[FairfieldLife] Re: Off outed
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have discovered the real identity of off_world_beings, who is conducting a hate campaign here on FFL and claim- ing to be one Tom Barlow, from Vermont. In reality, off_world_beings is a well-known alias for a member of the Bush administration and close advisor to President George W. Bush named Debra Cagan. Here are a few links on Debra Cagan and *her* recent speeches. Compare and contrast to off_world_beings' latest rants and I think you'll agree with me that they are the same person. http://wonkette.com/politics/dept%27-of-diplomacy/top-pentagon-gal-i-hate-all-iranians-305795.php http://newssophisticate.blogspot.com/2007/09/bush-administration-dominatrix-debra.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=484762in_page_id=1770 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debra_Cagan What I'm wondering, though, is how Off gets away with the red leather dominatrix outfit on the ski slopes. It's just so...so...so...Seventies, man. She got the leather-jacket from Michael Jackson http://globalsolutions.org/blog/index.php/home?s=cagan (he met her, thats why he likes boys now...)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do siddhis have ANYTHING to do with state of consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Extrapolating from this, it seems to me that if MMY really wanted people to levitate, and was enlightened himself, what he'd do is sit them down in a room with him and demonstrate levitation. Their bodies would learn the siddhi far more quickly and far more effectively than they would practicing some made-up technique in English. This, of course, presupposes that Maharishi could actually levitate, of course. (..or that anyone else could) Sure, I am completely with you regarding the field effect, and learning by proximity, being in the aura of someone who just *shows* you how things work in the daily life. Thats actually my path here! But, just to put in another though or perspective: I think or rather propose that the Siddhis themselves weren't all that important in themselves to MMY. They were as some here said, like a carrot that makes you going. (Too bad if the carrot is already swallowed) Sometime ago here was a discussion about Patanjali Yoga Sutras and the process of Samayama. I threw in that one of the main Advaitic Commentators, Madhusudana Saraswati said that Samyama is the most effective technique for realization. Vaj or one of his friends expressed, that Samyama is not restricted to Siddhis, and that this was refereing to a higher technique to attain Samadhi. So I looked up in the commentary of Vyasa, and found that he said that beginners should practise not the higher Forms of Samyama, but should start with the lower forms - the Siddhis. (The Siddhis were also called lower forms of attainmenment) Madhusudana goes on to say, soon after that, that supreme devotion to Ishvara would beat it all, and unnessecitate the former practise. That opened my eyes! For MMY devotion was not an option he could have offered in a technique which was constructed undenominational. His option was therefore to offer Samyama as a technique on the lower forms, the Siddhis, and not stressing on the phenomena of it (saying they are only a side-effect), still using it as a sort of carrot. I say this because I know, that MMY comes from a fairly conservative tradition, and would be aware of the main figures like Madhusudana, so I am sure he is aware of his commentary on the gita (its written there) I even think he borrowed from him heavily in his own commentary. Samayama on the lower forms would thus prepare the nervous system. purify it and make it subtle, which is its only purpose. Enlightenment itself cannot be given. It comes by itself by the recognition of the Self by Itself, so only purification is most important. So, to sum it up, actual attainment of Siddhis was not the goal, the way, Samayama is the goal.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do siddhis have ANYTHING to do with state of consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 13, 2007, at 5:54 AM, t3rinity wrote: Vaj or one of his friends expressed, that Samyama is not restricted to Siddhis, and that this was refereing to a higher technique to attain Samadhi. So I looked up in the commentary of Vyasa, and found that he said that beginners should practise not the higher Forms of Samyama, but should start with the lower forms - the Siddhis. (The Siddhis were also called lower forms of attainmenment) I thought that the gudhartha-dipika specifically stated samyama on atma (atma-samyama). No, it didn't. No mention of Atma in the translation I have. Referring to verse 21. You seem to be changing that message-- No. but if you have a quote or a verse I'd like to hear it. 21 But because of disturbances created by the results of actions that have started bearing fruit (prarabdha), vasana (past impressions) does not get destroyed. That is eliminated through samyama, the strongest of all (the disciplines). 22. The five disciplines, viz yama (restraint) etc. (P.Y.Su 2.29) practised before become conducive to that samyama which is a triad consisting of dharana, dhyan and samadhi (see ibid. 3.1.4) 23. However, absorption (samadhi) is quickly accomplished through special devotion to God. From that follows mano-nasa (elimination of the modifications of the mind) and vasana-ksaya (dissipation of past impressions.) 24. Knowledge of Reality (tattva-jnana), elimination of the modifications of the mind (mano-nasa), as also the dissipation of past impressions (vasana-ksaya) - when these three are practised together, Liberation while still being alive (Jivanmukti) becomes firm
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do siddhis have ANYTHING to do with state of consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Dec 13, 2007, at 5:54 AM, t3rinity wrote: Vaj or one of his friends expressed, that Samyama is not restricted to Siddhis, and that this was refereing to a higher technique to attain Samadhi. So I looked up in the commentary of Vyasa, and found that he said that beginners should practise not the higher Forms of Samyama, but should start with the lower forms - the Siddhis. (The Siddhis were also called lower forms of attainmenment) I thought that the gudhartha-dipika specifically stated samyama on atma (atma-samyama). No, it didn't. No mention of Atma in the translation I have. Referring to verse 21. You seem to be changing that message-- No. but if you have a quote or a verse I'd like to hear it. 21 But because of disturbances created by the results of actions that have started bearing fruit (prarabdha), vasana (past impressions) does not get destroyed. That is eliminated through samyama, the strongest of all (the disciplines). 22. The five disciplines, viz yama (restraint) etc. (P.Y.Su 2.29) practised before become conducive to that samyama which is a triad consisting of dharana, dhyan and samadhi (see ibid. 3.1.4) 23. However, absorption (samadhi) is quickly accomplished through special devotion to God. From that follows mano-nasa (elimination of the modifications of the mind) and vasana-ksaya (dissipation of past impressions.) 24. Knowledge of Reality (tattva-jnana), elimination of the modifications of the mind (mano-nasa), as also the dissipation of past impressions (vasana-ksaya) - when these three are practised together, Liberation while still being alive (Jivanmukti) becomes firm The above is gudhartha-dipika by Madhusudana Saraswati, preceding hi Gita commentary. The following is PYS III 6 Its application is by stages Vyasas commentary: The application of that samyama should be in that stage which is he next to the conquered stage, because nobody who has not conquered the lower stage, can achieve Samyama into the higher stage by jumping over the intermediate stage. So, by reason of its absence, whence can the visibility of his Intellective Vision come? Further the Samyama over the *lower stages* such as the *knowledge of the minds of others*, etc (obviously reffering to siddhis here, my comment) is not necesary for him who is established in the higher stage by virtue of the profound meditation upon Isvara. Why? On account of the achievement of that truth by other means. The conclusion is that the lower Samyama has to preced the higher Samyama unless there is an achievment by other means, e.g. Bhakti to God, which is also recommended by Madhusudana. 'Knowledge of the minds of others' etc is clearly a reference to Siddhis, and is called lower.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Amma's teaching = why some teachers misbehave
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: People make fun of other peoples adherence to beliefs, while their own belief system is rock-solid. Left in from the original post because it seems relevant below. No, not right, I don't believe in it ;-) [flying, levitation] Surprise? I defend somebodies right to believe whatever he wants without believing it myself. A good statement, but not really borne out by your impassioned arguments below. Well, Barry, the internet is not agood medium of determinating the mood of a person. For me this exchange is very casual. Maybe you are projecting your own mood? I have no big investment in this whole topic. I am sorry you have this impression :-) My non-belief is not very strong though. I just don't know, and I don't really care either. You somehow, along with Curtis seem to be under the impression that whenever I cite scriptures I am appealing to their authority. Thats also wrong. I just used them to make a reference to a more general belief in flying in religious scriptures. Noted. I've seen flying, or at least what appeared to be someone not only levitating for long periods of time in one place but moving through the air. You haven't seen flying, rather you saw something you believe was flying. Scroll back up the page to the parts where you 1) berated people for having rock-solid belief systems, 2) claimed that it was Ok with you for people to believe what they wanted, and 3) that your disbelief in flying was not very strong and that you don't really care. All is true. @1 We all have beliefs, just its good to know that they are beliefs. @2 Its perfectly okay. Just you