[FairfieldLife] Math test

[sparaig]

So, which is the largest set:

all the positive numbers 1,2,3,4,5...

all the even numbers ...,-4,-2,0,2,4,6,8...

all the real numbers between 0 and 1

?



The guy that codified this branch of mathematics (set theory) was named Georg 
Cantor. He eventually died in a sanatorium following a serious illness, after a 
lifetime of being in and out of mental hospitals. Many of his contemporaries 
believed that his theories were indeed insane.

L.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Soma Is Available

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> The amrit kalash from MAPI is the best kept secret in the
> market.  And it's legal too.  If you have been meditating
> for a while, you can feel the difference in your physiology
> after you take the kalash in a few minutes.

Most of the folks who worked at the Manhattan Center in
the '80s had grown up in the '60s. One of them told me
that when Amrit Kalash first became available, somebody
brought in a jar and all the folks in the office had a
spoonful. After about 10 minutes they looked at each
other with big grins, and said, "Drugs!"

Cracked me up.

[FairfieldLife] Soma Is Available

[John]

The amrit kalash from MAPI is the best kept secret in the market.  And it's 
legal too.  If you have been meditating for a while, you can feel the 
difference in your physiology after you take the kalash in a few minutes.

[FairfieldLife] Avoid....

[seventhray1]

Super 8.  Corny, dumb, boring. Sort of astounding that Steven Spielberg 
produces or co-produces this quality movie.  But then again, it seems to me 
he's lost his touch.

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin and Paul Revere

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Alex Stanley
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 8:10 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin and Paul Revere


I also got only two wrong, Roosevelt/SCOTUS and Lincoln/Douglas.

 

I've been watching Ken Burns' Civil War series recently, so I knew
Lincoln/Douglas.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin and Paul Revere

[authfriend]

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

> > I spent some time on the Roosevelt/SCOTUS question
> > because I thought what turned out to be the right answer
> > was wrong, but trickily so. I finally went with it only
> > after figuring none of the others could possibly be
> > right.
> 
> Even with the help of multiple choice, this was not an easy
> test for the average bear.  It helps if you are a good
> guesser, but you have to know something about American
> history as well. I nearly missed the one on the Lincoln/Douglas
> debates, but guessed correctly. I got the Roosevelt/SCOTUS
> question right because I recently read about it on Wikipedia
> while researching political trivia questions for a fundraiser
> that I'm organizing for the Democrats.

Aha, thank you! I thought it was the wrong answer because
I had it in my mind that he *had* packed the court instead
of merely threatening to do so. I guess I was remembering
that he did end up appointing lots of justices because he
was in office for so long, and I got that mixed up with
the court-packing threat.

 
> "The Supreme Court became Roosevelt's primary focus during his second term, 
> after the court overturned many of his programs. In particular in 1935 the 
> Court unanimously ruled that the National Recovery Act (NRA) was an 
> unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the president. Roosevelt 
> stunned Congress in early 1937 by proposing a law allowing him to appoint up 
> to six new justices, what he referred to as a "persistent infusion of new 
> blood."[104] This "court packing" plan ran into intense political opposition 
> from his own party, led by Vice President Garner, since it upset the 
> separation of powers and gave the President control over the Court. 
> Roosevelt's proposals for the court failed; shortly thereafter the president 
> took another political fall with the nomination of Hugo Black to the court. 
> After Black was confirmed, Black and Roosevelt were widely attacked in the 
> press when it was revealed that Black had been a member of the Ku Klux 
> Klan.[105] Nevertheless, by 1941 Roosevelt had appointed eight justices to 
> the court."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin and Paul Revere

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > > [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
> > > > On Behalf Of authfriend
> > > > Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 11:20 AM
> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin and Paul Revere
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > >  , "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > Let's all take it and see how we do, without Googling the
> > > > > > answers. I got two wrong.
> > > > 
> > > [I wrote:]
> > > > > Excellent. I got four wrong, 29 out of 33. Got three about
> > > > > financial stuff and the one about the anti-Federalists wrong.
> > > 
> > >  
> > > > I blew the one on the Gettysburg Address. I figured Lincoln
> > > > was quoting the Declaration of Independence, but he coined
> > > > the phrase. The other one I got wrong was Roosevelt appointing
> > > > additional members to the Supreme Court. Hadn't known that.
> > > 
> > > It would be interesting to see what questions folks who
> > > had high scores got wrong. I'll bet they'd be all over
> > > the map, strange little holes in each individual's
> > > knowledge that just never got filled in even though they
> > > have a broad knowledge base.
> > 
> > I also got only two wrong, Roosevelt/SCOTUS and Lincoln/Douglas.
> 
> I have to admit that if I had to come up with the answers
> to the questions on my own, rather than picking from
> multiple possible answers, I would probably have done
> quite poorly. And I do better than I should on multiple-
> guess, I think, because as an editor, I find many of the
> wrong answers just *sound* wrong, vaguely worded and/or
> too simplistic or otherwise fishy. I'm more likely to get
> an answer right because I've been able to rule out the
> wrong ones than because I actually knew what the answer
> was.
> 
> I spent some time on the Roosevelt/SCOTUS question
> because I thought what turned out to be the right answer
> was wrong, but trickily so. I finally went with it only
> after figuring none of the others could possibly be
> right.
>

Even with the help of multiple choice, this was not an easy test for the 
average bear.  It helps if you are a good guesser, but you have to know 
something about American history as well. I nearly missed the one on the 
Lincoln/Douglas debates, but guessed correctly. I got the Roosevelt/SCOTUS 
question right because I recently read about it on Wikipedia while researching 
political trivia questions for a fundraiser that I'm organizing for the 
Democrats.

"The Supreme Court became Roosevelt's primary focus during his second term, 
after the court overturned many of his programs. In particular in 1935 the 
Court unanimously ruled that the National Recovery Act (NRA) was an 
unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the president. Roosevelt 
stunned Congress in early 1937 by proposing a law allowing him to appoint up to 
six new justices, what he referred to as a "persistent infusion of new 
blood."[104] This "court packing" plan ran into intense political opposition 
from his own party, led by Vice President Garner, since it upset the separation 
of powers and gave the President control over the Court. Roosevelt's proposals 
for the court failed; shortly thereafter the president took another political 
fall with the nomination of Hugo Black to the court. After Black was confirmed, 
Black and Roosevelt were widely attacked in the press when it was revealed that 
Black had been a member of the Ku Klux Klan.[105] Nevertheless, by 1941 
Roosevelt had appointed eight justices to the court."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin and Paul Revere

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> I have to admit that if I had to come up with the answers
> to the questions on my own, rather than picking from
> multiple possible answers, I would probably have done
> quite poorly. And I do better than I should on multiple-
> guess, I think, because as an editor, I find many of the
> wrong answers just *sound* wrong, vaguely worded and/or
> too simplistic or otherwise fishy. I'm more likely to get
> an answer right because I've been able to rule out the
> wrong ones than because I actually knew what the answer
> was.

As I was posting my previous response, I was thinking *exactly* the same thing. 
With multiple choice, I'm able to intellectually process the given choices. I 
sucked at US history, and I'd have failed miserably if I had to supply my own 
answers.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin and Paul Revere

[authfriend]

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

> Question: Which of the following fiscal policy combinations has the federal 
> government most often followed to stimulate economic activity when the 
> economy is in a severe recession?
> Your Answer: increasing both taxes and spending
> Correct Answer: decreasing taxes and increasing spending
> 
> Question: If taxes equal government spending, then:
> Your Answer: government debt is zero
> Correct Answer: tax per person equals government spending per person on 
> average

Those were two of the four I got wrong, and I picked the
same answers you did.

You and I bombed on the first one above because we've been
reading about how the *current* recession needs both tax
increases and increased spending--but that wasn't the
question. It was what has the government *most often* done.

Both of us should have known better than to pick "Government
debt is zero" for the second one! Government debt is *never*
zero. Also, the very specific way the right answer is worded
should have clued us in that it was the correct one. More
often than not, I think, in multiple-choice tests like this
one, longer, more complex answers are more likely to be
correct than shorter, simple answers.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin and Paul Revere

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> > >
> > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
> > > On Behalf Of authfriend
> > > Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 11:20 AM
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin and Paul Revere
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > >  , "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > Let's all take it and see how we do, without Googling the
> > > > > answers. I got two wrong.
> > > 
> > [I wrote:]
> > > > Excellent. I got four wrong, 29 out of 33. Got three about
> > > > financial stuff and the one about the anti-Federalists wrong.
> > 
> >  
> > > I blew the one on the Gettysburg Address. I figured Lincoln
> > > was quoting the Declaration of Independence, but he coined
> > > the phrase. The other one I got wrong was Roosevelt appointing
> > > additional members to the Supreme Court. Hadn't known that.
> > 
> > It would be interesting to see what questions folks who
> > had high scores got wrong. I'll bet they'd be all over
> > the map, strange little holes in each individual's
> > knowledge that just never got filled in even though they
> > have a broad knowledge base.
> 
> I also got only two wrong, Roosevelt/SCOTUS and Lincoln/Douglas.

I have to admit that if I had to come up with the answers
to the questions on my own, rather than picking from
multiple possible answers, I would probably have done
quite poorly. And I do better than I should on multiple-
guess, I think, because as an editor, I find many of the
wrong answers just *sound* wrong, vaguely worded and/or
too simplistic or otherwise fishy. I'm more likely to get
an answer right because I've been able to rule out the
wrong ones than because I actually knew what the answer
was.

I spent some time on the Roosevelt/SCOTUS question
because I thought what turned out to be the right answer
was wrong, but trickily so. I finally went with it only
after figuring none of the others could possibly be
right.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin and Paul Revere

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Tom Pall
> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 8:09 AM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Sarah Palin and Paul Revere
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Rick Archer  wrote:
> 
>  
> 
> Yes sir just when you thought she couldn't get any dumber:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpHfY1Hor9g
> 
> And then Stephen Colbert does a send up - beautiful  (from Daily Kos):
> howl-arious
> 
> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/07/982824/-Sarah-Palin-Vindicated:Colb
> ert-Re-enactment-Proves-It!?via=siderec
>  bert-Re-enactment-Proves-It%21?via=siderec> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> So that's what all these years of serving Maharishi, being on Purusha and
> teaching TTC is all about, eh, Rick?   You are special, Palin is dumb?  You
> and your version of history are valid, you have the one and only true
> version of history while Palin is laughable?   Small wonder Barry and Vaj
> linger here.  Somebody has to show us the errors in our thoughts and the way
> to approach Their teachings with appreciation and humility. 
> 
>  
> 
> I'll bet I'd beat Palin on this civics test:
> http://www.isi.org/quiz.aspx?q=FE5C3B47-9675-41E0-9CF3-072BB31E2692
> 
>  
> 
> Let's all take it and see how we do, without Googling the answers. I got two
> wrong. That doesn't make me "special", or her "dumb". It's all relative. 
> 
>  
> 
> I do believe I'm less delusional though. I wouldn't take the Presidency if
> it were handed to me, because I know I am vastly unqualified. The fact that
> she thinks she might be qualified means to me that she's got some serious
> screws loose. 
> 
>  
> 
> History is history. It may be interpreted differently, and some things may
> be recorded inaccurately, but the account of Paul Revere's ride is hasn't
> been disputed since it happened. Palin's account of it was clearly
> erroneous, and her attempts to justify her account, pathetic. You're not one
> of those people trying to edit the Paul Revere Wikipedia page are you?
>

I got 30 out of 33.

Incorrect Answers:

Question: Free markets typically secure more economic prosperity than 
government's centralized planning because:
Your Answer: more tax revenue can be generated from free enterprise
Correct Answer: the price system utilizes more local knowledge of means 
and ends

Question: Which of the following fiscal policy combinations has the federal 
government most often followed to stimulate economic activity when the economy 
is in a severe recession?
Your Answer: increasing both taxes and spending
Correct Answer: decreasing taxes and increasing spending

Question: If taxes equal government spending, then:
Your Answer: government debt is zero
Correct Answer: tax per person equals government spending per person on 
average

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin and Paul Revere

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
> > On Behalf Of authfriend
> > Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 11:20 AM
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin and Paul Revere
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> >  , "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> > 
> > > > Let's all take it and see how we do, without Googling the
> > > > answers. I got two wrong.
> > 
> [I wrote:]
> > > Excellent. I got four wrong, 29 out of 33. Got three about
> > > financial stuff and the one about the anti-Federalists wrong.
> 
>  
> > I blew the one on the Gettysburg Address. I figured Lincoln
> > was quoting the Declaration of Independence, but he coined
> > the phrase. The other one I got wrong was Roosevelt appointing
> > additional members to the Supreme Court. Hadn't known that.
> 
> It would be interesting to see what questions folks who
> had high scores got wrong. I'll bet they'd be all over
> the map, strange little holes in each individual's
> knowledge that just never got filled in even though they
> have a broad knowledge base.

