > >> Before dawn, the birds have just started singing and the ecumenical
> > meditators of Fairfield have begun again.  It's spiritually fabulous in
> > Fairfield.
> > >
> > > -Buck
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The Fairfield Ecumenical Meditation,
> > > > > there are between two and three thousand living together in that
> > > > community.
> > > > >
> > > >   "Scientific research has shown that group practice of meditation
> > > > creates coherence in collective consciousness, eliminates collective
> > > > stress, and raises life to be increasingly in accord with Natural
> > Law,
> > > > as indicated by reduction of crime, accidents, violence, and
> > sickness,
> > > > as well as improved economic trends and quality of life."
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Minimum of an hour and quarter meditation each. Also
> > recommended
> > > > up to two and a quarter hours.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > the larger Fairfield ecumenical meditation starts daily at
> > > > 7:30AM and 5:00PM.  A longer meditation starts 20 earlier.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Time and again as steps in progress, group
> > meditation
> > > > evidently drags
> > > > > > > > > > > consciousness out of darkness:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You know, "Scientific research has shown that group
> > > > practice of
> > > > > > > > > > > meditation creates coherence in collective
> > consciousness,
> > > > eliminates
> > > > > > > > > > > collective stress, and raises life to be increasingly
> > in
> > > > accord with
> > > > > > > > > > > Natural Law, as indicated by reduction of crime,
> > > > accidents, violence,
> > > > > > > > > > > and sickness, as well as improved economic trends and
> > > > quality of
> > > > > > > > > > > life."
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > SRF (Self-Realization Fellowship) out on the West coast host
> > group
> > > > meditations during the week that are open to people practicing a
> > silent
> > > > meditation.  Those are real nice and long meditations too.  Lot of
> > > > people meditate with them for a group meditation. Nice places. Can
> > walk
> > > > in and just sit down.6:30pm a lot of days, pacific coast time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Though they don't really want many of us as meditators
> > in
> > > > the domes, the larger Fairfield ecumenical meditation starts daily
> > at
> > > > 7:30AM and 5:00PM.  A longer meditation starts 20 minutes earlier or
> > > > later.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Of course individual times vary some.  But it is amazing
> > > > grace every morning and evening around here by virtue of the larger
> > > > meditating community here.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -Buck
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Lot of people do a second meditation starting around
> > 10:30AM
> > > > too.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"
> > yifuxero@
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Charisma, May 2011; p. 31:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "From AD 555 until the AD 800's [i.e. invasions by
> > the
> > > > Vikings],
> > > > > > > > > > > there was a 24/7 prayer watch of as many as 3,000
> > people
> > > > in Bangor,
> > > > > > > > > > > Ireland, that transformed the country and took the
> > gospel
> > > > to other
> > > > > > > > > > > European nations".
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > http://www.prayerhouse.co.za/pdf/BANGOR,_555_AD.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Fairfield Ecumenical Group Meditation

[Buck]

