[FairfieldLife] from Judy

[Emily Reyn]

Judy sent me a private communique - to thank me for supporting her in full wts 
style (she has, of course, badly misinterpreted me as I am fully engaged in 
refuting this phenomenon and I will be the first to call her on this egregious 
misinterpretation on her part) - and to ask me to let ya'll know that her 
Comcast is on the fritz and she will be quiet until it is restored.  Share, 
reality has answered your prayers.  Judy, the non-existent wts crowd wishes 
your internet a speedy recovery.  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2

[Emily Reyn]

Oh dear.  Share.  This wts thing.  Alright, let's discuss it.  I missed this 
post earlier.  

What are the specific characteristics of wts that qualifies it's stated 
members?  I'll start based on your post below, although it looks like your 
criteria involve the assumption that a number of people here are, in fact, out 
to "get you".  Remember, you are not a victim:

1) Engaging in psychological rape - defined here as attributing thoughts and 
feelings to you that you don't have. (This is characteristic of FFL discussions 
at large and results in some very humorous statements, actually - just another 
way to look at it.)
2) Presenting one's ideas as the Truth (goddamn it woman - don't you have a 
truth?)
3) Dissing on your forgiveness prayers (I think they are sweet, for the 
record).  (You haven't made any amends to those you have condemned to wts - 
forgive yourself and make your amends and move on to insult again.)  
4) "Piling on" - Pile on all you like - it's your right.  I addressed this in 
an earlier post - just another way to look at it.
5) Thinking Share is a "Saint" - (Share, that was a joke - I think Feste 
explained it - no one thinks you are a Saint now, except possibly Feste, which 
is funny and ironic; also, I was kidding when I told you you didn't have to 
worry about FFL's "tender feelings," but honestly I am highly-sensitive and you 
do need to worry about mine.  Fuck the others. Who cares about their feelings.)
6) Attempts to cover all bases. (You bet your ass, sweetheart, and if you don't 
want to bet on it, you'd better cover it)
7) Making fun of Share (Feel free to return the favor anytime - no harm done)
8) Telling Share there is another way to look at it(wait, this is my 
criteria).  
9)  Not being a "wise other."  
10) Owning a prada anything - wait...that's not right.  Is Robin PRADi?  Ann?  
I forget.  



 From: Share Long 
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 4:55 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
 

  
Here's Judy at her wts best.  Doing the psychological rape thing of attributing 
to me thoughts and feelings I've not had.  Then presenting her ideas as The 
Truth.  Then lacking in compassion.


Concerning making amends:  though I continue to do the forgiveness prayers 
every day, 
til now I've dropped mentioning it since wts also loves to diss on that 
so much.

BTW FFLers I have done my best to spare you all from all the piling on.  But 
some accusations had to be answered IMO.


Concerning my alleged lashing out:  of course it's possible that I've been 
triggered to the point 
of wanting to hurt someone's feelings!  Duh!  After all I'm not a saint.  
Though wts likes to accuse me of either being such or thinking I'm such.  But 
you know, also accusing me of actually not being such.  Isn't  it fun how wts 
attempts to cover all the bases in this regard?    


Anyway, I know I've done my best to state what I believe in a reasonable non 
hurtful way.  About the latter can you say the same Judy?  

Probably wts will make fun of me for what I'm about to say.  But hey everybody 
has to have a hobby:


For any of my serious accusations, I've agonized over the possibility of 
hurting Robin's feelings.  My wise others here know this.  An example is the so 
called stalking issue.  I never intended to divulge the information I did.  But 
Raunchy was giving her so called opinion about my alleged crush on Robin and 
stalking behavior.  I said what I said not to hurt Robin but to shed light on 
her speculations.  And the only reason I brought up my crush on merudanda was 
to indicate to FFL how off Raunchy's speculations are in this matter.  


Anyway, can't resist ending by saying that maybe Judy said EEEK because she saw 
PRADi
pompous reality avoiding doormouse inc (-:



 From: Alex Stanley 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 10:43 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> wrote:
> > Share has demonstrated very effectively that the last two
> > sentences are bullshit. Either that, or her "best" is
> > appallingly inadequate. When she's under any kind of
> > pressure, and sometimes even when she's just feeling punk,
> > she lashes out repeatedly with the intent to hurt people.
> > She has *no* inhibitions whatsoever about attempting to
> > hurt people, nor has she the slightest interest in making
> > genuine amends. And she writes far nastier snark than
> > Stupid Sal ever did.
> 
> This, by the grace of God, was Judy's last post of the week.  Oops, I
> guess she's got one more.  I wonder what she can do to top this one?
>

This evening's post count put her at 45, and the post you're commenting on here 
was her third after the post count. 45 + 3 = 48. Her post beginning with 
"K!" was number 49. I gues

Re: [FairfieldLife] to Judy

[Emily Reyn]

Dear Share, I am doing a 180 on a comment I made in a prior post.  The most 
compassionate thing you could do for me would be *to read* my posts - the ones 
you have time for.  First, I just want to tell you "congratulations" on 
expressing your outrage in full sentences out loud.  Much nicer than that 
irritating passive-aggressive way.  At least for me.  I hear what you are 
saying.  This is a plus.  Was there a lot of "piling on?"  I haven't checked 
yet, but I wish you'd stop accusing people you think don't like you of being in 
a "pile-on" league ready to go after you.  There is another way to look at it.  
Let me know if you'd like my opinion.  

My comments are below:  




 From: Share Long 
To: "fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 2:36 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] to Judy
 

  
You began misinterpreting me on Sept 9 post 319521 and have continued to do so 
up to the present.  But what is the real problem is your asserting that your 
opinions, misinterpretations, POVs are the accurate ones, the truthful ones.

Judy has presented the majority of her posts back to you with excerpts of what 
you wrote in an effort to get you to look closely at  the words you've written. 
 She has admitted that she has been harder on you (in that she hasn't bent over 
backwards to apologize like Robin did) than others have.  Judy may not 
apologize for what she writes if it offends someone or not, but she takes 
responsibility for writing it.  

Have you taken responsibility for what you've written?  It took me two weeks to 
get you to admit (I think?) that you really do believe there is a version of 
WTS going on here at FFL.  Just come out and say it - then we can talk about 
why you think this is and what those of us on the hit list are in for.  

Have you admitted honestly to the way you've dissed Judy?  Do you think that 
you have?  Should you clean up your side of the street too?  

Honestly, if I had Judy, Ann and raunchy and Ravi and Robin and me and others 
posting to me with a common theme - I would respect them enough in their own 
right, flaws and all, to try and figure out what the heck they were trying to 
tell me.  And then, I would run like hell.

Now about my alleged dishonesty:  I have never experienced a situation such as 
I have had with Robin.  laughinggull wrote insightfully about changing his 
opinions.  But for me about Robin, it has been more even than that.  Since Sept 
6 I've been trying to make sense of all that has happened.  It has been a 
challenging process to understand what is going on within me and with him.  

I think this is the fairest statement you've made to date, and I like the nice, 
diplomatic words you use"challenging process"very corporate. 

Your constant and vitriolic butting in has merely made this process more 
challenging.  At least for me.

You leveled an incredible, vitriolic allegation at Robin publicly here and then 
substantiated it based on private communiques you said you had with him and 
"others." You have never acknowledged that there might be a different way to 
look at it, or that you have a responsibility to apologize yourself for your 
behavior, regardless if you think you are right or wrong - your choice of 
attack was mean-spirited at the very least and condemning (particularly towards 
a male, IMO - but I already had that conversation).  Robin made a serious 
attempt to apologize to you for what could have caused you so much distress.  


Judy has and does support Robin.  I don't expect this to change and neither 
should you. She's read more of his posts than probably anyone here and she also 
has an excellent memory and ability to search the archives to attempt to 
maintain accurate documentation of conversations - to keep record of context, 
for example, and make it available for review again.  She jumps in with her 
interpretation of events - so does everyone.  

This whole "vitriolic butting in" thing though, and I say this to laughingfully 
also, is a protocol that simply doesn't apply here on a public internet forum.  
It's actually a gift the way I look at it - my way is another way to look at 
it.  You are not a victim - you have stated you don't read her posts anymore - 
I think that's a mistake, but you might need to toughen up and take criticism 
the way its given on FFL, not limit your ability to receive feedback by your 
criteria only.  That's what the healing sessions are for, not FFL. You cannot 
control FFL.  

But you have little or no compassion for this.  You don't even have the common 
sense understanding that not everyone has the time to check archives.  Instead 
you call people like me and Steve lazy.  

Mostly, Judy is calling you and Steve lazy for not supporting the allegations 
you are asserting, particularly if the argument cries for a little support, or, 
in your case Share, you often change up what *YOU SAY* and pretend it was 
something different later.  

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2

[Robin Carlsen]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" 
> > wrote:
> > > Judy backs up her ideas with facts that she doesn't make up. Her
> > forthright style of presenting posts in evidence of your own words in
> > the archives is perhaps emotionally unsettling, a "trigger" making you
> > feel defensive but it doesn't negate the truth of what she says or what
> > you have written. Rather than lash out at Judy ineffectually, deal with
> > your "triggers" and deal with the reality of what she says, not as a
> > victim but as an equally intelligent adult. If you want to make a case
> > against her you cannot do this successfully if the starting point of
> > your defense is based on fantasy.
> > 
> > As the wise woman said:
> > 
> > I hope you're not saying that *your* and your support group's reality is
> > the one
> > closest to the truth and that there's a need in you and in your support
> > group to
> > convince others to accept this. That would be proselytizing, wouldn't
> > it? If
> > *that's* the case, then perhaps you and I have nothing to discuss
> > because we are
> > never going to see eye to eye. I'm hoping that *isn't* the case.
> >
> 
> http://youtu.be/CI8UPHMzZm8

This is a brilliant post, raunchy. And it says everything I could ever think of 
saying.
I think the deer crossing signs should definitely be taken down--or moved to a 
more suitable place--putting them at a school crossing seemed like a good idea 
to me. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What FFL would be like if Buck ran it

[Emily Reyn]

Love this Buck...really lovely...until you get to the "what you won't accept" 
part.  If Rick should step down, I would vote for Alex.  Sorry.



 From: Buck 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 8:53 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What FFL would be like if Buck ran it
 

  
Rick is extremely busy doing extremely important work on Batgap.com .  If Rick 
should step down as owner of FFL then I should be honored to take over the 
responsibility of leadership of this illustrious community here in his place.

These are certainly turbulent times that require vigorous and extraordinary 
leadership.  I would respect everyone's right to an opinion here and always 
edit this list judiciously with great empathy to preserve the integrity of 
expression on FFL.

I should always note and listen to all opinions and keep this a safe and open 
forum.  You could trust me.  I am confident with all your support that I could 
steer our forum through these next times to a transition in a new era of 
positivity for FFL. 

I should start only as a  temporary practical interlude in leadership to 
something better and will protect in the meantime the transition of FFL to a 
more civil, judicious and democratic FFL.  As the supreme ruler of FFL I then 
shall gladly step aside at a future time when we have then made the transition.

It is my deeply held feeling that FFL should embrace transparency, democracy 
and human rights, but in my view not accept categorical approaches to free 
speech and particularly not tolerate insults to spirituality.
I respect freedom of expression but expression that is not used to incite 
hatred against anyone. One that is not directed toward one specific religion or 
cult.  I believe the time has come for everyone's safety to consider action to 
crack down on speech that defames spirituality on this list.  A supreme 
moderator is needed now and I should be humbled to take on that responsibility 
for everyone's welfare.
-Buck, the Preserver 


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2

[seventhray1]

Fair enough Ann.  But I wasn't playing the "you are a Robin clone card".
Sorry if it came off that way.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater 
wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"
lurkernomore20002000@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > Ann,
> >
> > Is this your way of saying to don't care to address the question I
asked
> > you about the style and substance of Ravi's posts?
> >
> > I am comfortable with whatever legacy my posts leave.
> >
> > I just wish you could see how judgemental your posts come off most
of
> > the time.
> >
> > And yes, it so strange to me that when I read your posts I reflect
on
> > the criteria Robin often uses of how posts sometimes indicate such a
> > distortion of reality.
> >
> > I wish I could be more charitable.
>
> No problem Steve. I don't expect or feel charity would be appropriate.
For me to have my say I can only expect everyone else to have theirs. I
am unsure what your second to last paragraph is saying but I feel that
it is very easy to fall into the well-used Robin clone argument. I am my
own person Steve, in virtually every way. Whatever I respect or value in
someone else I will defend but I am never some shoddy second, some
imitator.
>
> Perhaps I am judgmental, in fact, I am pretty sure I am. That does not
seem so very terrible to me. My 'judgements' include evaluation, feeling
something out and reacting to it. I would be dead if I did not. That is
not to say my judgement, my opinion can't and won't change in a
heartbeat, it often does.
>
> As to Ravi, he is an enigma to me. I know that many have a far longer
history with him at FFL than I do. He can be abrasive, shocking, strong.
But he is not malevolent, he does not alarm me like that other dark
troll who I was, frankly, horrified by. Can't even remember his name.
No, Ravi is a passionate, sensitive albeit an opinionated man. But I
don't get any 'bad vibes' or maliciousness from him. He plays, he
dances, he is Ravi. I don't know his full history but he seems to live
life by diving in. He appears to have had more than his dollop of pain
and suffering but here he is - boisterous, caustic sometimes but
bursting with life. I like that.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"
> > lurkernomore20002000@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"
maskedzebra@
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you are seeing more of reality than another person...
> > > > >
> > > > > You seem different Robin. Has something happened in your
> > experience?
> > > > Or has something happened in mine?
> > > > >
> > > > Six weeks without hockey may possibly be having a levening
affect on
> > > > him, counterintuitive though it would seem.
> > >
> > > What the hell is a "levening" effect. I can only conjecture,
Steve,
> > that recently and most specifically right now, you are either:
> > > 1) on some sort of "upper" or speed.
> > > 2) under a mistaken notion of your superior and privileged POV.
> > > 3) giddy.
> > > 4) lacking something better to do.
> > > 5) your wife and children are out of town and you don't know what
to
> > do with yourself.
> > >
> > > Whatever the case, you will look back at your posts one day and
wonder
> > what the hell you were thinking. I am finding it slightly comical,
sort
> > of like watching someone slip on a banana peel -over and over.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2

[awoelflebater]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  
wrote:
>
> 
> Ann,
> 
> Is this your way of saying to don't care to address the question I asked
> you about the style and substance of Ravi's posts?
> 
> I am comfortable with whatever legacy my posts leave.
> 
> I just wish you could see how judgemental your posts come off most of
> the time.
> 
> And yes, it so strange to me that when I read your posts I reflect on
> the criteria Robin often uses of how posts sometimes indicate such a
> distortion of reality.
> 
> I wish I could be more charitable.

No problem Steve. I don't expect or feel charity would be appropriate. For me 
to have my say I can only expect everyone else to have theirs. I am unsure what 
your second to last paragraph is saying but I feel that it is very easy to fall 
into the well-used Robin clone argument. I am my own person Steve, in virtually 
every way. Whatever I respect or value in someone else I will defend but I am 
never some shoddy second, some imitator.

Perhaps I am judgmental, in fact, I am pretty sure I am. That does not seem so 
very terrible to me. My 'judgements' include evaluation, feeling something out 
and reacting to it. I would be dead if I did not. That is not to say my 
judgement, my opinion can't and won't change in a heartbeat, it often does.

As to Ravi, he is an enigma to me. I know that many have a far longer history 
with him at FFL than I do. He can be abrasive, shocking, strong. But he is not 
malevolent, he does not alarm me like that other dark troll who I was, frankly, 
horrified by. Can't even remember his name. No, Ravi is a passionate, sensitive 
albeit an opinionated man. But I don't get any 'bad vibes' or maliciousness 
from him. He plays, he dances, he is Ravi. I don't know his full history but he 
seems to live life by diving in. He appears to have had more than his dollop of 
pain and suffering but here he is - boisterous, caustic sometimes but bursting 
with life. I like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"
> lurkernomore20002000@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" maskedzebra@
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > If you are seeing more of reality than another person...
> > > >
> > > > You seem different Robin. Has something happened in your
> experience?
> > > Or has something happened in mine?
> > > >
> > > Six weeks without hockey may possibly be having a levening affect on
> > > him, counterintuitive though it would seem.
> >
> > What the hell is a "levening" effect. I can only conjecture, Steve,
> that recently and most specifically right now, you are either:
> > 1) on some sort of "upper" or speed.
> > 2) under a mistaken notion of your superior and privileged POV.
> > 3) giddy.
> > 4) lacking something better to do.
> > 5) your wife and children are out of town and you don't know what to
> do with yourself.
> >
> > Whatever the case, you will look back at your posts one day and wonder
> what the hell you were thinking. I am finding it slightly comical, sort
> of like watching someone slip on a banana peel -over and over.
> > >
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

[Emily Reyn]

Robin, in reading the Cult, one of the questions that continues to nag at me 
(and it is something I need as I have no appropriate frame of reference) is a 
clear description and communication of what "The Context" was.  I like to try 
to understand the big picture or paradigm under which the actions occur, so to 
speak.  You brought that up before, and addressed it, and here you do again.  
You have explained your "past" many times, but this is the most clearly I have 
understood as related to the "cult" experience you've been under fire for for a 
good long time now. Perhaps every time you try again to explain, you are able 
to refine the experience for us readers with more clarity.  Ha.  

I will say that I am going to have to read the book in print and am going to 
bite the bullet and print it out.  It is a fascinating, albeit difficult story 
to read at times, and testament to this period of Bill's life.  There are many 
valid lessons that come through.  However, I am so old school, that I am 
finding it virtually impossible to understand the flow of the story as well as 
I want to, and in terms of the context that is included, without being able to 
turn pages forward and backward physically, particularly as I am reading only a 
few pages at a time and am still only 239 pages in.  

I've been spending too much time trying to get Share to clarify her position on 
wts (a full two weeks now, but I think our conversation is finally progressing 
well.) While it is often difficult for me to compartmentalize in one-on-one 
situations, I am choosing to compartmentalize this read.  I want to read the 
book like I would watch a movie I wanted to experience - immersing myself in 
the characters and storyline (and then come back to it.)  With a very few 
exceptions, I am leaving my understanding of you in the here and now behind.  
Once in awhile, I say "OMG" and "Sweet Jesus," when I remember I am reading 
what has been attested to as factual and hit a heartbreaking fact.   

One of the things that I look for, in you in particular, in the here and now, 
is the ability to be humble in the explanation of your past (although some 
might say you are being manipulatively so to garner support - I refuse this 
outright at this point in time). You have been remarkably consistent in this 
regard.  

One thing I find interesting is the fact that you have stayed online here.  It 
is such a positive thing and I thank you.  It couldn't be just that you love an 
audience, could it, anymore than the rest of FFL? It couldn't be that you are 
just wowing FFL with your intelligence, intuitive self, and masterful irony, 
could it, anymore than anyone else?  It couldn't be that you are here 
discussing a passion of yours -  reality - could it?  

RE: This statement here below - The one thing about this book (and I haven't 
jumped ahead so don't know of the epilogue or conclusions that may be coming 
and don't tell me - I don't want anything influencing my read, include those 
things) is that there is a fuller storyline that emerges through the simple 
documentation of the story.  This is one of those things that starts to emerge 
for me.  Respectfully, Emily
  
"But each person began to understand how this process  was seemingly built-into 
life itself, and applied--perhaps less elegantly and comprehensively and 
creatively than I did--that process to themselves and to their friends. The 
Context, Bill, was never isolated inside the cult leader. It was very much 
known and experienced to be *inside life* itself. We--all of us--had only one 
authority: our own perceptions, our own experience. I had no authority 
whatsoever--separated, that is, from the living drama of the beautiful and 
cruel theatre of that whole context. I was as much a victim of that context as 
you were--The only difference being that I had to wait to be terrified and 
humiliated until after it was over. I believe your book, from all that I could 
understand from almost three hours I spent looking through its pages, missed 
out this very important theme."




From: Robin Carlsen 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 2:34 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT



Dear Bill,

The essence of the Ten Years was this: when I came down from that mountain I 
found myself able to see the ultimate weakness or falseness in each human 
being. *I never saw this before*. So what this mean was that each person I met 
after being enlightened--other than Maharishi himself--demonstrated in their 
behaviour a certain awareness of what was untrue or insincere in themselves. It 
seemed--from the point of view of Unity Consciousness--that each person had 
this final and definitive flaw, a flaw which was the secret theme of all that 
they did--but which was hidden from everyone else. And perhaps had not even 
surfaced completely in the consciousness of that person.

No matter: what 

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy

[seventhray1]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" 
wrote:
> Yeah, Alex, blame poor little puddy cat. Cats really don't care what
you say about them, she'll curl up on your chest at bedtime and purr
sweetly, "Just between you and me, I would never trust Steve to change
my litter box, it would be too complicated for him."
>
http://instantrimshot.com/classic/?sound=rimshot


Raunch,

Is this the best you can do?

Maybe try to add some tap dancing or something to the routine.  People
might fall asleep with same tired insults.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> >
> > Dear Bill,
> > 
> > The essence of the Ten Years was this: when I came down from that mountain 
> > I found myself able to see the ultimate weakness or falseness in each human 
> > being. *I never saw this before*. So what this mean was that each person I 
> > met after being enlightened--other than Maharishi himself--demonstrated in 
> > their behaviour a certain awareness of what was untrue or insincere in 
> > themselves. It seemed--from the point of view of Unity Consciousness--that 
> > each person had this final and definitive flaw, a flaw which was the secret 
> > theme of all that they did--but which was hidden from everyone else. And 
> > perhaps had not even surfaced completely in the consciousness of that 
> > person.
> > 
> > No matter: what happened inside my enlightenment was that in seeing the 
> > evidence of this contradiction in their very beingness, I was led to 
> > believe (by what was creating the context of my enlightenment) that my 
> > being able to perceive this infirmity in that person, that in making this 
> > known to that person, they could, through their own free will, make use 
> > simply of the grace of truth (of that very revelation) to acquire the means 
> > to challenge and eventually overcome that flaw. And each person had a 
> > signature flaw.
> > 
> > Indeed the process through which this weakness was exposed seemed to bring 
> > with it a context of prescriptive existential potential whereby that person 
> > could begin to take responsibility for this weakness or falseness and begin 
> > to overcome it. That is what confrontation was, after all: revelation of 
> > the problem, and then, evidently, a context within which to do something 
> > about that problem.
> > 
> > The means to uncovering and exposing that flaw--*so that every person in 
> > the room or theatre could see it for themselves*, see it inside the context 
> > of reality, and thus making it seem to be a kind of 'demonically' supported 
> > weakness--was through a 'tracking' process, which entailed going through 
> > layers and layers of deceit, phoniness, dishonesty, fear, falseness, 
> > escapism, avoidance--and then revealing this weakness as essentially the 
> > responsibility of that person--inside the drama of creation--to face and 
> > conquer. To conquer that distinctive and inimitable weakness would be the 
> > qualification to become enlightened.
> > 
> > Therefore this was becoming enlightened through a means other than the East 
> > only. Even though that continued, as each and every one of us was devoted 
> > to Maharishi, and were under the assumption that Maharishi had made me 
> > enlightened. Ergo, what I was doing must, somehow have the blessing of my 
> > Master, Guru Dev, and the Holy Tradition. Emphatically this was the 
> > understanding that every person who was closest to me held as unassailable, 
> > inviolable.
> > 
> > Now since my enlightenment was a mystical hallucination, it meant that *the 
> > context which it gave birth to inside myself*, that too somewhere, no 
> > matter how true the process of confrontation and individuation appeared to 
> > be (and that process recreated reality, drove everyone into the deepest 
> > place one could ever go--and had ever gone), was untrue. And what this 
> > meant--in the perspective after The Context was busted by a greater 
> > reality--was that this weakness in each person was simply what innocently 
> > each person had to do in order to survive as a human being inside the 
> > universe given that they were not perfect--and fallen. In other words, this 
> > salient and ultimate weakness was not to be confronted--not even to be 
> > revealed. I believe this because in not one case (other than perhaps my 
> > own!) did this process of 'tracking' ever do anyone any good. The violence, 
> > the intelligence, the power, the energy, the drama: that certainly did 
> > strengthen all of us; but in terms of what was the objective: 1. 
> > overcoming, vanquishing one's signature weakness 2. becoming 
> > enlightened--the Ten Years was a fiasco. Each person, as far as I know, 
> > remained just what they were before I came down from that mountain about 
> > Arosa. Only a much stronger and wiser character.
> > 
> > Now where things really went wrong was when the powers which had created my 
> > enlightenment--and The Context of the Ten Years--began to make it seem to 
> > be as if I were actually seeing individual persons as entities of 
> > evil--rather than seeing the person in the context of their problem, their 
> > unique infirmity. This is the proof of the evil of The Context and my 
> > enlightenment: that the hallucinatory reality of the Ten Years began--after 
> > about eight years--to become something else: the declaration of who was 
> > good and who was evil. At this point the whole enterpri

[FairfieldLife] Re: After two Hop Czars I wax forth to Steve

[seventhray1]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long 
wrote:
>
> Well at least he sounds like himself and not some BORG assimilated
Ravi (-:
> BTW, Steve, you made me laugh this evening, thank you.
> Hope you and the family have a great weekend.


