from:"anartaxius"

SF Parents Against TM in Public Schools [on Facebook] 'A site for parents who 
question the constitutionality of TM in public schools to come together, with 
links to independent critical articles.' 
 MARCH 2 I am very, very happy to announce, 
 NO MORE TM IN MY SON'S HIGH SCHOOL! I just received an email from the 
principal; the teachers voted to discontinue TM and will be considering a 
secular alternative for next year! Thank you, everyone, for all your support, 
information and insightful comments. TM has no place in a public school. Next, 
the district superintendent and the board of the unified school district! The 
first battle is won! On to the next! Many, many thanks, dear friends! 
 MARCH 14 
 Just called Thurgood Marshall and they don't have it anymore either. That only 
leaves Visitacion Valley Middle school! 
 - 
 You can blame Thomas Jefferson for this: 
 Letter to Benjamin Rush (excerpt) September 23, 1800 [T]he clause of the 
Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the 
freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining 
an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United 
States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps 
hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The 
returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they 
believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition 
to their schemes. And they believe rightly. 
 Letter to Danbury Baptists (entire letter) 
 To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee 
of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut. 
 Gentlemen 
 The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as 
to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me 
the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of 
the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my 
fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing. 
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & 
his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that 
the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I 
contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people 
which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an 
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus 
building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this 
expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of 
conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those 
sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he 
has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your 
kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of 
man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of 
my high respect & esteem. 
 Th Jefferson Jan. 1. 1802. 
 - 
 It seems that some of the schools might attempt to put a secular alternative 
to TM in place for 'quiet time'. 
 The TMO's problem is that in spite of its rhetoric, it has been unable to 
secularise TM. Technically this should be possible. Mindfulness variants of 
meditation have be successfully secularised. Maharishi's early statements to 
the effect that the mantras of TM are 'the mantras of the personal gods', the 
philosophical structure of SCI, and the puja are pretty hard to cover up. The 
checking notes appear to be completely secular in structure. The checking 
procedure with other mantras not derived from religious sources and dumping the 
puja and SCI, I think it possible it would work. There is no evidence that the 
TM mantras are special in some way except they are short and do not have any 
obvious meaning (except advanced techniques). As the world seems gradually 
moving in a secular direction, aside from the backwater United States, a 
secular alternative is needed, assuming there is sufficient evidence that it is 
effective. But as the scientific evidence of whatever meditation does is 
typically quite weak this seems unlikely. The main problem seems to be each 
group that does research promotes their own group's technique exclusively and 
the research is heavily drenched with confirmation bias. 
 Neuroscientist Sam Harris is about to have a book published 'Waking Up, A 
Guide to Spirituality without Religion' and he is going on tour with it, 
lecturing and interacting with audiences to create a course which will be 
available. 
 To quote Harris: 
 This fall, I will stage a series of live events—in Los Angeles, New York, and 
San Francisco—to coincide with the publication of my new book, Waking Up: A 
Gu

[FairfieldLife] Re: Violet and Daisy mini movie review

At your age, I think probably you do not need to choose. :-|
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :
 It's just that this one was a retread of old 1960s SciFi ideas packaged so as 
to appeal to a drugged-out, energy drink-swilling, not-terribly-bright YA 
audience. I choose not to be one of them.  :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is there much of any truth to Counter-Revolutionary poison?

I hope that is a fact. When I looked up Quiet Time, all the references were 
about TM only, though I did not go through more than two pages on Google. So I 
do not know if this is some general programme for schools or just one promoted 
by the David Lynch Foundation.  

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

 As I understand it, an "alternative to TM" has been part of the Quiet Time 
program from the beginning. Kids and parents get to choose whether the kids 
will practice TM or some alternative (although that alternative might itself be 
religious, e.g., silent prayer). 

 

 It seems that some of the schools might attempt to put a secular alternative 
to TM in place for 'quiet time'.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is the Big Bang in the Bible?

Isn't that how Jesus was said to be born? 

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

 Personally, I don't think so since the Bible is not a science document.  But 
the current scientific verification of the Big Bang's "inflation" has stirred 
this question again. 

 http://news.yahoo.com/big-bang-bible-04314--politics.html 
http://news.yahoo.com/big-bang-bible-04314--politics.html

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is the Big Bang in the Bible?

But if space-time comes into existence with the Big Bang, how can a 'time 
before' be a meaningful question?
 

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

 But now many scientists are asking: what happened before the Big Bang?  Many 
of them think that they can find the answer in scientific terms.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC

The enlightened narrative runs out of steam after a certain point, it's like 
the standard musical form A B A. 
 A = ordinary life & B = spiritual path. The part everyone gets hopped up about 
is B. If you get really good at playing the tune suddenly you find once again 
your at A. I think it's worth it, but only because in returning to A you now 
know there are no alternatives to A. It's a good idea to finish the song, and 
not get stuck in the middle.
 

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

 you could always go the blog route.  you've got a catchy handle 

 Doctor Dumbass and Higher States of Consciousness.  nah.
 

 Doctor Dumbass and the Road to Bliss.  definitely nah
 

 Doctor Dumbass's Fireside Chats.  uh, maybe
 

 Doctor Dumbass: To Brahman and Beyond!.  You know, a play on BuzzLightYear
 

 Just an idea. (-:
 

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

 
 Easy Doc, don't take the inactivity personally.  
 

 People may just not be that interested in hearing the enlightened 
narrative..again, and again, and again.
 

 but hell, it had legs for a while  (-:

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

 oh shit, I forgot - spiritual development IS a popularity contest! 
Thanks Share and seventh. Great reminder. Where would we be without people like 
you?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC

2014-03-24 Thread anartaxius

Share wrote: My favorite question of her [Byron Katie] inquiry is: can you 
absolutely know that it's true? 
 This is about epistemology - theory of knowledge - that is, how do we know 
stuff, how do we come to justified belief instead of mere opinion. Most of what 
we know seems to be very second hand many times removed. Faith is a flawed 
epistemology because it substitutes an idea for which we have no direct 
experience and yet pretend it's true, in other words it's an attitude towards 
things we do not know, it puts ignorance on a pedestal. It is truly difficult 
to come to knowledge. If I cut my finger on something, there is a direct 
experience of pain, the sight of blood, some discomfort. But then if I theorise 
how that pain comes to be, I am on much much shakier ground. If I say, well 
'the nerves were stimulated'. But I have never seen a nerve - I read about it 
in a book or heard about it in a college lecture long ago. Somebody else said 
that, how do I know what they said is in fact true? I can't just say, well, 
'it's science'. Somebody it has been said investigated pain and nerves and 
whatnot, and perhaps that person has some kind of direct knowledge of that, but 
I only heard about it many times removed. How does science work. I do have some 
experience, I almost became one myself. I have friends who are scientists, I 
understand how it works. Buck, for example, does not know how science works, 
for him it seems to be faith, and faith is an unreliable epistemology. If Buck 
knew how science works, he would not be nearly so cocksure about its results or 
its truth.
 

 Metaphysics is another unreliable epistemology because it concerns things 
imagined but not directly in experience. The vast proliferation of metaphysical 
systems for which there is only second hand references is evidence of their 
epistemological unreliability. On the other hand we do have direct kinds of 
experience; the fly in the ointment is our interpretation of those experiences, 
for we could have a direct experience of hallucinating, and than interpret the 
content of that experience as something that is independently real of the 
experience, for example, Frodo is the creator of the universe, and he reigns in 
heaven with Samwise Gamgee at his side. If I interpret an experience like this 
as true, then I expect others truly ought to consider it true as well. (If you 
do not worship the relic of the tenth finger, you are damned for eternity.)
 

 For myself, I seem to know I have experience, i.e., there is consciousness. 
After that, everything is on much more unstable ground. Science takes the tack 
that a belief about the world is an hypothesis, that is, it is an informed 
conjecture that is constantly subject to confirmation. This is a practical kind 
of knowledge, but as we experience, scientific conjectures have repeatedly been 
overthrown and replaced with newer ones. I seem to know how to make coffee in 
the morning, and how to make chocolate chip cookies. But if I go into detail 
about what a chocolate chip cookie 'really is' there seems to be an 
insurmountable problem.

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

 turq, I do think that some of the people are simply genuinely enthused about 
their situation and thus sharing about it. Others I think sincerely want to 
help. Personally I like the Byron Katie model of becoming a spiritual teacher. 
She was in some kind of rehab place because that's all her insurance would 
cover. She had been banished to the attic by the others because she was such a 
rageaholic. One day she was cowering in terror under the bed. A cockroach 
crawled across her leg. Voila! she was awake!

Fortunately she did not go on to teach the *cower under a bed and let cockroach 
crawl across your leg" technique! She spent hours on the mesa. The Native 
Americans called her "She Who Listens To the Wind." 

Then friends started coming to her, telling her their problems. And The Work 
was born, a new form of inquiry, quite different from the traditional form of 
inquiry, who are you. My favorite question of her inquiry is: can you 
absolutely know that it's true?
 

 
 
 On Monday, March 24, 2014 2:43 AM, TurquoiseBee  wrote:
 
   Just to follow up, I honestly think that the whole problem with the BATGAP 
forum (not to mention the whole narcissistic subculture that has grown up 
around people having "awakening" experiences) is because of the cultural 
"career path" presented to them by traditional spiritual paths. 

The way this "career path" works -- according to the models they've been 
presented since Day One of their involvement with traditional spiritual 
teachings -- is that you "pay your dues" as a seeker, and finally "attain" 
enlightenment. At that point, the world *owes* you reverence as the "teacher" 
you've become. So they expect people to *treat* them like spiritual teachers, 
and sit back and listen to anything they say, the *same way they did* with 
their spiritual teachers.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC

2014-03-24 Thread anartaxius

Doctordumbass ---
 

 SHARE WROTE:
 Doc wrote to Xeno: Your current experience of enlightenment, Cosmic 
Consciousness, has a long way to go, before flowering fully.
 

 Doc, imo, someone in BC, Brahman Consciousness, would never say something like 
this to another person. In particular the bit about having a long way to go. 
Not to mention the bit about saying what state of consciousness another person 
is in! Can I absolutely know either of these for sure? No. But I'm 95% sure. Go 
figure!
 

 TURQUOISEBEE WROTE:
 Yeah, Xeno. You're only in Cosmic Consciousness, whereas Jimbo is SO much more 
enlightened than that. You have a long, long way to go before YOU can't tell a 
real Deepak Chopra quote from one written by a computer robot stringing BS 
phrases together at random. 
 

 Aren't you happy to learn that you've got so much to look forward to once you 
"flower fully" the way Jimbo has?  :-)  :-)  :-)
 

 And remember, this is the same guy who once said that Buddha (who didn't 
believe in a God) once taught that "God is love."  SO much to look forward to 
once you get over that puny CC stuff and become as highly evolved as he is.  
:-)  :-)  :-)
 

 DOCTORDUMBASS WROTE:
 Of course it fucking runs out of steam, dude. It is a comparison. Once the 
comparison is integrated, there is no more left to say. However there are 
several subjective experiences of enlightenment, each more full than the last. 
So, until we are discussing the relative merits of Brahman, there is plenty to 
clarify and discuss. Your current experience of enlightenment, Cosmic 
Consciousness, has a long way to go, before flowering fully.
 

 ANARTAXIUS WROTE:
 The enlightened narrative runs out of steam after a certain point, it's like 
the standard musical form A B A.
 

 A = ordinary life & B = spiritual path. The part everyone gets hopped up about 
is B. If you get really good at playing the tune suddenly you find once again 
your at A. I think it's worth it, but only because in returning to A you now 
know there are no alternatives to A. It's a good idea to finish the song, and 
not get stuck in the middle.
 

 
 

 I think the good doctor has made an error, I am not in 'Cosmic Consciousness'. 
I did have an experience like this over a third of a century ago. After 
learning TM, inner silence did grow pretty much according to the benchmark 
formula; it started to be evident after about 6 months. After five years or so 
it was extraordinarily strong. And then it vanished, and it never has returned. 
At the time, I thought I had fallen back to square one. It was a downer for 
sure. A dark era. Some people might call this the dark night of the soul, 
except I was never convinced there was such a thing as a soul. For the purpose 
of this post it would be good to assume I am solidly at square one. The good 
doctor made a mistake here. After so much time it is pretty clear that the 
experience of inner unbounded awareness is not going to flower.
 

 I also think the doctor misread my meaning in my  comments about the character 
of the process of enlightenment having the nature of the song form A B A. It is 
easy to have a different understanding of what someone says than the person who 
said it has, so there is no blame here. A, being in that post representing 
ordinary awareness, and B the spiritual path, I implied that B led to A. But it 
was not a comparison, in my mind (which is not the doctor's mind). Here is what 
I meant, but anyone is allowed to have a different interpretation. B, the 
spiritual path is not a reality, it is rather a set of ideas and practices that 
supposedly will get us to reality, or to a greater awareness of reality. It is 
thus that B not a truth, but a strategy. If the strategy works we find B is not 
really real. We find A is real. Thus B never really was real. There is no 
comparison here. I was implying that people get caught up in the spiritual 
path; after all we have all these religions floating about (and there is we 
posters here at FFL). 
 

 B does not lead to A, it destroys B, and the idea that there was something 
beyond A. It is an auto destructor if you will. In other words B is the 
flowering of a contaminant in A, as we come to B via A. In pursuing B the 
contaminant is destroyed, or rather seen through, and you end up with A again, 
minus some mental flack. If B fails, we have a religious or spiritual nut on 
our hands.
 

 When my alleged CC experience ended, I was not back at A at all even though 
that is what I thought at the time. I was just at another level of delusion and 
rather miserable in it. My attention, which had been very inward for years, 
turned outward into the world. That is another story, but it is just a story. I 
was never implying that A and B integrate. But as the good doctor says there is 
plenty to clarify and discuss, exactly what are the 'relative me

Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC

2014-03-24 Thread anartaxius

Response to Barry.
 

 In the TMO, fMRI is not used, but it might throw some light on what is 
happening in the brain when a person is experiencing inner silence. In this 
'development of consciousness' thing this is a benchmark that I have heard 
spoken of in more than one tradition as one of the effects of meditation, not 
just TM but mindfulness variations. The 'CC' benchmark is really the greatest 
point of contrast between activity and stillness when one is active and awake, 
after that the contrast ceases, and depending on the person slowly or rapidly 
or somewhere in between. I think the experiences you have had were similar to 
what I went through in the years before I learned TM. I would have these great 
moments of silence, and then they would fade. Later on, the whole thing just 
abruptly ended after having been seemingly stable. There may be no awakening at 
this point, but the setup is there. 
 

 Now even M mentioned, using the analogy of a building going up, that one can 
have a mix of different states going on, just as a building, unfinished, still 
has upper floors at least partially constructed while the bottom floors might 
be more or less complete. That is just an analogy. I don't thing these states 
have anything to do with the abstract concept of consciousness, they are just 
states of the mind as the fogginess of experience begins to clear away. We are 
all basically dupes while this is going on, but I am realising these days that 
a lot of people really do get sucked into the undertow of spiritual thinking 
and do not seem to be able to swim back to the surface. I also think it is a 
mistake to assume one will experience any spiritual benchmark in a delineated 
order, or even that one will experience all the benchmarks. Especially because 
there are different benchmarks in different systems.
 

 
 

 There are five reasons why otherwise reasonable people embrace absurd 
propositions: (1) they have a history of not formulating their beliefs on the 
basis of evidence; (2) they formulate their beliefs on what they thought was 
reliable evidence but wasn't; (3) they have never been exposed to competing 
epistemologies and beliefs; (4) they yield to social pressures; and (5) they 
devalue truth or are relativists. - Peter Boghossian (instructor of philosophy 
at Portland State University, Oregon 
http://www.pdx.edu/philosophy/peter-boghossian 
http://www.pdx.edu/philosophy/peter-boghossian)
 

 
 

 I think most of us have fallen into these traps at various times in our lives, 
sometimes is it really difficult to know if we have been scammed. I think I am 
probably less down on my time in the movement, and M than you are. I kept my 
profile low and I was able to disassociate TM from its religious entrapments, 
so it worked well for me, though now my meditation is more like a free flow 
cross between TM and Zazen. I just love to sit in bed at night sometimes for a 
couple of hours in silence doing nothing if I do not feel a need to fall asleep 
from fatigue. What I have noticed in the past few months is there is no longer 
any emphasis on experiences, no desire for deeper experience, but insight comes 
along from time to time. The idea of enlightenment seems really faded, but it 
still rears its little annoying head above the surface once in a while, it 
almost feels embarrassing. I suppose having this 'spiritual' arc in one's life 
has strange and disturbing effects because it never turns out like one 
expected, and in fact, the unexpectedness can be astonishing. I think the best 
course is to let it soak in and disappear almost as if it had never been, one 
needs some time to accommodate to what one has encountered. It is pretty hard 
to forget everything though, if one is approaching the sixth decade of doing 
this sort of thing.
 

