[FairfieldLife] Re: Was the Maharishi confused? (or just being clever).

[emptybill]

Chaim get over it.

You no longer loan out your Bugatti to derelict Counts.
You no longer woo-woo the gentrified on your stage.
When you hurl "Nazi!" at every shadow you look unhinged.

Get over your sordid past and return to the 21st century.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert"  wrote:
>
> So, if the maharishi was teaching 'neo-hinduism'...
> Then why was he so upset when the courts found TM to be a religion?
>
> I remember how upset Jerry Jarvis was at the time...he had worked hard
in the TMO and really wanted to see the thing taught in the schools and
so on...
>
> So, what I heard was that this produced a falling out between
him(jerry) and the maharishi...
> In that Maharishi didn't want to pay the lawyers who had represented
the TMO in the court case...
>
> Jerry being the moral guy that he is( and the only person that I know
in the TMO who actually is enlightened)...
> Jerry wanted to pay for the services, even though they had lost the
case...so there was a falling out between them...
>
> So, we all know who replaced Jerry...bevan from heaven as we used to
call him...
>
> Bevan became the 'Prime Minister of Propaganda' for the TMO, which he
had lot's of experience with, as this was his posititon in his last
life-
> Where...he was regarded as a genius of propaganda for the 3rd Reich,
at that time...
>
> Cleverly the maharishi fattened him up so he would have a good costume
to avoid being referenced to Prime Minister of Propaganda-   hier Joseph
Goebbels
>
> He also had him assume this really feminine voice which was also a
good way to divert the attention from the usual loud and obnoxious 'Zeig
Heil'...
>
> I guess it was meant to be, because Jerry being the enlightened, 
moral and normal married man,that he is, could never really go along
with what was to come of the TMO...
>
> Hier Bevan on the other hand loves to kiss ass and decieve the people,
in all kinds of clever ways.. as this is what he is best at...
>
> Just my humble opinion...
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> > MMY was an enigma, we don't know WHAT kind of meditation HE
practiced nor do we even know if HE, himself achieved what he taught. My
belief is he was more of a social reformer interested in instituting
neo-hinduism throughout the World much like Christian missionaries. (Is
that really so bad? NO!)
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> > >
> > > "His followers called him Mahasamatman and said he was a god. He
preferred to drop the Maha- and the -atman, however, and called himself
Sam. He never claimed to be a god. But then, he never claimed not to be
a god. Circumstances being what they were, neither admission could be of
any benefit. Silence, though,
> > > could.
> > > Therefore, there was mystery about him."
> > >
> > >
> > > -Lord of Light, by Roger Zelazny
> > >
> > >
http://arthursbookshelf.com/sci-fi/zelazny/Lord%20of%20Light%20-%20Roger\
%20Zelaz\
> > > ny.pdf
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb 
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" 
wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The thing is that the maharishi never got enlightened
through
> > > > > > the use of techniques...
> > > > > > He said that he got enlightened from being around an
enlightened
> > > > > > person...Swami Brahmananda Saraswati...
> > > > >
> > > > > Please provide even a single verifiable example of him
> > > > > having said this, having claimed that he was either
> > > > > enlightened, or that he "got there" via the method
> > > > > you claim he cited.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll wait. Thanks in advance.
> > > >
> > > > Agreed, never heard him say that! In fact MMY's state of
consciousness is unknown since he NEVER revealed what state he was in or
even HOW he got there (if he got there)! We don't know WHAT MMY himself
practiced, probably something completely different as far as we know
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: US National Debt Hits $16 Trillion

[emptybill]

Calm down.

We'll just hyper-inflate out of all this government debt.

$400/gallon gas may seem impossible at the moment
but it's the only proven way to pay off the impossible.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon 
wrote:
>
> You are absolutely right about Presidents don't run a country by
themselves. Obama, with his party, and his party only, saddled us with
another major entitlement program, Obamacare, when we can't even afford
the ones we have now. Nobody that runs a business knows what's coming
next and can't plan for the future and therefore will not barrow or
spend money to grow their business by hiring more people. Banks want to
lend money but are afraid to because of all the new regulations. They
fear the government coming after them and hitting them with fines
and penalties. Obama has put capitalism in a straight jacket, not onÂ
a leash. The country can not grow out of this at our current rate, which
means we keep falling further and further behind, deeper in debt. We are
going right down the same path the Greeks, Spanish, Portuguese, Italians
and now the French. BTW, I saw where the wealthy French are leaving the
country nowand taking their money.Meanwhile,
>  people in the USA, who really do understand capitalism, save their
capital for another day. The rich are never hurt in these situations.
They have enough to hunker down and wait it out but not near enough to
bail us out.If you took ALL of their money, you could run the Federal
Government about eight days, what do you do then? Who is hurt most
are the poor and then the middle class.IMPO, I think Obama has done more
to hurt the very people that he claims to champion, but you'll never
convince them of that because they think he *cares* about them and will
make the rich pay for what they want. He probably does care. But I think
the dude is in way over his head. Instead of creating heaven, he's
creating hell. My prayer is that Romney gets elected with a strong
Republican House and Senate and has the same opportunity Obama had.
However, I think it's going to take decades to bring the national debt
down significantly, even with entitlement reform.
>
>
> 
>  From: Bhairitu noozguru@...
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2012 12:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] US National Debt Hits $16 Trillion
>
>
> Â
>
> Presidents don't run the country by themselves.  That's a myth
> uneducated Americans have.  Regardless of what you say on the campaign
> trail it has been well documented that once in office you get the
"come
> to Jesus" talk from the people who really run the US.  Just ask JFK
what
> happens if you defy what they want.  IOW, just don't have foreign war
of
> empire and the budget would have probably remained with a surplus. 
But
> what product to sell, stuff that your customer destroys and needs to
> order more ... to destroy.  What a crazy planet we live on!
>
> Romney would run the country like that rich Australian bitch that
wants
> miners to work for $2 a day.  Good reason why people shouldn't be
> allowed to have wealth worth any more than a few million in Today's
> dollars.  Wealth equals power which corrupts.
>
> On 09/05/2012 11:50 AM, Mike Dixon wrote:
> > NO SHIT DUDE! We've been saying that for years now! And the
government keeps running up the debt. Bush ran it up about 4 trillion in
his eight years and Obama has run it up over 5 trillion in four years.
The next guy in office will probably run it up 10 trillion in two years!
Somebody, that knows what they are doing, has got to fix this NOW or
we're all going down in this life time, together. While I believe Obama
means well, I don't think he has a clue as to how an economy runs, at
least Capitalism. He is the embodiment of discontent without wisdom. He
wants us to be more like the European Union and they're in the same
predicament, if not worse. Why would anyone want to go down that path?
Look, only a fraction of the baby boomers have retired yet and SS and
Medicare will be solvent for only a decade or two more, at best. If the
economy continues to worsen, another recession, it will only get worse,
faster. I know Obama can't fix this mess. Romney has a
> >   reputation of being a problem solver and fixing broken things and
he's very good at what he does. Obama said, "if you don't have a record
to run on then you have to make everyone run from the other guy". That
is Obama's strategy. Make people fear Romney. So much for Hope n Change.
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >   From: John 
> > To: mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2012 8:22 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] US National Debt Hits $16 Trillion
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > We have a big problem here.  The politicians have to cooperate to
reduce the debt.  Neither one president nor one party can solve this
problem.  It may take more than two terms to reduce the debt t

[FairfieldLife] Re: Think Back to When You Bought the TM-Sidhis...

[emptybill]

And what Upanishads would that be?

What "traditional" text are you pointing to as proof of concept?




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
>
> As I have pointed out many times in this forum, MMY's exposition on
Yogic Flying -that it comes in stages, including "hopping like a frog"-
is straight out of the upanishads and other traditional texts.
>
> The fact that you don't want to acknowledge that this really IS how it
is described in traditional circles speaks volumes about how you still
have anger issues.
>
> Whether or not Yogic Flying, as practiced by TM-Sidhas or by anyone
else for that matter, ever leads to real "floating around the room," is
immaterial: a devout Hindu (or are you going to say that MMY wasn't a
Believer) believed the scriptures of his own religious tradition were
valid.
>
> Wow.
>
>
> L
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"
 wrote:
> > (snipped more great stuff)
> >
> > 
> >
> > Excellent post.
> > The human capacity to believe is a wonder unto itself, Amen!  I
think the core of how this got sold to us is based on a faulty
understanding about what went on in the Vedic past.  We still hear echos
of this on FFL where people quote old texts designed basically as promo
brochures for saints of different religions as if they were factual
statements.  Being in the past it slips through one of our cognitive gap
vulnerabilities. I know that I can't fly and people in my neighborhood
can't, but maybe they can if they live in the Himalayan mountains which
is far away and that might make it more likely.  Or perhaps in the past
it happened because that is removed from my everyday experience and so
that makes it feel as if things like this might be more possible.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus=God?

[emptybill]

Just to kibitz a bit -

You don't really seem to vacillate between "believing and
non-believing".
After all, you seem to thoroughly believe in yourself.

You just don't seem able to totally dismiss this fairy tale theology
you've
been told by your "betters"- probably when you were too young to know
it was nothing but a sales job.

Welcome to Christian guilt obsession,  even if just in latent form.
You enslaved mantra-demon worshiper!



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan"  wrote:
>
> Good to know I am not alone on this back and forth between believing
and non believing. Stay well.
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote:
> >
> > Thank you Susan. Â I got it. Â I will put the two responses
side by side. Â I have a "believing" and "non-believing" mode also,
and you articulate yours quite well; it's interesting to compare. Â
Have a nice day. Â Regards, Emily. Â
> >
> >
> > 
> >  From: wayback71 wayback71@
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 2:20 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Is Jesus=God?
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Hey Emily,
> > I wrote a post in reply to you and did not send it until this
afternoon.  Post #31992o.  It was in response to your question about
what I believe when I am not in my "believing in spirituality mode." 
Delayed reply, sorry.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus=God?

[emptybill]

Elf Baiter,

I could have addressed it also to you but you seem
more presumptive that you are absolutely real.
Such are our certainties.

However, as some insightful person once pointed out ...
we might doubt anything but we don't doubt our suffering.
Such are our certainties.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater 
wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" wayback71@ wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" 
wrote:
> > >
> > > Just to kibitz a bit -
> > >
> > > You don't really seem to vacillate between "believing and
> > > non-believing".
> > > After all, you seem to thoroughly believe in yourself.
> > >
> > > You just don't seem able to totally dismiss this fairy tale
theology
> > > you've
> > > been told by your "betters"- probably when you were too young to
know
> > > it was nothing but a sales job.
> > >
> > > Welcome to Christian guilt obsession,  even if just in latent
form.
> > > You enslaved mantra-demon worshiper!
> >
> > Yep, and whatever else I believe or don't, I do really like
meditating.  I get all those benefits we talk about.  It is good stuff. 
So, when something works so well, it is easy to believe  in to the other
ideas tht go long with it: enlightenment, maybe reincarnation, higher
states of C, the Vedas, jyotish.
> >
> >  I heard various fairy tales growing up - mainstream Christianity,
then TM when about age 19. And was always very interested in world
religions and spirituality, even as a young child (interest in such
things is thought to be very much due to genetics).  I don't think it is
guilt exactly that I feel - maybe a bit obsessed with wondering which
version of Reality is the realest.  And wishing I had that 100% belief
in something that I once had. Being enslaved is, in some ways, easier!!
>
> Oh, so Bill was addressing you Susan, it wasn't clear to me. Thanks
for inadvertently clearing it up for me by addressing his question.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Good to know I am not alone on this back and forth between
believing
> > > and non believing. Stay well.
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you Susan. Â I got it. Â I will put the two
responses
> > > side by side. Â I have a "believing" and "non-believing" mode
also,
> > > and you articulate yours quite well; it's interesting to compare.
Â
> > > Have a nice day. Â Regards, Emily. Â
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > >  From: wayback71 wayback71@
> > > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 2:20 PM
> > > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Is Jesus=God?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > > Hey Emily,
> > > > > I wrote a post in reply to you and did not send it until this
> > > afternoon.  Post #31992o.  It was in response to your question
about
> > > what I believe when I am not in my "believing in spirituality
mode."
> > > Delayed reply, sorry.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Jesus=God?

[emptybill]

If you doubt your suffering then you would be the first to announce it
here.
How do you explain it?


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater 
wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote:
> >
> > Elf Baiter,
>
> I don't think I've ever been addressed as this before!
> >
> > I could have addressed it also to you but you seem
> > more presumptive that you are absolutely real.
> > Such are our certainties.
>
> You seem more certain of this than I do.
> >
> > However, as some insightful person once pointed out ...
> > we might doubt anything but we don't doubt our suffering.
> > Such are our certainties.
>
> Oh, you don't know of my certainties or my reality but you are welcome
to conjecture here.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" wayback71@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Just to kibitz a bit -
> > > > >
> > > > > You don't really seem to vacillate between "believing and
> > > > > non-believing".
> > > > > After all, you seem to thoroughly believe in yourself.
> > > > >
> > > > > You just don't seem able to totally dismiss this fairy tale
> > theology
> > > > > you've
> > > > > been told by your "betters"- probably when you were too young
to
> > know
> > > > > it was nothing but a sales job.
> > > > >
> > > > > Welcome to Christian guilt obsession,  even if just in latent
> > form.
> > > > > You enslaved mantra-demon worshiper!
> > > >
> > > > Yep, and whatever else I believe or don't, I do really like
> > meditating.  I get all those benefits we talk about.  It is good
stuff.
> > So, when something works so well, it is easy to believe  in to the
other
> > ideas tht go long with it: enlightenment, maybe reincarnation,
higher
> > states of C, the Vedas, jyotish.
> > > >
> > > >  I heard various fairy tales growing up - mainstream
Christianity,
> > then TM when about age 19. And was always very interested in world
> > religions and spirituality, even as a young child (interest in such
> > things is thought to be very much due to genetics).  I don't think
it is
> > guilt exactly that I feel - maybe a bit obsessed with wondering
which
> > version of Reality is the realest.  And wishing I had that 100%
belief
> > in something that I once had. Being enslaved is, in some ways,
easier!!
> > >
> > > Oh, so Bill was addressing you Susan, it wasn't clear to me.
Thanks
> > for inadvertently clearing it up for me by addressing his question.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" 
wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Good to know I am not alone on this back and forth between
> > believing
> > > > > and non believing. Stay well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn
emilymae.reyn@
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you Susan. Â I got it. Â I will put the two
> > responses
> > > > > side by side. Â I have a "believing" and "non-believing"
mode
> > also,
> > > > > and you articulate yours quite well; it's interesting to
compare.
> > Â
> > > > > Have a nice day. Â Regards, Emily. Â
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  From: wayback71 wayback71@
> > > > > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 2:20 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Is Jesus=God?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > Hey Emily,
> > > > > > > I wrote a post in reply to you and did not send it until
this
> > > > > afternoon.  Post #31992o.  It was in response to your question
> > about
> > > > > what I believe when I am not in my "believing in spirituality
> > mode."
> > > > > Delayed reply, sorry.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: anaadi matparaM brahma or anaadimat paraM brahma??

[emptybill]

Card

Apparently you never tire of parading Hairless Krishna
Propagandhi. I discussed this forced interpretation in
a post with you in the past.

Early Old-Timers?




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "card"  wrote:
>
>
> [Prev][Next][Index]
> Vedanta (4 of 4)
>
> Subject: Vedanta (4 of 4)
> From: manish@... (Manish Tandon)
> Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 22:28:24 GMT
> Apparently-To: alt-hindu@...
> From news@... Thu Mar 16 17: 20:40 1995
> Newsgroups: alt.hindu
> Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
> Sender: news@...
>
>
> namo om vishnu padaya krishna prasthaya bhu tale
> srimate bhaktivedanta swamin iti namine
>
> om ajnana timirandhasya jnananjana salakaya
> caksur unmilitan yena tasmai sri- gurave namah
>
> om brahman satyam jagan mithya
>
>   Brahman alone is (formless and unmanifested)
>
> The advaita-vadins say:
>
> viShaya: Form is only for beginners. All forms disolves at the time of
mukti.
>   Krishna says in the Gita (12.5) "For those whose minds are attached
>   to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement
>   is very troublesome.
>
> To this we reply:
>
> samSaya: But that is quoting out of context!  He already described His
personal
>   worshipers in (12.2) and declared them the best before He even began
>   to describe the impersonalists.
>
>   BG 12.2
>
>   Sri Bhagavan uvacha: "Those who fix their minds on My personal form
>   and are always engaged in worshiping Me with great transcendental
>   faith are considered by Me to be the most perfect."
>
>   Now you may say that Krishna is saying that only to encourage the
>   conditioned beings since then cannot concentrate on the formless and
>   if concentrating on the form is inferior they may not take up
either.
>
>   But not so, because in BG (13.13) He explicitly says
>
>anadi mat-param brahman
>
>   "the beginningless (anadi) Brahman is subordinate to Me
(mat-param)".
>
> The advaita-vadins say:
>
> viShaya: But sruti says Brahman is Supreme, it cannot be subordinate
to anyone
>   or anything.
>
> To this we reply:
>
> samSaya: Not so. Sruti explicitly says Isvara/'Paramam Brahma' and
jivah/'anur
>   atma' in several places and there is no obvious reason, save for
>   atheism, to resolve the two into one.
>
>   The advaita-vadins cite Mundaka Upanisad (3.2.9)
>
>   "brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati"  one who knows Brahman attains
Brahman
>
>   whereas the actual verse says "sa yo ha vai tat paramam brahma veda
>   brahmaiva bhavati" "one who knows the Supreme Brahman attains
Brahman"!
>
>   Svetasvatar Upanisad (3.7)
>
>tatha param brahma param brhantam yatha-nikayam sarva-bhuteshu
gudham
>visvasya aikam parivestitaram isam tam jnatvamrta bhavanti
>
>   "Higher than this is the Supreme Brahman, the great hidden in all
the
>creatures according to their bodies, the One who envelopes the
>universe, knowing Him, the Lord, (jivas) become free."
>
>   Note the explicit words "tatha param brahma" refer to Isvara and not
>   just (nirguna) Brahman.
>
>   So Krishna is the Supreme Brahman and knowing Him, one realizes his
>   real nature which is Brahman (sat-cit-ananda).
>
>   Gopal-tapani Upanisad (1.35)
>
>   "tam ekam govindam  sat-cit-ananda-vigraham"
>
>   You may say no. no. Brahman is Supreme and "paramam brahmn" only
means
>   Brahman that is supreme.
>
>   But we refute that because that is contrary to the grammar. Do you
>   say Head Master and Master the Head to say the same thing? Head
Master
>   refers to a master who is the head and there may or may not be other
>   masters, whereas Master the head refers the Master who is the head
>   AND he alone is the master.
>
>   Not just that, in several places, sruti has "paramam" before Brahman
>   and others don't. That clearly means Brahman is a state that is
>   unmanifested and beginningless and the "paramam brahmn" is the very
>   basis of everything.
>
>   Also, sruti says in several places gives explicit description of the
>   form of the Lord, notably, "sat-cit-ananda rupaya krsnaya" Gopal
Tapani
>   Upanisad (1.1), "rukma-varanam kartaram isam paramam" Mundaka
Upanisad
>   (3.1.3), "mukham" Isa Upanisad (15) to name a few.
>
>   "sat-cit-ananda rupaya" in fact establishes the fact that Brahman is
>the nature of Isvara or Paramam Brahmn.
>
>   It only says that the form of the Lord is not material like our
>   material bodies that decay automatically in course of time. Not
having
>   a material form does by no means implies no form at all. Infact
>   infinite doesn't mean formless, the limit is in our minds, we cannot
>   see or imagine an infinite form so we may conclude due to our
ignorance
>   that infinite is formless, I substantiate that by a quote:
>
>  When we say something is infinite, we signify only that we
are
>  not able to concieve the ends and bounds of the thing named.
> - Thomas Hobbes, English philosopher
>
>   Shows that infini

[FairfieldLife] Re: anaadi matparaM brahma or anaadimat paraM brahma??

[emptybill]

Etymologically, Vijnana means "discernment" and
within Vijnanavada usage perhaps "cognition".
Vijnana-matra does not mean consciousness but
"mere discernment" or "mere cognition".

I have the Mandukya Upanishad with
Shankara's detailed commentary. Nowhere
is there a discussion of 7 states of consciousness,
much less Maharishi's 7 states. Shankara's so called
usage of Kashmiri Trika or Shri Vidya is untrue and
has long been disproven.

This has been pointed out to you on FFL in the past.
You have received conclusive refutations
of each of your false claims in the past.
Your need to perpetuate them here is more
proof that you are not concerned with the truth.

Apparently such self-satisfying displays are all
you have left, since you repeat over and over.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"
 wrote:
>
>
>
> emptybill:
> > Apparently you never tire of parading Hairless Krishna
> > Propagandhi. I discussed this forced interpretation in
> > a post with you in the past.
> >
> > Early Old-Timers?
> >
> It's a re-statement of the Buddhist Vijnana of Vasubandhu.
> So, it's pretty well established that Advaita is a copy
> of the Vijnana.
>
> So, I guess we've pretty much established that Chit -
> 'consciousness', is the One Absolute, according to the
> Kashmere Tantrism, which essentially agrees with the
> Sri Vidya - and the sayings of MMY on the 'Seven States
> of Consciouness' vis a vis the Transcendental state -
> Turiya as mentioned in Mandukhya Upanishad.
>
> According to Chandrahar Sharma these are essentially
> re-staements of Vinjnanavada Buddhism - the school of
> 'Consciousness-only' founded by Arya Asanga and the
> Vasubandhu brothers - Yogacara.
>
> Excerpt from 'vijnApti matratA siddhi' by vasAabAndhu:
>
> "Pure conciousness is the only Reality. By its nature,
> it is Self-luminous." (XIII, 13). "Thus shaking off
> duality, he directly percieves the Absolute which is
> the unity underlying phenomena (dharmadAtu)." (VI, 7
> Sharma, p. 112-113).
>
> Work cited:
>
> 'A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy'
> by Chandrahar Sharma, M.A., D. Phil., D. Litt., LL.B.,
> Shastri, Dept. of Phil.,
> Benares Hindu U.
> Rider 1960.
> vimshAtika-Vrtti on kArikA 1, p. 114.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: anaadi matparaM brahma or anaadimat paraM brahma??

[emptybill]

You must have been a disciple of Joseph Propagandhi Goebbels last
lifetime – thus believing that if you tell a story enough times
people will believe it is true. Funny though, I don't remember you
there.

Shankara instituted the shanmata method of puja-yajna (worship of Shiva,
Vishnu, Shakti, Surya Narayana, Ganesh and Karttikeya). It is the method
(vidhi) used by smarta Brahmins like SBS. Shankara united the various
bickering factions of various deity worshipers by this means. Later they
added the puranic and tantric puja methods – worshipping Shiva as
shivalingam and Vishnu as shalagram shila.

This does not mean that either Shankara or SBS were tantrika-s.   You
have had this demonstrated to you repeatedly.

You obviously believe that if you keep speaking these pseudo-stories
then someone will believe you. Apparently, that is all you have. It
makes you appear amateurish.

Welcome to the noetic void – Willy Propagandhi.





--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"
 wrote:
>
>
>
> emptybill:
> > I have the Mandukya Upanishad with
> > Shankara's detailed commentary. Nowhere
> > is there a discussion of 7 states of consciousness,
> > much less Maharishi's 7 states. Shankara's so called
> > usage of Kashmiri Trika or Shri Vidya is untrue and
> > has long been disproven.
> >
> It has already been established that Swami Brahmananda
> Saraswati was an adherent of the Sri Vidya. It has
> also already been established that MMY was a close
> confidant of Swami Laksmanjoo, the last Tantric teacher
> of Trika in Kashmere.
>
> Another crucial point that is often missed is that
> Maharishi's typology is a tantric rendering of the
> seven states, not a strictly Vedantic map.
>
> The 'God Consciousness' described by Maharishi is
> based on Sri Vidya principles: The Absolute as the
> creative source - the divine Mother, Tripura, which
> is the main doctrine of both Sri Vidya and Kashmere
> Shivaism.
>
> Tripura can be an anthropomorphic deity, but the
> subtler tantric practices are directed towards
> Tripura as the formless - that is, the fourth state
> which is beyond or transcendental to, the three
> gross states (three cities) symbolized by AUM in the
> Mandukhya Upanishad and the cogent commentary by
> Gaudapadacharya.
>
> In Sri Vidya, the Sri Yantra is the map of the
> seven states, which agrees with Maharishi's layout,
> with the Bindu at the center. According to Tantra
> the Bindu is the highest state of transcendenace.
>
> Swami Rama on the Mandukhya Upanishad:
>
> 2) Sarvam hyetad brahmayam-atma brahma soyamatma
> catushpat.
>
> "Atman has Four Aspects: All of this, everywhere,
> is in truth Brahman, the Absolute Reality. This
> very Self itself, Atman, is also Brahman, the
> Absolute Reality. This Atman or Self has four
> aspects through which it operates."
>
> Work cited:
>
> 'Enlightenment Without God'
> Mandukhya Upanishad
> By Swami Rama
> Himalayan Institute Press, 1982
>
> Other titles of interst:
>
> 'The Secret of the Three Cities'
> An Introduction to Hindu Sakta Tantrism
> By Douglas Renfrew Brooks
> University Of Chicago Press, 1998
>
> 'The Triadic Heart of Siva'
> Kaula Tantricism of Abhinavagupta in the Non-Dual
> Shaivism of Kashmir
> By Paul Eduardo Muller-Ortega
> State University of New York Press, 1989
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Wow, This Obama Story Could End His Chances for a Second Term

[emptybill]

Bari2,


If Obama gets re-elected then you might have a chance to become a
Commissar. You could then have Willy hunted down and
"reeducated".

If Mitt wins then you can always move next to Robin and commiserate
about the "demons".

