RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: RE: Pope Francis technique
Buck wrote: Dear Turq; to give credit where credit is due, actually Centering Prayer was drawn from the range of Christian and Eastern mystics but to be more honest and accurate was distilled from Transcendental Meditation in the 1970's by the three monks and their brethren at St. Joseph's Abbey in Spencer Massachusetts. I know, I was there and watched them rip Transcendental Meditation [TM] off for their own purposes. -Buck in the Dome I'll confirm that the assumption among TMers that these three clerics' version of Centering Prayer was based on TM was current back in the late 1970s. It isn't something Buck made up. Photocopies of the chapter entitled TM and Centering Prayer from Pennington's 1977 book Daily We Touch Him were routinely passed around among TMers. Moreover, if Barry had any curiosity at all, or any desire to get his facts straight, he would have checked out the PDF that Xeno uploaded. It would be extremely difficult for anyone familiar with TM instruction to read those two pages on how to do Centering Prayer and claim that it had nothing to do with TM. It's obvious that the clerics did indeed rip off the instructions for TM, just as Buck says above. The mechanics of the techniques are virtually identical. The only two significant differences are (1) that TM uses a teacher-assigned Sanskrit mantra, whereas Centering Prayer uses a self-chosen sacred word from the Christian tradition; and (2) that the explicit context of Centering Prayer is Christian, whereas TM's is either secular, religious/nondenominational, or Hindu, depending on one's approach. --The Corrector Barry wrote: (snip) I think we all know that The Corrector will probably rip Buck a new asshole for running this tired and intentionally misleading routine again, but just on the off chance that she doesn't, I will. The bolded section in brackets above comes only from Buck's fevered imagination. Anyone who reads the rest of the descriptions on that page knows that it has nothing to do with TM. Buck's as bad as Willytex at making shit up and presenting it as fact.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Ahhh
Michael wrote: Ha ha! Yes - that is my exact experience every day, especially when I was reviling feste and nabby et al in the past. Well, I thought it might have been an experience you had once upon a time, not necessarily permanent. Actually it is from Gopi Krishna - the guy who claimed to have had dramatic kundalini experiences. Ah, yes, thanks. Read his books decades ago. Where's this from, Michael? (Or is this your own experience?) Michael wrote: From a unit of consciousness dominated by ego, to which I was habituated from childhood, I had expanded all at once to a glowing conscious circle, growing larger and larger until a maximum was reached, the I remaining as it was, but instead of a confining unit, now itself encompassed by a shining conscious globe of vast dimensions. From a tiny glow the awareness in me became a large radiating pool of Light, the I immersed in it yet fully cognizant of the radiantly blissful volume of consciousness all around, both near and far. There was ego consciousness as well as a vastly extended field of awareness, existing side by side, both distinct, yet one.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: The power nap: an alternative to TM?
Iranitea wrote: And to Judy: she doesn't know me at all, the life that I am leading, she just tries to take an easy shot at me. And Ann is smarter than you are too. If you were as intelligent as Ann, it would have occurred to you that you, Ann, and I know each other only from what we write. That's the sense in which... ...Ann is far more interesting, vital, and in touch with herself and with life than you are, iranitea. Go figure. And it isn't exactly as if you're in a position to criticize anybody else for taking cheap shots. But what I wrote isn't a cheap shot in any case;, it's an observation comparing how you come across in your posts versus how Ann comes across in her posts. Sorry you don't like it.
Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Pricing TM to Teach [more] Meditators
Share wrote: Buck, it's not my experience that ALL rich people care less, nor that all poor people care more. I suspect you're the only person here who thought this is what Buck was saying. I think such generalizations cause more polarizing which is not IMO what is needed! You didn't bother to read the NYTimes column he cited, did you? (snip) http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/05/rich-people-just-care-less/?exprod=myyahoo_r=1 There's all kinds of research on this; it isn't just an idle generalization. I mean, we could always just stick our heads in the sand and pretend this empathy gap doesn't exist. But if we don't ackowledge that it exists, it'll just keep getting worse.