I also got only two wrong, Roosevelt/SCOTUS and Lincoln/Douglas.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin and Paul Revere

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of authfriend
> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 11:20 AM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin and Paul Revere
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> 
> > > Let's all take it and see how we do, without Googling the
> > > answers. I got two wrong.
> 
[I wrote:]
> > Excellent. I got four wrong, 29 out of 33. Got three about
> > financial stuff and the one about the anti-Federalists wrong.

 
> I blew the one on the Gettysburg Address. I figured Lincoln
> was quoting the Declaration of Independence, but he coined
> the phrase. The other one I got wrong was Roosevelt appointing
> additional members to the Supreme Court. Hadn't known that.

It would be interesting to see what questions folks who
had high scores got wrong. I'll bet they'd be all over
the map, strange little holes in each individual's
knowledge that just never got filled in even though they
have a broad knowledge base.

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin and Paul Revere

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of nablusoss1008
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 11:35 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin and Paul Revere

 

And being on Purusha, I'm not so sure about that. He was in the Philippines,
but I doubt he went to India after that, nor was in that group of americans
who came to Boppard and later received the Purusha Programme in Washington
1982.

I was on Purusha from its inception until 1987. And doing the Purusha thing
since about 1972 on my own, until there was a formal program.

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin and Paul Revere

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of authfriend
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 11:20 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin and Paul Revere

 

  

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

> Let's all take it and see how we do, without Googling the
> answers. I got two wrong.

Excellent. I got four wrong, 29 out of 33. Got three about
financial stuff and the one about the anti-Federalists wrong.

They say, "The average score for all 2,508 Americans taking
the following test was 49%; college educators scored 55%."

Do they really mean college *educators*, i.e., professors?
Or is that a typo for college *educated*? If the former,
that's really scary.

 

I blew the one on the Gettysburg Address. I figured Lincoln was quoting the
Declaration of Independence, but he coined the phrase. The other one I got
wrong was Roosevelt appointing additional members to the Supreme Court.
Hadn't known that.

 

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): Sat Jun 11 00:00:00 2011
End Date (UTC): Sat Jun 18 00:00:00 2011
110 messages as of (UTC) Sat Jun 11 23:36:12 2011

20 authfriend 
12 nablusoss1008 
11 Yifu 
 8 turquoiseb 
 7 Ravi Yogi 
 6 merudanda 
 5 whynotnow7 
 5 curtisdeltablues 
 5 cardemaister 
 5 Robert 
 4 sparaig 
 3 seventhray1 
 3 raunchydog 
 2 wayback71 
 2 WillyTex 
 2 Rick Archer 
 2 Bhairitu 
 2 "do.rflex" 
 1 pranamoocher 
 1 Tom Pall 
 1 Sal Sunshine 
 1 John 
 1 Dick Mays 
 1 Alex Stanley 

Posters: 24
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] 2081 - Short film

[Bhairitu]

"2081" based on Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron" is now available for 
rent on YouTube (as well as some lower quality free versions uploaded 
and not taken down yet).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tvqsv1pPSbg
http://www.finallyequal.com/trailer.html
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1282015/

As also mentioned back then I first saw this as part of a PBS production 
of "Between Time and Timbuktu" back in the 1970s.  A segment from that 
production:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nybUnFiyjjA

And Showtime did a version in 1995 which is also up on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmEOI5zwFMM

[FairfieldLife] TBT: attachment is as attachment does (was Re: Maharishi ignored curtis)

[authfriend]

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

> So one more time, just for the record, here's what I
> do for fun on this forum, laid out for those I do it
> to. My theory is that the *least* spiritual trait or
> characteristic is attachment -- to one's ideas or 
> concepts or chosen dogma, to one's teacher or spiritual
> tradition, and most of all to one's self image. So 
> when I notice someone who consistently wears "Push Me"
> attachment buttons on their sleeve, I push them. The
> pushees *almost always* react by going bat-shit crazy 
> and *demonstrating* their level of attachment.

You know what, Barry? Not even you would believe
this excuse if the shoe were on the other foot. If
a TMer consistently demonized and lied about TM
critics and claimed he was doing it to make them
demonstrate their "level of attachment," you'd see
through it in a nanosecond.

Nobody believes you, either. It's just barely
possible *you* believe you, but if so you're doing
an incredible job of deluding yourself.

You demonize and lie about people because you're a 
psychological sadist. And you're a psychological
sadist because your own self-image (the image you
have of yourself, not the image you try to sell
others of the light-hearted button-pusher) is so
feeble.

You lack the self-confidence to interact with 
people you disagree with in a healthy way. The
only way you feel safe in such an interaction is
to bluster and attack, trying to make the person
you're talking to--or *at*--feel even smaller
than you do.

But Barry, it just doesn't *work*. Nobody is
fooled. You're simply not skillful enough to hide
your real motivations, at least not from other
people.

You'll either ignore this post because you can't
deal with it, or you'll put on a big show of crowing
that you made me go "bat-shit crazy" by pushing my
buttons.

You didn't. I'm not bat-shit crazy. Nobody believes
that (although you might get your dittoheads to pipe
up to support you).

Don't you ever wish you could *stop* this self-
destructive cycle and be *real*? You might find it
wasn't so bad. You might even find it a whole lot
more rewarding than what you've been doing to
yourself for so many years.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bride of Real, Or Memorex

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> I'm curious as to how the book larnin' set on this forum,
> who have never met the teacher they feel they have a 
> relationship with, will react to the suggestion that if
> they *had* met him they might have been able to develop
> a direct mind-to-mind relationship with him.
>

It's a heart thang, not a mind thang and it has nothing to do whether you met 
Maharishi or not. Either you fell in love with him or you didn't. As he would 
say, "Love has no reason" and "Funnily enough, it's the Self loving the Self."

[FairfieldLife] Speculating about CC instead of doing the work[was Re:Two...questions from Turq]

[authfriend]

Just wanted to add one point to this:

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

> > I don't care if you don't speak out against a guy you
> > consider an ally here.  And I hope you understand
> > better why I feel the same way about getting in between
> > you and Barry.
> 
> With a very few exceptions of people who don't pull a
> lot of weight here, I don't make any such distinctions
> about whom I speak out against when I think they're
> being unfair. You obviously do. You consider Barry an
> "ally," so you don't want to risk chastising him no
> matter how despicable his behavior is.

Barry's most recent Big Lies about me, as it happens,
were contained in two posts *addressed to you*, in
response to posts of yours. You didn't reply to either
of his posts, but I strongly suspect you read them,
because there was a lot of more general stuff in them
as well.

So it isn't as if you were just virtuously not reading
exchanges between him and me. These were posts *to you
from your ally*, posts he clearly wanted you to read,
telling you things about me that you knew were not true.

And even then you couldn't bring yourself to do the
right thing and speak up. That's really a step beyond
simply not "getting in between" me and Barry.

If Jim were to respond to one of my posts with what I
knew to be lies about you, I wouldn't hesitate for a
split-second to call him on them.

Frankly, I wouldn't want to *have* an "ally" who was
a liar.

Just for kicks, here's a list of the specific lies
(i.e., deliberate untruths), which you knew were lies,
in those two posts Barry addressed to you:

--I'm a "TB."

--I told you I was in the room with MMY when he was
lecturing.

--I have consistently "attempted to imply" that I've
sat in an audience with MMY.

--I'm "outrageously sensitive" about never having
spent time with MMY.

--I present myself as "the most knowledgeable about
what MMY taught."

--Barry got me to "post out" in a single day with
one sentence.

--My assertions that I don't lie are "laughable."

--I've never displayed a sense of humor.

There were other lies, including about his own behavior.

And it really won't do for you to claim you aren't sure
any of the above are lies. But you swallowed them all
with nary a peep.

I'm sorry, but I think that really shows a profound
lack of ethics on your part, a "sin of omission," as
it were.

I'm hardly the only person he lies about, either. He
causes a tremendous amount of dissension and anger 
on FFL because of his lack of concern for truth. You
know as well as I do that his criticisms of MMY and TM
aren't what folks are primarily objecting to.

He respects you, or says he does. If you'd speak up
once in a while and let him know you don't approve of
his behavior, you'd be doing a service to FFL and
everyone on it, including him. Shutting your eyes to
it makes you complicit.





> Barry's a special case. "Unfair" doesn't begin to cover
> it. He's at the Rush Limbaugh level of "unfair." Worse,
> actually. No comparison with anything Jim has ever said.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Videos of Maharishi posted on Famous in History and other delights

[raunchydog]

What a great find! I especially look forward to seeing the early tapes of 
Maharishi that I loved so much. Thanks for posting this.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Dick Mays  wrote:
>
> From: Ken Chawkin 
> 
> What an interesting site, and collection of You Tube videos!
> 
> Maharishi Mahesh Yogi | Famous In History
> http://videomanic.com/famousinhistory/maharishi-mahesh-yogi
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: For all lovers of wisdom

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> Master of My Heart
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs7xWd2cb7c
>

Thanks, Nabby. Beautiful slide show. I've heard Paul sing this tender 
devotional song to Guru Dev many times and it still brings a tear to my eye.

I found Rick Stanley's, song from "Love and God" on YouTube, played on his 
homemade Celtic Harp, Guru Purnima 2008. I liked his guitar version better, but 
it's lovely, just the same. Enjoy. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7tEPXhfDnQ

Jai Guru Dev

[FairfieldLife] Monday: sell short!?

[cardemaister]

http://www.arabianmoney.net/us-dollar/2011/06/11/black-monday-looms-for-stock-markets-sell-sell-sell/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sai Baba's Trinket

[pranamoocher]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" jr_esq@ wrote:
> >
> > A couple of weeks ago, I attended a jyotish seminar in Palo
> > Alto CA, and one of the attendees showed me a small gold
> > medallion showing the image of Sai Baba.  The guy said that
> > Sai Baba gave it after manifesting the medallion from his
> > own hands.  I looked at the back of the medallion and saw
> > the initials GH in small letters.
> >
> > I asked the guy what the initials meant.  He said that he
> > didn't know.  Was the medallion made by human hands, or from
> > the mind of Sai Baba?
>
> If he was capable of manifesting a medallion in the first
> place, I don't see why he couldn't have manifested a
> medallion with initials on the back. ;-)

I heard Pawn Stars producer is interested in having this on the next
show as a possible "buy" for Rick's store.  However, they will require
an opinion from their Handwriting expert to determine if the initials
were stamped on or "willed" onto the trinket.  The value will no doubt
be much greater if the initials were not manually stamped on...

[FairfieldLife] For all lovers of wisdom

[nablusoss1008]

Master of My Heart
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs7xWd2cb7c

[FairfieldLife] Re: Videos of Maharishi posted on Famous in History and other delights

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Dick Mays  wrote:
>
> From: Ken Chawkin 
> 
> What an interesting site, and collection of You Tube videos!
> 
> Maharishi Mahesh Yogi | Famous In History

http://videomanic.com/famousinhistory/maharishi-mahesh-yogi>http://videomanic.com/famousinhistory/maharishi-mahesh-yogi

What an incredible treasure ! Who compiled this, you ? 

I haven't even scratced the surface of this but can highly reccomend "Rare 
footage of Maharishi Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in LA"

and this classic: Man is made in the image of God
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyPJaxF1S4w

[FairfieldLife] 'Shri Charpata Panjarika Stotram' ('Bhaja Govindam') sung by Guru Dev

[nablusoss1008]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbEDqdJSxoo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oxh2Txy9_C4&feature=related

Maharishi sings Guru Puja
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxrCqMuVods&feature=related

Puja to Guru Dev
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kTEaYuU5mQ&feature=related

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sai Baba's Trinket

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> A couple of weeks ago, I attended a jyotish seminar in Palo
> Alto CA, and one of the attendees showed me a small gold
> medallion showing the image of Sai Baba.  The guy said that
> Sai Baba gave it after manifesting the medallion from his
> own hands.  I looked at the back of the medallion and saw
> the initials GH in small letters.
> 
> I asked the guy what the initials meant.  He said that he
> didn't know.  Was the medallion made by human hands, or from
> the mind of Sai Baba?

If he was capable of manifesting a medallion in the first
place, I don't see why he couldn't have manifested a
medallion with initials on the back. ;-)

[FairfieldLife] Speculating about CC instead of doing the work[was Re:Two...questions from Turq]

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> > 
> > > BTW; if you are so inclined, meditating on a (brown) deerskin
> > > is very cozy. It's not the physical warmt it creates, it is 
> > > something else, a protection, well worth trying, personally I
> > > love it and take it with me wherever I can.
> > 
> > Ugh, no thanks. I wouldn't at all mind sitting with (not
> > on) a live deer, if it wanted to sit with me. But I'd
> > much rather protect its life than kill the harmless
> > creature for my own protection.
> 
> I can see that point. However if you buy a deerskin it
> doesn't mean you killed it in any way.