Yep, either way you'll feel better.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> On 09/20/2012 08:26 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote:
> >
> > seekliberation:
> >> As of right now, I think Obama still has a pretty
> >> good chunk of voters believing that he actually
> >> knows what he's doing.
> >>
> > Iran cannot be allowed to possess a nuclear bomb. If
> > the U.S. won't put a stop to Iran's plans to rule
> > the region, then NATO will still defend keeping open
> > the Straight of Hormuz - that's the red line.
> >
> > Without the flow of oil in the gulf to Europe, all
> > the EU countries will become very cold, and then
> > they will be annexed by Vladimir Putin.
> >
> > However, if an attack occurs and Iran attempts to
> > close the Straight, then I predict that Obama will
> > command the defense of the Straight. We can count
> > on Obama and Clinton to defend the U.S. and its
> > interests over there.
> >
> > Otherwise, we will vote in someone who will make
> > America safe.
> >
> > "Obama has very robust foreign policy." - General Wesley Clark
> > http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/
> >
> > "Many within the Obama administration believe that
> > Israel will launch a pre-emptive strike against
> > Iran's nuclear facilities before the US presidential
> > elections, an act which would signal the failure of
> > one of Washington's key foreign policy objectives."
> >
> > 'Armada of British naval power massing in the Gulf
> > as Israel prepares an Iran strike'
> > The Telegraph, September 16, 2012
> > http://tinyurl.com/9gpk3gw
> >
> >
>
> Willy, domestic policy is what is at stake right now.  As for foreign
> policy most Americans would prefer that Obama bring the troops home
and
> that the administration will stop spending on military presence
abroad.
> Let Israel fight it's own fights.   I don't see the rich fuck Romney
> showing that he is anything but an elitist pig and certainly someone
> that doesn't deserve to even run for president let alone get elected.
> As he keeps flapping his gums he makes a good job of turning Americans
off.
>
> If Americans vote in Romney they either have short memories or are
> stupid as hell because they're forgetting the Republicans got us in
this
> mess in the first place.  Obama was stuck to clean up quite a mess
after
> the Republicans drunken party.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Wow, This Obama Story Could End His Chances for a Second Term

[emptybill]

Instead of a chicken in every pot, you can declare pot for every pocket!
You know you gotta keep the little people living with their little
pleasures.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> Comrade Empty, I've always told Willy that he will feel much better
> after a vacation in one of our re-education facilities.  Of course
there
> must be something in the Texas water than makes Texans so paranoid or
> vote against their own best interests.  After all what are the rich
> going to do for them other than screw 'em?
>
> If Mitt were to win because the country has gone insane then I will be
> busy making anti Mitt videos for the next 4 years. Remember I live in
> the Socialist Republic of California (which is what Willy likes to
call
> it) and we even salute Obama with our middle finger for shutting down
> the pot dispensaries we voted for.
>
> On 09/20/2012 12:21 PM, emptybill wrote:
> > Bari2,
> >
> >
> > If Obama gets re-elected then you might have a chance to become a
> > Commissar. You could then have Willy hunted down and
> > "reeducated".
> >
> > If Mitt wins then you can always move next to Robin and commiserate
> > about the "demons".
> >
> > Yep, either way you'll feel better.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote:
> >> On 09/20/2012 08:26 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote:
> >>> seekliberation:
> >>>> As of right now, I think Obama still has a pretty
> >>>> good chunk of voters believing that he actually
> >>>> knows what he's doing.
> >>>>
> >>> Iran cannot be allowed to possess a nuclear bomb. If
> >>> the U.S. won't put a stop to Iran's plans to rule
> >>> the region, then NATO will still defend keeping open
> >>> the Straight of Hormuz - that's the red line.
> >>>
> >>> Without the flow of oil in the gulf to Europe, all
> >>> the EU countries will become very cold, and then
> >>> they will be annexed by Vladimir Putin.
> >>>
> >>> However, if an attack occurs and Iran attempts to
> >>> close the Straight, then I predict that Obama will
> >>> command the defense of the Straight. We can count
> >>> on Obama and Clinton to defend the U.S. and its
> >>> interests over there.
> >>>
> >>> Otherwise, we will vote in someone who will make
> >>> America safe.
> >>>
> >>> "Obama has very robust foreign policy." - General Wesley Clark
> >>> http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/
> >>>
> >>> "Many within the Obama administration believe that
> >>> Israel will launch a pre-emptive strike against
> >>> Iran's nuclear facilities before the US presidential
> >>> elections, an act which would signal the failure of
> >>> one of Washington's key foreign policy objectives."
> >>>
> >>> 'Armada of British naval power massing in the Gulf
> >>> as Israel prepares an Iran strike'
> >>> The Telegraph, September 16, 2012
> >>> http://tinyurl.com/9gpk3gw
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Willy, domestic policy is what is at stake right now.  As for
foreign
> >> policy most Americans would prefer that Obama bring the troops home
> > and
> >> that the administration will stop spending on military presence
> > abroad.
> >> Let Israel fight it's own fights.   I don't see the rich fuck
Romney
> >> showing that he is anything but an elitist pig and certainly
someone
> >> that doesn't deserve to even run for president let alone get
elected.
> >> As he keeps flapping his gums he makes a good job of turning
Americans
> > off.
> >> If Americans vote in Romney they either have short memories or are
> >> stupid as hell because they're forgetting the Republicans got us in
> > this
> >> mess in the first place.  Obama was stuck to clean up quite a mess
> > after
> >> the Republicans drunken party.
> >>
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: I Love This

[emptybill]

Elf Baiter

So which one do you identify with ...
Nikko the winged monkey or the Witch of the West?

[FairfieldLife] Re: I Love This

[emptybill]

Elf Baiter sez:

Well, I guess it has to be the witch since that is me circa 1960, the
one on the right.



Empty Bill sez:

Congrads Elf Baiter, you're in good company.
IMO, Margret Hamilton's role  as the wicked witch of the West makes the
1939 film wonderful.

FFL needs another Wicked Witch … only one not quite as unreflective
as those acted out in the other FFL auditions. Maybe you can fly up like
a hawk with your piercing gaze and spot the tasty little morsel awaiting
its karmic devouring.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater 
wrote:
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote:
> >
> > Elf Baiter
> >
> > So which one do you identify with ...
> > Nikko the winged monkey or the Witch of the West?
> >
>
> Well, I guess it has to be the witch since that is me circa 1960, the
> one on the right.
>
>
>   [fbPhotosSnowliftCaption]
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: anaadi matparaM brahma or anaadimat paraM brahma??

[emptybill]

Sorry, Willy, but you are starting to bluster again.

No Western trained scholar (Indian or Euro-American) would believe these
invented claims by Indians. There are no texts to read, Willy, because
tantra only developed as puja-yajna during the puranic temple-historical
phase later known as Hinduism. Individually oriented inner tantric
practice is a later development which is centered upon the
internalization the fire ritual (antara-agni-yaga).

BTW, all smarta Brahmins claim allegiance to Shankara. So what,  it
means nothing. Current smarta  sannyasins use Sri Vidya because they
adhere to Yogic Advaita, which reinterprets advaita as a form of yoga.
That may be yoga and/or tantra but it is not advaita.



Many of the current Shankaracharya-s have proven to be shills who were
voted in by various Brahmin groups after taking lakhs of rupees for
their votes. However, you are probably getting screwed, Willy,
`cause they ain't payin' you to make their fabulous claims
here in 'Smerica. Wake up and smell the rupees.


That would be smarta than what you're doin' now.








--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"
 wrote:
>
>
>
> emptybill:
> > This does not mean that either Shankara or SBS
> > were tantrika-s...
> >
> Can't help you if you won't read the texts, Bill.
>
> Get some smarts and learn some history! MMY got
> the TM bijas from SBS and he got them from SKS,
> all they way back to the Adi Shankara. All the
> Sringeri sannyasins are tantrikas and adherents
> Sri Vidya. All the Sringeri sannyasisn worship the
> Sri Yantra - a tantric yoga. These are the facts.
>
> So, let's review what we know:
>
> The adherents of the Sri Vidya claim Shankara as
> their Adi Guru, and all of the Saraswati sannyasins
> worship Tripurasundari with the Sri Yantra, and they
> repeat the bija mantra of Saraswati at least twice
> each day.
>
> At their headquarters at Sringeri, the Saraswati
> yogins all proclaim their allegiance to the Adi
> Shankara.
>
> According to the Shankaracharya of Sringeri, the
> Adi Shankara placed the Sri Chakra, symbol of
> Tripurasundari, with the TM mantras inscribed
> thereon, at each of the seats of learning - Dwarka,
> Puri, Sringeri, and at Jyotirmath.
>
> So, the mantras of TM are DIRECTLY related to Sri
> Vidya.
>
> So, we get TM and the TM bijas from MMY, who got
> the bijas from SBS, who got the bijas from the
> Swami Krishananda Saraswati of Sringeri. So, the
> TM bijas come from the Shankaracharya tradition
> of Kaula Tantra which was founded at Sringeri by
> the Adi Shankara.
>
> So, when TMers use the bija mantra of Saraswati,
> there is no difference between the bija and the
> Absolute itself - there is only the illusion of
> duration.
>
> There is no difference between an object meditated
> upon and the object itself. Since the Absolute is
> not a subject to be cognized, TMers use bija
> mantras in order to provide the ideal opportunity
> for the transcending.
>
> According to Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, "The
> difference is the same as the difference between
> rice and paddy. Remove the skin of the paddy and
> it is rice. Similarly, remove the covering of
> Maya, and the Jiva will become Brahman."
>
> "...it has now been established that at least two
> of the most sacred bija-mantras, out of the
> fifteen, contained in the Sound Arya La Hari, are
> in fact, TM bija-mantras."
>
> Subject: Re: Guru Dev and "Sri Vidya"
> From: James Duffy
> Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
> Date: April 28, 2003
> http://tinyurl.com/2drn7gp
>
> > > > I have the Mandukya Upanishad with
> > > > Shankara's detailed commentary. Nowhere
> > > > is there a discussion of 7 states of consciousness,
> > > > much less Maharishi's 7 states. Shankara's so called
> > > > usage of Kashmiri Trika or Shri Vidya is untrue and
> > > > has long been disproven.
> > > >
> > > It has already been established that Swami Brahmananda
> > > Saraswati was an adherent of the Sri Vidya. It has
> > > also already been established that MMY was a close
> > > confidant of Swami Laksmanjoo, the last Tantric teacher
> > > of Trika in Kashmere.
> > >
> > > Another crucial point that is often missed is that
> > > Maharishi's typology is a tantric rendering of the
> > > seven states, not a strictly Vedantic map.
> > >
> > > The 'God Consciousness' described by Maharishi is
> > > based on Sri Vidya principles: The Absolute as the
> > > creative source - the divine Mother, Tripura, whi

[FairfieldLife] Re: Naomi Wolfe on how the Romney video killed the American Dream

[emptybill]

Maoist sentimentality trans-posted posted on FFL don't mean shit.
Wake up & smell the bovine  feces.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> Bottom line:
>
> We thus see a turning-point in American conservative philosophy. This
> was the moment when the wealthy elite stopped believing its own PR,
the
> self-affirming myth of that economic success can always be had for
those
> who want it and are willing to work. Mitt Romney has told us that it's
> now simply class war: a struggle to stop the other half getting what
> "we" have. Thank you for your candor, Mr Romney.
>
>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/21/mitt-romney-video-ki\
lled-american-dream
>

[FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[emptybill]

It must be hard to face the truth.
So many posters here view you as just a shrew.
Not me of course . Rather, I believe you are a magnificent
bodhisattva, bent upon liberating everyone in all possible
universes ... even if they don't want it.

This is the burden you have taken upon yourself  'cause you
really love everyone  ... no matter what.
Magnificent.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
anartaxius@ wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
wrote:
> >
> > > 
> >
> > > Me, I don't see how anybody can ever hope to get anywhere
> > > near the larger Truth if they have no concern for the
> > > smaller truths of everyday life, including on this forum.
> >
> > While you are very skillful at these smaller truths Judy,
> > I think you do get caught up in them to your disadvantage.
>
> Of course you do, Xeno. I wouldn't expect otherwise.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[emptybill]

A. Woeful Baiter,

Nice job. No one else has yet shown
forth the real Judas Stone as she really is.

Remarkable.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater 
wrote:
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" authfriend@
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote:
> > >
> > > It must be hard to face the truth.
> >
> > Actually I vastly prefer facing the truth to facing
> > bullshit, but I'll do the latter if necessary.
> >
> > > So many posters here view you as just a shrew.
> >
> > I'd rather be perceived as a truth-seeking shrew
> > than a reality-avoiding pompous dormouse.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > > Not me of course . Rather, I believe you are a magnificent
> > > bodhisattva, bent upon liberating everyone in all possible
> > > universes ... even if they don't want it.
> > >
> > > This is the burden you have taken upon yourself  'cause you
> > > really love everyone  ... no matter what.
> > > Magnificent.
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
> > > anartaxius@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"

> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > 
> > > > >
> > > > > > Me, I don't see how anybody can ever hope to get anywhere
> > > > > > near the larger Truth if they have no concern for the
> > > > > > smaller truths of everyday life, including on this forum.
> > > > >
> > > > > While you are very skillful at these smaller truths Judy,
> > > > > I think you do get caught up in them to your disadvantage.
> > > >
> > > > Of course you do, Xeno. I wouldn't expect otherwise.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Naomi Wolfe on how the Romney video killed the American Dream

[emptybill]

I say stand 'em up along the walls like we did in
Munich in 1919.

Let 'em kiss lead for Jesus,
psycho-pompos capatilist  swine!



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> Comrade Empty, what is Maoist about Wolfe's statement?  Or do you
really
> want a bunch of rich fucks telling you what you can and cannot do?
>
> On 09/22/2012 03:10 PM, emptybill wrote:
> > Maoist sentimentality trans-posted posted on FFL don't mean shit.
> > Wake up & smell the bovine  feces.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote:
> >> Bottom line:
> >>
> >> We thus see a turning-point in American conservative philosophy.
This
> >> was the moment when the wealthy elite stopped believing its own PR,
> > the
> >> self-affirming myth of that economic success can always be had for
> > those
> >> who want it and are willing to work. Mitt Romney has told us that
it's
> >> now simply class war: a struggle to stop the other half getting
what
> >> "we" have. Thank you for your candor, Mr Romney.
> >>
> >>
> >
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/21/mitt-romney-video-ki\
\
> > lled-american-dream
> >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[emptybill]

Ravioli

Sorry you have such self-loathing.
Wouldn't you feel better with a completely
new incarnation?

Pray to Devi to spare you from yourself.
I hear she's quite merciful.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
 wrote:
>
> Empty - You are physically repulsive, intellectually retarded, vulgar,
> insensitive, selfish, stupid, you have no taste, a lousy sense of
humor and
> you smell.
>
> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 4:37 PM, emptybill emptybill@... wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > It must be hard to face the truth.
> > So many posters here view you as just a shrew.
> > Not me of course . Rather, I believe you are a magnificent
> > bodhisattva, bent upon liberating everyone in all possible
> > universes ... even if they don't want it.
> >
> > This is the burden you have taken upon yourself 'cause you
> > really love everyone ... no matter what.
> > Magnificent.
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" authfriend@
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
> > anartaxius@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 
> > > >
> > > > > Me, I don't see how anybody can ever hope to get anywhere
> > > > > near the larger Truth if they have no concern for the
> > > > > smaller truths of everyday life, including on this forum.
> > > >
> > > > While you are very skillful at these smaller truths Judy,
> > > > I think you do get caught up in them to your disadvantage.
> > >
> > > Of course you do, Xeno. I wouldn't expect otherwise.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[emptybill]

Wake up Willy and smell the etymological cognates.

Vi-jnana (vi = apart, separate, jña =to know) is cognate with Latin
dis-cerne (dis = apart, cernere = perceive).

Con-scious (con = with/together, scire = know) is a Latin
loan-translation from Greek "syn-eidos" = with seeing).

Vijñana therefore means distinguishing "apart" something from
something else. In Vijñanavada epistemology it indicates the skandha
of being aware or knowing.






--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"
 wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > > Me, I don't see how anybody can ever hope to get anywhere
> > > > > near the larger Truth if they have no concern for the
> > > > > smaller truths of everyday life, including on this forum.
> > > > >
> > > > While you are very skillful at these smaller truths Judy,
> > > > I think you do get caught up in them to your disadvantage.
> > > >
> > > Of course you do, Xeno. I wouldn't expect otherwise.
> > >
> emptybill:
> > It must be hard to face the truth...
> >
> Barry wrote that he doesn't believe in a larger 'truth',
> so yeah why would he believe in any smaller truths? LoL!
>
> Barry believes in 'free will' and 'vijnana' does not mean
> conciousness. LoL! Yeah, the truth, Wright, Bill?
>
> "The concept of free will plays a central role in Kashmir
> Shaivism. Known under the technical name of svatantrya it
> is the cause of the creation of the universe - a primordial
> force that stirs up the absolute and manifests the world
> inside the supreme consciousness of Siva."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_ShaivismKashmir
>
> "The details of the beliefs vary in different texts, but
> the general principles are similar to those found in
> Kashmir Shaivism...The name srividya is also used to
> refer to a specific mantra used in this tradition having
> fifteen syllables."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shri_Vidya
>

[FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology

[emptybill]

Ravioli

My Devi is Ekajati. She doesn't waste time with utter idiots. My
Guru says she only cares about advaya-jñana but for your sake,
I'll ask her to give you a glace.

Just don't be arrogant, since she can deal roughly with stupid
fools. For your sake, I'll pray for you beneficence.


You need it.






--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
 wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Richard J. Williams
> richard@...wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ravi Chivukula:
> >
> > > Empty - is it, is that what your Devi says - to taunt
> > > women here? I never heard back from you since November
> > > you dumb MF'er...
> > >
> > Some people just feel better when they have someone to talk
> > to, Ravi.
> >
>
>
> Right..thanks Richard, poor emptybill, sob, sniffle, sniffle - I'm
being
> too hard on him, poor bastard. So what if he doesn't have any skills
to
> deal with real women and gets cursed by them, he has his fantasized
Devi.
> It's all good - I'm sure he gets along well with his Devi, right
empty?
>
>
>
>
> >
> > The obsessed, friendless, possibly sexually dysfunctional
> > loser expat drifting through the world of newsgroups and
> > message boards.
> >
> > The erstwhile participants driven to juvenile hazing rituals
> > routinely go on to more even less important projects, like
> > walking the dog past a cemetary.
> >
> > It's a rabbit hole game to establish the newsworthiness of
> > trolling, when a bunch of spoiled, chat-room yakkers, try
> > to surprise the Old Guys and Gals, with "...have you
> > anything new to say?" Go figure.
> >
> > Here, the fragility-of-childhood is prominent and the
> > disappointments which come from not growing up are central.
> >
> > Adults who are torn in time, dislodged and displaced from
> > the safety of family childhood, yet not ready, either, for
> > the world of adulthood, parenting, or even voting.
> >
> > Here, the grotesque becomes human nature - with a talent
> > rooted in envy - a scary vision of man alone, shut off in
> > his room, cold, bareness, and vacancy, and inertia - the
> > emotions of solitude are apparent and flourish in the
> > online world.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] An Alternative

[emptybill]

People wonder why administrators who practice the tm-sidhi program for
40 years are so unkind and uncaring. Look no farther than the how the
first three sutra-s are practiced - three reps of three ideas ... that
is all.

Although engaged with during tm-sanyama, the three sutra-s are initial
ideas. Their possible results? According to MMY some feelings of
"warmth". But why should only three repetitions of such introductory
feelings produce a significant, lasting change in someone?

MMY used to analogize every method other than tm/tm-sidhi as just
another "cart and bullock" practice.

As a counter-point, here is a condensed and succinct example of the main
method used in the traditions of Patanjali Yogasutra-s and Gautama
Buddha's eight-fold path. Once you get a feel for it, you will
understand why these Abodes of Brahma (Brahma Viharas) are considered
essential for actualizing and realizing awakened liberation.

….

The Four Brahma Viharas

A guided meditation by Ven. Ayya Khema

Think of the four brahma viharas, the four supreme emotions,
loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy (joy with others), and
equanimity. And see them, as the Buddha explained them, as the only
emotions worth having. Nothing else has any real place in our hearts.
And think your heart as yearning to be filled with love and compassion,
with joy with others, and equanimity. See your heart as yearning for
that and then fill it with those emotions. The warmth of love. The care
of compassion. The generosity of joy with others. And the peacefulness
of equanimity. Fill your heart to the brim.

And now spread the love and compassion, and the joy with others, and the
equanimity through this room. So that there is the warmth and the care,
the generosity and the peacefulness of it all through this room, so that
everyone can partake of it.

And now let these four emotions, with their warmth and their caring,
their generosity and their peacefulness emanate from your heart and
reach out to the people who are close to you, so that they can have part
of it, without expecting that you can get the same back.

Now let all your friends partake of the beautiful emanation from your
heart. Loving and compassionate. Caring and peaceful.

Now reach out to other people you know. Neighbors. People you might work
with. Those you meet in everyday life. Let the heart full of
loving-kindness and compassion reach out to all these people that you
can think of.

Now think anyone towards whom you have some negative feeling in your
ordinary life, and don't change your heart now. Allow it to retain love
and compassion, joy with others, and equanimity and let those same
emotions reach out to that
difficult person.

Now feel your heart emanating the beautiful rays of love and compassion,
the warmth and the caring, the giving and peacefulness and let these
rays go out into the world and touch people's hearts near and far.
Think of people around here and then go further afield. Letting these
beautiful rays and emanations from your heart go to as many hearts as
you can find.

And put your attention back on yourself and feel the warmth of
loving-kindness and the peacefulness of giving permeate you, fill you
and surround you. The warmth in the heart brings joy and the
peacefulness that surrounds you brings a feeling of security.

May beings everywhere love each other.











--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long 
wrote:
>
> Dear Seek,  I agree that TMers are not necessarily more evolved or
knowledgeable or calmer in turmoil or overall better humans than
others.  However I also want to bring up an experience that has
puzzled me for years.  It came up when, for emotional healing, I got
involved with non TM groups.  BTW, both groups contained ex TMers as
well as long term practicing TMers and non TMers.  To me, the non
TMers in general just did not feel natural, which is not exactly the
best word but comes closest.  Maybe unstraining is a better way to
say it.  Some subtle energy of settledness missing.  Again, I'm
fumbling for words and thinking out loud here.  But wanted to
mention to get your feedback. Â Â
>
>
> I also notice that a lot of people are familiar with New Age ideas and
even wisdom.  But much of that sounds more like common sense to
me.  Which is very good on that level.  Or New Age knowledge
often puts the cart before the horse.  My favorite example is
Eckhart Tolle and his teaching to be in the Now.  It's my experience
that being in the Now is a result rather than a path.  It's also my
experience that the Now contains both past and future so no need to
avoid them.  Anyway, I'm ever grateful to Maharishi for his teaching
on consciousness and its unfolding.
>
>
> At this point, I have not gone deeply into Buddhist or Taoist
wisdom.  But what I have encountered nourishes my spirit.  I'm
simply grateful for all the wisdom and practical help that is available
these days.  And that it's my dharma to explore.
> Share     

[FairfieldLife] Re: An Alternative

[emptybill]

None of these comments address the disparity between the traditional
practice of Maitri Bhavana (the contemplative cultivation of loving
kindness) versus the three little "impulses" used in tm-sanyama
practice.

Having to follow strict institutional rules is no excuse for the absence
of compassion. For example, Buddhist monks must strictly observe 253
rules, Buddhist female monastics must observe 348 rules. However, these
monastics are not thereby allowed to be assholes to people.

Administrative duties in Buddhist monasteries require many skill sets
and yet maitri-bhavana is still enjoined as one of the most fundamental
practices for everyone. Not that everyone in a monastery does them
because most of their time is spent performing chants for the benefit of
the lay people. That is how the monasteries earn donations. However, the
administrators are answerable to the whole assembly of monastics for
their behavior.

A total of nine little "impulses" doesn't seem to do much
for practitioners supposed "evolution". In actual results, this
practice seems unconnected to these administrator's personal
consciousness, whether surface or deep, no matter how long or how much
they have performed sanyama. This disconnect basically stands alone as
an example of "something is missing".

That is why I included the example of the guided contemplation. It is
one example of what seems missing.





--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > People wonder why administrators who practice the tm-sidhi program
for
> > 40 years are so unkind and uncaring. Look no farther than the how
the
> > first three sutra-s are practiced - three reps of three ideas ...
that
> > is all.
> >
>
> That job.  I have friends who have experience working in the
movement's course office over the years.  Hopefully the guidelines
facilitate what is going on.  When the guidelines are less than fair to
people there can be a lot of deep (spiritual) hurt in enforcing them
where it wrecks people's lives as it can.  At times this has been real
bad.  The course office position holds a lot of power over people. 
There is a lot of communal hurt around that and the people working there
end up a conduit for that communal hurt and consequent anger.  If
someone doesn't have a thick skin before coming in to the job they get
one or get out.  It's an soul corrupting job if ever there was one like
being a Ring-bearer in Lord of the Rings.  Hopefully the guidelines help
facilitate what we are doing and not get in the way of it.  The
guidelines evidently have caused a lot of trouble that way.  There's a
reality to that.
> -Buck
>
>
> > Although engaged with during tm-sanyama, the three sutra-s are
initial
> > ideas. Their possible results? According to MMY some feelings of
> > "warmth". But why should only three repetitions of such introductory
> > feelings produce a significant, lasting change in someone?
> >
> > MMY used to analogize every method other than tm/tm-sidhi as just
> > another "cart and bullock" practice.
> >
> > As a counter-point, here is a condensed and succinct example of the
main
> > method used in the traditions of Patanjali Yogasutra-s and Gautama
> > Buddha's eight-fold path. Once you get a feel for it, you will
> > understand why these Abodes of Brahma (Brahma Viharas) are
considered
> > essential for actualizing and realizing awakened liberation.
> >
> > ….
> >
> > The Four Brahma Viharas
> >
> > A guided meditation by Ven. Ayya Khema
> >
> > Think of the four brahma viharas, the four supreme emotions,
> > loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy (joy with others), and
> > equanimity. And see them, as the Buddha explained them, as the only
> > emotions worth having. Nothing else has any real place in our
hearts.
> > And think your heart as yearning to be filled with love and
compassion,
> > with joy with others, and equanimity. See your heart as yearning for
> > that and then fill it with those emotions. The warmth of love. The
care
> > of compassion. The generosity of joy with others. And the
peacefulness
> > of equanimity. Fill your heart to the brim.
> >
> > And now spread the love and compassion, and the joy with others, and
the
> > equanimity through this room. So that there is the warmth and the
care,
> > the generosity and the peacefulness of it all through this room, so
that
> > everyone can partake of it.
> >
> > And now let these four emotions, with their warmth and their caring,
> > their generosity and their peacefulness

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield Life is so much fun - Part 2

[emptybill]

"Careful Jackson, pearls before swine. This is a tough rough crowd here.
Rick
has visions of this place being a salon but it plays more like a
saloon."

Kindly, Buck in the Dome

WTF? ...


"Like a Saloon?"

This place is a saloon and you've been seen and heard chatting with the
riftraft who drink tiger piss in these parts. You condemn yourself by
hanging with these bad associates.

Nirvartatvam!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield Life is so much fun - Part 2

[emptybill]

Look Jackson, your gonna cause his head to explode.

Here's an example of a former post that deals with this
point but that Willy can't make sense of in any way.

He can't let it go 'cause he can't understand.


>From Baba Hari Dass (the upa-guru of Ram Dass)

On the difference between Mantra practice and Japa practice.

1.  Mantra is the repetition of sounds or words which have power due
to the vibration of the sound itself.

2.  Japa is the rhythmic repetition of a name of God.

  It (Japa) consists of automatic Pranayama, concentration and
meditation. The main idea in doing Japa is to make the mind thoughtless.
Then automatically body consciousness disappears. If your body
consciousness disappears, it means your sadhana is going well. The body
is the medium of sadhana and the body is the hindrance in sadhana. Japa
is a formal method of worshipping God. It should be done privately and
preferably with a mala, or rosary.

  Silence Speaks: from the chalkboard of Baba Hari Dass, 1977 (my
bolding).