I have not heard directly back from DoctorD at this point, for my next lesson. 
While this may seem strange, I actually wish he would talk more directly about 
his experience rather than telling others what theirs is. 
 

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

 Very similar to my own experience, except that my periods of 'CC' didn't last 
years. And they "came and went" many times over the period of a number of 
years. Lately they don't "come" at all, but I don't miss them. 

"Inner unbounded awareness" is overrated in my book. We know, as the result of 
our CC experiences, that's it there already, whether we notice it or not. 
Therefore, if it seems to go away, that's just us not noticing it. What does it 
matter whether its in the foreground of our awareness or the background?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC

I pretty much agree with most of your comments here. I am not into benchmarking 
anymore, but if I were to arrange the experiences I have had to, say, 
Maharishi's scheme, they would not generally fit at all. The only thing that 
really fit was that less mental chatter (i.e. 'silence') increased with time. 
My early experiences were with guided meditations, and there were some 
unity-like and GC-like experiences, short, not lasting type of things. After I 
learned TM, there was one strange period after about a year or so of meditation 
where there was a change in visual perception that followed a very definite 
pattern and that made the world seem as if it had some kind of vast alien 
personality, and it faded after about two or three months. After the 'inner 
pool of silence' vanished a few years later, a long flat period ensued, 
followed by an experience that basically was 'this whole spiritual thing is not 
real at all'. Then things were really fine for a few years and then there was 
some almost hallucinatory unstressing which then faded. That last thing I think 
is the sort of thing the TMO tries to sweep under the rug. I managed to seem 
fairly normal during that, and the only explanation I could find of why such an 
experience would occur when it did and had the character came from someone 
trained in Zen who explained it quite nicely, and then it faded and basically 
things have been on a plateau ever since. If anything my experiences lined up 
more with what I have been told or read about in Zen (I am not a Zen Buddhist). 
I don't know if Tibetan Buddhists have a scheme. And my experiences never 
resembled any Christian model.
 

 I have on my desk a chart called 'International Chronostratigraphic Chart' 
that benchmarks all the geological rock and fossil layers so far discovered on 
Earth. Geologists and Palaeontologists use this information when looking for 
stuff. It is nicely color coded. There is a map you can buy (from Paris) that 
shows the entire world color coded the same way. The thing is if you go to a 
particular country, much of what is in this chart is missing because either the 
rock has eroded away, or there was no sediment deposited or volcanic lava lava 
deposity. So as a set of benchmarks on a local scale, the chart is only 
partially useful. I think spiritual experiences are like this, on the 
individual level they have striking divergences from any generalised attempt to 
categorise them. Eventually everything seems to plateau, even though there is 
never a guarantee that something else will not happen. At at this point you 
just start living life instead of thinking about how great you were told it is 
going to be. There seem to be a lot of those on FFL where experiences just kind 
of plateaued, flattened out.
 

 The tip off with Robin's description of his experience, for example, was that 
he said it was exactly like Maharishi said it would be.
 

 Spiritually now I have been watching 'Justified'. As Elmore Leonard was an 
executive producer of the show, while other writers do each episode, Leonard 
said, as he was 'a producer', he can't just sit around on his ass, so he wrote 
more stories about Givens, and the other writers mine them for situations and 
dialogue; they even take stuff from his other stories that the producers have 
not licensed but as he is part of the team there does not seem to be a problem. 
He seems happy that his humour and style manages to get through in the show 
without being mangled. Most of the actors are from the South so the accent 
comes naturally to them. Olyphant (that's his real name) said he used a 
dialogue coach to prep for the role he plays and he said he enjoys having a 
role that has some humour in it. Elmore is dead now, and Olyphant will only do 
one more season (2015). All things come to an end.
 

 And that ends this thread.
 

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

 I'll try to respond to this, because you seem so earnest and all :-), but 
please understand going into it that I am at something of a disadvantage when 
discussing "enlightenment" in that I don't believe that there is any such state 
with a finite end. I seriously DO NOT believe in Maharishi's "7 states of 
consciousness," or that there is any "end point" of human evolution. If I 
believe anything at all, it's more from the Buddhist model, that there are tens 
of thousands of states of attention, *none* of them "the highest," *none* of 
them "the best."

 From: "anartaxius@..." 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 10:45 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
 
 
   Response to Barry.
 

 In the TMO, fMRI is not used, but it might throw some light on what is 
happening in the brain when a person is experiencing inner silence. In thi

Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC

Thanks.

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







Not quite. 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ecppB4IRFs 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ecppB4IRFs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMVd3ycUy60 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMVd3ycUy60

Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC

This flattening out is a different animal. It has nothing to do with meditation 
at this point. It has to do with the concept of transcendence being part of the 
mental illusion from which 'the spiritual path' is constructed. 

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

 To avoid "flattening out" for a prolounged period of time Maharishi organized 
for everyone to have advanced techniques once in a while, 9 of these are 
available. Highly recommended.
 

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

 And then it plateaued.
 

 

 Eventually everything seems to plateau, even though there is never a guarantee 
that something else will not happen. At at this point you just start living 
life instead of thinking about how great you were told it is going to be. There 
seem to be a lot of those on FFL where experiences just kind of plateaued, 
flattened out.
 

 The tip off with Robin's description of his experience, for example, was that 
he said it was exactly like Maharishi said it would be.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC

So, what do you make of the first sentence on the page you linked to at the 
bottom of your post. If Buddhism is all about enlightenment, what does this 
experience represent? Does it indicate that all those commentaries and books, 
which presumably discuss enlightenment, might have something wrong with them? 
Like maybe they were all nonsense?
 

"Immediately following his Awakening experience Zen master Te Shan burnt all of 
his commentaries and books on Zen that he had carried with him everywhere he 
went."
 

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

 On 3/25/2014 4:25 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote:

 If I believe anything at all, it's more from the Buddhist model, that there 
are tens of thousands of states of attention, *none* of them "the highest," 
*none* of them "the best." >
 So, you believe in Buddhas - a Buddha that did not attain enlightenment. You 
may be surprised to know that there is no "Buddhism" without enlightenment. 
It's a contradiction in terms.
 
 Apparently you don't understand any Tibetan. Go look up "Anutarra samyak 
sambodhi." You should be excused for this lapse, since you apparently studied 
Buddhism under Fred Lenz - he apparently left out a lot. Go figure.
 
 http://wanderling.tripod.com/anuttara.html 
http://wanderling.tripod.com/anuttara.html

[FairfieldLife] The Path Between Pseudo-Spirituality and Pseudo-Science

Blog post by Sam Harris: 

 
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-path-between-pseudo-spirituality-and-pseudo-science
 
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-path-between-pseudo-spirituality-and-pseudo-science

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ejecting Quiet time meditation from our public schools

Exactly what are the mechanics by which the puja keeps the purity of the 
teaching? Simply saying x does y does not show that that actually happens. 
Seeing the results of the purity of the teaching here on FFL makes one wonder 
more than a bit. What in fact IS the purity of the teaching? What is done? What 
is said? The result? I would think ultimately, the result would be the proof. 
'The proof of the pudding is in the eating.' 

 Knowledge is different in different states of consciousness. So who but 
Maharishi knew what he meant? If it means what Maharishi says it means, that 
means everyone must be in Maharishi's state of consciousness (or rather the one 
he used to be in), to know exactly what he meant by this.
 

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

 How can you possibly say that? 

 The TM  puja means what maharishi says it means. He said it was to be used to 
keep the purity of the teaching so therefore, it is meant to keep the purity of 
teh teaching.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: No Mantra will cure willfully arrogant stupidity

Share, I have always wondered about how the human brain resembles cauliflower. 
Think of how much Vedic knowledge could be mined from that vegetable. Title: 
Veda and Brassica oleracea. I think that would appeal to vegetarians, as unlike 
the brain, it is not made of meat.
 

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

 salyavin, I think you were the one asking about Ganesh. Dr. Nader's insights 
begin on pg. 341 of his book on Veda and human physiology. Makes me appreciate 
his genius again. The illustrations clearly show the resemblance to the human 
brain and even specific parts: the pons, medulla, cerebellum, trigeminal and 
other nerves. 

 
 
 On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 9:59 AM, salyavin808  
wrote:
 
   Yes, we have no religion.
 

 The trouble with your interpretation is that it sounds like you want to have 
your cake and eat it. Best of both worlds. Trouble is, it isn't what he means. 
I read his first book of discoveries and the claim is that vedic literature is 
present in human physiology. Not a metaphor, actually present. And responsible 
for. He claims to have a one-to-one correlation between Indian stories and the 
human body. I bet I could find similar coincidences with, say, the works of 
Steven King. Just read the section on jyotish, all the planets have a direct 
connection to parts of the brain, this is offered as an explanation for the 
"physics" of astrology but not all the planets are represented because the 
ancients didn't know about anything beyond the orbit of Saturn due to them not 
having telescopes.
 

 You can go through the whole book like that, it makes no sense and is 
astoundingly poor science, but it's used as justification for "modalities" like 
MVVT and other new age dropsy like yagya's. Believe one and you get an idea of 
how the rest of it works. Except it doesn't. Obviously, not beyond the 
expectations of a placebo anyway.
 

 And the idea of deities as "aspects of natural law" sounds unfortunate to me, 
because the laws of nature are even less likely to change because of prayers 
than the god's appear to be. This is because they are laws rather than 
reasonable beings, laws don't change, that's what makes them reliable and stops 
the universe falling apart.
 

 (Note I clicked on the 'show message history' bit so you know what I'm talking 
about.
 

 
 

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

 My interpretation of what he said is that the Ramayana can be seen as (among 
other things) an extended metaphor for how the human nervous system operates, 
with one-to-one correspondence between various literary/plot elements in the 
book, and actual aspects of our physical nervous system and how the parts 
interact. 

 So, from THAT perspective, the battles of the Ramayana can be seen as taking 
place in our bodies.
 

 L

Re: [FairfieldLife] Non-Celebrity TM Endorsements

But in binary form 60 is 00, the two zeros indicate encroaching senility. 
Very propitious. While in a base 4 number system I am 1021 years old. That 
makes me older than Methusala, and the 21 means I am still fit to vote in the 
United States, and drink beer. 'Auspicious' comes from a Latin root meaning 
'divination from observing the flight of birds'. 'Auspicious' is thus a 
bird-brain concept. 

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

 You are, Lawson. Enjoy it while it lasts (-:
PS In India, 60 is the really auspicious birthday, so I've heard...
 

 
 
 On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 12:44 PM, "LEnglish5@..."  wrote:
 
   I guess I'm a young'n. I'm not yet 59.
 

 L

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Neural Correlates of Consciousness?

2014-03-27 Thread anartaxius

I would love to get into this particular discussion but probably could not 
devote the time to extended discussion. But I would like to drop a few bombs.
 

 Lawson said:
 '...PC is without any kind of perception at all -sensory, thinking, intuition, 
whatever.'
 

 Now when I was in the hospital many years ago, I had that very experience 
under anaesthesia, so was I experiencing PC at that point? If PC has no kind of 
perception at all, then all states like this are experientially 
undifferentiated. I recall that PC really has something like a tiny 
self-referral loop. It also involves memory because you could never tell if you 
experienced it if you could not remember it happened. So I think of PC as the 
mind being still. The moniker 'pure consciousness' is kind of misleading. Even 
the thought 'I was experiencing pure consciousness' is a contradiction. Because 
it implies something conscious is experiencing consciousness, the way 
homunculus theories of the way the brain works. Basically PC is a description 
that can help when you are learning meditation etc., but at some point you have 
to leave it behind because it ultimately does not make any sense.
 

 The crux of this problem is dualist thinking. Remember Maharishi said 
'infinity at every point' (unity), that consciousness was essentially 
completely delocalised, decentralised. Consciousness neither expands nor 
changes, and would seem to be incorporeal, although I do not intend to get into 
that argument. Therefore because of those 'properties' it can never be measured 
nor can it ever have correlates as a result. This problems comes of thinking of 
consciousness as something like a sensor, like the digital sensor in a camera, 
that picks up data from the world and from inside the body. The brain and 
senses are basically a central processor with sensors attached just like a 
computer with a microphone and video camera and speakers. What is being 
measured is the mechanics of the processor and and the pathways and mechanics 
of the sensors and output devices. This has nothing to do with consciousness 
except in every possible situation, there is the being of that situation, its 
ontological existence. I am saying that consciousness cannot be investigated 
scientifically as public experimental knowledge. It is not an entity, a thing, 
or really, even a field. It's mysterious yes. What we do when me meditate, by 
whatever method is we are reprogramming our central processor system to alter 
its appreciation and interpretation of the concept of consciousness; 
consciousness itself remains untouched by this. As Maharishi said (1967), 
consciousness does not expand, mind expands.
 

 I practiced TM the whole time except for the first few years. I am aiming at 
my sixth decade, and I would say my experience pretty much confirms what Sue 
Blackmore (with her Cool-Aid coloured hair) says. Blackmore, as far as her 
manner of expression, seems to me to be influenced by philosopher Dan Dennett, 
whose understanding of consciousness seems rather murky. Blackmore though, does 
meditate (Zen), and her view of the consciousness problem is far more 
multifaceted than Dennett's, or in fact, of the way TM meditators tend to view 
this situation. If my meditations now sometimes resemble Zen-like meditation, 
it is because TM brought me to that experience, it irrevocably shifted the way 
my brain interprets experience and interprets the terminology used to describe 
experience.
 

 The idea of there being no self is the central linchpin of Buddha's 
description of reality. But this is isomorphically equivalent to Maharishi's 
'infinity at every point', or the Upanishadic 'self' becoming the 'Self', for 
then the 'self' is no more. Characterising unified experience as 'Self' though 
seems misleading. Atman = Brahman might be better because in English at any 
rate the words do not quite so much imply some kind of entity. This is 
equivalent to saying 'I and my Father are one' (Jesus). The words are symbols 
of experience, not the realities of experience. That is isomorphically the same 
as saying when you meditate, by whatever successful method (there are some 
methods that do not work very well), the experience of being a localised, 
centralised something that observes the world defocuses via reprogramming the 
brain until there is the experience of the mind, body, and world as essentially 
a single thingy that is not thing like at all. As the mind clears out much of 
its conditioned programming there is the feeling of expansion. Like being in a 
cluttered room, if you clear some space around you, there is a feeling of more 
freedom, expansion, space. This is clearing out process is sometimes 
interpreted as 'expansion of consciousness'. As the conditioning clears away by 
means of meditation the experience becomes more like awake empty space and with 
time it expands outward into the sensory experience as well, like the bow shock 
wave of an explosion, until it enc

Re: [FairfieldLife] The Experiment.

This reminds me of the following story: 

 When the spiritual teacher and his disciples began their evening meditation, 
the cat who lived in the monastery made such noise that it distracted them. So 
the teacher ordered that the cat be tied up during the evening practice. Years 
later, when the teacher died, the cat continued to be tied up during the 
meditation session. And when the cat eventually died, another cat was brought 
to the monastery and tied up. Centuries later, learned descendants of the 
spiritual teacher wrote scholarly treatises about the religious significance of 
tying up a cat for meditation practice.
 
-
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 That's really how the TMO "shoot the messenger" philosophy is taught: "That's 
just how things are done around here." 

 From: salyavin808 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 4:47 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] The Experiment.

Re: [FairfieldLife] IS TM and Effortless Practice?

Note that the subject of this thread 'IS TM and Effortless Practice' is 
nonsensical because of a couple of typos.
 

 The first part 'IS TM'  would seem to be asking if there is such as thing as 
TM, unless this means there is something called 'IS TM' whose existence is 
being questioned. 
 Maybe it means Integrated Systems Transcendental Medication, a new kind of 
pill from 'IS'
 

 This is conjoined with 'Effortless Practice' with the conjunction 'and'.
 

 Is there such a thing as 'Effortless Practice' as well as something called 
'TM'?

Re: [FairfieldLife] IS TM and Effortless Practice?