Like SRF on the West Coast would there be a coordinating ecumenical meditation 
out on the East coast for those people to sit with?  The National Cathedral or 
National Science Foundation?  There was once the Pentagon Meditation Club.  
8:30AM and 6:30PM would put East coast meditators with the Fairfield ecumenical 
group meditation.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> 
> "Oh the Unified Field, Our Unified Field, before thee we must be
> watchful by daylight, rouse our souls from deep sleep.  Free them from
> drowsiness, that we may be rightfully mindful of thee."
> 
> >> Before dawn, the birds have just started singing and the ecumenical
> meditators of Fairfield have begun again.  It's spiritually fabulous in
> Fairfield.
> >
> > -Buck
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The Fairfield Ecumenical Meditation,
> > > > there are between two and three thousand living together in that
> > > community.
> > > >
> > >   "Scientific research has shown that group practice of meditation
> > > creates coherence in collective consciousness, eliminates collective
> > > stress, and raises life to be increasingly in accord with Natural
> Law,
> > > as indicated by reduction of crime, accidents, violence, and
> sickness,
> > > as well as improved economic trends and quality of life."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Minimum of an hour and quarter meditation each. Also
> recommended
> > > up to two and a quarter hours.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > the larger Fairfield ecumenical meditation starts daily at
> > > 7:30AM and 5:00PM.  A longer meditation starts 20 earlier.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Time and again as steps in progress, group
> meditation
> > > evidently drags
> > > > > > > > > > consciousness out of darkness:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You know, "Scientific research has shown that group
> > > practice of
> > > > > > > > > > meditation creates coherence in collective
> consciousness,
> > > eliminates
> > > > > > > > > > collective stress, and raises life to be increasingly
> in
> > > accord with
> > > > > > > > > > Natural Law, as indicated by reduction of crime,
> > > accidents, violence,
> > > > > > > > > > and sickness, as well as improved economic trends and
> > > quality of
> > > > > > > > > > life."
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > SRF (Self-Realization Fellowship) out on the West coast host
> group
> > > meditations during the week that are open to people practicing a
> silent
> > > meditation.  Those are real nice and long meditations too.  Lot of
> > > people meditate with them for a group meditation. Nice places. Can
> walk
> > > in and just sit down.6:30pm a lot of days, pacific coast time.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Though they don't really want many of us as meditators
> in
> > > the domes, the larger Fairfield ecumenical meditation starts daily
> at
> > > 7:30AM and 5:00PM.  A longer meditation starts 20 minutes earlier or
> > > later.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Of course individual times vary some.  But it is amazing
> > > grace every morning and evening around here by virtue of the larger
> > > meditating community here.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -Buck
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Lot of people do a second meditation starting around
> 10:30AM
> > > too.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"
> yifuxero@
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Charisma, May 2011; p. 31:
> > > > > > > > > > > > "From AD 555 until the AD 800's [i.e. invasions by
> the
> > > Vikings],
> > > > > > > > > > there was a 24/7 prayer watch of as many as 3,000
> people
> > > in Bangor,
> > > > > > > > > > Ireland, that transformed the country and took the
> gospel
> > > to other
> > > > > > > > > > European nations".
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> http://www.prayerhouse.co.za/pdf/BANGOR,_555_AD.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Fairfield Ecumenical Group Meditation

[Buck]

"Oh the Unified Field, Our Unified Field, before thee we must be
watchful by daylight, rouse our souls from deep sleep.  Free them from
drowsiness, that we may be rightfully mindful of thee."

>> Before dawn, the birds have just started singing and the ecumenical
meditators of Fairfield have begun again.  It's spiritually fabulous in
Fairfield.
>
> -Buck
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > The Fairfield Ecumenical Meditation,
> > > there are between two and three thousand living together in that
> > community.
> > >
> >   "Scientific research has shown that group practice of meditation
> > creates coherence in collective consciousness, eliminates collective
> > stress, and raises life to be increasingly in accord with Natural
Law,
> > as indicated by reduction of crime, accidents, violence, and
sickness,
> > as well as improved economic trends and quality of life."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Minimum of an hour and quarter meditation each. Also
recommended
> > up to two and a quarter hours.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" 
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the larger Fairfield ecumenical meditation starts daily at
> > 7:30AM and 5:00PM.  A longer meditation starts 20 earlier.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Time and again as steps in progress, group
meditation
> > evidently drags
> > > > > > > > > consciousness out of darkness:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You know, "Scientific research has shown that group
> > practice of
> > > > > > > > > meditation creates coherence in collective
consciousness,
> > eliminates
> > > > > > > > > collective stress, and raises life to be increasingly
in
> > accord with
> > > > > > > > > Natural Law, as indicated by reduction of crime,
> > accidents, violence,
> > > > > > > > > and sickness, as well as improved economic trends and
> > quality of
> > > > > > > > > life."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > SRF (Self-Realization Fellowship) out on the West coast host
group
> > meditations during the week that are open to people practicing a
silent
> > meditation.  Those are real nice and long meditations too.  Lot of
> > people meditate with them for a group meditation. Nice places. Can
walk
> > in and just sit down.6:30pm a lot of days, pacific coast time.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Though they don't really want many of us as meditators
in
> > the domes, the larger Fairfield ecumenical meditation starts daily
at
> > 7:30AM and 5:00PM.  A longer meditation starts 20 minutes earlier or
> > later.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Of course individual times vary some.  But it is amazing
> > grace every morning and evening around here by virtue of the larger
> > meditating community here.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -Buck
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lot of people do a second meditation starting around
10:30AM
> > too.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"
yifuxero@
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Charisma, May 2011; p. 31:
> > > > > > > > > > > "From AD 555 until the AD 800's [i.e. invasions by
the
> > Vikings],
> > > > > > > > > there was a 24/7 prayer watch of as many as 3,000
people
> > in Bangor,
> > > > > > > > > Ireland, that transformed the country and took the
gospel
> > to other
> > > > > > > > > European nations".
> > > > > > > > > > >
http://www.prayerhouse.co.za/pdf/BANGOR,_555_AD.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Fairfield Ecumenical Group Meditation