Thanks Share,

Always nice to get to the weekend and a change of pace.  Started out
with dinner at Applebees and an errand at Costco.


>
> 
> From: seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@...
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 10:10 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: After two Hop Czars I wax forth
>
>
> Â
> Hey Ann,
> Care to comment on Ravi's posting style, substance?
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@
wrote:
> >
> > Empty baby - you may be a homeless man stupid enough to want to
trade your
> > books for some free food at Russian Orthodox Church's soup kitchens
but you
> > make sense sometimes. So..STFU then.
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:57 PM, emptybill emptybill@ wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Why do so many folks here on FFL concern themselves with what Judy
posts?
> > > If Judy attacks, demeans and accuses people of dishonesty, lying
and sheer
> > > deceit … so what? Why do people even care what she says?
> > >
> > > Ego, self-image, one's appearance in others eyes (minds)
… this is what is
> > > important to Judy but why *you*?
> > >
> > > There is no real reason why anyone on the forum should consider
Judy's
> > > attacks anything but a shining reflection of her own mind. But in
the end
> > > … so what?
> > >
> > > This samsaric world is beautiful, majestic and frighteningly
monstrous. It
> > > is also exquisitely boring and perhaps, ultimately unknowable in
essence.
> > > Over and over, we find that our moments of experience appear,
dissolve and
> > > can't be found again.
> > >
> > > Why waste so much time bickering about the colors of the paint on
the wall
> > > when this whole world and *we ourselves* are so inextricably wound
> > > together in a mystery?
> > >
> > > You don't see anything mysterious about it?
> > >
> > > No wonder there is such silly drama.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > > It has come to my attention that much or most of my participation on
> > FFL consists of putdowns such as this. In the future, I will try to do
> > better.
> > >
> > 
> > Hey Alex, sounds like someone made a suggestion to you, or maybe you
> > just decided this without any input from others.
> 
> I received an email that included this: "from what I can see, much or most of 
> the time your participation consists of putdowns such as this." So, I went 
> into my Gmail feed in Thunderbird, which is set up to keep the latest 60 days 
> of FFL traffic, and I looked over the 92 posts of mine that were there, and 
> sure enough, the observation was absolutely delusionally batshit crazy. 
>  
> On the other hand, I did sorta take my bad afternoon out on you (heavy object 
> dropped on my toe, and one of the cats decided that peeing in the vicinity of 
> the litterbox is good enough), and what with you ridiculously obsessing over 
> Judy's post count while seemingly incapable of actually counting them, you 
> were an easy target. And, with you, I'm always reminded that you told a 
> friend of mine that she should be orally raped because she committed the 
> heinous crime of posting a chatty little post that annoyed you. So, I 
> completely lost all control and dissed your arithmetic skills. My bad.
>

Yeah, Alex, blame poor little puddy cat. Cats really don't care what you say 
about them, she'll curl up on your chest at bedtime and purr sweetly, "Just 
between you and me, I would never trust Steve to change my litter box, it would 
be too complicated for him."

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2

[seventhray1]

Ann,

Is this your way of saying to don't care to address the question I asked
you about the style and substance of Ravi's posts?

I am comfortable with whatever legacy my posts leave.

I just wish you could see how judgemental your posts come off most of
the time.

And yes, it so strange to me that when I read your posts I reflect on
the criteria Robin often uses of how posts sometimes indicate such a
distortion of reality.

I wish I could be more charitable.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater 
wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"
lurkernomore20002000@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" maskedzebra@
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If you are seeing more of reality than another person...
> > >
> > > You seem different Robin. Has something happened in your
experience?
> > Or has something happened in mine?
> > >
> > Six weeks without hockey may possibly be having a levening affect on
> > him, counterintuitive though it would seem.
>
> What the hell is a "levening" effect. I can only conjecture, Steve,
that recently and most specifically right now, you are either:
> 1) on some sort of "upper" or speed.
> 2) under a mistaken notion of your superior and privileged POV.
> 3) giddy.
> 4) lacking something better to do.
> 5) your wife and children are out of town and you don't know what to
do with yourself.
>
> Whatever the case, you will look back at your posts one day and wonder
what the hell you were thinking. I am finding it slightly comical, sort
of like watching someone slip on a banana peel -over and over.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

[awoelflebater]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> Dear Bill,
> 
> The essence of the Ten Years was this: when I came down from that mountain I 
> found myself able to see the ultimate weakness or falseness in each human 
> being. *I never saw this before*. So what this mean was that each person I 
> met after being enlightened--other than Maharishi himself--demonstrated in 
> their behaviour a certain awareness of what was untrue or insincere in 
> themselves. It seemed--from the point of view of Unity Consciousness--that 
> each person had this final and definitive flaw, a flaw which was the secret 
> theme of all that they did--but which was hidden from everyone else. And 
> perhaps had not even surfaced completely in the consciousness of that person.
> 
> No matter: what happened inside my enlightenment was that in seeing the 
> evidence of this contradiction in their very beingness, I was led to believe 
> (by what was creating the context of my enlightenment) that my being able to 
> perceive this infirmity in that person, that in making this known to that 
> person, they could, through their own free will, make use simply of the grace 
> of truth (of that very revelation) to acquire the means to challenge and 
> eventually overcome that flaw. And each person had a signature flaw.
> 
> Indeed the process through which this weakness was exposed seemed to bring 
> with it a context of prescriptive existential potential whereby that person 
> could begin to take responsibility for this weakness or falseness and begin 
> to overcome it. That is what confrontation was, after all: revelation of the 
> problem, and then, evidently, a context within which to do something about 
> that problem.
> 
> The means to uncovering and exposing that flaw--*so that every person in the 
> room or theatre could see it for themselves*, see it inside the context of 
> reality, and thus making it seem to be a kind of 'demonically' supported 
> weakness--was through a 'tracking' process, which entailed going through 
> layers and layers of deceit, phoniness, dishonesty, fear, falseness, 
> escapism, avoidance--and then revealing this weakness as essentially the 
> responsibility of that person--inside the drama of creation--to face and 
> conquer. To conquer that distinctive and inimitable weakness would be the 
> qualification to become enlightened.
> 
> Therefore this was becoming enlightened through a means other than the East 
> only. Even though that continued, as each and every one of us was devoted to 
> Maharishi, and were under the assumption that Maharishi had made me 
> enlightened. Ergo, what I was doing must, somehow have the blessing of my 
> Master, Guru Dev, and the Holy Tradition. Emphatically this was the 
> understanding that every person who was closest to me held as unassailable, 
> inviolable.
> 
> Now since my enlightenment was a mystical hallucination, it meant that *the 
> context which it gave birth to inside myself*, that too somewhere, no matter 
> how true the process of confrontation and individuation appeared to be (and 
> that process recreated reality, drove everyone into the deepest place one 
> could ever go--and had ever gone), was untrue. And what this meant--in the 
> perspective after The Context was busted by a greater reality--was that this 
> weakness in each person was simply what innocently each person had to do in 
> order to survive as a human being inside the universe given that they were 
> not perfect--and fallen. In other words, this salient and ultimate weakness 
> was not to be confronted--not even to be revealed. I believe this because in 
> not one case (other than perhaps my own!) did this process of 'tracking' ever 
> do anyone any good. The violence, the intelligence, the power, the energy, 
> the drama: that certainly did strengthen all of us; but in terms of what was 
> the objective: 1. overcoming, vanquishing one's signature weakness 2. 
> becoming enlightened--the Ten Years was a fiasco. Each person, as far as I 
> know, remained just what they were before I came down from that mountain 
> about Arosa. Only a much stronger and wiser character.
> 
> Now where things really went wrong was when the powers which had created my 
> enlightenment--and The Context of the Ten Years--began to make it seem to be 
> as if I were actually seeing individual persons as entities of evil--rather 
> than seeing the person in the context of their problem, their unique 
> infirmity. This is the proof of the evil of The Context and my enlightenment: 
> that the hallucinatory reality of the Ten Years began--after about eight 
> years--to become something else: the declaration of who was good and who was 
> evil. At this point the whole enterprise was doomed. But the reality which 
> governed the experience of each and every person in those Ten Years--this did 
> not change at all--even with this disturbing and terrifying development. It 
> should have; but it did not, 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: !Progress in the Fairfield Dome Meditation Numbers!

[Michael Jackson]

doesn't Eckhart Tolle live somewhere up there?





 From: awoelflebater 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 9:44 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: !Progress in the Fairfield Dome Meditation Numbers!
 

  

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > >
> > > To our dear Meditating Movement family,
> > > 
> > > The Vedic Pandits are finally coming —not just the original 556 but a 
> > > total of 600!
> > > 
> > > With the addition of this group of Pandits, we will achieve a stable 
> > > Super Radiance group of 2,000 meditating to create Invincibility for 
> > > America, a goal we have all worked towards for 30 years.
> > > 
> > > -Buck
> > 
> > Buck, do me a favour, and I am dead serious here, let me know what 
> > invincibility for America looks like when it happens. I am so dense I might 
> > just miss it. Oh, and while you're at it maybe you could point out Maitreya 
> > if you happen to stumble on him/her (I think it is a him though, because 
> > somehow women aren't yet qualified, according to my readings, to embody 
> > such a powerful Supreme Master within their more delicate physiques.)
> > >
> >
> 
> Ann, Yep it's proly hard being out in the sticks there in Montana.  Like 
> sludge.

Dear Buck, where did you ever get the idea I lived in Montana? I live in this 
beautiful city.
It's called Victoria and it is in British Columbia. It is the capital. For a 
relatively small city it has lots going on. You should make sure to join all of 
us when we have our small gathering next summer. I'll set up some foam for the 
hoppers, but it will be outside.

>It is interesting to see how many people from here will go out in to the world 
>for some reason and come back here to Fairfielld.  Someone forwarded this, it 
>might be helpful to you out there.  The girl has some good spiritual pointers 
>including practicing a transcending meditation.  This pineal stuff is more 
>accurately about the energy center of that chakra subtle system. It's part of 
>the spiritual sadhana of mature meditation.  Others here on FFL can speak to 
>that.  Maharishi's last technique that he was working on developing before he 
>died was about that too.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=92qmQFkYILM
> 
> 
> Good luck out there.  I got more evening chores and some more riding to do 
> here before going up to the evening Dome meditation.

I know about chores, twice a day every day. Post some pics of your horses (and 
you) sometime. I would love to see. I rode all over those gravel and dirt roads 
just north of FF for years. Know them like the back of my hand. Those winter 
drifts could get pretty high and don't try driving on the mud roads after a 
good rain.
> Best Regards,
> -Buck
>

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: After two Hop Czars I wax forth

[awoelflebater]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> ah eb I love that so what.  so what? (-:

Is it me or has the world gone bonkers? At least, could we use a little 
punctuation for god's sake? Let's keep a little decorum going here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: emptybill 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 6:57 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] After two Hop Czars I wax forth
>  
> 
>   
> Why do so many folks here on
> FFL concern themselves with what Judy posts? If Judy attacks, demeans and 
> accuses
> people of dishonesty, lying and sheer deceit … so what? Why do people even 
> care
> what she says?
> Ego, self-image, one's
> appearance in others eyes (minds) … this is what is important to Judy but 
> why you?
> There is no real reason why
> anyone on the forum should consider Judy's attacks anything but a shining 
> reflection
> of her own mind. But in the end  … so what?
> This samsaric world is
> beautiful, majestic and frighteningly monstrous. It is also exquisitely boring
> and perhaps, ultimately unknowable in essence. Over and over, we find that 
> our moments
> of experience appear, dissolve and can't be found again.
> Why waste so much time bickering
> about the colors of the paint on the wall when this whole world and we
> ourselves are so inextricably wound together in a mystery?
> You don't see anything
> mysterious about it? 
> No wonder there is such silly drama.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2

[awoelflebater]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  
wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
>  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" maskedzebra@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > If you are seeing more of reality than another person...
> >
> > You seem different Robin. Has something happened in your experience?
> Or has something happened in mine?
> >
> Six weeks without hockey may possibly be having a levening affect on
> him, counterintuitive though it would seem.

What the hell is a "levening" effect. I can only conjecture, Steve, that 
recently and most specifically right now, you are either:
1) on some sort of "upper" or speed.
2) under a mistaken notion of your superior and privileged POV.
3) giddy.
4) lacking something better to do.
5) your wife and children are out of town and you don't know what to do with 
yourself.

Whatever the case, you will look back at your posts one day and wonder what the 
hell you were thinking. I am finding it slightly comical, sort of like watching 
someone slip on a banana peel -over and over.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy

[seventhray1]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"
 wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"
lurkernomore20002000@ wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"
> >  wrote:
> >
> > > It has come to my attention that much or most of my participation
on
> > FFL consists of putdowns such as this. In the future, I will try to
do
> > better.
> > >
> >
> > Hey Alex, sounds like someone made a suggestion to you, or maybe you
> > just decided this without any input from others.
>
> I received an email that included this: "from what I can see, much or
most of the time your participation consists of putdowns such as this."
So, I went into my Gmail feed in Thunderbird, which is set up to keep
the latest 60 days of FFL traffic, and I looked over the 92 posts of
mine that were there, and sure enough, the observation was absolutely
delusionally batshit crazy.
>
> On the other hand, I did sorta take my bad afternoon out on you (heavy
object dropped on my toe, and one of the cats decided that peeing in the
vicinity of the litterbox is good enough), and what with you
ridiculously obsessing over Judy's post count while seemingly incapable
of actually counting them, you were an easy target. And, with you, I'm
always reminded that you told a friend of mine that she should be orally
raped because she committed the heinous crime of posting a chatty little
post that annoyed you. So, I completely lost all control and dissed your
arithmetic skills. My bad.
>
Alex, this is painful to read, because you are putting most of us to
shame, (well maybe not Ravi).

But my statement stands, you are a class act.

And am I totally incorrigable in that I count that comment about oral
rape as one of my best posts to FFL?

And yes, a close second would be my disparaging of the FFer who trapsed
around the world, waking up healers in the middle of the night to cure
his stage 3 cancer. (for which he died a few weeks later)

I'm not at that point yet, where I can feel genuine regret for those
posts.

Oh, at one point we had five cats.  (strays) Three originals and two
newbies.  Once the newbies arrived, basically the floor and furniture
got ruined.  We've slowly been able to replace the furniture, but I am
afraid the floor will continue to bear the marks of misdirected peeing.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: After two Hop Czars I wax forth to Steve

[Emily Reyn]

Oh, Oh, OhShareare you releasing Ravi from assignment to the BORG/wts?  
 

Can I be released tooo?  Please Share, please?  Otherwise, I'm going to feel 
compelled to press you on why, why Share did you assign me to such a fate?  
What is it about my behavior online that has so upset you?  Do you think I pile 
on?  Could it not be that I am simply responding to a post I read on a public 
forum that activated the energy in my fingertips?  Do you think I am caught up 
in the spell of Robin's charisma to the point that I cannot think for myself?  
Do you think that I just parrot Judy and Raunchy?  What is it Share, what is 
it?  Please tell medon't make me suffer in ignorance.  I don't get it 
Share, I really don't get it.  



 From: Share Long 
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: After two Hop Czars I wax forth to Steve
 

  
Well at least he sounds like himself and not some BORG assimilated Ravi (-:
BTW, Steve, you made me laugh this evening, thank you.
Hope you and the family have a great weekend.



 From: seventhray1 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 10:10 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: After two Hop Czars I wax forth
 

  
Hey Ann,
Care to comment on Ravi's posting style, substance?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> Empty baby - you may be a homeless man stupid enough to want to trade your
> books for some free food at Russian Orthodox Church's soup kitchens but you
> make sense sometimes. So..STFU then.
> 
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:57 PM, emptybill emptybill@... wrote:
> 
> > **
> >
> >
> > Why do so many folks here on FFL concern themselves with what Judy posts?
> > If Judy attacks, demeans and accuses people of dishonesty, lying and sheer
> > deceit … so what? Why do people even care what she says?
> >
> > Ego, self-image, one's appearance in others eyes (minds) … this is what is
> > important to Judy but why *you*?
> >
> > There is no real reason why anyone on the forum should consider Judy's
> >
 attacks anything but a shining reflection of her own mind. But in the end
> > … so what?
> >
> > This samsaric world is beautiful, majestic and frighteningly monstrous. It
> > is also exquisitely boring and perhaps, ultimately unknowable in essence.
> > Over and over, we find that our moments of experience appear, dissolve and
> > can't be found again.
> >
> > Why waste so much time bickering about the colors of the paint on the wall
> > when this whole world and *we ourselves* are so inextricably wound
> > together in a mystery?
> >
> > You don't see anything mysterious about it?
> >
> > No wonder there is such silly drama.
> >
> > 
> >
>



 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: After two Hop Czars I wax forth to Steve

[Share Long]

Well at least he sounds like himself and not some BORG assimilated Ravi (-:
BTW, Steve, you made me laugh this evening, thank you.
Hope you and the family have a great weekend.



 From: seventhray1 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 10:10 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: After two Hop Czars I wax forth
 

  
Hey Ann,
Care to comment on Ravi's posting style, substance?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> Empty baby - you may be a homeless man stupid enough to want to trade your
> books for some free food at Russian Orthodox Church's soup kitchens but you
> make sense sometimes. So..STFU then.
> 
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:57 PM, emptybill emptybill@... wrote:
> 
> > **
> >
> >
> > Why do so many folks here on FFL concern themselves with what Judy posts?
> > If Judy attacks, demeans and accuses people of dishonesty, lying and sheer
> > deceit … so what? Why do people even care what she says?
> >
> > Ego, self-image, one's appearance in others eyes (minds) … this is what is
> > important to Judy but why *you*?
> >
> > There is no real reason why anyone on the forum should consider Judy's
> > attacks anything but a shining reflection of her own mind. But in the end
> > … so what?
> >
> > This samsaric world is beautiful, majestic and frighteningly monstrous. It
> > is also exquisitely boring and perhaps, ultimately unknowable in essence.
> > Over and over, we find that our moments of experience appear, dissolve and
> > can't be found again.
> >
> > Why waste so much time bickering about the colors of the paint on the wall
> > when this whole world and *we ourselves* are so inextricably wound
> > together in a mystery?
> >
> > You don't see anything mysterious about it?
> >
> > No wonder there is such silly drama.
> >
> > 
> >
>

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"
>  wrote:
> 
> > It has come to my attention that much or most of my participation on
> FFL consists of putdowns such as this. In the future, I will try to do
> better.
> >
> 
> Hey Alex, sounds like someone made a suggestion to you, or maybe you
> just decided this without any input from others.

I received an email that included this: "from what I can see, much or most of 
the time your participation consists of putdowns such as this." So, I went into 
my Gmail feed in Thunderbird, which is set up to keep the latest 60 days of FFL 
traffic, and I looked over the 92 posts of mine that were there, and sure 
enough, the observation was absolutely delusionally batshit crazy. 
 
On the other hand, I did sorta take my bad afternoon out on you (heavy object 
dropped on my toe, and one of the cats decided that peeing in the vicinity of 
the litterbox is good enough), and what with you ridiculously obsessing over 
Judy's post count while seemingly incapable of actually counting them, you were 
an easy target. And, with you, I'm always reminded that you told a friend of 
mine that she should be orally raped because she committed the heinous crime of 
posting a chatty little post that annoyed you. So, I completely lost all 
control and dissed your arithmetic skills. My bad.

[FairfieldLife] Re: After two Hop Czars I wax forth

[seventhray1]

Hey Ann,

Care to comment on Ravi's posting style, substance?


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
 wrote:
>
> Empty baby - you may be a homeless man stupid enough to want to trade
your
> books for some free food at Russian Orthodox Church's soup kitchens
but you
> make sense sometimes. So..STFU then.
>
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:57 PM, emptybill emptybill@... wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Why do so many folks here on FFL concern themselves with what Judy
posts?
> > If Judy attacks, demeans and accuses people of dishonesty, lying and
sheer
> > deceit … so what? Why do people even care what she says?
> >
> > Ego, self-image, one's appearance in others eyes (minds) …
this is what is
> > important to Judy but why *you*?
> >
> > There is no real reason why anyone on the forum should consider
Judy's
> > attacks anything but a shining reflection of her own mind. But in
the end
> > … so what?
> >
> > This samsaric world is beautiful, majestic and frighteningly
monstrous. It
> > is also exquisitely boring and perhaps, ultimately unknowable in
essence.
> > Over and over, we find that our moments of experience appear,
dissolve and
> > can't be found again.
> >
> > Why waste so much time bickering about the colors of the paint on
the wall
> > when this whole world and *we ourselves* are so inextricably wound
> > together in a mystery?
> >
> > You don't see anything mysterious about it?
> >
> > No wonder there is such silly drama.
> >
> >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

[seventhray1]

I guess I just read the first sentence and read the rest too fast as
usual.  But I guess that's a start.  One sentence of something other
than abuse.  Maybe he can stretch it to a second sentence at some point.
Maybe next year for that.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
 wrote:
>
> Brilliant indeed because from my perspective he is the first person
from
> the Guru side of the aisle to honestly acknowledge the fraud,
deception,
> futility of the Guru-disciple game. Look at people like Buck, Nabby
> continuing the same game in another form ascended/descended masters,
> messiahs, Maitreya and even the naivete, stupidity of others like
Share,
> Howells, Lord Knows all continuing the same drama.
>
> Something relevant I posted on the Ammachi lists
>
> "That Amma has enabled people to numb their pain by providing a safe
outlet
> through her sacrifice, masochism. Yet ultimately a fraud, deception. A
> great tradition of masochism, self-abnegation, sacrifice started by
Jesus
> Christ, continued by various liberal icons such as Gandhi, Teresa,
this
> same sickening, 2000 year old mindset of someone sacrificing
themselves for
> our salvation.
>
> Then there is the ancient Indian wisdom in the metaphor of Lord
Krishna,
> the purna avatar, the highest possible individuation of consciousness.
A
> man who celebrated life, totally participated in it, loved, had sex,
> indulged in wars, friendships, drama. Unlike the masochism of Jesus
his
> death was a relative non-event, he supposedly got killed by a hunter's
> arrow. What powerful symbolism - so people focus on his life and not
death.
>
> It's so hard for to people to appreciate the metaphor of Lord Krishna.
It's
> so easy to avoid complexities of life, avoid accountability,
responsibility
> and self-honesty and just choose a belief system, fantasize on a
messiah
> that suffers for our sins, for our salvation."
>
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:46 PM, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Beautiful, Robin. "Rather, I think one should write, as nearly as
> > possible, as if he were the first person on earth and was humbly and
> > sincerely putting on paper that which he saw and experienced and
loved and
> > lost; what his passing thoughts were and his sorrows and desires."
> > -Neal Cassady to Jack Kerouac
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Robin - this is beautiful, thank you.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dear Bill,
> > > >
> > > > The essence of the Ten Years was this: when I came down from
that
> > mountain
> > > > I found myself able to see the ultimate weakness or falseness in
each
> > human
> > > > being. *I never saw this before*. So what this mean was that
each
> > person I
> > > > met after being enlightened--other than Maharishi
> > himself--demonstrated in
> > > > their behaviour a certain awareness of what was untrue or
insincere in
> > > > themselves. It seemed--from the point of view of Unity
> > Consciousness--that
> > > > each person had this final and definitive flaw, a flaw which was
the
> > secret
> > > > theme of all that they did--but which was hidden from everyone
else.
> > And
> > > > perhaps had not even surfaced completely in the consciousness of
that
> > > > person.
> > > >
> > > > No matter: what happened inside my enlightenment was that in
seeing the
> > > > evidence of this contradiction in their very beingness, I was
led to
> > > > believe (by what was creating the context of my enlightenment)
that my
> > > > being able to perceive this infirmity in that person, that in
making
> > this
> > > > known to that person, they could, through their own free will,
make use
> > > > simply of the grace of truth (of that very revelation) to
acquire the
> > means
> > > > to challenge and eventually overcome that flaw. And each person
had a
> > > > signature flaw.
> > > >
> > > > Indeed the process through which this weakness was exposed
seemed to
> > bring
> > > > with it a context of prescriptive existential potential whereby
that
> > person
> > > > could begin to take responsibility for this weakness or
falseness and
> > begin
> > > > to overcome it. That is what confrontation was, after all:
revelation
> > of
> > > > the problem, and then, evidently, a context within which to do
> > something
> > > > about that problem.
> > > >
> > > > The means to uncovering and exposing that flaw--*so that every
person
> > in
> > > > the room or theatre could see it for themselves*, see it inside
the
> > context
> > > > of reality, and thus making it seem to be a kind of
'demonically'
> > supported
> > > > weakness--was through a 'tracking' process, which entailed going
> > through
> > > > layers and layers of deceit, phoniness, dishonesty, fear,
falseness,
> > > > escapism, avoidance--and then revealing this weakness as
essentially
> > the
> > > > responsibility of 