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mjackson74" 
wrote:
>
> Look Richard, let me be very plain here - I do not give a damn where
the mantras came from nor do I know why you obsess over their origins so
much. Were I to be coming to TM now with no prior knowledge of the
practice, I might be interested.
>
> In 1974 it never occurred to me to ask - I accepted the statement that
Virginia Bedford and Jamie Vollmer (the two TM Center people) made that
the mantras were meaningless sounds. John Briganti, the first teacher I
took a residence course with told us the same thing. Believed it too.
And since the mantra still works after 38 years, I see no need to ask
where it came from.
>
> My remarks about my other two mantras received from the Movement were
facetious references to my two advanced techniques.
>
> The other two bija mantras came as I said, one from Bob Fickes, former
TM teacher who I believe was on TTC with Rick (sorry if I got that wrong
Rick.)
>
> Bob now has his own thing he calls Fulfillment Meditation. Totally
different set of mantras although interestingly he still does puja, but
he puts pics of not only Guru Dev on the puja table but pics of Kwan
Yin, Archangel Michael and so on.
>
> The last bija mantra I got is a Deepak Chopra mantra. Chopra
instructors do not use TM puja. Their meditation program was mainly put
together by Deepak and Roger Gabriel, an old TM teacher who I believe
left the TM Movement the same time Chopra did and went with him to
California when Chopra set up the Chopra Center.
>
> The Chopra instructors use a sanskrit chant, the shanti mantra Gabriel
called it, which shanti mantra chant I do not know.
>
> So yes, when I use the Babaji mantra (what Bob calls his mantras) I am
not doing TM.
>
> When I use the Chopra mantra, I am not doing TM. '
>
> When I use my three TM mantras (spoken facetiously for the Fairfield
Life's version of Sheldon Cooper's benefit), meaning my TM mantra plus
advanced techniques, I am doing TM. If that don't satisfy you Sheldon, I
dunno whut.
>
> Nice pic of Michael Jackson - that obviously is not me or these posts
would be coming from beyond the grave.
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" richard@
wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > Careful Jackson, pearls before swine.  This is
> > > > a tough rough crowd here.  Rick has visions of
> > > > this place being a salon but it plays more like
> > > > a saloon...
> > > >
> > nablusoss1008:
> > > With all due respect Buck, why not let the
> > > posters speak freely?
> > >
> >   
> >
> > Apparently Mr. Jackson doesn't want to talk about
> > the elephant in the room - the bijas mantra you get
> > when you start TM. Jackson desn't seem to know
> > much about them - he didn't seem to realize that
> > you get only one bija when you learn TM, when he
> > paid the $65.
> >
> > And, if you adopt other bijas from other teachers,
> > then you're not practicing TM.
> >
> > > When finally someone with an insiders
> > > view on the above topics volunteer to share his
> > > insights who are you to try to stop him?
> >
> > So, it's unlikely you'll be getting any insider
> > information revealed by Mr. Jackson.
> >
> > > Let anyone freely display his Pearls of Wisdom !
> > >
> > LoL!
> >
> > Michael Jackson?
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield Life is so much fun - Part 2

[emptybill]

Jackson,

Don't worry ...

Continuing with the bar analogy -
people 'round here are already well-stirred.

That's why they come here  ... to slam a few back.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mjackson74" 
wrote:
>
> Damn! I Thought there was something wrong with me cuz my body
consciousness was disappearing!
>
> But you are right - I probably should posting this stuff - it is
getting too many people stirred up.
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote:
> >
> > Look Jackson, your gonna cause his head to explode.
> >
> > Here's an example of a former post that deals with this
> > point but that Willy can't make sense of in any way.
> >
> > He can't let it go 'cause he can't understand.
> >
> >
> > From Baba Hari Dass (the upa-guru of Ram Dass)
> >
> > On the difference between Mantra practice and Japa practice.
> >
> > 1.  Mantra is the repetition of sounds or words which have power
due
> > to the vibration of the sound itself.
> >
> > 2.  Japa is the rhythmic repetition of a name of God.
> >
> >   It (Japa) consists of automatic Pranayama, concentration and
> > meditation. The main idea in doing Japa is to make the mind
thoughtless.
> > Then automatically body consciousness disappears. If your body
> > consciousness disappears, it means your sadhana is going well. The
body
> > is the medium of sadhana and the body is the hindrance in sadhana.
Japa
> > is a formal method of worshipping God. It should be done privately
and
> > preferably with a mala, or rosary.
> >
> >   Silence Speaks: from the chalkboard of Baba Hari Dass, 1977 (my
> > bolding).
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mjackson74" 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Look Richard, let me be very plain here - I do not give a damn
where
> > the mantras came from nor do I know why you obsess over their
origins so
> > much. Were I to be coming to TM now with no prior knowledge of the
> > practice, I might be interested.
> > >
> > > In 1974 it never occurred to me to ask - I accepted the statement
that
> > Virginia Bedford and Jamie Vollmer (the two TM Center people) made
that
> > the mantras were meaningless sounds. John Briganti, the first
teacher I
> > took a residence course with told us the same thing. Believed it
too.
> > And since the mantra still works after 38 years, I see no need to
ask
> > where it came from.
> > >
> > > My remarks about my other two mantras received from the Movement
were
> > facetious references to my two advanced techniques.
> > >
> > > The other two bija mantras came as I said, one from Bob Fickes,
former
> > TM teacher who I believe was on TTC with Rick (sorry if I got that
wrong
> > Rick.)
> > >
> > > Bob now has his own thing he calls Fulfillment Meditation. Totally
> > different set of mantras although interestingly he still does puja,
but
> > he puts pics of not only Guru Dev on the puja table but pics of Kwan
> > Yin, Archangel Michael and so on.
> > >
> > > The last bija mantra I got is a Deepak Chopra mantra. Chopra
> > instructors do not use TM puja. Their meditation program was mainly
put
> > together by Deepak and Roger Gabriel, an old TM teacher who I
believe
> > left the TM Movement the same time Chopra did and went with him to
> > California when Chopra set up the Chopra Center.
> > >
> > > The Chopra instructors use a sanskrit chant, the shanti mantra
Gabriel
> > called it, which shanti mantra chant I do not know.
> > >
> > > So yes, when I use the Babaji mantra (what Bob calls his mantras)
I am
> > not doing TM.
> > >
> > > When I use the Chopra mantra, I am not doing TM. '
> > >
> > > When I use my three TM mantras (spoken facetiously for the
Fairfield
> > Life's version of Sheldon Cooper's benefit), meaning my TM mantra
plus
> > advanced techniques, I am doing TM. If that don't satisfy you
Sheldon, I
> > dunno whut.
> > >
> > > Nice pic of Michael Jackson - that obviously is not me or these
posts
> > would be coming from beyond the grave.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"
richard@
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Careful Jackson, pearls before swine.  This is
> > > > > > a tough rough crowd here.  Rick has visions of
> > > > > > this pla

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield Life is so much fun - Part 2

[emptybill]

Share, don't be fooled by Wiki-Willy.


Willy is quite the name dropping amateur but he didn't bother to tell
you that the real identity of Swami Agehananda Bharati was actually the
Viennese academic - Leopold Fischer.

Fischer was a polyglot and teacher, a Professor of Anthropology at
Syracuse University. He was a Sanskritist but in India that only gets
you halfway. Consequently, when he wanted to do fieldwork in India he
needed better Indian credentials. Therefore, he went to India and got
initiated into one of Shankara's dashanami monastic orders - that is why
he had this swami name. What Willy isn't telling you (because he doesn't
know) is that in India, no one with real knowledge will talk with you
about the important stuff unless you are a sannyasin. They just
don't think you can be serious and focused enough to listen,
comprehend and absorb it properly.

Leopold-Agehananda was particularly interested in buddhist and hindu
tantic traditions, so he researched and wrote about them. In his works
he was just as willing as any other academic to speculate about
historical origins and he did so in the common fashion. Although
technically a "swami", he didn't like orthodox Hindu
traditions much. He loved to call Ramana Maharshi a "crashing
bore" - to the vast delight of tantric buddhist Chogyam Trungpa and
his 1970's hipster sycophants.

Willy's conclusions that bija-mantras originated from the Buddhist
Vijñanvada lineages is nothing but erroneous tripe. I don't know
any scholar who would hold such a silly view.

This is why Willy is often called "Wiki-Willy" by those who
actually know this stuff but get tired of his back-pocket ego polishing.
Many of his conclusions are downright amateurish because he reads this
stuff and then launches his repetitive rants.  Apparently, he thinks it
gives him "stature" and thus lets him attempt to "lord it
over" the less informed about a given topic. This is the shared
evaluation by Bharitu, Vaj and me - who all have experiential knowledge
about these topics. We may argue  about other things but we all concur
about Willy.

So don't be fooled.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long 
wrote:
>
> Thanks, Richard, great info.  Letting it percolate on back burners
of share brain.  Off to Dome...
>
>
>
> 
>  From: Richard J. Williams richard@...
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 8:18 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield Life is so much fun - Part 2
>
>
> Â
>
>
> Share Long:
> > I guess it's all about mantras LOL
> >
> LoL!!!
>
> 'Bija' mantras have no semantic meaning; 'mantras'
> are words used in the Vedic rituals. You can do
> japa with bijas, but you'd need to know Sanskrit
> in order to chant the mantras in the Vedas.
>
> According to Brooks, the bijas are superior, just
> like yoga is superior to ritual acts.
>
> Why do you think the cow is now sacred in India?
>
> According to Swami Ageananda Bharati, it is clear
> that the Buddhist tantras preceeded the Hindu
> tantras, and hence, yogic practices are tantric
> in nature, e.g. the non-Vedic practices such as
> yoga, mudra, dhyana, mantra, yantra, dharani, puja,
> pradakshina; and monasticism, ahimsa, instruction
> by sutra, relic worship, edifice architecture,
> etc., etc.
>
> Yogic practices and thus yogins, and yogic practice,
> is firmly rooted in the teachings of Shakya and
> the Sramanas such as Natatputra.
>
> Read more:
>
> 'Mantra Yoga'
> http://tinyurl.com/c87rs5z
>
> "The srividya, because it consists of "indestructible
> seed" syllables (bijaksara) rather than words,
> transcends such "mundane" considerations as semantic
> meaning. Accordingly, a bija-only mantra is not
> merely esoteric but inherently superior.
>
> Because it is purely seed-syllables [bijasaras] is
> the purest form of mantra. It does not make a request
> or praise god, it is God's purest expression. Gayatri
> is great but it cannot match srividya because it is
> still in language; it is Veda and mantra but when
> transformed into the srividya its greatness
> increases" (95).
>
> Work cited:
>
> "Auspicious Wisdon"
> The texts and traditions of Srividya Sakta Tantrism
> in South India.
> by Douglas Renfrew Brooks
> SUNY, 1992
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield Life is so much fun - Part 2

[emptybill]

Yep Ravioli,

I wander around the streets searching for a vinosk (Victim In Need of
Sudden Knowledge).
When I find one, I slam the top of their head with this:
Rig Veda : A Metrically Restored Text With an Introduction and Notes
(Harvard Oriental, Vol 5)  <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674769716>

Just as it hits them, I hurl forth the most esoteric karma- mantra of
all time: "pow!"

Then I stroll away, laughing and shouting into the air …
"koo-chi-koo, you corpse-guarding ghost!"



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
 wrote:
>
> Yes indeed MJ, but ignore emptybill, he is just a vagabond roaming
around
> streets accosting and hitting people with his torn, worn books. Not
someone
> you need to pay too much attention to.
>
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Michael Jackson mjackson74@...wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Man, Fairfield life is mighty interesting! Thank you for posting
this, its
> > good to know.
> >
> >
> >   --
> > *From:* emptybill emptybill@...
> > *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > *Sent:* Friday, September 28, 2012 2:19 PM
> >
> > *Subject:* [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield Life is so much fun - Part
2
> >
> >
> >  Share, don't be fooled by Wiki-Willy.
> > Willy is quite the name dropping amateur but he didn't bother to
tell you
> > that the real identity of Swami Agehananda Bharati was actually the
> > Viennese academic - Leopold Fischer.
> >
> > Fischer was a polyglot and teacher, a Professor of Anthropology at
> > Syracuse University. He was a Sanskritist but in India that only
gets you
> > halfway. Consequently, when he wanted to do fieldwork in India he
needed
> > better Indian credentials. Therefore, he went to India and got
initiated
> > into one of Shankara's dashanami monastic orders - that is why he
had this
> > swami name. What Willy isn't telling you (because he doesn't know)
is that
> > in India, no one with real knowledge will talk with you about the
important
> > stuff unless you are a sannyasin. They just don't think you can be
serious
> > and focused enough to listen, comprehend and absorb it properly.
> >
> > Leopold-Agehananda was particularly interested in buddhist and hindu
> > tantic traditions, so he researched and wrote about them. In his
works he
> > was just as willing as any other academic to speculate about
historical
> > origins and he did so in the common fashion. Although technically a
> > "swami", he didn't like orthodox Hindu traditions much. He loved to
call
> > Ramana Maharshi a "crashing bore" - to the vast delight of tantric
buddhist
> > Chogyam Trungpa and his 1970's hipster sycophants.
> > Willy's conclusions that bija-mantras originated from the Buddhist
> > Vijñanvada lineages is nothing but erroneous tripe. I don't know
any
> > scholar who would hold such a silly view.
> > This is why Willy is often called "Wiki-Willy" by those who actually
know
> > this stuff but get tired of his back-pocket ego polishing. Many of
his
> > conclusions are downright amateurish because he reads this stuff and
then
> > launches his repetitive rants.  Apparently, he thinks it gives him
> > "stature" and thus lets him attempt to "lord it over" the less
informed
> > about a given topic. This is the shared evaluation by Bharitu, Vaj
and me -
> > who all have experiential knowledge about these topics. We may argue
about
> > other things but we all concur about Willy.
> > So don't be fooled.
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks, Richard, great info.  Letting it percolate on back
burners of
> > share brain.  Off to Dome...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > > From: Richard J. Williams richard@
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 8:18 PM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield Life is so much fun - Part
2
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > >
> > > Share Long:
> > > > I guess it's all about mantras LOL
> > > >
> > > LoL!!!
> > >
> > > 'Bija' mantras have no semantic meaning; 'mantras'
> > > are words used in the Vedic rituals. You can do
> > > japa with bijas, but you'd need to know Sanskrit
> > > in order to chant the mantras in the Vedas.
> > >
> > > 

[FairfieldLife] Re: GBh: Patanjali's reincarnation??

[emptybill]

Thanks for the demonstration of sheer ignorance by the yogis.
That is why Gaudapada condemns their quest for "laya".

For them everything is about actualizing the state of samàdhi.
However for classical vedantin-s  samàdhi is a path value that
is only valued for its ability to generate clarity of consciousness
(chitta). After that is is a path of bondage.

Classical Vedanta is founded upon the insight of the Upanishads
not the meditative absorptions (laya) of yogi-s.

This is why the so called "yogic vedanta" of Vidyaranya and folk
is a path of defeat by samsara.





--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "cardemaister" 
wrote:
>
>
> Shankaracharya's guru had told Shankaracharya that Patanjali was
reincarnated as Govinda Bhagavatpada and was meditating in a cave
somewhere in the state of samadhi.[7]
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patanjali
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Talked to Buddha -he said Willy was just a name inposed uipon a ghost

[emptybill]

Jack

Don't take him seriously. Willy is just a corpse-guarding ghost,
like the shriek of a strong wind on a cold day.

Corpse-guarding ghost is the title given in Chan Buddhist circles for
the unfindable 'I' - you know, the one that seems to exist while a
thought is present but can't be traced once thoughts cease.

Willy claims everything is Buddhist because he feels that way he can
"one up" the Hindoo-s and thus make himself look superior.
Trouble is he uses old, half-baked sources `cause he doesn't
know better.

The foundation of Vastu in Indian architecture is detailed in English in
Symbolism of the Stupa by Adrian Snodgrass which clearly established the
roots of the stupa in the Vedic fire altar and the internalization of
that sacrifice (antar-yagya) as found in the Upanishads and then ported
over to Buddhist yoga and architecture. You can purchase the book on
Amazon or view parts of the text with a Google search.

And yep me too.

I talked to Buddha and he "said" that Willy was just a label
conveniently applied to a mere assembly of flesh, blood and pus sitting
around punching keys on a keyboard.

Nothin' but wind whistling around the corner.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"
 wrote:
>
>
>
> mjackson74:
> > ...you mean that unless I believe and speak to things
> > that can be historically proven, then no assertions
> > of mine will be believed?
> >
> No, I mean telling fibs about talking to dead people
> like the Buddha is all we need to know in order to cast
> doubt on any assertions you make about anything,
> historical or otherwise.
>
> Now back to Judy, Robin, Curtis, and Barry. LoL!
>

[FairfieldLife] SSRS's instruction on silent awareness during meditation

[emptybill]

Lawson.

You do not seem to understand SSRS's instructions about meditation with
a mantra. Is this because you have never heard those instructions?

SSRS pointed out that a meditator does not need to place attention back
upon the mantra during meditation just because they become aware they
are not "thinking the mantra". Recognition of "not thinking
the mantra" does not itself constitute a requirement to "think
the mantra". Likewise, the realization of "not thinking the
mantra" does not, in itself, constitute "a form of
thinking".

The reason is simple.  The nature of awareness is witnessing
(sakshi-jñana). This is pure Vedanta.

When the field of experience subsides with the ceasing (nirodha) of
every external or internal experience, including the termination of
I-consciousness (aham-pratyaya), what remains is the awareness that is
naturally present as the inner self (pratyag-atman).

Awareness is a seer (drista). It is not the cognizer of a cognitive
activity (pramata). It is not a knower (jñaatri), a doer (kartri) or
an enjoyer (bhoktri) but rather is knowingness itself. The seer is the
witness-consciousness (sakshin) which witnesses the ending of all forms
of experience during meditation and simply remains as is, uninvolved and
prior to all experience.

SSRS's instruction is founded upon this realization and is the
pointing-out instruction which allows meditators to remain as they truly
are. They remain, during this period of "silent awareness", as
sheer seeing (dristi-matrataa) until cognitive, affective or sensory
activity causes limited identification once again.

Thus recognizing or remembering the mantra occurs as a natural
consequence rather than from a demand to "think the mantra".
\
..


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" dhamiltony2k5@ wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > Though it proly would not work for TM to broadside SSRavi
Shankar as his meditation is so like TM; evidently is also 'effortless'
though he uses different mantras.  Can't pick the same fight over
'effortlessness' that way as with the Buddhists so evidently AOL for as
large as it is, is strategically ignored.
> > > >
> > >
> > > From what I hear, SSRS has decided that people should not bother
returning to the mantra if they find themselves in pure consciousness.
That is an important distinction, if correct, and to me, it misses the
point of TM:
> > >
> >
> > Well, 'pure consciousness' is one of those correct experiences of
meditation listed in the TM second nite lecture.
>
> Pure consciousness during TM is no more or less correct than falling
asleep or having an itch.
> >
> >Sitting activated by transcending in Brahman could be that too. 
Though yours is an interesting explanation about how some TM'ers can
look so spiritually anemic after decades of their mental practice
interrupting their silence coming back to the mantra. Possbly explains
why folks may have withered away from meditating for lack of cultivated
experience.  It is an interesting distinction in the sublimity of
meditation practice.  Of course, constantly coming back to a mantra
dovetails for someone disposed with an active mind as in, 'keep on
keeping on'. It gives them something to do.  It seems some have done
that for decades based on instruction.  You make a really interesting
distinction.
> >
>
> So you agree with SSRS on this, i take it. Been checked lately?
>
> > > if you can notice you are not thinking the mantra, you are no
longer in PC anyway, so there's no point in "enjoying it," as you aren't
really there. You're just fooling yourself.
> > >
> >
> > Om,and who is fooling who with that description?
> >
>
> WHo is not fooling who for that matter?
>
> Are you trying to make some point or merely score points?
>
> > >
> > > BTW, I know that people like to think that SSRS has taught many
millions to meditate, but in fact, the group meditation that he led a
few years ago, as far as I can tell, was just a "do your own thing." It
wasn't that many people practicing what his organization teaches. ANd
the primary focus of the AOL is breathing exercise, not meditation, as I
understand it.
> > >
> > >
> > > L.
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: SSRS's instruction on silent awareness during meditation

[emptybill]

 separate, and then put it all back
together repeatedly until we get the significance of what 'together' is.
> >
> > In CC for example, you cannot grasp what 'together' is, you cannot
imagine it. You can imagine something, but you cannot imagine it
correctly. You know what activity is, and you know what deep silence is,
but they are still separate. When they come together, in fact, you still
cannot imagine it, but you know. But how to say it, you are mute.
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> > >
> > > I'll put it differently:
> > >
> > > if there is a choice, there is also a chooser.
> > >
> > > L.
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" 
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You're sure about this, are you...
> > > >
> > > > L
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea 
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" 
wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And again:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > noticing something, however subtle, even the first
glimmering of awareness of awareness, is no longer pure consciousness.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Lawson, not trying to be arrogant here, but the states Empty
and I are talking about, you simply don't know. You really have no glue.
You are just talking from a script.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea 
wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you Empty, this is simply superb, best post of the
week IMHO.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"
 wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Lawson.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You do not seem to understand SSRS's instructions about
meditation with
> > > > > > > > a mantra. Is this because you have never heard those
instructions?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > SSRS pointed out that a meditator does not need to place
attention back
> > > > > > > > upon the mantra during meditation just because they
become aware they
> > > > > > > > are not "thinking the mantra". Recognition of "not
thinking
> > > > > > > > the mantra" does not itself constitute a requirement to
"think
> > > > > > > > the mantra". Likewise, the realization of "not thinking
the
> > > > > > > > mantra" does not, in itself, constitute "a form of
> > > > > > > > thinking".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The reason is simple.  The nature of awareness is
witnessing
> > > > > > > > (sakshi-j�ana). This is pure Vedanta.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When the field of experience subsides with the ceasing
(nirodha) of
> > > > > > > > every external or internal experience, including the
termination of
> > > > > > > > I-consciousness (aham-pratyaya), what remains is the
awareness that is
> > > > > > > > naturally present as the inner self (pratyag-atman).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Awareness is a seer (drista). It is not the cognizer of
a cognitive
> > > > > > > > activity (pramata). It is not a knower (j�aatri), a
doer (kartri) or
> > > > > > > > an enjoyer (bhoktri) but rather is knowingness itself.
The seer is the
> > > > > > > > witness-consciousness (sakshin) which witnesses the
ending of all forms
> > > > > > > > of experience during meditation and simply remains as
is, uninvolved and
> > > > > > > > prior to all experience.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > SSRS's instruction is founded upon this realization and
is the
> > > > > > > > pointing-out instruction which allows meditators to
remain as they truly
> > > > > > > > are. They remain, during this period of "silent
awareness", as
> > > > > > > > sheer seeing (dristi-matrataa) until cognitive,
affective or sensory
> > > > > > > > activity causes limited identification once again.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thus recognizing or remembering the mantra occurs as a
natural
> > > > > > > > consequence rather than from a demand to "think the
mantra".
> > > > > > > >
..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: SSRS's instruction on silent awareness during meditation

[emptybill]

If this is what you meant as "my point" –

Lawson sez:

  And again: noticing something, however subtle, even the first
glimmering of awareness of awareness, is no longer pure consciousness.

  Empty Bill sez:

Theny ou do not understand what the witness actually is.

However,if you are referring to a point that is different, then please
restate you point.

Lawson also sez:

  There are two different comments I have heard on this topic that apply,
at least
for me:

1. there is no end to how subtle the mantra can become.



2. the thought OF the mantra is still the mantra.

Empty Bill sez:

  1.There is indeed an end to the subtlety of the mantra.

  According to Patanjali, the scale of subtlety terminatesin the
"a-linga" – the quality of unmarked, non-differentiation (YS
1.45). Thus,whether an object is a physical quanta or a subjective
thought, pradhana/prakritiis the final field of subtlety.

  Empty Bill further sez about your claim that -

  2. The thought OF the mantra is NOT the mantra.

If your statement were true then simply the thought
"mantra"would equally qualify as the mantra. A "thought
of" or "thought about" the mantra is simply a thought –
that is all. The actual meditation bija-mantra is that human speech
sound pronounced by the initiating teacher. Any thought that is
either"of" or "about" the bija-mantra, is a relational
remembrance – a signal to return to the mantra but is not the mantra
itself.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
>
> Many words, none of which address my point.
>
> L
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > One of the first signs of the progressive development of CC is the
> > simultaneous presence of "pure awareness" together with either
> > the mantra or thought(s).
> >
> > You are not accounting for this development but are treating "pure
> > consciousness" only in the exclusionary terms of TC. MMY never
> > treated CC as a sudden appearance but rather as a gradual refinement
and
> > clarification of the gross and subtle values of the nervous system.
> >
> > MMY emphasized that "Pure Awareness/Pure Consciousness" is
> > always present because it is the "who" in who-we-are. He always
> > pointed to this as the reason anyone might transcend spontaneously
> > during ordinary human experience and that, in fact, such had
happened
> > many times in documented human history.
> >
> > Shankara, for his part, pointed out that the sakshi/witness is what
we
> > are and can never be generated by any yoga, quality of knowing or
any
> > activity.
> >
> > Lawson sez:
> >
> > Buddhists and other traditions warn of getting trapped in subtle
> > experiences. As presented, and argued, the instruction is to revel
in
> > the trap, in the guise of calling it something other than a trap.
> >
> > Another case of "sweet poison," which SSRS appears to indulge in a
lot,
> > it seems.
> >
> > To bad you need to make such claims. You are so poorly informed
about
> > other meditative traditions that you believe you can include them as
a
> > misfit "proof" of your assertions. When you make a claim such as
> > the one above you demonstrate that you are a clueless TM ideologue.
> >
> >   Robin gets a pass because when he generalizes about "The East"
> > everyone here knows he has no clue about these traditions. You,
however,
> > present yourself as if you understood them when you so obviously do
not.
> >
> >

[FairfieldLife] Re: SSRS's instruction on silent awareness during meditation

[emptybill]

Lawson,


As SSRS discussed many times, "abiding in silent awareness" during
meditation happens naturally in TM practice – that is if someone has
meditated for a long time following proper instruction. He further
clarified that if a practitioner continues to maintain an effortless TM
practice, then they do not need Sahaj meditation. That is because they
have already realized what he is pointing out and are practicing
accordingly.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
>
> Determining whether or not the mantra is "subtle" isn't part of TM
practice. Nor does it matter that it doesn't matter. If you're "doing"
TM, then you follow the instructions, if you don't follow the
instructions, such as they are, then you're not "doing" TM.
>
> Of course, "follow the instructions" can be kind of vauge sometimes,
but that's as OK as any other part of the process.
>
>
> As long as you can think a thought, you can meditate.
>
>
> L.
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
anartaxius@ wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea  wrote:
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" 
wrote:
> >
> > > > Oh dear, for the last 39 years I've been doing TM improperly.
The horror.
> >
> > > Lawson, that's the dawn of knowledge, when you know that you don't
know anymore, all your previous knowledge has been evaporated. There is
a very good practice in Zen to cultivate the 'don't know' mind. If you
like, read this
http://www.kwanumzen.org/about-zen/three-letters-to-a-beginner/
> >
> > I have been practicing TM for a long time, and I do think this
'don't know' mind has come about. A long long time ago I learned
mindfulness, and found at that time it was rather difficult, or perhaps
because my mind would not settle down then, annoying. Lately though the
character of TM and mindfulness just seem to have merged; it does not
matter anymore. It does not matter whether the mantra is there or not,
or if I notice that the mantra is not there, it does not matter if I
start it again or not. It actually seems as if there are no subtle
levels of the mantra at all.
> >
> > I think it helps to find alternative explanations, to try to find
different ways to explain the same thing. This is easy to do with
metaphysics because there are no facts. The scientist Richard Feynman
would attack physics problems this way, he would try to find alternative
ways to explain various phenomena, and of course he was ultimately
constrained by facts, what the experiments showed. This keeps thinking
more flexible, and when you do this, you are breaking the potential for
doctrinaire ossification of belief.
> >
> > You step outside on a fine sunny day and there is all this stuff and
instead of saying, 'Well, there is a pond, and trees, and clouds'; you
just feel 'Wow!', And then if that could be expressed in more concrete
conceptual terms it might be something like 'What is all this?'. A
certain freshness imbues experience because you do not know what is
going to happen and you are not thinking about what things are and what
they might become.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Iranitea and Xeno: SSRS's instruction on silent awareness during meditation

[emptybill]

Reply to post #315421:

Lawson, that's the dawn of knowledge, when you know that you don't know
anymore, all your previous knowledge has been evaporated. There is a
very good practice in Zen to cultivate the 'don't know' mind.

Iranitea and Xeno,

  This "don't know" mind is difficult for TM trained people
to comprehend. This is because MMY's whole teaching presents itself
as the practice of direct, non-conceptual sensory perception resolving
itself back into the field of awareness. Since that awareness is
described in TM as "all-knowing", these two types of teaching
appear to contradict each other. However, the reality is different.