should know that you have beliefs and be tolerant about others. @3 very true. Even at the time I was practising Siddhis in TM, it wasn't really important for me to fly, I was more interessted in enlightenment, and I did it because it was said it enhances it. I was just 20 when I started it. Then read the above and what follows it. Sounds pretty strong and rock-solid to me. You're *affronted* that I've seen levitation. No not at all, nor am I affronted by the girl I know from the ex-Rama. Its ridiculus. It doesn't matter to me. You do everything you can to suggest that's not what it was. No, its more a thing about logic and science. There is no scientific proof that what you saw was levitation. So, and thats all I'm really saying, you are not in a position to put down Nabby. Personally, I think you're just jealous that I (or anyone else) have had experiences you haven't, so you feel compelled to pooh-pooh the experiences. No, no. As experiences they are okay, that is I cannot even judge them, but as scientific proof they are invalid. Maybe it was maybe it was just a stage magic or a sort of hypnosis. Maybe. But it's YOUR job to prove this is so, not my job. I was there, on hundreds of occasions, in settings as diverse as the L.A. Convention Center or small meeting rooms to the desert and once in a corner booth at Denny's at 3 a.m. while the waitress ducked out for a smoke. If you can suggest to me a way that that last one could have been pre-prepared and set up by a magician, I'm all ears. :-) See, I don't know, I just know that you or rather Rama never provided scientific proof. I am not interested enough to prove or debunk it myself, I just know there is no scientific proof. If you think there is, please tell us all more about it. ;-) snip That's the part you have never experienced, Michael. That was my point in my first post. The day that YOU encounter some experience that just doesn't make sense and violates everything you believe but is *happening*, right in front of your eyes, is the day we can have a meaningful discussion about this. Until that day, you are working with belief and with theory, and I am talking about experience. Okay, maybe, but then this neither provides proof. This on the same level of a reborn Christian, who tells me that since he believes in Jesus he is saved and his whole life changed, and unless I won't let Jesus in my heart I simply don't know. Well I agree, the things I don't know about, are so to say outside of my conscious frame of mind. There can be things I don't know about in the thousands. But it still does not constitute any proof and it still is on the level of belief. WHAT the real nature of the experience is probably doesn't matter. Well for science it would matter. Maybe you are not so terribly interested about science, maybe you are more interested in psychological reactions, which is okay. What matters is that the seeker has to DEAL with it. It's like, Oh, fuck. I just saw something that cannot happen. Now I have to deal with this if I want
[FairfieldLife] Re: VIDEO: Led Zeppelin reunion concert
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here are a few music clips of last night's Led Zeppelin reunion gig. Watch them while you can before YouTube takes them down. [Must be pirated because the sound isn't the best to say the least. IMO Robert Plant looks better without his new beard.] Click here: http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/earcandy/archives/127544.asp?source=mypi Yeah great songs. If you find LZ too hard at times, you might want to listen to this for a change: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fu5Cgb6Yy4Y
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do siddhis have ANYTHING to do with state of consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It would be silly of me not to have noticed the somewhat...uh...angry reactions that come up on this board from time to time when I talk about the weird things (siddhis) I and others exper- ienced around Rama (Frederick Lenz). I haven't read yet the rest of your post, but if you are referring with ..uh angry reactions to me, you are living in a total illusion. I even spelled it out to you and am happy to do it again: I a m n o t a n g r y. :-) Don't believe me? Keep on suggesting the same again and again? Your problem. For me its just passing time, an intelectual discussion, nothing more.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Do siddhis have ANYTHING to do with state of consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What bothers them is that there is a strong like- lihood that Rama was a bit of a charlatan and a bit of a rogue and *none* of the things that they visualize when they think of an enlightened teacher, AND YET HE COULD DO THIS STUFF ANYWAY. Interesting POV. I think I capitulate
[FairfieldLife] Re: Amma's teaching = why some teachers misbehave
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does not the whole vedic literature suggests strongly a belief in siddhis, do not the whole Puranas recount them and all of the Yogic and tantric literature is full of references to supernormal powers, so anybody basing his/her teachings on such scriptures sits in the same boat, The Yoga specific texts which were created much later than the other Vedic texts. I don't believe that the Puranas are meant to be read as literal facts and history of actual beings. In my view it is the misguided attempt to take them at face value that lead to people missing their metaphorical value. I am not sure that is true. Of course you can take them to be metaphorical, but the average Indian thinks that at a certain time in the past all these things where possible. They believe that Yogis or Rishis do/did have supernormal powers. In fact you can see that people even here on this board believe that without such powers - acquired in whatever way - enlightenment is not real. There were discussions here to that extend. Not my view anyway. Same with the Bible IMO. So it is possible to not accept the literal interpretation on the older Vedic texts and still see them as valuable contributions to human thought. Sure. But that is not the overall or general interpretation. You can take some things from scriptures and discard other things. But thats also a bit like censuring them. In my view we don't necessarily know why Patanjali wrote what he did or what state of mind he was in when he wrote it. Taking his writing as being evidence that these magical powers are possible or that he had them himself seems naive to me. Thats not what I am saying. I don't cite scriptures as evidence, I rather said that there is no scientific proof. I am just comparing peoples beliefs. If you want to know how many Indians interpret their own scriptures, you would simply need to read 'Autobiography of a Yogi' by Yogananda, which is basically an asortment of miraculous stories. There are all sorts of things people have written throughout history for all sorts of reasons other than accurate reporting of their own experience. Frankly lots of people just make shit up. Sure.OTOH you would be mistaken that this constitutes any kind of falsification. Some people are living in states of mental illness but are otherwise very expressive of their fantasies. And thats an unqualified psychological statement. A belief that is not verified doesn't make a person mentally ill. In fact I think that most people have hidden beliefs they are not even aware of. I know that some posters here interpret their own personal experiences as validation for the texts being accurate and literal. Maybe, but not my point. Neither do I mean to say this, nor do I have personal experiences which I would label as 'mind over matter'. But with a lack of anyone's ability to demonstrate these powers to others, it should come as no surprise for modern people to view these claims as products of human's wonderful creativity and imagination. Sure. But the point is that they are not falsifiable either. The lack of scientific proof may lead you to the *BELIEF* that they don't exist. See, most people in the west, lets say 99% of the people in my country would agree with you. But there are many people in different religions, like Hinduism, Tantric Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity who do believe it, and they are not insane. Its nothing TM specific.As I said, lots of miracle stories in Ammajis biography. Do you think that any one is scientifically validated? So, its quite possible some people are convinced of her Divinity because of such unvalidated stories. The same people who complain about 'wrong claims' with the TM Siddhis are never concerned that they follow somebody about whom equally unverified miraculous claims are being made. IMHO opinion a double standard. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Heck, even Jesus Christ allowed himself to be seen ascending to heaven and sitting at the right hand of God. There are all *kinds* of portraits of him doing precisely that. ROFLOL You nailed it Judy, thats so funny, this whole line of argument. The bottom line is, who is sitting in a glasshouse shouldn't throw stones. People who believe in flying - no scientific proof so far, but equally unfalsifiable - make fun of people who believe in flying. People who believe in flying, because they have the experience of having seen it - which doesn't represent any proof, make fun of people who believe in flying because of their own experience, and call them TBBs, while they themselves are TBBs. People make fun of other peoples adherence to beliefs, while their own belief system is rock-solid. When challenged about their own
[FairfieldLife] Re: Amma's teaching = why some teachers misbehave