[Buck]

Before dawn, the birds have just started singing and the ecumenical meditators 
of Fairfield have begun again.  It's spiritually fabulous in Fairfield.

-Buck

>
> 
> >
> > The Fairfield Ecumenical Meditation,
> > there are between two and three thousand living together in that
> community.
> >
>   "Scientific research has shown that group practice of meditation
> creates coherence in collective consciousness, eliminates collective
> stress, and raises life to be increasingly in accord with Natural Law,
> as indicated by reduction of crime, accidents, violence, and sickness,
> as well as improved economic trends and quality of life."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Minimum of an hour and quarter meditation each. Also recommended
> up to two and a quarter hours.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > the larger Fairfield ecumenical meditation starts daily at
> 7:30AM and 5:00PM.  A longer meditation starts 20 earlier.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Time and again as steps in progress, group meditation
> evidently drags
> > > > > > > > consciousness out of darkness:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You know, "Scientific research has shown that group
> practice of
> > > > > > > > meditation creates coherence in collective consciousness,
> eliminates
> > > > > > > > collective stress, and raises life to be increasingly in
> accord with
> > > > > > > > Natural Law, as indicated by reduction of crime,
> accidents, violence,
> > > > > > > > and sickness, as well as improved economic trends and
> quality of
> > > > > > > > life."
> > > > > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > SRF (Self-Realization Fellowship) out on the West coast host group
> meditations during the week that are open to people practicing a silent
> meditation.  Those are real nice and long meditations too.  Lot of
> people meditate with them for a group meditation. Nice places. Can walk
> in and just sit down.6:30pm a lot of days, pacific coast time.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Though they don't really want many of us as meditators in
> the domes, the larger Fairfield ecumenical meditation starts daily at
> 7:30AM and 5:00PM.  A longer meditation starts 20 minutes earlier or
> later.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course individual times vary some.  But it is amazing
> grace every morning and evening around here by virtue of the larger
> meditating community here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Buck
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lot of people do a second meditation starting around 10:30AM
> too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" yifuxero@
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Charisma, May 2011; p. 31:
> > > > > > > > > > "From AD 555 until the AD 800's [i.e. invasions by the
> Vikings],
> > > > > > > > there was a 24/7 prayer watch of as many as 3,000 people
> in Bangor,
> > > > > > > > Ireland, that transformed the country and took the gospel
> to other
> > > > > > > > European nations".
> > > > > > > > > > http://www.prayerhouse.co.za/pdf/BANGOR,_555_AD.pdf
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Fairfield Ecumenical Group Meditation

[Buck]

