[FairfieldLife] Re: Monk Levitates Discovery Channel, The Supernaturalist
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: [...] There have been legitimate flying groups in the Kathmandu valley for many years now. HErbert Benson was introduced to some buddhist monks by the Dalai Lama who were to show him levitation. All he saw were guys who could stand up and manage to sit in lotus position while falling (variation of sitting in the air?). One of the monks explained to Benson that his grandfather was much better at it than he was. Lawson. The Dalai Lama is only a politician - Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Eh, most people respect the Dalai Lama way more than MMY. My point was simply that other scions of other traditions are only able to come up with people who can do the equivalent of butt-bouncing, also. Wasn't trying to get into a pissing context about who is or isn't a politician (and MMY certainly knew how to play the political game very well, obviously).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation and karma?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote: Does meditation speed up the ripening(?) of karma? If it does, does the quality of the experiences possibly somehow associatable to meditation depend on the quality of praarabdha-karma: kRSNA (black), shukla (white) or mishra (grey)? Dunno. I do know that you can substitute the word stress for samskara in some theoretical expositions on Yoga, and get MMY's basic TM theory. For that matter, Hans Selye divided stress in to Eustress (positive but stressful experiences) and Distress (negative but stressful experiences) which sounds like a possibly similar distinction. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
Obviously, at least parts of the Universe are sentient. Possibly all of the universe can be argued to be sentient, using Western scientific terms. The question is: is the universe *sapient*? /me hates the conflation of the two words. Lawson. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: snip I can't argue with their assumptions. All I can say is that, for me, there is too much wonder, and simply by being open to this wonder a door opens to what I might call a divine mystery. Or things unexplainable. Some of us do not find our sense of wonder about the universe in any way diminished by our lack of belief that it's sentient. Diminished from what? How would you know it isn't diminished if you've never held that belief? And what makes you think your unbeliever's sense of wonder is equivalent to that of a believer? Maybe it's puny compared to Steve's. Would a sunset at the Grand Canyon be any more full of wonder if it were capable of sentient thought? Don't think anybody's suggesting that. Or if it was created by someone or something, as opposed to just having happened? Maybe it would be more full of wonder. Maybe being open to the possibility that it was created, as Steve says, opens a door onto a divine mystery far grander than any wonder you may have experienced. But you'd have no way of knowing because you aren't open to the possibility.
[FairfieldLife] Re: another question for MZ, and maybe William of Occam
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: Exactly 37 years ago I was hitchiking from Snowass, Colorado to Cobb Mountain California for my SCI (Science of Creative Intelligence) course, as part of my overall objective to become a teacher (initiator) of TM. Now, I have a son, 18, who is getting ready to attend college in the fall. And I reflect on how the trajectory he is taking is so different than mine. I don't know if even a single time in his 18 years (or fewer years for the other two - younger kids) if I even once mentioned giving meditation a try. In fact if/when, they would bring it up, I generally tried to change the subject as quckly as possible. What I am trying to say, (and not doing a very good job of it), is that it is strange to see him taking a completely different approach to life. I think it is the right approach for him, and there is no way I would have wanted to him navigate the years of drug use and general abandon that preceded my introduction to TM. On the other hand, I think I can say that those were just symptons of an overall seeking mentality. I gave them up almost immediately when I found what I felt I was looking for. A part of me hopes that in some way he will to a desire to penetrate the more accidental aspects of life and seek out the essential. I think that will a happen. Anyway, right now, we have to go shopping for a new arm chair for our communal room, soI'll check in later on. Usually when I dangle a little question like that the response is . Thanks Steve, I can understand the conflict between passing your knowledge to your children and giving them ready made beliefs and I think you made a right choice in the end, to not impose anything on them. I have similar mindset of not passing any spiritual advice to my kids, the kids are very impressionable and vulnerable to harm by the parents (especially religion) - it's just better to provide all the material needs and let them carve their own unique path. Although my older kid is only 13 I don't plan on dishing any spiritual advice unless I'm asked. Of course it might not even be necessary since he has been surrounded by it since his birth and may be that is indeed part of my reluctance. Then I also realize his path(samskaras, innate nature) is dramatically different than mine and my advice would have to be highly tailored to his nature.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation and karma?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Jul 4, 2011, at 12:37 PM, cardemaister wrote: Does meditation speed up the ripening(?) of karma? If it does, does the quality of the experiences possibly somehow associatable to meditation depend on the quality of praarabdha-karma: kRSNA (black), shukla (white) or mishra (grey)? The idea with mantra-yoga is too plant enough good or sattvic seeds that is overwhelms the mental weeds. Your garden doesn't become more weed-free, it just becomes more flowery. Not MMY's interpretation of things TM, but o well. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Giant Stimson Beach Bubbles
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: This is just magical: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i-zYdOPG2k Now watch it *in reverse*: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlHDv2D_Vp0 (Via http://tywkiwdbi.blogspot.com.) Be interesting to know what his soap bubbles were made of. I used to take regular dish soap and a bit of drinking alcohol and get bubbles that were strong enough to bounce off of things. The strongest bubbles I've heard of were mentioned in a scientific american article and used everclear, soap and glycerin. Some of the bubbles the author had made were many years old (kept under glass domes to protect from dust). Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Writing As Spiritual Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: snip Careful, Ravi. You haven't been here long enough to know that saying something good about me can land you on the Enemies List. Judy? I wouldn't worry too much about that :-) You would if you imagined me as Barry does: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/photos/album/408557067/pic/1\ 624549388/view?picmode=mediummode=tnorder=ordinalstart=21dir=asc http://tinyurl.com/4y3jf8v I mean, how'd you like to have that image inhabiting your nightmares and daydreams? Could you think clearly if that was the wallpaper for your mental desktop? It's no wonder his grip on reality is a bit, you know, fragile. Judy - Yes I have seen this picture and it's not a pretty sight. But I also have to say that Barry's posts from the last few days seem to have taken a curious turn, for the better I hope. May be he finally got tired of his perceived or real role as an FFL Sniper and he is coming out of his hiding :-) ? May he finally wants to interact with all the FFL denizens rather than relying on his not worth my time list that he checks before interacting with others? May be you should keep that in mind and let go of your past assessment on how he does and will respond? Who knows - you may not be in each other's Enemy List any longer? - not that either of you maintain such a list mind you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Writing As Spiritual Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: http://tinyurl.com/4y3jf8v I mean, how'd you like to have that image inhabiting your nightmares and daydreams? Could you think clearly if that was the wallpaper for your mental desktop? It's no wonder his grip on reality is a bit, you know, fragile. Judy - Yes I have seen this picture and it's not a pretty sight. H. I'm getting the feeling that even Ravi is smart enough to realize that the fantasy image involved here is what Judy *hopes* I see her as. *She* created this photo. *She* made herself look that ugly in it. It's what *she* hopes I think of her. It's not. If I'd had any image of her before she posted this, it was most likely along the lines of an old woman so housebound and lonely that she couldn't even find a friend to take a photo of her. That part turned out to be true.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Writing As Spiritual Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: All our experience is subjective, even that of the outside objective world about which we construe facts. What appear to us to be facts. I know of no law that says we have to either keep the experiences we have private or blab them to the public. It happens one way or the other. If some did not blab out their experience, we would not have people teaching or attempting to teach about enlightenment, we would not have skyscrapers, medicine, trains, or Barry's favorite beer. Of the achievements listed, I must admit to thinking that the monks who brewed my favorite beer may be the most praiseworthy in transforming their inner subjective experience into objective reality. :-) Some have blabbed and made something of the outer world, some have blabbed and have not. Some have blabbed and made a ruin of the world about them. And some don't say what is going on with them. Most on this forum say at least something about what is going on with them. This seems to be a factor in why people continue to post on this platform. A selfish act seems to imply will. The decision to consider the one-pointed pursuit of enlightenment the highest goal in life seems to imply will. If you do not believe in free will, and were that belief true, then the idea of a self that can be selfish has no sense. And if one did have will, but chose not to exercise it, having a subjective experience one did not will to describe to the outer world, or to do so, would still not be a selfish act. Exactly. In a universe devoid of free will, the selfish get off Scot-free for being selfish. That's why I think some of them selfishly choose not to believe in free will. :-) Turq writes. He says certain things. Sometimes he seems to take viewpoints opposite of what he wrote about before. He seems to imply he has a choice in what he does, and his flip flops are an expression of that choice. If they're not, then whoever or whatever the non- freewillers think is running things is not really as consistent as they think he/she/it is. Try to imagine the consternation of those who don't much like the things I write but philosophically believe that God is really writing it all. They must think that God is a real dick to keep putting these words in my mouth. :-) I do not always agree with what he says, but I have no evidence he even agrees with what he says. Well said. That's it exactly. He just says it, and in his writing characterises the ideas a certain way, with a certain slant, like the way a journalist writes. It is that characterisation that get people riled up here. It is a deliberate and effective technique. Bingo. If I do not agree with him, that does not mean what I think is true either. Bingo again. In a universe without free will, some can claim that overreacting to the things I write is not their doing. They are prisoners to their karma or to the laws of nature or to the will of God in this regard, and have no choice *but* to overreact. Those on the forum who have free will are able to read my stuff, take it or leave it, and move on without overreacting. They are free to read the things I write without acting out the following famous scenario. I think that ability alone is grounds for believing in free will. :-) [0]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Writing As Spiritual Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardjwilliamstexas willytex@... wrote: So my thesis is that subjective experience *in itself* is a selfish act that is of no use to anyone else in the world... So, we can believe something is true based on what we see and what we experience. We also believe something is true based on what we infer, and we believe something is true based on the verbal testimony of others. So, what Turq just wrote is basically his belief and he believes that it is true. But, to deny personal experience is a little more than bizarre! So, where do you think the Turq gets these beliefs, if not from others or from books he read? How would Turq know that a subjective experience is of no value to any one else? Does Turq believe that he has knowledge that is superior to sense experience? Well all interesting questions - may be Turq will answer? I should clarify when he uses the term subjective experiences he is referring to claims of enlightenment and spiritual experiences. I agreed there's no value in them since I don't believe enlightenment is a thing of utility like a car or a house and they don't need to add any value to others. If, so it's another Turq flip-flop, since Turq recently proclaimed to be a non-believer in a transcendental experience. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation and karma?
On Jul 5, 2011, at 3:53 AM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Jul 4, 2011, at 12:37 PM, cardemaister wrote: Does meditation speed up the ripening(?) of karma? If it does, does the quality of the experiences possibly somehow associatable to meditation depend on the quality of praarabdha-karma: kRSNA (black), shukla (white) or mishra (grey)? The idea with mantra-yoga is too plant enough good or sattvic seeds that is overwhelms the mental weeds. Your garden doesn't become more weed-free, it just becomes more flowery. Not MMY's interpretation of things TM, but o well. Yeah, MMY's interpretation was a rogue one. It's a deviation from the purity of the Patanjali tradition.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: snip Frankly, I think the whole circumcision/Peter/Paul controversy is the coup de grace BWAHAHAHAHA!! gasp
[FairfieldLife] Re: Does Rick Perry's God have something against Texas?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u wgm4u@... wrote: I've never seen such partisan and one sided posting as from this particular poster, it is as if he can only see black and white or is so jaded in his way of thinking that objective thinking is no longer possible. Yes do.rflex is a big idiot - it was probably not wise of you to respond to him because he gets very disoriented, disturbed and disjointed if he has to indulge in any human interactions. Please leave him alone in peace so he can just continue his copy and paste from various liberal websites in a mind-numbing, monotonous and mechanical manner. And the incessant posting of websites that support his particular viewpoint is simplistic and a poor substitute for his own comments on the matter, like, what's he afraid of?, he might be wrong? At least Judy will engage.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Faith has such a shitty track record on this planet. I don't understand how it got such an effective PR campaign that it is still touted as a positive, cherished value for human understanding. I'm even only a fan of faith in oneself in a highly context dependent form. (Like you need to believe in yourself to win this tennis tournament.) Most of the time I think was should start from the assumption that we are full of it and that our confidence is based on compellingly emotional cognitive flaws that we all share as humans. All of us. And for me, that includes Thomas the Tank Engine, er... I mean Thomas I am really, really sure about these first principles. Really. Aquinas. Great piece of writing Curtis, faith, love, trust seems to be much maligned values in the West now. Sure there is a great potential of harming oneself by exposing oneself in the quest for qualities like faith, love and trust but from my personal experience they open a secret door to the divine - an inexhaustible source of these very qualities in you which then you gladly share with others. The other then just become a vehicle to this incredible journey. However by closing the door to values like faith and trust one is then remains stunted and in a cocoon. I wasn't lumping together faith,love and trust. For me they are different in important ways. I'm a fan or love and of earned trust. It is faith for it's own sake or in matters with poor reasons that I am objecting to. It is this context of taking religious assertions on faith that causes problems. It was not so long ago that people KNEW that men had one less rib than women because the Bible tells of God making women out of one of Adam's ribs. Then they counted. That worked out better.
[FairfieldLife] Re: another question for MZ, and maybe William of Occam
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: Thanks Steve, I can understand the conflict between passing your knowledge to your children and giving them ready made beliefs and I think you made a right choice in the end, to not impose anything on them. I have similar mindset of not passing any spiritual advice to my kids, the kids are very impressionable and vulnerable to harm by the parents (especially religion) - it's just better to provide all the material needs and let them carve their own unique path. Although my older kid is only 13 I don't plan on dishing any spiritual advice unless I'm asked. Of course it might not even be necessary since he has been surrounded by it since his birth and may be that is indeed part of my reluctance. Then I also realize his path(samskaras, innate nature) is dramatically different than mine and my advice would have to be highly tailored to his nature. Thanks for reply. I am a little pressed for time this morning. I have ceded the spirtiutal training of my kids to my wife, who is Catholic. This has been a big burden removed from me. I grew up in a different tradition and likely would have been lazy about giving them instruction in that background, or even them getting them to religious services. As such my role has been to interact with them in mostly fun activities, and to institute discipline when necessary. Although fortunately my wife has also taken the lead in that regard as well. I would like to think of myself as being an involved parent. I think I could make a strong case to for that. They are aware of my religious/spirtiual beliefs for the most part. I don't really talk about them (especially the spiritual as opposed to the religious). But it has certainly given them a different perspective. One which I suspect will creep in more as they get older.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: I wasn't lumping together faith,love and trust. For me they are different in important ways. I'm a fan of love and of earned trust. And although both are cited as reasons to cling to faith, neither is any more dependable than faith itself. For example, if earned trust were to be considered a criterion to continue to believe in MMY as a source of wisdom and truth, doncha think his CC in 5-8 years pronouncement should be factored into the equation? Not to mention Vedaland and ATR credit and People will be flying Any Day Now? It is faith for it's own sake or in matters with poor reasons that I am objecting to. It is this context of taking religious assertions on faith that causes problems. It was not so long ago that people KNEW that men had one less rib than women because the Bible tells of God making women out of one of Adam's ribs. Then they counted. That worked out better. For some. I suspect that there are some, even on this forum, who might still believe this, or try to come up with some spiritual buzzword BS to explain it. The Vedas, after all, couldn't even get the number of ribs of the sacrificial horse right. In some verses it's 34, in others 36. Since the monks who were con- sidered the repositories of eternal wisdom weren't allowed to even talk to women, much less feel up their torsos to count ribs, it's likely that they were just as mistaken. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation and karma?