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Heck, even Jesus Christ allowed himself to be seen ascending to heaven and sitting at the right hand of God. There are all *kinds* of portraits of him doing precisely that. ROFLOL You nailed it Judy, thats so funny, this whole line of argument. The bottom line is, who is sitting in a glasshouse shouldn't throw stones. People who believe in flying - no scientific proof so far, but equally unfalsifiable - make fun of people who believe in flying. People who believe in flying, because they have the experience of having seen it - which doesn't represent any proof, make fun of people who believe in flying because of their own experience, and call them TBBs, while they themselves are TBBs. Uh, that's TBs, Michael. Did you develop a stutter? :-) Ok, I thought True Blue Believer, would be TBB? And I never referred to Nabby as a TB for believing that TM people can fly, merely for parroting what he's been told by Maharishi as if it were some kind of sacrosanct truth. Quite possibly Nabby sees this different. He might think that he adhers to what he has experienced - just like you. People make fun of other peoples adherence to beliefs, while their own belief system is rock-solid. When challenged about their own beliefs of witnessing the very same phenomenon, and their psychological reactions to it, that is when the validity or seriousness of such a show was challenged in one case wished (literally): 'Fuck off and die' Why is it so difficult for some people, to graciously overlook their own vulnerabilities and mock at the other whose belief is no different at all? Does not the whole vedic literature suggests strongly a belief in siddhis, do not the whole Puranas recount them and all of the Yogic and tantric literature is full of references to supernormal powers, so anybody basing his/her teachings on such scriptures sits in the same boat, and that includes of course Ammaji. While I believe She is really doing good work, and is a great being, her whole biography is full of references to the supernormal, and the Sri Lalita Sahasranam describes the Devi in not unclear terms as the master of Siddhis. (The daily recitation of this text is highly recommended by Ammaji). I don't want to put Ammaji or Dr. Lenz down with this, I'm just pointing out, that you can't believe in one thing and at the same time disbelieve in the very same thing. In this argument there is a very profound dishonesty. In other words, you've never seen flying either, right? Not that I knew. I mean I saw some magic tricks being performed by a stage magician on youtube But you believe in it, because of some words you read in books that most people consider fiction, right. :-) No, not right, I don't believe in it ;-) Surprise? I defend somebodies right to believe whatever he wants without believing it myself. My non-belief is not very strong though. I just don't know, and I don't really care either. You somehow, along with Curtis seem to be under the impression that whenever I cite scriptures I am appealing to their authority. Thats also wrong. I just used them to make a reference to a more general belief in flying in religious scriptures. All I'm saying is, Prove it. Why? I don't believe it myself. You believe it, so why don't you prove it. Why should I prove your beliefs? I've seen flying, or at least what appeared to be someone not only levitating for long periods of time in one place but moving through the air. You haven't seen flying, rather you saw something you believe was flying. Maybe it was maybe it was just a stage magic or a sort of hypnosis. Nabby also refers to his experience of levitating. I have no reason to believe that your experience was in any way superior than his. Yet this is what you seem to say. Your experience seems to constitute somekind of proof or substitute proof for you, while Nabby according to you is only a TB and uncritically follows MMY. Somebody could claim the same thing about you, that you at the time you saw it were uncritically following Dr. Lenz, and never questioned the nature of your experience. Believe it or not, in this question I am more near to Curtis position than you. Many times. And yet I wouldn't claim that it *was* flying, only that I saw it, and many times. In that particular case, the guy didn't even claim he could do it; he was more Nike about the whole thing, and Just Did It. Well, just in case, a stage performer wouldn't have to claim it either and still could people make believe that he did it, and he could repeat it many times and many people would see it. As some videos on youtube prove. All I'm suggesting to Nabby is Just Do It. If you
[FairfieldLife] Re: With MMY/TM you only get half a loaf!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most Sadhanas are effective enough if the student is sincere, even TM I suspect. And thats all that ever counts, sincerity is all that ever counts.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The truth about flying, CC in 5-8, etc.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, aztjbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there any way tm-ers could somehow regroup and develop an alternative organization you would be proud of? This may be highly improbable and I was just wondering. Well. there are independent TM Teachers organizing themselves in different countries. But I think for a uniform successful alternative organization, a charismatic personality is missing. Also I think there are various degrees of belief in TM with people who leave, like some believe just in TM twice daily, some in Siddhis and group effect, some don't, some believe in Ayurveda and House-orientation, others don't. Who would train new teachers and give advanced techniques? I once followed some meetings of a few Germans who wanted to found an independent organization, but that there was no unity, and it became clear to me that I wasn't part of it anymore. It soon dissolved.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are soo stuck in the matrix dude. If that's the case, lemme just say that there's not *nearly* enough Keanu in here for my taste. That was perfect. Life is rich. And ignorance is bliss, I'd say.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: You are soo stuck in the matrix dude. If that's the case, lemme just say that there's not *nearly* enough Keanu in here for my taste. That was perfect. Life is rich. And ignorance is bliss, I'd say. Huh? I don't understand your comment. With what part of that light-hearted exchange are you taking issue? No issue at all. Quote from Matrix.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: You are soo stuck in the matrix dude. If that's the case, lemme just say that there's not *nearly* enough Keanu in here for my taste. That was perfect. Life is rich. And ignorance is bliss, I'd say. Huh? I don't understand your comment. With what part of that light-hearted exchange are you taking issue? No issue at all. Quote from Matrix. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7BuQFUhsRM
[FairfieldLife] Voice tells (Re: Mulholland Drive)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 5. They'd never have to worry about sex or kids or earning a living or any of those other bothersome distractions from the *real* purpose of life, which is sitting in a dark room with your eyes closed. First time I hear they have dark rooms there in Guantanamo, Turq, it's rather likely you are exposed to electric light 24 hrs a day: All but one are kept in constant isolation, living in six by eight foot steel cells, with no windows and unrelenting electric light. One has been on hunger strike for over 100 days - tied down and force-fed twice a day. None of them are charged with a crime. Not one has had a trial. http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,2046178,00.html So, not a good suggestion for someone wanting to have a Himalayan cave like situation. Been out of touch with reality a little recently? But maybe a good motive for a Lynchian movie, with Dr, Vaj going around giving anti-vata shots to people with meditational disorders. People are regularely called for voice-check, and Vata-deranged folks are exposed to windy cages. ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch and Psychosis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ** Lynch drinks 20 cups of coffee a day (a level of caffeination that puts him into the range consumed by Brian Wilson at the low point of his craziness, trying to float his personality through a deep depression), and although he quit smoking some time after starting TM, he resumed a packaday habit after going without for 20 years. These habits are unusual for a longterm TMer and are markers of a nervous system so strongly stressed and twisted that it might indeed be fairly characterized as borderline psychotic. I am glad we have so many hobby psychologists here. It might be interesting to you, that some of the most enlightened people on earth were heavy smokers. Nisargadatta Maharaj comes to mind. Coffee consumption is neither unusual with enlightened. A friend of mine knew a Lady saint in India living on coffee alone, not eating any food. Vaj and Edg might want to do a voice analysis based on this tape: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtF_Ud2M0HU
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
Wow, thanks to Vaj I have now learned of a whole new range of deceases, there are 'Vata derangements' there are 'Yogic disorders' and 'meditational disorders' and a great system of diagnosis as well: Art (or should I say 'ent-Art -ed'?) (of course in addition to the quivering voice). I wonder if the Nazis had a similar scientific system of determinating (or terminating) 'Völkische Gesundheit', yeah I think being black or a Jew was thought of as a genetic 'dis-order' ( as opposed to the right 'order'), and well I don't have to tell you about 'entartete Kunst' (deviating Art), or the burning of literature. Once you have a system of determinating what is 'Right' (or balanced) everything that deviates from it is, well a deviation, or 'out of balance', or people doing the wrong meditation technique have 'meditational or yogic disorders'. To me this is truely fascist thinking, well not in the sense of terminating people, but well in the sense of condemning them with truely pseudo-spiritual or medical lingo. This is pseudoscientific junk of the first class. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Here's what I said: snip .. In Lynch there are clear signs of vata derangement and IMO, very likely, an underlying yogic disorder. snip ..The quaver in Lynch's voice IMO is a meditational disorder. snip ..I can see how his creative process seems slanted by a parallel derangement. snip It's just a comment of the vaca, kaya and chitta: voice as reflecting energy, side-by-side with body and mind.