   Back in mid 80's, I practiced for a while at a Kwan Um Zen center.
Later I practiced with Zen master Seung Sahn himself during some
three-day retreats (Yong Maeng Jong Jin/Leaping like a tiger while
sitting). He began by asking me questions I could not answer.

"What is your name, where do you come from?"

I hesitated with my answer since I had already read some of his Zen
teachings.

Seung Sahn laughed and said, "This is easy … your name is
William and you came from you home in "xyz."

I said "yes".

Seung Sahn …"So just give your answer, it's easy."

Then he asked me …

"So tell me your true name before your parents gave you one?"

I was silent, unable to answer. He continued …

"Then show me who you are before your parents were born!"
"Quick, before thinking  … what is it?"

I was unable to answer.

He then took his stick and poked me in the hara/duntien below my navel. 
"Answer from here!"

Although I had practiced moving from the hara/duntien during twenty
years of karate and tai chi, I still had no answer.

I could only say – "I don't know".

Seung Sahn looked at me directly and said, "Under all conditions
keep this "don't-know" mind".

He then showed me a way to answer this question.

Years later a teacher pointed out that what we believe we know are
actually just concepts. For instance, whether we say "The apple is
red" or "Der apfel ist rot" or "La pommes est
rouge", the object before us does not change because the name we
select is either "apple, apfel or pomme". Likewise, if we
aggregate all possible descriptions and names together, we still have
only labels rather than the actual object. We can cut it up for a pie,
use it as a substitute baseball or stick an antenna on it and shoot it
into space. However, none of these names, concepts or utilizations
reveal to us what that object really "is".

Such a view directly points beyond mere description to what something
actually and ultimately "is, is, is". Thus, while we know that
an apple is red in color, what is "red"? What is
"round"? What is "sweet"? What is "color?  Also,
just because we can describe a monochromatic spectral frequency and
wavelength, this does not define what this something "is, is,
is".

What is the consequence?

Ultimate ineffability, real and actual unknowability … whether self,
other or a thing.

Unless we realize that we can never "know it", we will never
understand that we can only "be it" and that such "being
it" will never be attained but only actualized when we realize 
directly that we are already "being" itself.

This is not SCI but it is the original MMY teaching about Shankara's
three fields of life … doing, knowing, being.
BTW,

As a trained TM teacher, when I heard such statements as "You need
to keep a `try mind', it appeared to be the antithesis of TM. It
troubled me until I set aside my ideological mind-stamp and realized
that they were actual talking about maintaining a resolute,
single-minded intent, void of wavering. Such can be mindless ideology,
bereft of awakened contemplation.


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

> Lawson, that's the dawn of knowledge, when you know that you don't
know anymore, all your previous knowledge has been evaporated. There is
a very good practice in Zen  to cultivate the 'don't know' mind. If you
like, read this
http://www.kwanumzen.org/about-zen/three-letters-to-a-beginner/
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: SSRS's instruction on silent awareness during meditation

[emptybill]

Vag

You should give up trying to convince TM practitioners by paraphrasing
ol' Gelugpa Lati Rinpoche and Rama Linga Ding Dong.

As usual, your Buddhist Gelugpa idiot-olgy betrays you as a doctrinare.
Go back to Shambhala, Maine and smoke some more chara-s. Then praise
Shiva. You'll feel like you are going higher and higher. You can then
tell everyone all about the "vastness" of your view.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 29, 2012, at 10:59 AM, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote:
>
> > Thanks.  This is clear and very helpful.
> >
> > Just one question:  it seems you are using awareness, presence and
remembering interchangeably (see snip below).  Am I understanding
correctly?
> >
> > over-arching awareness or presence. It's the over-arching
remembering
>
> In this model, awareness becomes sheer-awareness, which dissolves into
nondual presence. All three are maintained and supported by an
over-arching mindfulness. Combined with introspection we can thus
develop a type of metacognition that can operate as a kind of
"quality control" for quickly detecting laxity or mental
over-excitation.
>
> In Buddhist tradition, a mind that can falls into laxity or
over-excitation is considered "dysfunctional". Heaven forbid we
actually train our mindstream as dysfunctional because of
institutionalized fear of balanced attention! ;-)
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Iranitea and Xeno: SSRS's instruction on silent awareness during meditation

[emptybill]

Emily,

Many times the observation has been asserted that parents are
the first guru, teacher the second but life itself is the ultimate guru.
You prove the case.

Bravo.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn 
wrote:
>
> 
> Unless we realize that we can never "know it", we will never
understand that we can only "be it," and that such "being it" will never
be attained but only actualized when we realize  directly that
we are already "being" itself.
>
> I like this a lot and I liked the story associated with it as well.
 I have come to a similar conclusion (first two phrases at least as
I have issues with acknowledging my existence) without any long-term
meditative practice and without having immersed myself in theological
and philosophical texts. Â It is simply life that has brought me to
this place. Â
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>  From: emptybill emptybill@...
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 3:19 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Iranitea and Xeno: SSRS's instruction on
silent awareness during meditation
>
>
> Â
> Reply to post #315421:
> Lawson, that's the dawn of knowledge, when you know
> that you don't know anymore, all your previous knowledge has been
evaporated.
> There is a very good practice in Zen to cultivate the 'don't know'
mind.
> Iranitea and Xeno,
> Â This "don't know" mind is
> difficult for TM trained people to comprehend. This is because MMY's
whole
> teaching presents itself as the practice of direct, non-conceptual
sensory perception
> resolving itself back into the field of awareness. Since that
awareness is
> described in TM as "all-knowing", these two types of teaching appear
to
> contradict each other. However, the reality is different.
> Â  Back in mid 80's, I practiced
> for a while at a Kwan Um Zen center. Later I practiced with Zen master
Seung Sahn
> himself during some three-day retreats (Yong
> Maeng Jong Jin/Leaping like a tiger while sitting). He began by asking
me
> questions I could not answer.
> "What
> is your name, where do you come from?"
> I hesitated with my answer since I had already read some of his Zen
> teachings.
> Seung Sahn laughed and said, "This is easy … your name
> is William and you came from you home in "xyz."
> I said "yes".
> Seung Sahn …"So just give your answer, it's easy."
> Then he asked me …
> "So tell me your true name before your parents gave
> you one?"Â
> I was silent, unable to answer. He continued …
> "Then show me who you are before your parents were
> born!" "Quick, before thinking  … what is
> it?"
> I was unable to answer.
> He then took his stick and poked me in the hara/duntien
> below my navel. Â "Answer from here!"
> Although I had practiced moving from the hara/duntien during
> twenty years of karate and tai chi, I still had no answer.
> I could only say â€" "I don't know".
> Seung Sahn looked at me directly and said, "Under all conditions
> keep this "don't-know" mind".
> He then showed me a way to answer
> this question.
> Years later a teacher pointed
> out that what we believe we know are actually just concepts. For
instance,
> whether we say "The apple is red" or "Der apfel ist rot" or "La pommes
est rouge", the object before us does not change
> because the name we select is either "apple, apfel or pomme".
Likewise, if we
> aggregate all possible descriptions and names together, we still have
only labels
> rather than the actual object. We can cut it up for a pie, use it as a
substitute
> baseball or stick an antenna on it and shoot it into space. However,
none of
> these names, concepts or utilizations reveal to us what that object
really "is".
> Such a
> view directly points beyond mere description to what something
actually and ultimately
> "is, is, is". Thus, while we know that
> an apple is red in color, what is "red"? What is "round"? What is
"sweet"? What
> is "color? Â Also, just because we can describe
> a monochromatic spectral frequency and wavelength, this does not
define what this
> something "is, is, is".
> What is the
> consequence?
> Ultimate
> ineffability, real and actual
> unknowability … whether self,
> other or a thing.
> Unless we
> realize that we can never "know it", we will never understand that we
can only "be
> it" and that such "being it" will never be attained but only
actualized when we
> realiz

[FairfieldLife] Re: Another reason FFLers should look into mindfulness

[emptybill]

I have a long term friend who started training with Chogyam Trungpa in
the early 1970's.

He practiced in group and on retreats with Deirdre Blomfield-Brown
(a.k.a. Pema Choedren). He also practiced with Thomas F. Rich, (a.k.a.
Osel Tendzin) later declared by Trungpa to be his Vajra-Regent.

When it was discovered that Osel Tendzin knew he was HIV positive and
already had developed AIDS but hid that fact and then infected a 14 year
old boy, the moral eruption that followed split the Vajradhatu
community.


During the tumult, it was Deirdre/Pema C. who refused to censure
Osel's deadly actions but continually advised people …
"Don't be judgmental, just meditate. Don't think bad about
someone. It will all be o.k."

My friend has always been clear that moral discipline (Sanskrit: shila)
was one of the three foundations of Buddhist practice. The other two
foundations are meditaion (dhyana) and insight (prajña). This is
straight Buddhism 101.

However, he knew and trained with them all, - Trungpa, Osel and Pema. To
this day he will not consider anything Pema says to be worth
considering. He has only distain for her advice at the time: "We
don't want to overshadow the Dharma. Just look on the positive".


This is how the corruption of Dharma starts … with just this kind of
moral relativism.

Guess they all hadn't read enough Thomas Aquinas. Better yet, since
they worshipped all those Buddhist demons, what else should anyone
expect?

Better go get an expectorant.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  wrote:
> > >
> > >   To be without a reference point is the ultimate loneliness.
> > >   It is also called enlightenment. – Ani Pema Chodron
> >
> > Although I like Pema Chodron, I suspect that in this case
> > her comment may have been taken out of context. There is
> > a difference between a false "reference point" -- e.g.,
> > the belief that one "knows" the "Truth" -- and a useful
> > reference point, which IMO involves merely living what
> > life is, without any beliefs about its nature.
> >
> > "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."
> > -- Voltaire
> >
> > > Buddhist nun and teacher in the Shambhala Buddhist lineage,a fully
> > > ordained bhikSuNI in a combination of the Mulasarvastivadin and
> > > Dharmaguptaka lineages of  vinaya,
> > > from(2000), Six Kinds of Loneliness,used in this turquoiseb quoted
> > > still uncorrected proofs paper [:D]
> > >
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7dtLIXE5fU&feature=results_video&playnex\
t=1&list=PL791ADAB1C3B2B940
> > >
>
> What a nice discourse.  'Opening the door to Invincibility'.
> She's talking about TM and She's a Buddhist?
> -Buck in FF
>
> > > Central theme of her teachings is shenpa -usual translation of
> > > the word shenpa is "attachment"-, which she interprets as anger,
> > > low self-esteem, or addiction in response to an insult by another
> > > person or be hooked, that sticky feeling almost like having
> > > scabies- shenpa is the itch and it's the urge to scratch:
> > > "Somebody says a mean word to you and then something in you
> > > tightens — that's the shenpa. Then it starts to spiral into
low
> > > self-esteem, or blaming them, or anger at them, denigrating
> > > yourself. And maybe if you have strong addictions, you just go
> > > right for your addiction to cover over the bad feeling that
> > > arose when that person said that mean word to you. This is a
> > > mean word that gets you, hooks you. Another mean word may not
> > > affect you but we're talking about where it touches that
> > > sore place — that's a shenpa.
> >
> > This part I agree with fully, especially the aspect of
> > attachment. Without attachment, words are just words.
> > With attachment, they become much more -- triggers for
> > our samskaras and a lingering indulgence in our addiction
> > to the emotions once triggered by those same words.
> >
> > > Someone criticizes you — they criticize your work, they
> > > criticize your appearance, they criticize your
> > > child — and, shenpa: almost co-arising."
> >
> > I would assume that her larger teaching has to do with
> > the fact that shenpa need *not* be "co-arising." One
> > can detect it early, and avoid the problem before it
> > arises into a manifest form such as anger or acting
> > out.
> >
> > I'm starting to see glimmers of this "avoiding the
> > shenpa" in 3-1/2-year-old Maya. Words or actions that
> > once would have resulted in acting out and a quick
> > trip to the Timeout Corner now result only in a quiz-
> > ical look, as she feels the reaction start to build
> > in her the way it did before, followed by a smile,
> > as she "lets it go" and decides to do something else
> > instead, something that will allow her to keep playing.
> >
> > That's one of the reasons Fairfield Life is sometimes
> > a shock to me. I see people -- people who have been
> > med

[FairfieldLife] Re: to whom it may concern

[emptybill]

You mean she couldn't bear the bare on FFL?
How do you know what you know?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 30, 2012, at 7:39 PM, feste37 wrote:
>
> > We can agree to differ. If, as you suggest, Stupid Sal may be
> > lurking here, she is free to delurk and reveal her stupidity and
> > nastiness once more so we can all marvel at it. I brought her up
> > because she came to mind as such a stark contrast to our newly
> > arrived Saint Share, and I liked the alliterative ring of Saint
> > Share vs. Stupid Sal.
>
>
> IIRC "Saint Share" actually was the person who ran the Fairfield
> Kiosk email list, set up as an alternative to the negativity of FFL.
> No negativity was allowed on this list and I believe it was moderated
> by her. At the time, apparently FFL was just to negative to bear.
>
> Needless to say, this sattvic alternative to FFL never took off -
> (must have been the artificial sweetners). And look who showed up
here.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: to whom it may concern

[emptybill]

Yep, that's you.

Truth-mocking, double-ironist and dissembler extrordinaire.
Discursive conjurer continually on stage like any actor needing an
audience.
Will your totem-daimon ever recognize your feats so you can retire?
Or like most stage actors will you need to keep it new to feel alive?

First-person ontology?
Searle notwithstanding -
nothing but "I am talking".

Better yet, revelation , revelation ...
"I have subjectivity ... please believe I'm real."

Ain't that always the mask wearer's plea?


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" 
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> RESPONSE: Beyond Monty Python. There's irony, there's inadvertent
irony, and then there's double-irony: in the latter case a person
simulates outrage and bitterness, meanwhile (if you examine the subtext
carefully) mocking the very existence of sincerity or innocence. Or even
truth.
>
> One makes oneself vulnerable by believing in and feeling there is such
a thing as truth. But if one wants to have the entirety of one's
consciousness subject only to the secret delight of malice one makes
certain one never commits oneself to believing anything—Not at least
so as to become influenced by the objective demands that that truth
would make upon us.
>
> The person who wrote this gives the appearance of believing in what he
or she has said. But if you follow the meaning to its logical conclusion
(becoming susceptible to its subtext) then one has the edifying
spectacle of someone mocking the very idea there is something called
truth.
>
> And the proof of this? There will never be any attempt to answer this
post [MZ's] so as to contradict its categorical judgment.
>
> And, dear readers of FFL, you realize it would only take slightest
nuance of feeling to utterly refute me. What is that feeling?
>
> Something that originates in sincerity.
>
> I am beginning to see why there is such a thing as having to die.
>
> For even the consummate practitioner of double-irony meets there a
context of reality which transcends irony—and all of this reality
bears down upon us with its almightiness.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Great Compassion Mantra of Kwan Yin

[emptybill]

Share


Message #315811

You must not realize that Kwan Shi Yin/Guan Shi Yin' is remembered with
the Chinese pigeon-Sanskrit "mantra" "namo guan shih yin pusa"
where "pusa" is just pigeon for "bodhisattva". She is
really the Chinese LGBT transgender version of the male Avalokiteshvara
Bodhisattva whose Tibetan mantra is the well-known mantra om mani padme
hung – hrih.

Apparently, Chinese Buddhists just couldn't bear to have a
sympathetic, face-losing man as a patron who shed tears at the suffering
cries of the world. Thus, they changed "him" to "her".

They apparently hoped for more mercy than possible when crying out
"Mommy!"



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long 
wrote:
>
> Thank you so much Yifu.  I love Kwan Yin.  Am grateful that
She showed up when She did.
>
>
>
> 
>  From: Yifu yifuxero@...
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 7:22 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Great Compassion Mantra of Kwan Yin
>
>
> Â
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6Sy2LmvmYg
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: to whom it may concern

[emptybill]

Robin's Message 315852

  Robin sez:

Because, you see, emptybill, my intentions here on FFL, they are far
more morally driven than your disgust and aversion to what I am doing.

Emptybill sez:

No disgust, no aversion … not even disquiet. Admiration rather,
since now I understand. You are just displaying your performance art -
although seemingly bereft of quietude or contemplation. In truth, you
appear as the blessed bitch of your totem-daimon, like a good and
dutiful servant. Why you must certainly see your performances as
confessional addendums to "Truly, truly, I say unto thee …".
Aren't they literal prayers to have your efforts recognized as
deserving?

  Robin sez:

You don't like it and would have me acting perhaps as a more antic
version of Lear's Fool—or the cosmic harlequin whose nimble
acrobatics are to seduce some would-be inamorato.
Emptybill sez:
Oh not so, not so. (See footnote 1)

  Robin:

I conceive of acting in love—however differently it is perceived by
you and a strong contingent of critics sympathetic to what you have said
here.
Emptybill sez:
Isn't this the mark of Plato's true lover? Or is it rather the
stamp of a Platonic motherfucker – a lost soul coupling with prima 
materia? Isn't the Dark Lord a better lover of your deity than you?
(See note 2)

  Robin sez:

I will assume, however, that in having done so you will go about the
rest of your day satisfied you have struck a blow for truth—whether
your own truth, the truth of the Self, or the truth of something even
higher.

   Emptybill sez:

Contrary to you, I consider subjectivity as a human invariant but not a
proof for an invariant personal identity. I have seen enough of my most
recent past lifetime (along with other ones) to examine its workings,
achievements and deceptions. (see note 3)



  Robin sez:

I am sure, however, as I sit in this Starbucks, that were you able to
join me, we might have some great conversation. I am nicer in person
than I am on this forum.


Emptybill sez:

Yep, it would probably be worth our time around the table. However, I
would chose something other than Starbucks fare. I rather think
Woodford's Select Kentucky Bourbon would better fluidize the wheels
of conversation. It might even warm the ontological heart of a Northern
man.

  "This universe is a stream of unbroken perceptions of Brahman. In
all respects, it is nothing but Brahman. In all conditions, see Brahman
with inner vision and a peaceful mind. As those with eyes see forms all
around, thus the knowers of Brahman see nothing other than Brahman."
Adi Shankara, Vivekachudamini, verse 522




1 This point is carefully explained in my pseudonymous book -

Slavery is the Highest Enlightenment: the story of "O"m.

by Anarkhia Sophos, Hierodule Publications, 2009 ed.


2 One tradition says: "We are true the others false or we are
esoteric the others are exoteric" - yet the other traditions claim
the opposite.

  Perhaps they should just fight each other unto oblivion to establish
domination – like the fierce battles between jews and muslims or
christians and muslims. After all, this is what Shakti does – she
dances this Lila for the entertainment of her Lord.

  This is why yogins claim that "all bhoga comes from bhaga"
– all experience comes from a vagina. So can we genuinely claim this
or is it rather that "all pleasure and pain comes from a
vagina"?

  Which brings up another point about yoga. According to the Samkhya-Yoga
synthesis, the procreatrix (prakriti) dances for her spectator (drishta)
and will continue until she feels she is adequately seen and
appreciated. Only then will she retire her dance and take a rest.
Isn't that good ol' tricky trixy for you. Always on stage.

Hmm … sound familiar?

  Likewise, for those traditions that worship "Vishnu only", in
reality there is only one Purusha (literally "the male"). He is
Narayana, Vishnu, Krishna and everything else is the opposite of him.
Therefore, a soul is always female (a yoni-jiva). That means we are all
yoni-s without regard to our physical gender. That also means we are all
yoni-s or receptacles waiting to be filled with god's creative and
procreative effluence. In Western parlance, we call this effluence
seminal-raisons or logoi-spermatikoi.

  Thus:

  Conclusion 1: All meditation/contemplation/prayer is only about
ultimate divine union because females such as we (the yoni-jivas) can
never be satisfied by anything other than a god.

  Conclusion 2: Tantra, such as Gurudev performed to worship Shri
Lakshmi, is a form of noetic and yogic etiquette defining the right view
and right conduct towards the goddess-powers (devi-shaktis) who manifest
and actualize this whole cosmos.

  Conclusion 3: we are all a bunch of pussies waiting to be filled by a
god.

  Finis:

  This explains why I am bitch-slapped daily by the guna-s of Trixy the
proc

[FairfieldLife] Re: Batty Wright

[emptybill]

Ann you miss so much.

You've no doubt heard the teaching many times which points out the
resultant karma for people who continually dwell upon the perceived
faults of others. They take those faults upon themselves.

In similar fashion, and unlike mere backbiters, Jude assumes the mantle
of the vixen just so she can deliver others from the scourge of their
afflictions. She steals bliss from the gods to deliver relief to the
distressed by taking away their sins and then delivers it all into her
own crucible of maladies faster than Fed-Ex overnight. Even more
remarkable, she does all this before bedtime and her usual midnight hot
toddy.

This is why Robby accepts her defending him. He suspects that her secret
sacrifice honors the blessed mother of god and knows he needs the
backup, considering all he has unjustly done.

So instead of praising her escape from the asylum, recognize that Jude
Stone is actually a high bodhisattva. She is the protector bent upon
delivering Soma-on-the-rocks to those tormented in the hell-fires of FFL
and won't tolerate no wu-wu until everyone is adequately
de-enlightened.

All praise to the Stone of Judas.




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

> No, no dear Barry. I think she is the smart one. Who wouldn't want to
be forcefully removed from the loony bin? She, at least, has gotten out
alive. She knew what she was doing, I'll bet you anything. If you don't
know that, you have no idea about her and you've "known" (of her) a lot
longer than I have.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Neo-Advaita revealed as the New A

[emptybill]

Read and finally understand

[FairfieldLife] Re: Neo-Advaita revealed as the New A

[emptybill]

? oops

New Advaita is just the new ahhh




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
>
> Read and finally understand
>

[FairfieldLife] Neo-Advaita is just confused advaita

[emptybill]

Read and see how -

http://www.shiningworld.com/top/images/stories/pub-pdfs/Articles/%284%29\
%20Neo-Advaita.pdf

[FairfieldLife] Re: Neo-Advaita is just confused advaita

[emptybill]

Although I posted this article to the group recently , methinks you
never read it.

Your claim "methinks advaita is only suitable for people already
enlightened"
is a double entendre on the meaning of this article on traditional
vedanta.

http://www.shiningworld.com/top/images/stories/pub-pdfs/Articles/%281%29\
%20What%20is%20Advaita%20Vedanta.pdf


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote:
> >
> > Read and see how -
> >
> >
http://www.shiningworld.com/top/images/stories/pub-pdfs/Articles/%284%29\
\
> > %20Neo-Advaita.pdf
> >
>
> Well, methinks advaita is only suitable for people already enlightened
> because, as the intellect (mahat, buddhi?) is born of prakRti
(prakRter
> mahaan... -- SS), it's inevitably 'dvaita'??
>
> puruSaartha-*shuuNyaanaam* guNaanaam[1] pratiprasavaH kaivalyam,
> svaruupapratiSthaa va citi-shakter iti.
>
> 1. sattva-rajas-tamasaaM saamyaavasthaa prakRtiH!
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Neo-Advaita is just confused advaita

[emptybill]

The basis of his article is the traditional teaching of Shankara's
kevala-advaita. Nice that you are the epi-tome of comprehension about
this tradition.


Here is a summary of the points about traditional advaita:

http://www.shiningworld.com/top/images/stories/pub-pdfs/Articles/%281%29\
%20What%20is%20Advaita%20Vedanta.pdf

No doubt, you'll quickly try to refute it based upon your
"experience". Yep, you'll enlighten us all as you strut
around and tell us all the "insider" secrets of non-duality.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> I read about two pages of the below pdf file.
>
> This guy is clever, but he doesn't get Advaita.  Nope.
>
> In fact, I'll just say it:  it's not merely the author of the pdf I'm
finding fault with; I've yet to read any post at FFL that had me
believing even one other person at FFL -- other than ME -- knows what
the fuck Advaita is about.
>
> Yeah, I said it:  I know and you guys don't.
>
> I did the fucking work.  I intellectually studied it as if I were a
PhD candidate in "silence."  I didn't get it for three years.  And then
I did.
>
> And when I did, I saw exactly what the neo-advaitans were missing: 
they didn't know the actuality of silence.
>
> Not that I'm enlightened or that my ego has specialness, but I'm
saying  that the world's so-called experts on Advaita are so obviously
superficial and don't even know that they are the blind leading the
blind.  Egos talking to egos.
>
> And some of them are far smarter than me -- okay, almost all of them
are far smarter than me.  It's not about understanding anything; it's
about the ego getting it that understanding is not the spiritual
technique it is purported to be and that YUP, karma is
unfathomablenothing can be understood completely.
>
> Experts sin all day long by being good at explaining something and
pretending that that's a proof of ownership of that subject matter.
>
> Fuck no it ain't.
>
> I'm a very good writer, and I've tried at least 2,000 times to put
Advaita into words.  Result:  even I can't get there from reading my own
words about getting there.  There is no formula.
>
> But between the words: it's there.
>
> My technique I offer to all of you: read the same books that I read
about Advaita, read them again, read them again, keep reading until
silence becomes part of the definition of EVERY THING -- that is dirt,
love, God, money, sin, Hitler -- any thing is merely nuanced silence
(see chapter eight in the SBAL.)
>
> At that point the ego gets a lot more humble about it's place in life.
IT'S RIGHTFUL PLACE.seen best in those paintings of a vast
wilderness, and in the corner of the artwork is a single tiny wandering
monk.
>
> That's not enlightenment, but at least get there -- intellectual
clarity about the smallness of ego -- before you start thinking you can
talk to people about Advaita.
>
> Edg
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote:
> >
> > Read and see how -
> >
> >
http://www.shiningworld.com/top/images/stories/pub-pdfs/Articles/%284%29\
\
> > %20Neo-Advaita.pdf
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: even better

[emptybill]

This is what silence sounds like when it sings.
This is why the communists, despite their brutal destruction and
genocide, lost out in Russia.
This is why Orthodox monasticism is still a living presence in spite of
70 years of oppression.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hbl4u7CIMd0&feature=related



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater 
wrote:
>
>
> Ohhh, love Gregorian chanting. I'll have to wait until I am back home
before being able to fall into that revery. No speaker on my computer at
work. Thanks!
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: even better

[emptybill]

An even more extraordinary hymn is
The Akathist Hymn to the Mother of God.
It is a eulogy to the intersession of God into
the cosmos as the divine-human incarnation
due to the Virgin's (unwed Mother's) voluntary
acceptance of God's grace.

The hymn is by St. John Chrysostom and
while this lenten hymn is beautiful as sung
its real brilliance is is in the lyrics.






--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" 
wrote:
>
> Dear Emptybill,
>
> Extraordinary. I am grateful to you for giving me a religious
experience I have never had before. The sense of something so real,
something inspired by God. I feel I understand Russia much better
now--the spirit of the Russian people. I feel I made contact with an
unknown (to me) form of truth. Awe-inspiring. I hope I recover. :-)
>
> Robin
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote:
> >
> > This is what silence sounds like when it sings.
> > This is why the communists, despite their brutal destruction and
> > genocide, lost out in Russia.
> > This is why Orthodox monasticism is still a living presence in spite
of
> > 70 years of oppression.
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hbl4u7CIMd0&feature=related
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Ohhh, love Gregorian chanting. I'll have to wait until I am back
home
> > before being able to fall into that revery. No speaker on my
computer at
> > work. Thanks!
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Beyond 1st Person Ontology

[emptybill]

Intersubjectivity in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism

http://www.sbinstitute.com/sites/default/files/Intersubjectivity.pdf

[FairfieldLife] Re: Quiz: Determining one's existential sincerity

[emptybill]

This "quiz" is neither theme nor value neutral.
Rather is the subset of a doctrinally preloaded view.

Thus it is not an "existential" but rather a meta-thematic
post-it note for (in this case) a specific theology.