Not MMY's interpretation of things TM... Vaj: MMY's interpretation was a rogue one... MMY's interpretation is apparently the correct one - someone is telling some very big fibs! It looks like Vaj will have a lot of explaining to do, since Patanjali's definition of Yoga seems to be exactly what MMY called TM, right down to the witnessing! Yoga is the cessation of the mental turnings of the mind. When thought ceases, the Transcendental Absolute stands by itself, refers to Itself, as a witness to the world - Patanjali, Y.S., I.1.2. (Translation by Swami Venkatesananda Saraswati)
[FairfieldLife] 'Jagger with the Stones~ Angie!'...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMkFjYRWM4Mfeature=related
[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
Miracles aren't miraculous events, they are a result of us noticing miraculous events, which surround us. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: mystery. Or things unexplainable. Some of us do not find our sense of wonder about the universe in any way diminished by our lack of belief that it's sentient. Would a sunset at the Grand Canyon be any more full of wonder if it were capable of sentient thought? Or if it was created by someone or something, as opposed to just having happened? I am sure it would be just as wondrous for a believer as an unbeliever. For me it would be some variation of the support of nature theorem. This is where I have noticed, what I might describe, some out of the ordinary interventions. Also, I am not ready to close the door on what are considered miracles. Although my burden of proof may be a little lower than yours.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Writing As Spiritual Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: All our experience is subjective, even that of the outside objective world about which we construe facts. What appear to us to be facts. I know of no law that says we have to either keep the experiences we have private or blab them to the public. It happens one way or the other. If some did not blab out their experience, we would not have people teaching or attempting to teach about enlightenment, we would not have skyscrapers, medicine, trains, or Barry's favorite beer. Of the achievements listed, I must admit to thinking that the monks who brewed my favorite beer may be the most praiseworthy in transforming their inner subjective experience into objective reality. :-) Some have blabbed and made something of the outer world, some have blabbed and have not. Some have blabbed and made a ruin of the world about them. And some don't say what is going on with them. Most on this forum say at least something about what is going on with them. This seems to be a factor in why people continue to post on this platform. A selfish act seems to imply will. The decision to consider the one-pointed pursuit of enlightenment the highest goal in life seems to imply will. If you do not believe in free will, and were that belief true, then the idea of a self that can be selfish has no sense. And if one did have will, but chose not to exercise it, having a subjective experience one did not will to describe to the outer world, or to do so, would still not be a selfish act. Exactly. In a universe devoid of free will, the selfish get off Scot-free for being selfish. That's why I think some of them selfishly choose not to believe in free will. :-) Turq writes. He says certain things. Sometimes he seems to take viewpoints opposite of what he wrote about before. He seems to imply he has a choice in what he does, and his flip flops are an expression of that choice. If they're not, then whoever or whatever the non- freewillers think is running things is not really as consistent as they think he/she/it is. Try to imagine the consternation of those who don't much like the things I write but philosophically believe that God is really writing it all. They must think that God is a real dick to keep putting these words in my mouth. :-) Whoa, just a point to clarify here, since you and I have been down this road before. Just because I suspect that there might not be the free will it feels as if we have, does not mean I think God is conducting the symphony. I think it more likely that our responses that feel so considered and free willish are mostly automatic reactions to stimuli (all based on our brain structure, neurotransmittors, and prior experiences), and by the time our awareness picks up on the response, we have missed the millions of tiny automatic responses and and so assume our own free will - we - made the decision. God does not have to enter this equation, and I doubt that most no free willers here on FFL think that God is doing it all for us.. Given your posts, which I enjoy even when I disagree and about which I think Xeno got it just perfectly right, this might mean you have a brain that enjoys trying on a variety of outlooks, enjoys humor and variety, gets a kick out of provoking sometimes, is creative, writes well. But, since it sure feels like you are doing it, take credit for it for as long as you can:-) I do not always agree with what he says, but I have no evidence he even agrees with what he says. Well said. That's it exactly. He just says it, and in his writing characterises the ideas a certain way, with a certain slant, like the way a journalist writes. It is that characterisation that get people riled up here. It is a deliberate and effective technique. Bingo. If I do not agree with him, that does not mean what I think is true either. Bingo again. In a universe without free will, some can claim that overreacting to the things I write is not their doing. They are prisoners to their karma or to the laws of nature or to the will of God in this regard, and have no choice *but* to overreact. Those on the forum who have free will are able to read my stuff, take it or leave it, and move on without overreacting. They are free to read the things I write without acting out the following famous scenario. I think that ability alone is grounds for believing in free will. :-) [0]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote: However by closing the door to values like faith and trust one is then remains stunted and in a cocoon. Yes, I think this is what happens. From what I understand about the opposing view, is that there is no evidence as to the existence of God. Also, through thorough analysis and deep thought they arrive at this same conclusion. I can't argue with their assumptions. I was thinking that they were showing a lack of assumptions by noticing that the reasons for his existence are not solid. The only underlying assumption is that there should be good reasons to support beliefs and perhaps that the more a claim deviates from our common knowledge base of how the world works, the more compelling the evidence should be. And these good reasons are not limited to the methods of science, we have lots of tools to gain confidence in knowledge beyond that context-useful system. All I can say is that, for me, there is too much wonder, and simply by being open to this wonder a door opens to what I might call a divine mystery. Or things unexplainable. I just can't envision closing the door to events that can't be explained by science, or of course, by the present state of science. For me believing poor explanations does close the door to the wonder of I don't know. The old unidentified flying object as opposed to alien space ship distinction. Which phrase does more justice to mystery? We had two recent bids for our credulity, coincidentally involving monks. Both engaged in what I call, evidence or credulity theater in an attempt to move us from probably not to probably so. In the first we were presented with a man lying under a blanket covering his face, who was claimed to be a man who had died a few weeks ago. The claim was that he had been dead long enough that he should have smelled or showed signs of decay. But magically he didn't, according to the host of the show. The theater involved the TV guy pulling his hair to show that he hadn't rotted enough for it to come out or that it wasn't an alive guy lying there. The problem was that we don't know when hair falls out after death, and he didn't pull it hard enough to get a reaction from a dedicated person. They showed this evidence twice in the short segment. It was meant to build trust in his thoroughness. But as a means of determining death is was bogus and without the context of the specialized knowledge of how bodies decay at the hair roots, it was meaningless. It was credulity theater. Bad reasons for belief presented as good ones. The next one was the levitating monk. The credulity boost was the presence of a magician which should have been the audience's representative with specialized knowledge to help evaluate the claim. But he betrayed that trust. Anyone who knows anything about levitation in magic shows was alerted to the tell of his moving in front of a curtain with vertical lines. It is a classic lift levitation. The movement up and down revealed it as mechanical and obvious. So the magician was a plant, a faker and a con. He was not looking out for our interest in evaluating something amazing. Of course the context of the stories about monks was also supposed to take us out of our daily knowledge base because everyone knows that monks might have special powers. I mean, they don't even watch TV or bang chicks, so they should be considered supernatural from the get go! Our reactions to each of these, the questions we ask, reveal the process we all go through in being open to new ideas. Noticing that the reasons presented were not adequate to support belief in an amazing claim has nothing to do with being open to new ideas or the fact that science has limits in understanding the amazing world we live in. We cut ourselves short if by being open we mean we ignore the reality that sensational claims should be evaluated with the possibility that someone is being deceptive. In fact, I would argue, clogging our minds with such obvious fakes closes our minds by distraction, to the real wonders and questions that deserve our time and attention. So we each have to answer our own question of what it means for us to balance being open to new ideas that contradict our preconceptions, and how we filter out what doesn't deserve that. When I rebuilt my epistemological system getting out of TM I moved from being sort of actively accepting of claims like bodies not rotting as probably true to a more circumspect position of prove it. There are plenty of wonders that clear this bar in the world. I enjoy sharpening my skills of noticing the tells in evidence theater. So I will always be a sucker for the next dead man not rotting video. But if you want my credulity vote, leave me alone with the guy for a few minutes.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Writing As Spiritual Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: snip Turq writes. He says certain things. Sometimes he seems to take viewpoints opposite of what he wrote about before. He seems to imply he has a choice in what he does, and his flip flops are an expression of that choice. I do not always agree with what he says, but I have no evidence he even agrees with what he says. He just says it, and in his writing characterises the ideas a certain way, with a certain slant, like the way a journalist writes. It is that characterisation that get people riled up here. It is a deliberate and effective technique. My impression after 16 years is somewhat different. It's posturing. He takes postures that he thinks make him look superior. That's the single driving force behind what he writes, to exalt himself and put down other people. Aside from his sadistic demonizations of others, what most irritates folks is his inauthenticity: there's no there there, just a wildly inflated shell of ego with nothing inside, an empty center. He doesn't care if people like him, he just wants desperately to be feared and admired, and he says whatever he thinks will accomplish that at any given moment. It's purely opportunistic and self- serving, designed to portray himself as special no matter what the immediate context. It doesn't have to bear any relationship to reality; it doesn't have to be logical. It doesn't have to be genuinely insightful. It doesn't have to be consistent. His skill with words may be his greatest weakness in this context, because he can make himself sound special without actually having to say anything significant or even sensible. That's why he so rarely engages in serious discussions; his ability to string words together is impressive only when he's doing one of his solo expostulations (and then only if you don't read them closely). If he has to think and understand and respond meaningfully rather than just come back with a wisecrack or putdown, he crashes and burns. He's unable to sustain a conversation beyond one or two exchanges. Actually, that wasn't always the case; he used to be able to carry on a conversation. Apparently he got beaten down so many times he's no longer willing to take that risk.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jagger with the Stones~ Angie!'...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii_99@... wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMkFjYRWM4Mfeature=related Great video, Robert. One of my favorite Stones songs, and a lovely version of it. To some, it might remind them of various stages of the spiritual development process. Others may hear only a rock song.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Practicing some kind of Cosmic Tantrum Yoga, He withdrew Himself (or at least the Holy Ghost part of Himself, which we all know is the cool part) from this world, for His own reasons. Cosmic Tantrum Yoga! BTW - I have never understood this Holy Ghost business. I think the Muslims have a point about Christianity: God is One: The Father, Son Holy Ghost. Er.. say, what? Can someone enlighten me - what IS the Holy Ghost?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation and karma?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: [...] Yeah, MMY's interpretation was a rogue one. It's a deviation from the purity of the Patanjali tradition. Yes, and all interpretations of xyz are automatically bad because they differ from the mainstream. E.G. universal salvation vs you must believe exactly as I do or you are damned forever (aka nicene/apostolic creed). Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Practicing some kind of Cosmic Tantrum Yoga, He withdrew Himself (or at least the Holy Ghost part of Himself, which we all know is the cool part) from this world, for His own reasons. Cosmic Tantrum Yoga! BTW - I have never understood this Holy Ghost business. I think the Muslims have a point about Christianity: God is One: The Father, Son Holy Ghost. Er.. say, what? Can someone enlighten me - what IS the Holy Ghost? Not having been raised a Chrisschun myself, I shall leave more scholarly explanations to others. I will merely speculate that God may have had an unrequited thang for Casper the Friendly Ghost, and chose to play dress-up as him from time to time.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Writing As Spiritual Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: All our experience is subjective, even that of the outside objective world about which we construe facts. What appear to us to be facts. I know of no law that says we have to either keep the experiences we have private or blab them to the public. It happens one way or the other. If some did not blab out their experience, we would not have people teaching or attempting to teach about enlightenment, we would not have skyscrapers, medicine, trains, or Barry's favorite beer. Of the achievements listed, I must admit to thinking that the monks who brewed my favorite beer may be the most praiseworthy in transforming their inner subjective experience into objective reality. :-) Some have blabbed and made something of the outer world, some have blabbed and have not. Some have blabbed and made a ruin of the world about them. And some don't say what is going on with them. Most on this forum say at least something about what is going on with them. This seems to be a factor in why people continue to post on this platform. A selfish act seems to imply will. The decision to consider the one-pointed pursuit of enlightenment the highest goal in life seems to imply will. If you do not believe in free will, and were that belief true, then the idea of a self that can be selfish has no sense. And if one did have will, but chose not to exercise it, having a subjective experience one did not will to describe to the outer world, or to do so, would still not be a selfish act. Exactly. In a universe devoid of free will, the selfish get off Scot-free for being selfish. That's why I think some of them selfishly choose not to believe in free will. :-) Turq writes. He says certain things. Sometimes he seems to take viewpoints opposite of what he wrote about before. He seems to imply he has a choice in what he does, and his flip flops are an expression of that choice. If they're not, then whoever or whatever the non- freewillers think is running things is not really as consistent as they think he/she/it is. Try to imagine the consternation of those who don't much like the things I write but philosophically believe that God is really writing it all. They must think that God is a real dick to keep putting these words in my mouth. :-) Whoa, just a point to clarify here, since you and I have been down this road before. Just because I suspect that there might not be the free will it feels as if we have, does not mean I think God is conducting the symphony. I think it more likely that our responses that feel so considered and free willish are mostly automatic reactions to stimuli (all based on our brain structure, neurotransmittors, and prior experiences), and by the time our awareness picks up on the response, we have missed the millions of tiny automatic responses and and so assume our own free will - we - made the decision. God does not have to enter this equation, and I doubt that most no free willers here on FFL think that God is doing it all for us.. - 'God' when dealing with the concept of free will and the concept of determinism is a redundancy. Using the word seems to objectify the mysterious process of the universe and give it the aura of an entity present somewhere which controls the process. The process just might be there naturally without anything controlling it. There have always been logical problems with this. An Omniscient and Omnipotent entity is inconsistent with the concept of free will. Quantum mechanics is inconsistent with a completely deterministic universe. Given your posts, which I enjoy even when I disagree and about which I think Xeno got it just perfectly right, this might mean you have a brain that enjoys trying on a variety of outlooks, enjoys humor and variety, gets a kick out of provoking sometimes, is creative, writes well. But, since it sure feels like you are doing it, take credit for it for as long as you can:-) Maybe this all has to do with our sense of scale, that is, how much of the universe we take into any argument. When we take a very local view, we observe what appears to be free will. When we look at a larger scale, cosmology, physics, chemistry, biology, neuroscience, we think we see the operation of laws that contradict the concept of free will, and we see experimental results that also negate the idea of free will -- that we are a mechanical pawn that is just part of inexorable forces we cannot control. Then there are various descriptions found in spiritual traditions, which are just records of what various people thought about these questions in a less technologically
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation and karma?