No, I was having fun, but I was unaware of Michael's situation at home. The 
first typo is 'IS' instead of 'Is' and the second typo is 'and' instead of 
'an'. 

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

 He knows that. He's just being disagreeable. And there's only one typo, not "a 
couple" as he says. 

 

 It was supposed to read "Is TM an Effortless Practice?" 
 
 
 Note that
 the subject of this thread 'IS TM and
 Effortless Practice' is nonsensical because of a couple
 of typos.
 The first
 part 'IS TM'  would seem to be asking if there
 is such as thing as TM, unless this means there is something
 called 'IS TM' whose existence is being
 questioned. Maybe it
 means Integrated Systems Transcendental Medication, a new
 kind of pill from 'IS'
 This is
 conjoined with 'Effortless Practice' with the
 conjunction 'and'.
 Is there
 such a thing as 'Effortless Practice' as well as
 something called 'TM'?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is TM an Effortless Practice?

With regard to effortlessness, exactly what would be regarded as 'effortless'? 
The definition of effortless is 'requiring no physical or mental exertion'. The 
word has synonyms easy
 offhand
 painless
 uncomplicated
 child's play
 cursive
 duck soup
 facile
 flowing
 fluent
 light
 no problem
 no sweat
 picnic
 piece of cake
 royal
 running
 simple
 smooth
 snap
 undemanding
 untroublesome
 

 Now if you take Zen meditation, and remove the posture requirements usually 
associated with it and also allow the eyes to close, and just sit comfortably 
and do nothing, not even starting a mantra, just being still, this would seem 
pretty effortless. The mind just goes where it will and whatever experience 
comes through the senses also is just handled like in TM, basically take it as 
it comes. From the information published online by Adyashanti, he seems to 
recommend something like this. He even calls it 'True Meditation' and describes 
it as the 'natural state'. I think good quality comparative research might be 
revealing here, as both these kinds of meditation seem to have produced very 
positive results for people in spite of some interesting differences (which 
Lawson mentioned in a post earlier).
 

 The argument that meditation x is 0.01% more effortless than meditation y 
seems to be pointless splitting hairs. Perhaps research might show that doing 
two different kinds of meditation might produce superior results to just one 
kind. There is also the issue of what feels natural to the person meditating.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is TM an Effortless Practice?

Depending on the context, capitalisation certainly can be used for emphasis, 
but in this case it looks like a mistake because the word 'is' is so short. On 
a forum that allows some typeface adjustment I would have used 'Is TM an 
effortless practice?' In HTML there are elements (tags)   and  one 
can place around a word which are usually rendered italic and bold 
respectively. These work with audio rendition as well as visual rendition (if 
the software supports) rather than being merely visual decorative formatting. 
The method of using asterisks can also be useful for plain text: 

 *Is* TM an Effortless Practice?
 

 At any rate I did not read the heading as being emphasised but just
 

 Is TM an Effortless Practice?
 

 Any other molehills we can make mountains out of?
 -

 

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

 As Xeno knows, all-caps are often used for emphasis in Web comments. 

 No, I was having fun, but I was unaware of Michael's situation at home. The 
first typo is 'IS' instead of 'Is' and the second typo is 'and' instead of 
'an'. 

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

 He knows that. He's just being disagreeable. And there's only one typo, not "a 
couple" as he says. 

 

 It was supposed to read "Is TM an Effortless Practice?" 
 
 
 Note that
 the subject of this thread 'IS TM and
 Effortless Practice' is nonsensical because of a couple
 of typos.
 The first
 part 'IS TM'  would seem to be asking if there
 is such as thing as TM, unless this means there is something
 called 'IS TM' whose existence is being
 questioned. Maybe it
 means Integrated Systems Transcendental Medication, a new
 kind of pill from 'IS'
 This is
 conjoined with 'Effortless Practice' with the
 conjunction 'and'.
 Is there
 such a thing as 'Effortless Practice' as well as
 something called 'TM'?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is TM an Effortless Practice?

Like Jack Daniel's burning holes through your karma. Smooth. (Although on the 
web some say Jack Daniels is for pussies: 

 It isn't so much that Jack is bad, (but it ain't great) it is that outside of 
being drank neat, it isn't detectable as whiskey, it’s more of a light sweet 
water.  Jack & Coke is something that children vomit from on their birthdays.  
Much like light beer, Jack’s loyalty lies in the fear of something different 
and the fear of not knowing what to order in a bar.)
 

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

 Xeno, for me the best descriptors would be the words flowing and simple. But I 
bet others would choose different words as the best descriptors.
 

 On Friday, March 28, 2014 3:48 PM, "anartaxius@..."  wrote:
 
   With regard to effortlessness, exactly what would be regarded as 
'effortless'? The definition of effortless is 'requiring no physical or mental 
exertion'. The word has synonyms
 easy
 offhand
 painless
 uncomplicated
 child's play
 cursive
 duck soup
 facile
 flowing
 fluent
 light
 no problem
 no sweat
 picnic
 piece of cake
 royal
 running
 simple
 smooth
 snap
 undemanding
 untroublesome
 

 Now if you take Zen meditation, and remove the posture requirements usually 
associated with it and also allow the eyes to close, and just sit comfortably 
and do nothing, not even starting a mantra, just being still, this would seem 
pretty effortless. The mind just goes where it will and whatever experience 
comes through the senses also is just handled like in TM, basically take it as 
it comes. From the information published online by Adyashanti, he seems to 
recommend something like this. He even calls it 'True Meditation' and describes 
it as the 'natural state'. I think good quality comparative research might be 
revealing here, as both these kinds of meditation seem to have produced very 
positive results for people in spite of some interesting differences (which 
Lawson mentioned in a post earlier).
 

 The argument that meditation x is 0.01% more effortless than meditation y 
seems to be pointless splitting hairs. Perhaps research might show that doing 
two different kinds of meditation might produce superior results to just one 
kind. There is also the issue of what feels natural to the person meditating.

Re: [FairfieldLife] The Self Course Fairfield

2014-03-31 Thread anartaxius

Hey Nabby, why are you so down on Buddhists? A few sects of this tradition
still produces 'enlightenment', though as with all traditions, there do not
seem to be a lot of successes in this department. It does not seem to me that
Turq is party to any tradition these days. And, for example, what does Benjamin
Creme have to do with enlightenment? Has he gotten you closer to that goal? It
seems these days that 'traditions' are going downhill in that the pursuit of
spiritual values is taking on a more personal kind of search, and a more
secular kind of search for the world's population as a whole, and the more
medieval pockets of spirituality, the Christian fundies and Muslim fundies, for
example, are actually becoming more isolated in this wash of change.
Agnosticism and atheism are on the rise as well as religious persons becoming
more non affiliated.

From what I have heard locally, TM initiations have improved due to time
payment plans and scholarships. The movement has been forced to change its
monetary models, otherwise it will disappear. Religions, once the initial cult
phase is over generally switch to a donation model once the charms of the
leader no longer are relevant. This requires future generations of TBs to be
programmed to feel this is a valuable thing to do. Also payment for 'special
services' also comes into the picture from time to time.

Religious organisations can be in a bind, because in order to preserve their
special legacy, they are inhibited from being really creative and coming up
with new stuff and new ways to say the same old thing, they tend to say it in
the same old way, so unlike a business, they cannot survive on creativity. So
models like automatic tithing etc., have to be programmed into the population.
This also reduces creativity if it is successful because now the leaders do not
have to think intelligently or creatively to maintain the organisation, if they
can achieve a regular cash flow in this way.

The big problem is keeping the population in the fold, because if
enlightenment works, the person is freed from the whole illusion of tradition
from which the experience supposedly came, but actually did not. Thus the
survival of the organisation ultimately depends on its main benefit becoming
scarcer and scarcer as time goes on. Instead of success, people are kept
indefinitely in anticipation of success.

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

MJ isn't the only loser who struggle with their success these days. When the
Turq, in one of his usual rants against the TMO demanded to know how low the
Initiations are these days it turned out that their income for 2012 was $ 47,8
million. Since this was published here we haven't heard a word about the matter
from the Turq. Perhaps his Buddhist Overlords have convinced him to lay low for
a while.

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

You''ve always got it figured out Michael. Doesn't matter how many twists and
turns you have to make, the conclusion is always the same. So what if the TMO
has adjusted their message, or their pitch? That's what organizations do.
Maybe the problem you're having is that they seem to be having some success.
Let's face it, that's wall galls you. And really, I don't think you're ashamed
to admit it.

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

You are both full of it - the TMO is attempting to tap into a new tier of
customers and they are doing it in part to distance themselves from the Old
Goat because they know he has become a liability. I know what you are saying,
as to M's references to the Self, but they have never done an ad campaign like
this - everything they do is a calculated move to gain adherents, money and
like the idiots they are, create a "vedic" society.

On Mon, 3/31/14, steve.sundur@... mailto:steve.sundur@... mailto:steve.sundur@...> wrote:

Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] The Self Course Fairfield
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, March 31, 2014, 12:19 PM

Now that was
a "good catch" Judy.

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,

wrote :

Er, Michael,
more likely the New Age got "It's all the
Self" from TM. The Self has always been a TM thing.
It's what you're said to experience when you
transcend, remember? Boy, you are really out in
left field here.

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,

wrote :

Oh
my God! Its happening - pulling away from its Hindu and then
"it's all science" roots and tapping into the
vague New Age ""it's all the Self"
hoodoo! These TM'ers are SHAMELESS in selling the
nostrums.

On Mon, 3/31/14,
nablusoss1008 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com>
wrote:

Subject: [FairfieldLife] The Se

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield Venture Fund

2014-04-01 Thread anartaxius

The path of enlightenment ends in a number of ways. One can get tired of it and 
just drop the whole thing out of disinterest. One can die or become mentally 
incapacitated. And there are two forms of disillusionment. One is it didn't 
work out as expected, with a feeling of grave disappointment resulting from the 
discovery that it was not nearly as good as one believed it would be or worse. 
The other is it didn't work out as expected, but the disillusionment is the 
kind that was originally intended by the word enlightenment, and then things 
are pretty much as they always were, and OK. It seems to me MJ is pissed and 
has a long term grudge because he was fired from MIU for not going to the dome, 
and that not going to the dome had a valid medical reason. Most employees in 
the United States work 'at will' which means that a person can be fired for any 
reason that is not illegal. MJ's firing seems to be in an interesting grey area 
legally, and it probably could not have been fleshed out without a lawsuit to 
test the case. Most people on staff in the movement though, as 'serfs', do not 
have the resources to challenge the movement's sometimes bizarre decisions. 
Going to the dome as a condition of employment, regardless of the 
unsupportability of the hypothesis for going there, and yet being exposed to 
hazardous substances there that require medical intervention would be an 
interesting test case. As with everyone else, people working and administering 
in cults and other peculiar organisations are just getting through the day. If 
they do strange and dark things, they probably do not see it that way at all, 
they are just getting though another day with whatever resources are available 
to them. Sometimes the mind cannot let go even when the situation is clear it 
is never going to be resolved the way we would like. Usually one is miserable 
in such a situation.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield Venture Fund

2014-04-01 Thread anartaxius

id me a big favor by getting me out of cult central sooner than I 
otherwise would have. 
 
 I also remind you that when I first was called on the carpet for non-Dome 
attendance and showed him my letter from my allergist and all that, I asked for 
a compromise which was to allow me to go meditate with the meditators, rather 
than the sidhas in the Dome. That way I could fulfill the letter of my staff 
agreement to do group program, not be exposed to the formaldehyde and other 
gasses in the Domes, stay healthy, happy, have good experiences and do my part 
working for MIU with a happier healthier body. But nooo! "We can't have 
none of that!" said Billy Boy. He felt it was tantamount to blasphemy for me to 
even suggest as a sidha to do program with the lowly meditators and not do my 
sidhis.
 
 I saw his blind goosestepping adherence to "policy" was more important to him 
than keeping things running smoothly and keeping the personnel happy. Typical 
cult behavior to blindly follow protocol and not think independently - but I 
also didn't ask to actually see the written policies that might cover such 
exceptions as I was asking for, I suspect that some of what he told me was Bill 
Sands' personal policy and not anything in writing on the part of MIU. I had 
the feeling that a number of the big wigs pulled that a few times when I was 
there. 
 
 So much for your theory. I am happily not at MIU anymore and I can assure you 
if the TMO is ever foolish enough to try to insinuate themselves in the schools 
here in SC, they better come loaded for bear, cause there'll be a bear waiting 
on 'em.
 
 On Tue, 4/1/14, anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@...> wrote:
 
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield Venture Fund
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Tuesday, April 1, 2014, 5:50
 
 
 The path of enlightenment ends in a
 number of ways. One can get tired of it and just drop the
 whole thing out of disinterest. One can die or become
 mentally incapacitated. And there are two forms of
 disillusionment. One is it didn't work out as expected,
 with a feeling of grave disappointment resulting from the
 discovery that it was not nearly as good as one believed it
 would be or worse. The other is it didn't work out as
 expected, but the disillusionment is the kind that was
 originally intended by the word enlightenment, and then
 things are pretty much as they always were, and
 OK.It seems to me MJ is pissed and
 has a long term grudge because he was fired from MIU for not
 going to the dome, and that not going to the dome had a
 valid medical reason. Most employees in the United States
 work 'at will' which means that a person can be
 fired for any reason that is not
 illegal.MJ's firing seems to be in
 an interesting grey area legally, and it probably could not
 have been fleshed out without a lawsuit to test the case.
 Most people on staff in the movement though, as
 'serfs', do not have the resources to challenge the
 movement's sometimes bizarre decisions. Going to the
 dome as a condition of employment, regardless of the
 unsupportability of the hypothesis for going there, and yet
 being exposed to hazardous substances there that require
 medical intervention would be an interesting test
 case.As with everyone else, people
 working and administering in cults and other peculiar
 organisations are just getting through the day. If they do
 strange and dark things, they probably do not see it that
 way at all, they are just getting though another day with
 whatever resources are available to
 them.Sometimes the mind cannot let
 go even when the situation is clear it is never going to be
 resolved the way we would like. Usually one is miserable in
 such a situation.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield Venture Fund

2014-04-01 Thread anartaxius

I did not say I did not like what you write. Generally I find it interesting 
and on point, it just seems a bit obsessive at times. And I never implied how 
you should live your life. I don't know how you live your life and frankly 
almost do not care. I just am curious because something of our lives shows 
through in what we write, usually not what we intend, at least in the eyes of 
others. 

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

 thanks for telling me how to live my life, that was one of the reasons I got 
away from the TM'ers - if you don't like what I write, don't read it
 ----
 On Tue, 4/1/14, anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@...> wrote:
 
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield Venture Fund
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Tuesday, April 1, 2014, 8:10 PM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Hey Michael, fantasy is a way of life on FFL.
 And April 1 is the day of the year where lies are
 sanctioned. You can also see the effect time and memory have
 on recollection and interpretation. I have read all the
 things you wrote previously some time ago. And what I wrote
 was an hypothesis, not a theory, as there was no evidence it
 could be true, only suppositions. I observed much of what
 you have said at MIU as well, I am just not so negative
 about the movement. I regard it as a kind of wind-up clock
 of mental conditioning, and the spring is slowly unwinding.
 Complaining about a faulty watch incessantly is a waste of
 time, throw it away or buy or steal a new one, or look at
 the sun to get the time. 
 Interesting how no two human minds
 ever agree. Do you think there is such a thing as
 enlightenment? It seemed to me people who chose to work in
 the movement were interested in the concept. I suppose I am
 curious as to your thoughts on that idea now.
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 

 wrote :
 
 I am glad you are
 capable of such fantasy - you might try writing a novel
 based on your musings and put them to good use, but you are
 wrong on all counts - at the time the Bill Sands gave me the
 boot, I was chagrined for about five minutes with him in
 Brad's office (Brad O'Nash - then kitchen director)
 because I had no place else to go, no money and no
 transportation and at the time I was into the lifestyle of
 livin' poor and having the rent, utilities and food
 taken care of and still had some good friends there I was
 not ready to leave.
 
 
 
 But when I saw that Billy was getting revenge for my having
 gone over his head some months before, going to Greg Wilson
 to get an exception to the gotta be in the Dome rule, I
 realized I had to roll with what I was being dealt. 
 
 
 
 It was during the last exchange when I came back to myself.
 I shakily asked how long after the DAC banquet was over with
 till I had to get out and he said "Five o'clock.
 The banquet will be over at noon on Sunday, you have to
 vacate your room and have all your belongings out by five
 o'clock that afternoon."
 