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

[seventhray1]

Nice Post Ravi.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
 wrote:
>
> Brilliant indeed because from my perspective he is the first person
from
> the Guru side of the aisle to honestly acknowledge the fraud,
deception,
> futility of the Guru-disciple game. Look at people like Buck, Nabby
> continuing the same game in another form ascended/descended masters,
> messiahs, Maitreya and even the naivete, stupidity of others like
Share,
> Howells, Lord Knows all continuing the same drama.
>
> Something relevant I posted on the Ammachi lists
>
> "That Amma has enabled people to numb their pain by providing a safe
outlet
> through her sacrifice, masochism. Yet ultimately a fraud, deception. A
> great tradition of masochism, self-abnegation, sacrifice started by
Jesus
> Christ, continued by various liberal icons such as Gandhi, Teresa,
this
> same sickening, 2000 year old mindset of someone sacrificing
themselves for
> our salvation.
>
> Then there is the ancient Indian wisdom in the metaphor of Lord
Krishna,
> the purna avatar, the highest possible individuation of consciousness.
A
> man who celebrated life, totally participated in it, loved, had sex,
> indulged in wars, friendships, drama. Unlike the masochism of Jesus
his
> death was a relative non-event, he supposedly got killed by a hunter's
> arrow. What powerful symbolism - so people focus on his life and not
death.
>
> It's so hard for to people to appreciate the metaphor of Lord Krishna.
It's
> so easy to avoid complexities of life, avoid accountability,
responsibility
> and self-honesty and just choose a belief system, fantasize on a
messiah
> that suffers for our sins, for our salvation."
>
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:46 PM, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Beautiful, Robin. "Rather, I think one should write, as nearly as
> > possible, as if he were the first person on earth and was humbly and
> > sincerely putting on paper that which he saw and experienced and
loved and
> > lost; what his passing thoughts were and his sorrows and desires."
> > -Neal Cassady to Jack Kerouac
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Robin - this is beautiful, thank you.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dear Bill,
> > > >
> > > > The essence of the Ten Years was this: when I came down from
that
> > mountain
> > > > I found myself able to see the ultimate weakness or falseness in
each
> > human
> > > > being. *I never saw this before*. So what this mean was that
each
> > person I
> > > > met after being enlightened--other than Maharishi
> > himself--demonstrated in
> > > > their behaviour a certain awareness of what was untrue or
insincere in
> > > > themselves. It seemed--from the point of view of Unity
> > Consciousness--that
> > > > each person had this final and definitive flaw, a flaw which was
the
> > secret
> > > > theme of all that they did--but which was hidden from everyone
else.
> > And
> > > > perhaps had not even surfaced completely in the consciousness of
that
> > > > person.
> > > >
> > > > No matter: what happened inside my enlightenment was that in
seeing the
> > > > evidence of this contradiction in their very beingness, I was
led to
> > > > believe (by what was creating the context of my enlightenment)
that my
> > > > being able to perceive this infirmity in that person, that in
making
> > this
> > > > known to that person, they could, through their own free will,
make use
> > > > simply of the grace of truth (of that very revelation) to
acquire the
> > means
> > > > to challenge and eventually overcome that flaw. And each person
had a
> > > > signature flaw.
> > > >
> > > > Indeed the process through which this weakness was exposed
seemed to
> > bring
> > > > with it a context of prescriptive existential potential whereby
that
> > person
> > > > could begin to take responsibility for this weakness or
falseness and
> > begin
> > > > to overcome it. That is what confrontation was, after all:
revelation
> > of
> > > > the problem, and then, evidently, a context within which to do
> > something
> > > > about that problem.
> > > >
> > > > The means to uncovering and exposing that flaw--*so that every
person
> > in
> > > > the room or theatre could see it for themselves*, see it inside
the
> > context
> > > > of reality, and thus making it seem to be a kind of
'demonically'
> > supported
> > > > weakness--was through a 'tracking' process, which entailed going
> > through
> > > > layers and layers of deceit, phoniness, dishonesty, fear,
falseness,
> > > > escapism, avoidance--and then revealing this weakness as
essentially
> > the
> > > > responsibility of that person--inside the drama of creation--to
face
> > and
> > > > conquer. To conquer that distinctive and inimitable weakness
would be
> > the
> > > > qualification to become enlightened.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore this 

Re: [FairfieldLife] After two Hop Czars I wax forth

[Share Long]

ah eb I love that so what.  so what? (-:





 From: emptybill 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 6:57 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] After two Hop Czars I wax forth
 

  
Why do so many folks here on
FFL concern themselves with what Judy posts? If Judy attacks, demeans and 
accuses
people of dishonesty, lying and sheer deceit … so what? Why do people even care
what she says?
Ego, self-image, one's
appearance in others eyes (minds) … this is what is important to Judy but why 
you?
There is no real reason why
anyone on the forum should consider Judy's attacks anything but a shining 
reflection
of her own mind. But in the end  … so what?
This samsaric world is
beautiful, majestic and frighteningly monstrous. It is also exquisitely boring
and perhaps, ultimately unknowable in essence. Over and over, we find that our 
moments
of experience appear, dissolve and can't be found again.
Why waste so much time bickering
about the colors of the paint on the wall when this whole world and we
ourselves are so inextricably wound together in a mystery?
You don't see anything
mysterious about it? 
No wonder there is such silly drama. 
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

[seventhray1]

I read it, perhaps a little fast, but I would think this could help
bring some closure to that time.

I don't believe we've heard anything quite like this before.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" 
wrote:
>
> Dear Bill,
>
> The essence of the Ten Years was this: when I came down from that
mountain I found myself able to see the ultimate weakness or falseness
in each human being. *I never saw this before*. So what this mean was
that each person I met after being enlightened--other than Maharishi
himself--demonstrated in their behaviour a certain awareness of what was
untrue or insincere in themselves. It seemed--from the point of view of
Unity Consciousness--that each person had this final and definitive
flaw, a flaw which was the secret theme of all that they did--but which
was hidden from everyone else. And perhaps had not even surfaced
completely in the consciousness of that person.
>
> No matter: what happened inside my enlightenment was that in seeing
the evidence of this contradiction in their very beingness, I was led to
believe (by what was creating the context of my enlightenment) that my
being able to perceive this infirmity in that person, that in making
this known to that person, they could, through their own free will, make
use simply of the grace of truth (of that very revelation) to acquire
the means to challenge and eventually overcome that flaw. And each
person had a signature flaw.
>
> Indeed the process through which this weakness was exposed seemed to
bring with it a context of prescriptive existential potential whereby
that person could begin to take responsibility for this weakness or
falseness and begin to overcome it. That is what confrontation was,
after all: revelation of the problem, and then, evidently, a context
within which to do something about that problem.
>
> The means to uncovering and exposing that flaw--*so that every person
in the room or theatre could see it for themselves*, see it inside the
context of reality, and thus making it seem to be a kind of
'demonically' supported weakness--was through a 'tracking' process,
which entailed going through layers and layers of deceit, phoniness,
dishonesty, fear, falseness, escapism, avoidance--and then revealing
this weakness as essentially the responsibility of that person--inside
the drama of creation--to face and conquer. To conquer that distinctive
and inimitable weakness would be the qualification to become
enlightened.
>
> Therefore this was becoming enlightened through a means other than the
East only. Even though that continued, as each and every one of us was
devoted to Maharishi, and were under the assumption that Maharishi had
made me enlightened. Ergo, what I was doing must, somehow have the
blessing of my Master, Guru Dev, and the Holy Tradition. Emphatically
this was the understanding that every person who was closest to me held
as unassailable, inviolable.
>
> Now since my enlightenment was a mystical hallucination, it meant that
*the context which it gave birth to inside myself*, that too somewhere,
no matter how true the process of confrontation and individuation
appeared to be (and that process recreated reality, drove everyone into
the deepest place one could ever go--and had ever gone), was untrue. And
what this meant--in the perspective after The Context was busted by a
greater reality--was that this weakness in each person was simply what
innocently each person had to do in order to survive as a human being
inside the universe given that they were not perfect--and fallen. In
other words, this salient and ultimate weakness was not to be
confronted--not even to be revealed. I believe this because in not one
case (other than perhaps my own!) did this process of 'tracking' ever do
anyone any good. The violence, the intelligence, the power, the energy,
the drama: that certainly did strengthen all of us; but in terms of what
was the objective: 1. overcoming, vanquishing one's signature weakness
2. becoming enlightened--the Ten Years was a fiasco. Each person, as far
as I know, remained just what they were before I came down from that
mountain about Arosa. Only a much stronger and wiser character.
>
> Now where things really went wrong was when the powers which had
created my enlightenment--and The Context of the Ten Years--began to
make it seem to be as if I were actually seeing individual persons as
entities of evil--rather than seeing the person in the context of their
problem, their unique infirmity. This is the proof of the evil of The
Context and my enlightenment: that the hallucinatory reality of the Ten
Years began--after about eight years--to become something else: the
declaration of who was good and who was evil. At this point the whole
enterprise was doomed. But the reality which governed the experience of
each and every person in those Ten Years--this did not change at
all--even with this disturbing and terrifying development. It should
have; but it did not, because of course th

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" 
> wrote:
> > Judy backs up her ideas with facts that she doesn't make up. Her
> forthright style of presenting posts in evidence of your own words in
> the archives is perhaps emotionally unsettling, a "trigger" making you
> feel defensive but it doesn't negate the truth of what she says or what
> you have written. Rather than lash out at Judy ineffectually, deal with
> your "triggers" and deal with the reality of what she says, not as a
> victim but as an equally intelligent adult. If you want to make a case
> against her you cannot do this successfully if the starting point of
> your defense is based on fantasy.
> 
> As the wise woman said:
> 
> I hope you're not saying that *your* and your support group's reality is
> the one
> closest to the truth and that there's a need in you and in your support
> group to
> convince others to accept this. That would be proselytizing, wouldn't
> it? If
> *that's* the case, then perhaps you and I have nothing to discuss
> because we are
> never going to see eye to eye. I'm hoping that *isn't* the case.
>

http://youtu.be/CI8UPHMzZm8

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2

[seventhray1]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" maskedzebra@
wrote:
> >
> > If you are seeing more of reality than another person...
>
> You seem different Robin. Has something happened in your experience?
Or has something happened in mine?
>
Six weeks without hockey may possibly be having a levening affect on
him, counterintuitive though it would seem.

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2

[seventhray1]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" 
wrote:
>
> If you are seeing more of reality than another person

you might be a yogi

--that which actually exists independent of one's personal
subjectivity--you will know it, because in the collision of views, you
see your own view as separating itself from your own feelings--and you
can see (in imagining yourself as your adversary) how he or she is--even
quite sincerely--unable to do this. No, not even ever having *done*
this.
>
> Hardly anyone on this forum really has thought of the possibility of
reality having a point of view about an issue being controverted on FFL.
Just pretend this is so--and I mean this to the extent of making reality
appear as an angel and pronouncing who is right, and who is wrong--or at
the very least where the most amount of truth lies.
>
> Think of the resolution of an argument as being something like getting
Curiosity to land on Mars--What is the mission? What are the
calculations? What is the physics of this? To get Curiosity to land on
Mars means to get all the arguments out such that it then becomes
possible to determine--objectively (or in terms of what the angel of
reality would say)--what the final truth of this matter is. It is not a
matter of triumph or defeat, then; it is matter--ideally--of quiet and
final revelation.
>
> The a priori assumption that no controversy on FFL can ever be
resolved through something resembling science--science having become a
kind of metaphor for the objectification of subjectivities--means that
each disputant (well, *almost* each disputant) believes the truth
essentially comes from one's personal experience--which amounts to this:
*Whatever feels like what the truth is such as to have that truth
conform to my own predispositions and predilections subjectively*. It
may be possible to say that, when there are conflicting views of
something, *there just might be a context through which it can be
determined what the truth is at the very end*--for both parties. This
would be getting Curiosity to land on Mars.
>
> When one feels inclined to disagree with what someone has said
(posted), then it is not the *feeling* that this is so that counts, *it
is the willingness to contemplate that the universe itself has made
judgment that coincides with one's own judgment*. The severity of one's
self-scrutiny in this way is the only way the truth can get separated
out from the first person point of view of each of the two duelling
posters.
>
> What this means is that somehow truth is there, waiting to be
found--or at least experienced. And the *experience* of truth being
found is not one of personal satisfaction; it transcends affect; and of
course it must transcend one's own subjective patterns of feeling and
even thinking. Curiosity landing on Mars was not the achievement of any
scientists's subjective will; he had to discover what laws of the
universe had to be understood and obeyed in order to make the mission
successful. There has to be a form of conceptual and intuitive
engineering within any argument which is going to end up at some point
of resolution.
>
> When reading the post of someone with whom one disagrees, if one
already begins to start to argue against that post *before reading it as
third person--standing apart from any fixed opinion*--then one is
avoiding *allowing reality to impress itself upon one's mind and
heart*--through that post of one's adversary. There has to be the
willingness to entirely subject oneself to the content and intent of the
person with whom one is disagreeing; what this means is: if you begin to
develop and shape your rebuttal as you are reading the other person's
post, you are only preserving the form of subjectivity which will insure
that your response is predictable--and serving only the needs of your
own need to have your point of view prevail *because it makes you feel
good*.
>
> Argument means self-sacrifice, not self-assertion; and in the
sacrifice of one's subjectivity, one allows that same subjectivity to be
filled up with a sense of what is the case--what is, then objectively
true.--There is at least this *possibility*. If you conceive of argument
as simply the assertion of one's point of view, then this actually has
nothing to do with the intrinsic truth of the matter. None. It has
become a matter--even if this remains unconscious--of reinforcing the
metaphysical bias of one's personality--so that reality remains what it
was before the debate began.
>
> You are not saying anything *unless in the saying of it you get to
travel somewhere inside yourself*. And why does this happen, or how does
this happen? It happens--this movement and expansion and
change--*because reality making itself present inside one's subjectivity
as it (reality) senses the opportunity to have its say. Is this a
fantasy? It certainly is not. And this phenomenon is happening--without
perhaps the knowledge of any of the parties locked into disagreement.
Yes, reality is more pr

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2

[seventhray1]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
 wrote:
>
> Dear laughinggull,
>
> Your posts show you have started off on a wrong footing in this
discussion
> with a priori conclusions viz.."I'm simply the defender of fair play:
one
> of you against the entire group of "stupid" people...I simply cannot
allow
> anymore." You are unwilling to look at the entire facts here since
that
> would go against your philosophy - being defender of fair play.
>
> Its just your fantasy that Judy, raunchy or I have not indulged in
fair
> play, in fact each one of us have been exceedingly fair to Stupid
Share and
> Stupid Steve. Steve of course is the tolerable - he doesn't come
across as
> dishonest and vindictive like Share.

And yet, once again:


I hope you're not saying that *your* and your support group's reality is
the one
closest to the truth and that there's a need in you and in your support
group to
convince others to accept this. That would be proselytizing, wouldn't
it? If
*that's* the case, then perhaps you and I have nothing to discuss
because we are
never going to see eye to eye. I'm hoping that *isn't* the case.

>
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:31 AM, laughinggull108
> no_reply@yahoogroups.comwrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > RD, I'm not sure if you read *all* my comments interspersed
> > throughout...read all the way to the bottom where I recognize what
I've
> > done and why I did it:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327690
> >
> > If not, you might want to do that, then revise your list of
questions
> > below. I'm not sure if I can answer them because I'm *can't* read
Share's
> > mind. And it's not that I'm a stalwart defender of Share; you and
the
> > others (see Judy's list) have had her under the spotlight for so
long that
> > I think it's only fair that the spotlight be turned on you and the
others.
> > And it appears that this might be beginning to happen, and not from
my
> > posts alone. As my grandfather used to say: "It looks like the
chickens are
> > coming home to roost." Open up and have a willingness to learn. It's
really
> > not so bad.
> >
> > You see RD, one of you alone *might* be just enough for the "stupid"
> > people *as a group* to handle; add to the mix Judy, Ann, Ravi,
Robin, or
> > any of the others and the "stupid" people are just plain overwhelmed
and
> > start making no sense whatsoever, and I just can't have that. I'm
simply
> > the defender of fair play: one of you against the entire group of
"stupid"
> > people...I simply cannot allow anymore.
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" raunchydog@
wrote:
> > >
> > > LG I'm really glad Share has such a stalwart defender as you.
Since
> > you're butting in on Share's behalf as if she were not an
intelligent
> > adult, capable of responding to my post herself, could you take a
moment to
> > read her mind as I have been unable to do and answer a few questions
help
> > understand her better? You can elaborate but yes or no will do.
> > > Based on Share's post below:
> > > Is wts Share's fantasy?
> > > Did Share accuse Judy of psychological rape?
> > > Did Share accuse Judy of attributing thoughts and feelings to her
> > without explicitly saying how or what they were?
> > > Does Share's framing of her argument against Judy based on her
> > assumptions about the fantasized existence of wts help her
effectively
> > rebut the posts Judy cites in the archives that demonstrate Share's
> > misunderstanding of why Robin decided to cut off private email
> > communication, her subsequent misunderstanding of the sequence of
events
> > that transpired, and then based on misunderstanding of her own
making,
> > accused him of psychological rape?
> > > If Share dropped her wts and psychological rape fantasy, and
rebutted
> > Judy based on what transpired between herself and Robin in the
archives
> > would she be more successful in defending herself and put an end to
your
> > need to defend her?
> > > Is Share unwilling to address her misunderstandings in the posts
Judy
> > cites because she cannot defend what she has written?
> > > In order to truthfully address the posts Judy cites would Share
have to
> > first drop fantasizing herself as a victim of wts and psychological
rape?
> > > Do you think these are fair questions?
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long

> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here's Judy at her wts best. Doing the psychological
rape thing
> > of attributing to me thoughts and feelings I've not had. Then
presenting
> > her ideas as The Truth. Then lacking in compassion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Just to be clear, Share, you are accusing Judy of
psychological rape.
> > > >
> > > > Fact 1: RD *wrote* the above, therefore
> > > >
> > > > Fact 2: RD knows that Share has accused *

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2

[seventhray1]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" 
wrote:
>
> LG I'm really glad Share has such a stalwart defender as you. Since
you're butting in on Share's behalf as if she were not an intelligent
adult, capable of responding to my post herself, could you take a moment
to read her mind as I have been unable to do and answer a few questions
help understand her better? You can elaborate but yes or no will do.
> Based on Share's post below:
> Is wts Share's fantasy?
> Did Share accuse Judy of psychological rape?
> Did Share accuse Judy of attributing thoughts and feelings to her
without explicitly saying how or what they were?
> Does Share's framing of her argument against Judy based on her
assumptions about the fantasized existence of wts help her effectively
rebut the posts Judy cites in the archives that demonstrate Share's
misunderstanding of why Robin decided to cut off private email
communication, her subsequent misunderstanding of the sequence of events
that transpired, and then based on misunderstanding of her own making,
accused him of psychological rape?
> If Share dropped her wts and psychological rape fantasy, and rebutted
Judy based on what transpired between herself and Robin in the archives
would she be more successful in defending herself and put an end to your
need to defend her?
> Is Share unwilling to address her misunderstandings in the posts Judy
cites because she cannot defend what she has written?
> In order to truthfully address the posts Judy cites would Share have
to first drop fantasizing herself as a victim of wts and psychological
rape?
> Do you think these are fair questions?

  As the wise woman said:

I hope you're not saying that *your* and your support group's reality is
the one
closest to the truth and that there's a need in you and in your support
group to
convince others to accept this. That would be proselytizing, wouldn't
it? If
*that's* the case, then perhaps you and I have nothing to discuss
because we are
never going to see eye to eye. I'm hoping that *isn't* the case.







> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" 
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long 
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Here's Judy at her wts best.  Doing the psychological rape
thing of attributing to me thoughts and feelings I've not had.  Then
presenting her ideas as The Truth.  Then lacking in compassion.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Just to be clear, Share, you are accusing Judy of psychological
rape.
> >
> > Fact 1: RD *wrote* the above, therefore
> >
> > Fact 2: RD knows that Share has accused *Judy* of psychological
rape.
> >
> > Question 1: Why is RD butting in on a situation that involves Share
and Judy?
> >
> > (IMO, it couldn't be that RD feels that Judy needs her assistance,
as Judy has always shown herself to be completely capable of expertly
handling *all* accusations thrown in her direction.)
> >
> > Question 2: If Share chooses to *not* respond to RD (IMO, probably
because RD had no business butting in on a matter involving Share and
Judy), does that make everything true in what RD has written in the rest
of her post?
> >
> > Question 3: If RD persists in confronting Share to answer her
questions from a post where she butted in on a matter involving only
Share and Judy (kinda like somebody else did a couple of weeks ago),
would that be considered cyberharassment or cyberbullying or somesuch?
> >
> > Question 4: Is RD's butting in on a matter involving only Share and
Judy an example, albeit early stages, of "piling on" to which Share and
others have referred.
> >
> > > Why do you persist in portraying yourself as a victim? wts is your
fantasy. You are entitled to make ridiclous assumptions based on fantasy
but it doesn't help you deal with the reality of people calling you out
on your behavior or make a coherent argument in you own defense. To make
your case against Judy, here's a starter: Clearly state exactly what
thoughts and feelings Judy attributed to you that you did not have.
> >
> > Start here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327618, then follow
the "post trail" beginning with the post Share mentions at the top. And
you're going to have to put a little work into this...don't expect Share
to do your homework for you.
> >
> > > Judy backs up her ideas with facts that she doesn't make up. Her
forthright style of presenting posts in evidence of your own words in
the archives is perhaps emotionally unsettling, a "trigger" making you
feel defensive but it doesn't negate the truth of what she says or what
you have written.
> >
> > Does "context" count? I'm assuming it doesn't because not too long
ago, you tried to revive the "milk and cookie" debacle by posting the
*one* comment taken out of context that portrayed the poster in the
worst possible light.
> >
> > > Rather than lash out at Judy ineffectually, deal with your
"triggers" and deal with th

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2

[seventhray1]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" 
wrote:
> Judy backs up her ideas with facts that she doesn't make up. Her
forthright style of presenting posts in evidence of your own words in
the archives is perhaps emotionally unsettling, a "trigger" making you
feel defensive but it doesn't negate the truth of what she says or what
you have written. Rather than lash out at Judy ineffectually, deal with
your "triggers" and deal with the reality of what she says, not as a
victim but as an equally intelligent adult. If you want to make a case
against her you cannot do this successfully if the starting point of
your defense is based on fantasy.

As the wise woman said:

I hope you're not saying that *your* and your support group's reality is
the one
closest to the truth and that there's a need in you and in your support
group to
convince others to accept this. That would be proselytizing, wouldn't
it? If
*that's* the case, then perhaps you and I have nothing to discuss
because we are
never going to see eye to eye. I'm hoping that *isn't* the case.

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy

[seventhray1]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"
 wrote:

> It has come to my attention that much or most of my participation on
FFL consists of putdowns such as this. In the future, I will try to do
better.
>

Hey Alex, sounds like someone made a suggestion to you, or maybe you
just decided this without any input from others.

But, as usual, you are one class act.

Thanks for helping to take it down a notch.

I hope I can do it as well.

(but there's a lot of momentum moving in the opposite direction, for me
at least)

[FairfieldLife] Re: !Progress in the Fairfield Dome Meditation Numbers!

[awoelflebater]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> 
> > Ann, don't believe everything you read on the internet. You are certainly 
> > qualified, it is your birthright.
> 
> > Maitreya is nothing other than the current of the Unified Field, the Christ 
> > energy in us all and everything.
> 
> Well said. Take away the "nothing other than" and you could not be more 
> correct Buck !