>
> The Fairfield Ecumenical Meditation,
> there are between two and three thousand living together in that
community.
>
  "Scientific research has shown that group practice of meditation
creates coherence in collective consciousness, eliminates collective
stress, and raises life to be increasingly in accord with Natural Law,
as indicated by reduction of crime, accidents, violence, and sickness,
as well as improved economic trends and quality of life."
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Minimum of an hour and quarter meditation each. Also recommended
up to two and a quarter hours.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" 
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > the larger Fairfield ecumenical meditation starts daily at
7:30AM and 5:00PM.  A longer meditation starts 20 earlier.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Time and again as steps in progress, group meditation
evidently drags
> > > > > > > consciousness out of darkness:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You know, "Scientific research has shown that group
practice of
> > > > > > > meditation creates coherence in collective consciousness,
eliminates
> > > > > > > collective stress, and raises life to be increasingly in
accord with
> > > > > > > Natural Law, as indicated by reduction of crime,
accidents, violence,
> > > > > > > and sickness, as well as improved economic trends and
quality of
> > > > > > > life."
> > > > > > >
> >
> >
> > SRF (Self-Realization Fellowship) out on the West coast host group
meditations during the week that are open to people practicing a silent
meditation.  Those are real nice and long meditations too.  Lot of
people meditate with them for a group meditation. Nice places. Can walk
in and just sit down.6:30pm a lot of days, pacific coast time.
> >
> >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Though they don't really want many of us as meditators in
the domes, the larger Fairfield ecumenical meditation starts daily at
7:30AM and 5:00PM.  A longer meditation starts 20 minutes earlier or
later.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course individual times vary some.  But it is amazing
grace every morning and evening around here by virtue of the larger
meditating community here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Buck
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Lot of people do a second meditation starting around 10:30AM
too.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" yifuxero@
wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Charisma, May 2011; p. 31:
> > > > > > > > > "From AD 555 until the AD 800's [i.e. invasions by the
Vikings],
> > > > > > > there was a 24/7 prayer watch of as many as 3,000 people
in Bangor,
> > > > > > > Ireland, that transformed the country and took the gospel
to other
> > > > > > > European nations".
> > > > > > > > > http://www.prayerhouse.co.za/pdf/BANGOR,_555_AD.pdf
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Fairfield Ecumenical Group Meditation

[Buck]

The Fairfield Ecumenical Meditation,
there are between two and three thousand living together in that community.

>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> >
> > Minimum of an hour and quarter meditation each. Also recommended up to two 
> > and a quarter hours.
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > >
> > > the larger Fairfield ecumenical meditation starts daily at 7:30AM and 
> > > 5:00PM.  A longer meditation starts 20 earlier.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Time and again as steps in progress, group meditation evidently 
> > > > > > > drags
> > > > > > consciousness out of darkness:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > You know, "Scientific research has shown that group practice of
> > > > > > meditation creates coherence in collective consciousness, eliminates
> > > > > > collective stress, and raises life to be increasingly in accord with
> > > > > > Natural Law, as indicated by reduction of crime, accidents, 
> > > > > > violence,
> > > > > > and sickness, as well as improved economic trends and quality of
> > > > > > life."
> > > > > >
> 
> 
> SRF (Self-Realization Fellowship) out on the West coast host group 
> meditations during the week that are open to people practicing a silent 
> meditation.  Those are real nice and long meditations too.  Lot of people 
> meditate with them for a group meditation. Nice places. Can walk in and just 
> sit down.6:30pm a lot of days, pacific coast time. 
> 
> 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Though they don't really want many of us as meditators in the domes, 
> > > > > the larger Fairfield ecumenical meditation starts daily at 7:30AM and 
> > > > > 5:00PM.  A longer meditation starts 20 minutes earlier or later.  
> > > > > 
> > > > > Of course individual times vary some.  But it is amazing grace every 
> > > > > morning and evening around here by virtue of the larger meditating 
> > > > > community here.
> > > > > 
> > > > > -Buck
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Lot of people do a second meditation starting around 10:30AM too.
> > > > 
> > > >   
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" yifuxero@ wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Charisma, May 2011; p. 31:
> > > > > > > > "From AD 555 until the AD 800's [i.e. invasions by the Vikings],
> > > > > > there was a 24/7 prayer watch of as many as 3,000 people in Bangor,
> > > > > > Ireland, that transformed the country and took the gospel to other
> > > > > > European nations".
> > > > > > > > http://www.prayerhouse.co.za/pdf/BANGOR,_555_AD.pdf
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Ecumenical Group Meditation