On Jul 5, 2011, at 9:52 AM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: [...] Yeah, MMY's interpretation was a rogue one. It's a deviation from the purity of the Patanjali tradition. Yes, and all interpretations of xyz are automatically bad because they differ from the mainstream. E.G. universal salvation vs you must believe exactly as I do or you are damned forever (aka nicene/apostolic creed). Well, it's either replicable or it's not. Living tradition is about results, not massaging data...
[FairfieldLife] Re: What kind of meditation did the Buddha teach?
emptybill: It's a mental midget's attempt to define the real nature of mantra, Mahayana, meditation, transcending, and reality itself... So, where does the tradition of meditation on 'bija' mantras come from? We know that 'mantras' are used in the Vedas, but there are no bija mantras in the Rig Veda or in Patanjali's Yoga Sutras or in the writings of Shankaracharya. So, the tradition of meditating on bija mantras must have come later, perhaps during the Gupta age of Indian tantrism, and the period of the Nath siddhas. Apparently the practice of 'mantrayana' was introduced into Tibet by Shenrab, who came over from the Swat Valley almost 100 years before the arrival of Guru Padmasambhava in Tibet. In a strange 'reverse Tibet' effect, the Mantrayana Buddhism that Shenrab established in Shang Shung came to be called 'Bon', while the same practice established by Guru Rinpoche came to called 'Chos'. Go figure. According to Snellgrove, the siddha Naropa journeyed to Kashmir in order to obtain the bija mantras from Tilopa. So, from the Swat Valley and Kashmir we get the bija mantras via the Nath Siddhas, to the Indian and Buddhist Tantric Tradition, and thus, according to White and Brooks, to the Sri Vidya sect down in Karnataka, of which SBS was an initiate member. So, now it has been established where the 'TM' bija mantras came from, since these same bijas are enumerated in Shankara's Shakti work, the Saundarylahari. Not for nothing do we find the TM bijas inscribed on the Sri Yantra which was placed on the mandir at Sringeri by the Adi Shankaracharya himself. Correct me if I am mistaken about this, Bill. Works cited: 'Indo-Tibetan Buddhism' Indian Buddhists Their Tibetan Successors By David Snellgrove Shambhala, 2003 'The Secret of the Three Cities' An Introduction to Hindu Sakta Tantrism by Douglas Renfrew Brooks University Of Chicago Press, 1998 'The Alchemical Body' Siddha Traditions in Medieval India David Gordon White University Of Chicago Press, 1998 Read more: Subject: Its Not What You Think! Author: Willytex Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental, alt.yoga, alt.meditation Date: August 26, 2003 http://tinyurl.com/n4xa63
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation and karma?
Vaj has no explaining to do at all. Since he makes this stuff up, there is no explanation. He cannot cite his guru-s or sampradaya. He has none. He reads books and apparently goes to webinars for his ideas. Here a 2005 FFL post about Vaj: Vaj is interested in many things, TM obviously not amongst them. He was obviously, in the last years since 2001, mainly been busy with Freemasonry and keeps the confessions of Aleister Crowley on his webpage. Not, that it is wrong to have many interests. But I wonder, how you can be a Nath, as he claims he is initiated into the Nath order, a Shri Vidya practitioner, of the Shankara order, and a Tibetan Buddhist at the same time. That's just like if you are a Mormon, a Catholic priest, and a Baptist simultaneously, while just 2-3 years ago he was a Free masonic brother. I think it's relatively easy to just gather info's from the net, read some books, watch some discussions. It's quite another thing to follow a path committedly over decades. So I think Vaj aka Vajranatha just wants to show up. . --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardjwilliamstexas willytex@... wrote: Not MMY's interpretation of things TM... Vaj: MMY's interpretation was a rogue one... MMY's interpretation is apparently the correct one - someone is telling some very big fibs! It looks like Vaj will have a lot of explaining to do, since Patanjali's definition of Yoga seems to be exactly what MMY called TM, right down to the witnessing! Yoga is the cessation of the mental turnings of the mind. When thought ceases, the Transcendental Absolute stands by itself, refers to Itself, as a witness to the world - Patanjali, Y.S., I.1.2. (Translation by Swami Venkatesananda Saraswati)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sai Baba's Legacy: Death Threats Scandal
In quoting this work about cult behaviour, Denise brings up an important observation. Because virtually all spiritual groups show these peculiar behaviours in some degree, getting the maximum benefit from such a group may depend on how much natural resistance you have to getting sucked in all the way. You can pick up most of the important stuff by staying kind of on the sidelines but still being involved in a cautious way, avoiding the personal weirdness of the clique that hovers around the center of the maelstrom. In some traditions, Zen, for example, the 'master' is considered less an object of devotion. Adyashanti, who says he was in the Zen tradition, refers to himself as a doormat. The purpose of a doormat is to wipe your feet and go into the house, but it is a stupid idea to hang around the mat and worship it. You will not get into the house as long as you do this. Here is a story from the Zen literature. I cannot image MMY or any bigwig in the TMO, the Pope or other appropriately accoutered individual doing the following: Zen masters give personal guidance in a secluded room. No one enters while teacher and pupil are together. Mokurai, the Zen master of Kennin temple in Kyoto, used to enjoy talking with merchants and newspapermen as well as with his pupils. A certain tubmaker was almost illiterate. He would ask foolish questions of Mokurai, have tea, and then go away. One day while the tubmaker was there Mokurai wished to give personal guidance to a disciple, so he asked the tubmaker to wait in another room. 'I understand you are a living Buddha,' the man protested. 'Even the stone Buddhas in the temple never refuse the numerous persons who come together before them. Why then should I be excluded?' Mokurai had to go outside to see his disciple. --- --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Denise Evans dmevans365@... wrote: These statements from the Guru Papers are good reminders It appears that almost without exception..the various guru organizations devolve to authoritarian regimes in the endregardless of the enlightenment factorguru's appear to all demonstrate that they are human in the end. Â I like this quote in particular The person most at risk of being strangled by the images demanded by the role of the guru is the guru. This includes the great danger of emotional isolation. . . At the heart of the ultimate trap is building and becoming attached to the image of oneself as having arrived at a state where self-delusion is no longer possible. This is the most treacherous form of self-delusion and a veritable breeding ground of hypocrisy and deception. It creates a feedback-proof system where the guru always needs to be right and cannot be open to being shown wrong â which is where learning comes from.â (p.107) I realize the Amma followers believe she is benignbut full-on devotees are different and exhibit many of the characteristics and detail many of the experiences in the few accounts available of a cult follower than peripheral followers taking what they like and leaving the rest. Â I don't actually like that phrase particularlyit's important to explore the whole picture. The following quotes are taken from Part One of the Guru Papers and are deemed by ex-members to be strikingly accurate in describing the dynamics of a cult guru.âIf an authority not only expects to be obeyed without question, but either punishes or refuses to deal with those who do not, that authority is authoritarian.â (p.15)âGurus can arouse intense emotions as there is extraordinary passion in surrendering to what one perceives as a living God.â (p.33)âIn the East a guru is more than a teacher. He is a doorway that supposedly allows one to enter into a more profound relationship with the spiritual. A necessary step becomes acknowledging the guruâs specialness and mastery over that which one wishes to attain. The message is that to be a really serious student, spiritual realization must be the primary concern. Therefore, oneâs relationship with the guru must, in time, become oneâs prime emotional bond, with all others viewed as secondary. In fact, typically other relationships are pejoratively referred to as âattachments.ââ (p.49)âSo although most gurus preach detachment, disciples become attached to having the guru as their center, whereas the guru becomes attached to having the power of being othersâ center.â (p.50)âWhen abuses are publicly exposed, the leader either denies or justifies the behaviors by saying that âenemies of the truthâ or âthe forces of evilâ are trying to subvert his true message. Core members of the group have a huge vested interest in believing him, as their identity is wrapped up in believing in his righteousness. Those who begin to doubt him at first become confused and depressed, and later feel betrayed and angry. The
[FairfieldLife] Re: Writing As Spiritual Practice
If, so it's another Turq flip-flop, since Turq recently proclaimed to be a non-believer in a transcendental experience. Go figure. Xenophaneros Anartaxius: All our experience is subjective, even that of the outside objective world about which we construe facts... So, we get knowledge from personal experience, the senses, and through verbal testimony. The facts are what we infer, based on our knowledge, or what seems reasonable to us from observation. We know things to be true by inference; we can infer the facts due to our valid means of knowledge. For example, we know from experience and observations that human excrement always flows downstream. And, we know this from the verbal testimony of others; and we know this by using common sense. These are the facts of our subjective experience. If shit didn't flow downstream, it might fly up into the air! He says certain things. Sometimes he seems to take viewpoints opposite of what he wrote about before... So, I wonder why Turq can't understand this, and why is he inserting into the accepted and valid means of knowledge, a 'transcendental will', when everyone know that Turq no longer believes in transcendence? It just doesn't make any sense, but it does prove that Turq gets really mixed up sometimes. Go figure. It all depends on what you mean by knowledge and what you mean by belief. Knowledge means having reasons, or justification for having a true belief. Believing just means that you think something is true. So, belief is a factor of knowledge. Another factor of knowledge is truth. We can only know what is true - we cannot know what is false. So, how is it that people wind up with false beliefs? Something is true when we have lots of good reasons to believe that it's true - we have justification for our beliefs. Usually we get justification through our senses - seeing is believing - and so we infer that certain events are true based on our personal experience. So, we can believe something is true based on what we see and what we experience. We also believe something is true based on what we infer, and we believe something is true based on the verbal testimony of others. So, what Turq just wrote is basically his belief and he believes that it is true. But, to deny personal experience is a little more than bizarre! So, where do you think the Turq gets these beliefs, if not from others or from books he read? How would Turq know that a subjective experience is of no value to any one else? Does Turq believe that he has knowledge that is superior to sense experience?
[FairfieldLife] Lucia Micarelli with Chris Botti music video
For fans of HBO's Treme who haven't come across this video yet nor the other ones of musician/actress Lucia Micarelli here is one with Chris Botti: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8NN4fpdm40 It is good to see that Lucia got more to do this season. Next season maybe we should lobby to get at least part of an episode with Curtis in it. ;-) I think he would fit right in but they might have to have one of the characters wind up in Washington, DC. Lucia jammin' with Curtis. I also caught up on a little German film on Vudu that sounded interesting and was called Berlin Undead. It's only 62 minutes long but very well done. It's a story about a group of residents in an apartment complex that have to defend themselves as people outside turn into zombies. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1583356/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
Sorry have to run. Wife's up and you know what she's like. She said she's checking out with or without me and FFL. Heavy un-stress-or, needs to sleep more in her meditation! Thanks for this ending. I'll leave the rest of your very entertaining and insightful post to others to comment on, but I liked this ending. It's very Tantric, the kinda thing I would throw in at the end of a rap to put it in context. You're a very funny guy. Did I ever know you back in the day? Turq, thank you for your kind words although the wife said you and I do not need to encourage each other. Frankly, I think you were on to something. Yesterday, after reading your post, I was looking at the wife's west side, as she was walking east, and all I could think of was tantra. She also agrees with you about Vermeer and asked me to send you this link which she believes proves hers and your point. http://www.artbabble.org/video/ngadc/vermeer-master-light-woman-holding-balance-part-1 Don't get me wrong I can't argue with either of you about Vermeer and light. My love of Rembrandt is something else. I feel (any art historians out there please cover your ears) Rembrandt was the first post-impressionist, somewhere between Van Gogh and Gauguin. Which I believe that would make him the father of modern art. I'll save my explanation for another post, I'm trying my level best to be succinct. Lets just say that Rembrandt explains my, summer of love, flashbacks better than any other painter I know, although Pollock and Rothko are close behind.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Writing As Spiritual Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: A selfish act seems to imply will. The decision to consider the one-pointed pursuit of enlightenment the highest goal in life seems to imply will. If you do not believe in free will, and were that belief true, then the idea of a self that can be selfish has no sense. As Wayback points out well below, I will take a similar whack at it, one acts according to their nature. A selfish person will generally act selfish. They can only not act selfish/dickish unless the thought occurs to them (possibly from feedback from others) to act in nondickish ways. When then, ones mental nature will determine if one pursues that insight. They have no free-will to not act dickish until they learn through experience, reasoning, intuition, life feedback that their are alternatives. And over time the DP finds more fulfilling ways of living than pure dickhood. One acts according to their nature. And part of our natures is to explore, learn, find ways and things that appear to bring greater happiness, clarity and good times. A DP cann't help but be dickish, but also can't help evaluating the feedback he gets -- even if its subconscious. Generally, you have no free will not to enjoy greater happiness. There is no choice. One only goes for the number three door if they feel it will increase their overall happiness and fulfillment. Values play a big role in determining what we think / feel will bring us greater happiness -- why we choose the number three door and not number one. A masochist has a value framework such that inflicting pain on oneself is seen to be a field of greater happiness. And if one did have will, but chose not to exercise it, having a subjective experience one did not will to describe to the outer world, or to do so, would still not be a selfish act. Exactly. In a universe devoid of free will, the selfish get off Scot-free for being selfish. That's why I think some of them selfishly choose not to believe in free will. :-) There are (at least) two dimensions to this. You focus on only one. On can only act according to their nature. That is not being scot-free. There are consequences to our actions. Life provides abundant feedback. It is also our nature to learn, adapt, seek even better ways to be happy. So the selfish have no option in the short-run to be dickish. Longer run, as life feedback and internal processing of that occurs, more pathways arise. One will flow towards the path of least resistance towards perceived greater happiness. Turq writes. He says certain things. Sometimes he seems to take viewpoints opposite of what he wrote about before. He seems to imply he has a choice in what he does, and his flip flops are an expression of that choice. If they're not, then whoever or whatever the non- freewillers think is running things is not really as consistent as they think he/she/it is. Again, you are missing the no-free will boat. (And you had no choice but to do so, you perhaps gain happiness by missing boats -- or appearing to do so. Enjoyment may be towards seeing peoples reactions to your missing boats -- who knows.) Acting according to ones nature, acting towards greater happiness, responding to life feedback does not premise or posit or require some he/she running us like puppets. Try to imagine the consternation of those who don't much like the things I write but philosophically believe that God is really writing it all. They must think that God is a real dick to keep putting these words in my mouth. :-) Whoa, just a point to clarify here, since you and I have been down this road before. Just because I suspect that there might not be the free will it feels as if we have, does not mean I think God is conducting the symphony. Precisely. I think it more likely that our responses that feel so considered and free willish are mostly automatic reactions to stimuli (all based on our brain structure, neurotransmittors, and prior experiences), and by the time our awareness picks up on the response, we have missed the millions of tiny automatic responses and and so assume our own free will - we - made the decision. So much goes on below the surface. Who understands and wills their cells to replicate in specific ways, their heart to beat, cells to form high functioning organs, neurons to create vast networks, the response to neurotransmitters, etc? We are the very tiny tip of the tail of the dog, yet we feel (strongly) we are wagging the dog. God does not have to enter this equation, and I doubt that most no free willers here on FFL think that God is doing it all for us.. Correct. To think so would seem silly. Given your posts,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Writing As Spiritual Practice
Ravi: I should clarify when he uses the term subjective experiences he is referring to claims of enlightenment and spiritual experiences... Maybe so, but the idea of 'enlightenment' comes from the verbal testimony of others, not from observation, or from subjective experience. People don't just suddenly shout out that they are enlightened, without having been first exposed to the enlightenment tradition. Is Turq saying that there is another valid means of knowledge - the 'will', that is transcendental or beyond the accepted valid means of knowledge? Is Turq thinking he has some kind of special insight that others do no have? Turq would know nothing about 'enlightenment', unless he read about it in a book, or unless he was told it. If we accept that Turq does not believe in or trust his own senses, then how could he maintain a belief in Rama or that Rama was able to levitate by his own willpower?