This I can live with. All the other stuff I read on that link Nabby sent me was 
just peripheral and of no use to me personally. I, of course, speak only for 
myself. Others can run to find the physically embodiment of Christ if they like 
but I look to no man or woman for any ultimate answers, especially if they 
think they are giving me "the answers". Of course, they may be but I can find 
'answers' in (and MJ was talking about it earlier) horse shit. 
> 
> 
>  
> > The Unified Field is the First and Last,
> > the Beginning and the End!
> > The Unified Field is the keeper of Creation
> > and the Creator of all!
> > The Unified Field is the Architect of the Universe
> > and the Manager of all times.
> > 
> > The Unified Field always was,
> > The Unified Field always is,
> > and the Unified Field always will be . . .
> > 
> > Unmoved,
> > Unchanged,
> > Undefeated,  and never Undone!
> > 
> > Invincible!
> > 
> > 
> > Maitreya The Christ energy, as the unified field current is happening now 
> > in people.  Embodying now. The incarnation is here.  Yes don't miss this, 
> > this is why the great teachers come to us and ask us to meditate.  In 
> > Fairfield there are quite a lot of people male or female infused now with 
> > this in form.  The Christ has come again and again all through time and 
> > this town is like a town square for this manifestation bringing saints 
> > together in a place.  All the great saints of our age have come here now.  
> > And many saintly are living here even now.  Notice it.  As Christ even 
> > said, this will be given to you, this and more. 
> > -Buck in the Dome
> 
> 
> Beautiful, thanks for posting this.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > >
> > > If you are seeing more of reality than another person...
> > 
> > You seem different Robin. Has something happened in your experience? Or has 
> > something happened in mine?
> >
> 
> Different how and why do you think so?

A general impression. Not an analytical series of thoughts. That is why I said 
'seems', not as if I perceived a definite fact. But if you must have some 
analysis, his expression seemed more definite and clear, more direct than 
previously.

[FairfieldLife] Re: !Progress in the Fairfield Dome Meditation Numbers!

[awoelflebater]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > >
> > > To our dear Meditating Movement family,
> > >
> > > The Vedic Pandits are finally coming —not just the original
556 but a total of 600!
> > >
> > > With the addition of this group of Pandits, we will achieve a
stable Super Radiance group of 2,000 meditating to create Invincibility
for America, a goal we have all worked towards for 30 years.
> > >
> > > -Buck
> >
> > Buck, do me a favour, and I am dead serious here, let me know what
invincibility for America looks like when it happens. I am so dense I
might just miss it. Oh, and while you're at it maybe you could point out
Maitreya if you happen to stumble on him/her (I think it is a him
though, because somehow women aren't yet qualified, according to my
readings, to embody such a powerful Supreme Master within their more
delicate physiques.)
> > >
> >
>
> Ann, Yep it's proly hard being out in the sticks there in Montana. 
Like sludge.
Dear Buck, where did you ever get the idea I lived in Montana? I live in
this beautiful city.It's called Victoria and it is in British Columbia.
It is the capital. For a relatively small city it has lots going on. You
should make sure to join all of us when we have our small gathering next
summer. I'll set up some foam for the hoppers, but it will be outside.
>It is interesting to see how many people from here will go out in to
the world for some reason and come back here to Fairfielld.  Someone
forwarded this, it might be helpful to you out there.  The girl has some
good spiritual pointers including practicing a transcending meditation. 
This pineal stuff is more accurately about the energy center of that
chakra subtle system. It's part of the spiritual sadhana of mature
meditation.  Others here on FFL can speak to that.  Maharishi's last
technique that he was working on developing before he died was about
that too.>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=92qmQFkYILM
>
>
> Good luck out there.  I got more evening chores and some more riding
to do here before going up to the evening Dome meditation.
I know about chores, twice a day every day. Post some pics of your
horses (and you) sometime. I would love to see. I rode all over those
gravel and dirt roads just north of FF for years. Know them like the
back of my hand. Those winter drifts could get pretty high and don't try
driving on the mud roads after a good rain.
> Best Regards,
> -Buck
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: After two Hop Czars I wax forth

[Ravi Chivukula]

Devi thinks you have Oppositional Defiant Disorder and the more I hear from
you the more I'm finding it hard to disagree with her.

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 6:21 PM, emptybill  wrote:

> **
>
>
> Sorry raving yogi but I'm too tired and sleepy after my Hop Czars to Skype
> with you. Anyway, my yogini is going out dancing without me in a bit, so
> samsara will never end.
>
> BTW, if Devi gets pissed, she'll kick my ass into the next kalpa. I can't
> worry about it since she does as She pleases.
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula 
> wrote:
> >
> > Empty baby - Devi & I would like to Skype with you tonight - this is
> > serious shit OK? Devi is very unhappy with you and she is driving me
> nuts.
> > You will find us on your contact list - Devi_Mom_RaviShiva_Dad.
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 5:42 PM, emptybill emptybill@... wrote:
> >
> > > **
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh Raving Yogi,
> > >
> > > Sorry - you musta thought it was about you.
> > > Don't worry, it wasn't.
> > > It was jus' the gunas intertwined.
> > >
> > > Better yet, it was Robin's vedic demons that make me do it.
> > > He'll concur, of course since we "do" mantra.
> > >
> > > You don't fornicate with them vedic monsters do you?
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
> > >
> > > chivukula.ravi@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Empty baby - you may be a homeless man stupid enough to want to trade
> > > your
> > > > books for some free food at Russian Orthodox Church's soup kitchens
> > > but you
> > > > make sense sometimes. So..STFU then.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:57 PM, emptybill emptybill@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > **
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Why do so many folks here on FFL concern themselves with what Judy
> > > posts?
> > > > > If Judy attacks, demeans and accuses people of dishonesty, lying
> and
> > > sheer
> > > > > deceit … so what? Why do people even care what she says?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ego, self-image, one's appearance in others eyes (minds) …
>
> > > this is what is
> > > > > important to Judy but why *you*?
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no real reason why anyone on the forum should consider
> > > Judy's
> > > > > attacks anything but a shining reflection of her own mind. But in
> > > the end
> > > > > … so what?
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This samsaric world is beautiful, majestic and frighteningly
> > > monstrous. It
> > > > > is also exquisitely boring and perhaps, ultimately unknowable in
> > > essence.
> > > > > Over and over, we find that our moments of experience appear,
> > > dissolve and
> > > > > can't be found again.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why waste so much time bickering about the colors of the paint on
> > > the wall
> > > > > when this whole world and *we ourselves* are so inextricably wound
> > >
> > > > > together in a mystery?
> > > > >
> > > > > You don't see anything mysterious about it?
> > > > >
> > > > > No wonder there is such silly drama.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>  
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: After two Hop Czars I wax forth

[emptybill]

Sorry raving yogi but I'm too tired and sleepy after my Hop Czars to
Skype with you. Anyway, my yogini is going out dancing without me in a
bit, so samsara will never end.

BTW, if Devi gets pissed, she'll kick my ass into the next kalpa. I
can't worry about it since she does as She pleases.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
 wrote:
>
> Empty baby - Devi & I would like to Skype with you tonight - this is
> serious shit OK?  Devi is very unhappy with you and she is driving me
nuts.
> You will find us on your contact list - Devi_Mom_RaviShiva_Dad.
>
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 5:42 PM, emptybill emptybill@... wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Oh Raving Yogi,
> >
> > Sorry - you musta thought it was about you.
> > Don't worry, it wasn't.
> > It was jus' the gunas intertwined.
> >
> > Better yet, it was Robin's vedic demons that make me do it.
> > He'll concur, of course since we "do" mantra.
> >
> > You don't fornicate with them vedic monsters do you?
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
> >
> > chivukula.ravi@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Empty baby - you may be a homeless man stupid enough to want to
trade
> > your
> > > books for some free food at Russian Orthodox Church's soup
kitchens
> > but you
> > > make sense sometimes. So..STFU then.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:57 PM, emptybill emptybill@ wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why do so many folks here on FFL concern themselves with what
Judy
> > posts?
> > > > If Judy attacks, demeans and accuses people of dishonesty, lying
and
> > sheer
> > > > deceit … so what? Why do people even care what she
says?
> > > >
> > > > Ego, self-image, one's appearance in others eyes (minds)
…
> > this is what is
> > > > important to Judy but why *you*?
> >
> > > >
> > > > There is no real reason why anyone on the forum should consider
> > Judy's
> > > > attacks anything but a shining reflection of her own mind. But
in
> > the end
> > > > … so what?
> >
> > > >
> > > > This samsaric world is beautiful, majestic and frighteningly
> > monstrous. It
> > > > is also exquisitely boring and perhaps, ultimately unknowable in
> > essence.
> > > > Over and over, we find that our moments of experience appear,
> > dissolve and
> > > > can't be found again.
> > > >
> > > > Why waste so much time bickering about the colors of the paint
on
> > the wall
> > > > when this whole world and *we ourselves* are so inextricably
wound
> >
> > > > together in a mystery?
> > > >
> > > > You don't see anything mysterious about it?
> > > >
> > > > No wonder there is such silly drama.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: After two Hop Czars I wax forth

[Ravi Chivukula]

Aah a conversation between two idiots - one who wanders around aimlessly
with his books in a grocery cart (Empty baby) and the other who wanders
 around aimlessly in his head (Xeno baby) - very cute.

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 6:03 PM, emptybill  wrote:

> **
>
>
> Well said. Maybe another Hop Czar would make it all make sense.
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
>  wrote:
>
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Why do so many folks here on FFL concern themselves with what Judy
> > > posts? If Judy attacks, demeans and accuses people of dishonesty,
> lying
> > > and sheer deceit … so what? Why do people even care what she
> says?
> > >
> > > Ego, self-image, one's appearance in others eyes (minds) … this
> > > is what is important to Judy but why you?
> > >
> > > There is no real reason why anyone on the forum should consider
> > > Judy's attacks anything but a shining reflection of her own mind.
> > > But in the end … so what?
> > >
> > > This samsaric world is beautiful, majestic and frighteningly
> monstrous.
> > > It is also exquisitely boring and perhaps, ultimately unknowable in
> > > essence. Over and over, we find that our moments of experience
> appear,
> > > dissolve and can't be found again.
> > >
> > > Why waste so much time bickering about the colors of the paint on
> the
> > > wall when this whole world and we ourselves are so inextricably
> wound
> > > together in a mystery?
> > >
> > > You don't see anything mysterious about it?
> > >
> > > No wonder there is such silly drama.
> >
> > Very nice emptybill. The world is strange and mysterious; the more we
> discover about it and our experience, seemingly the less we know. The
> world is our experience though it would seem when the body dies and the
> world disappears for one of us, it continues for others, but there is no
> way to really know what is on the other side of that vanishing. It is a
> blank. We make up stories to fill in the blank. Then we bicker about
> them, for no two of those stories are the same. They our our novels, our
> personal novels. Fiction. But when we think these play books in our mind
> are real, the mystery of the real world vanishes.
> >
>
>  
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: After two Hop Czars I wax forth

[Ravi Chivukula]

Empty baby - Devi & I would like to Skype with you tonight - this is
serious shit OK?  Devi is very unhappy with you and she is driving me nuts.
You will find us on your contact list - Devi_Mom_RaviShiva_Dad.

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 5:42 PM, emptybill  wrote:

> **
>
>
> Oh Raving Yogi,
>
> Sorry - you musta thought it was about you.
> Don't worry, it wasn't.
> It was jus' the gunas intertwined.
>
> Better yet, it was Robin's vedic demons that make me do it.
> He'll concur, of course since we "do" mantra.
>
> You don't fornicate with them vedic monsters do you?
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
>
>  wrote:
> >
> > Empty baby - you may be a homeless man stupid enough to want to trade
> your
> > books for some free food at Russian Orthodox Church's soup kitchens
> but you
> > make sense sometimes. So..STFU then.
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:57 PM, emptybill emptybill@... wrote:
> >
> > > **
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Why do so many folks here on FFL concern themselves with what Judy
> posts?
> > > If Judy attacks, demeans and accuses people of dishonesty, lying and
> sheer
> > > deceit … so what? Why do people even care what she says?
> > >
> > > Ego, self-image, one's appearance in others eyes (minds) …
> this is what is
> > > important to Judy but why *you*?
>
> > >
> > > There is no real reason why anyone on the forum should consider
> Judy's
> > > attacks anything but a shining reflection of her own mind. But in
> the end
> > > … so what?
>
> > >
> > > This samsaric world is beautiful, majestic and frighteningly
> monstrous. It
> > > is also exquisitely boring and perhaps, ultimately unknowable in
> essence.
> > > Over and over, we find that our moments of experience appear,
> dissolve and
> > > can't be found again.
> > >
> > > Why waste so much time bickering about the colors of the paint on
> the wall
> > > when this whole world and *we ourselves* are so inextricably wound
>
> > > together in a mystery?
> > >
> > > You don't see anything mysterious about it?
> > >
> > > No wonder there is such silly drama.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>  
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: After two Hop Czars I wax forth

[emptybill]

Well said. Maybe another Hop Czar would make it all make sense.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > Why do so many folks here on FFL concern themselves with what Judy
> > posts? If Judy attacks, demeans and accuses people of dishonesty,
lying
> > and sheer deceit … so what? Why do people even care what she
says?
> >
> > Ego, self-image, one's appearance in others eyes (minds) … this
> > is what is important to Judy but why you?
> >
> > There is no real reason why anyone on the forum should consider
> > Judy's attacks anything but a shining reflection of her own mind.
> > But in the end  … so what?
> >
> > This samsaric world is beautiful, majestic and frighteningly
monstrous.
> > It is also exquisitely boring and perhaps, ultimately unknowable in
> > essence. Over and over, we find that our moments of experience
appear,
> > dissolve and can't be found again.
> >
> > Why waste so much time bickering about the colors of the paint on
the
> > wall when this whole world and we ourselves are so inextricably
wound
> > together in a mystery?
> >
> > You don't see anything mysterious about it?
> >
> > No wonder there is such silly drama.
>
> Very nice emptybill. The world is strange and mysterious; the more we
discover about it and our experience, seemingly the less we know. The
world is our experience though it would seem when the body dies and the
world disappears for one of us, it continues for others, but there is no
way to really know what is on the other side of that vanishing. It is a
blank. We make up stories to fill in the blank. Then we bicker about
them, for no two of those stories are the same. They our our novels, our
personal novels. Fiction. But when we think these play books in our mind
are real, the mystery of the real world vanishes.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

[Ravi Chivukula]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Alex Stanley  wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula 
> wrote:
> >
> > And the idiots like feste and Buck have recently compared Maharishi vs
> > Robin, most likely after being influenced by Share, Howells and the
> like. I
> > will choose Robin's honesty over Maharishi's deception. My philosophy is
> > one should be willing to be hounded, harassed and humiliated by reality,
> by
> > truth to be truly humble and Robin has shown that. Whereas Maharishi died
> > as a fraudster, and someone like Ammachi is continuing down that route.
> > What retards like feste and Buck don't realize is that these Gurus -
> > Maharishi and Ammachi are a perversion of true Indian spirituality.
> >
>
> His Holiness Swami Gulabjamunanda has traced the perversion of true Indian
> spirituality back to the Bhagavad Gita, which erroneously says to be
> without the three gunas. In fact, you only have to be without two of them.
> It all went downhill from there.
>

LOL..hard to disagree, most of the scriptures is some medieval garbage
anyway.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

[Ravi Chivukula]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Robin Carlsen wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula 
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Robin - this is beautiful, thank you.
>
> Thank you, Ravi--but, just so you know (reading ahead in your posts),
> Jesus could take Krishna in less than one round.
>

I don't think so - Krishna kicks ass. And only because of Jesus does this
fascination for life-abnegating, masochistic messiahs continues, this
medieval mindset of someone sacrificing ourselves for our sins, our
salvation - in the form of Gurus that continues on, the fascination for
ascended masters, Maitreya, Age of enlightenment continues, that
contributed to your own rise as a Guru.


>
> Evidently he retired, though, and Krishna is still skipping rope pretty
> good.
>

Now you are talking :-) - though I don't consider Krishna as a historical
or a real person, just a myth, a symbolism, an ideal - so yes !!!

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> And the idiots like feste and Buck have recently compared Maharishi vs
> Robin, most likely after being influenced by Share, Howells and the like. I
> will choose Robin's honesty over Maharishi's deception. My philosophy is
> one should be willing to be hounded, harassed and humiliated by reality, by
> truth to be truly humble and Robin has shown that. Whereas Maharishi died
> as a fraudster, and someone like Ammachi is continuing down that route.
> What retards like feste and Buck don't realize is that these Gurus -
> Maharishi and Ammachi are a perversion of true Indian spirituality.
> 

His Holiness Swami Gulabjamunanda has traced the perversion of true Indian 
spirituality back to the Bhagavad Gita, which erroneously says to be without 
the three gunas. In fact, you only have to be without two of them. It all went 
downhill from there.

[FairfieldLife] Re: After two Hop Czars I wax forth

[emptybill]

Oh Raving Yogi,

Sorry - you musta thought it was about you.
Don't worry, it wasn't.
It was jus' the gunas intertwined.

Better yet, it was Robin's vedic demons that make me do it.
He'll concur, of course since we "do" mantra.

You don't fornicate with them vedic monsters do you?



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
 wrote:
>
> Empty baby - you may be a homeless man stupid enough to want to trade
your
> books for some free food at Russian Orthodox Church's soup kitchens
but you
> make sense sometimes. So..STFU then.
>
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:57 PM, emptybill emptybill@... wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Why do so many folks here on FFL concern themselves with what Judy
posts?
> > If Judy attacks, demeans and accuses people of dishonesty, lying and
sheer
> > deceit … so what? Why do people even care what she says?
> >
> > Ego, self-image, one's appearance in others eyes (minds) …
this is what is
> > important to Judy but why *you*?
> >
> > There is no real reason why anyone on the forum should consider
Judy's
> > attacks anything but a shining reflection of her own mind. But in
the end
> >  … so what?
> >
> > This samsaric world is beautiful, majestic and frighteningly
monstrous. It
> > is also exquisitely boring and perhaps, ultimately unknowable in
essence.
> > Over and over, we find that our moments of experience appear,
dissolve and
> > can't be found again.
> >
> > Why waste so much time bickering about the colors of the paint on
the wall
> > when this whole world and *we ourselves* are so inextricably wound
> > together in a mystery?
> >
> > You don't see anything mysterious about it?
> >
> > No wonder there is such silly drama.
> >
> >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

[Robin Carlsen]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> Dear Robin - this is beautiful, thank you.

Thank you, Ravi--but, just so you know (reading ahead in your posts), Jesus 
could take Krishna in less than one round. 

Evidently he retired, though, and Krishna is still skipping rope pretty good.


 
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Robin Carlsen wrote:
> 
> > **
> >
> >
> > Dear Bill,
> >
> > The essence of the Ten Years was this: when I came down from that mountain
> > I found myself able to see the ultimate weakness or falseness in each human
> > being. *I never saw this before*. So what this meant was that each person I
> > met after being enlightened--other than Maharishi himself--demonstrated in
> > their behaviour a certain awareness of what was untrue or insincere in
> > themselves. It seemed--from the point of view of Unity Consciousness--that
> > each person had this final and definitive flaw, a flaw which was the secret
> > theme of all that they did--but which was hidden from everyone else. And
> > perhaps had not even surfaced completely in the consciousness of that
> > person.
> >
> > No matter: what happened inside my enlightenment was that in seeing the
> > evidence of this contradiction in their very beingness, I was led to
> > believe (by what was creating the context of my enlightenment) that my
> > being able to perceive this infirmity in that person, that in making this
> > known to that person, they could, through their own free will, make use
> > simply of the grace of truth (of that very revelation) to acquire the means
> > to challenge and eventually overcome that flaw. And each person had a
> > signature flaw.
> >
> > Indeed the process through which this weakness was exposed seemed to bring
> > with it a context of prescriptive existential potential whereby that person
> > could begin to take responsibility for this weakness or falseness and begin
> > to overcome it. That is what confrontation was, after all: revelation of
> > the problem, and then, evidently, a context within which to do something
> > about that problem.
> >
> > The means to uncovering and exposing that flaw--*so that every person in
> > the room or theatre could see it for themselves*, see it inside the context
> > of reality, and thus making it seem to be a kind of 'demonically' supported
> > weakness--was through a 'tracking' process, which entailed going through
> > layers and layers of deceit, phoniness, dishonesty, fear, falseness,
> > escapism, avoidance--and then revealing this weakness as essentially the
> > responsibility of that person--inside the drama of creation--to face and
> > conquer. To conquer that distinctive and inimitable weakness would be the
> > qualification to become enlightened.
> >
> > Therefore this was becoming enlightened through a means other than the
> > East only. Even though that continued, as each and every one of us was
> > devoted to Maharishi, and were under the assumption that Maharishi had made
> > me enlightened. Ergo, what I was doing must, somehow have the blessing of
> > my Master, Guru Dev, and the Holy Tradition. Emphatically this was the
> > understanding that every person who was closest to me held as unassailable,
> > inviolable.
> >
> > Now since my enlightenment was a mystical hallucination, it meant that
> > *the context which it gave birth to inside myself*, that too somewhere, no
> > matter how true the process of confrontation and individuation appeared to
> > be (and that process recreated reality, drove everyone into the deepest
> > place one could ever go--and had ever gone), was untrue. And what this
> > meant--in the perspective after The Context was busted by a greater
> > reality--was that this weakness in each person was simply what innocently
> > each person had to do in order to survive as a human being inside the
> > universe given that they were not perfect--and fallen. In other words, this
> > salient and ultimate weakness was not to be confronted--not even to be
> > revealed. I believe this because in not one case (other than perhaps my
> > own!) did this process of 'tracking' ever do anyone any good. The violence,
> > the intelligence, the power, the energy, the drama: that certainly did
> > strengthen all of us; but in terms of what was the objective: 1.
> > overcoming, vanquishing one's signature weakness 2. becoming
> > enlightened--the Ten Years was a fiasco. Each person, as far as I know,
> > remained just what they were before I came down from that mountain about
> > Arosa. Only a much stronger and wiser character.
> >
> > Now where things really went wrong was when the powers which had created
> > my enlightenment--and The Context of the Ten Years--began to make it seem
> > to be as if I were actually seeing individual persons as entities of
> > evil--rather than seeing the person in the context of their problem, their
> > unique infirmity. This is the proof of the evil of The Context and my
> > enlightenment: that the h

[FairfieldLife] Re: After two Hop Czars I wax forth

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
>
> 
> Why do so many folks here on FFL concern themselves with what Judy
> posts? If Judy attacks, demeans and accuses people of dishonesty, lying
> and sheer deceit … so what? Why do people even care what she says?
> 
> Ego, self-image, one's appearance in others eyes (minds) … this
> is what is important to Judy but why you?
> 
> There is no real reason why anyone on the forum should consider
> Judy's attacks anything but a shining reflection of her own mind.
> But in the end  … so what?
> 
> This samsaric world is beautiful, majestic and frighteningly monstrous.
> It is also exquisitely boring and perhaps, ultimately unknowable in
> essence. Over and over, we find that our moments of experience appear,
> dissolve and can't be found again.
> 
> Why waste so much time bickering about the colors of the paint on the
> wall when this whole world and we ourselves are so inextricably wound
> together in a mystery?
> 
> You don't see anything mysterious about it?
> 
> No wonder there is such silly drama.

Very nice emptybill. The world is strange and mysterious; the more we discover 
about it and our experience, seemingly the less we know. The world is our 
experience though it would seem when the body dies and the world disappears for 
one of us, it continues for others, but there is no way to really know what is 
on the other side of that vanishing. It is a blank. We make up stories to fill 
in the blank. Then we bicker about them, for no two of those stories are the 
same. They our our novels, our personal novels. Fiction. But when we think 
these play books in our mind are real, the mystery of the real world vanishes.