[FairfieldLife] Voice tells (Re: Mulholland Drive)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maharishi has said many times in my presence that one spoken word tells everything about a person. Sure, but he doesn't publicly judge people according to this. He doesn't condemn people because they have a 'Yogic disorder' or a 'meditational disorder'. I've heard him say this too, that the voice reveals everything (even though I'm not sure now that I believe it.) But I always understood it to be a sort of private knowledge of an enlightened person, rather than a means of diagnosis of illness. Now, even if it was a diagnosis, it would be okay in the hands of a doctor, IF a person comes to you and wants to be diagnosed, that is a person feels he is sick and trusts you you can help him. And then, as a doctor, you wouldn't go around and shout out your 'knowledge', and judge this persons life-work publicly, right? You would be a bad doctor if you did so. So, its not the concept as such, which is bad, nothing wrong with 'vata derangement' as a diagnosis, its rather its application, which is mean and closed-minded. Why would it surprise if Vaj has a spectrum of concepts that delineate the various kinds and degrees of tell that a voice's sound can reveal? Vaj has an opinion, a theory, a scripturally based take, but given his generally gentle vibe here, how anyone can see him being fascistic in temperament is beyond me. Hmm, he is not always so gentle, but never mind, its not his temperament, or his character, or I wouldn't call him a fascist anyway. I called the particular *mind-set* fascist, that is to take a theory, lets say it, a belief, and take it as an absolute criterion in judging a persons action as making sense or as being 'healthy'. This reminds you of fascism, who regarded art created by unhealthy people as unworthy of existence. (Okay he didn't say this, but he used it as a matter of judgment) Yeah, if he was running an ashram, he might deny someone membership based on his voice's feel, but woe unto anyone who doesn't go by his guts in so many instances in life. Sure, who wouldn't. But I wouldn't at any price want to be in an ashram run by him. Recently here, we've had tales of folks being accosted on the streets with a scam, and something told them that danger was near -- it probably was the voices of the scammers more than anything else, methinks. Intuition, it's what we all want, right? Listening to the voices of others and then seeing our subtle emotional responses could be a profound method of culturing one's ability to attend. I have no problem with that. Thats something you do for yourself. The problem comes if you make your intuitions or gut feelings the criterion of absolute truths and give them a pseudo-scientific touch. We've got TM guys just feeling a pulse and telling you your past lifetimes, and everyone in the TMO just didn't even blink at this ability, Yes, really? I do blink at this, and I always did. and so it really is silly for everyone here to be even thinking Vaj's concepts are way out there. They maybe way out there or not, for me its the application of these concepts I find disturbing. He doesn't just say, from his voice, that he has a 'Vata derangement', but that rather his whole life and art reflects it, and he implicates that this is the ground on which to judge his art. I find this connection he makes of his art, and his supposed 'derangements' weird to say the least. Whereas Angela and me think that Art should be looked at in its own right. IOW the artist could be sick, even mentally ill, but this wouldn't automatically render his art as worthless. It could be still valid, inspiring and full of meaning. Now in this case of DL there is no proof at all that he is sick, neither mentally nor otherwise, its all just a lay-persons assessment of a medical theory which is for most medical persons a pseudoscience. He throws in some more high sounding words like 'yogic disorders' (WTF is this?) and 'meditational disorders', all just from hearing his voice. What is odd is the way, with a sense of absolute certainty, Dr. Vaj diagnoses his art according to this feeble observations. Honestly it were these two words which made me take off, 'yogic disorders' and 'meditational disorders'. This is such a crap. Everyone can read the voices of others with a very high level of expertise, Do as you like, but I appreciate you don't go around shopping with your insights. I would not claim high level of expertise for doing so.I accept that a person bases his own decissons and opinions on such criteria, and why take only the voice, why no photo? In this case I must say that I have seen a photo of him (I mean Vaj) so, no, Vaj is not even being a silly Buddhist whose precepts are only understood by Vaj. This voice thingy is sheer common sense, and I, for one, like the challenge of having Vaj's concepts enlarging the scope of my clarity. Fine, no problem with me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The appropriate point of this work was that the artist does not care whether he is portraying beautiful life or ugly life. It is all worthy of his attention, his talent, and his inspiration. No art critic would call a work of art crap just because the subject matter is something a psychologist would only visit with his most disturbed clients. Whether or not it is crap does not depend on the subject matter, but on the way he portrays it. Great points Angela. I must out myself that I saw Mulholland Drive 2 or 3 times and really liked it. I liked it because its mysterious not just a sraight forward story, most of which you can calculate yourself, and I liked it for the imagery. For example, right after the lesbian scene, when they go to the magic theater, the whole thing is full of spiritual meaning. The artists perform obviously singing, but as one singer faints, you see that the voice is coming from a tape. So everything is just an illusion, a theater play, the artists seemingly playing are just lip-synchronising to a recording. I think this is a very adapt spiritual analogy. The club is called 'silencio' and silence is a key-phrase in that scene. the whole performance is in silence, the music coming from a tape. During that scene the whole story skips, the two girls go through a magic cube into a different space, this being the past or simply an alternate reading of reality, or the actual reality, while the beginning was simply a dream. There are many subplots, many symbolic hints. For example there is a bum in the film, who secretly holds all the strings, the persons in power obviously just being puppets in the hands of a strange being, obviously powerless in the ordinary sense. I got reminded of the Avadhuts, who live on streets, careless about their outer appearance but thoroughly enlightened. In this film things are not as they seem to be, there are layers of reality, one persons dream is another persons reality and vice versa. In the second half of the film, the two girls, Betty and Rita basically swap roles. Betty being the succesfull and Rita the shy one in the first half, in the second half Rita has the success and Betty is depressed. The whole film can also be seen as commenting on the illussiory glamour and the shallowness of Hollywood. So, yes, I liked this grap, and I am aware that I'm one of the few ones, in my immediate surrounding and obviously here. But I don't care, I see deep meaning in it, and its just not this predictable story you usually get. I think he David Lynch is a genius, and I liked the way he dealt with this situation in Berlin, which was truely horrible, with this ego-maniac Schiffgens. That he is in a leading position in the movement gives me hope.