[Buck]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> Minimum of an hour and quarter meditation each. Also recommended up to two 
> and a quarter hours.
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> >
> > the larger Fairfield ecumenical meditation starts daily at 7:30AM and 
> > 5:00PM.  A longer meditation starts 20 earlier.
> > 
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Time and again as steps in progress, group meditation evidently 
> > > > > > drags
> > > > > consciousness out of darkness:
> > > > > >
> > > > > You know, "Scientific research has shown that group practice of
> > > > > meditation creates coherence in collective consciousness, eliminates
> > > > > collective stress, and raises life to be increasingly in accord with
> > > > > Natural Law, as indicated by reduction of crime, accidents, violence,
> > > > > and sickness, as well as improved economic trends and quality of
> > > > > life."
> > > > >


SRF (Self-Realization Fellowship) out on the West coast host group meditations 
during the week that are open to people practicing a silent meditation.  Those 
are real nice and long meditations too.  Lot of people meditate with them for a 
group meditation. Nice places. Can walk in and just sit down.6:30pm a lot 
of days, pacific coast time. 


> > > > 
> > > > Though they don't really want many of us as meditators in the domes, 
> > > > the larger Fairfield ecumenical meditation starts daily at 7:30AM and 
> > > > 5:00PM.  A longer meditation starts 20 minutes earlier or later.  
> > > > 
> > > > Of course individual times vary some.  But it is amazing grace every 
> > > > morning and evening around here by virtue of the larger meditating 
> > > > community here.
> > > > 
> > > > -Buck
> > > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Lot of people do a second meditation starting around 10:30AM too.
> > > 
> > >   
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" yifuxero@ wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Charisma, May 2011; p. 31:
> > > > > > > "From AD 555 until the AD 800's [i.e. invasions by the Vikings],
> > > > > there was a 24/7 prayer watch of as many as 3,000 people in Bangor,
> > > > > Ireland, that transformed the country and took the gospel to other
> > > > > European nations".
> > > > > > > http://www.prayerhouse.co.za/pdf/BANGOR,_555_AD.pdf
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Ecumenical Group Meditation

[Buck]

Minimum of an hour and quarter meditation each. Also recommended up to two and 
a quarter hours.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> the larger Fairfield ecumenical meditation starts daily at 7:30AM and 5:00PM. 
>  A longer meditation starts 20 earlier.
> 
> 
> > > > 
> > > > >
> > > > > Time and again as steps in progress, group meditation evidently drags
> > > > consciousness out of darkness:
> > > > >
> > > > You know, "Scientific research has shown that group practice of
> > > > meditation creates coherence in collective consciousness, eliminates
> > > > collective stress, and raises life to be increasingly in accord with
> > > > Natural Law, as indicated by reduction of crime, accidents, violence,
> > > > and sickness, as well as improved economic trends and quality of
> > > > life."
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Though they don't really want many of us as meditators in the domes, the 
> > > larger Fairfield ecumenical meditation starts daily at 7:30AM and 5:00PM. 
> > >  A longer meditation starts 20 minutes earlier or later.  
> > > 
> > > Of course individual times vary some.  But it is amazing grace every 
> > > morning and evening around here by virtue of the larger meditating 
> > > community here.
> > > 
> > > -Buck
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > Lot of people do a second meditation starting around 10:30AM too.
> > 
> >   
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" yifuxero@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Charisma, May 2011; p. 31:
> > > > > > "From AD 555 until the AD 800's [i.e. invasions by the Vikings],
> > > > there was a 24/7 prayer watch of as many as 3,000 people in Bangor,
> > > > Ireland, that transformed the country and took the gospel to other
> > > > European nations".
> > > > > > http://www.prayerhouse.co.za/pdf/BANGOR,_555_AD.pdf
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Ecumenical Group Meditation