 
 
 "What! You're crazy! That's not fair! I need
 more time."
 
 
 
 Bill, with a supercilious look on his face,
 ""That's MIU policy. If you aren't working
 for MIU, you can't stay on campus." He actually
 have his head inclined so that he was looking down his nose
 at me.
 
 
 
 As the exchange proceeded, I got quite ticked off and told
 them that if they were going to do that, I was going to pack
 and leave right then, and they could run the bakery
 themselves through the big DAC banquet. Bill indignantly
 reminded me that I had just promised to work the banquet and
 he was going to hold me to it. I reminded him that he was
 treating me with no regard and I insisted I needed more
 time. He said no, and I said yes. 
 
 
 
 Finally he asked me how much time and I said two weeks. He
 and Brad both said no in a flustered and indignant tone to
 which I replied that they were welcome to make bread and
 desserts from then till and through the DAC banquet. They
 protested and I got out of my chair to leave and pack. Bill
 disgustedly agreed. I walked out and in the next few hours I
 was a little uncertain as to what I would do, but by the end
 of the next day I had made my exit plans, arranged for
 transportation, gotten a temp job in Indiana that paid me
 enough to get me back to South Carolina and I was satisfied.
 
 
 
 
 By the time I left MIU I knew I didn't want to work for
 the Movement again - ever! and be subject to the whims of
 jackasses like Sands (and folk like Chris Crowell who was
 one of the most look down on lowly meditators who are not
 sidhas and look down on sidhas who aren't governors and
 look down on governors who have no money or status in the
 Movement I have ever seen). 
 
 
 
 But I foolishly had

[FairfieldLife] Re: Dave Barry

2014-04-03 Thread anartaxius

Ann, I think this is probably my favourite Dave Barry piece, because it 
highlights the differences in the way different human minds interpret 
experience.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Research Shows Group Meditation Can Reduce Crime Rates

I recall the marketing for the TM-Sidhi programme and it was pretty much as 
Barry has said. I found the following on the MUM website (*emphasis added*): 

 The World Peace Project
 

 *Immediately following the discovery of the Super-Radiance effect in the Fall 
off 1978*, Maharishi decided to apply it to resolve conflicts in the 
international arena. More than 1400 experts in the Transcendental Meditation 
and TM-Sidhi program were sent for approximately two months (November and 
December, 1978) to several trouble spots of the world, including Central 
America (Nicaragua), the Middle East (Lebanon), Southern Africa 
(Rhodesia-Zimbabwe) and Zambia), and to Southeast Asia (Cambodia) as well as to 
surrounding countries.

 

  (the portion I quoted is about halfway down the page)

 

 Therefore it seems extremely unlikely that the Sidhi programme was marketed as 
a group phenomenon prior to this time. I knew several of the governors who went 
off on those excursions from New York. The marketing before that was all super 
powers and faster evolution. I was told the movement wanted to get rights to 
use the Superman comic book character to advertise, but was refused.

 

 From a scientific view, 'discovery' is premature, for from a scientific point 
of view, the jury on this concept has not even yet been convened, as the 
science has not been confirmed outside movement sources, and is thus ignored 
outside the meditator community except as a news item from time to time.
 

 This brings up an interesting question for me. I have observed that most 
people who enter into spiritual circles tend to bring with them a number of 
supersitions, and spiritual movements tend to be a hot bed of superstitious 
ideas. People within the TM fold seem to hold all sorts of ideas about reality 
that are not part of the TM canon.

 

 What was Maharishi like when he entered into his spiritual circle, what sort 
of ideas did he have, how did he understand the world prior and during and 
after his time with Saraswati? Most people seem to change ideas rather slowly 
except during religious conversion, or sometimes in the face of overwhelming 
evidence. My hypothesis is the tendency to be superstitious persists while 
meditating or even doing hard science. So my question is how much nonsense did 
Maharishi inherit and eventually pass on to us?
 

 In addition there are other behavioural features of belief systems. In the 
classic study 'When Prophesy Fails' 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails) believers that expected 
certain events to occur had those hopes dashed, but interestingly, before the 
failure they were very secretive about their beliefs, but after the failure 
they went into proselytising mode, trying to get many more into their mode of 
belief. This is a bizarre conclusion considering the evidence that the ideas 
simply totally failed, but human nature is not strictly rational. This seems to 
be the mental characteristic of spiritual movements whose predictions did not 
come to pass, that it does not matter if what was said is not true.
 

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

 From: "dhamiltony2k5@..." 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Friday, April 4, 2014 3:37 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Research Shows Group Meditation Can Reduce Crime 
Rates
 
 
   Nope. Well, Turquoiseb is in error about his 1978 assertion and you are 
wrong for thinking he is right. 

 

 I am not. I was there, and was on one of the first TM Sidhi courses, *while 
working at the TM National Center*, so I am pretty aware of how these courses 
were marketed and what was said about them at that time. There was NO MENTION 
of any "group effect" from the TM Sidhis before I left the TM movement in 1978. 

Any mention of the "Maharishi Effect" in the original 1976 Collected Papers was 
added later, in editions that had been subjected to "revisionist history." The 
term hadn't even been *invented* in 1976. 

 If you think differently, prove it. Otherwise I have the right to consider you 
as delusional as I often do anyway. 

 

 You guys just want to hate on Maharishi at every turn. The Meissner-Like 
Effect of consciousness coherence in the “Maharishi Effect” in publication goes 
back to at least [ 1976 ] with the publishing of paper 98 in The Scientific 
Research on Transcendental Meditation, Collected Papers, Vol 1 and its 
introduction and preface in such. It was known and talked around before that on 
courses and conferences as the early 1970's research was being published in a 
sequence.  You guys obviously were not there.
 -Buck
 

 mjackson74 writes:

 I have never seen that article before - give great historical perspective - 
especially the comment that they expected several thousand sidha permanently in 
Fairfield - guess they got that one wrong - also love the comment about 
Marshy's stretch limo.
 
 On Fri, 4/4/1

Re: [FairfieldLife] Research Shows Group Meditation Can Reduce Crime Rates

Buck, Maharishi did a lot of interesting things. In the world of science, 
however, it is data and confirmation of hypotheses that drive forward. A 
scientist that has a successful career is basically working to extend 
knowledge, and does so by superseding, by surpassing his mentors, and in 
science that means showing what your mentors did was in some way wrong, and 
that the newer knowledge is less wrong (still might not be right though). The 
question here is does TM and its related things accomplish what it is said to 
do? Does it work uniformly or non-uniformly on those who practise it? What 
percentage of practitioners truly reach the stated goals? How good is the data? 
Was the data processed properly? I think the results, which were eventually 
good for me, are nonetheless very uneven, and essentially, because movement 
science is largely ignored by the wider community, unproved.
 

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

 Once the Heidelberg color presses were purchased [early 1970's] Maharishi 
published in cycle through the decades major volumes that he edited that show 
the progression of the science, thought, and programs. It was all for linking 
modern science research in spirituality. He was remarkably progressive, 
visionary and revolutionary all at once. I feel you guys should respect him 
more as the rishi, teacher, and scientist he was.
 -Buck
 

 

 Nope. Well, Turquoiseb is in error about his 1978 assertion and you are wrong 
for thinking he is right. 
 

 I am not. I was there, and was on one of the first TM Sidhi courses, *while 
working at the TM National Center*, so I am pretty aware of how these courses 
were marketed and what was said about them at that time. There was NO MENTION 
of any "group effect" from the TM Sidhis before I left the TM movement in 1978. 

Any mention of the "Maharishi Effect" in the original 1976 Collected Papers was 
added later, in editions that had been subjected to "revisionist history." The 
term hadn't even been *invented* in 1976. 

 If you think differently, prove it. Otherwise I have the right to consider you 
as delusional as I often do anyway. 

 

 You guys just want to hate on Maharishi at every turn. The Meissner-Like 
Effect of consciousness coherence in the “Maharishi Effect” in publication goes 
back to at least [ 1976 ] with the publishing of paper 98 in The Scientific 
Research on Transcendental Meditation, Collected Papers, Vol 1 and its 
introduction and preface in such. It was known and talked around before that on 
courses and conferences as the early 1970's research was being published in a 
sequence.  You guys obviously were not there.
 -Buck
 

 mjackson74 writes:

 I have never seen that article before - give great historical perspective - 
especially the comment that they expected several thousand sidha permanently in 
Fairfield - guess they got that one wrong - also love the comment about 
Marshy's stretch limo.
 
 On Fri, 4/4/14, TurquoiseBee mailto:turquoiseb@...> wrote:
 
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Research Shows Group Meditation Can Reduce Crime 
Rates
 To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"; 
mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
 Date: Friday, April 4, 2014, 10:25 AM

 Anticipating comments from cult apologist masters
 disputing this, and claiming that the "idea" of
 the Maharishi Effect has been present since 1960, I
 challenge you to come up with a mention of the
 "Maharishi Effect" *per se* in *any* publication
 before 1978 (the years covered by my account below), and
 applying to the TMSP *per se*, not just to "total
 numbers of people practicing TM," or the old "1%
 of the population" idea.
 
 The earliest mention of any "group effect" I could
 find after a few rounds with Google's Advanced News
 Search page was this article from 1984, and that only
 mentioned the buzzword in effect at the time,
 "super-radiance effect" -- 
 
 The
 Maharishi Wants Everybody to Levitate for Peace, but Some
 Iowans Are Hopping Mad
  Unless you can find a publication before 1978 with a
 verifiable date (meaning *not* revised later in an attempt
 at "revisionist history" as many of the current TM
 publications have been) talking about a "mass
 effect" caused by the TM-Sidhi program, and in
 particular using the term "Maharishi Effect," I
 think my point has been made. 
 
 Which is that the "ME" is a made-up term
 that was "late to the party," invented *long*
 after the TMSP had been invented and had already been
 marketed for other reasons for years. My broader point is
 that some TM apologists have been so trained to perform
 "revisionist history" in their own brains that
 they'll claim it was present at the beginning of the
 TMSP program, *even though they themselves
 weren't*.
 Besides, the old 1984 "People" article is
 pretty funny, given the current state of Fairfield and the
 fact that the TMO can't find people to bounce around in
 the domes even

Re: [FairfieldLife] Research Shows Group Meditation Can Reduce Crime Rates


 Correction: Neo dropped out the link to the quote from MUM.edu below
 

 http://www.mum.edu/default.aspx?RelId=622793 
http://www.mum.edu/default.aspx?RelId=622793
 

 --

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

 I recall the marketing for the TM-Sidhi programme and it was pretty much as 
Barry has said. I found the following on the MUM website (*emphasis added*): 

 The World Peace Project
 

 *Immediately following the discovery of the Super-Radiance effect in the Fall 
off 1978*, Maharishi decided to apply it to resolve conflicts in the 
international arena. More than 1400 experts in the Transcendental Meditation 
and TM-Sidhi program were sent for approximately two months (November and 
December, 1978) to several trouble spots of the world, including Central 
America (Nicaragua), the Middle East (Lebanon), Southern Africa 
(Rhodesia-Zimbabwe) and Zambia), and to Southeast Asia (Cambodia) as well as to 
surrounding countries.

 

  (the portion I quoted is about halfway down the page)

 

 Therefore it seems extremely unlikely that the Sidhi programme was marketed as 
a group phenomenon prior to this time. I knew several of the governors who went 
off on those excursions from New York. The marketing before that was all super 
powers and faster evolution. I was told the movement wanted to get rights to 
use the Superman comic book character to advertise, but was refused.

 

 From a scientific view, 'discovery' is premature, for from a scientific point 
of view, the jury on this concept has not even yet been convened, as the 
science has not been confirmed outside movement sources, and is thus ignored 
outside the meditator community except as a news item from time to time.
 

 This brings up an interesting question for me. I have observed that most 
people who enter into spiritual circles tend to bring with them a number of 
supersitions, and spiritual movements tend to be a hot bed of superstitious 
ideas. People within the TM fold seem to hold all sorts of ideas about reality 
that are not part of the TM canon.

 

 What was Maharishi like when he entered into his spiritual circle, what sort 
of ideas did he have, how did he understand the world prior and during and 
after his time with Saraswati? Most people seem to change ideas rather slowly 
except during religious conversion, or sometimes in the face of overwhelming 
evidence. My hypothesis is the tendency to be superstitious persists while 
meditating or even doing hard science. So my question is how much nonsense did 
Maharishi inherit and eventually pass on to us?
 

 In addition there are other behavioural features of belief systems. In the 
classic study 'When Prophesy Fails' 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails) believers that expected 
certain events to occur had those hopes dashed, but interestingly, before the 
failure they were very secretive about their beliefs, but after the failure 
they went into proselytising mode, trying to get many more into their mode of 
belief. This is a bizarre conclusion considering the evidence that the ideas 
simply totally failed, but human nature is not strictly rational. This seems to 
be the mental characteristic of spiritual movements whose predictions did not 
come to pass, that it does not matter if what was said is not true.
 

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

 From: "dhamiltony2k5@..." 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Friday, April 4, 2014 3:37 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Research Shows Group Meditation Can Reduce Crime 
Rates
 
 
   Nope. Well, Turquoiseb is in error about his 1978 assertion and you are 
wrong for thinking he is right. 

 

 I am not. I was there, and was on one of the first TM Sidhi courses, *while 
working at the TM National Center*, so I am pretty aware of how these courses 
were marketed and what was said about them at that time. There was NO MENTION 
of any "group effect" from the TM Sidhis before I left the TM movement in 1978. 

Any mention of the "Maharishi Effect" in the original 1976 Collected Papers was 
added later, in editions that had been subjected to "revisionist history." The 
term hadn't even been *invented* in 1976. 

 If you think differently, prove it. Otherwise I have the right to consider you 
as delusional as I often do anyway. 

 

 You guys just want to hate on Maharishi at every turn. The Meissner-Like 
Effect of consciousness coherence in the “Maharishi Effect” in publication goes 
back to at least [ 1976 ] with the publishing of paper 98 in The Scientific 
Research on Transcendental Meditation, Collected Papers, Vol 1 and its 
introduction and preface in such. It was known and talked around before that on 
courses and conferences as the early 1970's research was being published in a 
sequence.  You guys obviously were not there.
 -Buck

Re: [FairfieldLife] Research Shows Group Meditation Can Reduce Crime Rates


 Correction, Neo dropped the link to the MUM web page quoted below:
 http://www.mum.edu/default.aspx?RelId=622793 
http://www.mum.edu/default.aspx?RelId=622793

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

 I recall the marketing for the TM-Sidhi programme and it was pretty much as 
Barry has said. I found the following on the MUM website (*emphasis added*): 

 The World Peace Project
 

 *Immediately following the discovery of the Super-Radiance effect in the Fall 
off 1978*, Maharishi decided to apply it to resolve conflicts in the 
international arena. More than 1400 experts in the Transcendental Meditation 
and TM-Sidhi program were sent for approximately two months (November and 
December, 1978) to several trouble spots of the world, including Central 
America (Nicaragua), the Middle East (Lebanon), Southern Africa 
(Rhodesia-Zimbabwe) and Zambia), and to Southeast Asia (Cambodia) as well as to 
surrounding countries.

 

  (the portion I quoted is about halfway down the page)

 

 Therefore it seems extremely unlikely that the Sidhi programme was marketed as 
a group phenomenon prior to this time. I knew several of the governors who went 
off on those excursions from New York. The marketing before that was all super 
powers and faster evolution. I was told the movement wanted to get rights to 
use the Superman comic book character to advertise, but was refused.

 

 From a scientific view, 'discovery' is premature, for from a scientific point 
of view, the jury on this concept has not even yet been convened, as the 
science has not been confirmed outside movement sources, and is thus ignored 
outside the meditator community except as a news item from time to time.
 

 This brings up an interesting question for me. I have observed that most 
people who enter into spiritual circles tend to bring with them a number of 
supersitions, and spiritual movements tend to be a hot bed of superstitious 
ideas. People within the TM fold seem to hold all sorts of ideas about reality 
that are not part of the TM canon.

 

 What was Maharishi like when he entered into his spiritual circle, what sort 
of ideas did he have, how did he understand the world prior and during and 
after his time with Saraswati? Most people seem to change ideas rather slowly 
except during religious conversion, or sometimes in the face of overwhelming 
evidence. My hypothesis is the tendency to be superstitious persists while 
meditating or even doing hard science. So my question is how much nonsense did 
Maharishi inherit and eventually pass on to us?
 