Re: Re: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Pricing TM to Teach [more] Meditators
Share wrote: Buck, I'm objecting to the word ALL because I've known rich people who do care and poor people who don't. LOL. You're the only person who used the word you're objecting to, Share. And yes, I've read this article and recognize that there are the tendencies. Which are, of course, what Buck was referring to.
Re: Re: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Pricing TM to Teach [more] Meditators
Share wrote: To me a headline Rich People Could Care Less implies all rich people. It's kind of sneaky spin, creating a harmful meme. Only to airheads like you, Share. Seriously, you've lived on this earth for 65 years and never noticed that you have to read at least some of an article or essay beyond the headline--which is typically just a few words--to know what it's about? Oh, wait, you said you DID read the article. So you know there was no such implication. Are the rich people on FFL uncaring and lacking in empathy? I don't think so. Non sequitur. Remember, you're the only person who thought Buck was saying all rich people are uncaring--and he wasn't saying that, nor was anybody else. You've just made this up-- sneaky spin and harmful meme and all--in your head; it has no relationship to reality. You wanted to say something Important and Thoughtful, and as you so often do, you just babbled out the first thing that came to your mind without thinking it through. As a result, you said something Obvious and Dumb.
Re: Re: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Pricing TM to Teach [more] Meditators
Share bleated: Judy, airhead or not, I'm grateful to be me with all my strengths and flaws rather than you with all your strengths and flaws. Well, of course you are. You'd last about ten minutes if you were me, because I don't hide from reality.
Re: Re: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Pricing TM to Teach [more] Meditators
Share feebles: Judy, if I were you, with your various imbalances and delusions, I'm sure I wouldn't want to last even as long as 10 minutes! LOL.
[FairfieldLife] ATT: Bharitu
Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult (Reuters) - Switzerland will hold a vote on whether to introduce a basic income for all adults, in a further sign of growing public activism over pay inequality since the financial crisis. A grassroots committee is calling for all adults in Switzerland to receive an unconditional income of 2,500 Swiss francs ($2,800) per month from the state, with the aim of providing a financial safety net for the population. Organizers submitted more than the 100,000 signatures needed to call a referendum on Friday and tipped a truckload of 8 million five-rappen coins outside the parliament building in Berne, one for each person living in Switzerland. Under Swiss law, citizens can organize popular initiatives that allow the channeling of public anger into direct political action. The country usually holds several referenda a year. In March, Swiss voters backed some of the world's strictest controls on executive pay, forcing public companies to give shareholders a binding vote on compensation. A separate proposal to limit monthly executive pay to no more than what the company's lowest-paid staff earn in a year, the so-called 1:12 initiative, faces a popular vote on November 24. The initiative's organizing committee said the basic income could partly be financed through money from social insurance systems in Switzerland. The timing of the vote has yet to be announced, pending official guidance from the government. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/04/us-swiss-pay-idUSBRE9930O620131004
RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: MMY and Siddha Tradtions
Iranitea wrote: Judy: Shut up, Richard. I'm not disputing anything. She's just such a sweetie, isn't she? (Yawn) But it's perfectly OK for Richard to accuse me of disputing facts and misleading folks when he knows I was doing no such thing. Right, iranitea? Richard wrote: It sure is looking like the authfriend is disputing the fact that Swami Karpatri was a member of the Sri Vidya sect. Now, why would she do that and mislead us about the SBS affiliations with Sri Vidya? Obviously if Swami Karpatri was a Sri Vidya he learned it from his guru SKS. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: So You Can All Relax Now
Iranitea wrote: It's because you inserted the http://http:// two times. It's your mistake actually. Ann didn't insert http:// twice, actually. The Rich Text editor's clickable-link feature already has http:// in the window where you paste the URL. If the URL you want to insert already has http://, as is usually the case, you have to delete it (or delete the one in the window), or you'll end up with two in the URL when it appears in the message. You can also just select a url, and right click, 'open link in new tap' Tab, not tap. (snip) ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: Typical, I add a link and it clicks but takes you nowhere. You'll have to just do it the hard way: http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/Dozens+mental+disorders+exist/9011120/story.html
RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The power nap: an alternative to TM?