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jagger with the Stones~ Angie!'...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii_99@ wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMkFjYRWM4Mfeature=related Great video, Robert. One of my favorite Stones songs, and a lovely version of it. To some, it might remind them of various stages of the spiritual development process. Others may hear only a rock song. See? I'm special because the song reminds me of the spiritual development process. Other people who aren't as special as I am just hear it as a rock song.
[FairfieldLife] Trying to locate Carl Jensen who was a Governor in the TM Organisation for many years
I am trying to locate a brother of mine, Carl Jensen, who was (and may still be, I dont know for sure) a Governor in the TM organisation. He got involved in TM in the sixties and was a teacher for years initiating most of his family (myself included) in Alberta Canada where we grew up. My older brother John and I attended his wedding at Maharishi University campus in Fairfield many years ago. We have lost track of him and need to contact him on an urgent family matter. It would help me a lot if you could tell me: Do you or any of your colleagues know him yourself personally Do you or any of your colleagues know of him Do you or any of your colleagues know where he is currently and how we could contact him (or ask him to contact me as soon as he can) You would be doing us a great service if you could assist us or if you know some of the senior members of the TM organisation who would have known Carl and hopefull still know him. At one stage he spent over a year in India with the Maharishi and a group of teachers taking intensive training. I am in Perth Australia but am happy to take a mobile phone call any time night or day on +61 402840383 or just email me if you have any questions. Thanks in advance. Mike Jensen
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Writing As Spiritual Practice
One of the many things I love about Turq'sand Judy's writing, besides the punctuation, is that neither of them abuse adverbs or adjectives. I'll bet money they can both cook as well. http://www.articlesbase.com/writing-articles/mark-twain-stephen-king-adjectives-and-hell-950890.html#axzz1RF7aixbV http://whatamireading.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/on-writing-by-stephen-king/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Writing As Spiritual Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: One of the many things I love about Turq'sand Judy's writing, besides the punctuation, is that neither of them abuse adverbs or adjectives. I'll bet money they can both cook as well. Oh, I get it. You're on commission for a dating agency! http://www.articlesbase.com/writing-articles/mark-twain-stephen-king-adjectives-and-hell-950890.html#axzz1RF7aixbV http://whatamireading.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/on-writing-by-stephen-king/
[FairfieldLife] Tot Mom
A better defense might have been, Caylee accidentally drowned in the family swimming pool; Casey panicked and hid the body; because Casey is mentally ill. Read more: 'Casey Anthony Trial Update: Jury reaches verdict' CBS News, July 2011 http://tinyurl.com/3m9uhjd 'Casey Anthony trial: Jury reaches verdict' Orlando Sentinel, July 5, 2011 http://tinyurl.com/3ttnsu3
[FairfieldLife] Re: Does Rick Perry's God have something against Texas?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u wgm4u@ wrote: I've never seen such partisan and one sided posting as from this particular poster, it is as if he can only see black and white or is so jaded in his way of thinking that objective thinking is no longer possible. Yes do.rflex is a big idiot - it was probably not wise of you to respond to him because he gets very disoriented, disturbed and disjointed if he has to indulge in any human interactions. Please leave him alone in peace so he can just continue his copy and paste from various liberal websites in a mind-numbing, monotonous and mechanical manner. Watch 'em dance, folks. And the incessant posting of websites that support his particular viewpoint is simplistic and a poor substitute for his own comments on the matter, like, what's he afraid of?, he might be wrong? At least Judy will engage.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tot Mom
Guilty of lying! Case closed. A better defense might have been, Caylee accidentally drowned in the family swimming pool; Casey panicked and hid the body; because Casey is mentally ill. Read more: 'Casey Anthony Trial Update: Jury reaches verdict' CBS News, July 2011 http://tinyurl.com/3m9uhjd 'Casey Anthony trial: Jury reaches verdict' Orlando Sentinel, July 5, 2011 http://tinyurl.com/3ttnsu3
[FairfieldLife] Re: Writing As Spiritual Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@... wrote: Whoa, just a point to clarify here, since you and I have been down this road before. Just because I suspect that there might not be the free will it feels as if we have, does not mean I think God is conducting the symphony. I think it more likely that our responses that feel so considered and free willish are mostly automatic reactions to stimuli (all based on our brain structure, neurotransmittors, and prior experiences), and by the time our awareness picks up on the response, we have missed the millions of tiny automatic responses and and so assume our own free will - we - made the decision. God does not have to enter this equation, and I doubt that most no free willers here on FFL think that God is doing it all for us.. Given your posts, which I enjoy even when I disagree and about which I think Xeno got it just perfectly right, this might mean you have a brain that enjoys trying on a variety of outlooks, enjoys humor and variety, gets a kick out of provoking sometimes, is creative, writes well. But, since it sure feels like you are doing it, take credit for it for as long as you can:-) That's fair. But to be equally fair, I shall admit for the record that some time ago I offshored my FFL posting duties to an Indian guy in Srinigar. I send him rough ideas of the things I want people to think I'm thinking about this month, and he fleshes them out into FFL posts and Sends them under my ID. Meanwhile I get to work on another writing project, while paying him the occasional rupee or two to keep up my end of things here. He may, in fact, be the one writing this post. Be warned. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Writing As Spiritual Practice
turquoiseb: He may, in fact, be the one writing this post Obviously Barry is in a state of denial. Go figure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Jagger with the Stones~ Angie!'...
To some, it might remind them of various stages of the spiritual development process. Others may hear only a rock song... authfriend: See? I'm special because the song reminds me of the spiritual development process. Other people who aren't as special as I am just hear it as a rock song. That's because everything that happens to Barry is special and enlightening, except when it happens to someone else, and then it's just a big whoop, and nothing special. Go figure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: Miracles aren't miraculous events, they are a result of us noticing miraculous events, which surround us. Good distinction, and good point, Jim... Letting go of our identification with the I'm-right-you're-wrong (or vice versa) stories of the intellect may well free us up to appreciate the it's-all-perfect story of divine choreography, self-tickling with miracles at every moment :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tot Mom
Guilty of lying - a misdemeanor, not a jailing offense, since she has been in prison for three years. Why? Murder was not proved - lack of evidence. Jeff Ashton maybe just laughed too soon, which might have caused the jury to vote the way they did. Jose Baez should demand Casey's immediate release. Guilty of lying! Case closed. A better defense might have been, Caylee accidentally drowned in the family swimming pool; Casey panicked and hid the body; because Casey is mentally ill. Read more: 'Casey Anthony Trial Update: Jury reaches verdict' CBS News, July 2011 http://tinyurl.com/3m9uhjd 'Casey Anthony trial: Jury reaches verdict' Orlando Sentinel, July 5, 2011 http://tinyurl.com/3ttnsu3
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tot Mom
Makes no difference to me, but Scott Peterson was convicted of murder based on circumstantial evidence only, which is all they had against Casey as well. If she really did it, karma will have to take care of her. seekliberation --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardjwilliamstexas willytex@... wrote: Guilty of lying - a misdemeanor, not a jailing offense, since she has been in prison for three years. Why? Murder was not proved - lack of evidence. Jeff Ashton maybe just laughed too soon, which might have caused the jury to vote the way they did. Jose Baez should demand Casey's immediate release. Guilty of lying! Case closed. A better defense might have been, Caylee accidentally drowned in the family swimming pool; Casey panicked and hid the body; because Casey is mentally ill. Read more: 'Casey Anthony Trial Update: Jury reaches verdict' CBS News, July 2011 http://tinyurl.com/3m9uhjd 'Casey Anthony trial: Jury reaches verdict' Orlando Sentinel, July 5, 2011 http://tinyurl.com/3ttnsu3
[FairfieldLife] Re: Writing As Spiritual Practice
(This may be a duplicate; the first try hasn't shown up, and it's been hours.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: snip H. I'm getting the feeling that even Ravi is smart enough to realize that the fantasy image involved here is what Judy *hopes* I see her as. *She* created this photo. *She* made herself look that ugly in it. It's what *she* hopes I think of her. It's not. Look at the photograph, Judy. That's not you making a face, that IS your face. What you are shows in this photo all too clearly.--Barry, #158094 Ooopsie...somebody give Barry a bandage for his poor foot. If I'd had any image of her before she posted this, it was most likely along the lines of an old woman so housebound and lonely that she couldn't even find a friend to take a photo of her. That part turned out to be true. Well, no, it didn't. It's part of Barry's fantasy image of me. (It's quite an elaborate image; one of his very first posts to FFL, well before I ever showed up here, featured another aspect of that fantasy.) He's posted the photo over and over again to show what a horrible person I am. At one point he posted it along with a whole bunch of other FFL member photos for comparison, implying it was the *only* photo I'd posted of myself. On another occasion, he Photoshopped it onto an aerial view of a cornfield, making it appear to be many thousands of times its actual size. Talk about obsession! And he copied it into his AOL account, apparently because he was afraid I'd delete it from the FFL photo section. No WAY would I delete that photo. I had uploaded it as a gag to tweak Barry, but it turned out to be more effective in exposing his obsession with and hatred of me than I could ever have dreamed, still paying dividends almost four years later. BTW, here's what I actually look like: http://tinyurl.com/therealjudy Fearsome, eh?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Writing As Spiritual Practice
I hope you're not looking for an override although all good ideas get consideration! I know what Elaine thinks about exclamation marks, I wonder what King thinks about them! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSKn8RlD7Isfeature=related From: PaliGap compost...@yahoo.co.uk To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 5, 2011 10:52:01 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Writing As Spiritual Practice --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: One of the many things I love about Turq'sand Judy's writing, besides the punctuation, is that neither of them abuse adverbs or adjectives. I'll bet money they can both cook as well. Oh, I get it. You're on commission for a dating agency! http://www.articlesbase.com/writing-articles/mark-twain-stephen-king-adjectives-and-hell-950890.html#axzz1RF7aixbV V http://whatamireading.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/on-writing-by-stephen-king/
[FairfieldLife] Casey Anthony Not Guilty of Murder
Casey Anthony Not Guilty in Slaying of Daughter ORLANDO Casey Anthony, the young mother whose seeming heartlessness and barrage of lies transfixed America for three years, was found not guilty of murder in the death of her daughter, Caylee Marie. After nearly six weeks of testimony, a panel of seven women and five men decided that Ms. Anthony did not murder Caylee by dosing her with chloroform, suffocating her with duct tape and dumping her in a wooded area, as prosecutors claimed. They also did, however, find her guilty of lesser charges, of providing false information to law enforcement officers. The jury did not ask to review any evidence. When the verdict was read, Ms Anthony, 25, who faced a possible death sentence, cried. The verdict vindicates the defense, which argued from the start that Caylee drowned accidentally in the family swimming pool and that the death was concealed by her panicked grandfather, George Anthony, and Ms. Anthony. It also drove home just how circumstantial the prosecution's case proved to be. Forensic evidence was tenuous and no witnesses ever tied Ms. Anthony to Caylee's murder. Investigators found no trace of DNA or solid signs of chloroform or decomposition inside the trunk of Ms. Anthony's car, where prosecutors said Ms. Anthony stashed Caylee before disposing of her body. The prosecution was also hurt by the fact that nobody knows exactly how Caylee died; her body was too badly decomposed to pinpoint cause of death. All of this allowed José Baez, Ms. Anthony's lawyer, to infuse enough reasonable doubt in jurors' minds to get Ms. Anthony acquitted of murder. They throw enough against the wall and see what sticks, Mr. Baez told the jury, right down to the cause of death. Caylee, a 2-year-old with cherubic cheeks and bright eyes, was last seen June 16, 2008. Her decomposed body was found six months later in a wooded area near the Anthony home. Despite her daughter's disappearance, Ms. Anthony failed to report Caylee missing for 31 days and created a tangle of lies, including that a baby sitter kidnapped Caylee, to cover up the absence. The defense conceded Ms. Anthony's lies but said they happened for one reason: she had been sexually abused by her father and had been coached to lie her whole life. I told you she was a liar the first day, Mr. Baez told the jury. Despite a vivid portrait of Ms. Anthony's seemingly callous and deceitful behavior after Caylee's disappearance, jurors decided that leap from uncaring mother to murderess proved too much. Prosecutors argued all along that Ms. Anthony killed her child so she could carouse with her boyfriend, go clubbing and live the bella vita beautiful life as her tattoo, done after Caylee's disappearance, proclaimed. Whose life was better without Caylee? Linda Drane Burdick, one of the prosecutors, asked jurors. That's the only question you need to answer in considering why Caylee Marie Anthony was left on the side of the road dead. With that, Ms. Drane Burdick ended her closing statement with a dramatic flourish, leaving behind a split screen image: one side was a photograph of the tattoo, the other was a smiling Ms. Anthony partying with friends after Caylee's death. Continue reading: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/06/us/06casey.html?_r=1
[FairfieldLife] Re: Casey Anthony Not Guilty of Murder
do.rflex: I told you she was a liar the first day, Mr. Baez told the jury... Mass media blows it again! These are grand days for Nancy Grace, who is enjoying increased ratings on HLN and increased visibility on ABC's 'Good Morning America.' Her coverage of the Casey Anthony trial lifted her HLN ratings 85 percent in June from the same time a year ago. It was the best month ever for Nancy Grace. 'Casey Anthony: Won't you please stop saying that, Nancy Grace?' Orlando Sentinel, July 7, 2011 http://tinyurl.com/5wrbltk
[FairfieldLife] Re: Writing As Spiritual Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: (This may be a duplicate; the first try hasn't shown up, and it's been hours.) Yahoo's having issues again. I'm seeing posts arrive in my gmail feed today that were sent yesterday.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What kind of meditation did the Buddha teach?