 In addition there are other behavioural features of belief systems. In the 
classic study 'When Prophesy Fails' 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails) believers that expected 
certain events to occur had those hopes dashed, but interestingly, before the 
failure they were very secretive about their beliefs, but after the failure 
they went into proselytising mode, trying to get many more into their mode of 
belief. This is a bizarre conclusion considering the evidence that the ideas 
simply totally failed, but human nature is not strictly rational. This seems to 
be the mental characteristic of spiritual movements whose predictions did not 
come to pass, that it does not matter if what was said is not true.
 

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

 From: "dhamiltony2k5@..." 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Friday, April 4, 2014 3:37 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Research Shows Group Meditation Can Reduce Crime 
Rates
 
 
   Nope. Well, Turquoiseb is in error about his 1978 assertion and you are 
wrong for thinking he is right. 

 

 I am not. I was there, and was on one of the first TM Sidhi courses, *while 
working at the TM National Center*, so I am pretty aware of how these courses 
were marketed and what was said about them at that time. There was NO MENTION 
of any "group effect" from the TM Sidhis before I left the TM movement in 1978. 

Any mention of the "Maharishi Effect" in the original 1976 Collected Papers was 
added later, in editions that had been subjected to "revisionist history." The 
term hadn't even been *invented* in 1976. 

 If you think differently, prove it. Otherwise I have the right to consider you 
as delusional as I often do anyway. 

 

 You guys just want to hate on Maharishi at every turn. The Meissner-Like 
Effect of consciousness coherence in the “Maharishi Effect” in publication goes 
back to at least [ 1976 ] with the publishing of paper 98 in The Scientific 
Research on Transcendental Meditation, Collected Papers, Vol 1 and its 
introduction and preface in such. It was known and talked around before that on 
courses and conferences as the early 1970's research was being published in a 
sequence.  You guys obviously were not there.
 -Buck
 

 mjackson74 writes:

 I have never seen that article before - give great historical perspective - 
especially the comment that

Re: [FairfieldLife] Research Shows Group Meditation Can Reduce Crime Rates

Maharishi showed a lot of creativity in marketing TM. I recall reading an 
article by a sociologist (I think) in the 'Skeptical Inquirer' about TM 
mentioning how he completely changed the image of the movement from your basic 
Hindu/Vedic base virtually over night by introducing new language, science. I 
think he was fearless in trying things and also dropping things that did not 
work. He did not succeed in erasing the Hindu connexions, and I suspect many 
followers did not like the change to the new terminology (Charles Lutes for 
example), and that might be a reason why it has acted more as a drag on the 
movement than it could have, however the Hindu core of teaching, the puja etc., 
makes it difficult to cover that up. This is what is called isomorphism, 
translating concepts from one set of intellectual symbols to another. Maharishi 
was particularly good at that. Translating spiritual concepts to science is a 
dangerous game because science requires a higher standard of belief, and the 
lax approach to evidence in religion and spirituality in general is a great 
handicap.
 

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

 Maharishi was more modern than those 50 years younger, always moving forward, 
showing infinite flexibility. 
 

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

 As much as people want to dump on Maharishi as being some secreted 
ultra-traditional nationalistic hindoo-ist, the record shows they guy to be 
quite a modern and spiritual human. He was incredibly consistent looking at the 
whole progression as science, spirituality in consciousness, and policy as the 
larger spiritual movement built through a span of time and developed to what we 
see.
 -Buck
 

 Anartaxius writes:

 Buck, Maharishi did a lot of interesting things. In the world of science, 
however, it is data and confirmation of hypotheses that drive forward. A 
scientist that has a successful career is basically working to extend 
knowledge, and does so by superseding, by surpassing his mentors, and in 
science that means showing what your mentors did was in some way wrong, and 
that the newer knowledge is less wrong (still might not be right though). The 
question here is does TM and its related things accomplish what it is said to 
do? Does it work uniformly or non-uniformly on those who practise it? What 
percentage of practitioners truly reach the stated goals? How good is the data? 
Was the data processed properly? I think the results, which were eventually 
good for me, are nonetheless very uneven, and essentially, because movement 
science is largely ignored by the wider community, unproved.
 
 Once the Heidelberg color presses were purchased [early 1970's] Maharishi 
published in cycle through the decades major volumes that he edited that show 
the progression of the science, thought, and programs. It was all for linking 
modern science research in spirituality. He was remarkably progressive, 
visionary and revolutionary all at once. I feel you guys should respect him 
more as the rishi, teacher, and scientist he was.
 -Buck
 

 

 Nope. Well, Turquoiseb is in error about his 1978 assertion and you are wrong 
for thinking he is right. 
 

 I am not. I was there, and was on one of the first TM Sidhi courses, *while 
working at the TM National Center*, so I am pretty aware of how these courses 
were marketed and what was said about them at that time. There was NO MENTION 
of any "group effect" from the TM Sidhis before I left the TM movement in 1978. 

Any mention of the "Maharishi Effect" in the original 1976 Collected Papers was 
added later, in editions that had been subjected to "revisionist history." The 
term hadn't even been *invented* in 1976. 

 If you think differently, prove it. Otherwise I have the right to consider you 
as delusional as I often do anyway. 

 

 You guys just want to hate on Maharishi at every turn. The Meissner-Like 
Effect of consciousness coherence in the “Maharishi Effect” in publication goes 
back to at least [ 1976 ] with the publishing of paper 98 in The Scientific 
Research on Transcendental Meditation, Collected Papers, Vol 1 and its 
introduction and preface in such. It was known and talked around before that on 
courses and conferences as the early 1970's research was being published in a 
sequence.  You guys obviously were not there.
 -Buck
 

 mjackson74 writes:

 I have never seen that article before - give great historical perspective - 
especially the comment that they expected several thousand sidha permanently in 
Fairfield - guess they got that one wrong - also love the comment about 
Marshy's stretch limo.
 
 On Fri, 4/4/14, TurquoiseBee mailto:turquoiseb@...> wrote:
 
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Research Shows Group Meditation Can Reduce Crime 
Rates
 To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"; 
mailto:FairfieldLi

Re: [FairfieldLife] Research Shows Group Meditation Can Reduce Crime Rates

His Holiness Brahmananda Saraswati 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmananda_Saraswati 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmananda_Saraswati
 

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

 Umm, forgive my ignorance, but what do you mean by "his time with Saraswati?" 
this is the first I have heard of it.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Research Shows Group Meditation Can Reduce Crime Rates

There is a lot of research on TM, but the quality of most of that research is 
not particularly good, which is one of the reasons it is not taken seriously. 
The movement is not interested in scientific truth. It is hard to tell if the 
movement is interested in ending suffering at all. While enlightenment is said 
to end suffering, it does so by letting the person see the world in a new 
light, it does not change the world directly, only the mind's interpretation of 
what the world is. Exactly how that filters down to change the physical world 
is really kind of unknown. Enlightenment ends psychological pain, not physical 
pain; it eliminates or greatly reduces the judgmental chatter in the mind as a 
byproduct.  

 The movement does not spend any resources that I can see, on trying to 
directly end suffering, such as feeding the starving, the resources are 
directed to collecting more income from what I can see. If this really worked 
as specified, teaching as many people as possible at the lowest cost - mass 
produced initiations - would make the world a better place than making it so 
royally exclusive. 
 

 The only meditation system that has managed to break free of its religious 
roots is mindfulness, and that word mindfulness is sort of misleading because 
it implies concentration, but actual instructions I have heard indicate it is 
no more concentrative than TM, and it has been as successful as TM for people, 
though it does seem to have a different ratio of benefits, if one considers the 
result of meditation to be a benefit. It may be that certain forms of 
meditation resonate better with some individuals than others too, or one type 
works better at a certain stage of experience than others. None of this has 
been researched extensively. 

 A search on Google:
 "vipassana meditation" = 802,000 results

 "mindfulness meditation" = 541,000 results 
 "zazen" = 750,000 results (zazen = the single word name for zen meditation)
 "transcendental meditation" = 334,000 results

 "zen meditation" = 297,000 results
 "concentration meditation" = 74,300 results

 "bozo meditation" = 1 result
 ---
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Xeno, personally I'm glad that the TMO is now putting its resources into 
relieving suffering, such as with the street children in South America and 
combat stressed veterans rather than adding to the huge and existing body 
research on TM.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Research Shows Group Meditation Can Reduce Crime Rates

I believe at one time they tried to search for 'soma' at MIU, but the research 
led to no result, and if that was the case, it is unlikely the result would 
have been publicised. I remember a time when new governors were coming back to 
the U.S. from courses. They were eating a lot of white sugar and talking about 
soma a lot. 

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

 contact her and ask her if you want to know - she was actually referring to 
other aspects of his teaching as well, tho she did not say specifically what. I 
sent her both links so she may have read both pages. I read, as you call it, 
the "actual transcript" and tho the author of the piece on it did describe it 
in somewhat scoffing terms, he didn't make anything up. The fact that M, a 
Hindu, can straightfaced claim that soma is a substance produced by the human 
digestive system and that Hindu gods drink that refined product is food itself 
for derision. He was either superstitious or a monumental liar. I vote for 
both.

[FairfieldLife] Research Shows Absence of People Reduces Crime







  


How could I have missed that?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Research Shows Absence of People Reduces Crime

Yes, but the word 'murder' which is invented by us, is not applied to animal 
species and who knows how animals interpret killing each other. My guess (and 
it is a guess) is they do not regard it as a 'crime'. Animals do seem to get 
annoyed with others of their kind, and some have social hierarchies. That 
dolphin probably tried another form of meditation. 

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

 From: "anartaxius@..." 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Friday, April 4, 2014 10:16 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Research Shows Absence of People Reduces Crime

How could I have missed that?

I had to look twice at your Subject line before I got your joke, but as it 
turns out, even a total absence of people might not reduce crime at all. Crime 
-- as we know it, such as murder -- exists in animal species. For example, a 
little-known fact about all those peaceable, New Age-loving dolphins is that 
every so often a group of them will just decide to gang up on another dolphin, 
seemingly at random, and punch him to death with their snouts. 

Go figure. Maybe the offending dolphin wasn't saying "So long and thanks for 
all the fish" properly.  :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy

2014-04-05 Thread anartaxius

The Linda Pearce comments seem to stem from the following article:
http://www.culteducation.com/group/1195-transcendental-meditation-movement/20543-sexy-romps-of-the-beatles-giggling-guru.html

http://www.culteducation.com/group/1195-transcendental-meditation-movement/20543-sexy-romps-of-the-beatles-giggling-guru.html

This article was also quoted before on FFL by WillyTex in April 2010 and
Curtis in July 2010.

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

I get a lot of thigns wrong, thanks for the correction.

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

and you are incorrect I never said that about Jerry. And as I recall it was
Judith Bourque who had that dream, not Linda Pearce, so you got that wrong too.

On Sat, 4/5/14, LEnglish5@... mailto:LEnglish5@... mailto:LEnglish5@...> wrote:

Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, April 5, 2014, 7:00 AM

I spent most of it addressing one specific passage
and pointed out that Michael had already (IIRC) correctly
quoted someone who cast doubt on much of her story.
Is that called "shooting the messenger?" I thought
that was a different thing, but o well.

L
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,

wrote :

You realize, do you not, that you just spent an
entire post "shooting the messengers" to protect
the image of a dead man, right? And you wonder why people
consider you a cult apologist.

From:
"LEnglish5@..."
To:
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent:
Saturday, April 5, 2014 7:14 AM
Subject:
[FairfieldLife] Re: Marshy

""He was a brilliant
manipulator," said Mrs Pearce. "I just
couldn't see that he was a dirty old man. We made love
regularly. At one stage I even thought I was pregnant by
him. And I don't think I was the only girl. There was a
lot of talk that he'd tried to
rape"
This
seems a far cry from the poignant tale of love told in
her story of the affair (I've never read it, so
going by hearsay). Anthony Campbell commented on her claim
and said that Maharishi was in meetings with large groups of
people at all hours of hte day and night during that time,
and tehre's no way a secret affair could have happened
without everyone (including him) being in on it. Campbell is
now a practicing Buddhist.
Mia
Farrow says that given her frame of mind at that time, had
Jesus given her a hug, she would have taken it the wrong
way.
The
two surviving Beatles gave a benefit concert to raise money
for TM some years back, spoke highly of Maharishi in
interviews, and John Lennon's widow, Yoko Ono, even
attended the concert.
By
the way, wasn't it YOU, Michael, who quoted Jerry Jarvis
t us, saying that he recalled Linda pierce as teh woman who
stood up in advanced lecture recounting her dream that she
and Maharishi got married and that Maharishi replied that
she needed to learn to not confuse dreams with
reality.
years
later, in an interview, she says that Maharishi appeared to
her in a dream and begged her to publish the book in order
to set the record straight and help repair his horribly
damaged karma.

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

Nice
write up:

Maharishi inspired Beatles but died leaving £2b and rape
rumours

The Mirror, UK/February 7, 2008

By Nick Webster

He inspired the Beatles and promised world peace but died
leaving £2 billion amid rumours of rape and murder

He was the Sixth Beatle, a spiritual force with the
potential to create world peace and end famine.

Or he was an avaricious old man with a penchant for young
girls who ruined the greatest pop group in history.

It rather depends on your point of view, but one thing is
certain about the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi who died this week
aged somewhere between 91 and 97 - he was one of the richest
religious leaders in history.

The 'giggling guru' - so called because of his
high-pitched laugh - lived in an opulent 200-room mansion,
with helicopters and dozens of cars at his disposal, and was
worth an estimated £2billion.

He was the head of a movement with five million followers
worldwide, all seeking a higher consciousness through
transcendental meditation.

But while the Maharishi promised world peace, and cynics
laughed at his wacky teachings and yogic flying, sinister
stories of sex, debauchery, and even murder cast dark
shadows over his life.

All but one of the Beatles cut their ties with their
apparently celibate guru after it emerged he'd made a
pass at Mia Farrow. The Maharishi's people, on the other
hand, insist they simply fell out when he discovered the
band were using LS

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Maharishi Murderer

2014-04-09 Thread anartaxius

'Shooting the messenger' is a metaphoric phrase used to describe the act of 
lashing out at the presumably blameless bearer of bad or unwelcome news.
 

 In earlier times, messages were usually delivered in person by a human envoy. 
Sometimes, as in war, for example, the messenger was sent from the enemy camp. 
An easily provoked combatant receiving such an overture could more easily vent 
anger (or otherwise retaliate) on the deliverer of the unpopular message than 
on its author.
 

 'Attacking the messenger' is a form of the logical fallacy ad hominem 
(argument against the man rather than the proposition the man brings).
 

 In general spirituality is about something unseen and without form. This does 
not give one much to argue about or prove. Spiritual forums seem to develop a 
rather bitter style of debate. If someone disagrees with you or you them, there 
is not much, really, you can say about nothing. So the arguments devolve into 
name calling, and name calling is a form of ad hominem since it is designed to 
demean the man and distract from the points made.
 

 Let's say, I do not like Barry. I can call him a jerk. That is an opinion I 
can hold. As long as I am not using that opinion to try to refute what he says, 
it is not ad hominem. Some people do not like each other, and name calling on 
that basis is a time honoured human activity, but it is not one whit an 
argument against what a person says.
 

 How simple can spirituality be, since it consists of basically nothing?
 

 Having done a vast amount of cursory, shallow reading, I think it can be 
boiled down to just two or three principles.
 

 1. Quietness, stillness (presumably taken care of by meditation)
 2. Curiosity - scepticism, the willingness to question everything.
 3. A consistent, persistent, and genuine desire to want to know what life is 
all about.
 

 The balance of these with their opposite qualities and how they are 
implemented determines success or failure.
 

 If you are not quiet, your mind will not be discriminative because it will 
never settle down and realise there is more to experience than thought.
 

 If you are not curious, you are likely to be a dupe, gullible and easily 
persuaded.
 

 If you do not have the motivation, you are going to just give up eventually.
 

 When you look at all the world's religions, all the spiritual groups and 
cults, you see these principles generally highly complexified and out of whack, 
out of balance, often with an overwhelming addition of irrelevant material and 
practices.
 

 If someone criticises your spiritual practice, and it bothers you, forgive 
them because either you or they (or both) know not what one is doing, but at 
this point you do not know which, so first you have to find out.
 