[FairfieldLife] Maharishi Timeline
http://preview.tinyurl.com/398584
[FairfieldLife] No Virus found = Viral Marketing (was: Re: This Coronation of Rajas thing)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: Well, I guess this IS viral marketing.Truly annoying IMO. Can this not be switched off? It can. In AVG Control Center, double-click on E-mail Scanner and then click the Configure button. Uncheck the Certify mail box underneath Check outgoing mail. That will stop AVG from tacking on that message to outgoing mail. Thanks Alex. Btw I also use AVG on Windows. May the above be a suggestion for Rick? (Hint, Hint) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: snip No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.3/1144 - Release Date: 11/21/2007 4:28 PM 'The term was further popularized by Tim Draper and Steve Jurvetson of the venture capital firm Draper Fisher Jurvetson in 1997 to describe Hotmail's e-mail practice of appending advertising for itself in outgoing mail from their users.[7]' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_marketing
[FairfieldLife] No Virus found = Viral Marketing (was: Re: This Coronation of Rajas thing)
Well, I guess this IS viral marketing.Truly annoying IMO. Can this not be switched off? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.3/1144 - Release Date: 11/21/2007 4:28 PM 'The term was further popularized by Tim Draper and Steve Jurvetson of the venture capital firm Draper Fisher Jurvetson in 1997 to describe Hotmail's e-mail practice of appending advertising for itself in outgoing mail from their users.[7]' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_marketing
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bhaagavata-puraaNa, a commentary on Vedaanta-suutra?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@ wrote: Card, What is this all about? Gaudiya Vaishvavas are well known for their virulent and doctrinare theological views. Not all are like that although most are like that only times x 2. Thus your point is?? Well, should've quoted the part about BP being a commentary on vedaanta-suutraaNi. Quite an extensive commentary! :D Yeah, thats typical Vaishnava Propaganda. For them BP is Veda and as authoritative as the Upanishads. From the same page, Prabhupada writes: '#346;r#299;mad-Bh#257;gavatam is the one unrivaled commentary on Ved#257;nta-s#363;tra. #346;r#299;p#257;da #346;a#324;kar#257;c#257;rya intentionally did not touch it because he knew that the natural commentary would be difficult for him to surpass. He wrote his #346;#257;r#299;raka-bh#257;sya, and his so-called followers deprecated the Bh#257;gavatam as some new presentation. ' Yet,what he forgets is that not only Shankara did not touch it, not thinking it worth to be commented on, but neither did Ramanuja, nor Nimbarka , that is 2 out of the 5 Vaishnava Acharyas. Only much later with Madhva the Bhagavatam rose in prominence. For Ramanuja the Vishnu Purana was the main Vaishnava scripture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramanuja http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimbarka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhvacharya http://www.ramanuja.org/ http://www.dvaita.net/ --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: There is no point in arguing that a materialistic man can be happy. No materialistic creature be he the great Brahm#257; or an insignificant ant can be happy. Everyone tries to make a permanent plan for happiness, but everyone is baffled by the laws of material nature. Therefore the materialistic world is called the darkest region of God's creation. Yet the unhappy materialists can get out of it simply by desiring to get out. Unfortunately they are so foolish that they do not want to escape. Therefore they are compared to the camel who relishes thorny twigs because he likes the taste of the twigs mixed with blood. He does not realize that it is his own blood and that his tongue is being cut by the thorns. Similarly, to the materialist his own blood is as sweet as honey, and although he is always harassed by his own material creations, he does not wish to escape. Teh whole text: http://vedabase.net/sb/1/2/3/en
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bhaagavata-puraaNa, a commentary on Vedaanta-suutra?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yet,what he forgets is that not only Shankara did not touch it, not thinking it worth to be commented on, but neither did Ramanuja, nor Nimbarka , that is 2 out of the 5 Vaishnava Acharyas. Only much later with Madhva the Bhagavatam rose in prominence. For Ramanuja the Vishnu Purana was the main Vaishnava scripture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramanuja http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimbarka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhvacharya http://www.ramanuja.org/ http://www.dvaita.net/ Oohps, the quote was scrambled, here it is again: http://vedabase.net/sb/1/2/3/ ´Srimad-Bhagavatam is the one unrivaled commentary on Vedanta-sutra. ´Sripada ´Sa´nkaracarya intentionally did not touch it because he knew that the natural commentary would be difficult for him to surpass. He wrote his ´Sariraka-bhasÌ£ya, and his so-called followers deprecated the Bhagavatam as some new presentation. One should not be misled by such propaganda directed against the Bhagavatam by the Mayavada school. From this introductory ´sloka, the beginning student should know that ´Srimad-Bhagavatam is the only transcendental literature meant for those who are paramahamÌsas and completely freed from the material disease called malice. The Mayavadis are envious of the Personality of Godhead despite ´Sripada ´Sa´nkaracarya's admission that NarayanÌ£a, the Personality of Godhead, is above the material creation. The envious Mayavadi cannot have access to the Bhagavatam, but those who are really anxious to get out of this material existence may take shelter of this Bhagavatam because it is uttered by the liberated ´Srila ´Sukadeva Gosvami. It is the transcendental torchlight by which one can see perfectly the transcendental Absolute Truth realized as Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan.
[FairfieldLife] Russia our White Knight? Gads, YES!!!!! (Re: 'Preventing Nuclear War)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, and you weren't using the term as a synecdoche, either. Might want to look that up too. I looked it up, but I don't know if it was correct, 'cuz being too lazy to read Angies whole post. Would Metonymy be a more appropriate term? And its as a possessive never, EVER has an apostrophe. Judy, don't come down too hard down on her. This would be a typical German thing to do. In German, possessives are written with apostrophes. The problem in Germany right now is, that the English usage has mixed through popular culture so much that both versions are officially accepted now.
[FairfieldLife] Russia our White Knight? Gads, YES!!!!! (Re: 'Preventing Nuclear War)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: And its as a possessive never, EVER has an apostrophe. Judy, don't come down too hard down on her. This would be a typical German thing to do. In German, possessives are written with apostrophes. The problem in Germany right now is, that the English usage has mixed through popular culture so much that both versions are officially accepted now. That's what illiterates would have you believe. :-) It's not true, no matter what you might have heard. The misuse of 'its' and 'it's' is one of the easiest ways to tell whether a writer of English cares enough about the readers of his or her writing to use it properly. I would venture to say that there is no book of English grammar out there that presents this misuse as acceptable. Please Barry, I was referring to the German use. Here again: Apostrophe is correct for German possessive (genitive) Example: Michael's Brief Correct English: Michaels post. The mixed English German, Michaels Brief, formerly wrong has now been labeled as acceptable use in the Duden. Both Michaels Brief and Michael's Brief are correct now - in German.
[FairfieldLife] Russia our White Knight? Gads, YES!!!!! (Re: 'Preventing Nuclear War)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: Please Barry, I was referring to the German use. Here again: Apostrophe is correct for German possessive (genitive) Example: Michael's Brief Correct English: Michaels post. The mixed English German, Michaels Brief, formerly wrong has now been labeled as acceptable use in the Duden. Both Michaels Brief and Michael's Brief are correct now - in German. I stand corrected, but really...how sad. Yes. There is a certain amount of awareness though, mainly through a guy called Bastian Sick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastian_Sick 'Sick wrote three books on common German grammatical mistakes, that were critically acclaimed for their humour[1] and have become very popular in Germany.[2] The titles of the books called Der Dativ ist dem Genitiv sein Tod (literally The Dative is the Genitive its Death) use puns employing the his genitive, which in official German is incorrect and often considered unaesthetic, instead of the correct genitive case.' We were very much americanized after the war, maybe more than other European nations, for some time our country was virtually non-existent, then the Americans re-educated us. Besides that, German as a language is hard to sing, so through music and advertisement english is omnipresent in Germany. One thing you've got to say for the French is that they *protect their language*. Learning to use it properly is basically the foundation of their educational system, and a French per- song who *doesn't* use it properly is viewed with a certain amount of disdain by other French. Surely very different. But then, French don't like to speak anything else than french, Germans do like to learn other languages.