[FairfieldLife] Re: After two Hop Czars I wax forth

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
>
> 
> Why do so many folks here on FFL concern themselves with what Judy
> posts? If Judy attacks, demeans and accuses people of dishonesty, lying
> and sheer deceit … so what? Why do people even care what she says?
> 
> Ego, self-image, one's appearance in others eyes (minds) … this
> is what is important to Judy but why you?
> 
> There is no real reason why anyone on the forum should consider
> Judy's attacks anything but a shining reflection of her own mind.
> But in the end  … so what?
> 
> This samsaric world is beautiful, majestic and frighteningly monstrous.
> It is also exquisitely boring and perhaps, ultimately unknowable in
> essence. Over and over, we find that our moments of experience appear,
> dissolve and can't be found again.
> 
> Why waste so much time bickering about the colors of the paint on the
> wall when this whole world and we ourselves are so inextricably wound
> together in a mystery?
> 
> You don't see anything mysterious about it?
> 
> No wonder there is such silly drama.
>

Depending on your capacity to be curious and wonder about the nature of paint, 
and openness to see deeply into its beauty and truth, a discussion about the 
color of paint on the wall can be just as interesting, mysterious, spiritual 
and frighteningly monstrous as anything else in the universe.

"Damn" Johnny muttered watching her go. "It might not be love, but it sure is 
fun." ― Cindy Gerard, Take No Prisoners

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stalemate in "Fiscal Cliff" Talks

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "card"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> >
> > The middle voters will be fighting mad if taxes are raised.  Also, the 
> > economy may trend downwards.  But money will be raised to pay for the 
> > government deficit. 
> > 
> > There's no doubt that heads will fall in the next congressional elections 
> > if this stalemate is not resolved.
> > 
> > http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/john-boehner-fiscal-cliff-talks-stalemate-183919675--election.html
> >
> 
> FYI, FWIW, the Pluto([tropical]Capricorn)/Uranus([tropical]Aries) Square 
> shall -- I reckon -- be exact next time 5/21/2013... :-(
>

Card,

What do you think is going to happen then?

JR

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2

[awoelflebater]

She was the ultimate witch, the standard by which all 'bad' witches should be 
judged. Scared the living bejeebers out of me as a small child. I had the 
Wizard of Oz album back in about 1962 and whenever her voice came on I had to, 
literally was compelled to, run behind the sofa and hide. The wicked witch of 
the West and that tornado still haunt me today.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
> > anartaxius@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Judy is very heavy on characterising her opposition's arguments and
> > > states of mind in a way that I interpret is to demean them, without
> > > supporting fact.
> > >
> > > 'masterfully dishonest response' #327631
> > > 'supremely, if inadvertently, ironic' #327646
> > > 'lashes out repeatedly' #327646
> > > 'intent to hurt people' #327646
> > > 'your appalling lack of honesty' #325575
> > > 'terrified of being irrelevant' #324343
> > > 'is so terrified of strong women' #306217
> > > 'Why is this so impossibly difficult for you to understand?' #63962
> > >
> > > These are all characterisations attributing motives, with strong
> > > emotional flavours, to others. But these characterisations come out
> > > of Judy's mind, they are what is in *her* mind. Perhaps they give us
> > > a clue as to what goes on in her own mental world, something that
> > > none of us can experience directly.
> >
> >
> > Margaret Hamilton was an actress; when the makeup came off, she was a
> normal person:
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

[Ravi Chivukula]

And the idiots like feste and Buck have recently compared Maharishi vs
Robin, most likely after being influenced by Share, Howells and the like. I
will choose Robin's honesty over Maharishi's deception. My philosophy is
one should be willing to be hounded, harassed and humiliated by reality, by
truth to be truly humble and Robin has shown that. Whereas Maharishi died
as a fraudster, and someone like Ammachi is continuing down that route.
What retards like feste and Buck don't realize is that these Gurus -
Maharishi and Ammachi are a perversion of true Indian spirituality.

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Ravi Chivukula wrote:

> Brilliant indeed because from my perspective he is the first person from
> the Guru side of the aisle to honestly acknowledge the fraud, deception,
> futility of the Guru-disciple game. Look at people like Buck, Nabby
> continuing the same game in another form ascended/descended masters,
> messiahs, Maitreya and even the naivete, stupidity of others like Share,
> Howells, Lord Knows all continuing the same drama.
>
> Something relevant I posted on the Ammachi lists
>
> "That Amma has enabled people to numb their pain by providing a safe
> outlet through her sacrifice, masochism. Yet ultimately a fraud, deception.
> A great tradition of masochism, self-abnegation, sacrifice started by Jesus
> Christ, continued by various liberal icons such as Gandhi, Teresa, this
> same sickening, 2000 year old mindset of someone sacrificing themselves for
> our salvation.
>
> Then there is the ancient Indian wisdom in the metaphor of Lord Krishna,
> the purna avatar, the highest possible individuation of consciousness. A
> man who celebrated life, totally participated in it, loved, had sex,
> indulged in wars, friendships, drama. Unlike the masochism of Jesus his
> death was a relative non-event, he supposedly got killed by a hunter's
> arrow. What powerful symbolism - so people focus on his life and not death.
>
> It's so hard for to people to appreciate the metaphor of Lord Krishna.
> It's so easy to avoid complexities of life, avoid accountability,
> responsibility and self-honesty and just choose a belief system, fantasize
> on a messiah that suffers for our sins, for our salvation."
>
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:46 PM, raunchydog  wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Beautiful, Robin. "Rather, I think one should write, as nearly as
>> possible, as if he were the first person on earth and was humbly and
>> sincerely putting on paper that which he saw and experienced and loved and
>> lost; what his passing thoughts were and his sorrows and desires."
>> -Neal Cassady to Jack Kerouac
>>
>>
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear Robin - this is beautiful, thank you.
>> >
>> > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Robin Carlsen wrote:
>> >
>> > > **
>>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Dear Bill,
>> > >
>> > > The essence of the Ten Years was this: when I came down from that
>> mountain
>> > > I found myself able to see the ultimate weakness or falseness in each
>> human
>> > > being. *I never saw this before*. So what this mean was that each
>> person I
>> > > met after being enlightened--other than Maharishi
>> himself--demonstrated in
>> > > their behaviour a certain awareness of what was untrue or insincere in
>> > > themselves. It seemed--from the point of view of Unity
>> Consciousness--that
>> > > each person had this final and definitive flaw, a flaw which was the
>> secret
>> > > theme of all that they did--but which was hidden from everyone else.
>> And
>> > > perhaps had not even surfaced completely in the consciousness of that
>> > > person.
>> > >
>> > > No matter: what happened inside my enlightenment was that in seeing
>> the
>> > > evidence of this contradiction in their very beingness, I was led to
>> > > believe (by what was creating the context of my enlightenment) that my
>> > > being able to perceive this infirmity in that person, that in making
>> this
>> > > known to that person, they could, through their own free will, make
>> use
>> > > simply of the grace of truth (of that very revelation) to acquire the
>> means
>> > > to challenge and eventually overcome that flaw. And each person had a
>> > > signature flaw.
>> > >
>> > > Indeed the process through which this weakness was exposed seemed to
>> bring
>> > > with it a context of prescriptive existential potential whereby that
>> person
>> > > could begin to take responsibility for this weakness or falseness and
>> begin
>> > > to overcome it. That is what confrontation was, after all: revelation
>> of
>> > > the problem, and then, evidently, a context within which to do
>> something
>> > > about that problem.
>> > >
>> > > The means to uncovering and exposing that flaw--*so that every person
>> in
>> > > the room or theatre could see it for themselves*, see it inside the
>> context
>> > > of reality, and thus making it seem to be a kind of 'demonically'
>> supported
>> > > weakness--was through a 'tracking' pro

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

[Robin Carlsen]

This quote from Neal Cassady, creates a feeling in me which I am happy to 
believe is apposite here, raunchy--you are so generous to allow me to 
experience this. A truly beautiful conception Cassady has expressed--and I 
would love to aspire to this. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> Beautiful, Robin. "Rather, I think one should write, as nearly as possible, 
> as if he were the first person on earth and was humbly and sincerely putting 
> on paper that which he saw and experienced and loved and lost; what his 
> passing thoughts were and his sorrows and desires."
> -Neal Cassady to Jack Kerouac
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
> >
> > Dear Robin - this is beautiful, thank you.
> > 
> > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Robin Carlsen wrote:
> > 
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Bill,
> > >
> > > The essence of the Ten Years was this: when I came down from that mountain
> > > I found myself able to see the ultimate weakness or falseness in each 
> > > human
> > > being. *I never saw this before*. So what this meant was that each person 
> > > I
> > > met after being enlightened--other than Maharishi himself--demonstrated in
> > > their behaviour a certain awareness of what was untrue or insincere in
> > > themselves. It seemed--from the point of view of Unity Consciousness--that
> > > each person had this final and definitive flaw, a flaw which was the 
> > > secret
> > > theme of all that they did--but which was hidden from everyone else. And
> > > perhaps had not even surfaced completely in the consciousness of that
> > > person.
> > >
> > > No matter: what happened inside my enlightenment was that in seeing the
> > > evidence of this contradiction in their very beingness, I was led to
> > > believe (by what was creating the context of my enlightenment) that my
> > > being able to perceive this infirmity in that person, that in making this
> > > known to that person, they could, through their own free will, make use
> > > simply of the grace of truth (of that very revelation) to acquire the 
> > > means
> > > to challenge and eventually overcome that flaw. And each person had a
> > > signature flaw.
> > >
> > > Indeed the process through which this weakness was exposed seemed to bring
> > > with it a context of prescriptive existential potential whereby that 
> > > person
> > > could begin to take responsibility for this weakness or falseness and 
> > > begin
> > > to overcome it. That is what confrontation was, after all: revelation of
> > > the problem, and then, evidently, a context within which to do something
> > > about that problem.
> > >
> > > The means to uncovering and exposing that flaw--*so that every person in
> > > the room or theatre could see it for themselves*, see it inside the 
> > > context
> > > of reality, and thus making it seem to be a kind of 'demonically' 
> > > supported
> > > weakness--was through a 'tracking' process, which entailed going through
> > > layers and layers of deceit, phoniness, dishonesty, fear, falseness,
> > > escapism, avoidance--and then revealing this weakness as essentially the
> > > responsibility of that person--inside the drama of creation--to face and
> > > conquer. To conquer that distinctive and inimitable weakness would be the
> > > qualification to become enlightened.
> > >
> > > Therefore this was becoming enlightened through a means other than the
> > > East only. Even though that continued, as each and every one of us was
> > > devoted to Maharishi, and were under the assumption that Maharishi had 
> > > made
> > > me enlightened. Ergo, what I was doing must, somehow have the blessing of
> > > my Master, Guru Dev, and the Holy Tradition. Emphatically this was the
> > > understanding that every person who was closest to me held as 
> > > unassailable,
> > > inviolable.
> > >
> > > Now since my enlightenment was a mystical hallucination, it meant that
> > > *the context which it gave birth to inside myself*, that too somewhere, no
> > > matter how true the process of confrontation and individuation appeared to
> > > be (and that process recreated reality, drove everyone into the deepest
> > > place one could ever go--and had ever gone), was untrue. And what this
> > > meant--in the perspective after The Context was busted by a greater
> > > reality--was that this weakness in each person was simply what innocently
> > > each person had to do in order to survive as a human being inside the
> > > universe given that they were not perfect--and fallen. In other words, 
> > > this
> > > salient and ultimate weakness was not to be confronted--not even to be
> > > revealed. I believe this because in not one case (other than perhaps my
> > > own!) did this process of 'tracking' ever do anyone any good. The 
> > > violence,
> > > the intelligence, the power, the energy, the drama: that certainly did
> > > strengthen all of us; but in terms of what was the objective: 1.
> > > overcoming, vanquishi

Re: [FairfieldLife] After two Hop Czars I wax forth

[Ravi Chivukula]

Empty baby - you may be a homeless man stupid enough to want to trade your
books for some free food at Russian Orthodox Church's soup kitchens but you
make sense sometimes. So..STFU then.

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:57 PM, emptybill  wrote:

> **
>
>
> Why do so many folks here on FFL concern themselves with what Judy posts?
> If Judy attacks, demeans and accuses people of dishonesty, lying and sheer
> deceit … so what? Why do people even care what she says?
>
> Ego, self-image, one's appearance in others eyes (minds) … this is what is
> important to Judy but why *you*?
>
> There is no real reason why anyone on the forum should consider Judy's
> attacks anything but a shining reflection of her own mind. But in the end
>  … so what?
>
> This samsaric world is beautiful, majestic and frighteningly monstrous. It
> is also exquisitely boring and perhaps, ultimately unknowable in essence.
> Over and over, we find that our moments of experience appear, dissolve and
> can't be found again.
>
> Why waste so much time bickering about the colors of the paint on the wall
> when this whole world and *we ourselves* are so inextricably wound
> together in a mystery?
>
> You don't see anything mysterious about it?
>
> No wonder there is such silly drama.
>
>  
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

[Ravi Chivukula]

Brilliant indeed because from my perspective he is the first person from
the Guru side of the aisle to honestly acknowledge the fraud, deception,
futility of the Guru-disciple game. Look at people like Buck, Nabby
continuing the same game in another form ascended/descended masters,
messiahs, Maitreya and even the naivete, stupidity of others like Share,
Howells, Lord Knows all continuing the same drama.

Something relevant I posted on the Ammachi lists

"That Amma has enabled people to numb their pain by providing a safe outlet
through her sacrifice, masochism. Yet ultimately a fraud, deception. A
great tradition of masochism, self-abnegation, sacrifice started by Jesus
Christ, continued by various liberal icons such as Gandhi, Teresa, this
same sickening, 2000 year old mindset of someone sacrificing themselves for
our salvation.

Then there is the ancient Indian wisdom in the metaphor of Lord Krishna,
the purna avatar, the highest possible individuation of consciousness. A
man who celebrated life, totally participated in it, loved, had sex,
indulged in wars, friendships, drama. Unlike the masochism of Jesus his
death was a relative non-event, he supposedly got killed by a hunter's
arrow. What powerful symbolism - so people focus on his life and not death.

It's so hard for to people to appreciate the metaphor of Lord Krishna. It's
so easy to avoid complexities of life, avoid accountability, responsibility
and self-honesty and just choose a belief system, fantasize on a messiah
that suffers for our sins, for our salvation."

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:46 PM, raunchydog  wrote:

> **
>
>
> Beautiful, Robin. "Rather, I think one should write, as nearly as
> possible, as if he were the first person on earth and was humbly and
> sincerely putting on paper that which he saw and experienced and loved and
> lost; what his passing thoughts were and his sorrows and desires."
> -Neal Cassady to Jack Kerouac
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula 
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Robin - this is beautiful, thank you.
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Robin Carlsen wrote:
> >
> > > **
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Bill,
> > >
> > > The essence of the Ten Years was this: when I came down from that
> mountain
> > > I found myself able to see the ultimate weakness or falseness in each
> human
> > > being. *I never saw this before*. So what this mean was that each
> person I
> > > met after being enlightened--other than Maharishi
> himself--demonstrated in
> > > their behaviour a certain awareness of what was untrue or insincere in
> > > themselves. It seemed--from the point of view of Unity
> Consciousness--that
> > > each person had this final and definitive flaw, a flaw which was the
> secret
> > > theme of all that they did--but which was hidden from everyone else.
> And
> > > perhaps had not even surfaced completely in the consciousness of that
> > > person.
> > >
> > > No matter: what happened inside my enlightenment was that in seeing the
> > > evidence of this contradiction in their very beingness, I was led to
> > > believe (by what was creating the context of my enlightenment) that my
> > > being able to perceive this infirmity in that person, that in making
> this
> > > known to that person, they could, through their own free will, make use
> > > simply of the grace of truth (of that very revelation) to acquire the
> means
> > > to challenge and eventually overcome that flaw. And each person had a
> > > signature flaw.
> > >
> > > Indeed the process through which this weakness was exposed seemed to
> bring
> > > with it a context of prescriptive existential potential whereby that
> person
> > > could begin to take responsibility for this weakness or falseness and
> begin
> > > to overcome it. That is what confrontation was, after all: revelation
> of
> > > the problem, and then, evidently, a context within which to do
> something
> > > about that problem.
> > >
> > > The means to uncovering and exposing that flaw--*so that every person
> in
> > > the room or theatre could see it for themselves*, see it inside the
> context
> > > of reality, and thus making it seem to be a kind of 'demonically'
> supported
> > > weakness--was through a 'tracking' process, which entailed going
> through
> > > layers and layers of deceit, phoniness, dishonesty, fear, falseness,
> > > escapism, avoidance--and then revealing this weakness as essentially
> the
> > > responsibility of that person--inside the drama of creation--to face
> and
> > > conquer. To conquer that distinctive and inimitable weakness would be
> the
> > > qualification to become enlightened.
> > >
> > > Therefore this was becoming enlightened through a means other than the
> > > East only. Even though that continued, as each and every one of us was
> > > devoted to Maharishi, and were under the assumption that Maharishi had
> made
> > > me enlightened. Ergo, what I was doing must, somehow have the blessing
> of
> > > my Master, Guru Dev, and the Holy Tr

[FairfieldLife] After two Hop Czars I wax forth

[emptybill]

Why do so many folks here on FFL concern themselves with what Judy
posts? If Judy attacks, demeans and accuses people of dishonesty, lying
and sheer deceit … so what? Why do people even care what she says?

Ego, self-image, one's appearance in others eyes (minds) … this
is what is important to Judy but why you?

There is no real reason why anyone on the forum should consider
Judy's attacks anything but a shining reflection of her own mind.
But in the end  … so what?

This samsaric world is beautiful, majestic and frighteningly monstrous.
It is also exquisitely boring and perhaps, ultimately unknowable in
essence. Over and over, we find that our moments of experience appear,
dissolve and can't be found again.

Why waste so much time bickering about the colors of the paint on the
wall when this whole world and we ourselves are so inextricably wound
together in a mystery?

You don't see anything mysterious about it?

No wonder there is such silly drama.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

[raunchydog]

Beautiful, Robin. "Rather, I think one should write, as nearly as possible, as 
if he were the first person on earth and was humbly and sincerely putting on 
paper that which he saw and experienced and loved and lost; what his passing 
thoughts were and his sorrows and desires."
-Neal Cassady to Jack Kerouac

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> Dear Robin - this is beautiful, thank you.
> 
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Robin Carlsen wrote:
> 
> > **
> >
> >
> > Dear Bill,
> >
> > The essence of the Ten Years was this: when I came down from that mountain
> > I found myself able to see the ultimate weakness or falseness in each human
> > being. *I never saw this before*. So what this mean was that each person I
> > met after being enlightened--other than Maharishi himself--demonstrated in
> > their behaviour a certain awareness of what was untrue or insincere in
> > themselves. It seemed--from the point of view of Unity Consciousness--that
> > each person had this final and definitive flaw, a flaw which was the secret
> > theme of all that they did--but which was hidden from everyone else. And
> > perhaps had not even surfaced completely in the consciousness of that
> > person.
> >
> > No matter: what happened inside my enlightenment was that in seeing the
> > evidence of this contradiction in their very beingness, I was led to
> > believe (by what was creating the context of my enlightenment) that my
> > being able to perceive this infirmity in that person, that in making this
> > known to that person, they could, through their own free will, make use
> > simply of the grace of truth (of that very revelation) to acquire the means
> > to challenge and eventually overcome that flaw. And each person had a
> > signature flaw.
> >
> > Indeed the process through which this weakness was exposed seemed to bring
> > with it a context of prescriptive existential potential whereby that person
> > could begin to take responsibility for this weakness or falseness and begin
> > to overcome it. That is what confrontation was, after all: revelation of
> > the problem, and then, evidently, a context within which to do something
> > about that problem.
> >
> > The means to uncovering and exposing that flaw--*so that every person in
> > the room or theatre could see it for themselves*, see it inside the context
> > of reality, and thus making it seem to be a kind of 'demonically' supported
> > weakness--was through a 'tracking' process, which entailed going through
> > layers and layers of deceit, phoniness, dishonesty, fear, falseness,
> > escapism, avoidance--and then revealing this weakness as essentially the
> > responsibility of that person--inside the drama of creation--to face and
> > conquer. To conquer that distinctive and inimitable weakness would be the
> > qualification to become enlightened.
> >
> > Therefore this was becoming enlightened through a means other than the
> > East only. Even though that continued, as each and every one of us was
> > devoted to Maharishi, and were under the assumption that Maharishi had made
> > me enlightened. Ergo, what I was doing must, somehow have the blessing of
> > my Master, Guru Dev, and the Holy Tradition. Emphatically this was the
> > understanding that every person who was closest to me held as unassailable,
> > inviolable.
> >
> > Now since my enlightenment was a mystical hallucination, it meant that
> > *the context which it gave birth to inside myself*, that too somewhere, no
> > matter how true the process of confrontation and individuation appeared to
> > be (and that process recreated reality, drove everyone into the deepest
> > place one could ever go--and had ever gone), was untrue. And what this
> > meant--in the perspective after The Context was busted by a greater
> > reality--was that this weakness in each person was simply what innocently
> > each person had to do in order to survive as a human being inside the
> > universe given that they were not perfect--and fallen. In other words, this
> > salient and ultimate weakness was not to be confronted--not even to be
> > revealed. I believe this because in not one case (other than perhaps my
> > own!) did this process of 'tracking' ever do anyone any good. The violence,
> > the intelligence, the power, the energy, the drama: that certainly did
> > strengthen all of us; but in terms of what was the objective: 1.
> > overcoming, vanquishing one's signature weakness 2. becoming
> > enlightened--the Ten Years was a fiasco. Each person, as far as I know,
> > remained just what they were before I came down from that mountain about
> > Arosa. Only a much stronger and wiser character.
> >
> > Now where things really went wrong was when the powers which had created
> > my enlightenment--and The Context of the Ten Years--began to make it seem
> > to be as if I were actually seeing individual persons as entities of
> > evil--rather than seeing the person in the context of their problem, the

[FairfieldLife] Re: !Progress in the Fairfield Dome Meditation Numbers!

[nablusoss1008]

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

> Ann, don't believe everything you read on the internet. You are certainly 
> qualified, it is your birthright.

> Maitreya is nothing other than the current of the Unified Field, the Christ 
> energy in us all and everything.

Well said. Take away the "nothing other than" and you could not be more correct 
Buck !


 
> The Unified Field is the First and Last,
> the Beginning and the End!
> The Unified Field is the keeper of Creation
> and the Creator of all!
> The Unified Field is the Architect of the Universe
> and the Manager of all times.
> 
> The Unified Field always was,
> The Unified Field always is,
> and the Unified Field always will be . . .
> 
> Unmoved,
> Unchanged,
> Undefeated,  and never Undone!
> 
> Invincible!
> 
> 
> Maitreya The Christ energy, as the unified field current is happening now in 
> people.  Embodying now. The incarnation is here.  Yes don't miss this, this 
> is why the great teachers come to us and ask us to meditate.  In Fairfield 
> there are quite a lot of people male or female infused now with this in form. 
>  The Christ has come again and again all through time and this town is like a 
> town square for this manifestation bringing saints together in a place.  All 
> the great saints of our age have come here now.  And many saintly are living 
> here even now.  Notice it.  As Christ even said, this will be given to you, 
> this and more. 
> -Buck in the Dome


Beautiful, thanks for posting this.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendental Meditation reduces heart disease by 48%

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> I'll get checked the day...

No you won't, you feel way too comfy in the lazy way things are set.

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): Sat Nov 24 00:00:00 2012
End Date (UTC): Sat Dec 01 00:00:00 2012
670 messages as of (UTC) Fri Nov 30 23:13:08 2012

50 seventhray1 
49 authfriend 
48 Share Long 
47 awoelflebater 
45 Emily Reyn 
38 turquoiseb 
37 Buck 
37 Bhairitu 
33 raunchydog 
32 John 
31 nablusoss1008 
27 "Richard J. Williams" 
24 laughinggull108 
24 Robin Carlsen 
23 salyavin808 
15 Ravi Chivukula 
14 Alex Stanley 
11 Mike Dixon 
11 Michael Jackson 
 8 emptybill 
 8 Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
 8 Susan 
 7 Rick Archer 
 6 merlin 
 6 card 
 6 Duveyoung 
 5 "emilymae.reyn" 
 3 feste37 
 3 PaliGap 
 2 Yifu 
 2 Dick Mays 
 2 David 
 1 stevelf 
 1 sri...@ymail.com, UNEXPECTED_DATA_AFTER_ADDRESS@".SYNTAX-ERROR.
 1 pranamoocher 
 1 mjackson74 
 1 merudanda 
 1 mdixon.6...@yahoo.com
 1 Richard 
 1 Bill Coop 

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] A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

[Ravi Chivukula]

Dear Robin - this is beautiful, thank you.