Yep, another Christian subterfuge masks itself as "existential".


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" 
wrote:
>
> Quiz To Determine How Sincere You Are About Knowing Reality
>
> Directions: Read each statement carefully. Decide whether you Strongly
Agree (SA), Agree (A), Strongly Disagree (SD), or Disagree (D).
>
> Score 4 for the maximally desired answer, which will always be either
SA or SD. Score 2 for the desired answer, which will always be A or D.
Score 0 for the undesired answer, Score -1 for the maximally undesirable
answer. Perfect score = 100. There are 25 questions.
>
> I understand more or less how I came to my present view of reality.
>
> I can't conceive of understanding or experiencing reality in any other
way than I do.
>
> When I sense some challenge to my view of reality (or any given issue)
I harden and hunker down; it doesn't matter at that point whether I am
right or wrong; I must preserve the sense of my own sense of integrity:
I must defend myself.
>
> I have had the experience of realizing I was wrong about something,
and have enjoyed surrendering to a different truth than I started out
believing.
>
> I feel I am a pretty good judge of the sincerity or insincerity of
someone who takes a point of view opposed to my own.
>
> I believe it is possible to be a good person and yet have a view of
reality or even any important issue which is opposed to my own point of
view.
>
> I would like to have a greater awareness of all the reality that there
is to know.
>
> I am living a life that is not ignoring the fact that I know I must
die someday.
>
> I wish I could be in an actual state of grace all the time, supposing
this were possible.
>
> I am willing to brave my fears and my own conditioning in order to get
a connection with reality which will ask some form of sacrifice of my
familiar way of seeing things, and my own vanity.
>
> I am interested in having an experience of my own essential innocence
and sincerity--at least this is a desideratum I seek.
>
> I consider a clear conscience to be a good thing. It is something I
wish to possess in my own life.
>
> When I am in the presence of an intuition of a greater or higher
reality I tend to contract rather than expand.
>
> I have done my best to find the purpose of life, even the purpose of
my own life.
>
> I like learning new things about myself; I am in the quest of greater
self-knowledge all the time.
>
> I feel motivated in some sense to seek the truth even if that truth is
inconvenient to me, to my assumed beliefs and predilections.
>
> I think I am a pretty good judge of the character of other human
beings.
>
> I feel that my life has been governed by a fate which did not take
into account my own desire or free will. I feel I am not essentially
responsible for where I have ended up in my life.
>
> I am willing to have a change of heart about someone should they
indicate some willingness to reach out to me.
>
> My enemies, they are fixed for all-time for me. I don't see
reconciliation or negotiation. I will fight to the end, never giving any
quarter--no matter what.
>
> I would rather be who I am than to be any other person who has ever
lived.
>
> I am willing to see the truth of when irony is directed towards me.
>
> I feel I want what is the most real experience that any human being
can have in the universe.
>
> I feel the truth about something always has a better potential for
being useful to me than some falsification of that same truth.
>
>  I am living a life so as to deserve to be happy when I die.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Quiz: Determining one's existential sincerity

[emptybill]

No "animosity" present except which you impute.

Go out and take a drive or walk. Ask yourself a simple
question ... "Where did I arrive?". That is the
quiz, already preloaded.

If your answer is mundane thus will be your reality.
If your answer surrounds you with a silence born
out of the gulf of unknowability then welcome to the
ineffable.

You are a smart lady. You will answer this quiz easily.
You probably answered it already in your 10th-12th year.





--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote:
> 
> > We require more than a "quiz" - especially one that is askew with
> > concealed assumptions.
>
> Why doncha reveal some of those concealed assumptions so we
> know what the hell you're talking about?
>
> Better yet, why don't you create your own unskewed quiz?
>
> I'm a little puzzled at the animosity from you and Xeno
> generated by a set of questions designed for you to ask
> yourself, whose answers you score as you see fit. Seems
> pretty low-key to me. Why does it feel so threatening?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Quiz: Determining one's existential sincerity

[emptybill]

Emily

Nice deep question but one needing a trans-rational answer.

I would advise searching for a famous book Venus on the Half-Shell by
Kilgore Trout. In it the last remaining human goes around the universe
searching for the definitive answer to the ultimate question ... "Why
are we born to suffer and die?"

You will find it all there - the whole bare-assed naked trooth.
Be advised however ... you might not be ready for it.


  [File:Venusonahal.gif]




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn 
wrote:
>
> Emptybill, answer me this..."what is the point of it all?">
>
> ________
>  From: emptybill emptybill@...
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 1:46 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Quiz: Determining one's existential
sincerity
>
>
> Â
> No "animosity" present except which you impute.
>
> Go out and take a drive or walk. Ask yourself a simple
> question ... "Where did I arrive?". That is the
> quiz, already preloaded.
>
> If your answer is mundane thus will be your reality.
> If your answer surrounds you with a silence born
> out of the gulf of unknowability then welcome to the
> ineffable.
>
> You are a smart lady. You will answer this quiz easily.
> You probably answered it already in your 10th-12th year.
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" jstein@ wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote:
> > 
> > > We require more than a "quiz" - especially one that is askew with
> > > concealed assumptions.
> >
> > Why doncha reveal some of those concealed assumptions so we
> > know what the hell you're talking about?
> >
> > Better yet, why don't you create your own unskewed quiz?
> >
> > I'm a little puzzled at the animosity from you and Xeno
> > generated by a set of questions designed for you to ask
> > yourself, whose answers you score as you see fit. Seems
> > pretty low-key to me. Why does it feel so threatening?
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ravi Bhogi (Aquinas' Quinque Subjectio, was Fanboy Robin)

[emptybill]

Almost everyone here ought to have bhoga as a middle name. Ain't no
yogis 'round here. Perhaps Ravinutt Bhoganandajiji might be more
accurate for you.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi  wrote:
>
> LOL..this is the first time someone's called me Bhogi on FFL. So my
full name's actually Ravi Bhogi Yogi, just didn't want to confuse people
too much.
>
> Empty I bow down to your supreme knowledge here. But you know you will
always have my support in your NBFF match-ups with Vaj.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Shring? Buddhist and Hindu mantras.

[emptybill]

Vag:

These are Sanderson's theories. Interesting, yes, but just theories
Bill. Interesting from the POV of scholastic materialism. For
consciousness-based practitioners, not so much.

My reply:

There is no such thing as "scholastic materialism". It is a b.s. label.
Some scholars are mere academics while some scholars are also
practitioners. I know people in both categories

In the West, in the field of religious studies, this "scholar versus
practitioner" divide has always been seen. To now call yourself a
"consciousness-based practitioner" but label Dr. Alex Sanderson
a "scholastic materialist" is dishonest on your part.

Vag:

That seems a fair representation, but it's missing key components.
Rishis "see" mantras at the pasyanti level of speech.

My reply:

This just restates the understanding put forward by the grammarian
Bartrihari about shabda-brahman and later adopted by the Hindu Tantras.
It is in direct contradiction to the Buddhist nominalist (Apoha-vada)
doctrine of Vasubandu and Dignaga.

Vag:

This same universal process occurs in many different traditions, using
different names but what's being experienced is this same "speech that
is seen".

My reply:

That process arises out the self-revealing Logos  (Vach/Vak) of Brahman.
It is the very calling-forth (vocalization) of the Real to us as human
beings and is what Shruti is in essence. That is the reason the primal
sounds in Sanskrit vibrate the chakras/elements (maha-bhutas) and is
unexplainable in Buddhism.

Vag:

It's the process of revelation that's the same William. Both tertons and
Vedic or Bonpo rishis cognize wisdom by overthrowing dualistic
limitations within consciousness and the wisdom that emerges emerges
from a mandala, which emerges from a seed-syllable. The only reason or
way the process of revelation would be different is if their nervous
systems were different across time. But both have instances were wisdom
emerges in the form of a mandala, in the consciousness of the seer.

My reply:

Out of non-duality arises everything that can appear as duality.
However, that does not mean the process of cognizance for Tertons is the
same as Seeing Shrutis is for a Vedic Rishi. Non-dual awareness can be
temporary or permanent but the calling-forth of Brahman is foundational
to human consciousness. Thus visionary perception is common to our human
condition but that doesn't make it Shruti.

BTW – Many Gelugpa scholars do not accept that these Termas
(Visionary Treasures) are revelations. Most consider them to be stock
Buddhist Tantric mems embedded in the culture of Tibet and not teaching
from Padmasambhava or any Sambhogakaya persona.

>Vag:

This also explains why sadhanas used in Shaivism are similar (or the
same) to those used in the Inner Tantras or Atiyoga. They're triggering
the same visionary process within different contexts or ways of seeing.

My reply:

Apparently you only gave a cursory look at Sanderson's Webpage. He
has plenty of material demonstrating Buddhist textual borrowing from
Shaiva tantric texts.

Your explanation is almost a New Age syncretism. Oh so sorry but …

Pss - it's not really all one.





--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 30, 2011, at 1:35 PM, emptybill wrote:
>
> > Me previously:
> >
> > The truth is that most Buddhist mantras have origins in the purana/
> > tantra practice of India which is Hindu/Jain in composition.
> >
> > Vag reply:
> >
> > Incorrect. Most mantras from the vajrayana paths were revealed - or
> > re-revealed if you prefer, to classes of yogis known as tertons
> > (gter ston) or "treasure revealers". These are effectively modern
> > rishis
> > revealing these mantras in a different context despite their
> > phonological similarity to their (Hindu) tantric counterparts. In
> > actuality they represent the tantric subjugation of the collective
> > consciousness of groups which opposed buddha-dharma at that time
(and
> > actually up to and including the present).
> >
> >
> > My reply:
> >
> > This is more disinformation and B.S. from you Vag.
> >
> > Alex Sanderson shows in his analysis of Heruka-Abhi-Dhana-Tantra
> > the Buddhist borrowing from Hindu Shaiva Agamas  and other relevant
> > texts.
> >
> > http://alexissanderson.com/Documents/2009ViennaHeruka.pdf
> >
>
> These are Sanderson's theories. Interesting, yes, but just theories
> Bill. Interesting from the POV of scholastic materialism. For
> consciousness-based practitioners, not so much.
>
> > Furthermore the two traditions are not the same in any way. The
> > Rishi-s were seers of the Veda who revealed those sound values in
> > human speech (with all of its relative d

[FairfieldLife] Re: Early Christian meditation

[emptybill]

Yeah,

'fer him ever nee shal bend an ever hed shal bow

hall i u e yah


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "johnt" 
wrote:
>
> MMY  "what you put your attention on grows"
>
> According to both original Christian Churches the Name "Jesus" was the
"Word to be transcended on having the actual presence of the divine in
what the Name signifies.
>
> Meditation on the Name "Jesus" has been practiced continuously in the
Christian tradition. Eastern Orthodox Christians call this practice the
"Jesus Prayer" and use it as either a phrase or just focus on the name
"Jesus".
>
> In the current times this tradition has been formalized in the
Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, Scriptures, and Eastern Orthodox
teaching.
>
> Fr. Thomas Hopko, Dean Emeritus, St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary.
>
> "For ancient Christianity and for Eastern Orthodoxy through the ages,
the very name "Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua" is the presence and the power of
the Person of Christ himself. When you say that name, he is there. When
you invoke that name, Jesus is present. His power is present. His might
is present. His saving power is present. He is present! It's a parousia.
It's a parousia before the presence of the Lord at the end of the ages,
and at the end of the ages is when every knee in heaven and on earth
will bow down before him to the glory of God the Father."
>
> Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church
>
> CCC 2666 But the one name that contains everything is the one that the
Son of God received in his incarnation: JESUS. The divine name may not
be spoken by human lips, but by assuming our humanity The Word of God
hands it over to us and we can invoke it: "Jesus," "YHWH saves. The name
"Jesus" contains all: God and man and the whole economy of creation and
salvation. To pray "Jesus" is to invoke him and to call him within us.
His name is the only one that contains the presence it signifies. Jesus
is the Risen One, and whoever invokes the name of Jesus is welcoming the
Son of God who loved him and who gave himself up for him.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Shring? Buddhist and Hindu mantras.

[emptybill]

Buddhist literary borrowings from shaiva texts are quite clear. However
that does not invalidate the idea of a common yogic cultural sphere
which went both ways. Yogins often do not mind mixing dharmas since they
are concerned primarily with what works.

The Bon dharma appears to synthesize the pre-tantric Buddhism of Zhang
Zhung with Trans-Himalayan, native shamanism. So what? That is no reason
to indulge in doctrinaire attributions. Tibetans like to do that …
why ape them?

Khachab Rinpoche took Bon Dzogchen teachings from Lopon Tenzin Namdak
and personally verified their authentic nature along with their
correspondences to Nyingma Dzochen. His sister was a Bonpo practitioner
married to a Mongolian Lama.  He has real knowledge about their
teachings and practice.

Considering your many Shaiva contentions here on FFL, I would expect you
to agree that Shaiva MahaBhairava traditions influenced Buddhist Tantric
practices rather than try to mystify it all into Tögal bindus. Same
for Tertons. They don't need to be puffed up into Vedic rishis since
they already possess a profound set of teachings transmitted directly by
rigpa yeshe.

……….

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> Hi William:
>
> On Dec 1, 2011, at 7:28 PM, emptybill wrote:
>
> > My reply:
> >
> > Apparently you only gave a cursory look at Sanderson's Webpage. He
> > has plenty of material demonstrating Buddhist textual borrowing
> > from Shaiva tantric texts.
> >
>
> About 5 years ago or so, before Sanderson's page came up, a group of
> ngakpas with authorizations in the tantras and mahasandi, one of who
> works for a major library, acquired and had about a half dozen of
> Sanderson's papers digitized. We spent a couple of months going over
> them and periodically reviewed new ones we hadn't seen. We also
> reviewed papers which countered Sandersons theories. It's probably
> been a year or so since I've looked at the web site, but yes I am
> familiar with Sanderson's papers and found them very interesting.
>
> What you may not be aware of is the opposite theory of transmission
> already existed prior to Sanderson's theories - that transmission of
> certain tantric materials, sadhanas, etc. had come from buddhism and
> bon into Hinduism. In fact certain specific togal practices can be
> found in later shaivite texts, after their bonpo originals. Current
> lineholders are familiar with the historical trend. You can also see
> the same trend in Kashmir. It's helpful to keep in mind that the
> traditional abode of shiva and parvati, Mount Kailash, is a within
> the ancient kingdom of Zhang Zhung. This ancient kingdom had lines of
> "pre-buddhist" (pre-shakyamuni) buddhas, which one of these may
> represent the historical figure known today as the "god" shiva. Since
> these lines still exist, you can find lamas who will discuss the
> transmission of bonpo tantric and bonpo dzogchen into other vehicles.
>
> Various practices in these systems also contain practices relating to
> rishis, some of which were Vedic rishis. This is interesting because
> very little of the Vedic religion has survived. But practices of the
> rishis are found in other systems and a number of Vedic rishis may
> represent prior (pre-shakyamuni) buddhas. Thus, to this day, you can
> visit temples in Tibet which show the vedic rishis, side by side with
> "later" buddhas.
>
> Probably the most obvious example of sharing of these ideas is the
> kalachakra-tantra itself, which actually contains within it the Hindu
> kalachakra, the shiva-swarodaya. But it would be a hard argument that
> the "arising of letters" in one is really that different than "the
> arising of letters" in the other. It's really the View that varies.
>
> > Your explanation is almost a New Age syncretism. Oh so sorry but
…
> >
>
> No, It's always important to point out (IMO) that while sadhanas and
> bases like chakra systems may be the same or similar, since the View
> varies the way they are seen may differ dramatically. Since View
> determines Fruition, differences in View may translate into different
> forms or styles of awakening.
>
> > Pss - it's not really all one.
> >
> That's right. That why I consider perennialism a false view of
reality.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Shring? Buddhist and Hindu mantras.

[emptybill]

I already addressed this in a post about the primal bijas of Rig-Veda,
all pointed out by Brahmarshi Daivarata. You however are probably more
versed in chanting the riks than he was.

To bad for you since you can read but are unable to understand what you
read. Here it is again for you to forget again.

I'm sure you know better, anyway.

Gupta! Gupta!

The Rigveda speaks of the primal cosmic word called akshara, meaning
what is imperishable. The mantra o.m does not appear with any
significance in the Rigveda, though it is well known in the Yajurveda
but other mantric sounds do occur.

Most common in the Rigveda is the mantra ii.m, which is a common
interjection in many hymns. The Yajurveda speaks with reverence of this
word, "Reverence to the sound ii.m" (Taittriya Samhita VII.1.19.1).

The great modern yogi, Kavyakantha Ganapati Muni, the chief disciple of
Ramana Maharshi, explains in detail the importance of ii.m as the great
mantra from the Rigveda, its form of the Prananva, eqivanlent of om, as
representing the Cosmic Word (Ganapati Muni Collected Works, Vol. VI,
Vishvamimansa V.4.18). Ganapati Muni's disciple Brahmarshi Daivarata
does so as well. (Brahmarshi Daivarata, Vak Sudha, Chaper 6). It was
from Daivarata that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi received much of his Vedic
knowledge. He brought Daivarata to the West as well a spending time with
him in India.

Through the power of the mantra ii.m, the secret of all Vedic mantras
can be revealed.

Brahmarshi Daivarata revealed the great mantra ii.m o.m shri.h, which is
to be followed by the Gayatri Mantra (Vak Sudha, opening page).

>From "Mantra Yoga and Primal Sound,
Secrets of Seed (Bija) Mantras"
by David Frawley.








--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardatrwilliamsdotus"
 wrote:
>
>
>
> emptybill:
> > Go look up "sphota" and "shabda brahman". Shabda is
> > more than the perishable sounds of human speech...
> >
> According to the Indian mythology 'mantra' is the
> 'primary sound of the universe', called 'Shabd' in
> Sanskrit. In the Rig Veda Shabd is personified as
> 'Vac', the first primal sound percieved as human
> speech.
>
> According to the Indian tantric theory the devas and
> bodhisatvas do not take kindly to being addressed by
> their real names, which are seldom known by ordinary
> people.
>
> So, some yogi fakirs of old thought they knew the
> Gods well enough that they could even call the gods
> by nicknames!
>
> Calling upon the gods with their real names is very
> offensive to the Gods, according to some fakirs, and
> confusing to the people who cannot understand nonsense
> gibberish.
>
> Apparently, some uninformed dillatante types once
> overheard some of these so-called 'secret' names being
> chanted in Buddhist hybrid-Sanskrit at a drum-bangin'
> yoga camp-meet, amd mistook these for the real first
> names of the Gods.
>
> This, in itself is a strange tale, as it implies a
> hierarchy of those who pretend to know the secret
> names, those who 'wanna know the names', and those
> who do not know any nick-names, except ones they
> read in a paperback book.
>
> If bija mantras were to be used to address the Gods
> in secret or public ritual praise, Sage Patanjali
> would have said so in the 195 aphorisms, would he
> not? Or, if any bija mantras were known to be used
> back then, the historical Buddha would have
> mentioned them, right?
>
> Now for the historical facts:
>
> The bija mantras were first invented by the so-called
> 'Eighty-four Mahasiddhas' specificaly as meaningless
> sounds to be focusing on for yoga meditation practice,
> according to Naropa and sGampopa.
>
> Read more:
>
> 'The Jewel Ornament of Liberation'
> sGam.po.pa (Author), Herbert V. Guenther (Translator)
> Shambhala, 2001
>
> 'Masters of Mahamudra'
> Songs and Histories of the Eighty-Four Buddhist Siddhas
> By Keith Dowman
> State University of New York, 1986
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'President Newt?'

[emptybill]

Barry Boy is only a ten-watt pen light. That's also what he carries in
his coat pocket. It only illumines a two cubic-foot space. He can't see
well so he's searching for the nuclear brief case codes. He probably
used them for toilet paper.

Too late to change now ... Das Vlad Pukin in back and he's looking for
blood. He'sot Barry Boy all figure out.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> What light is he carrying? It must be very low wattage.
>
> On 12/02/2011 02:50 PM, Robert wrote:
> > Hopefully President Obama and the light he carries will be able to
maintain until the election...
> > Then, perhaps some of the Republicans will be ousted from the
Congress, so he and we can begin to get some things done for the great
majority of people in our country.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitunoozguru@ wrote:
> >> The sheeple watch too much FOX News and are essentially biological
> >> androids. Even in this blue of blue areas of the country I get
fisheye
> >> looks from people if I wear a 99% percent button as if I am doing
> >> something illegal. It's a good test to see who you are going to
save in
> >> a disaster and who you won't.
> >>
> >> But then I've predicted there may well not be an election next
> >> November. Welcome to life if fascist Amerika.
> >>
> >> On 12/02/2011 12:14 PM, Robert wrote:
> >>> If Newt wins the Republican nomination, it will give Americans a
clear choice between good and evil..
> >>>
> >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote:
>  The Republicans should select him as their presidential
candidate. Let's see if the rest of the Americans will vote for him.
> 
> >>>
> >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ravi Yogi's video response to Alex

[emptybill]

Ravi

I used Bhogi because I thought it better described you. You do appear to
be an enjoyer rather than a renunciate. That, however, does not make you
unique since it defines most folks here on the planet.

Maybe you should just continue to glorify yourself. In the end ... you
be glorifying Bhavani.


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

> Alex, you fucking retard, I always have used Bhogi in my daily life,
because it is so apt, since I'm totally at ease at a temple (yogi) or a
nightclub (Bhogi)
>
> You and that retard emptybill think I have been insulted, aw you
stupid motherfuckers, LOL.. It was actually a compliment. I loved it.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Shring? Buddhist and Hindu mantras.

[emptybill]

The origin of the bija mantra is not really mysterious.

They come from you, me and even WikiWillyGuptaGupta. They vibrate in the
human subtle nervous system and will erupt if evoked properly. It is
this experience which separates them from ordinary human speech
activity.

Willy doesn't believe this therefore he can't remember the numerous
times I have given this reference here on FFL. That's probably because
he doesn't do mantra meditation - he just does Shikan Taza.

The CD listed below was done by a master Sanskrit teacher and teaches
others in the same manner that he learned it. The particular method used
on this CD lights up most meditators like a mantric christmas tree.
However, I'm not sure that someone only doing Shikan taza will have the
same experience. The meditator may need to do mantra enough to become
sensitive to vibrantional intensity. Japanese style Zen is very barren,
as are many of the minds that practice it. Zazen practitioners can
easily "dry up", as observed long ago.

I think MMY probably took traditional bija-mantras and stratified them
according to standard developmental stages.

That also is not too mysterious.

Bija Mantra, Chakra Tuning with Two Meditations by Vyas Houston

http://www.americansanskrit.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Store_Code=amsanskrit&S\
creen=PROD&Category_Code=CDs&Product_Code=CD-1010
<http://www.americansanskrit.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Store_Code=amsanskrit&\
Screen=PROD&Category_Code=CDs&Product_Code=CD-1010>






--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 4, 2011, at 11:27 AM, richardatrwilliamsdotus wrote:
>
> > emptybill:
> > > I already addressed this in a post about the
> > > primal bijas of Rig-Veda, all pointed out by
> > > Brahmarshi Daivarata.
> >
> > You keep avoiding the question: Where do the TM
> > bija mantras come from?
>
>
> He does not know. TM initiators nor TM deep insiders have revealed any
authentic textual or lineal source for the TM mantras. In fact we now
know that Maheshiji held no lineage at all. Although one possibility is
they could be from meditative experiences he had while in the presence
of SBS. That would account for both their lack of textual basis and the
fact that Mahesh, after a certain point began to refer to himself as a
Maharishi (a very exalted claim). But I think that would be grasping at
straws, and I do not recall ever hearing such a claim.
>
> One initiator here made the very reasonable claim that he simply
applied different shaktis to different, traditional (tantric) stages of
human development. So, for example, you'd give saraswati mantras during
the learning phase of ones life, different ones later.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Buddha and Meditation

[emptybill]

This article is a sales job, not a real analysis of the similarities and
dissimilarities.

There are different styles of Buddhist meditation, from Mahayana
shamata-style of outright concentration practice to effortless breath
awareness meditations. One stream goes from Satipattana Vipassana to
Mahamudra to Dzogchen. Another stream is Rinzai "great questioning/great
doubt" vs Soto Shikan Taza (Just Sitting). Another is a combination of
Pure Land "Great Faith" recitation and "no object" contemplation of
Chinese Chan "Mo-Zhao Silent Illumination" style. Then there is Tibetan
Tantric Deity-Mandala meditation: Kye-Rim/Dzog-Rim.

Simplistic articles just don't advance anyone's understanding.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
>
>
> Not every buddhist would agree that it is a scam, of course...
> L.
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
> >
> > LOL. This is an old TM scam, nothing new here, keep moving.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Dec 5, 2011, at 9:10 PM, "Alex Stanley" j_alexander_stanley@
wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shukra69" 
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > http://oaks.nvg.org/tm-buddhism.html
> > > >
> > >
> > > Vaj meltdown in 3... 2... 1
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Ravi

[emptybill]

MZ/RC

You seem unaware that RaviBhogi was censcured and came close to being
kicked off of FFL for claiming that MMY (as he put it) used to dick suck
and butt fuck SBS. He would be axed from any other similar forum for
such statements, and deserve such treatment. He just got repremanded by
Rick and tucked his tail for a few weeks.

This is a come-to-Jesus forum compared to most of them.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@
wrote:
>
> Steve: You got it all wrong Robby. We're having a blast. We haven't
had this much fun since the last time Ravi had anemotion. You
weren't around then, but it was pretty exciting. And looky here.
>
> Robin: Perhaps I *did* in fact "g[e]t it all wrong". I doubt it (read
my post carefully, please, Steve—and my post to whynotnow). However
the fact that you say: "We're having a blast" does not go to the issue.
Having a blast is no measure of the truthful resolution of a conflict or
argument or controversy. I did not get the sense, by the way, that
everyone was "having a blast". People seemed very proud and
self-congratulatory on their routing and sentencing of Ravi. As if
everyone had followed the issue to its very essence and extracted from
that essence the supernatural truth: and the truth was: Ravi is an
asshole—at least this time he was. And he got everything he
deserved. By the working out, as it were, of natural justice, as
expressed through the consensus of the players in this dispute.
>
> Now I am still a relative newcomer here, and perhaps I would have a
slightly different perspective on this recent event where Ravi abused
all the rules of decency, both explicitly understood, and intuitively
felt. However, my concern in something like this where there is a sense
of outrage and anger and violation, is that the truth gets uncovered so
that both the offender and the offended in some sense bow before the
same verdict. This did not happen; in fact I am almost certain that
Ravi, far from feeling chastised and punished, experienced the sense of
being entirely misunderstood—perversely misunderstood—and in
this sense his superobjective in being the transgressor that he is, was
perfectly realized.
>
> Now you will say: Of course he feels this, Robin; does that make it a
valid conclusion? Well, there the matter turns on the quality of his
experience versus the quality of your experience (and others who came to
the same judgment of Ravi). My own perception in all this, Steve, is
that no one was motivated to actually counter-attack Ravi in the precise
way he was provoking and confronting others. The only way this could be
done would be to use the sense of what Ravi did—as experienced and
interpreted by you and others—as *the context within which to put
Ravi in his place*. This was never done. So that Ravi never got the
benefit of this collective act of shaming. And not because he is obtuse
or psychopathic; rather because no one was willing or able to go to
where Ravi was in expressing his abusiveness and counter that
abusiveness with a true psychological portrait of Ravi which
demonstrated—not just by the act per se, but by the state of mind
and heart he had to be in to do what he did—Ravi had in some
objective sense crossed the line. And therefore disqualified himself
from saying anything true or sincere.
>
> Steve: You've had Edg barging in, even with no ramp up. Coming in
allegedly under the auspices of the Ravi discussion, but in actuality
displaying all his unprocessed anger towards Richard.
>
> Robin: I don't know this Edg person, but I thought his initial post
was marvellously intelligent and complex enough for him to be a real
player. I don't even know who the person was who he was attacking. But
he wrote with passion and conviction. I very much liked that first post
of his. But you obviously have a much more informed context within which
to assess the merits of his post. Straight up, I liked it very much
indeed. He was going against the conventional wisdom. He seemed to be an
authentic rebel with real powers of Negative Capability (Keats).
>
> Steve: Curtis dropped in which was certainly a highlight of the day.
>
> Robin: Yes, he flashed his brilliance across the darkened sky of FFL.
No one realized how much we missed him until the energy and mirth and
intelligence of his post hit us between the eyes.
>
> Steve: You've got Judy, glad she posting out. Did you hear that. Glad
she's posting out.
>
> Robin: Well, Steve: why do you say *this*? Is Judy, just by being
Judy, rendered irrelevant in what she says by something you don't like
about her? Did you read her post? It was way more gutsy and fair-minded
than any other post written about this present Ravi controversy—she
put all other posts into oblivion. And this happens to be the truth. I
am surprised and mystified at your basic premise here: That it's
obviously an intrinsic good to have Judy posted out. What gives? Have I

[FairfieldLife] Re: Iran Shows Downed US Spy Plane

[emptybill]

I work with four of them. Two are brothers- one a light skin tone and
the other slighty darker skin tone. The others (a mother and her
daughter) are light ... one very light complexion, lighter than me (even
with good German stock).