[Buck]

the larger Fairfield ecumenical meditation starts daily at 7:30AM and 5:00PM.  
A longer meditation starts 20 earlier.


> > > 
> > > >
> > > > Time and again as steps in progress, group meditation evidently drags
> > > consciousness out of darkness:
> > > >
> > > You know, "Scientific research has shown that group practice of
> > > meditation creates coherence in collective consciousness, eliminates
> > > collective stress, and raises life to be increasingly in accord with
> > > Natural Law, as indicated by reduction of crime, accidents, violence,
> > > and sickness, as well as improved economic trends and quality of
> > > life."
> > >
> > 
> > Though they don't really want many of us as meditators in the domes, the 
> > larger Fairfield ecumenical meditation starts daily at 7:30AM and 5:00PM.  
> > A longer meditation starts 20 minutes earlier or later.  
> > 
> > Of course individual times vary some.  But it is amazing grace every 
> > morning and evening around here by virtue of the larger meditating 
> > community here.
> > 
> > -Buck
> >
> 
> 
> Lot of people do a second meditation starting around 10:30AM too.
> 
>   
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" yifuxero@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Charisma, May 2011; p. 31:
> > > > > "From AD 555 until the AD 800's [i.e. invasions by the Vikings],
> > > there was a 24/7 prayer watch of as many as 3,000 people in Bangor,
> > > Ireland, that transformed the country and took the gospel to other
> > > European nations".
> > > > > http://www.prayerhouse.co.za/pdf/BANGOR,_555_AD.pdf
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bye-Bye Bin Laden?

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
>  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" whynotnow7@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Interesting stuff - Why must there be an incompatibility 
> > > between the two ideas? The one premise is that birth of 
> > > the universe began, and the other, that the universe has 
> > > always been.
> >
> > This is going way over my head but as I understand it in my 
> > simplistic dumbed down version, there was a time before the 
> > big bang
> 
> Ah ha!.  You've done it Curtis.  You have proved John's point 
> with Barry's own words.  It is a small bang that creates human 
> life, but it is the big bang that creates the universe.  Case 
> closed!

Not at all. I'm frankly surprised that you're so
simplistic. What if the "big bang" is merely a 
local phenomenon, spawning a local universe that
is merely a tiny part of a much larger one that
never went out of existence? What if the big bang
were nothing more than a pimple on the young, teen-
aged face of the larger universe?

My original point was that human beings seem to 
find it impossible to conceive of the universe *not*
having a beginning. So they make up creation myths
about that beginning. They have endless debates on
what was present *before* the beginning that made
it possible. But almost no one ever takes on the
underlying assumption -- THAT there was a beginning.

THAT is what I'm taking on. THAT is what John's 
argument depends on. Take that away, and the entire
argument is meaningless.