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Robin Carlsen wrote:

> **
>
>
> Dear Bill,
>
> The essence of the Ten Years was this: when I came down from that mountain
> I found myself able to see the ultimate weakness or falseness in each human
> being. *I never saw this before*. So what this mean was that each person I
> met after being enlightened--other than Maharishi himself--demonstrated in
> their behaviour a certain awareness of what was untrue or insincere in
> themselves. It seemed--from the point of view of Unity Consciousness--that
> each person had this final and definitive flaw, a flaw which was the secret
> theme of all that they did--but which was hidden from everyone else. And
> perhaps had not even surfaced completely in the consciousness of that
> person.
>
> No matter: what happened inside my enlightenment was that in seeing the
> evidence of this contradiction in their very beingness, I was led to
> believe (by what was creating the context of my enlightenment) that my
> being able to perceive this infirmity in that person, that in making this
> known to that person, they could, through their own free will, make use
> simply of the grace of truth (of that very revelation) to acquire the means
> to challenge and eventually overcome that flaw. And each person had a
> signature flaw.
>
> Indeed the process through which this weakness was exposed seemed to bring
> with it a context of prescriptive existential potential whereby that person
> could begin to take responsibility for this weakness or falseness and begin
> to overcome it. That is what confrontation was, after all: revelation of
> the problem, and then, evidently, a context within which to do something
> about that problem.
>
> The means to uncovering and exposing that flaw--*so that every person in
> the room or theatre could see it for themselves*, see it inside the context
> of reality, and thus making it seem to be a kind of 'demonically' supported
> weakness--was through a 'tracking' process, which entailed going through
> layers and layers of deceit, phoniness, dishonesty, fear, falseness,
> escapism, avoidance--and then revealing this weakness as essentially the
> responsibility of that person--inside the drama of creation--to face and
> conquer. To conquer that distinctive and inimitable weakness would be the
> qualification to become enlightened.
>
> Therefore this was becoming enlightened through a means other than the
> East only. Even though that continued, as each and every one of us was
> devoted to Maharishi, and were under the assumption that Maharishi had made
> me enlightened. Ergo, what I was doing must, somehow have the blessing of
> my Master, Guru Dev, and the Holy Tradition. Emphatically this was the
> understanding that every person who was closest to me held as unassailable,
> inviolable.
>
> Now since my enlightenment was a mystical hallucination, it meant that
> *the context which it gave birth to inside myself*, that too somewhere, no
> matter how true the process of confrontation and individuation appeared to
> be (and that process recreated reality, drove everyone into the deepest
> place one could ever go--and had ever gone), was untrue. And what this
> meant--in the perspective after The Context was busted by a greater
> reality--was that this weakness in each person was simply what innocently
> each person had to do in order to survive as a human being inside the
> universe given that they were not perfect--and fallen. In other words, this
> salient and ultimate weakness was not to be confronted--not even to be
> revealed. I believe this because in not one case (other than perhaps my
> own!) did this process of 'tracking' ever do anyone any good. The violence,
> the intelligence, the power, the energy, the drama: that certainly did
> strengthen all of us; but in terms of what was the objective: 1.
> overcoming, vanquishing one's signature weakness 2. becoming
> enlightened--the Ten Years was a fiasco. Each person, as far as I know,
> remained just what they were before I came down from that mountain about
> Arosa. Only a much stronger and wiser character.
>
> Now where things really went wrong was when the powers which had created
> my enlightenment--and The Context of the Ten Years--began to make it seem
> to be as if I were actually seeing individual persons as entities of
> evil--rather than seeing the person in the context of their problem, their
> unique infirmity. This is the proof of the evil of The Context and my
> enlightenment: that the hallucinatory reality of the Ten Years began--after
> about eight years--to become something else: the declaration of who was
> good and who was evil. At this point the whole enterprise was doomed. But
> the reality which governed the experience of each and every person in those
> Ten Years--this did not change at all--even with this disturbing and
> terrifying development. It should have; but it did not, because of course

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendental Meditation reduces heart disease by 48%

[Michael Jackson]

I'll get checked the day a sidha or governor actually hovers, someone gets 
enlightened thru TM or world peace sets in through anyone doing the sidhis - or 
if Bevan, Neil, Greg and David Lynch admit M was in dementia in the last part 
of his life and everything beyond basic TM has been a con to keep M and his kin 
knee deep in Bentlys





 From: nablusoss1008 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 5:37 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendental Meditation reduces heart disease by 
48%
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:

> 
> Not that my comments will change anyone's mind here.

That's right, now save your energy and have a checking !


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: !Progress in the Fairfield Dome Meditation Numbers!

[Michael Jackson]

Thank you for telling me this although my question was to Anne about the idea 
that a Master wouldn't incarnate in a female body, which of course is horse 
shit - actually not even as good as horse shit cuz you can use horse shit as 
compost which helps things grow if used properly

On another note, I don't think the Movements best foot these days is TM sidhis 
- it has to be vastu veda - I can't wait for everyone to begin to rebuild there 
homes and offices to have the proper vastus - I intend to hover over the line 
of taxis to see the construction efforts, the line of taxis carrying all the 
re-certified governors to the mountains to escape the millions of people who 
are clamoring to be initiated.





 From: Buck 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 5:03 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: !Progress in the Fairfield Dome Meditation Numbers!
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> what kind of readings do you get that tell you that?
> 
>

Jack, in the meditating community you only need to contribute money to the 
right places to get on the right mailing lists.  The only thing is that I have 
to re-write these releases they send to me to make them much less antagonizing 
and more palatable for folks to read as I do 'forward' them on to people to 
read.  As our movement 'development' apparatchiks write copy what comes out of 
their offices is TM-sidhis  "yogic flying" this and TM-sidhis "yogic flying" 
that.  If they did some honest market research and focus groups they would know 
that most folks here identify as 'meditators' and are not interested in "Yogic 
Flying" anymore and are in fact antagonized by putting "yogic flying" forward 
as our best foot.  These releases read better re-written substituting 
"meditator" and "meditation" for TM-sidhis "yogic flyer" and  "yogic flying".
-Buck in the Dome

> 
> 
> 
>  From: awoelflebater 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 11:17 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: !Progress in the Fairfield Dome Meditation 
> Numbers!
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
> >
> > To our dear Meditating Movement family,
> > 
> > The Vedic Pandits are finally coming â€"not just the original 556 but a 
> > total of 600!
> > 
> > With the addition of this group of Pandits, we will achieve a stable Super 
> > Radiance group of 2,000 meditating to create Invincibility for America, a 
> > goal we have all worked towards for 30 years.
> > 
> > -Buck
> 
> Buck, do me a favour, and I am dead serious here, let me know what 
> invincibility for America looks like when it happens. I am so dense I might 
> just miss it. Oh, and while you're at it maybe you could point out Maitreya 
> if you happen to stumble on him/her (I think it is a him though, because 
> somehow women aren't yet qualified, according to my readings, to embody such 
> a powerful Supreme Master within their more delicate physiques.)
> >
>


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: For Card: Nokia going Android?

[card]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> T'would be wise.
> 
> http://phandroid.com/2012/11/30/nokia-linux-job-android/
> 


I actually wish that would happen. I still like my ZTE Blade
a lot more than my N8 and Lumia 800, even if it (ZTE) is "old" and slow.


> 
> Speaking of online streaming watched a flic called "Leave" on NF that 
> might be of interest to the neo-Buddists here especially when there are 
> scenes at a restaurant called "The Bardo Cafe".   The film lists Bryan 
> Cranston but it's more a cameo role.  It's an indie film and not that 
> great but held my interest to see where it was going.
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1446695/
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stalemate in "Fiscal Cliff" Talks

[card]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> The middle voters will be fighting mad if taxes are raised.  Also, the 
> economy may trend downwards.  But money will be raised to pay for the 
> government deficit. 
> 
> There's no doubt that heads will fall in the next congressional elections if 
> this stalemate is not resolved.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/john-boehner-fiscal-cliff-talks-stalemate-183919675--election.html
>

FYI, FWIW, the Pluto([tropical]Capricorn)/Uranus([tropical]Aries) Square shall 
-- I reckon -- be exact next time 5/21/2013... :-(

[FairfieldLife] Re: !Progress in the Fairfield Dome Meditation Numbers!

[Buck]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> >
> > To our dear Meditating Movement family,
> > 
> > The Vedic Pandits are finally coming —not just the original 556 but a total 
> > of 600!
> > 
> > With the addition of this group of Pandits, we will achieve a stable Super 
> > Radiance group of 2,000 meditating to create Invincibility for America, a 
> > goal we have all worked towards for 30 years.
> > 
> > -Buck
> 
> Buck, do me a favour, and I am dead serious here, let me know what 
> invincibility for America looks like when it happens. I am so dense I might 
> just miss it. Oh, and while you're at it maybe you could point out Maitreya 
> if you happen to stumble on him/her (I think it is a him though, because 
> somehow women aren't yet qualified, according to my readings, to embody such 
> a powerful Supreme Master within their more delicate physiques.)
> >
>

Ann, don't believe everything you read on the internet. You are certainly 
qualified, it is your birthright.
Maitreya is nothing other than the current of the Unified Field, the Christ 
energy in us all and everything.

The Unified Field is the First and Last,
the Beginning and the End!
The Unified Field is the keeper of Creation
and the Creator of all!
The Unified Field is the Architect of the Universe
and the Manager of all times.

The Unified Field always was,
The Unified Field always is,
and the Unified Field always will be . . .

Unmoved,
Unchanged,
Undefeated,  and never Undone!

Invincible!


Maitreya The Christ energy, as the unified field current is happening now in 
people.  Embodying now. The incarnation is here.  Yes don't miss this, this is 
why the great teachers come to us and ask us to meditate.  In Fairfield there 
are quite a lot of people male or female infused now with this in form.  The 
Christ has come again and again all through time and this town is like a town 
square for this manifestation bringing saints together in a place.  All the 
great saints of our age have come here now.  And many saintly are living here 
even now.  Notice it.  As Christ even said, this will be given to you, this and 
more. 
-Buck in the Dome  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendental Meditation reduces heart disease by 48%

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:


> 
> Not that my comments will change anyone's mind here.


That's right, now save your energy and have a checking !

[FairfieldLife] Re: !Progress in the Fairfield Dome Meditation Numbers!

[Buck]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> >
> > To our dear Meditating Movement family,
> > 
> > The Vedic Pandits are finally coming —not just the original 556 but a total 
> > of 600!
> > 
> > With the addition of this group of Pandits, we will achieve a stable Super 
> > Radiance group of 2,000 meditating to create Invincibility for America, a 
> > goal we have all worked towards for 30 years.
> > 
> > -Buck
> 
> Buck, do me a favour, and I am dead serious here, let me know what 
> invincibility for America looks like when it happens. I am so dense I might 
> just miss it. Oh, and while you're at it maybe you could point out Maitreya 
> if you happen to stumble on him/her (I think it is a him though, because 
> somehow women aren't yet qualified, according to my readings, to embody such 
> a powerful Supreme Master within their more delicate physiques.)
> >
>

Ann, Yep it's proly hard being out in the sticks there in Montana.  Like 
sludge.  It is interesting to see how many people from here will go out in to 
the world for some reason and come back here to Fairfielld.  Someone forwarded 
this, it might be helpful to you out there.  The girl has some good spiritual 
pointers including practicing a transcending meditation.  This pineal stuff is 
more accurately about the energy center of that chakra subtle system. It's part 
of the spiritual sadhana of mature meditation.  Others here on FFL can speak to 
that.  Maharishi's last technique that he was working on developing before he 
died was about that too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=92qmQFkYILM


Good luck out there.  I got more evening chores and some more riding to do here 
before going up to the evening Dome meditation.
Best Regards,
-Buck 

[FairfieldLife] A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

[Robin Carlsen]

Dear Bill,

The essence of the Ten Years was this: when I came down from that mountain I 
found myself able to see the ultimate weakness or falseness in each human 
being. *I never saw this before*. So what this mean was that each person I met 
after being enlightened--other than Maharishi himself--demonstrated in their 
behaviour a certain awareness of what was untrue or insincere in themselves. It 
seemed--from the point of view of Unity Consciousness--that each person had 
this final and definitive flaw, a flaw which was the secret theme of all that 
they did--but which was hidden from everyone else. And perhaps had not even 
surfaced completely in the consciousness of that person.

No matter: what happened inside my enlightenment was that in seeing the 
evidence of this contradiction in their very beingness, I was led to believe 
(by what was creating the context of my enlightenment) that my being able to 
perceive this infirmity in that person, that in making this known to that 
person, they could, through their own free will, make use simply of the grace 
of truth (of that very revelation) to acquire the means to challenge and 
eventually overcome that flaw. And each person had a signature flaw.

Indeed the process through which this weakness was exposed seemed to bring with 
it a context of prescriptive existential potential whereby that person could 
begin to take responsibility for this weakness or falseness and begin to 
overcome it. That is what confrontation was, after all: revelation of the 
problem, and then, evidently, a context within which to do something about that 
problem.

The means to uncovering and exposing that flaw--*so that every person in the 
room or theatre could see it for themselves*, see it inside the context of 
reality, and thus making it seem to be a kind of 'demonically' supported 
weakness--was through a 'tracking' process, which entailed going through layers 
and layers of deceit, phoniness, dishonesty, fear, falseness, escapism, 
avoidance--and then revealing this weakness as essentially the responsibility 
of that person--inside the drama of creation--to face and conquer. To conquer 
that distinctive and inimitable weakness would be the qualification to become 
enlightened.

Therefore this was becoming enlightened through a means other than the East 
only. Even though that continued, as each and every one of us was devoted to 
Maharishi, and were under the assumption that Maharishi had made me 
enlightened. Ergo, what I was doing must, somehow have the blessing of my 
Master, Guru Dev, and the Holy Tradition. Emphatically this was the 
understanding that every person who was closest to me held as unassailable, 
inviolable.

Now since my enlightenment was a mystical hallucination, it meant that *the 
context which it gave birth to inside myself*, that too somewhere, no matter 
how true the process of confrontation and individuation appeared to be (and 
that process recreated reality, drove everyone into the deepest place one could 
ever go--and had ever gone), was untrue. And what this meant--in the 
perspective after The Context was busted by a greater reality--was that this 
weakness in each person was simply what innocently each person had to do in 
order to survive as a human being inside the universe given that they were not 
perfect--and fallen. In other words, this salient and ultimate weakness was not 
to be confronted--not even to be revealed. I believe this because in not one 
case (other than perhaps my own!) did this process of 'tracking' ever do anyone 
any good. The violence, the intelligence, the power, the energy, the drama: 
that certainly did strengthen all of us; but in terms of what was the 
objective: 1. overcoming, vanquishing one's signature weakness 2. becoming 
enlightened--the Ten Years was a fiasco. Each person, as far as I know, 
remained just what they were before I came down from that mountain about Arosa. 
Only a much stronger and wiser character.

Now where things really went wrong was when the powers which had created my 
enlightenment--and The Context of the Ten Years--began to make it seem to be as 
if I were actually seeing individual persons as entities of evil--rather than 
seeing the person in the context of their problem, their unique infirmity. This 
is the proof of the evil of The Context and my enlightenment: that the 
hallucinatory reality of the Ten Years began--after about eight years--to 
become something else: the declaration of who was good and who was evil. At 
this point the whole enterprise was doomed. But the reality which governed the 
experience of each and every person in those Ten Years--this did not change at 
all--even with this disturbing and terrifying development. It should have; but 
it did not, because of course that context was under the power of something 
which was in the final analysis antipathetic to the happiness of the human 
beings who were trusting in the immense and intricate metaphysical truthf

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> >
> > If you are seeing more of reality than another person...
> 
> You seem different Robin. Has something happened in your experience? Or has 
> something happened in mine?
>

Different how and why do you think so?   

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> If you are seeing more of reality than another person...

You seem different Robin. Has something happened in your experience? Or has 
something happened in mine?

[FairfieldLife] Re: !Progress in the Fairfield Dome Meditation Numbers!

[Buck]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> what kind of readings do you get that tell you that?
> 
>

 Jack, in the meditating community you only need to contribute money to the 
right places to get on the right mailing lists.  The only thing is that I have 
to re-write these releases they send to me to make them much less antagonizing 
and more palatable for folks to read as I do 'forward' them on to people to 
read.  As our movement 'development' apparatchiks write copy what comes out of 
their offices is TM-sidhis  "yogic flying" this and TM-sidhis "yogic flying" 
that.  If they did some honest market research and focus groups they would know 
that most folks here identify as 'meditators' and are not interested in "Yogic 
Flying" anymore and are in fact antagonized by putting "yogic flying" forward 
as our best foot.  These releases read better re-written substituting 
"meditator" and "meditation" for TM-sidhis "yogic flyer" and  "yogic flying".
-Buck in the Dome
  
> 
> 
> 
>  From: awoelflebater 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 11:17 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: !Progress in the Fairfield Dome Meditation 
> Numbers!
>  
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
> >
> > To our dear Meditating Movement family,
> > 
> > The Vedic Pandits are finally coming â€"not just the original 556 but a 
> > total of 600!
> > 
> > With the addition of this group of Pandits, we will achieve a stable Super 
> > Radiance group of 2,000 meditating to create Invincibility for America, a 
> > goal we have all worked towards for 30 years.
> > 
> > -Buck
> 
> Buck, do me a favour, and I am dead serious here, let me know what 
> invincibility for America looks like when it happens. I am so dense I might 
> just miss it. Oh, and while you're at it maybe you could point out Maitreya 
> if you happen to stumble on him/her (I think it is a him though, because 
> somehow women aren't yet qualified, according to my readings, to embody such 
> a powerful Supreme Master within their more delicate physiques.)
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Fwd: John Meyers

[Dick Mays]

Forwarded From: "Judy Raymond" 

Hi – I thought you’d enjoy seeing this message from Dal who visited with John 
Meyers.  Your donations and attention have proven of great value!  Thank you.
All love,
Jai Guru Dev
Judy
 
 
Judy,
 
John is back in the Dome as of a month ago and is doing well. I met with him at 
his place and he told me he could sure tell when the Yagya started. He he said 
that he had never experienced anything like that before.
 
Dal 
Sent from my iPhone


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendental Meditation reduces heart disease by 48%

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:

Maybe Transcendental Meditation reduces enlightenment by 99%.

If the TM and TM-Sidhi Programme, and other programmes promoted by the TMO are 
factors that lead to unity, what do you do if it actually worked? Do you still 
keep doing the stuff that got you to a goal, or something else? If there are 
people in unity as a result of TM, of what value then are the things that 
supposedly got them there? Just maybe they are doing something else, are 
interested in something else other than procedures that brought them to 
realisation. Sixty years is a long time; exactly what do you think unity is? 
Maybe you are expecting it to be different from what it actually is, and that 
is holding things up. Maharishi's description is pretty over the top. Maybe it 
is something more like what you experience everyday. Do you think about it all 
the time? Do you investigate what other traditions say about unity? 

I would not worry too much, as the success rate of all traditions in getting 
people to unity is abysmal. That means in spiritual pursuits, most fail. You 
know, the TMO birthday party spiel, the phrase 'the already enlightened [name 
of birthday person]' contains a very substantial clue as to the nature of 
unity. You are looking for it in the future. That is not where it is. All your 
ideas of what it is, what it might be, may have to die before it will show 
itself, because no idea can tell you what it is. The whole conceptual framework 
one uses to try to figure out what it is or is like has to implode under its 
own weight of delusion, and you cannot control or direct when or where this 
will happen. Maybe you are not frustrated enough. I would keep meditating 
though.

> I am willing to believe almost anything, but not without evidence. I know a 
> lot of folks here don't like to hear it, but if proponents of TM want to 
> promote TM it isn't out of order to realize that one has to deal with the 
> energy the TM Movement has created over the years. Most of us always were 
> willing to overlook or excuse the behavior of the "managers" of the Movement 
> to further the cause of spreading TM for world enlightenment.
> 
> After a while, some of us decided that the weight of karmic energy the 
> Movement was building up didn't justify continued support. 
> 
> In addition it is not out of order to ask just how good the practice itself 
> is when those who administrate the Movement act the way they do - if TM and 
> the Sidhis is so positive, so beneficial, then why do the folks who have been 
> not only practicing these techniques and the supposedly more advanced 
> techniques available to Governors and rajas still behave in a fashion that 
> does not exemplify the glowing ideal espoused by the Movement.
> 
> I agree that TM feels good when and after you do it, the sidhis can be 
> exhilarating, but the evidence of unpleasant and unfeeling behavior on the 
> part of TM leaders gives rise to legitimate questions. 
> 
> For me, I have to say that after 37 years of TM Sidhi practice, and almost 60 
> years of TM itself, not one person in Unity, not one person levitates, lots 
> of long time TM'ers with all the problems the non-meditating population has, 
> no evidence that vedic vastu improves life, 37 years of yogic flying groups 
> to create world peace and the world is more at war now than when the TM Sidhi 
> program was created and a great many unfulfilled promises on the part of 
> Maharishi and the Movement
> 
> Not that my comments will change anyone's mind here.

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2

[raunchydog]

Thank you for this, Robin. It seems easier to walk around in someone's shoes if 
it's a fit with reality, less painful pinching of the toes and cramping of the 
mind. Cinderella's fantasy shoes always crack under pressure and it's nearly 
impossible to walk beyond the pumpkin and mice if you're really interested in 
knowing the truth of who owns the glass slipper.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> If you are seeing more of reality than another person--that which actually 
> exists independent of one's personal subjectivity--you will know it, because 
> in the collision of views, you see your own view as separating itself from 
> your own feelings--and you can see (in imagining yourself as your adversary) 
> how he or she is--even quite sincerely--unable to do this. No, not even ever 
> having *done* this.
> 
> Hardly anyone on this forum really has thought of the possibility of reality 
> having a point of view about an issue being controverted on FFL. Just pretend 
> this is so--and I mean this to the extent of making reality appear as an 
> angel and pronouncing who is right, and who is wrong--or at the very least 
> where the most amount of truth lies.
> 
> Think of the resolution of an argument as being something like getting 
> Curiosity to land on Mars--What is the mission? What are the calculations? 
> What is the physics of this? To get Curiosity to land on Mars means to get 
> all the arguments out such that it then becomes possible to 
> determine--objectively (or in terms of what the angel of reality would 
> say)--what the final truth of this matter is. It is not a matter of triumph 
> or defeat, then; it is matter--ideally--of quiet and final revelation.
> 
> The a priori assumption that no controversy on FFL can ever be resolved 
> through something resembling science--science having become a kind of 
> metaphor for the objectification of subjectivities--means that each disputant 
> (well, *almost* each disputant) believes the truth essentially comes from 
> one's personal experience--which amounts to this: *Whatever feels like what 
> the truth is such as to have that truth conform to my own predispositions and 
> predilections subjectively*. It may be possible to say that, when there are 
> conflicting views of something, *there just might be a context through which 
> it can be determined what the truth is at the very end*--for both parties. 
> This would be getting Curiosity to land on Mars.
> 
> When one feels inclined to disagree with what someone has said (posted), then 
> it is not the *feeling* that this is so that counts, *it is the willingness 
> to contemplate that the universe itself has made judgment that coincides with 
> one's own judgment*. The severity of one's self-scrutiny in this way is the 
> only way the truth can get separated out from the first person point of view 
> of each of the two duelling posters.
> 
> What this means is that somehow truth is there, waiting to be found--or at 
> least experienced. And the *experience* of truth being found is not one of 
> personal satisfaction; it transcends affect; and of course it must transcend 
> one's own subjective patterns of feeling and even thinking. Curiosity landing 
> on Mars was not the achievement of any scientists's subjective will; he had 
> to discover what laws of the universe had to be understood and obeyed in 
> order to make the mission successful. There has to be a form of conceptual 
> and intuitive engineering within any argument which is going to end up at 
> some point of resolution.
> 
> When reading the post of someone with whom one disagrees, if one already 
> begins to start to argue against that post *before reading it as third 
> person--standing apart from any fixed opinion*--then one is avoiding 
> *allowing reality to impress itself upon one's mind and heart*--through that 
> post of one's adversary. There has to be the willingness to entirely subject 
> oneself to the content and intent of the person with whom one is disagreeing; 
> what this means is: if you begin to develop and shape your rebuttal as you 
> are reading the other person's post, you are only preserving the form of 
> subjectivity which will insure that your response is predictable--and serving 
> only the needs of your own need to have your point of view prevail *because 
> it makes you feel good*.
> 
> Argument means self-sacrifice, not self-assertion; and in the sacrifice of 
> one's subjectivity, one allows that same subjectivity to be filled up with a 
> sense of what is the case--what is, then objectively true.--There is at least 
> this *possibility*. If you conceive of argument as simply the assertion of 
> one's point of view, then this actually has nothing to do with the intrinsic 
> truth of the matter. None. It has become a matter--even if this remains 
> unconscious--of reinforcing the metaphysical bias of one's personality--so 
> that reality remains what it was before the debate 

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2

[Robin Carlsen]

If you are seeing more of reality than another person--that which actually 
exists independent of one's personal subjectivity--you will know it, because in 
the collision of views, you see your own view as separating itself from your 
own feelings--and you can see (in imagining yourself as your adversary) how he 
or she is--even quite sincerely--unable to do this. No, not even ever having 
*done* this.