I know, but it will have died for me.

> It still will protect you. Do try it !

I'll just have to do without. It would make me feel bad.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bride of Real, Or Memorex

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> [...]
> > To patiently have used his technology, like you have done,
> > with the blessings of Shri Guru Dev, means everything.
> 
> Nicely said.

Yes, it is, Nabby. Thanks.

[FairfieldLife] Videos of Maharishi posted on Famous in History and other delights

[Dick Mays]

From: Ken Chawkin 

What an interesting site, and collection of You Tube videos!

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi | Famous In History
http://videomanic.com/famousinhistory/maharishi-mahesh-yogi

[FairfieldLife] SRI SATHYA SAI BABA SINGS ABOUT THE REAL YOU (SATHYAM SIVAM SUNDERAM)

[nablusoss1008]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffiUgE8Fqic&feature=related

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sai Baba's Trinket

[seventhray1]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> I asked the guy what the initials meant. He said that he didn't know.
Was the medallion made by human hands, or from the mind of Sai Baba?
>
Only his hairdresser knows for sure

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bride of Real, Or Memorex

[seventhray1]

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

> For him distance means nothing.
>
> How many times have I been in a meeting with this glorious Yogi only
to find that amongst the 10 people present there was 8 different
opinions of what he actually said only minutes earlier; everyone
interperated what he said from their own level of consciousness.
>
> Being in the same room as Maharishi once, even 500 times means
nothing. Having been in a meeting with him means nothing. Sitting at his
feet for 12 years, like I did, means nothing.
>
> To patiently have used his technology, like you have done, with the
blessings of Shri Guru Dev, means everything.
>
Nabs, you've got me confused here.  Are you talking about MMY or
Mastercard?

[FairfieldLife] SAI BABA - AVE MARIA

[nablusoss1008]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVUhcU7ghkA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aroluySp6M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbX5eNAbpeo&playnext=1&list=PL828B1FACABB0E84F

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sai Baba's Trinket

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> A couple of weeks ago, I attended a jyotish seminar in Palo Alto CA, and one 
> of the attendees showed me a small gold medallion showing the image of Sai 
> Baba.  The guy said that Sai Baba gave it after manifesting the medallion 
> from his own hands.  I looked at the back of the medallion and saw the 
> initials GH in small letters.
> 
> I asked the guy what the initials meant.  He said that he didn't know.  Was 
> the medallion made by human hands, or from the mind of Sai Baba?


Benjamin Creme on Sai Baba;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aroluySp6M

[FairfieldLife] Asimov and those guys . . .

[do.rflex]

Asimov and those guys…
by Dennis G.

Noodling around the internet I found myself at a page  of quotations
from legendary Science Fiction writer Isaac Asimov
 . I  was
quite a fan of his work in my youth, but I haven't read him in 
years. As I was reading the quotes it seemed that he could be talking 
about our current crop of wingnuts and their twisted view of reality. 
For example:



"Anti-intellectualism has been a  constant thread winding its way
through our political and cultural life,  nurtured by the false notion
that democracy means that `my ignorance is  just as good as your
knowledge.'"
— Isaac  Asimov





"They won't listen. Do you know why?  Because they have certain
fixed notions about the past. Any change would  be blasphemy in their
eyes, even if it were the truth. They don't want  the truth; they
want their traditions."
—  Isaac  Asimov
  (Pebble in
the Sky)




"All the hundreds of millions of  people who, in their time,
believed the Earth was flat never succeeded  in unrounding it by an
inch."
— Isaac  Asimov



Now of course he wasn't talking about our current crop of wingnuts,
he  was talking about the wingnuts of his time that—while still 
crazy—maintained some grip on reality from time to time.

In our time  that grip has been lost and rejecting reality in any form
has become a  litmus test.

To be a serious contender for any office in the Tea Party  run
Republican Confederate Party you must attack reality at every 
opportunity. Word salads and fantasies are all you need. It is all a 
competition to see who can get the deepest into candyland—from
T-Paw's  insane fiscal plan
  to Santorum's  denial of science
  to
Newt's  new campaign strategy
  to Cain's  word limit on legislation 
 Rick  Perry's Day of Magic
  to well, anything Palin or Bachmann might  say—it is all
crazy town all the time.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/06/09/asimov-and-those-guys/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq

[Bhairitu]

On 06/11/2011 10:41 AM, sparaig wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>> On 06/08/2011 10:18 AM, sparaig wrote:
>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj   wrote:
 On Jun 8, 2011, at 2:52 AM, cardemaister wrote:
> [...]
> "Bhagavan S[h]ankara now left Prayaga, and travelling through the
> skies, reached the splendid city of Mahismati...
 One, I wouldn't base his spiritual view on a fairy tale or what one
 says. And two, siddhis as obstructions applies to path, not fruition.

>>> Certainly the sidhis are an obstruction.
>>>
>>> L.
>> Well now that WOULD really depend on the path.  They certainly aren't an
>> obstruction in many tantric paths. ;-)
>>
>> Oh well, at least you folks aren't discussing Wiener's penis. :-D
>>
> Well, by obstruction on the path, I meant that they were an 
> obstacle-to-be-overcome: something that strengthens you as you overcome it.
>
> Lawson

In tantra they are an adjunct which makes you stronger.

[FairfieldLife] Sai Baba's Trinket

[John]

A couple of weeks ago, I attended a jyotish seminar in Palo Alto CA, and one of 
the attendees showed me a small gold medallion showing the image of Sai Baba.  
The guy said that Sai Baba gave it after manifesting the medallion from his own 
hands.  I looked at the back of the medallion and saw the initials GH in small 
letters.

I asked the guy what the initials meant.  He said that he didn't know.  Was the 
medallion made by human hands, or from the mind of Sai Baba?

[FairfieldLife] Speculating about CC instead of doing the work[was Re:Two...questions from Turq]

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> 
> > BTW; if you are so inclined, meditating on a (brown) deerskin
> > is very cozy. It's not the physical warmt it creates, it is 
> > something else, a protection, well worth trying, personally I
> > love it and take it with me wherever I can.
> 
> Ugh, no thanks. I wouldn't at all mind sitting with (not
> on) a live deer, if it wanted to sit with me. But I'd
> much rather protect its life than kill the harmless
> creature for my own protection.


I can see that point. However if you buy a deerskin it doesn't mean you killed 
it in any way. It still will protect you. Do try it ! 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cool Sanskrit School Down Under!

[sparaig]

It kinda leaves out the main point: Knowledge is purifying.

Lawson

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Sydney Sanskrit School:
> > 
> > http://www.sanskritschool.org/#
> >
> 
> Hmmm... the slogan of that school
> 
>  na hi j�aanena sadRsham
> 
> ...seems to be taken from the Giitaa (IV 38)!
> 
>  Can't help feeling that it's a bit uncool
> to truncate a Giitaa hemistich like that.
> The whole hemis goes like this:
> 
>  na hi j�aanena sadRshaM pavitram iha vidyate.
> 
> Maharishi's translation:
> 
>  Truly there is in this world nothing so purifying
> as knowledge;
> 
> Truly (hi) there is (vidyate) in this world (iha: here)
>  nothing so (hmmm...na...sadRsham: not...such) purifying (pavitram:
> means of purification) as knowledge (j�aanena: instrumental
> singular from 'j�aanam');
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bride of Real, Or Memorex

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
[...]
> To patiently have used his technology, like you have done, with the blessings 
> of Shri Guru Dev, means everything.
>

Nicely said.


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin and Paul Revere

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> 
> > Let's all take it and see how we do, without Googling the
> > answers. I got two wrong.
> 
> Excellent. I got four wrong, 29 out of 33. Got three about
> financial stuff and the one about the anti-Federalists wrong.
> 
> They say, "The average score for all 2,508 Americans taking
> the following test was 49%; college educators scored 55%."
> 
> Do they really mean college *educators*, i.e., professors?
> Or is that a typo for college *educated*? If the former,
> that's really scary.
>

[I] answered 30 out of 33 correctly â€" 90.91 %

But I thought extra hard about the anti-Federalist one because I read your 
implicit caveat.

L

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bride of Real, Or Memorex

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> 
> > I'm curious as to how the book larnin' set on this forum,
> > who have never met the teacher they feel they have a 
> > relationship with, will react to the suggestion that if
> > they *had* met him they might have been able to develop
> > a direct mind-to-mind relationship with him.
> 
> I don't feel I have or had a relationship with MMY, so I
> guess you aren't asking me, huh?


This is one of the Turqo's repeated mantras; if you did not sit in his room you 
had no idea. It's a bluff. 

Maharishi even stated that "those close to me could be those fartherst away" He 
said that repeatedly, perhaps to make his secretaries understand that they were 
not as important as they thought. 

For him distance means nothing.

How many times have I been in a meeting with this glorious Yogi only to find 
that amongst the 10 people present there was 8 different opinions of what he 
actually said only minutes earlier; everyone interperated what he said from 
their own level of consciousness. 

Being in the same room as Maharishi once, even 500 times means nothing. Having 
been in a meeting with him means nothing. Sitting at his feet for 12 years, 
like I did, means nothing.

To patiently have used his technology, like you have done, with the blessings 
of Shri Guru Dev, means everything.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Spiritual Teachers: Real, or Memorex?

[WillyTex]

turquoiseb:
> Once the "first wave" of this revisionist history passed, and
> the individual teachers and TM Centers realized they'd been
> had, they wised up. When we at the Regional Office would get
> the latest dictum from International saying that we had to
> get all teachers to give back their copies of tapes X, Y and
> Z... 
>
What tapes? VHS video wasn't even invented until 1971 by JVC in 
Japan. The first VCR to use VHS was the Victor HR-3300, which 
was introduced on September 9, 1976. The Compact Cassette tape 
wasn't in widespread use until 1968. Barry must be dreaming 
that there were any video 'tapes' at SIMS in 1965. Maybe he's 
thinking about the early films of MMY. Most of MMY's early 
voice recording are on reel tape transfered to vinyl at World 
Pacific in Hollywood. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> On 06/08/2011 10:18 AM, sparaig wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Jun 8, 2011, at 2:52 AM, cardemaister wrote:
[...]
> >>> "Bhagavan S[h]ankara now left Prayaga, and travelling through the
> >>> skies, reached the splendid city of Mahismati...
> >> One, I wouldn't base his spiritual view on a fairy tale or what one
> >> says. And two, siddhis as obstructions applies to path, not fruition.
> >>
> > Certainly the sidhis are an obstruction.
> >
> > L.
> 
> Well now that WOULD really depend on the path.  They certainly aren't an 
> obstruction in many tantric paths. ;-)
> 
> Oh well, at least you folks aren't discussing Wiener's penis. :-D
>

Well, by obstruction on the path, I meant that they were an 
obstacle-to-be-overcome: something that strengthens you as you overcome it.

Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Speculating about CC instead of doing the work[was Re:Two...questions from Turq]

[authfriend]

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

> BTW; if you are so inclined, meditating on a (brown) deerskin
> is very cozy. It's not the physical warmt it creates, it is 
> something else, a protection, well worth trying, personally I
> love it and take it with me wherever I can.

Ugh, no thanks. I wouldn't at all mind sitting with (not
on) a live deer, if it wanted to sit with me. But I'd
much rather protect its life than kill the harmless
creature for my own protection.


 
> Don't try any other skin though unless you are an accomplished Master. Sit on 
> a tigerskin and you would probably encounter some violent challenges to your 
> meditation :-)
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Spiritual Teachers: Real, or Memorex?

[authfriend]

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

> Glenn Gould's recording company found ways to *edit out*
> his humming and moaning, so the Memorex set would not even
> be aware that he brought that kind of passion to his music.

Actually, I have several commercial recordings of Gould
in which his humming and moaning is very clearly audible.
I've heard many others on the radio of which the same is
true. Reviewers of his recordings constantly complain
about the humming.

Not relevant to the points Barry goes on to make, just
one more instance of his getting the facts wrong.

> Now think spiritual teachers.
> 
> There are some on this forum -- and there is no need to name
> them because you all know who they are -- who seem to feel
> that having only dealt with the Memorex version of Maharishi,
> they "know" the essence of "What he taught," and similarly
> "know" things about him as an individual or about his state
> of consciousness.

Barry is obviously including me in this, but he's got
his facts wrong *again* where I'm concerned. I don't
"feel" any of the above.