[FairfieldLife] Russia our White Knight? Gads, YES!!!!! (Re: 'Preventing Nuclear War)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip It's not true, no matter what you might have heard. The misuse of 'its' and 'it's' is one of the easiest ways to tell whether a writer of English cares enough about the readers of his or her writing to use it properly. I would venture to say that there is no book of English grammar out there that presents this misuse as acceptable. Please Barry, I was referring to the German use. Here again: Apostrophe is correct for German possessive (genitive) Example: Michael's Brief Correct English: Michaels post. Nonono! Michael's post is correct in English. You are right Judy, I got confused, it's just as you say the other way round: Michael's post is correct english, Michaels Brief is correct ORIGINAL German, but use of apostrophe in german for genitive has been now accepted. Sorry. But no apostrophe is used with the pronoun: Michael's post is very long, but it's not long enough to cover its topic. It's is a contraction of it is (or it has); its is the possessive. Its is like his and hers and theirs. But unfortunately you'll see not only it's for the possessive, but also her's and their's sometimes. Okay, didn't know this. Surely it's, if allowed would be confused with 'it is'
[FairfieldLife] OT: Adblock
Just since last week I came across this extension to Firefox: http://adblockplus.org/en/ I don't know how I could live so long without it! No ads anymore, no Google context ads, no flash banners anymore, no ads in Yahoo, simply no ads at all. Now this is a major adon to Firefox, the main product of Mozilla, which Google is sponsoring in a mayor way. Cool.
[FairfieldLife] Re: OT: Adblock
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: Just since last week I came across this extension to Firefox: http://adblockplus.org/en/ I don't know how I could live so long without it! No ads anymore, no Google context ads, no flash banners anymore, no ads in Yahoo, simply no ads at all. Now this is a major adon to Firefox, the main product of Mozilla, which Google is sponsoring in a mayor way. Cool. I've been using a combo of Adblock and Filterset.G for a long time. I tried Adblock Plus, but I didn't like the big icon it puts in the browser, and some pages were rendering with a much larger gap where the ad would be than with the original Adblock. Don't know about the second point, but the icon you can get rid of easily: There is a little arrow next to it, from the context menu Options tack show in symbol bar, the the icon disappears. You can get to options again in menu extra.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Krishnas??
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
According to Capeller(sp?), the nominative dual form
from kRSNa (kRSNau: two Krishnas) refers to Krishna
and Arjuna.
Thats interesting and funny at the same time: According to Achinthya
Bedabeda of Chaitanya (the philosophy behind the Hare Krishnas)
Krishna is as well the name of the highest God, of whom Brahma, Vishnu
and Shiva are only (Yuga-)Avatars, and at the same time he is the
special Avatar (of Vishnu) who instructed Arjuna in the Gita, one of
the Dasavataras. They actually speak of two Krishnas, but of course
its all one.
Capeller's Sanskrit-English Dictionary:
1 kRSNa a. black, dark. --m. (ñ{pakSa}) the dark half month, the black
antelope (mostly {kR3SNa}); N. of an ancient hero and teacher, later
as the god Kr2s2n2a identified with Vis2n2u; du. *{kRSNau} =
Kr2s2n2a and Arjuna.* f. {kRSNA} a. black kind of leech. N. of
sev. plants, E. of Durga1 and Draupadi1; f. {kRSNI3} night. n.
blackness, darkness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Power of the Puja (What is the purpose of the puja?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, biosoundbill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Even the Lords Prayer in the orignial Arameic,another Energy language,would probably work,as it takes one back to source - see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUIlaRKOT7A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnYV0WFpiCg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Loving God Means Loving Everythig
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, thats a view. If God is Everything, then it follows that, Loving God means loving Everything. You are right of course. Thats the ideal. But it would require that you actually see and experience God in everything, unless you are a mood-maker. But for a practitioner on he path, its qute something to already experience God even temporarily, so your love would naturally stream from these perceptions, or anticipations. I also think, and many do experience this, you can experience God or Divinity or some kind of reflection of the Divine in any human being or animal or object of the world. But you usually don't do this all the time, and usually not all at one time. I think MMY has said it in Love and God, that personal Love is concentrated universal love, and I would subscribe to that. But I do think this is spontaneous, and you cannot fake it. Unless, of course your God is less than Everything. But for those loving an Everything God, then that is substantial. Far deeper, and significant -- and motivationally inspiring,IMO -- than bland, even smug, IMO, propositions that the world is Perfect as it is. (But even bland and smugness can be Loved)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Identification and saturational clarity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wonder if you are using the term in a different way from a Christian evangelist who might use the same words. I guess I might need to understand what you mean by loving God, how that manifests, and how you experience that. I think you may have a more personalized view of God than I thought previously in the discussion where he seemed too abstract to love. I don't resonate at all with evangelic Christians (especially not the more fundamentalist type you seem to have more of in the US than we here). Basically, philosophically I leave a lot of things open, Advaita Vedanta allows me to do so. The general framework of Advaita is, that there is Brahman, an all pervading Being, which IS everything. The world as we see it is a projection of Maya. Within that world, which is unreal and illusiory, there is a personification of Brahman in a personal form called Ishwara, or simply God. According to Vedanta 'God' or rather Brahman, can adopt different forms, or individualities, each ranking supreme giving the respective perspective. Shankara himself was a Smartist, who would acknowledge 5 or 6 different Gods as representative of the Supreme, these are Vishnu (and any of his Avatars like Krishna or Rama), Shiva, Devi (or any of her emanations like Durga, Lakshmi, Kali), Ganesha and (obviously more worshipped in olden times Surya, the Sun. I do have a personal relationship to several of these deities, not all of them in the same way and the same degree. And I have a very flexible way I see them in the whole system. I basically subscribe to the image, I think Ramakrishna describes, that the unmanifest Brahman can give rise to manifest representations of himself for the sake of the devotee, to support his worship or devotion, just like water in the ocean could be frozen to different shapes. So if I feel love for God, it could be all of it, to a personal shape, and that doesn't have to be a figure, and image, it can also be simply a vibration hat I identify to be so, or in a more general unspecified sense. It can be many things. I am not doing any pujas at home, or any chantings, but I do have some pictures, my favorate ones on my altar, and they do evoke feelings when I look at them. But mostly I experience love, a sense of Divine love in my meditations, or at periods outside of meditation when I am 'connected' Usually this 'connectedness' is a force, a shakti I experience which enters my body at specific centers, mostly through the Saharada or the forehead centers or both, and then travels to the heard, or actually permeates me throughout. I don't think this is specific for every bhakta, but thats the way it is for me. So God for me is a very real physical energy, which comes and which I cannot even escape. In my earlier days, I had different phases, like I had a phase were I would listen to a special kirtan every day (I was still in TM and i would do it before meditation) and I would be moved and tears would roll in my eyes. I listened to one Kirtan of Ananadamayi Ma everyday for 4 years. I also had a phase where I would do a self made puja in front of images, and I felt an intense radiation of love coming from them. Likewise I do feel love through my preceptor, being in contact with her, or simply being in her presence. I guess that if there is a God who has thousands of names in Hinduism, calling him life and saying that I love life may be similar. It maybe or it maybe not, I have no idea. Most Hindus would have a chosen deity which they worship foremost among others, this is likely to be Krishna, or Shiva, or other special forms which are connected to them. They usually do feel a personal connection to them, if they are worshipers and religiously inclined. As I wrote already to nwe morning, I strongly resonate with MMY's 'Personal love is concentrated universal love' So I do have a strong sense of personal love. If you mean an ecstatic connection to being alive then I am with you 100% and it becomes a you say tomato, I say tomto kind of thing. I don't exactly know what an 'ecstatic connection' to being alive means, I guess it could mean different things to different people. It may be a formula that suits you, while my formula is more 'directly' religious. If you are having and experience of a personal God mystically or are focusing your energy on an image of God, then I probably got off at the last bus stop. I do have those experiences as I explained, but recently as i explained its more a relationship to an energy pervading me. The energy is less of an image, but it does have a personal connotation to it at times. snip I'm not sure we could know if your words correspond to my reality or vise versa. Words like transcendent whole invoke more of a feeling for me than a clear definition. I don't know if my love of life includes what you are referring to here. Life is pretty deep. I don't know
[FairfieldLife] Re: Identification and saturational clarity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: God and Its divine symbols, and messengers. All nice. But you can make your own placebos -- if you need one -- faster, easier, if you dare to do so. Faster? Easier? Make it yourself? New, I don't get you. If you wish, make it as fast and easy yourself as you can - just count me out from this trip.