Hardly anyone on this forum really has thought of the possibility of reality 
having a point of view about an issue being controverted on FFL. Just pretend 
this is so--and I mean this to the extent of making reality appear as an angel 
and pronouncing who is right, and who is wrong--or at the very least where the 
most amount of truth lies.

Think of the resolution of an argument as being something like getting 
Curiosity to land on Mars--What is the mission? What are the calculations? What 
is the physics of this? To get Curiosity to land on Mars means to get all the 
arguments out such that it then becomes possible to determine--objectively (or 
in terms of what the angel of reality would say)--what the final truth of this 
matter is. It is not a matter of triumph or defeat, then; it is 
matter--ideally--of quiet and final revelation.

The a priori assumption that no controversy on FFL can ever be resolved through 
something resembling science--science having become a kind of metaphor for the 
objectification of subjectivities--means that each disputant (well, *almost* 
each disputant) believes the truth essentially comes from one's personal 
experience--which amounts to this: *Whatever feels like what the truth is such 
as to have that truth conform to my own predispositions and predilections 
subjectively*. It may be possible to say that, when there are conflicting views 
of something, *there just might be a context through which it can be determined 
what the truth is at the very end*--for both parties. This would be getting 
Curiosity to land on Mars.

When one feels inclined to disagree with what someone has said (posted), then 
it is not the *feeling* that this is so that counts, *it is the willingness to 
contemplate that the universe itself has made judgment that coincides with 
one's own judgment*. The severity of one's self-scrutiny in this way is the 
only way the truth can get separated out from the first person point of view of 
each of the two duelling posters.

What this means is that somehow truth is there, waiting to be found--or at 
least experienced. And the *experience* of truth being found is not one of 
personal satisfaction; it transcends affect; and of course it must transcend 
one's own subjective patterns of feeling and even thinking. Curiosity landing 
on Mars was not the achievement of any scientists's subjective will; he had to 
discover what laws of the universe had to be understood and obeyed in order to 
make the mission successful. There has to be a form of conceptual and intuitive 
engineering within any argument which is going to end up at some point of 
resolution.

When reading the post of someone with whom one disagrees, if one already begins 
to start to argue against that post *before reading it as third 
person--standing apart from any fixed opinion*--then one is avoiding *allowing 
reality to impress itself upon one's mind and heart*--through that post of 
one's adversary. There has to be the willingness to entirely subject oneself to 
the content and intent of the person with whom one is disagreeing; what this 
means is: if you begin to develop and shape your rebuttal as you are reading 
the other person's post, you are only preserving the form of subjectivity which 
will insure that your response is predictable--and serving only the needs of 
your own need to have your point of view prevail *because it makes you feel 
good*.

Argument means self-sacrifice, not self-assertion; and in the sacrifice of 
one's subjectivity, one allows that same subjectivity to be filled up with a 
sense of what is the case--what is, then objectively true.--There is at least 
this *possibility*. If you conceive of argument as simply the assertion of 
one's point of view, then this actually has nothing to do with the intrinsic 
truth of the matter. None. It has become a matter--even if this remains 
unconscious--of reinforcing the metaphysical bias of one's personality--so that 
reality remains what it was before the debate began.

You are not saying anything *unless in the saying of it you get to travel 
somewhere inside yourself*. And why does this happen, or how does this happen? 
It happens--this movement and expansion and change--*because reality making 
itself present inside one's subjectivity as it (reality) senses the opportunity 
to have its say. Is this a fantasy? It certainly is not. And this phenomenon is 
happening--without perhaps the knowledge of any of the parties locked into 
disagreement. Yes, reality is more present in the argument of one person versus 
the argumen

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2

[Ravi Chivukula]

Dear laughinggull,

Your posts show you have started off on a wrong footing in this discussion
with a priori conclusions viz.."I'm simply the defender of fair play: one
of you against the entire group of "stupid" people...I simply cannot allow
anymore." You are unwilling to look at the entire facts here since that
would go against your philosophy - being defender of fair play.

Its just your fantasy that Judy, raunchy or I have not indulged in fair
play, in fact each one of us have been exceedingly fair to Stupid Share and
Stupid Steve. Steve of course is the tolerable - he doesn't come across as
dishonest and vindictive like Share.

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:31 AM, laughinggull108
wrote:

> **
>
>
> RD, I'm not sure if you read *all* my comments interspersed
> throughout...read all the way to the bottom where I recognize what I've
> done and why I did it:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327690
>
> If not, you might want to do that, then revise your list of questions
> below. I'm not sure if I can answer them because I'm *can't* read Share's
> mind. And it's not that I'm a stalwart defender of Share; you and the
> others (see Judy's list) have had her under the spotlight for so long that
> I think it's only fair that the spotlight be turned on you and the others.
> And it appears that this might be beginning to happen, and not from my
> posts alone. As my grandfather used to say: "It looks like the chickens are
> coming home to roost." Open up and have a willingness to learn. It's really
> not so bad.
>
> You see RD, one of you alone *might* be just enough for the "stupid"
> people *as a group* to handle; add to the mix Judy, Ann, Ravi, Robin, or
> any of the others and the "stupid" people are just plain overwhelmed and
> start making no sense whatsoever, and I just can't have that. I'm simply
> the defender of fair play: one of you against the entire group of "stupid"
> people...I simply cannot allow anymore.
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> >
> > LG I'm really glad Share has such a stalwart defender as you. Since
> you're butting in on Share's behalf as if she were not an intelligent
> adult, capable of responding to my post herself, could you take a moment to
> read her mind as I have been unable to do and answer a few questions help
> understand her better? You can elaborate but yes or no will do.
> > Based on Share's post below:
> > Is wts Share's fantasy?
> > Did Share accuse Judy of psychological rape?
> > Did Share accuse Judy of attributing thoughts and feelings to her
> without explicitly saying how or what they were?
> > Does Share's framing of her argument against Judy based on her
> assumptions about the fantasized existence of wts help her effectively
> rebut the posts Judy cites in the archives that demonstrate Share's
> misunderstanding of why Robin decided to cut off private email
> communication, her subsequent misunderstanding of the sequence of events
> that transpired, and then based on misunderstanding of her own making,
> accused him of psychological rape?
> > If Share dropped her wts and psychological rape fantasy, and rebutted
> Judy based on what transpired between herself and Robin in the archives
> would she be more successful in defending herself and put an end to your
> need to defend her?
> > Is Share unwilling to address her misunderstandings in the posts Judy
> cites because she cannot defend what she has written?
> > In order to truthfully address the posts Judy cites would Share have to
> first drop fantasizing herself as a victim of wts and psychological rape?
> > Do you think these are fair questions?
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's Judy at her wts best.  Doing the psychological rape thing
> of attributing to me thoughts and feelings I've not had.  Then presenting
> her ideas as The Truth.  Then lacking in compassion.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Just to be clear, Share, you are accusing Judy of psychological rape.
> > >
> > > Fact 1: RD *wrote* the above, therefore
> > >
> > > Fact 2: RD knows that Share has accused *Judy* of psychological rape.
> > >
> > > Question 1: Why is RD butting in on a situation that involves Share
> and Judy?
> > >
> > > (IMO, it couldn't be that RD feels that Judy needs her assistance, as
> Judy has always shown herself to be completely capable of expertly handling
> *all* accusations thrown in her direction.)
> > >
> > > Question 2: If Share chooses to *not* respond to RD (IMO, probably
> because RD had no business butting in on a matter involving Share and
> Judy), does that make everything true in what RD has written in the rest of
> her post?
> > >
> > > Question 3: If RD persists in confronting Share to answer her
> questions from a post where she butted in on

[FairfieldLife] For Card: Nokia going Android?

[Bhairitu]

T'would be wise.

http://phandroid.com/2012/11/30/nokia-linux-job-android/

Also on Phandroid there is an article about Redbox offering streaming 
soon.  Could be a hoot.

Speaking of online streaming watched a flic called "Leave" on NF that 
might be of interest to the neo-Buddists here especially when there are 
scenes at a restaurant called "The Bardo Cafe".   The film lists Bryan 
Cranston but it's more a cameo role.  It's an indie film and not that 
great but held my interest to see where it was going.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1446695/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Da Vinci's Cosmic Code to John

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Just to bring in what Nablusoss was saying about masters being a combo of 
> masculine and feminine:  some see Jesus as balanced in this way and so it 
> could be said that the vertical of the cross represents masculine energy 
> while the horizontal represents feminine.
> 
> 
Share,

You've got a good point here too.  In the vedic literature, we see this same 
theme in the discussion of the kundalini rising from the first chakra to the 
7th chakra.  When the kundalini reaches the top chakra, the male and female 
principles are merged into one which gives rise to enlightenment or Bliss.

In the context of Judeo-Christian tradition, the bottom chakras represent Sodom 
and Gomorrah.  And, the top chakra refers to the Ark of the Covenant.

JR

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendental Meditation reduces heart disease by 48%

[Michael Jackson]

I am willing to believe almost anything, but not without evidence. I know a lot 
of folks here don't like to hear it, but if proponents of TM want to promote TM 
it isn't out of order to realize that one has to deal with the energy the TM 
Movement has created over the years. Most of us always were willing to overlook 
or excuse the behavior of the "managers" of the Movement to further the cause 
of spreading TM for world enlightenment.

After a while, some of us decided that the weight of karmic energy the Movement 
was building up didn't justify continued support. 

In addition it is not out of order to ask just how good the practice itself is 
when those who administrate the Movement act the way they do - if TM and the 
Sidhis is so positive, so beneficial, then why do the folks who have been not 
only practicing these techniques and the supposedly more advanced techniques 
available to Governors and rajas still behave in a fashion that does not 
exemplify the glowing ideal espoused by the Movement.

I agree that TM feels good when and after you do it, the sidhis can be 
exhilarating, but the evidence of unpleasant and unfeeling behavior on the part 
of TM leaders gives rise to legitimate questions. 

For me, I have to say that after 37 years of TM Sidhi practice, and almost 60 
years of TM itself, not one person in Unity, not one person levitates, lots of 
long time TM'ers with all the problems the non-meditating population has, no 
evidence that vedic vastu improves life, 37 years of yogic flying groups to 
create world peace and the world is more at war now than when the TM Sidhi 
program was created and a great many unfulfilled promises on the part of 
Maharishi and the Movement

Not that my comments will change anyone's mind here.





 From: turquoiseb 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 7:31 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendental Meditation reduces heart disease by 
48%
 

  
For those interested in such things, here is a review of
TIME magazine's reporting on this study from one of the
best health news reporting watchdog sites I've found,
HealthNewsReview.org. The site was founded by the doctor
who first created the well-respected MayoClinic.com site,
and watches out for inaccurate or (more often) money-
tainted or ethically-challenged reporting on health news
and trends. 

http://www.healthnewsreview.org/review/strongest-study-yet-shows-meditation-can-lower-risk-of-heart-attack-and-stroke/

The TIME article and (of course) the TMO's touting of the
study below are classic hype of a weak study. The sample
group was small, the duration of the study insufficient
for any reasonable study on heart disease, the statistical 
methods used questionable, risk factors such as diabetes 
were ignored, smoking was mischaracterized and not related 
to the study findings, etc. 

I present this to give diehard TMers an idea of why real
scientists think that TM science is laughable, and the
attempted hype of it in the press near-criminal. And if
you read this and agree with the writers that the TIME
article is nigh unto misleading in its enthusiasm and
ability to overlook details, read the TMO's version 
below, and note that they...uh...forgot to mention that
the study was on *African American* patients. The TMO
"review" fails to mention that, implying that the 
supposed benefits would be available to anyone, clearly
unaware that black patients are in a completely different
risk category for heart disease than those of other
races. (African Americans are 40% more likely to have
high blood pressure than other ethnic groups, and 10%
less likely to have it under control.) The TMO writeup
didn't mention the ethnic makeup of the study *at all*. 

Note also that the TMO writeup doesn't mention several
other rather important points raised in the AHA's press
release about the study (comments in brackets mine):

* Forty-two percent of the participants were women, 
average age 59, and half reported earning less than 
$10,000 per year. [In other words, *none* of them
could have afforded to learn TM at its current price.]

* Average body mass index was about 32, which is 
clinically obese. [In other words, not a representative
group of people, even black people.]

* Nearly 60 percent in both treatment groups took 
cholesterol-lowering drugs; 41 percent of the meditation 
group and 31 percent of the health education group took 
aspirin; and 38 percent of the meditation group and 43 
percent of the health education group smoked. [*ALL*
of which may have influenced the outcome in terms of
number of heart attacks at least as significantly as
TM did.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merlin  wrote:
>
> Maharishi’s Global Family Chat Summary 
> 
> Note: Incorrect graphics and links were sent out in the previous summary of 
> this Maharishi Global Family Chat program. Please disregard and delete the 
> previous  version. Thank you.
> ___

[FairfieldLife] Stalemate in "Fiscal Cliff" Talks

[John]

The middle voters will be fighting mad if taxes are raised.  Also, the economy 
may trend downwards.  But money will be raised to pay for the government 
deficit. 

There's no doubt that heads will fall in the next congressional elections if 
this stalemate is not resolved.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/john-boehner-fiscal-cliff-talks-stalemate-183919675--election.html

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2

[laughinggull108]

RD, I'm not sure if you read *all* my comments interspersed throughout...read 
all the way to the bottom where I recognize what I've done and why I did it:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327690

If not, you might want to do that, then revise your list of questions below. 
I'm not sure if I can answer them because I'm *can't* read Share's mind. And 
it's not that I'm a stalwart defender of Share; you and the others (see Judy's 
list) have had her under the spotlight for so long that I think it's only fair 
that the spotlight be turned on you and the others. And it appears that this 
might be beginning to happen in a very logical and intelligent manner, and not 
from my posts alone. As my wise grandfather used to say: "It looks like the 
chickens are coming home to roost." Open up and have a willingness to learn. 
It's really not so bad.

You see RD, one of you alone *might* be just enough for the "stupid" people *as 
an entire group* to handle; add to the mix Judy, Ann, Ravi, Robin, or any of 
the others and the "stupid" people get just so overwhelmed and start making no 
sense whatsoever, and I just can't have that. Think of me as the defender of 
fair play: one of you at a time against the entire group of "stupid" people...I 
simply cannot allow any more.

(Keep reading, just a few more below.)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> LG I'm really glad Share has such a stalwart defender as you. Since you're 
> butting in on Share's behalf as if she were not an intelligent adult, capable 
> of responding to my post herself,

Oh, this sounds so familiar...where have I seen this so many times before? Oh, 
oh, I know, I know! You not trying to say that Robin isn't intelligent, are 
you? How dare you!

> could you take a moment to read her mind as I have been unable to do and 
> answer a few questions help understand her better? You can elaborate but yes 
> or no will do.
> Based on Share's post below:
> Is wts Share's fantasy? 
> Did Share accuse Judy of psychological rape?
> Did Share accuse Judy of attributing thoughts and feelings to her without 
> explicitly saying how or what they were?
> Does Share's framing of her argument against Judy based on her assumptions 
> about the fantasized existence of wts help her effectively rebut the posts 
> Judy cites in the archives that demonstrate Share's misunderstanding of why 
> Robin decided to cut off private email communication, her subsequent 
> misunderstanding of the sequence of events that transpired, and then based on 
> misunderstanding of her own making, accused him of psychological rape?
> If Share dropped her wts and psychological rape fantasy, and rebutted Judy 
> based on what transpired between herself and Robin in the archives would she 
> be more successful in defending herself and put an end to your need to defend 
> her?
> Is Share unwilling to address her misunderstandings in the posts Judy cites 
> because she cannot defend what she has written?
> In order to truthfully address the posts Judy cites would Share have to first 
> drop fantasizing herself as a victim of wts and psychological rape?
> Do you think these are fair questions?
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Here's Judy at her wts best.  Doing the psychological rape thing of 
> > > > attributing to me thoughts and feelings I've not had.  Then presenting 
> > > > her ideas as The Truth.  Then lacking in compassion.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Just to be clear, Share, you are accusing Judy of psychological rape.
> > 
> > Fact 1: RD *wrote* the above, therefore
> > 
> > Fact 2: RD knows that Share has accused *Judy* of psychological rape.
> > 
> > Question 1: Why is RD butting in on a situation that involves Share and 
> > Judy?
> > 
> > (IMO, it couldn't be that RD feels that Judy needs her assistance, as Judy 
> > has always shown herself to be completely capable of expertly handling 
> > *all* accusations thrown in her direction.)
> > 
> > Question 2: If Share chooses to *not* respond to RD (IMO, probably because 
> > RD had no business butting in on a matter involving Share and Judy), does 
> > that make everything true in what RD has written in the rest of her post?
> > 
> > Question 3: If RD persists in confronting Share to answer her questions 
> > from a post where she butted in on a matter involving only Share and Judy 
> > (kinda like somebody else did a couple of weeks ago), would that be 
> > considered cyberharassment or cyberbullying or somesuch?
> > 
> > Question 4: Is RD's butting in on a matter involving only Share and Judy an 
> > example, albeit early stages, of "piling on" to which Share and others have 
> > referred.
> > 
> > > Why do you persist in portraying yourself as a victim?  wts is your 
> > > fantasy. You are entitled to make

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2

[laughinggull108]

RD, I'm not sure if you read *all* my comments interspersed throughout...read 
all the way to the bottom where I recognize what I've done and why I did it:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327690

If not, you might want to do that, then revise your list of questions below. 
I'm not sure if I can answer them because I'm *can't* read Share's mind. And 
it's not that I'm a stalwart defender of Share; you and the others (see Judy's 
list) have had her under the spotlight for so long that I think it's only fair 
that the spotlight be turned on you and the others. And it appears that this 
might be beginning to happen, and not from my posts alone. As my grandfather 
used to say: "It looks like the chickens are coming home to roost." Open up and 
have a willingness to learn. It's really not so bad.

You see RD, one of you alone *might* be just enough for the "stupid" people *as 
a group* to handle; add to the mix Judy, Ann, Ravi, Robin, or any of the others 
and the "stupid" people are just plain overwhelmed and start making no sense 
whatsoever, and I just can't have that. I'm simply the defender of fair play: 
one of you against the entire group of "stupid" people...I simply cannot allow 
anymore.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> LG I'm really glad Share has such a stalwart defender as you. Since you're 
> butting in on Share's behalf as if she were not an intelligent adult, capable 
> of responding to my post herself, could you take a moment to read her mind as 
> I have been unable to do and answer a few questions help understand her 
> better? You can elaborate but yes or no will do.
> Based on Share's post below:
> Is wts Share's fantasy? 
> Did Share accuse Judy of psychological rape?
> Did Share accuse Judy of attributing thoughts and feelings to her without 
> explicitly saying how or what they were?
> Does Share's framing of her argument against Judy based on her assumptions 
> about the fantasized existence of wts help her effectively rebut the posts 
> Judy cites in the archives that demonstrate Share's misunderstanding of why 
> Robin decided to cut off private email communication, her subsequent 
> misunderstanding of the sequence of events that transpired, and then based on 
> misunderstanding of her own making, accused him of psychological rape?
> If Share dropped her wts and psychological rape fantasy, and rebutted Judy 
> based on what transpired between herself and Robin in the archives would she 
> be more successful in defending herself and put an end to your need to defend 
> her?
> Is Share unwilling to address her misunderstandings in the posts Judy cites 
> because she cannot defend what she has written?
> In order to truthfully address the posts Judy cites would Share have to first 
> drop fantasizing herself as a victim of wts and psychological rape?
> Do you think these are fair questions?
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Here's Judy at her wts best.  Doing the psychological rape thing of 
> > > > attributing to me thoughts and feelings I've not had.  Then presenting 
> > > > her ideas as The Truth.  Then lacking in compassion.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Just to be clear, Share, you are accusing Judy of psychological rape.
> > 
> > Fact 1: RD *wrote* the above, therefore
> > 
> > Fact 2: RD knows that Share has accused *Judy* of psychological rape.
> > 
> > Question 1: Why is RD butting in on a situation that involves Share and 
> > Judy?
> > 
> > (IMO, it couldn't be that RD feels that Judy needs her assistance, as Judy 
> > has always shown herself to be completely capable of expertly handling 
> > *all* accusations thrown in her direction.)
> > 
> > Question 2: If Share chooses to *not* respond to RD (IMO, probably because 
> > RD had no business butting in on a matter involving Share and Judy), does 
> > that make everything true in what RD has written in the rest of her post?
> > 
> > Question 3: If RD persists in confronting Share to answer her questions 
> > from a post where she butted in on a matter involving only Share and Judy 
> > (kinda like somebody else did a couple of weeks ago), would that be 
> > considered cyberharassment or cyberbullying or somesuch?
> > 
> > Question 4: Is RD's butting in on a matter involving only Share and Judy an 
> > example, albeit early stages, of "piling on" to which Share and others have 
> > referred.
> > 
> > > Why do you persist in portraying yourself as a victim?  wts is your 
> > > fantasy. You are entitled to make ridiclous assumptions based on fantasy 
> > > but it doesn't help you deal with the reality of people calling you out 
> > > on your behavior or make a coherent argument in you own defense. To make 
> > > your case against Judy, here's a starter: Clearly state exactly what 
> > > thoug

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Costco

[Bhairitu]

On 11/30/2012 10:47 AM, Alex Stanley wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>> On 11/30/2012 09:50 AM, Alex Stanley wrote:
>>> On the west end of town.
>> Do "rus" work at Walmart?
> I have no idea. All I can say is that I've never encountered a Walmart 
> employee that I know to be a ru.
>
>> When did Walmart set up shop there?
> The first Walmart opened up probably 20 or more years ago. Before that, we 
> had two big box discount stores, Ben Franklin and Pamida. Personally, I found 
> them both to be dingy and depressing. When Walmart opened, Ben Franklin 
> closed immediately, and Pamida held on for a few years before closing.
>
> In recent years, FF's Walmart was supposedly the smallest one in Iowa, and 
> after delaying a couple years because of the economy, they finally built a 
> somewhat bigger store further west of town. The talk was all about them 
> building a Super Walmart, but it's nowhere near as big as the Super Walmarts 
> in Ottumwa and Iowa City. My impression is that it's basically just the old 
> store with a grocery section added.
>
> But, never mind the shitty labor practices or the old building sitting there 
> empty... the absolute worst part in all of this is that Walmart went from 
> having an auspicious north entrance to an inauspicious south entrance. In 
> addition to his duties as owner/emperor of FFL, Buck needs to reign in the 
> local zoning so that all buildings are in accord with Natural Law. Give him a 
> gold leafed Cat D10 running on biodiesel, and he could really whip this town 
> into shape.

The Walmart and Sam's Club here have east entrances.  Maybe that's why 
they do so well?  Oh and BTW, so does Target.  Fry's has a south 
entrance and it was a Levitz before they took the building over. Fry's 
can be a very busy place though.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Costco

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> On 11/30/2012 09:50 AM, Alex Stanley wrote:
> >
> > On the west end of town.
> 
> Do "rus" work at Walmart?  

I have no idea. All I can say is that I've never encountered a Walmart employee 
that I know to be a ru. 

> When did Walmart set up shop there?

The first Walmart opened up probably 20 or more years ago. Before that, we had 
two big box discount stores, Ben Franklin and Pamida. Personally, I found them 
both to be dingy and depressing. When Walmart opened, Ben Franklin closed 
immediately, and Pamida held on for a few years before closing. 

In recent years, FF's Walmart was supposedly the smallest one in Iowa, and 
after delaying a couple years because of the economy, they finally built a 
somewhat bigger store further west of town. The talk was all about them 
building a Super Walmart, but it's nowhere near as big as the Super Walmarts in 
Ottumwa and Iowa City. My impression is that it's basically just the old store 
with a grocery section added.

But, never mind the shitty labor practices or the old building sitting there 
empty... the absolute worst part in all of this is that Walmart went from 
having an auspicious north entrance to an inauspicious south entrance. In 
addition to his duties as owner/emperor of FFL, Buck needs to reign in the 
local zoning so that all buildings are in accord with Natural Law. Give him a 
gold leafed Cat D10 running on biodiesel, and he could really whip this town 
into shape.