> You on this forum who met Maharishi, or who spent hours, days,
> weeks, months, and years sitting in rooms listening to him 
> talk, or working side by side with him getting to see *how*
> he worked, try to imagine for a moment the level of AVERSION
> a supposedly strong TMer must have had to have meditated 
> regularly for 20 to 30 years and yet *avoided* ever seeing
> him in public.

No aversion, no avoidance on my part. In fact, I went
to considerable lengths (as Barry knows, because I've
mentioned it several times) to attend a week-long WPA
in DC when it was said that he would be there. He didn't
show, unfortunately, but I enjoyed the course anyway.

> When it comes to spiritual teachers, my contention is that 
> there is a difference between real and Memorex. If nothing
> else, the Memorex version disallows any perception of the
> teacher's "vibe," and what it was like to be around him. 
> How can the Memorex set even *begin* to claim to be know-
> ledgeable enough about the subject of charisma or darshan
> if they have never experienced it? And yet they do.

Some may. I don't.


> Now try to imagine the Memorex set, who never knew that this
> was being done. There they'd be, sitting in some TM center
> or on some residence course thinking that they were getting
> the "real" Maharishi, all while listening to the 20-minute
> expurgated version of one of his tapes.

We were getting what the "real" Maharishi wanted us
to get. Expurgated or otherwise, those tapes contained
his "public teaching."

> But the biggest issue is that the Memorex set *never met 
> the man*. They never had a chance to sit through an unexpur-
> gated lecture, and watch his thought processes as he form-
> lated it, without the benefit of "revisionist history"
> editing later. More important, they never got to feel the
> "vibe" of the man, or see him in any of his...uh...lesser
> moments, like the ones in which he said "We never speak
> ill of others," and then followed it up -- sometimes in
> the *same* talk -- with "George W. Bush is a rakshasa"
> or "England is a Scorpion Nation." The Memorex set missed
> out on all of these moments that could potentially cause
> cognitive dissonance. 
> 
> My feeling is that this is exactly why they avoided ever
> seeing Maharishi "live." The Memorex set is *terrified*
> of cognitive dissonance. They like their "spiritual teach-
> ings" edited, simplified down to a simplistic level for
> the lowest common denominator, and expurgated. Very, very
> expurgated. IMO they studiously avoided ever seeing MMY
> "live" because they preferred their FANTASIES of the
> man, and didn't want those fantasies messed with by such
> a nasty thing as reality.

Utter, utter self-serving bullshit. Just for one thing,
if we wanted to preserve our fantasies, why on earth
would we be hanging out on FFL reading what his critics--
who did spend time with him--have to say about him?


> And yet they talk, talk, talk about the "truth" of "What
> Maharishi taught,"

Ooops, Barry's got "This is *what* MMY taught" mixed up
again with "What MMY taught is *true*." Not the same at
all.

> which they know solely from his tapes and
> his books (some of which were not even written by him). Truth?

Yes, as in, "It's true that he taught thus-and-so."

This one's a big loser for you, Barry. Do yourself a favor
and drop it.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cool Sanskrit School Down Under!

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>
> 
> Sydney Sanskrit School:
> 
> http://www.sanskritschool.org/#
>

Hmmm... the slogan of that school

 na hi jñaanena sadRsham

...seems to be taken from the Giitaa (IV 38)!

 Can't help feeling that it's a bit uncool
to truncate a Giitaa hemistich like that.
The whole hemis goes like this:

 na hi jñaanena sadRshaM pavitram iha vidyate.

Maharishi's translation:

 Truly there is in this world nothing so purifying
as knowledge;

Truly (hi) there is (vidyate) in this world (iha: here)
 nothing so (hmmm...na...sadRsham: not...such) purifying (pavitram:
means of purification) as knowledge (jñaanena: instrumental
singular from 'jñaanam');

[FairfieldLife] Speculating about CC instead of doing the work[was Re:Two...questions from Turq]

[nablusoss1008]

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

 
> Did he ever explain why a black deerskin had more value
> than a brown one?

I have never heard this and suspect it to be a lie by curtis, perhaps it makes 
him feel more important.

I have seen Maharishi's deerskin close up for years, one of my best friends 
have carried it on many occasions. They were all brown. 

Thousands of tapes of Maharishi is available to anyone on youtube and 
maharishichannel. I challenge anyone to find a frame with a black skin !

BTW; if you are so inclined, meditating on a (brown) deerskin is very cozy. 
It's not the physical warmt it creates, it is something else, a protection, 
well worth trying, personally I love it and take it with me wherever I can.

Don't try any other skin though unless you are an accomplished Master. Sit on a 
tigerskin and you would probably encounter some violent challenges to your 
meditation :-)

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Spiritual Teachers: Real, or Memorex?

[WillyTex]

> > ...they're reluctant to admit their own spiritual
> > laziness in never having expended the effort to
> > actually see him "live," and I think that they
> > cling to it because they actually *prefer* the
> > simplistic, heavily edited, expurgated version
> > of the man and "What he taught."
> >
merudanda:
> You can't *handle* the truth...
>
That's funny, but the truth is, almost nobody in the
TMO spent any prolonged time face-to-face, one on one,
with the Maharisihi, except maybe Jerry and Debbie
Jarvis. It is a myth that anyone spent any length of
time in the company of MMY. Apparently MMY visited
Fairfield, IA on one single occasion, and never even
set foot in Washington D.C. or Portland, OR.

Correct me if I'm wrong about this.

MMY was in Los Angeles only a few times, for a few
days, so after 1965, when he was at Lake Arrowhead,
he didn't spend much time with anyone associated with
SIMS or the rank and file that passed out leaflets.

It's a fact that MMY wasn't even visited by anyone
in the last twenty years of his life at Vlodrop.
Go figure. All these early details are available in
the book "Thirty Years Around the World".

I've probably spent more face-time with MMY at 433
than anyone on the FFL forum. I sat in the front
row at the theater on Wilshire Blvd on ALL occasions
when MMY was in LA. The last time I saw MMY was in
Houston, TX, when he recorded his most famous
lecture.

According to one course manager at the Majorrca TTC,
the Maharishi used to stay in a separate hotel, and
flew into town for just a few hours. One TTC
participant stated that he spend six months in South
Asia on a TTC and not once was visited by MMY!

So, what would a TTC participant be doing hanging
around MMY when they were supposed to be meditating
and rounding? One informant wrote that most of the
international staff were able to meet with MMY on
a boat a few times, but it looks like only one guy
ever got to ask MMY a question when Nadikishore or
Jemimah Pittman wasn't around.

Flagship Gottard, Seligsberg



So, I don't buy into the fable that any TMers have
been "inside" MMY's bedroom, alone with him, in the
dead of night wearing ankle bells. LoL!

>From what I've read, the high point of being with
MMY was to be able to sit down at the dinning table
with him for a fruit cup. Only THEN, could anyone
be considered a member of MMY's "inner circle".

MMY at Jones Hall:
http://www.rwilliams.us/jones-hall/


'An Introduction to SCI'
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
Live, Jones Hall, Houston, 1972
VHS Video, 60 min. Color.
MIU Historic Film Series

'A Promise for the Family of Man'
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
Audio Cassette, 60 min.
SIMS Film and Tape Library

"A Promise for the Family of Man"
DVD:
http://www.mumpress.com/videos/maharishi/n03.html

[FairfieldLife] Cool Sanskrit School Down Under!

[cardemaister]

Sydney Sanskrit School:

http://www.sanskritschool.org/#

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bride of Real, Or Memorex

[authfriend]

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

> I'm curious as to how the book larnin' set on this forum,
> who have never met the teacher they feel they have a 
> relationship with, will react to the suggestion that if
> they *had* met him they might have been able to develop
> a direct mind-to-mind relationship with him.

I don't feel I have or had a relationship with MMY, so I
guess you aren't asking me, huh?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin and Paul Revere

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Tom Pall
> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 8:09 AM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Sarah Palin and Paul Revere
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Rick Archer  wrote:
> 
>  
> 
> Yes sir just when you thought she couldn't get any dumber:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpHfY1Hor9g
> 
> And then Stephen Colbert does a send up - beautiful  (from Daily Kos):
> howl-arious
> 
> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/07/982824/-Sarah-Palin-Vindicated:Colb
> ert-Re-enactment-Proves-It!?via=siderec
>  bert-Re-enactment-Proves-It%21?via=siderec> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> So that's what all these years of serving Maharishi, being on Purusha and
> teaching TTC is all about, eh, Rick?   

The fellow made it to TTC in a time of history that was desperate for change. 
Alice Bailey and others had claimed the Christ to be incarnated "late this 
century", in fact the dates had been changed due to the success of WWII and 
placed much before the year 2000. And Maharishi had declared "The Dawn of the 
Age of Enlightenment".

Being the one who had taken upon himself to usher in the New Age what could he 
do ? He had to let anyone aboard. And he did. He even said that he was 
critisized in India for not testing his students before letting them in; with a 
smile he said "I will test them later". 
The Maharishi-denoucers on this forum failed that test.

And being on Purusha, I'm not so sure about that. He was in the Philippines, 
but I doubt he went to India after that, nor was in that group of americans who 
came to Boppard and later received the Purusha Programme in Washington 1982.

[FairfieldLife] Speculating about CC instead of doing the work[was Re:Two...questions from Turq]

[authfriend]

Forgot to respond to one bit:

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

> > > Right. And you went along with that design 110 percent.
> > > Did he specify black deerskins for you all?
> > 
> > No.  We learned from him that it had a value so we did
> > what we could to try it.  I knew people who had them and
> > said they were great.  Doug Henning had one and talked
> > with me about it.  We were obedient but not automatons.
> > We were sincere.  We wanted to do everything possible to
> > become enlightened.  It was not a flaw in us to want
> > that. That is my point to Jim.

It wasn't a flaw to want to do everything possible to
become enlightened, but there may have been a lack of
judgment involved as to whether every single thing MMY
mentioned made equal sense as one of those possibilities.

Did he ever explain why a black deerskin had more value
than a brown one?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Palin and Paul Revere

[authfriend]

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

> Let's all take it and see how we do, without Googling the
> answers. I got two wrong.

Excellent. I got four wrong, 29 out of 33. Got three about
financial stuff and the one about the anti-Federalists wrong.

They say, "The average score for all 2,508 Americans taking
the following test was 49%; college educators scored 55%."

Do they really mean college *educators*, i.e., professors?
Or is that a typo for college *educated*? If the former,
that's really scary.

[FairfieldLife] Speculating about CC instead of doing the work[was Re:Two...questions from Turq]

[authfriend]

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

> > Look, you can't have it both ways. Either we rank-and-
> > filers were denied the knowledge of what MMY taught his
> > teachers,>
> 
> Correct
> 
>  >or we got it filtered through the teachers in
> > the centers. Make up your mind, please.>
> 
> How is this confusing?

Uh, because it's contradictory? If you're going to pull
rank and say, Well, you never knew about such-and-such
because these were "higher teachings" that only his
teachers were given, you can't then turn around and claim
we *did* know about such-and-such because the teachers
told us.

> It depended on your relationship with the teachers in the
> center.  You tell me how it was for you.  For me, my
> teachers were very open about their special relationship
> with Maharishi and how important that was for evolution.

They knew a sucker when they saw one. ;-)

I didn't get any of that. I don't think it was a lack of
"trust" so much as a (very accurate) recognition that 
I'd be unlikely to respond positively. Not worth the
effort. I didn't hang around the center that much anyway.

As I went on to say, I had *friends* who were teachers,
but they weren't "my" teachers. I got to know one of
them, for example, at Riverside Church in NYC when we
were both working there as volunteers. Another I met
and became friends with when he was just a meditator.
He went off to TTC after awhile. We corresponded while
he was on TTC and resumed our "live" friendship when he
got back. I didn't get "pitches" from them, but they
did trust me with their gripes. (And "trust" would
indeed be the appopriate term here.) For all I know,
they didn't take "serving the master" to heart 
themselves.


> > I remember a residence course where someone asked about
> > the "serving the master" bit. Teacher said it had nothing
> > to do with us, flatly dismissed its relevance, discouraged
> > us from thinking service to the master was anything we
> > should be at all concerned with.
> 
> OK.  So you were unaware that serving a teacher was important.
> Did you read the Gita?

Sure. Before that residence course, I assumed the "serving
the master" bit applied only to the traditional Indian
guru-disciple relationship, and from where I sat, it sure
didn't look like MMY was that kind of guru, if he was even
a guru at all. And it never occurred to me to think of
teachers as his "disciples." That was just a different
world as far as I was concerned. What the teacher said on
the course reinforced that.


> I am not trying to make a case that it was all one way
> for everyone. My original piece was about a certain
> subset group of people who I was familiar with and who
> Jim reminded me of.  We can't really compare you and
> Jim in this regard because you were an active seeker
> of the intellectual aspect and Jim eschews it.