Bija mantra-s are the phonemes of oral, chanted Sanskrit. Each of these phonemes has the appropriate anusvara added to it (which if chanted like Brahmana-s do in the appropriate manner) turns it into a bija-mantra. If you had the time/place in the past to learn and chant the bija akshara-s of Sanskrit, then you would know this already. I don't have much Sanskrit language training but what I have is based upon the same tradition that Sanskrit pandits use, which is the transmission of the oral/aural spoken language. Chanting Patanjalayogasutra is a whole different experience from just reading it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardjwilliamstexas willytex@... wrote: emptybill: It's a mental midget's attempt to define the real nature of mantra, Mahayana, meditation, transcending, and reality itself... So, where does the tradition of meditation on 'bija' mantras come from? We know that 'mantras' are used in the Vedas, but there are no bija mantras in the Rig Veda or in Patanjali's Yoga Sutras or in the writings of Shankaracharya. So, the tradition of meditating on bija mantras must have come later, perhaps during the Gupta age of Indian tantrism, and the period of the Nath siddhas. Apparently the practice of 'mantrayana' was introduced into Tibet by Shenrab, who came over from the Swat Valley almost 100 years before the arrival of Guru Padmasambhava in Tibet. In a strange 'reverse Tibet' effect, the Mantrayana Buddhism that Shenrab established in Shang Shung came to be called 'Bon', while the same practice established by Guru Rinpoche came to called 'Chos'. Go figure. According to Snellgrove, the siddha Naropa journeyed to Kashmir in order to obtain the bija mantras from Tilopa. So, from the Swat Valley and Kashmir we get the bija mantras via the Nath Siddhas, to the Indian and Buddhist Tantric Tradition, and thus, according to White and Brooks, to the Sri Vidya sect down in Karnataka, of which SBS was an initiate member. So, now it has been established where the 'TM' bija mantras came from, since these same bijas are enumerated in Shankara's Shakti work, the Saundarylahari. Not for nothing do we find the TM bijas inscribed on the Sri Yantra which was placed on the mandir at Sringeri by the Adi Shankaracharya himself. Correct me if I am mistaken about this, Bill. Works cited: 'Indo-Tibetan Buddhism' Indian Buddhists Their Tibetan Successors By David Snellgrove Shambhala, 2003 'The Secret of the Three Cities' An Introduction to Hindu Sakta Tantrism by Douglas Renfrew Brooks University Of Chicago Press, 1998 'The Alchemical Body' Siddha Traditions in Medieval India David Gordon White University Of Chicago Press, 1998 Read more: Subject: Its Not What You Think! Author: Willytex Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental, alt.yoga, alt.meditation Date: August 26, 2003 http://tinyurl.com/n4xa63
[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
Acceptance of what is accounts for some of this, though I have noticed too that my deepest desires always get fulfilled, so there is volition on my part, which somehow segues gracefully with the rest of life. The overall benefit is much less anxiety and noisy mind. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Miracles aren't miraculous events, they are a result of us noticing miraculous events, which surround us. Good distinction, and good point, Jim... Letting go of our identification with the I'm-right-you're-wrong (or vice versa) stories of the intellect may well free us up to appreciate the it's-all-perfect story of divine choreography, self-tickling with miracles at every moment :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: Acceptance of what is accounts for some of this, though I have noticed too that my deepest desires always get fulfilled, You don't appear to desire very much globally and socially. That aside, some observations, and questions, asking more generally (to everyone): do you feel that these are your desires? (And that does not imply someone else, a higher being or nature perhaps, is desiring it.) That is, was it consciously created by you? Parallel to free will the appearance of our choosing this or that may appear to be so, but that does not make it so. Same thing with desire. A glob of energy is our there, we can claim it as ours or not. Similar to our choosing to do something. Tons of processing, by itself going on below the surface, and then (it appears) WE desire something. Is that really volitional creating? And parallel to thoughts. Did you notice how effortlessly desires came? If so, how are they your desires? Back the the free will thread, the experience in checking is insightful. Did you notice how effortlessly the decision and choice to do this vs that came? If it came effortlessly, where is the free will? (One might answer that they consciously engage the intellect -- and work hard on deciding what to freely do. However, first, are you your intellect? And second, Did you notice how effortlessly the intellect does its thing? Can you stop the intellect from weighing this and that, evaluating things?)
[FairfieldLife] Christianists on the March
George Erickson www.tundracub.com Christianists on the March By Chris Hedges - Truthdig Dr. James Adams, my ethics professor at Harvard Divinity School, told us [that when we were] 80 - we would be fighting Christian fascists. The warning, given 25 years ago, came when Pat Robertson and other radio and television evangelists began speaking about a new political religion that would direct its efforts toward taking control of all institutions, including mainstream denominations and the government. Its stated goal was to use the United States to create a global Christian empire. This call for fundamentalists and evangelicals to take political power was a radical and ominous mutation of traditional Christianity. It was hard to take such fantastic rhetoric seriously, especially given the buffoonish quality of those who expounded it. But Adams warned us against the blindness caused by intellectual snobbery. The Nazis, he said, were not going to return with swastikas and brown shirts. Their ideological inheritors had found a mask for fascism in the pages of the Bible. He was not a man to use the word fascist lightly. He had been in Germany in 1935 and 1936 and worked with the underground anti-Nazi church, known as the Confessing Church, led by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Adams was eventually detained and interrogated by the Gestapo, who suggested he might want to consider returning to the United States. He left on a night train with framed portraits of Adolf Hitler placed over the contents of his suitcases to hide the rolls of home-movie film he had taken of the so-called German Christian Church, which was pro-Nazi, and of the few individuals who defied the Nazis, including the theologians Karl Barth and Albert Schweitzer. The ruse worked when the border police lifted the tops of the suitcases, saw the portraits of the Führer and closed them up again. I watched hours of the grainy black-and-white films as he narrated in his apartment in Cambridge. Adams understood that totalitarian movements are built out of deep personal and economic despair. He warned that the flight of manufacturing jobs, the impoverishment of the American working class, the physical obliteration of communities in the vast, soulless exurbs and decaying Rust Belt, were swiftly deforming our society. The current assault on the middle class, which now lives in a world in which anything that can be put on software can be outsourced, would have terrified him. The stories that many in this movement told me over the past two years as I worked on American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America were stories of this failure - personal, communal and often economic. This despair, Adams said, would empower dangerous dreamers - those who today bombard the airwaves with an idealistic and religious utopianism that promises, through violent apocalyptic purification, to eradicate the old, sinful world that has failed many Americans. These Christian utopians promise to replace this internal and external emptiness with a mythical world where time stops and all problems are solved. The mounting despair rippling across the United States remains unaddressed by the Democratic Party, which has abandoned the working class, like its Republican counterpart, for massive corporate funding. The Christian right has lured tens of millions of Americans, who rightly feel abandoned and betrayed by the political system, from the reality-based world to one of magic - to fantastic visions of angels and miracles, to a childlike belief that God has a plan for them and Jesus will guide and protect them. This mythological worldview, one that has no use for science or dispassionate, honest intellectual inquiry, one that promises that the loss of jobs and health insurance does not matter, as long as you are right with Jesus, offers a lying world of consistency that addresses the emotional yearnings of desperate followers at the expense of reality. It creates a world where facts become interchangeable with opinions, where lies become true - the very essence of the totalitarian state. It includes a dark license to kill, to obliterate all those who do not conform to this vision, from Muslims in the Middle East to those at home who refuse to submit to the movement. And it conveniently empowers a rapacious oligarchy whose god is maximum profit at the expense of citizens. We now live in a nation where the top 1 percent control more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined, where we have legalized torture and can lock up citizens without trial. Arthur Schlesinger, in The Cycles of American History, wrote that the great religious ages were notable for their indifference to human rights - not only for their acquiescence in poverty, inequality and oppression, but for their enthusiastic justification of slavery, persecution, torture and genocide. Adams saw in the Christian right disturbing
[FairfieldLife] Summa Five Attributes
I didn't read all of the Summa thread, so apologies if this is repetitious. The thread did prompt me to read some on Aquinas. I like his 5 divine qualities -- derived by a neti neti process. It is not a proof of God, hardly so. However, it is a nice standard to continue a neti neti type process: Is X 1) simple, without composition of parts, such as body and soul, or matter and form? 2) perfect, lacking nothing. That is, is X is distinguished from other beings on account of X's complete actuality, the `Ipse Actus Essendi subsistens,' subsisting act of being? 3) infinite? That is, is X is not finite in the ways that created beings are physically, intellectually, and emotionally limited. This infinity is to be distinguished from infinity of size and infinity of number? 4) immutable, incapable of change on the levels of its essence and character? 5) One, without diversification within itself. (Is the unity of X is such that X's essence is the same as X's existence.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
Hi, responses below: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Acceptance of what is accounts for some of this, though I have noticed too that my deepest desires always get fulfilled, You don't appear to desire very much globally and socially. I don't get your question. Here are some of my own to clarify. What social, global utopia am I supposed to deeply desire according to you? Do you not like living here on the planet Earth *as it is*? What is it externally that bothers you so much that it interferes with the fulfillment of your deepest desires? snip
[FairfieldLife] DOME ANNOUNCEMENTS--Guru Purnima for ladies
Guru Purnima Celebration in Ladies Dome Global Mother Divine Organization cordially invites all lady Governors, Sidhas and Meditators in the Bagambhrini Golden Dome Fairfield, Iowa July 14th 8:00 pm An evening of Celebration Guru Dev Full Moon Tape Maharishi speaks about Guru Dev Beautiful songs and expressions of gratitude. There is no charge for this event. Please come and join us. Jai Guru Dev *** DOME ANNOUNCEMENTS is a moderated list that distributes announcements to the Maharishi University of Management community. Send your announcements to owner-dom...@mum.edu.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Writing As Spiritual Practice
I hope you're not looking for an override although all good ideas get consideration! I know what Elaine thinks about exclamation marks, I wonder what King thinks about them! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSKn8RlD7Isfeature=related From: PaliGap compost...@yahoo.co.uk To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 5, 2011 10:52:01 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Writing As Spiritual Practice --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: One of the many things I love about Turq'sand Judy's writing, besides the punctuation, is that neither of them abuse adverbs or adjectives. I'll bet money they can both cook as well. Oh, I get it. You're on commission for a dating agency! http://www.articlesbase.com/writing-articles/mark-twain-stephen-king-adjectives-and-hell-950890.html#axzz1RF7aixbV V http://whatamireading.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/on-writing-by-stephen-king/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Christianists on the March
Let's bash some Christians today! Apparently some people will stoop at nothing to get a sideways slap at some particular group they don't agree with. Fer chirssakes, Vaj, you could have linked to it, instead of posting the whole thing is 36 point. Send in the clowns! LoL! Vaj: Christianists on the March... BIG SNIP
[FairfieldLife] Re: Never thought I'd wish for Bill Clinton back....