 If your spiritual practice has been successful (or also, totally failed), then 
you do not care much about all this shit. Unless you have some genuine 
compassion for your fellow man, you are also not going to be very interested in 
relating the benefits of knowing about nothing to your fellow man. It is not a 
requirement that you have this compassion.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Maharishi Murderer

2014-04-09 Thread anartaxius

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

 I guess Xeno didn't see my posts about "shooting the messenger." Barry isn't 
criticized for bringing unwelcome news regarding TM, because he doesn't bring 
any. He's criticized for his extreme and usually dishonest negative spin on 
news we already know about, which is not what the phrase refers to. 

 And I would add a fourth principle to Xeno's list of the requirements of 
spirituality: telling the truth to the very best of one's abiliity.
 

 1. No, I did not see those posts. I have not been on the forum much in the 
past several days. It is rather tedious at times; it may depend on my mood 
regarding having fun. This place is about as real for living life as living at 
MUM.
 2. It is not necessary to interact with anyone in investigating 'truth', look 
at all the time Brahmananda Saraswati spent in the forest, and in any case, 
until spirituality succeeds, one doesn't know what it is anyway, and if 
spirituality succeeds, one just lives life; one is no longer practising 
spirituality, it is really irrelevant then. The verbal content of spirituality 
is all lies, so 'telling the truth' in this regard is absurd. The lies are 
hints that point beyond the words, or also, they could just be lies flat out.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Russia and China announce decoupling trade from Dollar

2014-04-13 Thread anartaxius

The theory here is, because the United States currency is heavily based on 
debt, once the the psychology of the US Dollar being a standard currency is 
broken, there will be heavy selling of the US Dollar as its true value 
equalises with the other currencies, and hyperinflation will result, interest 
rates will rise, the US government if it can sell more treasuries and bonds 
will have to pay much higher interest rates, further pushing the US into debt, 
a vicious cycle of doom. The worst case scenario is collapse of the economy, as 
Bhairitu mentioned, with a 'Road Warrior' scenario, paramilitary groups and 
warlords roaming the devastated country.
 

 Since no country seems to be on a gold standard any more, how serious this can 
be depends on how the other currencies stabilise against the US Dollar.
 

 As one economic advisor puts it:
 

 'Economic reality versus illusion: There will be no recovery, just plunge, 
stagnation and renewed plunge, re-intensifying the downturn already underway. 
The confluence of negative surprises, including new business and systemic woes, 
should hit US Dollar and spike inflation with hyperinflation to intensify the 
unfolding of a depression.'
 

 
http://goldsilverworlds.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/US_dollar_purchasing_power_vs_gold_1774-2012.gif
 
http://goldsilverworlds.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/US_dollar_purchasing_power_vs_gold_1774-2012.gif

 

 If you follow the news, and the news reports heavy selling of the US Dollar by 
other countries and investors in general, this is probably how the scenario 
will begin to play out.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Russia and China announce decoupling trade from Dollar

2014-04-13 Thread anartaxius

Sure, that is part of the scenario, attempting to dump increasingly worthless
securities based on the US Dollar. Until the security comes due, the lender
(e.g., Japan) can only get rid of the securities by selling them on the open
market. The U.S. would probably not have the resources to call the bond back
and return the money in now less valuable dollars, since in order to create the
dollars they would have to sell more bonds, or just print money without
anything to back it. To sell increasingly risky securities, the interest would
have to rise substantially, and existing securities will then drop in value,
resulting in more dumping. If you plot existing US employment, Gross Domestic
Product etc., against real inflation, which is much higher than the rigged
government indicators, the US economy is currently stagnant, basically still in
a recession, so it is likely downhill from here. The US has spent itself into
quite a financial hole, and the things that got by in the past are no longer
going to work.

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

Thanks. You forgot to mention one very important scenario: what happens if
some of the countries who have been buying American governmental bonds wants to
cash in, would the US be able to pay ? Japan is and has been technically
bankrupt for many years BUT they have trillions of $ in bonds issued by the
American Government. What if they wanted to sell ? The crisis that would happen
would plunge the world into a historic crisis, one which the Americans can't
blame their banksters but their Government that borrowed all that money in the
first place to use for unnecessary wars.
It's interesting to note that Benjamin Crème predicted that a collapse of the
stock-marked in Japan will start the global economic crisis.

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

The theory here is, because the United States currency is heavily based on
debt, once the the psychology of the US Dollar being a standard currency is
broken, there will be heavy selling of the US Dollar as its true value
equalises with the other currencies, and hyperinflation will result, interest
rates will rise, the US government if it can sell more treasuries and bonds
will have to pay much higher interest rates, further pushing the US into debt,
a vicious cycle of doom. The worst case scenario is collapse of the economy, as
Bhairitu mentioned, with a 'Road Warrior' scenario, paramilitary groups and
warlords roaming the devastated country.

Since no country seems to be on a gold standard any more, how serious this can
be depends on how the other currencies stabilise against the US Dollar.

As one economic advisor puts it:

'Economic reality versus illusion: There will be no recovery, just plunge,
stagnation and renewed plunge, re-intensifying the downturn already underway.
The confluence of negative surprises, including new business and systemic woes,
should hit US Dollar and spike inflation with hyperinflation to intensify the
unfolding of a depression.'

http://goldsilverworlds.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/US_dollar_purchasing_power_vs_gold_1774-2012.gif

If you follow the news, and the news reports heavy selling of the US Dollar by
other countries and investors in general, this is probably how the scenario
will begin to play out.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Vedic Cities.. . ..Live the Golden Age!

Does this mean the average life span  will also be the same as it was 
 thousands of years ago:  approx. 25 years?
 Dirt roads? No electricity, etc.? 
 Travel by Ox cart? No supermarkets? 
 

 

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

 A Lifestyle inspired by the Golden age of the Indian Civilization. 
Chandragupta Maurya ! Ashoka ! Reminiscent of the Golden Age is now a realty. 
Vedic City will be an Epic beginning to a new life.
 
 An Epic beginning to a new life, today we invite you to become a part of that 
mystical grandeur in a Vedic City near you.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous

nu·mi·nous = having a strong religious or spiritual quality; indicating or 
suggesting the presence of a divinity.
 Exactly what is a strong religious quality? Exactly what is a spiritual 
quality? How do these two qualities indicate or suggest the presence of a 
divinity? If something is indicated or suggested, is that any reason to assume 
that something is actually there if it has not been directly seen, directly 
experienced.
 

 All that has to be done is demonstrate, unequivocally, what it is that one 
wants others to see, then you have a reason to define and investigate what that 
is. It is not necessary to investigate or define what does not exist, since one 
will never come across a concrete demonstration. One can imagine all sorts of 
things mentally, but never be able to show that those things exist, and as 
such, all such ideas are equivalent in that there is no proof, and no 
possibility of proof that such things have an existence independent of thought. 
There is reason to believe that what we call an elephant exists, even if we do 
not know what it is or have a name for it, it can be experienced through the 
senses, at some point it can be defined, observed, argued about. 
 

 There is a problem when the subject matter at hand is empty, but is presumed 
to be real, such as invisible formless gods, or enlightenment. With gods, we 
have to presume they exist, and are somehow different from us. With 
enlightenment, there is the problem that it really does not exist, but we think 
it does. In this case the spiritual path shows us that the idea of 
enlightenment was an illusion, that what we were seeking was in fact just what 
we always were, not some new thing we have never experienced before. But it 
cannot be proved by argument, one just has to be crazy enough to attempt to 
resolve the issue. In the rarefied atmosphere of abstract theology, if we think 
that union with the god of one's imagination is the equivalent of 
enlightenment, then I suspect there will be a real disappointment because at 
the end of the road, the thing you have to give up is your idea of what that 
god is.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous

Hell if I know what a divinity is. I just copied the definition of 'numinous' 
from the Google search results for 'define:numinous'. I was discussing the 
nature of informed belief, that is belief based on evidence rather than simply 
an idea one has in the mind. I was not discussing anything about atheism. 
Without evidence, there is no case to be made, so arguments for and against are 
empty. One can argue that Sherlock Holmes smoked a Meerschaum pipe, but the 
evidence in the illustrations of the stories as originally published indicate 
he did not, but Sherlock Holmes never existed in reality as a real person, so 
what one is really arguing about here is not about Sherlock Holmes and his 
pipe, but the content of the text and illustrations in the stories about a 
fictional character called 'Sherlock Holmes'. So the argument concerning Mr 
Holmes is not about a reality but an illusion purporting to be a reality, the 
actual reality in this case being printed text and illustrations in The Strand 
Magazine (1891–1950, United Kingdom). 

 The definition of 'divinity' (noun) from the same Google source is 'the state 
or quality of being divine', and 'a divinity' would then be 'something that has 
the state or quality of being divine', which seems to imply there could be more 
than one something that has those characteristics. A saint might be considered 
divine. Zeus could be considered divine and therefore a divinity. So could 
Apollo, or Jehovah. Maybe I could be divine. Maybe you could be divine, though 
there seems to be a preponderance of opinion here that would not likely be the 
case. It is not incoherent to say 'I just believe in one less divinity than you 
do'. That is just a statement, a proposition. Some people believe in many 
divinities, some in just one, some in none. A proposition by itself is not an 
argument, just a statement that may or may not have truth value, which cannot 
be affirmed or denied on the basis of the proposition itself. Coherence depends 
on how a particular proposition aligns logically with other propositions, and 
aligns with what the proposition(s) point to, if in fact they point to 
something outside themselves, for if they do not, it is an empty argument, much 
ado about nothing.
 

 In mentioning enlightenment, that particular discipline investigates 
subjectively the nature of sensory experience and its relationship to thought, 
and the interpretation by thought of the nature of experience, whether in fact 
thought can represent 'truth' or is simply a distortion of 'truth', or even 
whether there really is anything or state that could be thought of as 'truth', 
that is, whether the world 'truth' has any meaningful correlate that is real.
 

 A friend of mine was recently sued for delinquent payment of rent. This was 
not true, as my friend brought evidence of the fact to court, but the person 
bringing the suit came to court without any evidence whatsoever, but managed to 
convince the court — the judge and the person suing being white and my friend, 
black, to a 90 day stay, so that evidence could be brought — the argument: 'I 
did not think (the defendant) would show up'. The case was thrown out by a 
higher judge on the basis that no evidence was brought, and the lower judge 
showed prejudice in not dismissing the case.
 

 This is the situation between non-believers and believers of the religious 
kind, there are arguments but evidence is unconvincing or absent in spite of 
the sophistication of the pleading or polemic of the claims being made.
 

 Science takes a practical tack in such instances, no evidence, no case. This 
gets rid of the nutters, so one can focus on actual stuff, but occasionally 
there are examples of the baby being thrown out with the bath water, but in 
time the mistake may be rectified. 
 

 'Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that 
may never be questioned.' — source unknown
 

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

 Exactly what is "a divinity"? 

 This is where atheists, especially those with pretensions to scientific 
understanding but who are deficient in philosophy, tend to get all tangled up 
and become incoherent, saying things like "I just believe in one less divinity 
than you do."
 

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

 nu·mi·nous = having a strong religious or spiritual quality; indicating or 
suggesting the presence of a divinity.
 Exactly what is a strong religious quality? Exactly what is a spiritual 
quality? How do these two qualities indicate or suggest the presence of a 
divinity? If something is indicated or suggested, is that any reason to assume 
that something is actually there if it has not been directly seen, directly 
experienced.
 

 All that has to be done is demonstrate, unequivocally, what it is that one 
wants others to see, then you have a reason to define and investigate what that 
is. It is not necessary to investigate or define what does not exis

[FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous

Hell if I know what a divinity is. I just copied the definition of 'numinous' 
from the Google search results for 'define:numinous'. I was discussing the 
nature of informed belief, that is belief based on evidence rather than simply 
an idea one has in the mind. I was not discussing anything about atheism. 
Without evidence, there is no case to be made, so arguments for and against are 
empty. One can argue that Sherlock Holmes smoked a Meerschaum pipe, but the 
evidence in the illustrations of the stories as originally published indicate 
he did not, but Sherlock Holmes never existed in reality as a real person, so 
what one is really arguing about here is not about Sherlock Holmes and his 
pipe, but the content of the text and illustrations in the stories about a 
fictional character called 'Sherlock Holmes'. So the argument concerning Mr 
Holmes is not about a reality but an illusion purporting to be a reality, the 
actual reality in this case being printed text and illustrations in The Strand 
Magazine (1891–1950, United Kingdom). 

 The definition of 'divinity' (noun) from the same Google source is 'the state 
or quality of being divine', and 'a divinity' would then be 'something that has 
the state or quality of being divine', which seems to imply there could be more 
than one something that has those characteristics. A saint might be considered 
divine. Zeus could be considered divine and therefore a divinity. So could 
Apollo, or Jehovah. Maybe I could be divine. Maybe you could be divine, though 
there seems to be a preponderance of opinion here that would not likely be the 
case. It is not incoherent to say 'I just believe in one less divinity than you 
do'. That is just a statement, a proposition. Some people believe in many 
divinities, some in just one, some in none. A proposition by itself is not an 
argument, just a statement that may or may not have truth value, which cannot 
be affirmed or denied on the basis of the proposition itself. Coherence depends 
on how a particular proposition aligns logically with other propositions, and 
aligns with what the proposition(s) point to, if in fact they point to 
something outside themselves, for if they do not, it is an empty argument, much 
ado about nothing.
 

 In mentioning enlightenment, that particular discipline investigates 
subjectively the nature of sensory experience and its relationship to thought, 
and the interpretation by thought of the nature of experience, whether in fact 
thought can represent 'truth' or is simply a distortion of 'truth', or even 
whether there really is anything or state that could be thought of as 'truth', 
that is, whether the word 'truth' has any meaningful correlate that is real.
 

 A friend of mine was recently sued for delinquent payment of rent. This was 
not true, as my friend brought evidence of the fact to court, but the person 
bringing the suit came to court without any evidence whatsoever, but managed to 
convince the court — the judge and the person suing being white and my friend, 
black, to a 90 day stay, so that evidence could be brought — the argument: 'I 
did not think (the defendant) would show up'. The case was thrown out by a 
higher judge on the basis that no evidence was brought, and the lower judge 
showed prejudice in not dismissing the case.
 

 This is the situation between non-believers and believers of the religious 
kind, there are arguments but evidence is unconvincing or absent in spite of 
the sophistication of the pleading or polemic of the claims being made.
 

 Science takes a practical tack in such instances, no evidence, no case. This 
gets rid of the nutters, so one can focus on actual stuff, but occasionally 
there are examples of the baby being thrown out with the bath water, but in 
time the mistake may be rectified. 
 

 'Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that 
may never be questioned.' — source unknown
 

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

 Exactly what is "a divinity"? 

 This is where atheists, especially those with pretensions to scientific 
understanding but who are deficient in philosophy, tend to get all tangled up 
and become incoherent, saying things like "I just believe in one less divinity 
than you do."
 

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

 nu·mi·nous = having a strong religious or spiritual quality; indicating or 
suggesting the presence of a divinity.
 Exactly what is a strong religious quality? Exactly what is a spiritual 
quality? How do these two qualities indicate or suggest the presence of a 
divinity? If something is indicated or suggested, is that any reason to assume 
that something is actually there if it has not been directly seen, directly 
experienced.
 

 All that has to be done is demonstrate, unequivocally, what it is that one 
wants others to see, then you have a reason to define and investigate what that 
is. It is not necessary to investigate or define what does not exist

[FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous

2014-04-15 Thread anartaxius

This reply is specifically for Judy, not Turq or Salyavin. Alas she cannot 
honestly reply, as it would break her word. That is not saying she is 
dishonest, please note. We all have honesty glitches, part of the human 
condition.  

 Generally I am not interested in Theism. I'm a post-Theist, the theist part 
being early childhood conditioning, which fortunately was neither intense nor 
carried out with any verve, thus my mind escaped. 

 I do not care for the word God, primarily because it has so many variable and 
cultural connotations, which make it 'slippery' as vehicle for explanation.
 

 If one thinks dualistically about reality, then there is always more than one 
being, for example, me and the world, or me and God. As long as there is any 
sense of separation, then being is divided. Those whose consciousness is 
embodied cannot think any other way. The theistic argument that God is not a 
being but just being I do not have an argument with. I think currently that 
being = consciousness = God, the latter in that most abstract sense. But most 
people do not use the word that way. When God is being in this way, you are the 
same, as Jesus said 'not made out of flesh and blood but out of God'. But most 
people are not going to get that idea of being if you use the word God because 
it will pull in all sorts of cultural and individualised conditioning which in 
the mind creates 'a being', not abstract non-thing being.
 