Or in many other regards. I never worked for the 
movement, just for one thing. He was actually far more
involved than I ever was.

However, a number of points in your post echoed things
you've seen me say here, and I don't think that was
accidental. I think you were deliberately including me.


> > Hierarchy was obvious, not "serving the master."
> 
> I am surprised to hear that you missed it but of course
> most people at centers did I guess.  We actively hid it
> from people we didn't think would buy in.  You had to
> earn the trust.

I think "trust" and "earn" are weasel words in this
context. It's not that you don't "trust" someone you
sense isn't going to buy in, you just don't bother to
waste the effort to do the selling job.


> > > But for me once I believed that
> > > Maharishi was who he claimed I did everything I could to
> > > get as much of him as I could and have a hard time with
> > > people who believed the same thing about him but didn't.
> > 
> > And you don't see that last sentence as something that
> > might lead somebody to say you were "seduced by MMY"?
> > Really?
> 
> That is a pretty creepy way to put it don't you think?  He
> didn't have to seduce me I was seeking him out.  It reminds
> me of how my parents call dealers pushers.  Now one ever
> pushed anything on me, I was glad to find a guy who was
> holding!  I  felt the same way about Maharishi,lucky to
> learn from him.

Dealers don't start movements and don't have much of a
philosophy; they surely don't put it on videotape for
their customers to watch.

But for that matter, you could say their product does
the seducing, just as MMY's techniques and philosophy
did. You began to "seek him out" because you'd been
seduced by his product and the claims he made for it.

I don't think "seduced" is far off the mark at all. It
may seem "creepy," but it isn't inaccurate. You didn't
just wake up one morning and say, "I think I'll go to
an intro TM lecture, learn the technique, and then
become a TM teacher and imbibe pure knowledge at the
feet of the Master."


> > > so fo

RE: [FairfieldLife] Sarah Palin and Paul Revere

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Tom Pall
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 8:09 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Sarah Palin and Paul Revere

 

  

On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Rick Archer  wrote:

 

Yes sir just when you thought she couldn't get any dumber:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpHfY1Hor9g

And then Stephen Colbert does a send up - beautiful  (from Daily Kos):
howl-arious

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/07/982824/-Sarah-Palin-Vindicated:Colb
ert-Re-enactment-Proves-It!?via=siderec
 

 


So that's what all these years of serving Maharishi, being on Purusha and
teaching TTC is all about, eh, Rick?   You are special, Palin is dumb?  You
and your version of history are valid, you have the one and only true
version of history while Palin is laughable?   Small wonder Barry and Vaj
linger here.  Somebody has to show us the errors in our thoughts and the way
to approach Their teachings with appreciation and humility. 

 

I'll bet I'd beat Palin on this civics test:
http://www.isi.org/quiz.aspx?q=FE5C3B47-9675-41E0-9CF3-072BB31E2692

 

Let's all take it and see how we do, without Googling the answers. I got two
wrong. That doesn't make me "special", or her "dumb". It's all relative. 

 

I do believe I'm less delusional though. I wouldn't take the Presidency if
it were handed to me, because I know I am vastly unqualified. The fact that
she thinks she might be qualified means to me that she's got some serious
screws loose. 

 

History is history. It may be interpreted differently, and some things may
be recorded inaccurately, but the account of Paul Revere's ride is hasn't
been disputed since it happened. Palin's account of it was clearly
erroneous, and her attempts to justify her account, pathetic. You're not one
of those people trying to edit the Paul Revere Wikipedia page are you?

[FairfieldLife] Re: He's Not The Messiah

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  wrote:
>
> yeah agreement at last..
> I checked the links  again - both worked "like a charm" do not know
> what's the(your) problem is (BTW have my own- but different- problem
> with the managment of the posting, the follow ups as well as finding
> lost one)- isn't it always  good to watch these scenes?-
> please do try again, my dear young one - this ancient one has to go  to
> take his night nab--pardon me - night nap [:D]


Younger brother, do have your much needed nap in peace. 

We can enjoy this;

http://tinyurl.com/ygo43tu
http://tinyurl.com/ydvn7tu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjz16xjeBAA

[FairfieldLife] Re: He's Not The Messiah

[authfriend]

Both links worked for me.

Does everyone here realize that you can delete everything
from a YouTube URL that follows the alphabet soup, and the
link will still work?

IOW, this--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krb2OdQksMc&feature=player_embedded#at=35

--and this--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krb2OdQksMc

--are essentially the same link. The ampersand and
everything to its right gets tacked on to the native
YouTube URL when another Web site embeds the video.

Shorter links are always better. ;-)




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  wrote:
>
> yeah agreement at last..
> I checked the links  again - both worked "like a charm" do
> not know what's the(your) problem is (BTW have my own- but
> different- problem with the managment of the posting, the
> follow ups as well as finding lost one)- isn't it always
> good to watch these scenes?-please do try again, my dear
> young one - this ancient one has to go  to take his night
> nab--pardon me - night nap [:D]
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 
> wrote:
> >
> > Your link doesnt work, but the clip is still perhaps
> > the most funny, and the most serious in anything I've seen...
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@ wrote:
> > >
> > > this seems the right one
> > >
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krb2OdQksMc&feature=player_embedded#at=35
> > >
> > > http://tinyurl.com/6cgbvb7
> > > Great scene from The Life of Brian where Brian is running from 

[FairfieldLife] Re: He's Not The Messiah

[merudanda]

yeah agreement at last..
I checked the links  again - both worked "like a charm" do not know
what's the(your) problem is (BTW have my own- but different- problem
with the managment of the posting, the follow ups as well as finding
lost one)- isn't it always  good to watch these scenes?-
please do try again, my dear young one - this ancient one has to go  to
take his night nab--pardon me - night nap [:D]


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 
wrote:
>
> Your link doesnt work, but the clip is still perhaps the most funny,
and the most serious in anything I've seen...
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> > this seems the right one
> >
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krb2OdQksMc&feature=player_embedded#at=35
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/6cgbvb7
> > Great scene from The Life of Brian where Brian is running from a mob
of
> > his 'followers'.  Once they find him they proclaim him to be their
> > messiah and are amazed by all his 'miracles'
> >
> > I AM NOT, TOO..
> > Only the  true One will deny it, anyway
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjz16xjeBAA&feature=channel
> > >
> > > Enjoy !
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: He's Not The Messiah

[nablusoss1008]

Your link doesnt work, but the clip is still perhaps the most funny, and the 
most serious in anything I've seen...

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  wrote:
>
> this seems the right one
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krb2OdQksMc&feature=player_embedded#at=35
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/6cgbvb7
> Great scene from The Life of Brian where Brian is running from a mob of 
> his 'followers'.  Once they find him they proclaim him to be their 
> messiah and are amazed by all his 'miracles'
> 
> I AM NOT, TOO..
> Only the  true One will deny it, anyway
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 
> wrote:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjz16xjeBAA&feature=channel
> >
> > Enjoy !
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Spiritual Teachers: Real, or Memorex?

[merudanda]

OMG talking about " You can't *handle* the truth." heavy stuff for the
weekend , dude [:D] ...lol
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
snip

> That's the picture of Maharishi that I think the Memorex set
> has. I think they cling to it because they're reluctant to
> admit their own spiritual laziness in never having expended
> the effort to actually see him "live," and I think that they
> cling to it because they actually *prefer* the simplistic,
> heavily edited, expurgated version of the man and "What he
> taught."
>
> And yet they talk, talk, talk about the "truth" of "What
> Maharishi taught," which they know solely from his tapes and
> his books (some of which were not even written by him). Truth?
> I say to them the same thing Jack Nicholson said to Tom Cruise
> in A Few Good Men. "The truth? You can't *handle* the truth."
... then what is your ' take " of the interview of P .Mason "the"
biographer of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi - i found at:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ark/stories/2008/2160504.htm

Rachael Kohn: Paul, did you ever meet Maharishi Mahesh Yogi?

Paul Mason:  Initially I wanted to, and then I changed my mind. I
thought, Well this  man has such a profound effect on all of his
followers - Mike Love of  The Beach Boys and The Beatles - their lives
never seemed the same. I  was determined to get close to him to find out
as much as I possibly  could, to be a sort of fly on the wall. But I
held back from getting too  close to him.

Rachael Kohn: Why?
Paul Mason:  I think he had an incredible hold over his followers. I
think he had an  almost hypnotic, mesmerising effect on people, and I
guess I would be  as vulnerable as anybody else to that, and I could see
that, so I didn't  want to get that involved. 

in IMHO wouln't it be great if Deepak Chopra  had done the same  (BTW
according our personal  first- and last - contact he was afraid, too..)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count

[authfriend]

Sad to say, Barry, your prediction failed miserably,
and your boast is demonstrably false.

Jim never responded to the post of yours you quote.
And of the 26 posts he had left when you made it,
only three (3) were addressed to you, each of them in
response to an additional three (3) you'd made 
demonizing him.

You made one other post demonizing him to which he
didn't respond.

IOW, you had to spend five of your posts to elicit
three from Jim. After you made the post you quote,
18 of his remaining posts had nothing at all to do
with you.

Moreover, of the five posts you made demonizing him,
four were LONG tirades.

In contrast, two of the three posts Jim made in 
response to your five were brief, humorous brushoffs.
(The first of the three was serious and longer,
explaining why he'd been pissed off at the reaction
he got when he first announced his self-realization
here years ago, and noting that as a result of his
further development, jibes from you and others no
longer bothered him.)

Bottom line:

> > You'll see how one of them reacts to this post the
> > rest of this week,

("Rest of this week" = Thursday and Friday)

What we saw was that Jim didn't react at all to the
post you quote, and that you had to make four
additional posts, three of them LONG, to get him to
respond with two quick brushoffs and one serious
post.

IOW, you were in no way responsible for his going
over his limit by one post, any more than were any
of the other people he responded to over the course
of the week. (In fact, your dittohead the do.rk did
a better job than you did, eliciting *five*
responses on Friday from Jim with his crude one-
liner insults. You need to give him a raise.)

Face it, you're a pathetic failure. ;-)





--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, FFL PostCount  wrote:
> >
> > Fairfield Life Post Counter
> > ===
> > Start Date (UTC): Sat Jun 04 00:00:00 2011
> > End Date (UTC): Sat Jun 11 00:00:00 2011
> > 603 messages as of (UTC) Fri Jun 10 23:59:33 2011
> > 
> > 52 whynotnow7 
> 
> Ahem.
> 
> > So one more time, just for the record, here's what I
> > do for fun on this forum, laid out for those I do it
> > to. My theory is that the *least* spiritual trait or
> > characteristic is attachment -- to one's ideas or 
> > concepts or chosen dogma, to one's teacher or spiritual
> > tradition, and most of all to one's self image. So 
> > when I notice someone who consistently wears "Push Me"
> > attachment buttons on their sleeve, I push them. The
> > pushees *almost always* react by going bat-shit crazy 
> > and *demonstrating* their level of attachment. 
> > 
> > Most of the time I ignore these self-importance TBs
> > as the uninteresting dweebs they are, and will do so
> > in the future. But every so often, just for the fun
> > of it, I'll push a button and then sit back and allow
> > them to demonstrate who and what they really are. 
> > 
> > If they were half as smart as they think they are, 
> > they'd have figured out by now what was being done to
> > them and developed a little self-control. Especially
> > because I've *told* them several times now what I do
> > and why I do it. But their egos -- and their attach-
> > ments -- won't allow them to hear it, so they'll just
> > keep falling for the same old gag over and over and
> > over and over. 
> > 
> > Think I'm wrong about this? Just watch. You'll see 
> > how one of them reacts to this post the rest of this
> > week, and you'll see how the other "hits the ground
> > still overreacting" to it Friday night. And the funny 
> > thing is, both will be convinced that they're some-
> > how "winning" when they do what I'm setting them up
> > to do. Now *that* is bat-shit crazy.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Spiritual Teachers: Real, or Memorex?