[FairfieldLife] 'And Pissed by use of name: Geronimo'

[Robert]

 AP – FILE - This undated file photo shows the Chiricahua Apache Geronimo, late 
in his life. The leader of … 

By SUSAN MONTOYA BRYAN, Associated Press Susan Montoya Bryan, Associated Press 
– 1 hr 9 mins ago

Geronimo. The U.S. Senate Indian Affairs Committee didn't know when it 
scheduled a hearing on racial stereotypes that members would have such an 
emotionally charged example to discuss. But the use of the Apache leader's 
moniker as a code name for Osama bin Laden has appalled many Native Americans 
and drawn calls for an apology.
A legendary warrior, Geronimo was known for his ability to walk without leaving 
footprints, allowing him to evade thousands of Mexican and U.S. soldiers, much 
like bin Laden evaded capture for the past decade.
But for Native Americans, there's an important difference: Geronimo was a hero 
— not a terrorist.
The issue has resulted in statements of disapproval from tribal leaders, scores 
of angry comments on social network sites and a call for President Barack Obama 
to apologize.
Thursday's hearing was scheduled long before details about the Geronimo code 
name became public. However, the committee will address the matter, said 
Loretta Tuell, staff director and chief counsel for the committee.
Many Native Americans say that while they are angered, they are not surprised. 
They say the code name is yet another insult in a long, tumultuous history with 
the federal government.
"We've been oppressed for so long, it just doesn't matter anymore," said Leon 
Curley, a Navajo and Marine veteran from Gallup, N.M. "The government does what 
it wants when it wants. The name calling is going to stay around forever. But 
when you think about it, this is an insult."
Even Jeff Houser, chairman of Geronimo's Fort Sill Apache Tribe, noted in a 
letter to Obama that the decision behind the code name stemmed from an ongoing 
cultural disconnect, not malice. But the damage is the same.
"We are quite certain that the use of the name Geronimo as a code for Osama bin 
Laden was based on misunderstood and misconceived historical perspectives of 
Geronimo and his armed struggle against the United States and Mexican 
governments," Houser wrote.
"However, to equate Geronimo or any other Native American figure with Osama bin 
Laden, a mass murderer and cowardly terrorist, is painful and offensive to our 
Tribe and to all Native Americans."
The White House referred questions on the matter to the U.S. Defense 
Department, which said no disrespect was meant to Native Americans.
The department wouldn't elaborate on the use of Geronimo's name but said code 
names typically are chosen randomly and allow those working on a mission to 
communicate without divulging information to adversaries.
The Apaches are not alone when it comes to battling the impact of stereotypes.
The Seminole Tribe of Florida is still waiting to for an apology from Obama 
over a court brief filed earlier this year that compared the tribe's ancestors 
to al-Qaida. The Defense Department clarified the use of the Seminole 
reference, but it wasn't enough for the tribe, Chairman Mitchell Cypress said 
in a letter to the president Wednesday.
"Once again, our nation's native people were categorized as terrorists," he 
wrote, referring to the Geronimo code name. "The time has never been more 
appropriate and necessary for you to issue an apology to Native America."
The U.S. military has a long tradition of naming weapons and helicopters after 
American Indian tribes, chiefs and artifacts, a policy that became official 
with a 1969 Army regulation. The rule was later rescinded, but a 2009 Army 
Times article said the practice continues today "as a way to honor America's 
war fighter heritage."
The military also has a history with the word Geronimo; American paratroopers 
in World War II started using it as a war cry in the early 1940s. It's possible 
they picked up the term from the Paramount Pictures movie "Geronimo!" — about a 
West Point graduate and his Army regiment's attempt to capture the warrior — 
which was released around the same time.
The reason behind the name's use in the bin Laden raid has been the subject of 
much speculation. 
Some think it's because the al-Qaida leader, like Geronimo, was able to elude 
capture for so many years. Others say it's because the government considered 
both men terrorists, and some have suggested the guerrilla-style raid on bin 
Laden's compound was reflective of the Apache's fighting techniques. 
Louis Maynahonah, a Navy veteran and chairman of the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, 
said he doesn't believe the code name was meant to be derogatory. He pointed to 
the name's use as a paratrooper war cry and to the fleets of military aircraft 
named after Indian tribes, including the Apache helicopter. 
"It's symbolic to me of the Army at the time trying to capture Geronimo," he 
said of the code name. "They had a heck of time because he used to slip back 
across the Mexican border. This bin Laden has