I've meet blonde Iranians, also, so no generalizations work with them.






--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardatrwilliamsdotus"
 wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Spy drone captured by foreign country...
> > >
> obbajeeba:
> > All the more reason to go and kill more brown people?
> >
> Iranians are not 'brown people', they are Indo Europeans.
> The majority of modern Iranians actually descend from the
> Medes, who formed the bulk of the peoples of ancient
> Persia, originally from the Caucasus mountains.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Vag makes it upagain

[emptybill]

Those stages of subtly are common stages discussed in Tantric Deity yoga
and in Kashmiri Trika Shaiva teachings.

You purposely left out the conclusions of Svami Lakshman Joo, the last
Trika guru from Kashmir, a friend of MMY. He fully endorsed the
transcending process of TM. In fact, MMY got some of his understanding
from SKJ.

Selective editing, on your part, of the teachings and relationships
here, simply proves that you have no objectivity. You engage in polemic
rather that looking for the truth. You don't even have a doctrinaire
approach except when repeating certain Buddhist POV.

You must be very afraid of a wider view since you are only an "Anti".

Poor Dzogchen in every case.





--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 9, 2011, at 10:29 AM, sparaig wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Dec 5, 2011, at 8:04 AM, seventhray1 wrote:
> > >
> > > > Oh, good. I'll just have to revise my experience so it conforms
> > > > with your analysis.
> > >
> > > Actually we've all already been pre-programmed to believe in the
> > > stress release, "unstressing", model is factually correct. Each
time
> > > we "transcend" we're chipping away at those stresses in our
nervous
> > > system. So I believe most of us who were indoctrinated into TM
would
> > > chose as you did.
> >
> > Actually, the current theory of how TM works is that it sets up a
> > situation in the thalamus that inhibits the thalamo-coritical
> > feedback loops that scientists believe are what we experience as
> > "thoughts." This allows the brain to relax into a default mode of
> > functioning where it is still alert, but literally not thinking
> > about much of anything. The stronger the inhibition, the less
> > thinking tha is done. Coincidentally, the default mode of
> > functioning that results is where the front part of the brain and
> > the back part of the brain are most easily able to communicate with
> > each other. This is the exact opposite of stress, which tends to
> > interfere with the communication between the front and back parts
> > of the brain.
>
> The only problem with such theories is Lawson that TM is really only
> an elementary practice of mantra meditation. From the POV of the
> actual mantra tradition, the subtlest level of mantra in TM - the
> point where one still has some abstract feeling of the mantra before
> reaching what TMers believe is "the transcendent" - is 512 times more
> gross than the subtlest level of mantra reached before the mind is
> actually transcended - what is known as the unmana stage. In order to
> even access those levels of subtlety one needs to complete the
> piercing of the bindu (bindu-bhedana) and master further levels of
> practice. This level of subtlety simply does not exist in TM.
>
> So theories that are in effect based on iterations of the grossest
> levels of mind are not really, ultimately, of much value except to
> the indoctrinated TM crowd, and those they can still fool. As I've
> said many times, you need to transcend the transcendent (what's
> believed to be "transcendent" in TM) to even begin to approach the
> actual full transcendence of mind.
>
> Once that level is attained, then some interesting research could be
> done. However since the 'canon of awakening in TM' was effectively
> frozen with the death of MMY, that point will never be reached. It's
> also therefore a fact that all TM research can only ever be of minor
> interest to serious consciousness researchers.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Vag makes it upagain

[emptybill]

Empty: Those stages of subtly are common stages discussed in Tantric
Deity
yoga and in Kashmiri Trika Shaiva teachings.

Vag: They're also used in the Shankaracharya tradition, which uses the
approach of tantra, leading to nondual contemplation. This is the
path of SBS

ME: This is not Shankara's Kevala Vedanta  but the yogic advaita
(post-Vidyaranya) which contradicts Shankara in many ways. A mix of
Tantric and Puranic worship is standard in most Hinduism.

Vag: The bottom line is, if the bindu is not pierced and the ajna is not
bridged, the road to samadhi and full "transcendence" can never  occur.

ME: SSRS told me that transcending in meditation (TM-Sahaj) is crossing
the tri-veni. That is why the Ajña is called the inner tri-veni or
the confluence of the three principle nadi-s. Again, another awakened
teacher contradicts your assertions.

Empty: You purposely left out the conclusions of Svami Lakshman Joo, the
last Trika guru from Kashmir, a friend of MMY. He fully endorsed the
transcending process of TM. In fact, MMY got some of his understanding
from SKJ.

Vag: He may or may not have recognized it. But I doubt he would have
recognized it as any more than a preliminary.

ME: This kind of dismissal of Swami Lakshman Joo clearly demonstrates
your selective polemic and wonton editing without regard for his actual
statements. SRSS and SLJ agree with MMY. You do not and thus you strike
out.

Try staying with Dzogchen. You lack the objectivity to discuss TM or
MMY.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 9, 2011, at 1:47 PM, emptybill wrote:
>
> > Those stages of subtly are common stages discussed in Tantric Deity
> > yoga and in Kashmiri Trika Shaiva teachings.
>
> They're also used in the Shankaracharya tradition, which uses the
> approach of tantra, leading to nondual contemplation. This is the
> path of SBS.
>
> The bottom line is, if the bindu is not pierced and the ajna is not
> bridged, the road to samadhi and full "transcendence" can never
> occur. I realize this must be hard for you. All that hyperventilating!
>
>
> > You purposely left out the conclusions of Svami Lakshman Joo, the
last
> > Trika guru from Kashmir, a friend of MMY. He fully endorsed the
> > transcending process of TM. In fact, MMY got some of his
understanding
> > from SKJ.
>
> He may or may not have recognized it. But I doubt he would have
> recognized it as any more than a preliminary.
>
> > Selective editing, on your part, of the teachings and relationships
> > here, simply proves that you have no objectivity.
>
> No editing whatsoever - it's TM instruction that edits out the full
> teaching, which isn't to imply it was ever known by Mahesh.
>
> Veritas liberat...
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Billy Bob makes it up...again

[emptybill]

Another erudite reply and such a definitive rebuttal. It is your usual
obfuscation … nothing new there.

But there is a good question. Why are you here on FFL? Why do you care
what anyone on FFL says when discussing TM? It is not a technique you
do. Although you claim you once did TM you are unable to provide any
proof and your understanding of the process is confused and faulty.

Go mind your own business. This part of the discussion does not concern
you. You just demonstrate your faulty knowledge.

Your pathetic critique of SSRS is a case in point. As a Vedic
Mahapandita who studied with a number of teachers and yogins in India
(not just MMY), he certainly cannot stand up against your arrogant
imprimatur. Too bad for him … you know so much more about Vedic
recitation, Patanjali's Ashtanga, Upanishadic Dhyana Yoga and
Shankara's Kevala Vedanta that SSRS should just turn over his
movement and teachings to you. I'm sure most of his students will
find you a spectacular visionary, shaktipat guru and erudite scholar of
all Hindu and Buddhist traditions. You'll be the new Osho.

O, I forgot Nickolas and Perenelle Flamel. You can make them your
alchemical patrons … you know, being the radiological scientist that
everyone knows you to be.

…


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 9, 2011, at 8:10 PM, emptybill wrote:
>
> > Empty: Those stages of subtly are common stages discussed in Tantric
Deity
> > yoga and in Kashmiri Trika Shaiva teachings.
> >
> > Vag: They're also used in the Shankaracharya tradition, which uses
the
> > approach of tantra, leading to nondual contemplation. This is the
> > path of SBS
> >
> > ME: This is not Shankara's Kevala Vedanta  but the yogic advaita
(post-Vidyaranya) which contradicts Shankara in many ways. A mix of
Tantric and Puranic worship is standard in most Hinduism.
> >
> Billy Bob, get dat toothpick outta yo' brain. Get some experience, den
get back to us.
>
>
> > Vag: The bottom line is, if the bindu is not pierced and the ajna is
not  bridged, the road to samadhi and full "transcendence" can never 
occur.
> >
> > ME: SSRS told me that transcending in meditation (TM-Sahaj) is
crossing the tri-veni. That is why the Ajña is called the inner
tri-veni or the confluence of the three principle nadi-s. Again, another
awakened teacher contradicts your assertions.
> >
> >
>
> Billy Bub: Shree Ravi was just one of Mahesh's boyz. His lineage is
dee M-sters: it don't exist. Pleez don't hypervent on meez. Capiche?
>
>
> > Empty: You purposely left out the conclusions of Svami Lakshman Joo,
the last Trika guru from Kashmir, a friend of MMY. He fully endorsed the
transcending process of TM. In fact, MMY got some of his understanding
from SKJ.
> >
> > Vag: He may or may not have recognized it. But I doubt he would have
recognized it as any more than a preliminary.
> >
> > ME: This kind of dismissal of Swami Lakshman Joo clearly
demonstrates your selective polemic and wonton editing without regard
for his actual statements. SRSS and SLJ agree with MMY. You do not and
thus you strike out.
> >
> > Try staying with Dzogchen. You lack the objectivity to discuss TM or
MMY.
> >
> >
>
> Bub: the criticism against moi ist becuz I'm too objective. Where yu
been?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Swami Rama: Our Tradition

[emptybill]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> Our Tradition
> 
> Shankaracharya established an ascetic order 1,200 years ago, though 
> renunciates had already lived in
> an unbroken lineage from the Vedic period. He organized his orders through 
> five main centers in the
> North, East, South, West, and center of India. The entire ascetic order of 
> India traces its tradition from one
> of these centers. Our tradition is Bharati. Bha means "knowledge"; rati means 
> "lover." Bharati means "he
> who is the lover of knowledge." From this comes the word Bharata, the land of 
> spiritual knowledge, one of
> the Sanskrit names used for India.
> 
> There is one thing unique to our tradition. It links itself to an unbroken 
> lineage of sages even beyond
> Shankara. Our Himalayan tradition, though a tradition of Shankara, is purely 
> ascetic, and is practiced in
> the Himalayan caves rather than being related with institutions established 
> in the plains of India. In our
> tradition learning of the Upanishads is very important, along with the 
> special advanced spiritual practices
> taught by the sages. The Mandukya Upanishad is accepted as one of the 
> authoritative scriptures.
> The knowledge of Sri Vidya is imparted stage by stage and the advanced 
> student is taught Prayoga
> Shastra [which explains the practicality and application of the discipline 
> one has to follow for this
> knowledge]. We believe in both the Mother and the Father principles of the 
> universe. That which is called
> maya, or illusion, in our worship becomes the Mother and does not remain as a 
> stumbling block or
> obstacle on the path of spiritual enlightenment. All of our worship is 
> internal and we do not perform any
> rituals.
> 
> There are three stages of initiation given according to our tradition. First: 
> mantra, breath awareness,
> and meditation; second: inner worship of Sri Vidya and bindu bhedana 
> (piercing the pearl of wisdom);
> third: shaktipata and leading the force of kundalini to the thousand-petaled 
> lotus called the sahasrara
> chakra. At this stage we do not associate ourselves with any particular 
> religion, caste, sex, or color. Such
> yogis are called masters and are allowed to impart the traditional knowledge. 
> We strictly follow the
> discipline of the sages.
> 
> It is not possible for me to discuss in detail the secret teachings of 
> Prayoga Shastra, for it is said: "Na
> datavyam, na datavyam, na datavyam—Don't impart, don't impart, don't impart" 
> unless someone is fully
> prepared and committed and has practiced self-control to a high degree. These 
> attainments can be
> verified through the experiences of the sages of the past. In our path, 
> gurudeva is not a god but a bright
> being who has faithfully and sincerely attained a state of enlightenment. We 
> believe in the grace of the
> guru as the highest means for enlightenment, but never as the end. The 
> purpose of the guru is to
> selflessly help his disciples on the way to perfection.
> 
> Our tradition has the following orientation:
> 
> 1. One Absolute without a second is our philosophy.
> 
> 2. Serving humanity through selflessness is an expression of love, which one 
> should follow through
> mind, action, and speech.
> 
> 3. The yoga system of Patanjali is a preliminary step accepted by us for the 
> higher practices in our
> tradition, but philosophically we follow the advaita system of one Absolute 
> without a second.
> 
> 4. Meditation is systematized by stilling the body, having serene breath, and 
> controlling the mind.
> Breath awareness, control of the autonomic nervous system, and learning to 
> discipline primitive
> urges are practiced.
> 
> 5. We teach the middle path to students in general, and those who are 
> prepared for higher steps of
> learning have the opportunity to learn the advanced practices. This helps 
> people in general in their
> daily lives to live in the world and yet remain above. Our method, for the 
> convenience of Western
> students, is called superconscious meditation. I am only a messenger 
> delivering the wisdom of the
> Himalayan sages of this tradition, and whatever spontaneously comes from the 
> center of intuition,
> that I teach. I never prepare my lectures or speeches, for I was told by my 
> master not to do so.
> 
> 6. We do not believe in conversion, changing cultural habits, or introducing 
> any God in particular. We
> respect all religions equally, loving all and excluding none. Neither do we 
> oppose any temple,
> mosque, or church, nor do we believe in building homes for God while ignoring 
> human beings. Our
> firm belief is that every human being is a living institution or a temple.
> 
> 7. Our members are all over the world, and for the sake of communication we 
> also believe in
> education. Our graduate program imparts the knowledge given by the sages, 
> thereby fulfilling the
> inner need of intellectuals.
> 
> 8. We practice vegetarianism. We te

[FairfieldLife] Re: Swami Rama: Our Tradition

[emptybill]

This is one of the most pathetically watered down explanation of Vedanta
every enunciated in the West. This is Neo-Hinduism/Neo-Vedanta for
utterly naive Westerners.

Nice snow job for the "masses".


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> Our Tradition
>
> Shankaracharya established an ascetic order 1,200 years ago, though
renunciates had already lived in
> an unbroken lineage from the Vedic period. He organized his orders
through five main centers in the
> North, East, South, West, and center of India. The entire ascetic
order of India traces its tradition from one
> of these centers. Our tradition is Bharati. Bha means
"knowledge"; rati means "lover." Bharati means "he
> who is the lover of knowledge." From this comes the word Bharata,
the land of spiritual knowledge, one of
> the Sanskrit names used for India.
>
> There is one thing unique to our tradition. It links itself to an
unbroken lineage of sages even beyond
> Shankara. Our Himalayan tradition, though a tradition of Shankara, is
purely ascetic, and is practiced in
> the Himalayan caves rather than being related with institutions
established in the plains of India. In our
> tradition learning of the Upanishads is very important, along with the
special advanced spiritual practices
> taught by the sages. The Mandukya Upanishad is accepted as one of the
authoritative scriptures.
> The knowledge of Sri Vidya is imparted stage by stage and the advanced
student is taught Prayoga
> Shastra [which explains the practicality and application of the
discipline one has to follow for this
> knowledge]. We believe in both the Mother and the Father principles of
the universe. That which is called
> maya, or illusion, in our worship becomes the Mother and does not
remain as a stumbling block or
> obstacle on the path of spiritual enlightenment. All of our worship is
internal and we do not perform any
> rituals.
>
> There are three stages of initiation given according to our tradition.
First: mantra, breath awareness,
> and meditation; second: inner worship of Sri Vidya and bindu bhedana
(piercing the pearl of wisdom);
> third: shaktipata and leading the force of kundalini to the
thousand-petaled lotus called the sahasrara
> chakra. At this stage we do not associate ourselves with any
particular religion, caste, sex, or color. Such
> yogis are called masters and are allowed to impart the traditional
knowledge. We strictly follow the
> discipline of the sages.
>
> It is not possible for me to discuss in detail the secret teachings of
Prayoga Shastra, for it is said: "Na
> datavyam, na datavyam, na datavyam—Don't impart, don't
impart, don't impart" unless someone is fully
> prepared and committed and has practiced self-control to a high
degree. These attainments can be
> verified through the experiences of the sages of the past. In our
path, gurudeva is not a god but a bright
> being who has faithfully and sincerely attained a state of
enlightenment. We believe in the grace of the
> guru as the highest means for enlightenment, but never as the end. The
purpose of the guru is to
> selflessly help his disciples on the way to perfection.
>
> Our tradition has the following orientation:
>
> 1. One Absolute without a second is our philosophy.
>
> 2. Serving humanity through selflessness is an expression of love,
which one should follow through
> mind, action, and speech.
>
> 3. The yoga system of Patanjali is a preliminary step accepted by us
for the higher practices in our
> tradition, but philosophically we follow the advaita system of one
Absolute without a second.
>
> 4. Meditation is systematized by stilling the body, having serene
breath, and controlling the mind.
> Breath awareness, control of the autonomic nervous system, and
learning to discipline primitive
> urges are practiced.
>
> 5. We teach the middle path to students in general, and those who are
prepared for higher steps of
> learning have the opportunity to learn the advanced practices. This
helps people in general in their
> daily lives to live in the world and yet remain above. Our method, for
the convenience of Western
> students, is called superconscious meditation. I am only a messenger
delivering the wisdom of the
> Himalayan sages of this tradition, and whatever spontaneously comes
from the center of intuition,
> that I teach. I never prepare my lectures or speeches, for I was told
by my master not to do so.
>
> 6. We do not believe in conversion, changing cultural habits, or
introducing any God in particular. We
> respect all religions equally, loving all and excluding none. Neither
do we oppose any temple,
> mosque, or church, nor do we believe in building homes for God while
ignoring human beings. Our
> firm belief is that every human being is a living institution or a
temple.
>
> 7. Our members are all over the world, and for the sake of
communication we also believe in
> education. Our graduate program imparts the knowledge given by the
sages, thereby fulfilling the
> inner ne

[FairfieldLife] Re: Billy Bob makes it up...again

[emptybill]

What a b.s. non-answer. You must have nothing else to say.
The record speaks for itself and you just proved yourself to be
incompetent.

Maybe you should present yourself to the students of SSRS and
demonstrate your chant ability along with your understanding of the
Veda. You obviously believe you know more - so go show 'em your great
enlightenment. Vag.

I'm positive they'll be impressed.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 9, 2011, at 8:10 PM, emptybill wrote:
>
> > Empty: Those stages of subtly are common stages discussed in Tantric
Deity
> > yoga and in Kashmiri Trika Shaiva teachings.
> >
> > Vag: They're also used in the Shankaracharya tradition, which uses
the
> > approach of tantra, leading to nondual contemplation. This is the
> > path of SBS
> >
> > ME: This is not Shankara's Kevala Vedanta  but the yogic advaita
(post-Vidyaranya) which contradicts Shankara in many ways. A mix of
Tantric and Puranic worship is standard in most Hinduism.
> >
> Billy Bob, get dat toothpick outta yo' brain. Get some experience, den
get back to us.
>
>
> > Vag: The bottom line is, if the bindu is not pierced and the ajna is
not  bridged, the road to samadhi and full "transcendence" can never 
occur.
> >
> > ME: SSRS told me that transcending in meditation (TM-Sahaj) is
crossing the tri-veni. That is why the Ajña is called the inner
tri-veni or the confluence of the three principle nadi-s. Again, another
awakened teacher contradicts your assertions.
> >
> >
>
> Billy Bub: Shree Ravi was just one of Mahesh's boyz. His lineage is
dee M-sters: it don't exist. Pleez don't hypervent on meez. Capiche?
>
>
> > Empty: You purposely left out the conclusions of Svami Lakshman Joo,
the last Trika guru from Kashmir, a friend of MMY. He fully endorsed the
transcending process of TM. In fact, MMY got some of his understanding
from SKJ.
> >
> > Vag: He may or may not have recognized it. But I doubt he would have
recognized it as any more than a preliminary.
> >
> > ME: This kind of dismissal of Swami Lakshman Joo clearly
demonstrates your selective polemic and wonton editing without regard
for his actual statements. SRSS and SLJ agree with MMY. You do not and
thus you strike out.
> >
> > Try staying with Dzogchen. You lack the objectivity to discuss TM or
MMY.
> >
> >
>
> Bub: the criticism against moi ist becuz I'm too objective. Where yu
been?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: OT: Two tough questions

[emptybill]

He had more than a shakti yoga chart aspect.  He had shakti herself.

Don't bother confining her within some Christian morality myth. She
doesn't necessarily follow ordinary human moral considerations but
rather plays both side of the game against each other at the same time
that she also referees.

If you were fooled by him then you must have associated with him. That
could be interesting, depending upon how much you remember. However,
rather than announcing something on a public forum, send me a private
email. We might have known each other.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> I answered NO to question 1, and candidate C to question 2.
>
> By the way, Adolf Hitler had Shakti Yoga in his birth chart. He was
destined to be a destroyer of worlds. So, his seemingly squeaky clean
habits fooled many people, including me.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@ wrote:
> >
> > *2 TOUGH QUESTIONS INTERESTING
> > *
> > *
> > Question 1:
> > If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already,
> > three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and
> > she had syphilis, would you recommend that she have an abortion?
> >
> >
> > Read the next question before looking at the response for this one.
> >
> >
> >
> > Question 2:
> > It is time to elect a new world leader, and only your vote
> > counts.
> > Here are the facts about the three candidates.
> >
> >
> > Candidate A:
> > Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists.
> > He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10
> > Martinis a day.
> >
> >
> > Candidate B:
> > He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium
> > in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.
> >
> >
> > Candidate C:
> > He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke,
> > drinks an occasional beer and never committed adultery.
> >
> >
> > Which of these candidates would be our choice?
> >
> > Decide first... No peeking, and then scroll down for the
> > response.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt.
> > Candidate B is Winston Churchill.
> > Candidate C is Adolf Hitler.
> >
> > And, by the way, on your answer to the abortion question:
> > If you said YES, you just killed Beethoven.*
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: OT: Two tough questions

[emptybill]

Heh, thanks for the clarification.
He is well known to historians for being vegetarian.
We have silly notions about that. Just more cultural illusions.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote:
> >
>
> Emptybill,
>
> My comments are shown below:
>
> 1.> He had more than a shakti yoga chart aspect.  He had shakti
herself.
>
> How do you this assertion to be true?
>
> >
> > Don't bother confining her within some Christian morality myth. She
> > doesn't necessarily follow ordinary human moral considerations but
> > rather plays both side of the game against each other at the same
time that she also referees.
>
> How do you know this statement is correct?
>
> >
> > If you were fooled by him then you must have associated with him.
That could be interesting, depending upon how much you remember.
However, rather than announcing something on a public forum, send me a
private email. We might have known each other.
>
> I simply meant to say that the squeaky clean habit fooled me to select
category C.  I don't have any prior life remembrance of Hitler if that
is what you're referring to.
>
>
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > >
> > > I answered NO to question 1, and candidate C to question 2.
> > >
> > > By the way, Adolf Hitler had Shakti Yoga in his birth chart. He
was
> > destined to be a destroyer of worlds. So, his seemingly squeaky
clean
> > habits fooled many people, including me.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > *2 TOUGH QUESTIONS INTERESTING
> > > > *
> > > > *
> > > > Question 1:
> > > > If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already,
> > > > three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded,
and
> > > > she had syphilis, would you recommend that she have an abortion?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Read the next question before looking at the response for this
one.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Question 2:
> > > > It is time to elect a new world leader, and only your vote
> > > > counts.
> > > > Here are the facts about the three candidates.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Candidate A:
> > > > Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with
astrologists.
> > > > He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10
> > > > Martinis a day.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Candidate B:
> > > > He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium
> > > > in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Candidate C:
> > > > He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke,
> > > > drinks an occasional beer and never committed adultery.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Which of these candidates would be our choice?
> > > >
> > > > Decide first... No peeking, and then scroll down for the
> > > > response.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt.
> > > > Candidate B is Winston Churchill.
> > > > Candidate C is Adolf Hitler.
> > > >
> > > > And, by the way, on your answer to the abortion question:
> > > > If you said YES, you just killed Beethoven.*
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Zen and 'Spirituality'

[emptybill]

'Is Zen a religion? It is not a religion in the sense that the term  is
popularly understood; for Zen has no God to worship, no ceremonial 
rites to observe, no future abode to which the dead are destined, and, 
last of all, Zen has no soul whose welfare is to be looked after by 
somebody else and whose immortality is a matter of intense concern with 
some people. Zen is free from all these dogmatic and "religious" 
encumbrances.'

This sounds a bit like Alan Watts Zen and would be a disputable
assertion for most Zen practitioners. Zen is firmly established in the
Buddhist tradition and reflects those  assumptions.

Zen worships Buddha/Dharma/Sangha with defined Asian-based ritual. Zen
discusses the "after-life" sparingly but follows general Buddhist
teachings about heavens/hells. Zen asserts the general Mahayana
teachings about self/soul/psyche as relative formations transiting from
lifetime to lifetime. Amitabha's paradise is practiced for heavenly
rebirth by using nama-mantra, especially in Taiwan and Korea, and is
conjoined with Chan/Sön practice.

Zen, Sön, Chan is a practice lineage and practice concerns
predominate its teachings/discussions. However, this is not necessarily
true (at the temple level) in Japan, Korea or Taiwan. Zen monastic
practice has some ritual although only in a supporting role.