[merudanda]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" 
wrote:Who?
>
important point and question  since the same thing happen ...mmh... just
not log ago
check out #275062  and #259400
and weep
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" 
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb 
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On another level, there is the issue of expurgation. At one
> > > > point in my life, I would say that I had probably listened
> > > > to or watched as many tapes of Maharishi as anyone on this
> > > > forum. I was in charge of the Western Regional Office, and
> > > > thus in charge of its tape library, which contained thousands
> > > > of tapes. All of them were essentially "my private video and
> > > > audio library." I could take them home and listen to them
> > > > anytime I wanted, and was such a TB dweeb that I actually
> > > > did. :-)
> > > >
> > > > But then, about 1976, the first "recalls" and attempts at
> > > > systematic expurgation started. We started getting demands
> > > > from "International" to send them our copies of certain
> > > > tapes. And when I say "demands," I mean demands. If we did
> > > > not comply, they sent someone over to the US to collect them
> > > > from us. We were then told that they would be replaced by
> > > > newer, "better quality" versions of the same tapes.
> > > >
> > > > This was only partially true. About 50% of the "recalled"
> > > > tapes never appeared again in any format. And the tapes that
> > > > were actually "replaced" invariably had "shrunk" somewhat.
> > > > It was not uncommon for a tape that originally had lasted
> > > > for 40 minutes and touched on some interesting or touchy
> > > > subjects to come back to us in a "new, improved" version
> > > > that was only 20 minutes long, carefully edited to make it
> > > > seem that there had been no editing.
> > >
> > > This did happen - tapes being recalled and some never
> > > replaced.
> >
> > The capper was that when "replacements" were made available,
> > the Regional Office or the individual TM Centers from which
> > the original tapes were confiscated *had to pay for them
> > again*.
>
> Yes, a milder version of local centers raising money for and buying
land or buildings, only to have proceeds from the eventual sale of the
center go to International.  If they ever again needed a center, they
had to start all over raising money just to rent something.
> >
> > > Do you recall specifically what was edited out on a few of them?
> >
> > When this "revisionist history" process first started it was
> > clearly tied to the recent "TM is a religion" controversy and
> > lawsuits in the US. Most of what was edited out involved MMY
> > talking about God, or putting down the Western version of
> > religion.
> >
> > At the same time, topics that deviated from the SCI or SIMS
> > point of view were edited out. This involved "SRM-ish" topics
> > such as reincarnation or saints and deities and talks in which
> > Maharishi used traditional Hindu terms for concepts instead
> > of English terms.
> >
> > Once the "first wave" of this revisionist history passed, and
> > the individual teachers and TM Centers realized they'd been
> > had, they wised up. When we at the Regional Office would get
> > the latest dictum from International saying that we had to
> > get all teachers to give back their copies of tapes X, Y and
> > Z, and we'd call the centers asking for these tapes, we'd be
> > told that they had gotten "lost," and that the teachers or
> > centers no longer had them. They were lying, and we knew they
> > were lying, but we actually agreed with their position and
> > reported back to Seelisberg what we'd been told. It was a
> > nudge nudge, wink wink kind of thing.
> >
>
> Yes, this happened.  Do you have any knowledge about who exactly at
International made these decisions about recalls?  Was this MMY's idea?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Spiritual Teachers: Real, or Memorex?

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On another level, there is the issue of expurgation. At one
> > > > point in my life, I would say that I had probably listened
> > > > to or watched as many tapes of Maharishi as anyone on this
> > > > forum. I was in charge of the Western Regional Office, and
> > > > thus in charge of its tape library, which contained thousands
> > > > of tapes. All of them were essentially "my private video and
> > > > audio library." I could take them home and listen to them 
> > > > anytime I wanted, and was such a TB dweeb that I actually
> > > > did. :-)
> > > > 
> > > > But then, about 1976, the first "recalls" and attempts at
> > > > systematic expurgation started. We started getting demands
> > > > from "International" to send them our copies of certain 
> > > > tapes. And when I say "demands," I mean demands. If we did
> > > > not comply, they sent someone over to the US to collect them
> > > > from us. We were then told that they would be replaced by
> > > > newer, "better quality" versions of the same tapes.
> > > > 
> > > > This was only partially true. About 50% of the "recalled" 
> > > > tapes never appeared again in any format. And the tapes that 
> > > > were actually "replaced" invariably had "shrunk" somewhat.
> > > > It was not uncommon for a tape that originally had lasted
> > > > for 40 minutes and touched on some interesting or touchy
> > > > subjects to come back to us in a "new, improved" version
> > > > that was only 20 minutes long, carefully edited to make it
> > > > seem that there had been no editing. 
> > > 
> > > This did happen - tapes being recalled and some never 
> > > replaced.  
> > 
> > The capper was that when "replacements" were made available,
> > the Regional Office or the individual TM Centers from which
> > the original tapes were confiscated *had to pay for them
> > again*. 
> 
> Yes, a milder version of local centers raising money for and 
> buying land or buildings, only to have proceeds from the 
> eventual sale of the center go to International.  If they 
> ever again needed a center, they had to start all over raising 
> money just to rent something.
>  
> > > Do you recall specifically what was edited out on a few of them?
> > 
> > When this "revisionist history" process first started it was
> > clearly tied to the recent "TM is a religion" controversy and
> > lawsuits in the US. Most of what was edited out involved MMY
> > talking about God, or putting down the Western version of
> > religion. 
> > 
> > At the same time, topics that deviated from the SCI or SIMS 
> > point of view were edited out. This involved "SRM-ish" topics 
> > such as reincarnation or saints and deities and talks in which 
> > Maharishi used traditional Hindu terms for concepts instead 
> > of English terms. 
> > 
> > Once the "first wave" of this revisionist history passed, and
> > the individual teachers and TM Centers realized they'd been
> > had, they wised up. When we at the Regional Office would get
> > the latest dictum from International saying that we had to
> > get all teachers to give back their copies of tapes X, Y and
> > Z, and we'd call the centers asking for these tapes, we'd be
> > told that they had gotten "lost," and that the teachers or
> > centers no longer had them. They were lying, and we knew they
> > were lying, but we actually agreed with their position and
> > reported back to Seelisberg what we'd been told. It was a 
> > nudge nudge, wink wink kind of thing.
> 
> Yes, this happened.  Do you have any knowledge about who 
> exactly at International made these decisions about recalls?  
> Was this MMY's idea?

I have no idea, sorry. We'd just receive the "decrees"
from some amorphous entity in Switzerland called "Inter-
national." Even Jerry, when he disagreed with one of
their decrees, couldn't do anything about them or 
refuse to go along with them.

[FairfieldLife] Interesting "cross hairs" take on the release of Palin's emails

[turquoiseb]

Sarah Palin Uses Email Dump To Release Critics Personal Information
June 10, 2011By Jason Easley and Sarah Jones (www.politicususa.com)


( http://www.politicususa.com/en/sarah-palin-critics-info
  , if
truncated )


As the media swarms over Sarah Palin's emails has anyone thought to 
ask why the personal information of those who wrote emails critical of 
Palin was not redacted?

Some very ugly things are going to come out of these emails and not 
against Sarah Palin. Frankly I'm very disturbed by her legal
team's  choices in what I'm reading. Sarah Palin and her legal
team spent two  and half years combing these emails for pages they
wanted to withhold  and for redactions to protect the privacy of some
people. But you want  to know whose information they left in?

Any person who wrote to criticize the Governor has their email and 
phone number out for the Palin cult to attack. Sarah Palin once again 
used a seeming "attack" on her (aka, a request for transparency)
as an  opportunity to turn the guns of her internet vigilantes on her 
detractors. This is an outrageous compromising of those citizen's 
privacy and safety.

Yes, they are private citizens, not public officials.

Palin doesn't seem engaged at all in legislative process, but spends
most of her emails forwarding mean and fawning emails about herself to 
her minions (the purpose of which Frank Bailey exposed in his book to 
take down detractors) or emails praising her as God's chosen. She
sent  emails during the VP campaign requesting information about her own
budgets and positions to such an extent that it's easy to get the
idea  she had no idea what she passed. It's also obvious that the
state was  not engaged in state activity during the VP campaign, but in
management  of Palin's image.

I feel sorry for those media members who traipsed to Alaska thinking 
that they were going to get unfettered information. What we are seeing 
in these emails is an attempt by Palin and the people who were appointed
by her and working for her in Alaska to create a narrative of revenge 
and the victimization of Sarah Palin.

The people who emailed Palin have all had their names, email  addresses,
addresses, and in some cases phone numbers made public in  this email
dump. This is a problem for those who sent her criticism like  the email
below:

  [email-palin-toon]

Because this concerned citizen had the nerve to ask what the heck is 
Todd Palin doing involved in state business, she now finds all of her 
personal contact information exposed. This means that Palin's Thugs
for  Christ Brownshirts are now free to terrorize anyone who ever sent
Palin a  critical email.

In order to keep the Sarah Palin victimization myth alive, Team Lou 
Sarah also made sure to include several vile emails such as the one 
below:

  [clint-becker-palin]

The emailer hopefully got a visit from law enforcement, and maybe  some
help with his mental health, but does he really need his address 
published for the entire world to see?

Sarah Palin and company have had two and half years to pour over and 
edit these emails, yet they chose to release personal information about 
the people who emailed her to the public.

Why?

The answer is that this is Palin's way of creating a new enemies 
list, and putting cross hairs on her critics. We have not gone though 
all 24,000+ pages of emails yet, but from the initial review of 
thousands of pages, it is clear that there is an agenda of retribution 
present. Palin is providing her hapless followers with the information 
needed to track down and harass those who dare criticize their "Dear
Leader."

Once again, Sarah Palin shows a remarkable ability to turn a normal 
request (freedom of information or open records request in this case) 
into an opportunity for revenge on citizens whom she feels have wronged 
her. These emails were so heavily redacted that they tell the same story
the upcoming  propaganda film tells about Sarah Palin, though not even 
all of the Palin lawyers could put Sarah the Governor back together 
again. It's clear from her emails that Sarah Palin was not governing
the  state of Alaska; she was a CC on emails between other people who 
governed for her, with very little guidance, direction or input from 
Sarah Palin until it came to her myth management.

For those who will argue that this wasn't Sarah Palin's email
dump  consider that the attorneys and state officials that coordinated
the  release of the emails were either appointed by or worked for Palin.
the ADN
  reports:

Alaska officials tut-tut they are going to withhold 2,415  pages from
the public. Why? Those communications are privileged,  personal or
somehow exempt from Alaska's disclosure laws. Or so they  say…
But state officials say there is the right to pr

[FairfieldLife] Re: Son of "Real, Or Memorex" -- the sequel

[merudanda]

ah-  Robert was faster with his correction.:Fitzgerald could not
hear any difference (for a couple of bucks/money I assume)but  this is
still worth to watch in nostalgia
Memorex commercial Chuck Mangione Ella
Fitzgeraldhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32X8sFAlDZM&NR=1Ella Fitzgerald
sings for Memorex   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkt8Dwzl6Sg

BTW "classic of cognitive dissonance" ? Who you tell-hasn't that be the 
dilemma/enigma of all "intimate around Maharishi Mahesh " during the
last , say 40 or more years, on a daily basis?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> [ Thanks for the correction, Robert. I misremembered, but
> in retrospect I actually like me replacing "live" with
> "real." If there is such a thing as gaining a "real" view
> of a spiritual teacher, I think there's a relationship. ]
>
> When it comes to assessing the life of a spiritual teacher,
> especially one who presented himself as enlightened or
> allowed others to present him that way, I think there is
> a certain merit in having seen that teacher "live." I
> don't see how anyone could claim to be presenting a "real"
> picture of that teacher if they hadn't.
>
> But even if a writer had known the teacher intimately, on
> a one-to-one, personal basis for years, would that make
> his or her biography or hagiography of that teacher "real?"
>
> I don't think so. I think that when it comes to "authori-
> tative," I would assign that attribute more to those who
> had seen and worked with the teacher "live" than I would
> to those who had not. But I would never consider such an
> account "real," in any meaningful sense.
>
> Instead, if a writer's account of a particular teacher
> interested me, my immediate response would be to find
> books written about the same teacher by other people.
> That's just the way I roll.
>
> One of Rama - Frederick Lenz's theories which I still feel
> has some wisdom to it is that he believed that there was
> no possibility of one, single book being written about an
> enlightened being able to present the whole picture. He
> felt that the only thing that could present an accurate
> picture of an enlightened teacher would be a *lot* of
> books, written equally by the teacher's own students and
> by others who had run into the teacher along the Way.
>
> He put this into practice in his own book "The Last Incar-
> nation." He didn't write it; we did. By "we" I mean his
> students at the time. I still think it's an interesting
> work, somewhat unique in the spiritual canon. "The Last
> Incarnation" wound up being a fascinating amalgam of many
> different students' views of Rama and what it was like to
> study with him. And the most fascinating part was that
> many of the stories were mutually contradicting.
>
> They'd attempt to describe the same meeting or desert
> trip, and the same event, and the differences were often
> startling. Some would remember one siddhi being demon-
> strated, others another. Some would attribute to Rama
> certain quotes, while others relating the same talk
> would come up with vastly different quotes. The book
> was an utter classic of cognitive dissonance.
>
> This is why I look with some amusement at the attempts on
> this forum to squeeze Maharishi into one small box, with
> a label on it that reads "This is the real story of
> Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. So There."
>
> There is a level of hubris implicit in believing that
> your view of a certain teacher or a certain teaching
> defines "real." I can no longer achieve that level of
> hubris. My experiences with Rama and with other teachers
> convinces me that NO ONE's view of them constitutes
> a "real" view. They're just views.
>
> Mine -- of Maharishi or of Rama or about other facets
> of spiritual life -- are similarly just views. I make
> no claim that my depictions of Maharishi or other topics
> on this forum are any more "real" than anyone else's.
> Some of them have the advantage of being based on "live"
> vs. "Memorex," but that doesn't make them more "real."
> They're just views.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Spiritual Teachers: Real, or Memorex?