Too bad the DNC railroaded Hillary. You could have had a twofer. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u wgm4u@... wrote: It made sense when I did it. It doesn't make sense anymore we've got an uncompetitive rate. We tax at 35 percent of income, although we only take about 23 percent. So we should cut the rate to 25 percent, or whatever's competitive, and eliminate a lot of the deductions so that we still get a fair amount, and there's not so much variance in what the corporations pay. But how can they do that by Aug. 2? Clinton also said Grover Norquist, http://topics.politico.com/index.cfm/topic/grovernorquist who as president of Americans for Tax Reform is the GOP's unofficial enforcer of no-new-taxes pledges, has a chilling hold on the nation's lawmaking. Grover Norquist is the point man for the gubmint haters and Republican power. http://www.nationalcorruptionindex.org/pages/profile.php?profile_id=21 In Norquist's vision, America a couple of decades from now will be a place in which elderly people make up a disproportionate share of the poor, as they did before Social Security. It will also be a country in which even middle-class elderly Americans are, in many cases, unable to afford expensive medical procedures or prescription drugs and in which poor Americans generally go without even basic health care. And it may well be a place in which only those who can afford expensive private schools can give their children a decent education. http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/TaxCutCon.html The former president said it has seemed like Republicans need any revenue concessions to be approved in advance by Grover Norquist. You're laughing, he told the crowd of 800. But he was quoted in the paper the other day saying he gave Republican senators permission on getting rid of the ethanol subsidies. I thought, `My God, what has this country come to when one person has to give you permission to do what's best for the country.' It was chilling. Asked by moderator Ron Brownstein what President Obama's posture should be on a debt deal if Republicans hold to their view that no new taxes can be included, Clinton replied: Well, look, there are some spending cuts [Republicans] agree on, and apparently they run it by a fair number of people in the Democratic caucuses He could take those, and an extension of the debt ceiling for six or eight months. But if they're really going to reach a mega-deal, you cannot reach a mega-deal without doing something like what the Bowles-Simpson committee recommended. I don't see how you can do this by Aug. 2. I don't think you can agree to some mega-deal on [the Republicans'] terms. If they get closer, I believe they will agree on a more modest package of cuts. And the Republicans, if I were in their position, I'd say, `OK, this only counts for six months' or eight months, or whatever. `But we don't want to let the American people's credit go under, let our credit get downgraded, let interest rates get up and slow down the recovery.' But Clinton said Democrats should not give in if Republicans insist on the mega-settlement, with no new revenues from any source. He said that in that case, he hopes they'll make a mini-deal. At another point, Clinton said about corporations: When I was young, we were taught in law school that corporations were creatures of the state and had responsibilities to all their stakeholders their shareholders, their employees, their customers and the communities of which they were a part. Now, it's only shareholders. I think that's a pretty bad idea.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: Hi, responses below: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Acceptance of what is accounts for some of this, though I have noticed too that my deepest desires always get fulfilled, You don't appear to desire very much globally and socially. I don't get your question. Here are some of my own to clarify. What social, global utopia am I supposed to deeply desire according to you? snip You stated that you have your own desires. So I was simply asking, does it stop there? Do you have desires for the welfare and happiness of anything or anyone else beyond yourself? If so, do you lack in imagination? (I only ask if since your desires were not always fulfilled.) Do you not like living here on the planet Earth *as it is*? Do you like Jim as he is? Then why do you personally desire for anything more? That is, your premise appears to be that the world is perfect, therefore no desires for expansion, refinement are possible or even a good thing. However, it would seem that since Jim desires things for Jim, it might imply that Jim is not satisfied with Jim as he is. What is it externally that bothers you so much that it interferes with the fulfillment of your deepest desires? Kind of like have you stopped beating your wife? I suppose. A large amount of assumption and presumption behind your question -- a wonderous heap not so conducive to true discussion. But I will give it a try. First, Desiring for the extended and expanded happiness of the people of the world does not mean that one is deeply bothered. I am sort of surprised that you feel that compassion, good will, desire for the welfare of the world comes from some internal flaw or darkeness (That is my understanding of your worlds bothered so much. If I have misunderstood and you feel that bothered so much comes from light love and laughter, then please by all means correct my misunderstanding.) Second, why would desires for the common good, for progress, for more universal education and understanding, for a more balanced environment, for more nutrituous foods available everywhere, for deeper appreciation of world cultures, be in anyway an obstacle to my deepest desires? Third, is it possible in your mind that the wider expansion of joy, the fruition of the common good, the forging of deeper and wider global networks of understanding and love are my deepest desires? Fourth, does the expansion and refinement of consciousness everywhere, individual and collective repulse and and sicken you? If not, why is it spiritually shameful (as your words appear to imply) to desire for such to unfold?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
Jim, I can't argue with that, but it does remind me of an embroidered picture that you might find in the bathroom of country restaraunt, or the wall of a gift store. I think what you are describing is a BATGAP miracle. I want a FFL miracle. (-: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: Miracles aren't miraculous events, they are a result of us noticing miraculous events, which surround us.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What kind of meditation did the Buddha teach?
emptybill: Bija mantra-s are the phonemes of oral, chanted Sanskrit. So, we are agreed. Each of these phonemes has the appropriate anusvara added to it (which if chanted like Brahmana-s do in the appropriate manner) turns it into a bija-mantra. If you had the time/place in the past to learn and chant the bija akshara-s of Sanskrit, then you would know this already... The 'bija-mantra' tradition probably originated in South Asia before the invention of Sanskrit grammar by Pannini. But, being esoteric, tantra was secret or hidden from most of the people. The South Indian tantric tradition is far older than the Indian or Tibetan Mantrayana. It has been established that the language of the Indus Valley Civilization was derived from the southern Dravidian languages. (But, Frawley thinks that these early societies spoke an oral prakrit). It has also been established that the Harrapans were practicing tantric yoga before 2400 BCE. So, the literary history of tantra is relatively recent, but the Sankhya-Yoga tradition reaches back into pre-history, according to historians. At any rate, many of the Nath Siddhas were apparently illiterate, as was the historical Buddha, Shakya the Muni. We do not even know what language the Buddha spoke, much less the understanding of what he meant. Work cited: 'Mantra Yoga and Primal Sound' Secret of Seed (Bija) Mantras by David Frawley I don't have much Sanskrit language training but what I have is based upon the same tradition that Sanskrit pandits use, which is the transmission of the oral/aural spoken language. Chanting Patanjalayogasutra is a whole different experience from just reading it. So, we are agreed.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
Yes; I have found that fulfillment of desires occurs as I don't wholeheartedly identify with them, but just pay simple, unconditionally loving attention to them -- i.e., accepting them as they truly are, as divine seeds-of-growth, instead of suppressing them, bargaining with them, or trying to push them away. And this truthfulness combs the desires into loving alignment with me, bringing the bodymind into more integrity and harmony. As Tom Traynor has pointed out, this process of truth and integrity is described in Patanjali's Yoga Sutras: When we are firmly established in truthfulness, Action accomplishes its desired end. (2:36) When we are firmly established in integrity, All riches present themselves freely. (2:37) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: Acceptance of what is accounts for some of this, though I have noticed too that my deepest desires always get fulfilled, so there is volition on my part, which somehow segues gracefully with the rest of life. The overall benefit is much less anxiety and noisy mind. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Miracles aren't miraculous events, they are a result of us noticing miraculous events, which surround us. Good distinction, and good point, Jim... Letting go of our identification with the I'm-right-you're-wrong (or vice versa) stories of the intellect may well free us up to appreciate the it's-all-perfect story of divine choreography, self-tickling with miracles at every moment :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
RG: Yes; I have found that fulfillment of desires occurs as I don't wholeheartedly identify with them, but just pay simple, unconditionally loving attention to them -- i.e., accepting them as they truly are, as divine seeds-of-growth, TB: Your post appear to provide some insight to my query from my somewhat adjacent post: do you feel that these are your desires? (And that does not imply someone else, a higher being or nature perhaps, is desiring it.) That is, was it consciously created by you? Parallel to free will the appearance of our choosing this or that may appear to be so, but that does not make it so. Same thing with desire. A glob of energy is out there, we can claim it as ours or not. Similar to our choosing to do something. Tons of processing, by itself going on below the surface, and then (it appears) WE desire something. Is that really volitional creating? And parallel to thoughts. Did you notice how effortlessly desires came? If so, how are they your desires? TB: That is, desires are often cast as personal, self-created, volitional and binding. They may appear to be such, but another take on them is they are simply the result of much internal, subsconscious processing of our interaction with the world. A thought about which ought to be done appears and one generally moves in that direction. That is that glob of energy appears, it is formed and grows below the surface just as millions of cells are created each day and go about their wonderous business of becoming body parts. The new revitalized body parts just appear. All without any conscious intervention or volition on our part. A mistake appears to be to claim it as mine, my desire. It's just something that ought to be done that appears out of nowhere. And the things that ought to be done may have nothing to do with oneself. (Ought is frought with possible connotations outside my intent. More it's an invitation. You are invited to participate in something awesome and cool. Not ought as in some mandate. More it's an inviting opportunity. ) Often the things that ought to be done, inviting opportunities, have little to do with one self. Or ones individual desires may be towards more global less-personal visions. One gets enjoyment from the more macro initiative thre is a spillover effect, but it's not primarily about the individual. One who promotes world literacy for example, gains indirect benefits a better world to interact with but the achievement is vaster than the individual. As I read in an adjacent post, there tends to be a (what I term) neo-non dual, neo-spiritualism that is a dismissiveness of seeing( and doing) things that that ought to be done, could be done, inviting opportunities to enable or support some macro expansion of happiness, understanding, love, appreciation, environmental balance, nutritional betterment, or educational achievement. These are viewed, it appears as being spiritual thorns, being highly bothered with what is which is perfect, so if you are bothered with what is perfect one is a spiritual misfit and slacker. I don't relate. RG: instead of suppressing them, bargaining with them, or trying to push them away. And this truthfulness combs the desires into loving alignment with me, bringing the bodymind into more integrity and harmony. TB: Letting the inviting opportunity breath a bit within oneself, marinate, nurture, connect to ones resources mind, emotional, material whatever is needed. It's a two way street. The invitation matures by germinating inside a bit and ones inside (an outside) are enriched by the invitation. As Tom Traynor has pointed out, this process of truth and integrity is described in Patanjali's Yoga Sutras: When we are firmly established in truthfulness, Action accomplishes its desired end. (2:36) When we are firmly established in integrity, All riches present themselves freely. (2:37) TB: Perhaps as less is outside of me blossoming to nothing is outside of me there is less distinction of outer and inner riches and micro vs macro initiatives. It's all satisfying. It's all motivating. It's all compelling. It's all good. It's all intriguing. It's all fun. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Acceptance of what is accounts for some of this, though I have noticed too that my deepest desires always get fulfilled, so there is volition on my part, which somehow segues gracefully with the rest of life. The overall benefit is much less anxiety and noisy mind. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Miracles aren't miraculous events, they are a result of us noticing miraculous events, which surround us. Good distinction, and good point, Jim... Letting go of our identification with the I'm-right-you're-wrong (or vice versa) stories of the intellect may well free us up to
[FairfieldLife] Christian Right backs Texas Gov Rick Perry for President
TIME http://swampland.time.com/2011/07/05/behind-the-scenes-christian-right-\ leaders-rally-behind-rick-perry/ reports that a group of prominent figures on the Christian Right held a conference call in early June to discuss their dissatisfaction with the current GOP presidential field, and agreed that Rick Perry would be their preferred candidate if he entered the race. Among those on the call were Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council; David Barton, the Texas activist and go-to historian for the Christian Right; and John Hagee, the controversial San Antonio pastor whose endorsement John McCain rejected in 2008. Religious conservatives have often played a substantial role in choosing past Republican nominees, but leaders on the Christian Right have been conspicuously quiet so far in this campaign season. Privately, however, they are enthusiastic about Perry and are encouraging the Texas governor to throw his ten-gallon hat in the ring. http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/07/05/christian_leaders_agreed_to\ _back_perry.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
I was just thinking about integrity and truth before I read your post, no kidding, and how the establishment in both brings about a phase transition experientially into a smoother form of functioning that is all but invisible until we experience it. Very subtle and yet unmistakable. When we are firmly established in truthfulness, Action accomplishes its desired end. (2:36) When we are firmly established in integrity, All riches present themselves freely. (2:37) Tangentially, funny how we almost stumbled upon this as a society with our cultural fascination with bank *robbery*, the polar opposite of truth and integrity. We intuitively got the angle right, but the arrowhead has been pointing in the wrong direction. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: Yes; I have found that fulfillment of desires occurs as I don't wholeheartedly identify with them, but just pay simple, unconditionally loving attention to them -- i.e., accepting them as they truly are, as divine seeds-of-growth, instead of suppressing them, bargaining with them, or trying to push them away. And this truthfulness combs the desires into loving alignment with me, bringing the bodymind into more integrity and harmony. As Tom Traynor has pointed out, this process of truth and integrity is described in Patanjali's Yoga Sutras: When we are firmly established in truthfulness, Action accomplishes its desired end. (2:36) When we are firmly established in integrity, All riches present themselves freely. (2:37) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Acceptance of what is accounts for some of this, though I have noticed too that my deepest desires always get fulfilled, so there is volition on my part, which somehow segues gracefully with the rest of life. The overall benefit is much less anxiety and noisy mind. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Miracles aren't miraculous events, they are a result of us noticing miraculous events, which surround us. Good distinction, and good point, Jim... Letting go of our identification with the I'm-right-you're-wrong (or vice versa) stories of the intellect may well free us up to appreciate the it's-all-perfect story of divine choreography, self-tickling with miracles at every moment :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
Ha Ha I thought of that too, the cutesy maxim type sound of the phrase and then just decided it was what it was. If you can say it better, good on ya mate. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: Jim, I can't argue with that, but it does remind me of an embroidered picture that you might find in the bathroom of country restaraunt, or the wall of a gift store. I think what you are describing is a BATGAP miracle. I want a FFL miracle. (-: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Miracles aren't miraculous events, they are a result of us noticing miraculous events, which surround us.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: I was thinking that they were showing a lack of assumptions by noticing that the reasons for his existence are not solid. The only underlying assumption is that there should be good reasons to support beliefs and perhaps that the more a claim deviates from our common knowledge base of how the world works, the more compelling the evidence should be. And these good reasons are not limited to the methods of science, we have lots of tools to gain confidence in knowledge beyond that context-useful system. Sounds reasonable. I guess what I have a hard time accepting is the notion of an atheist keeping an open mind. And yes, that is quite judgemental of me. I am assuming that those who dismiss the notion of God, would always be finding some reason not to believe. That is a predjudice that I have which probably points to some intolerance.