Share wrote: Ann, I think many spouses who work outside the home are separated from each other from most of the day. When you find out for sure, let us know, OK? This is an important insight.
RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: MMY and Siddha Tradtions
Iranitea wrote: Judy: Shut up, Richard. I'm not disputing anything. She's just such a sweetie, isn't she? (Yawn) But it's perfectly OK for Richard to accuse me of disputing facts and misleading folks when he knows I was doing no such thing. Right, iranitea? Yes you are misleading folks. Even though Richie got many details wrong, or formulated them in a strange and freaky way, (he is actually funny), he's got many of the fundamentals absolutely right, while you seem to be in big denial there. Oh, really? In denial of what? Be specific, please. Your arguments, quoting collected papers, do nothing to elucidate the origin of TM. That is, Richard, though not being accurate, actually provides facts and important clues, he provides INFORMATION, while you provide none of that. Nor, as you know, was that my intention. My intention was to provide the account Maharishi apparently (per Rick) approved. And there was no argument involved, as you know; I wasn't disputing anything, as I said. I haven't a clue whether Swami Karpatri was a member of the Sri Vidya sect or not and couldn't care less. I wasn't responding to Richard's post, I was telling Seraphita about something I thought would interest her (and according to her, it did). Moreover, as you know, I was explicit that I was making no claims for the accuracy of Domash's account. I said, Whether it's 100 percent accurate is anyone's guess. Like Barry, you seem to have trouble distinguishing between Maharishi sez X and What Maharishi sez is true. The other's here, who criticize him, do so, because he provides infos THEY already know - but which are not talked about officially. Who criticizes Richard on that basis? To say, for example that he doesn't provide any reliable information is just misdirection on your part. As you know, that is not what I said. What I said was: I wouldn't take Richard's posts to confirm anything. A lot of what he posts here (as you know) is *deliberately misleading* or *outright false* (such as his accusations against me that you are making an ass of yourself trying to defend). He may post some good information here from time to time, but given his trollish and deceptive habits, I don't take his word for anything. And can you tell me: why doesn't the oh so scholarly article of Domash, provide any of the fundamental informations, that we are talking about here? Didn't he know, or didn't he want to speak about this? Because to say that the mantras are common place in India is not really in the interest of the movement, right? I'm flattered you think I'm capable of reading Domash's mind of 40-some years ago. But really, all I can do is speculate: He was writing primarily for scientists (the intended readership of the Collected Papers volumes), so he may not have thought lore about the history and provenance of mantras or other fundamental informations (hint: information is always singular in English) discussed here was really very pertinent in that context. That the mantras are common place in India isn't much of a revelation, nor does it make any difference to how they're used in TM. Just in general, the purpose of the essay was not to address every negative criticism that's ever been made about TM, especially criticisms of its marketing approach (which is where the mantras being common place in India would come in). I did make the point to Seraphita, as you know, that Domash didn't exactly make clear Guru Dev's role in the formulation and teaching of TM, and that it seemed likely to me that he didn't have a thing to do with either, contrary to the TM party line. Once again, iranitea, your compulsion to get me has blinded you to what I've actually said in my posts. Your rather desperate attempts to pour me into a True Believer mold just make you look foolish and weak.
RE: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The power nap: an alternative to TM?