In the West it is predominantly a meditation practice, at least so far.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
 wrote:
>
> 'wgm4u' I am quoting from two different posts here (Turq & Xeno). I
think you are missing something here. I cannot really speak for Turq,
but to take a shot, what he says is often a lot less than what he has
been assumed to have said, that is, you have over-interpreted whatever
his intent might have been.
>
> And for me you have substituted the same dogma as well. My thesis here
is that the pursuit of spiritual reality is based on a false premise,
that the terminology we use for this spirituality racket represents
something that is real. That we interpret what we are seeking in terms
of the illusion that is preventing our success in what we think the
result is going to be. You used the term 'soul' in your response to
Turq's comment. Yet in some spiritual traditions, this soul is a
non-entity. D.T. Suzuki in describing Zen says the following:
>
> 'Is Zen a religion? It is not a religion in the sense that the term is
popularly understood; for Zen has no God to worship, no ceremonial rites
to observe, no future abode to which the dead are destined, and, last of
all, Zen has no soul whose welfare is to be looked after by somebody
else and whose immortality is a matter of intense concern with some
people. Zen is free from all these dogmatic and "religious"
encumbrances.'
>
> Zen is considered a spiritual tradition, yet it lacks the very
concepts that you are saying to us is what is the case, namely: 'Yes,
because the net effect of his/her practice is the unfolding of the
essence of his own soul, which is God, (pure consciousness,
Sat-Chit-Ananda) beyond thought, beyond mind, which IS spirituality,
IMHO.'
>
> A scientist might consider the process of meditation and its results
entirely in physical terms in which case there are none of these
beyond-physical concepts employed. We are not approaching anything or
discovering our essence, we are restructuring our apparatus of
experiencing to function in a different way than it was before.
>
> There is an interesting quote from Buddhism, Ch'ing Yuan Wei-hsin of
the T'ang Dynasty in China said of his spiritual journey:
>
> 'Thirty years ago, before I began the study of Chan, I said,
"Mountains are mountains, waters are waters." After I got insight into
the truth of Chan through the instructions of a good master, I said,
"Mountains are not mountains, waters are not waters." But now, having
attained the abode of final rest, I say, "Mountains are really
mountains, waters are really waters."'
>
> This is to say, when we are on a spiritual journey, from the time we
get on the train until when we arrive at the end, we are not entirely
sane. We have a mythos on this journey that replaces what we thought
before we got the enlightenment bug, but maybe it is not any more real
than what it replaced.
>
> I do see a distinction between spirituality and religion. Religious
types tend to be way to serious about their mythos. I tend to associate
spirituality with a somewhat more relaxed view of the fantasies we
employ to goad us on our journey. That is part of my mythos. But beware,
if I ever become serious about it, and think it is really true, your
life, O Heretic, might be in grave danger.
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wgm4u" anitaoaks4u@ wrote:
> >
> > I think what Turq is trying to say is that ALL of life itself, is
Religion, either it is poorly practiced Religion or Wisely practiced
Religion.
> >
> > Because life itself is a form of school and learning (through the
experience of opposites) whose purpose is to bring 

[FairfieldLife] This is the End of It All (Re: Giant plumes of methane bubbling to surface)

[emptybill]

OMG! We're all going to die!
Who knew?
Better to consciously exit to some heaven world until it all passes
away.

Quick! You first!
Show us the final way just like that ol' Rajah Yama and Rajni Yami.
It's all bliss anyway ... isn't it?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan"  wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" rick@ wrote:
> >
> > Giant plumes of methane bubbling to surface :
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/giant-plumes-methane-bubbling-surfa\
ce-a
> > rctic-ocean-163804179.html
> >
> >
> >
> > We're toast.
> >
>
> Oh my God. This is exactly what the climatologists have been talking
about as the point where there is no turning back whatsoever (ie runaway
heating of the planet bedause we can't do anything to change the methan
release once it starts). We are burnt toast and very soon.  This is very
bad news  - if I show this to my husband he will go into a huge funk.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[emptybill]

So now you are Vag, the critiquer of Christian contemplation –
knower of what's authentic and what is not. How illuminating of you.



So where did you arrive at direct experience of Christian contemplation?



Have you submitted yourself to the teachings of a Catholic or Orthodox
priest/theologian of the church?



Do you follow a Catholic or Orthodox sacramental life?



Do you claim to have a teacher/starets of noetic prayer?



If you cannot declare your allegiance to one of these essential
ingredients of Christian contemplative life then you only know about it
from something you've read.



If so, then you don't know what you are talking about in this realm.
If you do have a Christian contemplative teacher, then who is it?



Confess or shut up your pompous posturing.



..



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 17, 2011, at 3:01 PM, maskedzebra wrote:
>
> > One thing (you wouldn't know about this personally) about TM and
Maharishi: it makes you contemptuous and patronizing when it comes to
discussing Christianity.
>
> Well, unfortunately for you, you've probably lost the best conduit to
speak deeply re: Christianity & TM in the person of Rev. Curtis D. Blues
- as he's the person on this list who spent the most time and attention
(that I'm aware of) getting to know the Catholic
priest-meditators-as-TMers - the biggies (most if not all whom saw
through the veneer of the Faux Holey Tradition and parted ways with TM).
I think those who drank deeply of a mystical Christianity broke easily
with the sandy ground of TM, based on the rock of their
Christ-consciousness. Those with a more superficial Christian
sand-consciousness are doomed to the purgatory of up-bubbling mantra
till they part their mortal frame…
>
> At one time Christian Centering Prayer actually resembled TM, although
now, not at all. I attribute that change to the Catholic contemplative
break with TM-as-perrenialist-panacea … and Thomas Keating.
>
> > But I think the real giveaway about the East is its implicit sense
of superiority over Catholicism, when in fact this very posture is
itself evidence of something ultimately not in agreement with reality.
>
> Depends on the POV - the "east" is not one homogeneous whole - it's
many Points of View, sometimes not merely differing paths on the same
mountain (the Perennialists view), but more frequently different
mountains altogether.
>
> >
> > You never knew who Tim Tebow was a few weeks ago. I am glad you are
now fully au courant.
>
> On reflection, I had heard of him, I just had little interest. For me,
commercial sports is the primary mechanism for embruing the
acceptability of endless war on our children.
>
> >
> > But you are right: I will be ambivalent tomorrow; I like the Tebow
miracle storyline, but I also love those Bill Belichick-coached
Patriots. Tom Brady and Sidney Crosby and Roger Federer and Jonny
Wilkenson are my favourite athletes.
> >
> > But I do like Tim Tebow very much: if only for his impressive
humility.
>
> Indeed, a wonderful human quality so lacking in Christofascism; but I
do not know enough of Mr. Tebow to comment on his humility. I believe it
was you who once said the sole redeeming quality of mundane Christianity
was to keep a person clean till their next life (after which time they'd
presumably take up a higher path).
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[emptybill]

> Oh look, the inquisition showed up!

Yes, Vag. It is an inquiry about you and you fail as usual.
You appear to have the depth of a fourteen year old boy in a
role-playing game.
Fantasizing your status seems to be your deepest need.

Go look up the term "prelest"... because now others on FFL will look it
up too.
It fits you quite well and you should indeed be known for what you
really are.


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

> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Dec 17, 2011, at 7:24 PM, "emptybill" emptybill@... wrote:
>
> > So now you are Vag, the critiquer of Christian contemplation a
knower of what's authentic and what is not. How illuminating of you.
> >
> > So where did you arrive at direct experience of Christian
contemplation?
> >
> > Have you submitted yourself to the teachings of a Catholic or
Orthodox priest/theologian of the church?
> >
> > Do you follow a Catholic or Orthodox sacramental life?
> >
> > Do you claim to have a teacher/starets of noetic prayer?
> >
> > If you cannot declare your allegiance to one of these essential
ingredients of Christian contemplative life then you only know about it
from something you've read.
> >
> > If so, then you don't know what you are talking about in this realm.
If you do have a Christian contemplative teacher, then who is it?
> >
> > Confess or shut up your pompous posturing.
> >
>
> Oh look, the inquisition showed up!
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[emptybill]

You forgot to mention the real crux of the questions to Vag:

1. The place and time of his initiation into the basic technique.
2. The place and time of his initiation into any advanced techniques.

  Even if you repudiate the teachings, as Robin has done:

3. The place and time of TTC and of being made an initiator.

These are simply verification question that anyone would answer having
learned the techniques ... such as,  "Here's where and when I learned,
this is the name of my initiator."

He doesn't provide this info because he cannot do so truthfully.
Such info is neither hidden knowledge or some kind of secret handshake
but is more like basic club membership.

Vag never learned TM. This  is the only rational conclusion anyone can
make.

He doesn't want to admit this because he realizes that it undermines his
many claims about the technique and most of his pompous posturing.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" 
wrote:
>
>
> Today, I feel like I got a clearer picture of Vaj's affiliation with
the
> TMO.  And I stated what that conclusion is a few posts back.  As far
as
> proof, I have nothing more or less than anyone else here.  My
reference
> was just to Vaj's desire to maintain the confidentiality of
information
> that was once public and which he now wishes to keep private.
> Information pertaining to identity, and nothing else.
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" jstein@ wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"
steve.sundur@
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It is entirely possible that Vaj could have gleaned or picked
up
> > > > > particulars about TM and Robin's group from reading materials
or
> > > > > from discussing these particulars with other people. And in
> > > > > light what he mentioned a short time ago, it may be that this
> > > > > the case.
> > > > >
> > > > > What I am saying is that Vaj, has for the most part come
across
> > > > > as credible to me on the topics in which he opines, including
TM
> > > > > and the Vedic Tradition.
> > > >
> > > > Really? You believe he's always described the instructions
> > > > for TM accurately?
> > >
> > > I am not able to muster any interest in the effortless of the
> > > technique debate. I am just not interested because I guess
> > > to me the terms have some leeway in what they can mean. So,
> > > I have never even much read the exchanges.
> >
> > But see, that's the basis on which TM teachers here doubt
> > he was ever a TM teacher himself. It isn't just a matter
> > of terms with leeway or having to do with effortlessness;
> > it's very specific points about the instruction, such as
> > that TMers are instructed always to wait for the mantra
> > instead of introducing it. That's not the case, as you
> > know.
> >
> > There was one fascinating sequence of posts on which he
> > got totally tangled up on that point and ended up
> > contradicting himself. In trying to wiggle out of his
> > error, he also misrepresented the checking notes,
> > quoting one sentence that's only used in one particular
> > circumstance and pretending it applied to the practice
> > overall. It was a pretty spectacular flame-out. He
> > wouldn't have passed checker training, let alone TTC.
> >
> > You participated in that discussion, BTW. Here's what
> > you had to say about Vaj back then (#274447):
> >
> > "The thing I have noticed about Vaj, is that sometimes the
> > follow up is absent when contradicting evidence is presented
> > which goes against a postion he is championing. I have
> > also noticed that under similiar circumstances, as a fall
> > back, he will sometimes reply, "you just aren't ready for
> > the truth". So essentially he is undefeated in any arguments
> > in which he participates. An unblemished record."
> >
> > 
> > > What I mean't to say was, that I believe you are willing to
> > > judge that he was not a TMer based on a "preponderance of
> > > evidence", (lower threshold), and I was holding out for
> > > evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt", which for me would have
> > > been that no one knew him. And I don't wish to go any
> > > further along this line of thought because I don't wish to
> > > breach any confidentiality.
> >
> > Are you saying you have confidential information from
> > someone that he *was* a TMer?
> >
> > > > In any case, my conclusion is based on *absence* of any
> > > > evidence for that premise; plus in one case *negative*
> > > > evidence: By me, the inability to correctly cite the
> > > > instructions for the practice of TM is evidence beyond a
> > > > reasonable doubt that Vaj was never a TM teacher.
> > > >
> > > > > But I believe Vaj himself has helped clear up that mystery.
> > > >
> > > > Oh? And how has he managed to do that, if I may ask?
> > >
> > > I believe he indicated the extent of his i

[FairfieldLife] Re: The vedic gods

[emptybill]

Sorry but you need to go back and look at the Śvetāśvatara
Upanishad.
You assertions do not agree with these ancient deity-bhakti teachings.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786  wrote:
>
> The 'vedic gods' have been stated to be the origin of advaita vedanta
by some here.
>
> I do not believe in the origin of advaita in the Vedic gods, but
rather a recast of Yogacara Buddhism. There is not much about vedic gods
in advaita. Advaita is based on the upanishads, who again, don't deal
with ritual and gods, but with the knowledge portion of the vedas, those
hints and implications, that have nothing to do with gods.
>
> But talking about 'vedic gods', I believe researchers know now, that
the whole canon of gods, and hymns to them is a later synthesis, that
orignially there were simply different tribes, worshipping mainly one or
two gods (as their main deities), with a few other subdeities. Thus
there were different 'highest gods' with different tribes. Later this
was synthesized into collection of hymns, now known as the Rig Veda.
>
> It is commonly believed that pahao Akhenaten, was the first
monotheist, substituting the egyptian canon of deities with the single
God Aton, symbolized by the golden disc of the sun. He tried to instill
a spiritual revolution in egypt, but he failed, there was a counter
revolution later, installing the old gods again. But it is thought that
we have here the origin of the jewish christian monotheism, as it is
written in the Bible that Moses was educated in egypt. The famous 'Hymn
to Aton', the most prolific praise by Akhenaten, figures again in the
Bible as psalm 104, only that the words for Aton, or the disc of the sun
are now substituted by the words Jawhe.
>
> It also know that Nefertiti, Akhenaten's wife belonged to the people
of Mitanni, and that even Akhenaten's mother had Mitanni blood. The
Mitanni were people originating in India, who had Surya, the Sun god as
their major object of worship. In fact certain lines in one of Rig vedas
hymns to Surya, are almost identical to the Hymn to Aton, and psalm 104.
You can read the whole story in this PDF
>
>
http://www.drishtikone.com/files/Akhenaten,%20Surya,%20and%20the%20Rigve\
da.pdf
>
> Conclusion: Anybody trying to construct a major antagonism between the
Christian/Jewish God, and so-called 'Vedic gods' is doomed for failure,
as there is no such thing as a uniformity of vedic gods, and at least
one of these vedic gods, so it seems is at the origin of
christian/jewish monotheism. Characteristics of other prominent gods,
like Mitra/varuna had definite cultural impact on the mesopotanean area,
and have thus indirectly influenced the whole theology of the Bible. I'
am not going any further from here, as everybody knows that the whole
christian religion is a mishmash of roman and greek religious ideas,
which have very little resemblence in the bible otherwise.
>
> Greetings from Santa to everybody!
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The vedic gods

[emptybill]

In Yahoo English that's Svetashvatara Upanishad.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
>
> Sorry but you need to go back and look at the Śvetāśvatara
> Upanishad.
> You assertions do not agree with these ancient deity-bhakti teachings.
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> > The 'vedic gods' have been stated to be the origin of advaita
vedanta
> by some here.
> >
> > I do not believe in the origin of advaita in the Vedic gods, but
> rather a recast of Yogacara Buddhism. There is not much about vedic
gods
> in advaita. Advaita is based on the upanishads, who again, don't deal
> with ritual and gods, but with the knowledge portion of the vedas,
those
> hints and implications, that have nothing to do with gods.
> >
> > But talking about 'vedic gods', I believe researchers know now, that
> the whole canon of gods, and hymns to them is a later synthesis, that
> orignially there were simply different tribes, worshipping mainly one
or
> two gods (as their main deities), with a few other subdeities. Thus
> there were different 'highest gods' with different tribes. Later this
> was synthesized into collection of hymns, now known as the Rig Veda.
> >
> > It is commonly believed that pahao Akhenaten, was the first
> monotheist, substituting the egyptian canon of deities with the single
> God Aton, symbolized by the golden disc of the sun. He tried to
instill
> a spiritual revolution in egypt, but he failed, there was a counter
> revolution later, installing the old gods again. But it is thought
that
> we have here the origin of the jewish christian monotheism, as it is
> written in the Bible that Moses was educated in egypt. The famous
'Hymn
> to Aton', the most prolific praise by Akhenaten, figures again in the
> Bible as psalm 104, only that the words for Aton, or the disc of the
sun
> are now substituted by the words Jawhe.
> >
> > It also know that Nefertiti, Akhenaten's wife belonged to the people
> of Mitanni, and that even Akhenaten's mother had Mitanni blood. The
> Mitanni were people originating in India, who had Surya, the Sun god
as
> their major object of worship. In fact certain lines in one of Rig
vedas
> hymns to Surya, are almost identical to the Hymn to Aton, and psalm
104.
> You can read the whole story in this PDF
> >
> >
>
http://www.drishtikone.com/files/Akhenaten,%20Surya,%20and%20the%20Rigve\
\
> da.pdf
> >
> > Conclusion: Anybody trying to construct a major antagonism between
the
> Christian/Jewish God, and so-called 'Vedic gods' is doomed for
failure,
> as there is no such thing as a uniformity of vedic gods, and at least
> one of these vedic gods, so it seems is at the origin of
> christian/jewish monotheism. Characteristics of other prominent gods,
> like Mitra/varuna had definite cultural impact on the mesopotanean
area,
> and have thus indirectly influenced the whole theology of the Bible.
I'
> am not going any further from here, as everybody knows that the whole
> christian religion is a mishmash of roman and greek religious ideas,
> which have very little resemblence in the bible otherwise.
> >
> > Greetings from Santa to everybody!
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[emptybill]

Heh ... where's the 19th tee?




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 
wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote:
> >
> > You forgot to mention the real crux of the questions to Vag:
> >
> > 1. The place and time of his initiation into the basic technique.
> > 2. The place and time of his initiation into any advanced
techniques.
> >
> > Even if you repudiate the teachings, as Robin has done:
> >
> > 3. The place and time of TTC and of being made an initiator.
> >
> > These are simply verification question that anyone would answer
having
> > learned the techniques ... such as, "Here's where and when I
learned,
> > this is the name of my initiator."
> >
> > He doesn't provide this info because he cannot do so truthfully.
> > Such info is neither hidden knowledge or some kind of secret
handshake
> > but is more like basic club membership.
> >
> > Vag never learned TM. This is the only rational conclusion anyone
can
> > make.
>
>
> O'boy empty, welcome to the club ! The rest of us has known this for
several years already.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[emptybill]

Nice laudation of Robin. However, you overlook his proclivity to
construct his replies so that he only addresses his own notions. That
is, if he answers at all. This is the definition of a monologue.

In this way, Robin has become the reverse mirror-image of Vag the Defier
… an amusing correspondence for those who have witnessed their
posting love-fest this month.

Vag has something to conceal … himself. Robin has something to
reveal … himself. But in both cases, their Oz-like canticles of
honesty are flayed by parsing.

Welcome to the specters hovering behind the curtain.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" 
wrote:
>
> When you first started posting, I thought what the hell is this!?
>
> Then, a while ago I began reading every word of yours, the context you
create, the reality coming through, the innocence, and the world of
Robin became known, with immediacy, not compared to anything else, just
you. Others write about movies  (sorry, couldn't resist) and stuff, yet
you delve into awareness in a comprehensible way, weave a succinct
explanation with no loose threads. Very skillful Robin.
>
> Which is not to say I am in agreement with everything you address, but
neither do I feel I have to be, to get the genuineness of what you post.
in fact, it makes you more real as a person, the ways in which you may
cite your reality in some ways very different from the way I see
reality, or perhaps just areas that need some filling in over time.
>
> Nonetheless, there is time, and I always have the sense from you that
you will always attempt to give more of your self than you receive in
return.
>
> Maybe its a Canadian thing, eh? :-)
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[emptybill]

Well she was a Jewish girl who's beauty was in her intelligence. That's
all I dare say.

Oh, you must mean Simone Weil ... "Every sin is an attempt to fly
from emptiness. "
No wonder you ended up Buddhist. Now I know that date of you initiation:
1941.

"The world is the closed door. It is a barrier. And at the same time
it is the way through."
―   Simone Weil


"Now, this self is a dike, a divider, to keep these worlds from 
colliding with each other… Upon passing across this dike, therefore,
a  blind man turns out not to be blind, a wounded man turns out not to
be  wounded, and a sick man turns out not to be sick. Upon crossing this
dike, therefore, one even passes from night into day, for, indeed, this 
world of Brahman is lit up once and for all."
-Chandogya Upanishad, 8.4.1


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

> >
> > And please give the exact date of your initiation and all your
advanced techniques, this is requested by each application form, so you
must know it by heart now. And how was the weather on these day? Did it
rain? How old was your teacher, and how many initiations did your
teacher have at the time? Curious minds want to know.
>
>
> Well she was a Jewish girl who's beauty was in her intelligence.
That's all I dare say.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[emptybill]

Simone Weil was a NeoPlatonist who became a Christian in response to her
noetic prayer.
She was an extraordinary intelligence and a great inspiration to many
people who came after her. I don't think we've seen anyone like her
since then.

So called Christians on this forum, like Robin, don't have a clue about
such things.
Someone has to be a contemplative (whether working in the world or not)
to understand her qualities. You don't just "get it" just because you
went to some TTC at some time or another.

Gravity and Grace is justifiably her most famous publication.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn 
wrote:
>
> Weil did not limit her curiosity to Christianity. She was keenly
interested in other religious traditionsâ€"especially theÂ
Greek and Egyptian mysteries, Hinduism (especially
the Upanishadsand the Bhagavad Gita), and Mahayana Buddhism. She
believed that all these and other traditions contained elements of
genuine revelation.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_Weil
>
> No comment re: Vaj's "teacher", but this woman was quite
extraordinary.
>
>
> >
> > From: emptybill emptybill@...
> >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> >Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 7:14 PM
> >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to
Ravi Chivukula
> >
> >
> >Â
> >Well she was a Jewish girl who's beauty was in her intelligence.
That's all I dare say.
> >
> >Oh, you must mean Simone Weil ... "Every sin is an attempt to fly
from emptiness. "
> >No wonder you ended up Buddhist. Now I know that date of you
initiation: 1941.
> >
> >"The world is the closed door. It is a barrier. And at the same time
it is the way through."
> >― Simone Weil
> >
> >"Now, this self is a dike, a divider, to keep these worlds from
> colliding with each other… Upon passing across this dike,
therefore, a
> blind man turns out not to be blind, a wounded man turns out not to be
> wounded, and a sick man turns out not to be sick. Upon crossing this
> dike, therefore, one even passes from night into day, for, indeed,
this
> world of Brahman is lit up once and for all."
> >-Chandogya Upanishad, 8.4.1
> >
> >
> >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> > And please give the exact date of your initiation and all your
advanced techniques, this is requested by each application form, so you
must know it by heart now. And how was the weather on these day? Did it
rain? How old was your teacher, and how many initiations did your
teacher have at the time? Curious minds want to know.
> >>
> >>
> >> Well she was a Jewish girl who's beauty was in her intelligence.
That's all I dare say.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Tawakkal Mastan

[emptybill]

This would be a form of heresy for most Muslims. It would be seen as
falsely transferring (shirk) the attributes of Allah onto the Prophet
Muhammad and would be seen as making the same mistake attributed to
Christianity … confusing the nature of the absolute Godhead will a
relative, limited revelation.

Within Islam, "shirk" is a crime that cannot be forgiven; God may
forgive any sin except for committing "shirk" because it is seen as the
root confusion underpinning all others.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> > > Are Hindus generally more tolerant of Sufi Islam? If so,
> > > is it because the Sufis are more tolerant of Hindus?
> >
> > Most of indian muslims are sufis! About 2/3. And yes, the
> > sufis, the saints of sufism, always stressed tolerance and
> > universality towards other faith, they converted by the
> > heart and not by sword, by attending and helping the poor.
> > Many sufi saints (Babas) are therefor recognized also by
> > hindus.
> >
> > You can read these two articles:
> > http://ignca.nic.in/cd_09019.htm
> > http://www.indianetzone.com/37/the_chishti_order_sufism.htm
>
> Thanks. I do know a little something about Sufism and
> have enormous respect for it.
>
> > > I'm assuming there's generally tension between Islam and
> > > Hinduism in India, but perhaps I'm wrong. What's been
> > > your observation?
> >
> > My observation is that they get along together well, better
> > than anywhere else in the world. India really is the land of
> > religious tolerance, giving refuge to religions persecuted
> > in their own countries, think of Jews who settled in Kerala,
> > of Parsis, (Zorastrians) who settled in Gujerat and around
> > Bombay, and of course the Tibetan buddhists, who were given
> > sepcial shelter by the indian government.
> >
> > But there is a minority of muslims, the deobandis a movement
> > that was e founded in India, representing a form of Wahhabism
> > there, which tries to counteract sufi islam in India. This is
> > basically the type of islam Bin Laden follows, these are the
> > fundamentalists, and there are also, more recently also
> > fundamentalists of the hindu order, the hindutvas of the RSS.
> > These people do not represent the majority, but they are
> > politically more active. As an opposition to the foramtion of
> > the Deobandis, the Barelvis have formed, representing sufism
>
> Ah. Didn't know about the Barelvis. The idea of Sufis forming
> a group in *opposition to* anything makes me a little uneasy.
> I guess inclusivism can never be absolute in practice, such
> that it would include exclusivism; but this makes for sticky
> and potentially perilous choices.
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barelvi
>
> Interesting list from this page of Barelvi beliefs about
> Muhammad:
>
> -
> He is "NOOR O BASHAR" means Noor (Light) as well as Human being.
> He is hazir (present in many places at the same time).
> He is nazir (witnessing all that goes on in the world).
> He has ilm-e-ghaib (knowledge of the unseen/unknown).
> He is mukhtaar kul (having the authority to do whatever he desired).
> -
>
> These would be heresies for non-Sufi strains of Islam,
> would they not?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[emptybill]

This is quite funny. Nice irony applied to Vag who who makes himself so
ponderous.
This is one place where Vag and RC/MZ don't mirror but reverse.
But I still contend this must be Vag's original envelopment in this life
...

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786  wrote:
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
> >
>
> > Well she was a Jewish girl who's beauty was in her intelligence.
That's all I dare say.
>
> This is so beautiful, Vaj Ji, how dare I say, you really went down to
the essence of the question, and from the bottom  of your heart, you
revealed the truth of your being, you passed the final test, of showing
the truth of your human embodiment, in a haiku like brevity, Vaj Ji, and
I, your brother in spirit, Vaj Ji Ji, am lucky to have understood, I
doubt FFL is ready yet for such a revelation, but we both know, in
unique and unheard of synchronisity, the truth of your revelation.
>
> A Jewish girl, Vaj Ji, you are not talking about some superficial girl
here, that she is Jewish is highly significant, since, everyone should
know that Jews stand for Kabbalah, famed for it's mystic of numbers, as
the question was all about numbers, and her beauty was in the
intelligence, it was not outside for anyone to see, only for those who 
are ready for the truth, like you - and me of course. Thus you have
confirmed, that you are REAL, you are really, truthfully real, you are
there, that what the question was all about.
>
> We know now, that we can rely on your account in the full sense, only
we have to be able to read it with our own inner being. I write this
from my own inner being, and I know, dear Vaj Ji, that you also know
this, and I am thus, with all our differnces, in total harmony with your
atheist soul.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[emptybill]

How about this challenge.

You, Barry and Emily stop highjacking this thread and make one of your
own.

Barry can then promote his "there is no truth but opinion" and feel
accomplished.