[FairfieldLife] Farewell note (was:Re: Identification and saturational clarity)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First Michael, thanks for keeping the ball rolling. We are discussing abstract topics across language and cultural barriers and I really dig the way you are keeping the discussion very respectful. Okay, Curtis and all involved: I have already answered this particular post, but I feel now to get out of the discussion, 'to get some fresh air' as somebody suggested. I am getting sort of tired on the topic by now, its difficult to externalize and intellectualize ones own views and experiences, and here are lots of misunderstandings still around, about terms and concepts. I also respect the way, you were keeping the discussion friendly throughout. So farewell to this topic, and for the moment, I simply have to concentrate on other things now.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Identification and saturational clarity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was not trying to convince anyone that my POV is right or debate it's superiority (as Edg wants me to do) or try to argue that others should adapt it. But evaluating my capacities for love or passion for reality as limited seems to go against everything I value in other people's spiritual perspective. Curtis, thats definitely not what I had intended to say. In the sentence below, to which Judy was responding, ... he cannot love Reality as such the term to be emphasized would be 'AS SUCH', 'Reality as such' would be as opposed to the objects of reality, like the things you love in life. 'Reality as such' or may be 'Reality in itself' would be an attempt to find a substitute word for GOD or BEING in a more common and vague way. What I am saying here is almost redundant: If you do not believe in God, you cannot love him or her. As simple as that. But that is for a religious person one of the main issues at all: To LOVE God. In any metaphysical quest, there may be passion, search for Truth, but loving God doesn't enter the picture. Please be truthful: I had tried to point this out in my original post, saying that you can of course love your wife, your pet, people and so on. But you surely cannot love God. To say 'I love life' is a different issue IMO, as it is more used in the sense that generally you like the things you do in your life etc, it isn't usually seen as a concentrated love towards a transcendent whole. My point really is, that in this discussion about God, the word 'Love' didn't really enter until now, but it is the most important word for any theist. I could easily say, that I believe in God, because I love him, and you would probably say, that this isn't logical. You would say that this doesn't prove anything, wouldn't you? So I propose for you reason, rationality has a greater weight in your personal quest, is so to say the operative factor, while for me it isn't. Reason plays a role for me too, a big role, but in a different way, with different conclusions. In no way was my post an attempt to put you down or anything. I had purposefully used the phrase 'rational atheist' throughout as a concept, and had also made it clear, that I don't know were you stand exactly. So it couldn't have been an evaluation of what you experience. I also like to point out, that much in the post was about choice, the way Kierkegaard defines it, like in the phrase 'Subjectivity is Truth' That I think is a fundamental difference between us two. Realty is subjective to me, while you seem to posit a rational, objective universe (I am not sure here, but it seems to at least play a big role in your views). I simply claim that I live my own truth, my souls truth. (Normally you would now say, we don't know if a soul exists, it could all be an illusion of the mind; there we go again). So, besides all the overlaps of our worldviews (mainly due to the phrase: 'I don't know' and our common human quest) I do see a decisive, fundamental separation line, in the way we approach, I would say subjective vs objective. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: snip An atheist may be in awe, but basically (Unless he is a Buddhist or Taoist)he is just exploring a kind of a metaphysical study. So he may be in awe, yes. But he cannot LOVE reality as such, and he cannot develop a passion about it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Identification and saturational clarity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: My point really is, that in this discussion about God, the word 'Love' didn't really enter until now, but it is the most important word for any theist. I could easily say, that I believe in God, because I love him, and you would probably say, that this isn't logical. You would say that this doesn't prove anything, wouldn't you? Michael, I can't speculate as to how Curtis will answer, but my answer would be that you can love God all day long if you want (and I think you should do so if that's what makes you happy), but not only does that not prove anything, it's on the same level as little kids loving Santa. The fact that they love him and the fervor with which they love him doesn't make him exist. See, thats what I am implying he would say ;-) One is about reason, putting reason upfront, the other about practice. Religion and spirituality are about practice.I just have been to India where there is a general religiosity pervading, and you can see it in the eyes of the people, you can see it even in the eyes of children. You don't see such liveliness here, people are dull materialists mostly. Now I can see you attempt to belittle or ridicule my beliefs by your little comparison, but it shows where you stand, doesn't it?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Identification and saturational clarity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Religion and spirituality are about practice. I just have been to India where there is a general religiosity pervading, and you can see it in the eyes of the people, you can see it even in the eyes of children. You don't see such liveliness here, people are dull materialists mostly. And that's an *objective* assessment on your part? :-) Nope, its totally subjective. Isn't it possible that you see things this way because you *value* religiosity more than you value the lack of it? In this case, looking at people in India in general, and its not only my observation but the observation of friends i happen to agree with, I come up with this impression. Thinking that this has to do with religiosity is of course my interpretation based on my acquaintance with India, and seeing both Hindus and Muslims (in the town I was last 50/50) It's just a question. Its answered Now I can see you attempt to belittle or ridicule my beliefs by your little comparison, but it shows where you stand, doesn't it? And I think your statement above shows pretty clearly where *you* stand. I was presenting an objective assessment of your stance; you are (as I read what you're saying) suggesting that your subjective assessment of reality is *superior* to any objective assessment. Nowhere in fact did I say its superior. Where do you get this from? I just distinguish two approaches and clearly take a stand (unlike other folks here) The fact that one believes in God is *wonderful* for those who believe it. The love that they feel for God is *wonderful*, and may bring *tremendous* value to their lives. I firmly believe this. But these beliefs and this love are *subjective*, man. Sure, thats what I have been saying. What I think you are saying in these posts is that your subjective experience trumps any possible objective assessment. Right? I don't know what 'drums' means in this context. Must be an american expression i don't know. That is a *perfectly* acceptable point of view in my opinion; it's been the way of mystics for centuries. And I believe that it can have *tremendous* value for those who believe that their subjective experience of reality is more valid and more important than any possible objective assessment of reality. To me, Barry, to me. But please don't try to convince me that your subjective experience *is* reality. It's just a different point of view, that's all. What Barry IS reality? Do you think there is one TRUTH everyone has to agree too? That seems to be the implication of what you are saying. You seem to believe there is one objective Truth. You believe in God, and I think that's just wonderful. I don't, and I perceive a strong undertone in most of your posts to this thread that you *don't* think that's wonderful. As a non-belief isn't anything positive in and of itself, I cannot make such a statement of course. I have no objection to you not believing, its more how you react to people who do. Its like, whenever you get a chance, you will point out that every mass murderer in history was so because of his religious aberration. And its only your feeling. Basically I just state my own views. Recently when I said that I am out of the discussion, you strongly urged me to explain myself. You expressed the feeling that we would defend our faith by withdrawal, instead of trying to communicate. Now, when I communicate my own POV, and point out differences, you assume I want to proselytize. The feeling that I get, and that I think Curtis gets, is that you feel badly for us, as if we are missing out on some great truth that you are privy to and we are not. Barry, I don't know what feeling Curtis gets, but if it is ah you are saying, he should clearly express. What Curtis has expressed here several times though, is that he appreciates the dialoque a lot. This is really the only reason I continue. In my opinion that is fine for you to believe, if it makes you happy. But when you try to express it as if this feeling on your part were somehow true and something more than *JUST* your belief or feeling, some kind of truth, then in my opinion you have crossed a line. That line is believing that your subjective experience *defines* reality, and is more than just your subjective experience *of* reality. I just can't buy that. It defines reality for ME, Barry. YOUR subjective truth defines reality for YOU of course.