[wayback71]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > On another level, there is the issue of expurgation. At one
> > > point in my life, I would say that I had probably listened
> > > to or watched as many tapes of Maharishi as anyone on this
> > > forum. I was in charge of the Western Regional Office, and
> > > thus in charge of its tape library, which contained thousands
> > > of tapes. All of them were essentially "my private video and
> > > audio library." I could take them home and listen to them 
> > > anytime I wanted, and was such a TB dweeb that I actually
> > > did. :-)
> > > 
> > > But then, about 1976, the first "recalls" and attempts at
> > > systematic expurgation started. We started getting demands
> > > from "International" to send them our copies of certain 
> > > tapes. And when I say "demands," I mean demands. If we did
> > > not comply, they sent someone over to the US to collect them
> > > from us. We were then told that they would be replaced by
> > > newer, "better quality" versions of the same tapes.
> > > 
> > > This was only partially true. About 50% of the "recalled" 
> > > tapes never appeared again in any format. And the tapes that 
> > > were actually "replaced" invariably had "shrunk" somewhat.
> > > It was not uncommon for a tape that originally had lasted
> > > for 40 minutes and touched on some interesting or touchy
> > > subjects to come back to us in a "new, improved" version
> > > that was only 20 minutes long, carefully edited to make it
> > > seem that there had been no editing. 
> > 
> > This did happen - tapes being recalled and some never 
> > replaced.  
> 
> The capper was that when "replacements" were made available,
> the Regional Office or the individual TM Centers from which
> the original tapes were confiscated *had to pay for them
> again*. 

Yes, a milder version of local centers raising money for and buying land or 
buildings, only to have proceeds from the eventual sale of the center go to 
International.  If they ever again needed a center, they had to start all over 
raising money just to rent something.
> 
> > Do you recall specifically what was edited out on a few of them?
> 
> When this "revisionist history" process first started it was
> clearly tied to the recent "TM is a religion" controversy and
> lawsuits in the US. Most of what was edited out involved MMY
> talking about God, or putting down the Western version of
> religion. 
> 
> At the same time, topics that deviated from the SCI or SIMS 
> point of view were edited out. This involved "SRM-ish" topics 
> such as reincarnation or saints and deities and talks in which 
> Maharishi used traditional Hindu terms for concepts instead 
> of English terms. 
> 
> Once the "first wave" of this revisionist history passed, and
> the individual teachers and TM Centers realized they'd been
> had, they wised up. When we at the Regional Office would get
> the latest dictum from International saying that we had to
> get all teachers to give back their copies of tapes X, Y and
> Z, and we'd call the centers asking for these tapes, we'd be
> told that they had gotten "lost," and that the teachers or
> centers no longer had them. They were lying, and we knew they
> were lying, but we actually agreed with their position and
> reported back to Seelisberg what we'd been told. It was a 
> nudge nudge, wink wink kind of thing.
>

Yes, this happened.  Do you have any knowledge about who exactly at 
International made these decisions about recalls?  Was this MMY's idea?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Sarah Palin and Paul Revere

[Tom Pall]

On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Rick Archer  wrote:

>
>
> Yes sir just when you thought she couldn't get any dumber:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpHfY1Hor9g
>
> And then Stephen Colbert does a send up - beautiful  (from Daily Kos):
> howl-arious
>
>
> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/07/982824/-Sarah-Palin-Vindicated:Colbert-Re-enactment-Proves-It!?via=siderec
>
>
>
So that's what all these years of serving Maharishi, being on Purusha and
teaching TTC is all about, eh, Rick?   You are special, Palin is dumb?  You
and your version of history are valid, you have the one and only true
version of history while Palin is laughable?   Small wonder Barry and Vaj
linger here.  Somebody has to show us the errors in our thoughts and the way
to approach Their teachings with appreciation and humility.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Spiritual Teachers: Real, or Memorex?

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > On another level, there is the issue of expurgation. At one
> > point in my life, I would say that I had probably listened
> > to or watched as many tapes of Maharishi as anyone on this
> > forum. I was in charge of the Western Regional Office, and
> > thus in charge of its tape library, which contained thousands
> > of tapes. All of them were essentially "my private video and
> > audio library." I could take them home and listen to them 
> > anytime I wanted, and was such a TB dweeb that I actually
> > did. :-)
> > 
> > But then, about 1976, the first "recalls" and attempts at
> > systematic expurgation started. We started getting demands
> > from "International" to send them our copies of certain 
> > tapes. And when I say "demands," I mean demands. If we did
> > not comply, they sent someone over to the US to collect them
> > from us. We were then told that they would be replaced by
> > newer, "better quality" versions of the same tapes.
> > 
> > This was only partially true. About 50% of the "recalled" 
> > tapes never appeared again in any format. And the tapes that 
> > were actually "replaced" invariably had "shrunk" somewhat.
> > It was not uncommon for a tape that originally had lasted
> > for 40 minutes and touched on some interesting or touchy
> > subjects to come back to us in a "new, improved" version
> > that was only 20 minutes long, carefully edited to make it
> > seem that there had been no editing. 
> 
> This did happen - tapes being recalled and some never 
> replaced.  

The capper was that when "replacements" were made available,
the Regional Office or the individual TM Centers from which
the original tapes were confiscated *had to pay for them
again*. 

> Do you recall specifically what was edited out on a few of them?

When this "revisionist history" process first started it was
clearly tied to the recent "TM is a religion" controversy and
lawsuits in the US. Most of what was edited out involved MMY
talking about God, or putting down the Western version of
religion. 

At the same time, topics that deviated from the SCI or SIMS 
point of view were edited out. This involved "SRM-ish" topics 
such as reincarnation or saints and deities and talks in which 
Maharishi used traditional Hindu terms for concepts instead 
of English terms. 

Once the "first wave" of this revisionist history passed, and
the individual teachers and TM Centers realized they'd been
had, they wised up. When we at the Regional Office would get
the latest dictum from International saying that we had to
get all teachers to give back their copies of tapes X, Y and
Z, and we'd call the centers asking for these tapes, we'd be
told that they had gotten "lost," and that the teachers or
centers no longer had them. They were lying, and we knew they
were lying, but we actually agreed with their position and
reported back to Seelisberg what we'd been told. It was a 
nudge nudge, wink wink kind of thing.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Spiritual Teachers: Real, or Memorex?

[wayback71]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> Most who grew up in the US remember the old TV and radio
> commercials "Is it real, or is it Memorex?" The idea being
> presented in those commercials was that many people can't
> tell the difference between a live performance and one 
> that was recorded on Memorex-brand tape.
> 
> I think that the ad agency that thought this up was bril-
> liant, because there are many people who *can't* tell the
> difference. Furthermore, they would argue that they, having
> only heard the recorded versions of, say, Segovia's work,
> or Keith Jarret's, or Glenn Gould's "know" as much about
> the work and the artist as someone who actually saw them
> perform. With Jarrett, for example, who is famous for...
> uh..."acting out" his musical performances by rocking and
> swaying back and forth on the piano stool, and (like Glenn
> Gould) uncontrollably humming along with his own music,
> someone who knew only the recordings could have gained a
> "feeling" about the music and the artist that was erroneous.
> Glenn Gould's recording company found ways to *edit out*
> his humming and moaning, so the Memorex set would not even
> be aware that he brought that kind of passion to his music.
> 
> Now think spiritual teachers.
> 
> There are some on this forum -- and there is no need to name
> them because you all know who they are -- who seem to feel
> that having only dealt with the Memorex version of Maharishi,
> they "know" the essence of "What he taught," and similarly
> "know" things about him as an individual or about his state
> of consciousness. I think this stance is...uh...self-serving
> bullshit served up by those who are anxious to hide the fact
> that they were willing to settle for the expurgated version
> of the teacher they claim to "know" things about.
> 
> You on this forum who met Maharishi, or who spent hours, days,
> weeks, months, and years sitting in rooms listening to him 
> talk, or working side by side with him getting to see *how*
> he worked, try to imagine for a moment the level of AVERSION
> a supposedly strong TMer must have had to have meditated 
> regularly for 20 to 30 years and yet *avoided* ever seeing
> him in public. It's almost unbelievable. Claiming to revere
> someone as a great spiritual teacher, or even *their teacher*
> or "master," and yet finding ways *for decades* to avoid ever 
> meeting him. And *then*, years later, presenting themselves 
> as "authorities" on "What Maharishi taught." Scary.
> 
> When it comes to spiritual teachers, my contention is that 
> there is a difference between real and Memorex. If nothing
> else, the Memorex version disallows any perception of the
> teacher's "vibe," and what it was like to be around him. 
> How can the Memorex set even *begin* to claim to be know-
> ledgeable enough about the subject of charisma or darshan
> if they have never experienced it? And yet they do. 
> 
> On another level, there is the issue of expurgation. At one
> point in my life, I would say that I had probably listened
> to or watched as many tapes of Maharishi as anyone on this
> forum. I was in charge of the Western Regional Office, and
> thus in charge of its tape library, which contained thousands
> of tapes. All of them were essentially "my private video and
> audio library." I could take them home and listen to them 
> anytime I wanted, and was such a TB dweeb that I actually
> did. :-)
> 
> But then, about 1976, the first "recalls" and attempts at
> systematic expurgation started. We started getting demands
> from "International" to send them our copies of certain 
> tapes. And when I say "demands," I mean demands. If we did
> not comply, they sent someone over to the US to collect them
> from us. We were then told that they would be replaced by
> newer, "better quality" versions of the same tapes.
> 
> This was only partially true. About 50% of the "recalled" 
> tapes never appeared again in any format. And the tapes that 
> were actually "replaced" invariably had "shrunk" somewhat.
> It was not uncommon for a tape that originally had lasted
> for 40 minutes and touched on some interesting or touchy
> subjects to come back to us in a "new, improved" version
> that was only 20 minutes long, carefully edited to make it
> seem that there had been no editing. 

This did happen - tapes being recalled and some never replaced.  Do you recall 
specifically what was edited out on a few of them?

[FairfieldLife] Bride of Real, Or Memorex

[turquoiseb]

One facet of working with a spiritual teacher "live" vs.
only "meeting" them in books or on videotape that hasn't
been discussed a lot on this forum is the issue of the
psychic relationship that can develop between teacher 
and student. 

I am open to the theory that this psychic relationship 
can exist between a student and a teacher they have 
never met, but in practice I have seen this happen only 
rarely. In my experience, it requires having spent some 
time in close proximity to teachers who are capable of 
transmission to develop the ability to receive those 
transmissions. 

By "transmission" I am talking about the ability of a 
teacher to psychically "broadcast" to his students either 
a state of consciousness (so powerfully that the students
can "put it on and wear it"), or actual data (teachings 
and techniques that the student remembers and benefits 
from later, even though not a word was ever spoken). 

This is one of those "You have to have been there" thangs.
You've either had the experience of sitting in a room 
with a teacher capable of transmission or you haven't.
I have, both with Rama and with a few Tibetan teachers.

You may consider my subjective view of these experiences
delusion or hallucination or folly or other names, and
rest assured that I have applied all those epithets to
myself over the years, attempting to "rationalize away"
some of these experiences. But I can't. They happened,
at the very least subjectively, to me. They also happened
to dozens or hundreds of other students sitting in the
same rooms or sitting on the sand of the same desert
canyon. When comparing notes afterwards, we more often
than not attended the same "pyschic lecture," and received
the same teachings or techniques. All without a word ever
being spoken. Go figure. I know I'm still trying to 
figure it out. :-)

I'm curious as to how the book larnin' set on this forum,
who have never met the teacher they feel they have a 
relationship with, will react to the suggestion that if
they *had* met him they might have been able to develop
a direct mind-to-mind relationship with him. 

[FairfieldLife] Son of "Real, Or Memorex" -- the sequel

[turquoiseb]

[ Thanks for the correction, Robert. I misremembered, but
in retrospect I actually like me replacing "live" with
"real." If there is such a thing as gaining a "real" view
of a spiritual teacher, I think there's a relationship. ]

When it comes to assessing the life of a spiritual teacher,
especially one who presented himself as enlightened or 
allowed others to present him that way, I think there is
a certain merit in having seen that teacher "live." I 
don't see how anyone could claim to be presenting a "real"
picture of that teacher if they hadn't. 

But even if a writer had known the teacher intimately, on 
a one-to-one, personal basis for years, would that make 
his or her biography or hagiography of that teacher "real?"