Share wrote: Judy, unlike you who simply asserts your opinions as facts, I say I think to designate that in this day and age of many working at home, my statement is qualified in that I don't know all the statistics involved. Nope, sorry, you specified spouses who work *outside the home*: I think many spouses who work outside the home are separated from each other from [sic] most of the day. That isn't even an opinion; it's a truism, verging on a tautology. And your I think qualification didn't have a thing to do with not knowing the statistics. Many was sufficiently vague to cover any uncertainty about numbers. It was the I think that cracked me up, as if you might not be quite sure about such a trivial and obvious fact. False humility on your part, in other words. You do it a lot; it's a function of the general inauthenticity of your FFL persona. As is your attempt here to dishonestly extricate yourself from what I pointed out.
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] See you around....
On Mon, 9/2/13, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: Subject: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] See you around To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, September 2, 2013, 9:36 AM This new site is a real bother, I have to admit. I became rather fond of the old format and could play around with it easily. Now I am reduced to responding by email and still don't know how to post pictures. Or place my comments to other posts within the original post I am responding to. Thus, all my posts appear at the top of the page (horrors). It just ain't the same. I wrote: Why can't you put your comments within the post you're responding to? I think I just did exactly that (but I won't know until I see this on the Web site). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Heck with the site Salyavin, email works well. The site is out of your control. Isn't it great you have a job? From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 1, 2013 11:40 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] See you around I am completely fucking fed up with this bollocks new site and cannot be bothered to work out a simple way of getting it to do what I want. Maybe when I get a week off I'll be able to explain something to Judy so she will understand and not use it as an excuse to accuse me of not understanding something she doesn't want to explain herself and instead use whithering sarcasm to try and kid herself she's making a valid point. You aren't! Life is too short or rather my lunch break is
Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: FFL Picture Is Missing in the Title Page
Even more reason for you not to try to be helpful. On Fri, 8/30/13, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com wrote: Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: FFL Picture Is Missing in the Title Page To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, August 30, 2013, 2:33 PM Yes, I realized he was replying to you Judy. I was just offering feedback in case it might be of use. Since I've not been neo'd yet, I don't know what's going on even more than usual! From: authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 1:24 PM Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: FFL Picture Is Missing in the Title Page Alex was replying to me, not to you, Share, so you wouldn't have gotten it as a *private* email anyway. He wanted to know if it was going to go to *me* privately (I had asked him how to send a private email)--but it didn't, it went to the entire group. --- In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Alex, it didn't come to my email inbox, but it came to Message View. Shoot, I don't even know it that's helpful info!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama and al-Qaeda
Actually twerk is not in the Oxford English Dictionary; that's been misreported. It's in the Oxford Dictionaries Online. This is from the press release announcing the additions of twerk, selfie, and a few other new terms: === It is important to note that the new words mentioned above have been added to Oxford Dictionaries Online, not the Oxford English Dictionary. Why is this? • The dictionary content in ODO focuses on current English and includes modern meanings and uses of words • The OED, on the other hand, is a historical dictionary and it forms a record of all the core words and meanings in English over more than 1,000 years, from Old English to the present day, including many obsolete and historical terms. Words are never removed from the OED. === On Thu, 8/29/13, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama and al-Qaeda To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, August 29, 2013, 5:26 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Ugh, that twerking word, Richard! No name and form value IMHO! It sounds like a combo of tweeting and jerking! Well, I do not like the word 'enthuse'. But twerk is now in the Oxford English Dictionary (which can be accessed for about $30 a month online) so there are enough instances of use to justify it as being a part of the English language. As with everything else, language changes vastly over time. FROM WIKIPEDIA: Twerking is a dance move that involves a person, usually a woman, shaking her hips in an up-and-down bouncing motion, causing the dancer to shake, wobble and jiggle. This motion, when incorporated into dance moves, is also referred to as sissing (sexual intercourse simulation). When done by men it's usually directed at a particular person, often female, to indicate a disrespectful assessment of her reputation. According to the Oxford Dictionary Online to twerk is to dance to popular music in a sexually provocative manner involving thrusting hip movements and a low, squatting stance. Twerking carries both gendered and racialized connotations.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists more hated, distrusted than Muslims, homosexuals