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2

[raunchydog]

LG I'm really glad Share has such a stalwart defender as you. Since you're 
butting in on Share's behalf as if she were not an intelligent adult, capable 
of responding to my post herself, could you take a moment to read her mind as I 
have been unable to do and answer a few questions help understand her better? 
You can elaborate but yes or no will do.
Based on Share's post below:
Is wts Share's fantasy? 
Did Share accuse Judy of psychological rape?
Did Share accuse Judy of attributing thoughts and feelings to her without 
explicitly saying how or what they were?
Does Share's framing of her argument against Judy based on her assumptions 
about the fantasized existence of wts help her effectively rebut the posts Judy 
cites in the archives that demonstrate Share's misunderstanding of why Robin 
decided to cut off private email communication, her subsequent misunderstanding 
of the sequence of events that transpired, and then based on misunderstanding 
of her own making, accused him of psychological rape?
If Share dropped her wts and psychological rape fantasy, and rebutted Judy 
based on what transpired between herself and Robin in the archives would she be 
more successful in defending herself and put an end to your need to defend her?
Is Share unwilling to address her misunderstandings in the posts Judy cites 
because she cannot defend what she has written?
In order to truthfully address the posts Judy cites would Share have to first 
drop fantasizing herself as a victim of wts and psychological rape?
Do you think these are fair questions?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > >
> > > Here's Judy at her wts best.  Doing the psychological rape thing of 
> > > attributing to me thoughts and feelings I've not had.  Then presenting 
> > > her ideas as The Truth.  Then lacking in compassion.
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > Just to be clear, Share, you are accusing Judy of psychological rape.
> 
> Fact 1: RD *wrote* the above, therefore
> 
> Fact 2: RD knows that Share has accused *Judy* of psychological rape.
> 
> Question 1: Why is RD butting in on a situation that involves Share and Judy?
> 
> (IMO, it couldn't be that RD feels that Judy needs her assistance, as Judy 
> has always shown herself to be completely capable of expertly handling *all* 
> accusations thrown in her direction.)
> 
> Question 2: If Share chooses to *not* respond to RD (IMO, probably because RD 
> had no business butting in on a matter involving Share and Judy), does that 
> make everything true in what RD has written in the rest of her post?
> 
> Question 3: If RD persists in confronting Share to answer her questions from 
> a post where she butted in on a matter involving only Share and Judy (kinda 
> like somebody else did a couple of weeks ago), would that be considered 
> cyberharassment or cyberbullying or somesuch?
> 
> Question 4: Is RD's butting in on a matter involving only Share and Judy an 
> example, albeit early stages, of "piling on" to which Share and others have 
> referred.
> 
> > Why do you persist in portraying yourself as a victim?  wts is your 
> > fantasy. You are entitled to make ridiclous assumptions based on fantasy 
> > but it doesn't help you deal with the reality of people calling you out on 
> > your behavior or make a coherent argument in you own defense. To make your 
> > case against Judy, here's a starter: Clearly state exactly what thoughts 
> > and feelings Judy attributed to you that you did not have.
> 
> Start here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327618, then 
> follow the "post trail" beginning with the post Share mentions at the top. 
> And you're going to have to put a little work into this...don't expect Share 
> to do your homework for you.
> 
> > Judy backs up her ideas with facts that she doesn't make up. Her forthright 
> > style of presenting posts in evidence of your own words in the archives is 
> > perhaps emotionally unsettling, a "trigger" making you feel defensive but 
> > it doesn't negate the truth of what she says or what you have written.
> 
> Does "context" count? I'm assuming it doesn't because not too long ago, you 
> tried to revive the "milk and cookie" debacle by posting the *one* comment 
> taken out of context that portrayed the poster in the worst possible light.
> 
> > Rather than lash out at Judy ineffectually, deal with  your "triggers" and 
> > deal with the reality of what she says, not as a victim but as an equally 
> > intelligent adult. If you want to make a case against her you cannot do 
> > this successfully if the starting point of your defense is based on 
> > fantasy. 
> >
> 
> Of course, I realize that I've just "butted in" on a post from RD to Share 
> but I wanted to show how a situation quickly begins to escalate from 
> simplicity to complexity then gets completely out of h

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
> anartaxius@ wrote:
> >
> > Judy is very heavy on characterising her opposition's arguments and
> > states of mind in a way that I interpret is to demean them, without
> > supporting fact.
> >
> > 'masterfully dishonest response' #327631
> > 'supremely, if inadvertently, ironic' #327646
> > 'lashes out repeatedly' #327646
> > 'intent to hurt people' #327646
> > 'your appalling lack of honesty' #325575
> > 'terrified of being irrelevant' #324343
> > 'is so terrified of strong women' #306217
> > 'Why is this so impossibly difficult for you to understand?' #63962
> >
> > These are all characterisations attributing motives, with strong
> > emotional flavours, to others. But these characterisations come out
> > of Judy's mind, they are what is in *her* mind. Perhaps they give us
> > a clue as to what goes on in her own mental world, something that
> > none of us can experience directly.
>
>
> Margaret Hamilton was an actress; when the makeup came off, she was a
normal person:

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2 to buck and turq, lg and b2

[Share Long]

oh God, buck and turq, thank you for making me laugh.  Yeah, even at myself.  
Here's the kind of shoe woman I am:  I have a pair of Aersoles that I bought 
years ago.  Even though they now have a hole in the right heel, they're perfect 
for keeping the Morton's neuroma on my left foot at bay.  I've tried 
unsuccessfully for 2 years to find a replacement shoe that's as good for 
walking around town.  Toto, we're not in the big city anymore.  Meaning, the 
clothes shopping situation in FF is pathetic.

Buck once you get FFL straightened out, can you work on the shopping for 
clothes situation?  Shopping therapy dontcha know? (-:

laughinggull, you make compassionate sense once again.  No bad people on FFL.  

Bhairitu, right, I forgot about Costco and buying in quantity.  Especially in 
an Iowa blizzard,, I really don't want to drive 60 miles and 60 minutes to buy 
a bazillion roles of tp.        




 From: turquoiseb 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 12:03 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
 

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> Judy is very heavy on characterising her opposition's arguments and 
> states of mind in a way that I interpret is to demean them, without 
> supporting fact.
> 
> 'masterfully dishonest response' #327631
> 'supremely, if inadvertently, ironic' #327646
> 'lashes out repeatedly' #327646
> 'intent to hurt people' #327646
> 'your appalling lack of honesty' #325575
> 'terrified of being irrelevant' #324343
> 'is so terrified of strong women' #306217
> 'Why is this so impossibly difficult for you to understand?' #63962
> 
> These are all characterisations attributing motives, with strong 
> emotional flavours, to others. But these characterisations come out 
> of Judy's mind, they are what is in *her* mind. Perhaps they give us 
> a clue as to what goes on
 in her own mental world, something that 
> none of us can experience directly. 




 

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
 wrote:
>
> Judy is very heavy on characterising her opposition's arguments and
> states of mind in a way that I interpret is to demean them, without
> supporting fact.
>
> 'masterfully dishonest response' #327631
> 'supremely, if inadvertently, ironic' #327646
> 'lashes out repeatedly' #327646
> 'intent to hurt people' #327646
> 'your appalling lack of honesty' #325575
> 'terrified of being irrelevant' #324343
> 'is so terrified of strong women' #306217
> 'Why is this so impossibly difficult for you to understand?' #63962
>
> These are all characterisations attributing motives, with strong
> emotional flavours, to others. But these characterisations come out
> of Judy's mind, they are what is in *her* mind. Perhaps they give us
> a clue as to what goes on in her own mental world, something that
> none of us can experience directly.

 
[https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/486300_101522706\
87590427_1978368277_n.jpg]

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Costco

[Bhairitu]

On 11/30/2012 09:50 AM, Alex Stanley wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>> On 11/30/2012 08:48 AM, Share Long wrote:
>>> Received this from a friend yesterday.  I realize Costco is not the ideal, 
>>> but
>>> if someone has to shop big box to economize, this is a step in the right 
>>> direction.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>> http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/14418_451773671524984_1015077520_n.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> That is if you consume "mass quantities" of things.  How close is
>> the nearest Costco to Fairfield?
> Right next to I-80, in Coralville (next to Iowa City), about 60 miles away.
>
>> How close is the nearest Walmart?
> On the west end of town.

Do "rus" work at Walmart?  When did Walmart set up shop there?

The link that Share posted is interesting because I think some unions 
actually offer Costco membership.  I had membership because the company 
I worked at in the 90s offered it.  It was originally a wholesale place 
for small business.  They used to have the early hours for "gold" 
members only to avoid lines but that has been discontinued.  There are 
often small business folks picking up supplies for their coffee shop or 
convenience store or restaurant.

SAM's Club is closer, about 5 miles away across from Trader Joes. They 
occasionally have "open" weekends where anyone can walk in and get a 
membership.  Many big box stores started as "buyers clubs" back in the 
late 70s and early 80s.  I was a member of Bi-Mart which was open to 
anyone and I think it cost $2 to join.  I also recall that Walmart 
opened in a nearby city where I used to teach music back in the 
mid-80s.  But it didn't seem anything special because the northwest 
chain Fred Meyer was already there with a bigger store.

[FairfieldLife] Re: What FFL would be like if Buck ran it

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> Rick is extremely busy doing extremely important work on Batgap.com .  If 
> Rick should step down as owner of FFL then I should be honored to take over 
> the responsibility of leadership of this illustrious community here in his 
> place.
> 
> These are certainly turbulent times that require vigorous and extraordinary 
> leadership.  I would respect everyone's right to an opinion here and always 
> edit this list judiciously with great empathy to preserve the integrity of 
> expression on FFL.
> 
> I should always note and listen to all opinions and keep this a safe and open 
> forum.  You could trust me.  I am confident with all your support that I 
> could steer our forum through these next times to a transition in a new era 
> of positivity for FFL.  
> 
> I should start only as a �temporary practical interlude in leadership to 
> something better and will protect in the meantime the transition of FFL to a 
> more civil, judicious and democratic FFL.  As the supreme ruler of FFL I then 
> shall gladly step aside at a future time when we have then made the 
> transition.
> 
> It is my deeply held feeling that FFL should embrace transparency, democracy 
> and human rights, but in my view not accept categorical approaches to free 
> speech and particularly not tolerate insults to spirituality.
> I respect freedom of expression but expression that is not used to incite 
> hatred against anyone. One that is not directed toward one specific religion 
> or cult.  I believe the time has come for everyone's safety to consider 
> action to crack down on speech that defames spirituality on this list.  A 
> supreme moderator is needed now and I should be humbled to take on that 
> responsibility for everyone's welfare.
> -Buck, the Preserver

If you took over FFL Buck, a new forum would have to be started up, as the 
numbers here would go down, like in the dome. If spirituality can't take some 
direct punches on the chin, it's not worth s**t. Old time religion is not 
conducive to free speech. It's totalitarian. I believe that you feel you have a 
service to offer, but I think you have the mentality of a dictator, just as the 
TMO has such a mentality. Restricting speech in the manner you suggest is also 
a categorical approach, as it categorises certain kinds of statements as not 
being acceptable, and accepting such an approach contradicts your statement not 
to accept categorical approaches.

 - Xeno, the Destroyer (remember, Shiva?, the destroyer of ignorance?) 

Note: A spiritual path is tread entirely in the ignorant state, it is an aspect 
of the ignorant state; it is only when you get to the end of that path, 
whichever one you are traversing, that you find that it was all an aspect of 
ignorance, that is, was in fact, and in reality, not true. You are going 
through the motions of being a concerned, spiritual person, but as a result you 
are dawdling on your path, by trying to prevent others from being curious, from 
expressing themselves, from engaging in dialogue that dissects spirituality 
down to its rotten core of delusion. It is when you get this far down in 
questioning whether spirituality has any value whatever, that you might just 
wake up.

[FairfieldLife] Re: What FFL would be like if Buck ran it

[laughinggull108]

Thanks, Buck, for making me really laugh (we need more of that here on FFL). I 
consider this most definitely the "post of the week" if not the month or maybe 
even the year.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> Rick is extremely busy doing extremely important work on Batgap.com .  If 
> Rick should step down as owner of FFL then I should be honored to take over 
> the responsibility of leadership of this illustrious community here in his 
> place.
> 
> These are certainly turbulent times that require vigorous and extraordinary 
> leadership.  I would respect everyone's right to an opinion here and always 
> edit this list judiciously with great empathy to preserve the integrity of 
> expression on FFL.
> 
> I should always note and listen to all opinions and keep this a safe and open 
> forum.  You could trust me.  I am confident with all your support that I 
> could steer our forum through these next times to a transition in a new era 
> of positivity for FFL.  
> 
> I should start only as a  temporary practical interlude in leadership to 
> something better and will protect in the meantime the transition of FFL to a 
> more civil, judicious and democratic FFL.  As the supreme ruler of FFL I then 
> shall gladly step aside at a future time when we have then made the 
> transition.
> 
> It is my deeply held feeling that FFL should embrace transparency, democracy 
> and human rights, but in my view not accept categorical approaches to free 
> speech and particularly not tolerate insults to spirituality.
> I respect freedom of expression but expression that is not used to incite 
> hatred against anyone. One that is not directed toward one specific religion 
> or cult.  I believe the time has come for everyone's safety to consider 
> action to crack down on speech that defames spirituality on this list.  A 
> supreme moderator is needed now and I should be humbled to take on that 
> responsibility for everyone's welfare.
> -Buck, the Preserver
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Costco

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> On 11/30/2012 08:48 AM, Share Long wrote:
> > Received this from a friend yesterday.  I realize Costco is not the ideal, 
> > but
> > if someone has to shop big box to economize, this is a step in the right 
> > direction.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> > http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/14418_451773671524984_1015077520_n.jpg
> >
> >
> >
> 
> That is if you consume "mass quantities" of things.  How close is
> the nearest Costco to Fairfield?

Right next to I-80, in Coralville (next to Iowa City), about 60 miles away.

> How close is the nearest Walmart?

On the west end of town.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendental Meditation reduces heart disease by 48%

[Michael Jackson]

why obesity?





 From: Bhairitu 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 12:31 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendental Meditation reduces heart 
disease by 48%
 

  
On 11/30/2012 06:00 AM, nablusoss1008 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
>
>> I present this to give diehard TMers an idea of why real
>> scientists think that TM science is...
> much less effective than any unstudied, unverified practise touted by my Guru 
> the Dalai Lama.
> That "This headline is based on an NIH-sponsored, 10-year clinical trial of 
> Transcendental Meditation that was published this week by the American Heart 
> Association. The results showed 48% lower rate of death, heart attack and 
> stroke in heart disease patients who practiced the TM programme for 5.4 
> years." is ofcourse of no value as long as I am able to freely use the 
> majority of my posts here to denounce TM, the TMO and Maharishi in particular.
>
> The Turqo

Just about any meditation will reduce the risk of heart disease.  TM is 
nothing special except for its price and its secular approach. Love to 
see a third party study on TM and obesity.


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Fw: Costco

[Bhairitu]

On 11/30/2012 08:48 AM, Share Long wrote:
> Received this from a friend yesterday.  I realize Costco is not the ideal, but
> if someone has to shop big box to economize, this is a step in the right 
> direction.
>
>
>
>
>
>  
> http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/14418_451773671524984_1015077520_n.jpg
>
>
>

That is if you consume "mass quantities" of things.  How close is the 
nearest Costco to Fairfield?  How close is the nearest Walmart? Costco 
used to be where Walmart is now or about a mile away from me.  Costco 
built a store about a twice that size 12 miles away.  I let my Costco 
membership lapse years ago.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendental Meditation reduces heart disease by 48%

[Bhairitu]

On 11/30/2012 06:00 AM, nablusoss1008 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
>
>> I present this to give diehard TMers an idea of why real
>> scientists think that TM science is...
> much less effective than any unstudied, unverified practise touted by my Guru 
> the Dalai Lama.
> That "This headline is based on an NIH-sponsored, 10-year clinical trial of 
> Transcendental Meditation that was published this week by the American Heart 
> Association. The results showed 48% lower rate of death, heart attack and 
> stroke in heart disease patients who practiced the TM programme for 5.4 
> years." is ofcourse of no value as long as I am able to freely use the 
> majority of my posts here to denounce TM, the TMO and Maharishi in particular.
>
> The Turqo

Just about any meditation will reduce the risk of heart disease.  TM is 
nothing special except for its price and its secular approach. Love to 
see a third party study on TM and obesity.

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

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

>> Here's Judy at her wts best.  Doing the psychological rape thing of 
>> attributing to me thoughts and feelings I've not had.  Then presenting her 
>> ideas as The Truth.  Then lacking in compassion.

> Just to be clear, Share, you are accusing Judy of psychological rape. Why do 
> you persist in portraying yourself as a victim? -- wts is your fantasy. You 
> are entitled to make ridiculous assumptions based on fantasy but it doesn't 
> help you deal with the reality of people calling you out on your behavior or 
> make a coherent argument in you own defense. To make your case against Judy, 
> here's a starter: Clearly state exactly what thoughts and feelings Judy 
> attributed to you that you did not have. 

> Judy backs up her ideas with facts that she doesn't make up. Her forthright 
> style of presenting posts in evidence of your own words in the archives is 
> perhaps emotionally unsettling, a "trigger" making you feel defensive but it 
> doesn't negate the truth of what she says or what you have written. Rather 
> than lash out at Judy ineffectually, deal with -- your "triggers" and deal 
> with the reality of what she says, not as a victim but as an equally 
> intelligent adult. If you want to make a case against her you cannot do this 
> successfully if the starting point of your defense is based on fantasy.

It is true Judy backs up many of her statements with properly quoted facts 
etc., though selective snipping often seems to alter the argument (and she 
dismisses the snipped material as not relevant to the argument even though the 
person on the other end of the argument might feel it is definitely relevant). 
She also seems to attribute feelings and thoughts to others. I do this too, but 
with the caveat that I really cannot knows what anybody's thoughts are unless 
they speak or write them out, and maybe those are not what they are really 
thinking. And, my interpretation of other's emotions are probably pretty 
unreliable. Judy seems to imply that she is really good at this.

Judy is very heavy on characterising her opposition's arguments and states of 
mind in a way that I interpret is to demean them, without supporting fact.

'masterfully dishonest response' #327631
'supremely, if inadvertently, ironic' #327646
'lashes out repeatedly' #327646
'intent to hurt people' #327646
'your appalling lack of honesty' #325575
'terrified of being irrelevant' #324343
'is so terrified of strong women' #306217
'Why is this so impossibly difficult for you to understand?' #63962

These are all characterisations attributing motives, with strong emotional 
flavours, to others. But these characterisations come out of Judy's mind, they 
are what is in *her* mind. Perhaps they give us a clue as to what goes on in 
her own mental world, something that none of us can experience directly. 

What we say, and this of course includes me, gives an indication, a window into 
our mental state, but given that we often are not even clearly aware of our own 
mental states, this does not reflect well on our ability to determines what 
others's states may be based on limited information. Still, there is the old 
saying (Jesus) 'Not that which goes into the mouth defiles a man; but that 
which comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.' 

Judy's arguments would be far stronger if they were not so often interspersed 
with this kind of characterisation. In a way it is a kind of mental Judo, by 
aiming at a person's emotions, you can sometimes throw them off balance because 
they will react with an emotional undercurrent rather than a logical, factual 
one.

When someone talks of psychological rape, this does not necessarily mean they 
have a victim mentality, they might only mean they feel the attempt has been 
made. Share seems to be taking the stance that she is not going to put up with 
it, even if the attempt is made.

[FairfieldLife] Yahoo acting up again

[Alex Stanley]

Just a little heads up to people who get FFL via email: some posts being sent 
via the web interface aren't showing up in email until several minutes to even 
a couple hours later. So, if you want to follow FFL closer to real time, use 
the FFL website, as posts made via the website are showing up on the website 
very quickly. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Debating on FFL

[Bhairitu]

On 11/29/2012 05:29 PM, Buck wrote:
> Can sound like this sometimes..:
>
> http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151248624089099
>
>

Or look like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlqzcXR6XWs

[FairfieldLife] Re: What FFL would be like if Buck ran it

[raunchydog]

It's a fine line we walk between safeguarding free speech and tyranny, isn't 
it, Buck?  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KwHCX_5YME&feature=youtube_gdata_player


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> Rick is extremely busy doing extremely important work on Batgap.com .  If 
> Rick should step down as owner of FFL then I should be honored to take over 
> the responsibility of leadership of this illustrious community here in his 
> place.
> 
> These are certainly turbulent times that require vigorous and extraordinary 
> leadership.  I would respect everyone's right to an opinion here and always 
> edit this list judiciously with great empathy to preserve the integrity of 
> expression on FFL.
> 
> I should always note and listen to all opinions and keep this a safe and open 
> forum.  You could trust me.  I am confident with all your support that I 
> could steer our forum through these next times to a transition in a new era 
> of positivity for FFL.  
> 
> I should start only as a  temporary practical interlude in leadership to 
> something better and will protect in the meantime the transition of FFL to a 
> more civil, judicious and democratic FFL.  As the supreme ruler of FFL I then 
> shall gladly step aside at a future time when we have then made the 
> transition.
> 
> It is my deeply held feeling that FFL should embrace transparency, democracy 
> and human rights, but in my view not accept categorical approaches to free 
> speech and particularly not tolerate insults to spirituality.
> I respect freedom of expression but expression that is not used to incite 
> hatred against anyone. One that is not directed toward one specific religion 
> or cult.  I believe the time has come for everyone's safety to consider 
> action to crack down on speech that defames spirituality on this list.  A 
> supreme moderator is needed now and I should be humbled to take on that 
> responsibility for everyone's welfare.
> -Buck, the Preserver
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2

[laughinggull108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Here's Judy at her wts best.  Doing the psychological rape thing of 
> > attributing to me thoughts and feelings I've not had.  Then presenting her 
> > ideas as The Truth.  Then lacking in compassion.
> > 
> > 
> 
> Just to be clear, Share, you are accusing Judy of psychological rape.

Fact 1: RD *wrote* the above, therefore

Fact 2: RD knows that Share has accused *Judy* of psychological rape.

Question 1: Why is RD butting in on a situation that involves Share and Judy?

(IMO, it couldn't be that RD feels that Judy needs her assistance, as Judy has 
always shown herself to be completely capable of expertly handling *all* 
accusations thrown in her direction.)

Question 2: If Share chooses to *not* respond to RD (IMO, probably because RD 
had no business butting in on a matter involving Share and Judy), does that 
make everything true in what RD has written in the rest of her post?

Question 3: If RD persists in confronting Share to answer her questions from a 
post where she butted in on a matter involving only Share and Judy (kinda like 
somebody else did a couple of weeks ago), would that be considered 
cyberharassment or cyberbullying or somesuch?

Question 4: Is RD's butting in on a matter involving only Share and Judy an 
example, albeit early stages, of "piling on" to which Share and others have 
referred.

> Why do you persist in portraying yourself as a victim?  wts is your fantasy. 
> You are entitled to make ridiclous assumptions based on fantasy but it 
> doesn't help you deal with the reality of people calling you out on your 
> behavior or make a coherent argument in you own defense. To make your case 
> against Judy, here's a starter: Clearly state exactly what thoughts and 
> feelings Judy attributed to you that you did not have.

Start here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327618, then 
follow the "post trail" beginning with the post Share mentions at the top. And 
you're going to have to put a little work into this...don't expect Share to do 
your homework for you.

> Judy backs up her ideas with facts that she doesn't make up. Her forthright 
> style of presenting posts in evidence of your own words in the archives is 
> perhaps emotionally unsettling, a "trigger" making you feel defensive but it 
> doesn't negate the truth of what she says or what you have written.

Does "context" count? I'm assuming it doesn't because not too long ago, you 
tried to revive the "milk and cookie" debacle by posting the *one* comment 
taken out of context that portrayed the poster in the worst possible light.

> Rather than lash out at Judy ineffectually, deal with  your "triggers" and 
> deal with the reality of what she says, not as a victim but as an equally 
> intelligent adult. If you want to make a case against her you cannot do this 
> successfully if the starting point of your defense is based on fantasy.   
>   
>

Of course, I realize that I've just "butted in" on a post from RD to Share but 
I wanted to show how a situation quickly begins to escalate from simplicity to 
complexity then gets completely out of hand when all sides start jumping in. 
Could that be the intent of the "butter-inners" all along? Couldn't be, because 
then that would make them very bad people, and we just don't have any bad 
people on FFL.