[FairfieldLife] Post Count
Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): Sat Jul 02 00:00:00 2011 End Date (UTC): Sat Jul 09 00:00:00 2011 344 messages as of (UTC) Tue Jul 05 23:50:48 2011 26 turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com 25 whynotnow7 whynotn...@yahoo.com 23 authfriend jst...@panix.com 22 richardjwilliamstexas willy...@yahoo.com 18 seventhray1 steve.sun...@sbcglobal.net 16 sparaig lengli...@cox.net 16 Ravi Yogi raviy...@att.net 15 Yifu yifux...@yahoo.com 13 raunchydog raunchy...@yahoo.com 13 RoryGoff roryg...@hotmail.com 13 Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net 12 cardemaister no_re...@yahoogroups.com 12 do.rflex do.rf...@yahoo.com 8 wgm4u wg...@yahoo.com 8 Robert babajii...@yahoo.com 8 Rick Archer r...@searchsummit.com 7 Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com 7 Buck dhamiltony...@yahoo.com 7 Bob Price bobpri...@yahoo.com 6 maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.com 6 emptybill emptyb...@yahoo.com 6 curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com 6 Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net 6 Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com 6 Denise Evans dmevans...@yahoo.com 5 tartbrain no_re...@yahoogroups.com 5 nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 4 mainstream20016 mainstream20...@yahoo.com 3 feste37 fest...@yahoo.com 3 Tom Pall thomas.p...@gmail.com 3 Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@lisco.com 3 PaliGap compost...@yahoo.co.uk 3 John jr_...@yahoo.com 3 Dick Mays dickm...@lisco.com 2 wayback71 waybac...@yahoo.com 1 seekliberation seekliberat...@yahoo.com 1 merlin vedamer...@yahoo.de 1 at_man_and_brahman at_man_and_brah...@sbcglobal.net 1 wle...@aol.com 1 Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com Posters: 40 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Christianists on the March
On Jul 5, 2011, at 5:41 PM, richardjwilliamstexas wrote: Let's bash some Christians today! Apparently some people will stoop at nothing to get a sideways slap at some particular group they don't agree with. Fer chirssakes, Vaj, you could have linked to it, instead of posting the whole thing is 36 point. Send in the clowns! LoL! Vaj: Christianists on the March... BIG SNIP Feeling left behind Willy?
[FairfieldLife] Re: What kind of meditation did the Buddha teach?
You seem to be conflating the oral recitation tradition of Vedic, which was extremely early in time, with the appearance of traditional Sanskrit, particularly of Panini. You should know enough to recall that Rig Veda recitation goes back a very long time and that the phonemes of Vedic go back even further. Even Adi-Shankara notes the difference between these two languages in his works. BTW - most scholars of Shankara consider Soudariya Lahiri to be a spurious work attributed to Adi-Shankara so that the Shakta-s, although Advaitin-s Sanmata worshipers, could claim validation from him. Your continued claim of this as a fact brands you a mere bullshit partisan. Don't be like Vaj (isn't it really Vag?) a pusher of partisan rhetoric so he can maintain a make-believe status. .. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardjwilliamstexas willytex@... wrote: emptybill: Bija mantra-s are the phonemes of oral, chanted Sanskrit. So, we are agreed. Each of these phonemes has the appropriate anusvara added to it (which if chanted like Brahmana-s do in the appropriate manner) turns it into a bija-mantra. If you had the time/place in the past to learn and chant the bija akshara-s of Sanskrit, then you would know this already... The 'bija-mantra' tradition probably originated in South Asia before the invention of Sanskrit grammar by Pannini. But, being esoteric, tantra was secret or hidden from most of the people. The South Indian tantric tradition is far older than the Indian or Tibetan Mantrayana. It has been established that the language of the Indus Valley Civilization was derived from the southern Dravidian languages. (But, Frawley thinks that these early societies spoke an oral prakrit). It has also been established that the Harrapans were practicing tantric yoga before 2400 BCE. So, the literary history of tantra is relatively recent, but the Sankhya-Yoga tradition reaches back into pre-history, according to historians. At any rate, many of the Nath Siddhas were apparently illiterate, as was the historical Buddha, Shakya the Muni. We do not even know what language the Buddha spoke, much less the understanding of what he meant. Work cited: 'Mantra Yoga and Primal Sound' Secret of Seed (Bija) Mantras by David Frawley I don't have much Sanskrit language training but what I have is based upon the same tradition that Sanskrit pandits use, which is the transmission of the oral/aural spoken language. Chanting Patanjalayogasutra is a whole different experience from just reading it. So, we are agreed.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@... wrote: snip As I read in an adjacent post, there tends to be a (what I term) neo-non dual, neo-spiritualism that is a dismissiveness of seeing( and doing) things that that ought to be done, could be done, inviting opportunities to enable or support some macro expansion of happiness, understanding, love, appreciation, environmental balance, nutritional betterment, or educational achievement. These are viewed, it appears as being spiritual thorns, being highly bothered with what is which is perfect, so if you are bothered with what is perfect one is a spiritual misfit and slacker. I don't relate. RG: Hey, TB; good to hear from you as always. Yes, I guess I missed the adjacent post you read, but I have noticed in general that a dualistic intellect -- well, there's a redundancy for you, but I mean an intellect which has not become fully transparent to and surrendered into Us, or an intellect as discriminator into which we have quasi-permanently subjected ourself and lost ourself (i.e., the whore of which Ravi speaks so beautifully), and with which we fully identify as an I-point or as an essentially separate witness, a creature who is entirely subject to hierarchy, comparison of self-vs.-other(s), states of consciousness, and spacetime -- again, a dualistic intellect will interpret everything is perfect as advocating a static perfection, whereas the perfection of what IS certainly includes one's desires, as they also ARE. As Judy has mentioned here in the past, when someone asked MMY (I paraphrase), If everything is perfect, why are we working so hard to change it, he is said to have replied, That too is perfect. MMY was the first to show me that desires were good, and for that I will probably be grateful to him always. I had to re-discover their divinity for myself as the crystalline perfection of what IS re-awoke to itself and noticed that it contained need-points as collapsed singularities of the Whole (which actually created the crystalline lattice amongst themselves) ... snip TB: Perhaps as less is outside of me blossoming to nothing is outside of me there is less distinction of outer and inner riches and micro vs macro initiatives. RG: Definitely no real distinction between inner and outer or micro and macro here, as everything we perceive or know is all quite self-evidently constructed of our awareness or being, but a very distinct hierarchy of need nonetheless; the body has its own wisdom in presenting our needs to us in their perfect order, and we always pay attention to the loudest first; time sorts itself out perfectly that way :-) TB: It's all satisfying. It's all motivating. It's all compelling. It's all good. It's all intriguing. It's all fun. RG: Satisfying, motivating, compelling, good and intriguing, yes! And yes, fun, except when it isn't! Ha. That is, yes, of course, it is all a play of love, light, and laughter, or cardinal-fixed-mutable, or mass-light-energy, but we still fool ourselves constantly, as we continually encounter not-self and assimilate it into self. We are constantly bringing our particles, our children, to Us through their various states of consciousness, and we begin each dance by identifying with them, in ignorance together with them. No one shall see the face of God and live, and so some fear us and strive to avoid the void and maintain a separate existence in addiction and distraction, thinking It's all fun and games until someone loses an I! And that's perfectly OK too. As we re-immerse ourselves into ignorance through a need-point and then re-member Us again and again, it IS generally fun, but occasionally not so much, when we encounter a piece a little too big to swallow without some diligent chewing :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
Don't know about the rest of you but I'm concerned we have not heard from the Zebra for almost two days. If you're honest, you have to admit its not the same without him. Some might say, you're his manager, do something. So in hopes that he's just taking a breather, still loves us, and will soon kick up some dust on the horizon so we know what direction he's headed, I'll share a few links. The last is my fav. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk_9zqt1Rw4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyvb4o3LXzU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OfNmyp1CO0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmjDLuSREpo
[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
It's all fun and games until someone loses an I! FFL Motto!! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote: snip As I read in an adjacent post, there tends to be a (what I term) neo-non dual, neo-spiritualism that is a dismissiveness of seeing( and doing) things that that ought to be done, could be done, inviting opportunities to enable or support some macro expansion of happiness, understanding, love, appreciation, environmental balance, nutritional betterment, or educational achievement. These are viewed, it appears as being spiritual thorns, being highly bothered with what is which is perfect, so if you are bothered with what is perfect one is a spiritual misfit and slacker. I don't relate. RG: Hey, TB; good to hear from you as always. Yes, I guess I missed the adjacent post you read, but I have noticed in general that a dualistic intellect -- well, there's a redundancy for you, but I mean an intellect which has not become fully transparent to and surrendered into Us, or an intellect as discriminator into which we have quasi-permanently subjected ourself and lost ourself (i.e., the whore of which Ravi speaks so beautifully), and with which we fully identify as an I-point or as an essentially separate witness, a creature who is entirely subject to hierarchy, comparison of self-vs.-other(s), states of consciousness, and spacetime -- again, a dualistic intellect will interpret everything is perfect as advocating a static perfection, whereas the perfection of what IS certainly includes one's desires, as they also ARE. As Judy has mentioned here in the past, when someone asked MMY (I paraphrase), If everything is perfect, why are we working so hard to change it, he is said to have replied, That too is perfect. MMY was the first to show me that desires were good, and for that I will probably be grateful to him always. I had to re-discover their divinity for myself as the crystalline perfection of what IS re-awoke to itself and noticed that it contained need-points as collapsed singularities of the Whole (which actually created the crystalline lattice amongst themselves) ... snip TB: Perhaps as less is outside of me blossoming to nothing is outside of me there is less distinction of outer and inner riches and micro vs macro initiatives. RG: Definitely no real distinction between inner and outer or micro and macro here, as everything we perceive or know is all quite self-evidently constructed of our awareness or being, but a very distinct hierarchy of need nonetheless; the body has its own wisdom in presenting our needs to us in their perfect order, and we always pay attention to the loudest first; time sorts itself out perfectly that way :-) TB: It's all satisfying. It's all motivating. It's all compelling. It's all good. It's all intriguing. It's all fun. RG: Satisfying, motivating, compelling, good and intriguing, yes! And yes, fun, except when it isn't! Ha. That is, yes, of course, it is all a play of love, light, and laughter, or cardinal-fixed-mutable, or mass-light-energy, but we still fool ourselves constantly, as we continually encounter not-self and assimilate it into self. We are constantly bringing our particles, our children, to Us through their various states of consciousness, and we begin each dance by identifying with them, in ignorance together with them. No one shall see the face of God and live, and so some fear us and strive to avoid the void and maintain a separate existence in addiction and distraction, thinking It's all fun and games until someone loses an I! And that's perfectly OK too. As we re-immerse ourselves into ignorance through a need-point and then re-member Us again and again, it IS generally fun, but occasionally not so much, when we encounter a piece a little too big to swallow without some diligent chewing :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I was thinking that they were showing a lack of assumptions by noticing that the reasons for his existence are not solid. The only underlying assumption is that there should be good reasons to support beliefs and perhaps that the more a claim deviates from our common knowledge base of how the world works, the more compelling the evidence should be. And these good reasons are not limited to the methods of science, we have lots of tools to gain confidence in knowledge beyond that context-useful system. Sounds reasonable. I guess what I have a hard time accepting is the notion of an atheist keeping an open mind. And yes, that is quite judgemental of me. I am assuming that those who dismiss the notion of God, would always be finding some reason not to believe. That is a predjudice that I have which probably points to some intolerance. I don't see how either end conclusion guarantees or denies the ability to have an open mind about these issues or even the quality of their thinking. I have met really rational good thinkers who were believers and some atheists whose position was based more on a lack of thoughtfulness than good reasons for coming to that conclusion and vice versa. If you accept certain premises, it is rational and reasonable to be a born again Christian as an example. And you yourself have reasons to reject more versions of God than you accept. I wonder how open you mind is to the possibility that accepting Jesus as your Lord and savior is necessary to enter an eternal life in heaven. I suspect you have rejected this belief for similar reasons that I have, we don't accept the premises that support the belief. And we didn't have to go far out of our way to find some reason not to believe. The assumption was just not compelling for either of us. All the God beliefs can't be right at the same time. There are too many contradictions in what it is claimed he wants from us. So you have picked and chosen just as I have with the best thinking skills we can apply. I try to do my best. But the fact is for both of us most of them didn't make the cut. If you trace your own thought process between the God ideas you reject, and whatever versions you accept, you might find that some atheists are not so different from you. Some will have more or less of an open mind about the existence of God than you can maintain concerning the possibility that none of the God ideas refer to a factual being. The question I pose is are you open-minded to the possibility that people made up all of the God ideas? You certainly were when you rejected the necessity of maintaining an alter to Zeus. But if there is a God with God-like properties and he wants a relationship with me, I am easy to find. He could start by friending me on Facebook. If the chick who was my mutual crush in elem school could find me and tell me all about her shitty marriage, the Lord of existence could give me poke. And given the disparity in our maturity levels and intelligence, and compassion and on and on...its on him now. Or her. Preferably a her with infinity hotness as one of her divine properties. And not some butta face deity cuz I'm done with that coyote routine, chewing off my arm rather than waking her up the next morning. Is that really too much to ask from the creatoress of the universe? A little facial symmetry, not too much junk in the trunk. A little sompt'n sompt'n in the rack zone, not too much I don't dig that. And no I hate men short, short haircut. She can wear make-up around her eyes and lipstick but none of that Mid Eastern chick, Sarah Palin, lip-liner or caked-on foundation. I hate when foundation rubs off on my cheek, so is it too much to ask for the ultimate reality to back off a bit on that? And she shouldn't have a stupid laugh. That's my last requirement, no stupid laugh that shifts too many octaves up or down. No helium Minnie Mouse laughs or that Mr. Ed thing some chicks do. I don't want her to sound like Herman Munster every time I bust a joke out. Can her friends not be idiots? Am I being unreasonable to not want to be walking on the set of Sex in the City every time we meet her Goddess friends at a Mall bar with the dark wood and the brass railings and the unlimited salad bar, and the Cosmos served in the big goofy glasses that feel like they are gunna fall over every time you put them down? Can she not have friends who ask me when are you gunna pop the question every time the Mother of Creation goes to the restroom? And then hit on me so I don't know if I am being tested or am one more round of Cosmos away from a three-way. (Should we switch to tequila shots at this point? I never know. Those damn Lemon Drop shooters don't work at this stage, I do know that.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
thx for the links. Must be there somewhere http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~kantner/zebras/pictures.html --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: Don't know about the rest of you but I'm concerned we have not heard from the Zebra for almost two days. If you're honest, you have to admit its not the same without him. Some might say, you're his manager, do something. So in hopes that he's just taking a breather, still loves us, and will soon kick up some dust on the horizon so we know what direction he's headed, I'll share a few links. The last is my fav. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk_9zqt1Rw4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyvb4o3LXzU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OfNmyp1CO0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmjDLuSREpo
[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