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: I'd question anyone's judgment who would actually WANT to work for someone like you, Shremp. Not to pile on unnecessarily (but I can't help it), I have to add the phrase, ...especially on commission. Am I the only person here who suspects that a great deal of Shemp's angst and anger lately is due to working on commission in an economy that literally trickles down on the very God Of Capitalism he worshipeth? I haven't noticed any more angst and anger in Shemp's posts lately than before, all the way back to alt.m.t. Look at how he replied to the do.rkflex's nitwit insult on which Barry has piggybacked. He did share with us awhile ago that he was having some emotional difficulties, but they don't seem to have leaked into his posts on other topics. Am I the only person here who suspects that Barry's thoroughly gratuitous and irrelevant attack on Shemp here is due to frustration at his lack of success in the fights he just picked with Shemp over TM and atheism?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM Rishikesh ashram, the original Peace Palace, was funded by...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Sep 20, 2009, at 12:04 AM, ShempMcGurk wrote: Might not be true, but it does make one wonder why so much death surrounds this particular guru like the angel of death is his friend... so much death? Criminy, Guru Dev died in his 80s; Maharishi was 91. I got news for you, Vajina, people die But usually not because of their guru Shemp! Guru Dev and Maharishi died because of their guru??
[FairfieldLife] Re: Howard Dean confident bill with Public Option will pass
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: snip Today on ABC's This Week Obama denied making people pay a penalty if they don't buy mandated health insurance is a tax on the middle class, dissed those who can't afford insurance as a burden on those who can afford it In fairness, he said those who CAN afford health insurance--or would be able to under the reform provisions--but choose not to are the burden. See the portion of the This Week transcript posted as an update. and dissed supporters of the public option calling them ideologues. This was also updated after a review of the video: [Update II: After watching the NBC MTP video, Obama's statement about getting beyond ideology was general; it was NOT make in specific reference to the public option.]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Glenn Beck's ideas are really not that original
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rf...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seekliberation seekliberation@ wrote: According to a thoroughly documented book on Kennedy [JFK and the Unspeakable], he was in the process of -ending- any military involvement in Viet Nam when he was murdered. Too bad Lyndon Johnson took over. I guess he and Kennedy didn't exactly see eye to eye. From the book review: The do.rkflex meant to write, From one of 66 reader reviews on Amazon. There are no editorial reviews from established publications, although the book has been out since April, which tells you something. Here's an excerpt from another reader review: Of course there were many powerful individuals and organizations who stood to benefit from harder stance on the perceived communist threat of the time, but is there evidence to suggest that Kennedy was removed from office by a conspiracy that originated in the highest level of office. James Douglass thinks so - and why wouldn't he? He places JFK on a pedestal, lures the reader in to share his sentimentality on what might have been and in doing so cleverly dupes the reader into believing that such a great man could surely not have been killed by some deranged 24 year old nut case called Lee Harvey Oswald. The reviewer goes on at some length to demolish a good bit of the author's thorough documentation. Another negative review, from a strong Warren Commission skeptic, states, No critical mind familiar with the assassination literature could possibly regard this book as a contribution. This reviewer also calls a hunk of the thorough documentation into serious question. And one of the commenters on the review the do.rkflex quotes observes: The last four or five Kennedy assassination books I've read respectively, comprehensively, and painstakingly proved that the CIA did it, Castro did it, the Mob did it, French drug dealers and right-wingers did it, etc. One book even proved pretty convincingly that the last shot was accidentally fired by a Secret Service agent. Oh, yet another had extraordinary evidence linking Oswald and Ruby to covert bio-weapons research and the creation of the AIDS virus. I haven't read the book and don't have an opinion one way or the other (although I'm also a Warren Commission skeptic). I just wanted to point out the absurdity--and deliberate attempt to mislead--of the do.rkflex quoting from an Amazon reader review of the book and calling it THE review, as if it were definitive, as if there could be no other opinions.