 The so-called spiritual path is basically just the process of retraining the 
mind and larger experience to de-localise and de-centralise the appreciation of 
consciousness. Consciousness makes experience possible, you never experience 
consciousness, it is what makes experience possible, it is what experiences. In 
older language it is 'the light of life' which is saying the same thing 
isomorphically transformed. Consciousness unlocalised and decentred is equally 
everywhere, the very things of experience. It is equally at every point along 
the data path of perception, it makes the data points 'visible'. You do not 
look for it in the human head. What you find there are sensors and an 
interpretive processor, the mind. Consciousness makes the sensors and the 
interpretive processing experience-able. All you will find in the head is 
machinery. You do not have consciousness, it has 'you', what you think you are. 
 

 Being is eternal but not in the sense of time. Everything has being like this, 
the most obvious thing in the world, everything is this being. It is trivial 
and so in one's face it is never seen or understood. As Vashitha said, all this 
talk about creation and who created the world is for the purpose of writing and 
expounding scriptures, but it is not true. But the human mind, thinking, works 
sequentially, and so it sees things as a process with beginnings, middles, and 
endings. The Big Bang Theory is an example of this, and that is a great 
practical way to look at the universe, but if you want fulfilment there has to 
be the experience of everything, mind, body, environment, as all the same 
being, everything collectively together, the 'uncarved block' as the Taoists 
say. Unity. Not you in unity, just unity. No 'you' is required. Delocalisatin 
and decentralisation of consciousness transforms the appreciation of the 
concept of 'self', and it does not matter if you capitalise 'self' or not. It 
is just a story, a narrative with the tag 'self' attached to it. You do not 
have a relationship with being, for it is just what you are, once the 'you' 
gets dropped off the map as a convenient fiction.
 

 To find out if this is real or not, there is no evidence except the 
experience. There is no proof, no argument can show this. When people talk 
about it in one way or another, if what they say has a resonance with you, then 
it sets up a spark inside, and then the search to find out if that particular 
manner of expression is somehow real begins. No guarantee of success. If it 
does not resonate, it will appear as total nonsense, because it is not like 
something, not like anything, so an argument will never convince.
 

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

 Yet another atheist wannabe who simply cannot lower himself to reading enough 
philosophy to realize the incoherence of one of his fundamental premises, or 
that the purported evidentiary problems of theism as confronted by science that 
he blabs on about so pompously are in fact nonexistent. 

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

 Hell if I know what a divinity is. I just copied the definition of 'numinous' 
from the Google search results for 'define:numinous'. I was discussing the 
nature of informed belief, that is belief based on evidence rather than simply 
an idea one has in the mind. I was not discussing anything about atheism. 
Without evidence, there is no case to be made, so arguments for and against are 
empty. One can argue that Sherlock Holmes smoked a Meerschaum pipe, but the

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous

2014-04-16 Thread anartaxius

I was with some children last night. I have no children myself, so it was 
rather intriguing watching what interests them. One was about one year old, and 
the other about three. The one year old seemed totally fascinated with an empty 
aseptic package (Rice milk or something like that). Its whole world was wrapped 
up in this empty package. It made me wonder how its mind was beginning to 
fashion the world it experiences. The other child was much more interactive 
with me because she could speak, but I could rarely understand what she was 
talking about. The ego was forming in this one, but mostly she was interacting 
with me with a beach ball and some other small spherical toys. I have vague 
memories of my childhood playing and making up stuff, trying to figure out how 
things works. Somewhere along the line all this make believe solidifies into 
something more sinister - what I think is real. The pretend becomes fossilised. 
 

 The spiritual path reverses this fossilisation, but only at the end, almost as 
a corollary. When one realises that the world of the senses is all there is, 
what is happening now, this has a huge fallout in regard to what one thought 
was real. The 'transcendent' that far away, mystical idea about where things 
come from turns out to be just the entire expanse of what one has always 
experienced from day one. But this means, in terms of the mind, that all those 
ideas about reality were a dream, they were just an attempt by the mind to make 
sense of experience correlated with what others informed me about experience. 
Most of the the thoughts I have about things largely result from input from 
outside, from other humans. Most of the words and concepts I use do not come 
from me, they are reprocessed input from others, refashioned by the peculiar 
twists of my nervous system. Those words and concepts are then projected onto 
sensory experience as an attempt to explain it all. But those words are just 
symbolic tokens.
 

 Now there is an experience, based on what some have reported, that I could 
call God, but I choose not to do so because that experience would hardly 
resemble what I perceive others have as their take on that word, because it is 
not intelligent in the way most seem to me to understand what intelligence is. 
The experience is really a mental ghost, the remains of a long search for what 
the mind imagined was real but was not. Transcendence is a token, a label for 
an experience that for part of the journey seemed to exist but does not now. It 
is very difficult to explain this in any way that would not create a picture in 
the mind that is patently false. All ideas about this are false. The whole 
apparatus of spiritual development is really a mechanism for manipulating the 
mind's ability to phantasise and dream, and to manipulate it into a corner 
where it ceases to be the dominant quality of living. Because one still has 
thoughts, can think about things etc., the potential to dream nonsense onto 
one's experience of life is still there, so there is always the chance the mind 
will trap experience again, but at some point it seems less and less likely 
this will happen. This is what freedom is like, the mind's idea of reality does 
not dominate experience.
 

 The corollary is the mind thinks thoughts that are always in some way false, 
but unlike the mind of a child where an empty box becomes the whole world, 
spiritual awaking shows one that in some way, all of one's ideas are in reality 
an individual mind's opinion, not a fact, not true.
 

 There are practical applications of thought. Science takes great pains to try 
to align thought with perception, to make the concepts and ideas that come from 
the mind correlate with the world of observation, and it is quite clear that 
this is not a perfect process, it is always an approximation. A scientist is 
always on the edge of a precipice where his or her ideas will be show up as 
being wrong. Thoughts approximate reality by proxy, they are an imperfect 
stand-in for the other aspects of human experience. I think this is the basic 
mistake on a spiritual path, that one has found the truth in the descriptive 
words of spirituality. Scientists seem actually much better at formulating 
thoughts one might call 'true' in some way. Religions are terrible at this 
because the thoughts, the concepts get fossilised. Science provides a chisel to 
crack the rock away, but it cannot free the mind from the identification with 
thought. Scientists argue just as much as spiritual people, but they have a 
method for settling differences. Because spiritual experience is private and 
seemingly numinous at times there is no public forum for communication and 
correlation of thoughts, no way to investigate.
 

 When a child makes a whole world out of an empty box, the mind is creating a 
metaphysical dream. When grown-ups do this I would call it theology or politics.
 

 I have a certain fondness for the sage Nisargadatta. A

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous


 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote (to salyavin808):
 1. Remember Gould's phrase, "nonoverlapping magisteria"?

 2. What do you mean by "real"? Define it, please.
 

 Perhaps you should also define 'real' and see if the definitions match up 
first. In science, real is defined primarily by 'show me', that is provide a 
demonstration of what one thinks as real, something someone else can replicate. 
This is the empirical path. This is done by proxy (scientific papers) where the 
record of the experience is detailed and those instructions can be followed to 
replicate it. Then there is private experience, which is like the path of 
enlightenment where certain things are postulated and there are various 
instructions for attempting to replicate the experience privately, but of 
course, no one else can see the result.
 

 Therefore you have either a public demonstration which all can see, or a 
private confirmation which no one can see. Arguments by themselves are 
groundless: sophistry and illusion as David Hume would say (with a Scottish 
twang).
 

 Things concerning gods (1 or more) as theism progressed seem to have become a 
more private experience matter and therefore resolution would seem to depend on 
the path of enlightenment. But the path of enlightenment eventually undoes the 
reality of verbal truth, and in addition the experience of unification undoes 
the concept of 'nonoverlapping magisteria' when everything is experienced as 
connected.
 

 So it can't be demonstrated, arguments lead nowhere except trading opinion, 
and what might perhaps be called the mystical resolution of the problem 
(enlightenment) completely undoes the premises upon which the argument is 
founded.

[FairfieldLife] Maya Redux [1 Attachment]

A  slightly reprocessed, retouched version of Barry's portrait of Maya, putting 
a bit more emphasis on the subject. Wonderful image.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: In Transcendentalism, [1 Attachment]

It is curious that Michael quoted this in the manner he did, I think he misread 
its significance. The study, if I recall correctly, came to the conclusion that 
the studies on meditation, so far, were of insufficient quality to come to the 
conclusion that meditation was a benefit to health. Various TM practising 
scientists, like Vernon Barnes (who was a TM-Sidhi administrator at one point, 
I believe), were rather vocal in condemning the report. Also the TM practising 
scientists not at MUM who were quoted in various venues criticising the report 
often did not reveal their connexion to the TM org. I found the report rather 
interesting. The report was commissioned by the US government and produced by 
the University of Alberta 

 The conclusion of the report was:
 

 'Scientific research on meditation practices does not appear to have a common 
theoretical perspective and is characterized by poor methodological quality. 
Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be 
drawn based on the available evidence. Future research on meditation practices 
must be more rigorous in the design and execution of studies and in the 
analysis and reporting of results.'
 

 So the basic conclusion is better quality studies with larger population 
samples is needed to define health benefits of meditation.
 

 I have attached the full report to this post. I finally found it as its 
original location on the Internet had changed. It is now at 
 http://archive.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/meditation/medit.pdf 
http://archive.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/meditation/medit.pdf
 
--
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Wow, this is shocking that he'd do that. It is really sad. These FFL and TM 
neganauts here, who don't even live in Fairfield, seem so cranky for their own 
vile reasons that they even willfully misrepresent the science on meditation. 
Great example here of anti-science. What could any good soul trust about any of 
their volcanic eruptions of their held old hate posted on the internet.
 -Buck
 

 authfriend posts:
 Did you misread this, Michael? The study being criticized was a 
government-funded report, not a TM study. Read the first sentence again.
 

 mjackson74@...> wrote :
 
 Here is what the real world thinks of all your precious "science" about TM:
 
 Top researchers criticize new meditation and health study
 Rush PR News/July 26, 2007
 
 Scientists stated, "A controversial new government-funded report, which found 
that meditation does not improve health, is methodologically flawed, 
incomplete, and should be retracted. "
 
 New York, NY (rushprnews) July 26, 2007 - This is the consensus of a growing 
number of researchers in the U.S. and abroad who have reviewed the report and 
are critical of its conclusions.
 
 "Meditation Practices for Health: State of the Research" was a health 
technology assessment report conducted at the University of Alberta and 
sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the 
NIH-National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. The report was 
released earlier this month.
 
 Respected reviewer urged authors to withhold publication—"Analytical strategy 
looked haphazard and ad hoc"
 
 Professor Harald Walach of the University of Northampton and School of Social 
Sciences and the Samueli Institute for information Biology in England reviewed 
the paper before its release and strongly urged the authors to withhold 
publication. "When I looked carefully into the details of the study, the whole 
analytical strategy looked rather haphazard and ad hoc," Walach said.
 
 Relevant studies excluded from AHRQ findings
 
 Robert Schneider, M.D., F.A.C.C., is one of the leading researchers on the 
health effects of meditation in the nation. Dr. Schneider has been the 
recipient of more than $22 million in grants from the National Institutes of 
Health over the past 20 years for his research on the effects of the 
Transcendental Meditation technique and natural medicine on cardiovascular 
disease. He says that relevant findings were excluded from the report, 
including peer-reviewed studies on the effects of this meditation technique on 
hypertension, cardiovascular disease, myocardial ischemia, atherosclerosis, 
changes to physiology, and improvements to mental and physical health.
 
 Dr. Schneider cited two studies published in the American Journal of 
Cardiology in 2005, which demonstrated that individuals with high blood 
pressure who were randomly assigned to TM groups had a 30% lower risk for 
mortality than controls. These studies should have been included in the AHRQ 
report, Dr. Schneider said, but were inexplicably excluded. In addition, 75 
published studies were overlooked, even though these were sent to the authors 
by one of the reviewers.
 
 Dr. Schneider said the AHRQ report incorrectly analyzed studies and 
incorrectly rated the quality of the studies wh

Re: [FairfieldLife] !Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is Coming to Fairfield!

In regard to Share's comments, the transcendent is a metaphorical fiction, a 
carrot on a stick, an enticement for meditation. Whatever we may say it is, the 
'transcendent' is there all the time, everywhere. But when the mind does not 
know this it requires an explanation for a practise like TM so it is said to be 
found through a process of transcending. But once the mind is clear it is 
omnipresent and the explanation is no longer valuable, it is a complete lie.  

 Advanced techniques basically add more drag to the mantra. Eventually 
everything about experience is on the surface, the dichotomy of surface versus 
depth no longer applies. Maharishi seemed to understand the principle well: 
other teachers of mantra meditation tend to use clunkier mantras in the 
beginning so ease of use factors may be less favourable, especially if you are 
told to concentrate on a mantra. 
 

 While some have labelled TM a beginners meditation, it is really quite 
elegant. As practise matures and meditations seem shallower, TM begins to 
resemble mindfulness meditation more as the mind becomes more and more here and 
now. Zazen, (Zen meditation) just sitting silently, is the natural state when 
the mind is clear, but it is difficult for many as something to start with 
because of the torrent of thoughts beginners have, so in some ways mindfulness 
practises may be putting the cart before the horse. TM throws the mind a bone, 
something for it to control or rather modulate the flow of thoughts with a 
minimum of effort. After a while you can throw it a bigger bone, when it can 
handle it. Eventually it does not need a bone, the mind falls silent, remaining 
tranquil, and being is the only reality of experience.
 

 The analogies, such as the one Judy mentioned, are an intellectual aid to help 
the meditator be comfortable with what is happening at a particular state of 
practise. So if a TM meditators are finding meditation seemingly becoming 
shallow, they need some explanation why it is different than it was before. My 
feeling is the movement does not do very well in giving useful explanations 
when the practise really begins to advance, or when unusual problems crop up.
 

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

 Maharishi used the analogy of a falling leaf. It doesn't go straight down but 
from side to side, so it takes longer to hit the ground than if it were, say, 
an acorn. If you were a leaf, presumably you'd have more time to appreciate the 
surrounding environment as you fell from layer to layer.
 

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

 Share, I was paraphrasing Maharishi's own description of what advanced 
techniques do: they make the angle of the dive less, so that we can take more 
time to appreciate different layers of the mind on the way to the Transcendent, 
rather than just diving straight in. 

 I have no idea if my physiological interpretation of what he meant is correct, 
but it seems highly unlikely that the kind of EEG that long-term TMers show, 
including those who have been taught advanced techniques, can be associated in 
any way with the EEG that shows up in people who have been practicing other 
mantra meditation practices for a long time.
 

 They're just too different.
 

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

 Lawson, I'm not sure about the accuracy of your statement that because the 
dive is shallower, progression to samadhi takes longer. In one of Fred Travis' 
graduate classes, someone complained that they didn't feel deep in TM anymore. 
Fred explained that one way to understand the growth from CC to GC is that the 
depth comes up to the surface. So we might not feel deep. But that doesn't mean 
that we aren't deep. I'd add that in any case, trying to feel deep is counter 
productive.
 

 On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 9:29 PM, "LEnglish5@..."  wrote:
 
   The long-term outcome of all mantras is that they lead to samadhi. Some work 
faster than others, which, ironically, is the point of advanced techniques: the 
dive is more shallow, so the progression to samadhi takes longer.
 

 So that doesn't explain the striking difference between TM and other 
mantra-based methods. It's not the fact that a simple, fast-working mantra was 
being used. If that was the case, then other practices would show the simplest 
state of awareness slower, but instead, they show it LESS, the longer people 
have been practicing.
 

 L

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

Very nice Curtis, to hear you again, even if this is only a one-off drive by.
 

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

 In a word, no. Classical theism suffers from the same philosophical problems 
in much of classical philosophy, unsupported assumptive premises.  Guys like 
Plato and Aristotle were an inspired beginning of western philosophy, but in no 
way should be considered the pinnacle of what man has achieved since then by 
standing on their shoulders. They lacked the perspectives that came later, not 
the least of which are the insights gleaned from linguistic philosophy which 
gave an intellectual basis for avoiding many of their shortcomings. Not to 
mention the advances in epistemology, man’s quest to discover how we can be 
confident in our knowledge, despite our relentless human tendency to fool 
ourselves about the validity of ideas we are attached to. Pointing out their 
mistakes is not a lack of an appreciation for their brilliance for their time. 
They were not privy to the advancements in thought that came later. But let’s 
not get carried away thinking that their speculations about an unmoved mover is 
somehow intellectual garlic to the vampire atheists. It is not.