No worries. He's just doing some back filling. Consolidating some of his gains. Normal pattern. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: Don't know about the rest of you but I'm concerned we have not heard from the Zebra for almost two days. If you're honest, you have to admit its not the same without him. Some might say, you're his manager, do something. So in hopes that he's just taking a breather, still loves us, and will soon kick up some dust on the horizon so we know what direction he's headed, I'll share a few links. The last is my fav. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk_9zqt1Rw4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyvb4o3LXzU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OfNmyp1CO0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmjDLuSREpo
[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: No worries. He's just doing some back filling. Consolidating some of his gains. Normal pattern. Two steps forward, one step back repeated ad infinitum gives us the Fibonacci-sequence of growth: 0, 1 (+ 0 =) 1 (+ 1 =) 2 (+ 1 =) 3 (+ 2 =) 5 (+ 3 =) 8 (+ 5 =) 13... ! (Interesting that we find it and its phi-ratios (.618..., 1.618...) most clearly in the pentangle, no. 5, and growth was the fifth principle of SCI...)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I was thinking that they were showing a lack of assumptions by noticing that the reasons for his existence are not solid. The only underlying assumption is that there should be good reasons to support beliefs and perhaps that the more a claim deviates from our common knowledge base of how the world works, the more compelling the evidence should be. And these good reasons are not limited to the methods of science, we have lots of tools to gain confidence in knowledge beyond that context-useful system. Sounds reasonable. I guess what I have a hard time accepting is the notion of an atheist keeping an open mind. And yes, that is quite judgemental of me. I am assuming that those who dismiss the notion of God, would always be finding some reason not to believe. That is a predjudice that I have which probably points to some intolerance. I don't see how either end conclusion guarantees or denies the ability to have an open mind about these issues or even the quality of their thinking. I have met really rational good thinkers who were believers and some atheists whose position was based more on a lack of thoughtfulness than good reasons for coming to that conclusion and vice versa. If you accept certain premises, it is rational and reasonable to be a born again Christian as an example. And you yourself have reasons to reject more versions of God than you accept. I wonder how open you mind is to the possibility that accepting Jesus as your Lord and savior is necessary to enter an eternal life in heaven. I suspect you have rejected this belief for similar reasons that I have, we don't accept the premises that support the belief. And we didn't have to go far out of our way to find some reason not to believe. The assumption was just not compelling for either of us. All the God beliefs can't be right at the same time. All the beliefs about physics can't be right at the same time. Relativity theory and quantum mechanics cannot both be right. They contradict each other. Should I reject both of them because they both can't be right at the same time? There are too many contradictions in what it is claimed he wants from us. Are you limiting God to some set of anthropormorphc projective images? Can't God be simple, without parts, perfect, lacking nothing, infinite one,without diversification. So you have picked and chosen just as I have with the best thinking skills we can apply. I try to do my best. But the fact is for both of us most of them didn't make the cut. If you trace your own thought process between the God ideas you reject, and whatever versions you accept, you might find that some atheists are not so different from you. Some will have more or less of an open mind about the existence of God than you can maintain concerning the possibility that none of the God ideas refer to a factual being. I wonder why there is this fascination in some cultures where the need of believing or not believing are held so prominently. I don't believe in quantum mechanics. I don't disbelieve. Quantum mechanics doesn't need my belief. Its inconsequential. Same with Leprichans. I don't believe in them, but I would have no problem if one showed up. The question I pose is are you open-minded to the possibility that people made up all of the God ideas? You certainly were when you rejected the necessity of maintaining an alter to Zeus. You don't have a Zeus alter? That explains a lot. Even today, billions cry out Hey Zeus! - while recognizing his divinity. But if there is a God with God-like properties and he wants a relationship with me, I am easy to find. He could start by friending me on Facebook. If the chick who was my mutual crush in elem school could find me and tell me all about her shitty marriage, the Lord of existence could give me poke. And given the disparity in our maturity levels and intelligence, and compassion and on and on...its on him now. Or her. Preferably a her with infinity hotness as one of her divine properties. And not some butta face deity cuz I'm done with that coyote routine, chewing off my arm rather than waking her up the next morning. Is that really too much to ask from the creatoress of the universe? A little facial symmetry, not too much junk in the trunk. A little sompt'n sompt'n in the rack zone, not too much I don't dig that. And no I hate men short, short haircut. She can wear make-up around her eyes and lipstick but none of that Mid Eastern chick, Sarah Palin, lip-liner or caked-on foundation. I hate when foundation rubs off on my cheek, so is it too much to ask for the ultimate
[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
Yep. He's one of Us, now, like it or not! Mwahahaha... :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: Don't know about the rest of you but I'm concerned we have not heard from the Zebra for almost two days. If you're honest, you have to admit its not the same without him. Some might say, you're his manager, do something. So in hopes that he's just taking a breather, still loves us, and will soon kick up some dust on the horizon so we know what direction he's headed, I'll share a few links. The last is my fav. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk_9zqt1Rw4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyvb4o3LXzU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OfNmyp1CO0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmjDLuSREpo
[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
I glad Yahoo didn't lose your post as it did my first reply (to your post). But whatever point I was going to make evaporated after about the 9th paragraph, and got replaced with something much more satisfying. A big smile. Thanks for your reply. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I was thinking that they were showing a lack of assumptions by noticing that the reasons for his existence are not solid. The only underlying assumption is that there should be good reasons to support beliefs and perhaps that the more a claim deviates from our common knowledge base of how the world works, the more compelling the evidence should be. And these good reasons are not limited to the methods of science, we have lots of tools to gain confidence in knowledge beyond that context-useful system. Sounds reasonable. I guess what I have a hard time accepting is the notion of an atheist keeping an open mind. And yes, that is quite judgemental of me. I am assuming that those who dismiss the notion of God, would always be finding some reason not to believe. That is a predjudice that I have which probably points to some intolerance. I don't see how either end conclusion guarantees or denies the ability to have an open mind about these issues or even the quality of their thinking. I have met really rational good thinkers who were believers and some atheists whose position was based more on a lack of thoughtfulness than good reasons for coming to that conclusion and vice versa. If you accept certain premises, it is rational and reasonable to be a born again Christian as an example. And you yourself have reasons to reject more versions of God than you accept. I wonder how open you mind is to the possibility that accepting Jesus as your Lord and savior is necessary to enter an eternal life in heaven. I suspect you have rejected this belief for similar reasons that I have, we don't accept the premises that support the belief. And we didn't have to go far out of our way to find some reason not to believe. The assumption was just not compelling for either of us. All the God beliefs can't be right at the same time. There are too many contradictions in what it is claimed he wants from us. So you have picked and chosen just as I have with the best thinking skills we can apply. I try to do my best. But the fact is for both of us most of them didn't make the cut. If you trace your own thought process between the God ideas you reject, and whatever versions you accept, you might find that some atheists are not so different from you. Some will have more or less of an open mind about the existence of God than you can maintain concerning the possibility that none of the God ideas refer to a factual being. The question I pose is are you open-minded to the possibility that people made up all of the God ideas? You certainly were when you rejected the necessity of maintaining an alter to Zeus. But if there is a God with God-like properties and he wants a relationship with me, I am easy to find. He could start by friending me on Facebook. If the chick who was my mutual crush in elem school could find me and tell me all about her shitty marriage, the Lord of existence could give me poke. And given the disparity in our maturity levels and intelligence, and compassion and on and on...its on him now. Or her. Preferably a her with infinity hotness as one of her divine properties. And not some butta face deity cuz I'm done with that coyote routine, chewing off my arm rather than waking her up the next morning. Is that really too much to ask from the creatoress of the universe? A little facial symmetry, not too much junk in the trunk. A little sompt'n sompt'n in the rack zone, not too much I don't dig that. And no I hate men short, short haircut. She can wear make-up around her eyes and lipstick but none of that Mid Eastern chick, Sarah Palin, lip-liner or caked-on foundation. I hate when foundation rubs off on my cheek, so is it too much to ask for the ultimate reality to back off a bit on that? And she shouldn't have a stupid laugh. That's my last requirement, no stupid laugh that shifts too many octaves up or down. No helium Minnie Mouse laughs or that Mr. Ed thing some chicks do. I don't want her to sound like Herman Munster every time I bust a joke out. Can her friends not be idiots? Am I being unreasonable to not want to be walking on the set of Sex in the City every time we meet her Goddess friends at a Mall bar with the dark wood and the brass railings and the unlimited salad bar, and the Cosmos served in the big goofy glasses that feel like they are gunna fall over every time you put them down? Can she not have friends who ask me when are you gunna pop the question every time the Mother of
[FairfieldLife] Re: Does Rick Perry's God have something against Texas?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u wgm4u@ wrote: I've never seen such partisan and one sided posting as from this particular poster, it is as if he can only see black and white or is so jaded in his way of thinking that objective thinking is no longer possible. Yes do.rflex is a big idiot - it was probably not wise of you to respond to him because he gets very disoriented, disturbed and disjointed if he has to indulge in any human interactions. Please leave him alone in peace so he can just continue his copy and paste from various liberal websites in a mind-numbing, monotonous and mechanical manner. Watch 'em dance, folks. Well, I'll chime in here and back up BillyG and Ravi, because the do.rk can't accuse me of finding his behavior inappropriate on account of my politics; I'm at least as liberal as he is. Nobody minds the occasional cut-and-paste if it's well chosen and the poster is willing to discuss it. But the indiscriminate dumping that the do.rk has been doing here for months, without any commentary of his own, his only response to disagreement from others being what he perceives to be withering insults like the above, are an abuse of the forum. And it makes liberals look bad just on general principles; people are more likely to resist liberal ideas when they're relentlessly shoved in their faces with no discussion possible. One of his arrogant little tricks is to pick out what he thinks are important fragments of the articles he posts and put them at the top so we'll be sure not to miss them. That's annoying and insulting. We don't need him to instruct us in what's significant about an article. We'll decide for ourselves, thank you very much, if we want to read the article at all. And if we aren't going to read the whole thing, we're not going to accept his choice of callouts as a summary. His snotty comment above is reminiscent of Barry's oft-repeated self-serving trope that the only reason people criticize his behavior is because they don't agreee with his criticisms of TM. That's utter hogwash, but apparently the do.rk thinks it's a stinging rebuke worthy of emulation. And the incessant posting of websites that support his particular viewpoint is simplistic and a poor substitute for his own comments on the matter, like, what's he afraid of?, he might be wrong? At least Judy will engage.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
Curtis, Thank you so much, I now understand why the hedges keep bursting into flames when the wife walks by them. From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 5, 2011 7:33:51 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I was thinking that they were showing a lack of assumptions by noticing that the reasons for his existence are not solid. The only underlying assumption is that there should be good reasons to support beliefs and perhaps that the more a claim deviates from our common knowledge base of how the world works, the more compelling the evidence should be. And these good reasons are not limited to the methods of science, we have lots of tools to gain confidence in knowledge beyond that context-useful system. Sounds reasonable. I guess what I have a hard time accepting is the notion of an atheist keeping an open mind. And yes, that is quite judgemental of me. I am assuming that those who dismiss the notion of God, would always be finding some reason not to believe. That is a predjudice that I have which probably points to some intolerance. I don't see how either end conclusion guarantees or denies the ability to have an open mind about these issues or even the quality of their thinking. I have met really rational good thinkers who were believers and some atheists whose position was based more on a lack of thoughtfulness than good reasons for coming to that conclusion and vice versa. If you accept certain premises, it is rational and reasonable to be a born again Christian as an example. And you yourself have reasons to reject more versions of God than you accept. I wonder how open you mind is to the possibility that accepting Jesus as your Lord and savior is necessary to enter an eternal life in heaven. I suspect you have rejected this belief for similar reasons that I have, we don't accept the premises that support the belief. And we didn't have to go far out of our way to find some reason not to believe. The assumption was just not compelling for either of us. All the God beliefs can't be right at the same time. There are too many contradictions in what it is claimed he wants from us. So you have picked and chosen just as I have with the best thinking skills we can apply. I try to do my best. But the fact is for both of us most of them didn't make the cut. If you trace your own thought process between the God ideas you reject, and whatever versions you accept, you might find that some atheists are not so different from you. Some will have more or less of an open mind about the existence of God than you can maintain concerning the possibility that none of the God ideas refer to a factual being. The question I pose is are you open-minded to the possibility that people made up all of the God ideas? You certainly were when you rejected the necessity of maintaining an alter to Zeus. But if there is a God with God-like properties and he wants a relationship with me, I am easy to find. He could start by friending me on Facebook. If the chick who was my mutual crush in elem school could find me and tell me all about her shitty marriage, the Lord of existence could give me poke. And given the disparity in our maturity levels and intelligence, and compassion and on and on...its on him now. Or her. Preferably a her with infinity hotness as one of her divine properties. And not some butta face deity cuz I'm done with that coyote routine, chewing off my arm rather than waking her up the next morning. Is that really too much to ask from the creatoress of the universe? A little facial symmetry, not too much junk in the trunk. A little sompt'n sompt'n in the rack zone, not too much I don't dig that. And no I hate men short, short haircut. She can wear make-up around her eyes and lipstick but none of that Mid Eastern chick, Sarah Palin, lip-liner or caked-on foundation. I hate when foundation rubs off on my cheek, so is it too much to ask for the ultimate reality to back off a bit on that? And she shouldn't have a stupid laugh. That's my last requirement, no stupid laugh that shifts too many octaves up or down. No helium Minnie Mouse laughs or that Mr. Ed thing some chicks do. I don't want her to sound like Herman Munster every time I bust a joke out. Can her friends not be idiots? Am I being unreasonable to not want to be walking on the set of Sex in the City every time we meet her Goddess friends at a Mall bar with the dark wood and the brass railings and the unlimited salad bar, and the Cosmos served in the big goofy glasses that feel like they are gunna fall over every time you put them down? Can she not have friends who ask me when are you
[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
Well that's you Jim. You favor those expressions. Ain't nothing wrong with that. I think it also jump starts Rory. And I think they tickle Ravi's fancy as well. I smile to myself just because I look at things differently. But that's all. No better or worse, just differently. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: Ha Ha I thought of that too, the cutesy maxim type sound of the phrase and then just decided it was what it was. If you can say it better, good on ya mate. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: Jim, I can't argue with that, but it does remind me of an embroidered picture that you might find in the bathroom of country restaraunt, or the wall of a gift store. I think what you are describing is a BATGAP miracle. I want a FFL miracle. (-: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Miracles aren't miraculous events, they are a result of us noticing miraculous events, which surround us.