--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" 
wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is along the lines of something I was thinking about as
> > > I was driving home from more errands. For the most part, I
> > > think Vaj does reply to his critics.
> >
> > And why should he? I'll wait.
> I don't care if he does or not. But if you are participating in a
forum
> like this, (or especially this forum), then you are going to be
> challenged. And if you feel that the person or persons making the
> challenge are sincere, even if they may be harsh, then I would think
you
> would want to respond. Otherwise you may appear as though you don't
> have the wherewithal to back up your claims or opinions. But as far as
> I'm concerned he has no obligation to respond to any challenge. People
> will draw their own conclusion about what motivates people here. I
will
> have to read the rest of this post later. Thanks.
>
> I think it says something about someone if they are willing to face
> others who may want to question them about
> > > Exceptions would be you and Jim. And because he does respond
> > > (exceptions noted), I think those relationships have an
> > > opportunity to change, to "evolve" even to a more friendly
> > > ground on ocassion.
> >
> > I have seen little evidence of this. What seems to happen
> > from my POV is that Vaj occasionally responds to the
> > same old same old attacks on him, it goes back and
> > forth a few times, the attackers believing that they've
> > "won" something because they got him to respond, and
> > then it starts all over again. If this is what you mean
> > by "evolving," I leave that definition of "evolution" to
> > you; it strikes me as being as boring and non-productive
> > as the TM version of the word. :-)
> >
> > > Barry, on the other hand has chosen not to respond to anyone
> > > he finds unacceptable.
> >
> > Not true. I have been very clear about who I no longer
> > interact with, and why. I don't bother with people I
> > no longer find interesting in any way.
> >
> > I have my own reasons for this, most of which I have
> > patiently explained. None of the six people on my
> > personal "No Fly" list can write worth a damn, none
> > of them *ever* seem to have anything new to say,
> > and all of them are to some extent obsessives. That
> > is, their onscreen life here seems to revolve around
> > "getting" one or more of the people they have developed
> > grudges against.
> >
> > BORING. If you wish to waste your time on the hundreth
> > or thousandth iteration of "Vaj is a liar," that's your
> > business. I prefer to leave the attackers to their (IMO)
> > petty and demeaning (to themselves), somewhat mentally
> > ill games.
> >
> > > And because of that most (or at least many) of his
> > > relationshiops here are frozen. No chance of change.
> >
> > With those six? Absolutely. Not one of their "one year
> > countdown clocks" have started ticking yet. They need
> > to demonstrate a full year of non-obsession and actually
> > saying something new before I bother interacting with
> > them again. (See previously-reported conversation with
> > the psychiatrist head of a mental hospital for my
> > reliance on this rule of thumb.)
> >
> > With others, I am open to being surprised, and equally
> > open to interesting discussions, should they come up.
> > The thing is, most of the time they don't, because (IMO)
> > most people here are hooked on the ongoing soap opera,
> > and don't actually have that much new or interesting
> > to say themselves. They rather -- ahem, like you --
> > provoke the same old tired-to-death egobattles again
> > and again, so that they can log in and put their two
> > cents in, as if *they* were saying something new or
> > interesting. From my POV, I reward only things I
> > consider to be *actually* new and interesting.
> >
> > Your life, and how you choose to spend the rest of it,
> > are up to you. Talk with whomever you want, and say
> > whatever you want. But don't expect me to chime in
> > as if it were interesting if I don't find it to be.
> > The non-issue of whether Vaj was a TM teacher is as
> > uninteresting as a subject can possibly be.
> >
> > How many times do you have to either hear " > name of today's victim> is a liar and SO much less
> > moral than I am" before you find it boring and stop
> > encouraging it by piling on? Wasn't it OLD for you
> > after the hundreth iteration? After the thousandth?
> >
> > If not, I leave you to what fascinates you in life.
> > I have other fascinations.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[emptybill]

Perhaps you should just check your own messages since I was in a
discussion with Robin. Remember him? You did bring up his name.

However, I have a better idea.

I'll start another thread directly with Robin. Then Steve, you and Bari2
can comment or interject if you see fit but none of you will highjack
it.

I don't request this of Barry-atric-I since he can neither make nor hold
agreements. For him, that would imply a standard and might suggest that
there could be something other than his mere opinion.

Whada you think?




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn 
wrote:
>
> Check your sent messagesthis thread has evolved in many
directions, including one that you chimed in on that has absolutely nada
to do with the original letter written by Robin. Â
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[emptybill]

This probably makes sense to someone.
When you find out who that is then you can email this post to them.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
>
> Dear Hollow William,
>
> Make a thread that only two are in a discussion?  Bhahahaha.
> Bhahahahaha. As if. Bhahahaha.
> Why not try private email, then you can have the silence you desire?
Bhahahahaha.
>
> Power complex setting in?
>
> I got some roach crushers in my pick up and they are really pointy.
> [picks teeth with a pitch fork.]
>
> Leave my Emily alone.
> Leave my cross dressing Turq alone, too.
>
> Better yet, make a thread so evolved, no one will know what you are
talking about, then no one will wish to add to a thread for fearing to
tread on hallow ground.
>
> Bhaha. find hahah. your hahaha own hahahah thread. hahahah
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LEAiGDw220&feature=related
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > Perhaps you should just check your own messages since I was in a
> > discussion with Robin. Remember him? You did bring up his name.
> >
> > However, I have a better idea.
> >
> > I'll start another thread directly with Robin. Then Steve, you and
Bari2
> > can comment or interject if you see fit but none of you will
highjack
> > it.
> >
> > I don't request this of Barry-atric-I since he can neither make nor
hold
> > agreements. For him, that would imply a standard and might suggest
that
> > there could be something other than his mere opinion.
> >
> > Whada you think?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Check your sent messagesthis thread has evolved in many
> > directions, including one that you chimed in on that has absolutely
nada
> > to do with the original letter written by Robin. Â
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Vedic War and the Pizza Effect

[emptybill]

Counterviews not considered, as usual. Vaj just talks the usual stuff.

http://www.sandeepweb.com/2011/08/09/lies-damned-lies-and-meera-nanda/







--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 30, 2011, at 9:36 AM, Buck wrote:
>
> > >
> > > people remain
> > > mired in a view of the world that is deeply irrational and
> > > objectively false. 
> > >
> > > Nanda Meera
> > > Prophets Facing Backward
> > >
> >
> > Well, that's certainly a point of view from Nanda'a simple lack of
> > spiritual experience, just arguing with the progress of the new
> > age. He and intellectuals like him should come and sit in Fairfield
> > for a while now, then they'd know.
>
> She. Sorry I mis-pasted that, it's actually "Meera Nanda". Meera is
> already very familiar with both the TM movement, Indian traditions
> and New Age movements.
>
> > Jai the SatGurus, who have come forward as prophets,
>
> Since sat gurus would generally believe in sanatana-dharma, eternal
> dharma, they would be considered "prophets who look backwards" in
> Nanda's formulation as they fall for the lie of permanence:
> permanent, eternal laws of nature; the laws of Manu.
>
> Marshy himself would be an almost archetypal instance of a prophet
> who looked backwards, but we saw it as a "looking forward". And until
> that spell is broken, we continue to "believe the lie". It's only
> typically when we step into the larger context of Hindutva that we
> can see that Maharishi Vedic Science is simply Vedic Creationism and
> really not that different from fundamentalist beliefs seen in our own
> country.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Fourth and Final Open Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[emptybill]

But did Jesus (and Him crucified) go right into you?

Which was it ... the blood-stained  body or the resurrected
re-appearance?
Are you cheating your way into heaven or paying lash by lash?


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
> Thank you for this, feste37. Your comment here went right into me.
>
> Robin
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" feste37@ wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Superb stuff, MZ. Beautifully written.
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Ravi Chivukula,
> > >
> > > Although it will be argued that you were silenced at FFL because
of the specific things you said about certain people, the real reason
why you have been sanctioned is because, just in general, you do not
show any awareness of the subtle norms of Western Civilization discourse
and debate and interpersonal interaction. You see, your transgressive
mode (RTM) is intrinsic to your whole way of being in your life; it is
not something that you construct artificially as a method of ambushing
and violating and provoking those people with whom you disagree, or who
you feel, according to you, are hypocrites, liars, or ignoramuses. You
either refuse to insert this element of self-perspective and
self-discipline into your writing, or else you are incapable, presently,
of even attuning yourself to the 'good manners' of an adult who conducts
'business' (in this case posting and arguing at FFL) in the world.
> > >
> > > It is all very well to say: Well, I was just being honest; I was
just calling it as I see it; I was inspired to expose dishonesty,
disingenuousness, insincerity, wilful stupidity and so on. But you did
this like some genius child, a child who lacks the maturity and
reflective objectivity to have any idea whatsoever as to *how you were
being perceived at FFL*. There was, then, Ravi, something oblivious,
self-centered, impossibly impulsive about your posts. It is one thing to
flout convention, but when someone, even inside perhaps a certain
spontaneity and inspiration, criticizes, confronts, and excoriates other
human beings, the reader (and not just the victim of your unabashed
remarks) must sense that "you have control over yourself*, "you know
what you are doing*, *you are aware of how this is playing inside the
consciousness of others*.
> > >
> > > And this, Ravi, is what I think your most serious fault or
limitation or flaw; and I believe in the end it is what brought you
down. Even now I doubt you have any sense of shock or trauma or sadness
that your posting privileges have been revoked—I assume permanently.
For you, it is all part of this unstoppable dance of perfect audacity,
this  cosmic transgressive destiny. Fine. Let's say this indeed is your
mission, your calling: to go after various persons at FFL, and
presumably in the world, who you feel deserve to be exposed and
humiliated. But, Ravi, you are executing this inwardly felt compulsion
without regard to the most basic graces that underpin and make possible
the conventions of dialogue and debate in Western Civilization. Among
adult human beings, that is.
> > >
> > > It isn't then just your refusal to acknowledge or conform to these
implicit standards of discourse between mature human persons; it is your
apparent obliviousness that such standards and conventions even exist.
This, I believe, is what appalls, shocks, astonishes, and finally
outrages people at FFL. This person, Ravi Chivukula, he may in some
profound sense be innocent, but his innocence does not hold within
itself the requisite maturity, self-knowingness, interpersonal awareness
which would in some sense justify what he is saying. Ravi Chivukula is
performing in front of us, and sometimes with a certain brilliance and
virtuosity, but even at his best, he is still demonstrating to us that
he is somehow arrested at a level of a child—and we demand that in
order to listen to him, to become his willing audience, we would ask him
to exercise the self-control, the discretion, the prudence of an adult.
Your unwillingness to do this starts to seem as if your *inability* to
do this, and this is not normal; not normal, that is, in this culture.
> > >
> > > So, even among those of us who find you amusing, even
insightful—and often hilarious—there is the recognition that you
are always very near to crossing the line. And to repeat: the sense one
gets in reading your posts is "you don't know what is being asked or
demanded of you in order to even legitimize your behaviour*. You pride
yourself on your infinite independence and autonomy. But this comes off
as not just healthy rebelliousness and nonconformity; it comes off as
dangerously and hopelessly indiscreet. So that, no matter what you say
about someone, positive or negative, the impression is: this guy is
assuming the right and prerogative of epater les bourgeois—shocking
and offending—*without really taking any responsibility for doing
this*. That is, without experiencing the impact of

[FairfieldLife] Re: Snowboarding crow

[emptybill]

An obvious mis-spelling.

It is actually "kraka shaita" ... pronounced "krah-kuh shite"
and is a phonemic caricature of an old, dravidian latrine
song from the era when the dravidian chariots over-ran
Europe and ruled the known world.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 14, 2012, at 2:47 PM, Bhairitu wrote:
>
> > There's a lot of lore about crows in Asian philosophy.
>
>
> I believe I posted the KaKa charitra here before. "Kaka" is Sanskrit
for crow or crow language, and this brief text it how to do divination
based on their movements and their speech.
>
> I've found uncannily accurate.
>

[FairfieldLife] Snowboarding Dravidians on the Atlantean Peaks

[emptybill]

Willy,

You obviously haven't remembered Vag's historical "renditions" bases
upon the claims of Alain Danielou.

Everything that was later called "mantra and yoga" was obtained from the
Dravids after they sailed to Europe and the Isles of Avalon, taught the
Druids a few secrets and seeded the Continent with various practices of
Shiva and MahaMata.

Don't you know any Illuminati secrets? Haven't you had their Trans-Solar
initiation yet?

How else do you think Vag learned everything about everything. All the
Trans-Solars know this stuff.

Quit shouting "Gupta, Gupta" and maybe they'll tell you the
"true truth". That is, with the appropriate fee in hand for such
"august and exalted teachings".









--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardatrwilliamsdotus"
 wrote:
>
>
>
> > > "Kaka" is Sanskrit for crow or crow
> > > language...
> > >
> emptybill
> > An obvious mis-spelling.
> >
> In Sanskrit, a chariot is called a 'ratha'.
>
> > ...a phonemic caricature of an old, dravidian
> > latrine song from the era when the dravidian
> > chariots over-ran Europe and ruled the known
> > world.
> >
> Apparently the Dravidians of South Asia had
> neither the horse nor the chariot. And, the
> Dravidian language is NOT spoken much in Europe.
> So, it's doubtful the Dravidian speakers came
> OUT of India and "over-ran" Europe.
>
> "The earliest fully developed true chariots
> known are from the chariot burials of the
> Andronovo (Timber-Grave) sites of the
> Sintashta-Petrovka Proto-Indo-Iranian culture
> in modern Russia and Kazakhstan from around
> 2000 BC."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: What A Week

[emptybill]

How about something more than just another one of your unsubstantiated
claims?

Where did you learn TM/TMSP?
What were the dates and places of initiation?
Who were your TM/TMSP course teachers?

You should take these questions seriously.
You are perilously close to being branded on FFL as a bold-face liar.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 17, 2012, at 1:04 PM, futur.musik wrote:
>
> > So that leaves you solely the option of talking as a false
> > authority about TM and Maharishi. Yeah, I see your point.
>
> No, as someone who practiced TM/TMSP and as someone familiar with the
> foibles of Mahesh Yogi, I can comment as I please, albeit as someone
> with broader experience in tantric Hinduism and Buddhist tantra.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: What A Week

[emptybill]

Personal authenticity is composed of more than talking in the same
conceptual language.



"Branding" is just a word and means nothing more than an informal but
confirmed consensus among posters that someone lacks intellectual
integrity.



It happens through a preponderance of interactions with other posters
and is not predicated upon any agreement or disagreement about our
differing viewpoints or conclusions.





--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "nemodomi"  wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote:
> >
> > How about something more than just another one of your
unsubstantiated
> > claims?
> >
> > Where did you learn TM/TMSP?
> > What were the dates and places of initiation?
> > Who were your TM/TMSP course teachers?
> >
> > You should take these questions seriously.
> > You are perilously close to being branded on FFL as a bold-face
liar.
>
> Yee-ha!
>
> As a sometimes-mostly-lurker here, I want to thank you for bringing
out the BIG GUNS! You've just upped the entertainment value
significantly for me. :-)
>
> By way of (re-?)introduction, I'd like to play along ...
>
> > Where did you learn TM/TMSP?
>
> Reading, PA / the Academy in the Catskills.
>
> > What were the dates and places of initiation?
>
> Wow. Who'd even wanna bother remembering those tedious details?! But
I'll give it my best shot:
>
> Reading, PA, October, 1970. Bonus points: Initiator was David Katz,
late of cheesecake-production fame. More bonus points: I once attended a
Charlie Lutes lecture.
>
> 1st advanced technique: Philadelphia, PA, ca. 1972. Bonus points:
Initiator was that nasty lady who was, I think, the only one who was
handing out techniques at that time.
>
> > Who were your TM/TMSP course teachers?
>
> Eesh. Apparently GMO-brain has settled in. Lemme probe ...
>
> SCI Course: Orono, ME, ca. 1971. Teachers? No idea.
>
> T.T. part one: Catskills Academy, ca. 1974. Teachers were some nice
guy whose name I totally forget and some nice gal named Jean(ne). And
I'm pretty sure that Rick was some sort of assistant teacher at that
one.
>
> [Hiya Rick! :-) :-) :-) I'm the guy whom that nice guy whose name I
totally forget described as "one who speaks in aphorisms". I'm sure you
recall. Heh.]
>
> T.T. part two: Biarritz, France, ca. 1976. No recollection of
teachers' names, though I could still recite the mantras list for ya if
ya like.
>
> Sidhis/Governors course: Catskills Academy, ca. 1978. Don't recall any
teachers' names. Never hopped, either. Poo.
>
> (I could also provide a scan of my now-useless Governor of the Age of
Enlightenment card if I were actually interested in proving anything to
anyone.)
>
> Now to my questions ...
>
> > You should take these questions seriously.
> > You are perilously close to being branded on FFL as a bold-face
liar.
>
> This has me intrigued. I'm not familiar with the branding process on
this forum. Is it done by popular vote, or simply by unilateral decree?
If the former, how much participation here would qualify one to vote?
>
> Thanks in advance, and, as always, JGD!
>
> p.s. People, please trim your posts. Seriously.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Wow

[emptybill]

This sounds more secret than a secret handshake.

What exactly is the "female perspective/experience"
that distinguishes it from a "human" one?


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn 
wrote:
>
> Awoelflebater, "Wow" sounds about right then. Â You could be in the
right place. Â "Cat fight" is probably the wrong term, which
generally assumes a fight between *women* and the majority of the
exchanges are between *individuals*, irrespective of gender, or reflect
differences in the male/female experience. Â (Having said that, I've
jumped in from my perspective as a female on several occasions.) Â I
think of the exchanges here as healthy debates; the forum allows for an
expanded level of freedom of expression which is good and posts can be
very funny, even the *off-color* ones, from a certain perspective. Â
Yes, sometimes the language descends into what would be considered the
*gutter*, applying typical social convention, but on the other hand, it
almost always sparks additional debate. Â Few scenarios of this ilk
are left untouched and not commented on.
>
> This is a different venue and the gift to me is that it does
accommodate a wide range of language and visual formats. Â For me, I
enjoy the multiple perspectives as the human condition. Â For me, the
struggle to "conform" has been like a noose that slowly tightened around
my neck and just about snuffed me out at different times in my life.
 This group includes some of the most creative, intelligent and
interesting people I've come across in a long time. Â The joy of
experiencing a robust internet forum with multiple viewpoints is well
worth any personal offense taken along the way, IMHO, and further
affords opportunities to articulate your own position, or step back and
let go, or question/clarify one's own mental/emotional constructs. Â
For me, I often feel something larger in place here that transcends (and
I use that word very loosely) what may be interpreted as petty or
insulting or mundane at face value. Â I hope you stay and speak out
as you see
>  fit. Â Â
>
>
> 
>  From: awoelflebater no_re...@yahoogroups.com
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 7:05 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Wow
>
>
> Â
> Hi Buck, Yes, I was initiated in 1970 by my sister who attended TT in
Majorca in 1969. I was 14 at the time. I remember paying one week's
allowance for this. I transferred from Colgate University in 1975 to MIU
after attending an SCI course at Livingston Manor. It blew me away and I
just had to come to FF! I attended MIU from the Fall of 1975 until
graduation in 1980. I left FF for a while living in upstate NY with my
then boyfriend and fellow MIU graduate. After a couple of years I
returned to FF (don't we all at some time?) and taught a horseback
riding program with another friend of mine for the students and
meditators in town. Around that time I also had a friend that had
attended the first Robin Carlsen lecture in town. Their description of
it intrigued me. I proceeded to watch a seminar tape, was blown away by
that and jumped head first into the most amazing three and a half years
of my life.
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" dhamiltony2k5@ wrote:
> >
> > Awoelf,  You are a meditator(?)  You do meditate don't you?
> > Just wondering, where you are coming from.
> > -Buck in FF
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb 
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater 
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Just a newbie here at FFL. Glancing through all of the posts
> > > > > they range from the mundane (movie reviews) to scratch-out-
> > > > > your-eyes cat fights. Something's got some of you going but
> > > > > I'm not sure anyone is convincing anyone else that they are
> > > > > right. Good luck to you all.
> > > >
> > > > Welcome. I took your reference to movie reviews as
> > > > "mundane" as a bit of a challenge, and I hope you
> > > > like the result. :-)
> > > >
> > > > As for trying to convince others that we're right,
> > > > well that is something not everyone here indulges
> > > > in. Some just "know" that they're right. :-)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Awoelf,
> > >
> > > You come in to the middle of something here.
> > > Lot of us been trying to save this guy from his ways for years now
and he thinks he knows better.  Still, I pray for him and those others
that fell away from the cart here too.  Is always a sad thing to witness
these fallen away wriggle the way they do.
> > >
> > > Kindly,
> > > -Buck in FF
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Wow

[emptybill]

So, looking back, what is your judgement of RWC's previous claims
  to "enlightenment" and his current conversion to Catholicism?

Dare you say?



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater 
wrote:
>
> Hi Buck, Yes, I was initiated in 1970 by my sister who attended TT in
Majorca in 1969. I was 14 at the time. I remember paying one week's
allowance for this. I transferred from Colgate University in 1975 to MIU
after attending an SCI course at Livingston Manor. It blew me away and I
just had to come to FF! I attended MIU from the Fall of 1975 until
graduation in 1980. I left FF for a while living in upstate NY with my
then boyfriend and fellow MIU graduate. After a couple of years I
returned to FF (don't we all at some time?) and taught a horseback
riding program with another friend of mine for the students and
meditators in town. Around that time I also had a friend that had
attended the first Robin Carlsen lecture in town. Their description of
it intrigued me. I proceeded to watch a seminar tape, was blown away by
that and jumped head first into the most amazing three and a half years
of my life.
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" dhamiltony2k5@ wrote:
> >
> > Awoelf,  You are a meditator(?)  You do meditate don't you?
> > Just wondering, where you are coming from.
> > -Buck in FF
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb 
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater 
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Just a newbie here at FFL. Glancing through all of the posts
> > > > > they range from the mundane (movie reviews) to scratch-out-
> > > > > your-eyes cat fights. Something's got some of you going but
> > > > > I'm not sure anyone is convincing anyone else that they are
> > > > > right. Good luck to you all.
> > > >
> > > > Welcome. I took your reference to movie reviews as
> > > > "mundane" as a bit of a challenge, and I hope you
> > > > like the result. :-)
> > > >
> > > > As for trying to convince others that we're right,
> > > > well that is something not everyone here indulges
> > > > in. Some just "know" that they're right. :-)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Awoelf,
> > >
> > > You come in to the middle of something here.
> > > Lot of us been trying to save this guy from his ways for years now
and he thinks he knows better.  Still, I pray for him and those others
that fell away from the cart here too.  Is always a sad thing to witness
these fallen away wriggle the way they do.
> > >
> > > Kindly,
> > > -Buck in FF
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: US Is Fully Prepared

[emptybill]

John,

You mean a line in water ... which disappears even as it is drawn.

Barry Hussein is probably not prepared to do too much.
However, the Joint Chiefs must expect such trouble and
must therefore plan to execute some type of counter-action.

So will it help the re-election of the One?



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> That's what Panetta said regarding any challenge that Iran may impose
at the Straight of Hormuz.  A line has been drawn on the sand,
figuratively speaking.  What will Iran do next?
>
>
http://news.yahoo.com/panetta-us-fully-prepared-iran-challenge-193126193\
.html
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Wow

[emptybill]

Hey, thanks Judy for the reminder.

However, his last statement you quoted was an
explanation of his feeling that the Catholic/Christian
lineage was empty of power now, ala the Abbey 0f Monte Cassino.
The key words being ... "it is as if".

His view is characteristic of a vacillating mind, a ghostly belief
system
and an over-emphasis upon one's own separate individuality.
In essence it encapsulates the Western Christian historical drama
and demonstrates a real need for an austere but  corporate worship -
one was the original norm in Christianity before it became a political
favored group/system with people joining just to gain imperial favor.

This was one of the reasons that monasticism started in the first place
...
dismay at the lack of true faithfulness among the 'joiners".

I doubt RWC knows much about all this ... thus his snap-shot view about
his self-declared tradition.

This is all part of the casualty-range from converts who try to fill old
wine skins with new wine ... to use an over-worn "bibul" analogy.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote:
> >
> > So, looking back, what is your judgement of RWC's previous
> > claims to "enlightenment" and his current conversion to
> > Catholicism?
>
> It's no longer "current," emptybill. He did convert, but
> he's said at least a dozen times here--including at least
> once directly to you, quite forcefully--that he's given
> up on Catholicism as well as TM.
>
> From his post 295520, November 15:
>
>
> I appreciate the vehemence of your beliefs, emptybill. At
> least you are taking me seriously. but you must take me
> at my word—and I challenge you to find a single iota of
> proof to the contrary in all my posts at FFL—that I am
> not a Catholic—*in any form whatsoever*. It may just be
> that my not defining myself as such, but alluding to
> Catholicism and Thomas Aquinas, has just about driven you
> out of your mind. WTF? This guy is bizarre. And you might
> have a point there, emptybill. But believe me I am
> sincere and only interested in strengthening my own
> understanding of what this is all about; I post on FFL in
> order to elicit just the kind of response that you have
> given to me here. Because I am thus forced back upon
> myself and have the opportunity to once again confirm
> what I know is the truth of my experience and my own
> philosophy.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/295520
>
> And from a follow-up in response to your reply:
>
> For me, emptybill, it is as if there never was a God,
> never was the Incarnation, never was heaven or hell, never
> was sin and judgment and grace and Mary and the sacraments
> and the salvation of the soul.
>
> Those are just two examples of *many*.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Wow

[emptybill]

Judy,

Not so.

I don't personally know RWC so how could I have "personal
enmity" toward him? I am not actually critical of RWC himself,
rather I am challenging his views based upon my understanding of the
classical Christian tradition, meaning both Catholic and Orthodox.

I do not loath Catholicism. Any tradition that can produce a
contemplative such as Thomas Merton has something important to say to
the human race. However, what I actually like about it is contained in
its Neo-Platonic heritage, such as it is.

Robin thinks, however, that I am a Russian Orthodox dogmatist - which
might be reasonable, except that he never asked me. It is all his own
set of assumptions based upon my strident language. The reality is that
I practice TM/TM-Sidhi, was trained as a TM teacher in Fiuggi, Italia,
hosted SSRS's Sahaj Samadhi and Sudarshan Kriya groups and Kriya
courses for 10 years and now also practice Tantra and Dzogchen under the
direction of the Rimè Yogin-Scholar Khachab Rinpoche.

You say:

Obviously I can't speak for him beyond pointing to what he's already
said here. But I'm just mystified as to what your beef is with him. If
you care to explain further, I'm all ears (eyes).
In initial reply, I would recommend re-reading these posts: (But first,
some snippets from them).

#295519  - Judy sez:

I'd be interested to see what he has to say about all
that you've said. Not sure why you didn't address him directly with it,
though. Unlike some others here, he doesn't seem to have any inhibitions
about responding to criticism.

#295520 – Robin sez:

Thanks for letting everyone at FFL know what I am up to here, emptybill.
You seem like a most interesting person. Still, though, I can't
reconcile the Crucifixion with the Buddha nature. Or pure consciousness
with Fallen Nature.

Hey, I just realized: I just *might be* what you say I am. But I can
assure you—and everyone else—I only just experienced this truth
in this moment.

Catholic fideist: it sounds fine to me. So, then, emptybill, I am a
Catholic Fideist.
#299247 – I/Me/Mine sez:
You do not appear to have ever subjected yourself to the full analysis
of your consciousness in terms of Shankara's direct teachings. Shankara
made it clear (along with Gaudapada) that no yogic state of
transcendence (samadhi), whether, individual or universal, can be a mean
to realizing that Atman, Ishvara and Brahman are an identical reality.
You seem to have accepted the finality of Maharishi's typology but you
never demonstrated that you compared it to classical Vedanta.

Likewise, you appear to have intellectually accepted Catholic dogma but
show no signs of stepping beyond mere doctrine into the heart of
Christian spiritual life.

Thus the obvious questions:

Did you ever arrive at direct experience of Christian contemplation?

Have you submitted yourself to the direction of a Catholic
priest/theologian of the church? (i.e. not some 13th century
theologian).

  Do you follow a Catholic sacramental life?

Do you claim to have a teacher (starets) of noetic prayer?





So Judy ...


Robin chooses not to answer these simple questi0ns … that is his
decision, not mine. However, perhaps his real answer just might be the
most simple of all – "To me it's all a play of Bovine
`Scatology".



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote:
> >
> > Hey, thanks Judy for the reminder.
> >
> > However, his last statement you quoted was an
> > explanation of his feeling that the Catholic/Christian
> > lineage was empty of power now, ala the Abbey 0f Monte Cassino.
> > The key words being ... "it is as if".
>
> Seems to me you can't possibly be a Catholic or 
> even a Protestant if you can make such a statement. In
> that regard, there's no effective difference between
> "For me it is as if there was never..." and "For me
> there was never..."
>
> If nothing on that list is real to him, the provisional
> "as if" is nothing more than a nod to the limits of a
> person's knowledge of ontological reality. You aren't
> disputing that, surely?
>
> > His view is characteristic of a vacillating mind, a ghostly
> > belief system and an over-emphasis upon one's own separate
> > individuality. In essence it encapsulates the Western
> > Christian historical drama and demonstrates a real need for
> > an austere but corporate worship - one was the original norm
> > in Christianity before it became a political favored group/
> > system with people joining just to gain imperial favor.
>
> And you're blaming him for the lack of an austere but
> corporate worship throughout Western civilization? For
> having been born