 

 Feser’s appeal to these old school arguments reminds me a little of 
Maharishi’s use of the “vedic tradition”, you know that philosophy so wonderful 
 and conveniently obscure that only HE could really grasp it. It was out of 
reach for western students to study on their own but, oh man, it contains ALL 
knowledge. Imagine that, ALL knowledge! Back there in the most woderfullest 
country in history, his very own  pre-British India! You know in a special time 
when monkeys and yogis  flew through the air. Humans love to fantasize about 
previous ages being “golden ages” of knowledge don’t we? 

 

 Wading through Aristotle’s Metaphysics is no picnic and I doubt many people 
would be inclined to do so without having it as a requirement for a degree. It 
was for me. So unlike the audience who Feser is acting as a Sarah Palin like 
lipsticked pit bull, mother bear, hockey mom attacker of the bad atheists, I 
understand the philosophical issues with the theories he is referring to. We 
find their refutation articulated in the rest of the history of western 
philosophy. Ever wonder why most professional philosophers are atheists? 

 

 The main issue concerns why their assumptive premises are necessary in the 
first place. If you don’t accept the presumptive premises as necessary, then 
the whole thing falls apart. At least Aquinas had the clarity to post some of 
his premises so you could decide if you wanted to join his way of thinking 
without just having assumptions slipped into the reasoning process unannounced. 
 He politely lists them.
 

 The classical philosophers were prone to conflating something not being 
logically prohibited for meaning that there is a greater possibility that it is 
true. It is not. Logic is good at preserving truths, but sucks at creating 
truth. Especially inductive logic which was a favorite of the classical 
philosophers. You need supporting good reasons to be confident about knowledge 
beyond it just not being prohibited logically. It certainly is logically 
possible that there is a god. It is not excluded from the possible truths about 
reality we know about. But so far there are no good reasons to believe it that 
I have seen. Certainly not in classical theism.
 

 So classical theism, for all its lack of a god who blog posts to the world 
through scripture, or designates an area sales rep like Jesus, is no stronger 
than the versions who go the next step from classical theism's assumptions. 
Most rely on the very same presumptions of classical theism when they are 
pressed to go beyond faith and an appeal to the imagined authority of the 
scriptures or a mystical connection with Jesus for the reasons that support 
their belief. (I was SAVED people, and the Lord allowed me to pick up serpents 
protected by his holy power!)  


An actual classical theist who doesn’t also buy into some aspects found in 
personal theism is a rare bird in reality. Most people nowadays require more 
than a stoner god who can’t be bothered to get off the couch playing video 
games to give a little assistance to man and requires more of the kind of god 
that right wing guys like Feser need to support their campaigns of telling 
people what they should or shouldn’t do with their wieners. Feser is 
bullshitting us here with his pretense of restricting his assumptions to 
classical theism. And just calling it “being” itself doesn’t mean that it is 
any less of an assumed premise with no legitimate supportive reason than 
personal versions. His appeal to intellectual elitism doesn’t help his cause 
one bit.(Telling me that in fact you do limit your beliefs to just the premises 
in classical theism doesn't negate my claim that this is a rare religious 
position. Too rare for most atheist writers to need to sp

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

You know Richard, that sometimes a person makes an observation that turns out 
to be a misinterpretation of what witnessed. The person could say, I was 
mistaken, or fooled, or I was drunk and just thought I saw such and such. 
Holding someone to what they said in the past does not mean they hold that same 
view today. In 1956 I saw a UFO, but ten minutes later I turned a telescope on 
it and it was a weather balloon. You can hold probably me to the weather 
balloon interpretation. I do not know exactly how at this moment Barry now 
interprets the Lenz event, but he has had many years to ponder what he saw, or 
thought he saw. We all grow out of things, out of understandings we once held, 
out of misconceptions we have had.
 

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

 On 4/17/2014 3:12 PM, anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... wrote:

 Very nice Curtis, to hear you again, even if this is only a one-off drive by. >
 It's probably a hit and run, just like he ran from Barry's levitation claims. 
Go figure.
 

 This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus 
http://www.avast.com/ protection is active.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-18 Thread anartaxius

This is an aside regarding Hawking. I was watching the sitcom 'The Big Bang 
Theory' on Blu-ray last night, and in it the main character Dr Sheldon Cooper 
is desperately trying to get a meeting with Stephen Hawking to discuss his 
paper. He finally gets his meeting and the performer for Stephen Hawking really 
was Stephen Hawking. Hawking points out that doctor Cooper (played by Jim 
Pearson) made a simple mathematical error on page two of his paper and 
therefore his whole thesis is wrong. Dr Cooper faints. What was fascinating to 
me was Hawking really responded to the humour of the situation, you could see 
even with his almost complete paralysis, his eyes shined, and his body quivered 
slightly as it attempted to smile, that he was internally cracking up with 
laughter.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?

2014-04-18 Thread anartaxius

That is an incomplete quote Judy: 
 'Because gravity shapes space and time, it allows space-time to be locally 
stable but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive 
energy of the mater can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and 
so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes. Because there is 
a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the 
manner described in Chapter 6. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is 
something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, and why we exist. It is 
not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe 
going.'
 

 This paragraph is a summary, the third last paragraph of the text. 
 

 The explanation to which it refers is in Chapter 6 of the book which is a 
discussion of multiverse theory and how it is feasible and testable. This is a 
chapter that while written for popular consumptions is a bit difficult to 
follow. In this case having the whole book available might be useful. The basic 
thesis of the gravitational argument seems to be that the sum of energy in the 
universe is zero, and so it is basically constructed from nothing as the result 
of quantum fluctuations, no prime mover required. Some universes are very small 
and collapse immediately after coming into being, others grow to a size that is 
stable. The chapter (6) discusses Feynman's work which is in part about 
calculating 'the probability of any particular endpoint we need to consider all 
the possible histories that the particle might follow from its starting point 
to that endpoint'.
 

 I have not deciphered this chapter in my own mind, so the above is just to 
give a flavour of it, not an explanation.
 
In general I feel that theology has not kept up with the discoveries in 
science, mathematics, logic, and computational discoveries of the last couple 
of centuries, and theologians are not really equipped intellectually 
emotionally to deal with this onslaught; theists look backward to the time when 
everybody thought what they were doing was true. Scientists look forward in 
time, trying to find out if anything is true. After all if you look at past 
science, almost none of what was done has turned out to be true. Science has 
replaced religious belief with a more precise version of wishful thinking.
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Is this it? 

 As I showed in my review of their book The Grand Design 
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/?q=MjAxMDExMjk= for National Review, Stephen 
Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow are no more philosophically competent than Siegel 
is.  Indeed, one of their errors is the same as Siegel’s: They tell us that 
“Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself 
from nothing.”  Ignore for the moment the incoherence of the notion of 
self-causation (which we explored recently here 
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/dreaded-causa-sui.html and here 
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/causal-loops-infinite-regresses-and.html).
  Put to one side the question of whether the physics of their account is 
correct.  Forget about where the laws of physics themselves are supposed to 
have come from.  Just savor the manifest contradiction: The universe comes from 
nothing, because a law like gravity is responsible for the universe.
 
If this is it, it's wrong because...?
 

 

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

 
 

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

 I can't find the Hawking post on Feser's blog. Do you perhaps have a link? He 
did publish a review of Hawking's book on National Review Online; could that be 
where you saw it? It was apparently for subscribers only. Are you a subscriber 
to NRO?
 

 It's on Mr Ed's blog somewhere, not as an essay in itself but mentioned on one 
his many pages...
 

 Hawking's contention that philosophy is dead is a rather obvious nonstarter. 
It's been soundly refuted by a host of philosophers (including Feser) and even 
some scientists.
 

 Mr Ed didn't like it? Stone me!
 

 It must be great having all these amazing minds doing your thinking for you.
 

 

 I don't take your mangling of Feser's name seriously. I just think it's 
juvenile.
 

 Heh, heh..
 

 BTW, did you notice that Curtis doesn't go along with your metaphysical 
scientistic assertion that only what is measurable is real?
 

 Good for him. And it's supposed to affect me how? 
 

 

 Here's a question for you:
 

 Try assuming that this classical god theory is wrong and whatever it is that 
it does - or did - stops, or never started. In what way is the universe 
different? 
 

 When I say "the universe" I mean everything in it, us, our lives, pasts, 
futures. Everything. What do we lose without this fabulous thing you guys are 
so into?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the benefits of believing in God?

2014-04-20 Thread anartaxius

Anything one pulls out of memory is past, is past life. Anything one does not 
remember is the same experience as if it were never there. What is the need to 
fine tune what 'sort' of memory it is? Life is now, though it is nice to 
remember now and then.

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

 From: salyavin808 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2014 1:24 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?

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

 Even though I happen to suspect that there may be something to the 
reincarnation thang, I see no need to provide "proof" of it because it's just a 
belief, and I don't much give a shit what others believe about my beliefs. As 
I've stated here several times, I won't know whether it's an accurate belief 
until I kick the bucket, and if the folks who believe that we just wink out 
like a light bulb turned off are right, I won't even be around to be 
disappointed. So I figure mine is a "no down sides" belief. That said, I would 
never presume to try to sell it to anyone else or feel the need to "defend" it. 
IT'S JUST A BELIEF. I think the world would be a better place if more people 
felt similarly about their beliefs.  :-)

 I have no real sympathy for it but the stories of the children that do 
remember things are fascinating. The Scottish boy who thought he lived on an 
island was taken there and behaved very oddly when they took him into what he 
thought was his house. It was quite upsetting to watch. I can see why anyone 
would have a job doubting his story.

 Lots of people wanted to get all James Randi on it and that would probably be 
impossible given the unpredictability and rarity of the phenomenon, not to 
mention it being potentially unfair on a three year old. 

 I always look for the ways in which things can't work but remain curious as 
it's one of those things that I'd take to be sure-fire proof that we don't know 
anything about what's going on here at all. And that would be cool indeed.

Indeed. I simply cannot comprehend those who feel threatened when something 
challenges their beliefs. I've had things I had believed in blown out of the 
water so many times that I've actually come to enjoy it. Forget being reborn -- 
having to drop whatever you believed in before and start all over again is the 
real "new start."

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the benefits of believing in God?

2014-04-20 Thread anartaxius


 Share, the surface and the depth are same, the mind conceptualises the depth, 
that is the illusion.

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

 Xeno, I think and have experienced that the deep now is not limited to the 
surface now. I think it contains past and future and can be accessed depending 
on the clarity of one's nervous system, etc.
 

 On Sunday, April 20, 2014 7:06 AM, "anartaxius@..."  wrote:
 
   Anything one pulls out of memory is past, is past life. Anything one does 
not remember is the same experience as if it were never there. What is the need 
to fine tune what 'sort' of memory it is? Life is now, though it is nice to 
remember now and then.

 

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

 From: salyavin808 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2014 1:24 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?
 
 
   ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :
 
 Even though I happen to suspect that there may be something to the 
reincarnation thang, I see no need to provide "proof" of it because it's just a 
belief, and I don't much give a shit what others believe about my beliefs. As 
I've stated here several times, I won't know whether it's an accurate belief 
until I kick the bucket, and if the folks who believe that we just wink out 
like a light bulb turned off are right, I won't even be around to be 
disappointed. So I figure mine is a "no down sides" belief. That said, I would 
never presume to try to sell it to anyone else or feel the need to "defend" it. 
IT'S JUST A BELIEF. I think the world would be a better place if more people 
felt similarly about their beliefs.  :-)
 

 I have no real sympathy for it but the stories of the children that do 
remember things are fascinating. The Scottish boy who thought he lived on an 
island was taken there and behaved very oddly when they took him into what he 
thought was his house. It was quite upsetting to watch. I can see why anyone 
would have a job doubting his story.
 

 Lots of people wanted to get all James Randi on it and that would probably be 
impossible given the unpredictability and rarity of the phenomenon, not to 
mention it being potentially unfair on a three year old. 
 

 I always look for the ways in which things can't work but remain curious as 
it's one of those things that I'd take to be sure-fire proof that we don't know 
anything about what's going on here at all. And that would be cool indeed.

















Indeed. I simply cannot comprehend those who feel threatened when something 
challenges their beliefs. I've had things I had believed in blown out of the 
water so many times that I've actually come to enjoy it. Forget being reborn -- 
having to drop whatever you believed in before and start all over again is the 
real "new start."

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the benefits of believing in God?

Nabby, all of as here have been members of a cult, or at least associated with 
one except among regular posters, Emily whose daughter had a brush with one. 
You yourself are associated with rather non-typical beliefs in general. It does 
not help to accuse one of being party to the same kind of mental entrapment 
that one oneself is involved in. All of us show some kind of mental entrapment 
of which we are typically unaware. Maybe it would be valuable if first we ask 
ourselves 'Am I the one who is crazy?'
 

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

 
 Indeed. The Turq is the only known person here to have been a member of a 
cult, so his expertize in this field is quite valuable, if you are interested 
in that sort of thing. Having been part of a mass-hypnosis act is quite 
something for your "life CV"

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the benefits of believing in God?

I regard all early states of a religion as basically a cult, from the word 
meaning to culture, non-mainstream beliefs compared to what is usual for a 
locale. Mental entrapment does not necessarily mean one is forced to do 
another's bidding, as the human mind is greatly susceptible to its own 
entrapment depending on the range of scepticism or gullibility it has, so we 
can shut the door to knowledge by being too critical or open it too much if we 
are too easily influenced by what others say to us. I regard the TMO as a cult, 
and I did work for this org for a time. I think it is more like a cult today 
than it was in the early years, and it is showing the definite signs of 
becoming a religion. After all early on Maharishi indicated he wanted to start 
'a new religion'. I am using the word with a certain leeway. I am using the 
word primarily in the following senses:
 

 1. a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices 
regarded by others as strange or sinister.
2. a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing.
 

 I simply stated that I thought all of us here had been part of or influenced 
by cults, so I was not singling you out. You on the other hand single out Turq 
as the only person so influenced that way, which hardly seems accurate to me. I 
am not saying here anything beyond what we both have been involved in, though I 
was never part of a UFO cult.
 -
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 Since you accuse me of being a cultmember I am looking forward to your 
definition of said. And you better come up with something better than "mental 
entrapment".  If not you better STFU.

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

 Nabby, all of as here have been members of a cult, or at least associated with 
one except among regular posters, Emily whose daughter had a brush with one. 
You yourself are associated with rather non-typical beliefs in general. It does 
not help to accuse one of being party to the same kind of mental entrapment 
that one oneself is involved in. All of us show some kind of mental entrapment 
of which we are typically unaware. Maybe it would be valuable if first we ask 
ourselves 'Am I the one who is crazy?'
 

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

 
 Indeed. The Turq is the only known person here to have been a member of a 
cult, so his expertize in this field is quite valuable, if you are interested 
in that sort of thing. Having been part of a mass-hypnosis act is quite 
something for your "life CV"

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi Mahesh is Shiva incarnated on the earth

One of the signs a new religion is starting to go downhill as far as whatever 
spiritual use it may have had is when the message of the founder or his 
successors are venerated for themselves more than the message that was brought 
by him/her/it. This assumes of course the original message had some value to 
human life.
 

 There is the saying you cannot get enlightened by riding on the coattails of 
an enlightened master. How much less likely an unenlightened master.

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

 so the vedas meant nothing before Marshy and don't mean anything without him?? 
Man, you are deeper into TM vodoo than anyone else I ever heard of!
 
 On Tue, 4/22/14, srijau@... mailto:srijau@... mailto:srijau@...> 
wrote:
 
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi Mahesh is Shiva incarnated on the earth
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2014, 12:29 AM

 The study of the Vedic Literature is of no value
 without the perspective of Maharishi Mahesha Yogi's
 Dharma. Certainly there is no need for Maharishi Mahesha
 Yogi, the greatest RIshi, to be in any way, validated or
 justified by any tradition or text, rather it is the
 tradition or text that can only be made properly understood
 through understanding by Maharishi's perspective
 including the sound value of the Vedic literature, and the
 reading of Veda in Sanskirt for the development of
 consciousness.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?