I don't think so. I think that when it comes to "authori-
tative," I would assign that attribute more to those who 
had seen and worked with the teacher "live" than I would 
to those who had not. But I would never consider such an 
account "real," in any meaningful sense.

Instead, if a writer's account of a particular teacher 
interested me, my immediate response would be to find 
books written about the same teacher by other people. 
That's just the way I roll.

One of Rama - Frederick Lenz's theories which I still feel
has some wisdom to it is that he believed that there was
no possibility of one, single book being written about an
enlightened being able to present the whole picture. He 
felt that the only thing that could present an accurate 
picture of an enlightened teacher would be a *lot* of
books, written equally by the teacher's own students and 
by others who had run into the teacher along the Way.

He put this into practice in his own book "The Last Incar-
nation." He didn't write it; we did. By "we" I mean his
students at the time. I still think it's an interesting
work, somewhat unique in the spiritual canon. "The Last
Incarnation" wound up being a fascinating amalgam of many
different students' views of Rama and what it was like to
study with him. And the most fascinating part was that
many of the stories were mutually contradicting.

They'd attempt to describe the same meeting or desert 
trip, and the same event, and the differences were often
startling. Some would remember one siddhi being demon-
strated, others another. Some would attribute to Rama 
certain quotes, while others relating the same talk 
would come up with vastly different quotes. The book
was an utter classic of cognitive dissonance.

This is why I look with some amusement at the attempts on
this forum to squeeze Maharishi into one small box, with
a label on it that reads "This is the real story of 
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. So There."

There is a level of hubris implicit in believing that 
your view of a certain teacher or a certain teaching
defines "real." I can no longer achieve that level of
hubris. My experiences with Rama and with other teachers
convinces me that NO ONE's view of them constitutes
a "real" view. They're just views.

Mine -- of Maharishi or of Rama or about other facets 
of spiritual life -- are similarly just views. I make 
no claim that my depictions of Maharishi or other topics
on this forum are any more "real" than anyone else's. 
Some of them have the advantage of being based on "live" 
vs. "Memorex," but that doesn't make them more "real." 
They're just views.

[FairfieldLife] New Interview on Buddha at the Gas Pump - 06/11/2011

[Rick Archer]

 


blog updates from


Buddha at the Gas Pump


   


published 06/11/2011


071. Julie Chimes 

 

Jun 10, 2011 05:51 am | Rick

In the eighties Julie Chimes-Laws worked in the media based London’s Fleet 
Street. Company director, businesswoman and part-time racing driver her world 
underwent a dramatic change when an out-of-the-blue attempt on her life left 
her for dead. Viciously stabbed repeatedly within millimeters of her life her 
subsequent survival was considered to be something of a ...

   
071_Julie_Chimes.mp3 

  123.7 MB

comments 

  | read more 

 

 

 Like 071. Julie Chimes on Facebook   

 share on Google Buzz   

 

   
Elsewhere

·  

 Visit My Blog

·  

 Share This with a friend

·  

 Follow me on Twitter

·  

 RSS feed

   



Regular announcement of new interviews posted at http://batgap.com.

Buddha at the Gas Pump

1108 South B Street

Fairfield, Iowa 52556


Add us to your address book 

 

Copyright (C) 2011 Buddha at the Gas Pump All rights reserved.

  

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Spiritual Teachers: Real, or Memorex?

[Robert]

  I Remember the Actual Commercial Being:

 'Is it 'Live'  or is it 'Memorex?'

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> Most who grew up in the US remember the old TV and radio
> commercials "Is it real, or is it Memorex?" The idea being
> presented in those commercials was that many people can't
> tell the difference between a live performance and one 
> that was recorded on Memorex-brand tape.
> 
> I think that the ad agency that thought this up was bril-
> liant, because there are many people who *can't* tell the
> difference. Furthermore, they would argue that they, having
> only heard the recorded versions of, say, Segovia's work,
> or Keith Jarret's, or Glenn Gould's "know" as much about
> the work and the artist as someone who actually saw them
> perform. With Jarrett, for example, who is famous for...
> uh..."acting out" his musical performances by rocking and
> swaying back and forth on the piano stool, and (like Glenn
> Gould) uncontrollably humming along with his own music,
> someone who knew only the recordings could have gained a
> "feeling" about the music and the artist that was erroneous.
> Glenn Gould's recording company found ways to *edit out*
> his humming and moaning, so the Memorex set would not even
> be aware that he brought that kind of passion to his music.
> 
> Now think spiritual teachers.
> 
> There are some on this forum -- and there is no need to name
> them because you all know who they are -- who seem to feel
> that having only dealt with the Memorex version of Maharishi,
> they "know" the essence of "What he taught," and similarly
> "know" things about him as an individual or about his state
> of consciousness. I think this stance is...uh...self-serving
> bullshit served up by those who are anxious to hide the fact
> that they were willing to settle for the expurgated version
> of the teacher they claim to "know" things about.
> 
> You on this forum who met Maharishi, or who spent hours, days,
> weeks, months, and years sitting in rooms listening to him 
> talk, or working side by side with him getting to see *how*
> he worked, try to imagine for a moment the level of AVERSION
> a supposedly strong TMer must have had to have meditated 
> regularly for 20 to 30 years and yet *avoided* ever seeing
> him in public. It's almost unbelievable. Claiming to revere
> someone as a great spiritual teacher, or even *their teacher*
> or "master," and yet finding ways *for decades* to avoid ever 
> meeting him. And *then*, years later, presenting themselves 
> as "authorities" on "What Maharishi taught." Scary.
> 
> When it comes to spiritual teachers, my contention is that 
> there is a difference between real and Memorex. If nothing
> else, the Memorex version disallows any perception of the
> teacher's "vibe," and what it was like to be around him. 
> How can the Memorex set even *begin* to claim to be know-
> ledgeable enough about the subject of charisma or darshan
> if they have never experienced it? And yet they do. 
> 
> On another level, there is the issue of expurgation. At one
> point in my life, I would say that I had probably listened
> to or watched as many tapes of Maharishi as anyone on this
> forum. I was in charge of the Western Regional Office, and
> thus in charge of its tape library, which contained thousands
> of tapes. All of them were essentially "my private video and
> audio library." I could take them home and listen to them 
> anytime I wanted, and was such a TB dweeb that I actually
> did. :-)
> 
> But then, about 1976, the first "recalls" and attempts at
> systematic expurgation started. We started getting demands
> from "International" to send them our copies of certain 
> tapes. And when I say "demands," I mean demands. If we did
> not comply, they sent someone over to the US to collect them
> from us. We were then told that they would be replaced by
> newer, "better quality" versions of the same tapes.
> 
> This was only partially true. About 50% of the "recalled" 
> tapes never appeared again in any format. And the tapes that 
> were actually "replaced" invariably had "shrunk" somewhat.
> It was not uncommon for a tape that originally had lasted
> for 40 minutes and touched on some interesting or touchy
> subjects to come back to us in a "new, improved" version
> that was only 20 minutes long, carefully edited to make it
> seem that there had been no editing. At that point I stopped 
> listening to the tapes, because I knew that there was never
> going to be anything interesting on any of them from then
> on out.
> 
> Now try to imagine the Memorex set, who never knew that this
> was being done. There they'd be, sitting in some TM center
> or on some residence course thinking that they were getting
> the "real" Maharishi, all while listening to the 20-minute
> expurgated version of one of his tapes. 
> 
> But the biggest issue is that the Memorex set *never met 
> the man*. They never had a chance to sit through an unexpur-
>

[FairfieldLife] Spiritual Teachers: Real, or Memorex?

[turquoiseb]

Most who grew up in the US remember the old TV and radio
commercials "Is it real, or is it Memorex?" The idea being
presented in those commercials was that many people can't
tell the difference between a live performance and one 
that was recorded on Memorex-brand tape.

I think that the ad agency that thought this up was bril-
liant, because there are many people who *can't* tell the
difference. Furthermore, they would argue that they, having
only heard the recorded versions of, say, Segovia's work,
or Keith Jarret's, or Glenn Gould's "know" as much about
the work and the artist as someone who actually saw them
perform. With Jarrett, for example, who is famous for...
uh..."acting out" his musical performances by rocking and
swaying back and forth on the piano stool, and (like Glenn
Gould) uncontrollably humming along with his own music,
someone who knew only the recordings could have gained a
"feeling" about the music and the artist that was erroneous.
Glenn Gould's recording company found ways to *edit out*
his humming and moaning, so the Memorex set would not even
be aware that he brought that kind of passion to his music.

Now think spiritual teachers.

There are some on this forum -- and there is no need to name
them because you all know who they are -- who seem to feel
that having only dealt with the Memorex version of Maharishi,
they "know" the essence of "What he taught," and similarly
"know" things about him as an individual or about his state
of consciousness. I think this stance is...uh...self-serving
bullshit served up by those who are anxious to hide the fact
that they were willing to settle for the expurgated version
of the teacher they claim to "know" things about.

You on this forum who met Maharishi, or who spent hours, days,
weeks, months, and years sitting in rooms listening to him 
talk, or working side by side with him getting to see *how*
he worked, try to imagine for a moment the level of AVERSION
a supposedly strong TMer must have had to have meditated 
regularly for 20 to 30 years and yet *avoided* ever seeing
him in public. It's almost unbelievable. Claiming to revere
someone as a great spiritual teacher, or even *their teacher*
or "master," and yet finding ways *for decades* to avoid ever 
meeting him. And *then*, years later, presenting themselves 
as "authorities" on "What Maharishi taught." Scary.

When it comes to spiritual teachers, my contention is that 
there is a difference between real and Memorex. If nothing
else, the Memorex version disallows any perception of the
teacher's "vibe," and what it was like to be around him. 
How can the Memorex set even *begin* to claim to be know-
ledgeable enough about the subject of charisma or darshan
if they have never experienced it? And yet they do. 

On another level, there is the issue of expurgation. At one
point in my life, I would say that I had probably listened
to or watched as many tapes of Maharishi as anyone on this
forum. I was in charge of the Western Regional Office, and
thus in charge of its tape library, which contained thousands
of tapes. All of them were essentially "my private video and
audio library." I could take them home and listen to them 
anytime I wanted, and was such a TB dweeb that I actually
did. :-)

But then, about 1976, the first "recalls" and attempts at
systematic expurgation started. We started getting demands
from "International" to send them our copies of certain 
tapes. And when I say "demands," I mean demands. If we did
not comply, they sent someone over to the US to collect them
from us. We were then told that they would be replaced by
newer, "better quality" versions of the same tapes.

This was only partially true. About 50% of the "recalled" 
tapes never appeared again in any format. And the tapes that 
were actually "replaced" invariably had "shrunk" somewhat.
It was not uncommon for a tape that originally had lasted
for 40 minutes and touched on some interesting or touchy
subjects to come back to us in a "new, improved" version
that was only 20 minutes long, carefully edited to make it
seem that there had been no editing. At that point I stopped 
listening to the tapes, because I knew that there was never
going to be anything interesting on any of them from then
on out.

Now try to imagine the Memorex set, who never knew that this
was being done. There they'd be, sitting in some TM center
or on some residence course thinking that they were getting
the "real" Maharishi, all while listening to the 20-minute
expurgated version of one of his tapes. 

But the biggest issue is that the Memorex set *never met 
the man*. They never had a chance to sit through an unexpur-
gated lecture, and watch his thought processes as he form-
lated it, without the benefit of "revisionist history"
editing later. More important, they never got to feel the
"vibe" of the man, or see him in any of his...uh...lesser
moments, like the ones in which he said "We never speak
ill of others," and then followed it up -- som

[FairfieldLife] 'Mia'

[Robert]

http://media.zoom-cinema.fr/photos/celebrites/2034/_thumbs/mia-farrow_1_jpg_250x250_q95.jpg

[FairfieldLife] 'The Group That Changed the World!'

[Robert]

http://madamepickwickartblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/beatles7.jpg

[FairfieldLife] 'The Sun is Up, The Sky is Blue, It's Beautiful...'

[Robert]

And so are you...
 
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8r5KcavfltE/Sz56ISCJ1JI/OEQ/UUExf_2c1ME/s400/mia+farrow+1964.bmp

[FairfieldLife] Russian ancestry and wealth?

[cardemaister]

Google translation of a Finnish text based on 
Business Insider (won't ever try to edit it):


A Russian family background helps

Migrants in the promised land, the United States, sex just too has the 
importance of wealth accumulation. Business Insider according to a Russian 
family background is a good omen. As much as 22 percent of households with a 
Russian ancestors, is at least one million dollars of property. Russian 
ancestry of his own group, more millionaires than any other nationalities from 
women. For example, the German ancestry of his own among the millionaires have 
less