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Identification and saturational clarity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a non-belief isn't anything positive in and of itself... In the parts of your response I snipped (because I had nothing to say about them), you claim that you aren't saying that belief in God is superior. Look at the above phrase and try to convince me of that. Okay, nothing simpler than that. A positive statement is when I say: 'My sweater is red' When I say: 'My sweater is not red' its not a positive statement' If I say: 'My sweater is not red but green' Its a negative statement combined with a positive statement. Pls note that here positive and negative are not value statements, but only regard the nature of the statement itself. How you get anything about 'superiority' in this must be one of the mysteries I don't understand The part that you *continually* miss in these discus- sions is that untheism is NOT a non-belief. It's a belief in the value of something *else*. I'm sorry, but you seem to be *incapable* of hearing this. Yes, I still don't understand. If un-theism is not a non-belief, what is it? If you mean agnosticism, why don't you say it? ...I cannot make such a statement of course. I have no objection to you not believing... I neither believe nor disbelieve. The existence of God is completely *irrelevant* to me. Which means that you don't believe. Because to a believer it is of course relevant. So you are basically saying you are a practical atheist, an apatheist: In practical, or pragmatic, atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine. The existence of gods is not denied, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view.[43] A form of practical atheism with implications for the scientific community is methodological naturalismâthe tacit adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it.[44] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism snip So believe *exactly* what you want. I don't CARE. You forgot one thing: I don't KNOW. It goes like this: I don't know and I don't care ;-) And now I run.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Identification and saturational clarity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm just curious, and coming into the discussion some time after it started. Before arguing about whether or not God exists, did you establish some consensus on who or what God actually is? Angela no we didn't. Thats part of the problem. I usually use the word God in a very generic and abstract way, and I think thats greatly misunderstood. In TM we used to have all kinds of substitute words, like CI, or Being (impersonal God), or unified field, When I left TM I felt I didn't want to relate to TM lingo anymore, and adopted the more general word God. For me the word God could comprise any of these ideas. So, when I say, We are not in control of our thoughts, but God is, God could mean any cosmic force or intelligence outside of our I sense. Tubingen is a university famous in Europe for many centuries for its department of theology. They had a conference not too long ago in which the existence of God was the topic for discussion. After learned dudes from all over the world had presented their arguments in learned papers for three days, an old guy got up and said, Gentlemen, the Lord is so great, He doesn't have to exist if He doesn't feel like it. a Great!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Identification and saturational clarity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do not for a moment belief that there is one Truth, objective or not. Or one reality. I believe the exact opposite, in fact. You are *choosing* to believe that that's what I'm saying. What I'm really saying was in the use of Santa Claus as a parallel for God. The fact that children believe in him and love him does not make him exist; Santa's existence can *never* be proven by any objective standards. Santa's existence can never even be proven *subjectively* to someone who doesn't already believe in him. Same with God. This is *not* saying that there is some objective reality in which Santa/God either exists or does not. It's just saying that *as a preference*, I take my subjective experiences and then measure them against *also available* objective standards, and then try to come to a conclusion as to what I believe based on *both* subjective and objective measurements. The conclusion I come to does NOT equate to reality or truth. It is only what I have chosen to believe. Do you get it now? Not quite. The last sentence somehow suggests that you still there is an 'Objective Reality' independend of yourself. But that is according to kierkegaard, and I follow him in this a virtually non-existing abstractum. I found this whic sums it up: http://tinyurl.com/32sx3d 'So, Kierkegaard posits that subjectivity is truth (and truth is subjectivity). He argues that any attempt at objectivity amounts to an abstraction of existence. In other words, objectivity is an illusion as, for example, I have no way of knowing that the way an apple tastes to me is anything like the way it tastes to you. We could come to an undestanding using language that might approximate our experiences as similar, but ultimately, we are tasting the apple differently. Further, trying to objectively refer to history (Christian or evolutionary it seems to me) to explain existence is an abstract, speculative, and pointless venture. In Kierkegaard's own words; The positiveness of historical knowledge is illusory, since it is approximation-knowledge; the speculative result is delusion. For all this positive knowledge fails to express the situation of the knowing subject in existence. It concerns rather a fictitious objective subject, and to confuse oneself with such a subject is to be duped. Every subject is an existing subject, which should receive an essential expression in all his knowledge. Particularly, it must be expressed through the prevention of an illusory finality, whether in perceptual certainty, or in historical knowledge, or in illusory speculative results. In historical knowledge, the subject learns a great deal about the world, but nothing about himself. He moves constantly in a sphere of approximation-knowledge, in his supposed positivity deluding himself with the semblance of certainty; but certainty can only be had in the infinite, where he cannot as an existing subject remain, but only repeatedly arrive. Nothing historical can become infinitely certain for me except the fact that of my own existence (which again cannot become infinitely certain for any other individual, who has infinite certainty of only his own existence), and this is not something historical. The only answer then (according to Kierkegaard) is the subjective (inward) experience of the individual, and that individual's relationship with the eternal within the finite to frame it in religious terms. In this way, existence is dialectical in that it requires infinite faith and infinite doubt simultaneously. Without these things, existence is an abstraction. Whether one subscribes to a religious viewpoint or an atheistic one, this viewpoint is no viewpoint if it claims to lay claim to an objective truth. Truth is strictly subjective, and Kierkegaard would say religious in so much as it involves one's subjective relationship with the infinite within the finite.'
[FairfieldLife] Re: Who is in control of our lives?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marek Reavis Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 9:08 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Who is in control of our lives? As has been pointed out before, you are not going to change Barry's style and everyone else is just as likely to recognize it and either comment on it or ignore it as they see fit; so why waste your time with constant carping? Nothing is going to change there. Someone once asked Maharishi why, in the scriptures the Gods and Demons are always fighting. He said something to the effect that they needed that intensity of activity to avoid slipping into the Absolute, and thus dissolving creation. Maybe Barry and Judy need to fight to maintain the structure of their egos, and there's some fear of ego dissolution associated with each relaxing and allowing the other to be what they are without criticism or judgment. You mean both are in a symbiotic relationship of enlightenment avoidance? Interesting theory.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Identification and saturational clarity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curtis, et al, To me, this refining an atheistic stance is merely a waste of time like having a discussion about where's the best place to stand in a cesspool. Oh, stand over here, cuz the puke stench is easier to bear than than the doo-doo stink over there. Well I don't know about the way you put it Edg, but basically, principally I agree with you. Out of reasons I have already tried to point out, and that particularely directed at a 'Rationalist Atheist'. The moment you deny an ultimate ground / being / mystery at the basis of creation which cannot be rationally contained (for a rationalist its only a matter of time till science will understand it all), you have no way of attaining anything, or evolving towards a 'higher goal', like the mystic would do. All the fine-edging on yur intellecual POV will be mute, as it is clear what becomes of you in the end: A dissipation into the inconsciousness. I am not sure though, if Curtis is really in this category. It seems he is still on his quest. snip Major AWE can only come from seeing Pure Being's manifested diversity as ALIVE, not MERELY an almost infinite, glorious, incredible clockworks a'tickin'. It's all the difference between looking at the Mona Lisa, and looking at the Mona Lisa and understanding that she's actually there looking back at you -- and her smile now blazes at one. That's the difference between an atheist's awe and enlightenment's awe. I think thats the bottom line for me: Religion /spirituality is all about living it and practising. An atheist may be in awe, but basically (Unless he is a Buddhist or Taoist)he is just exploring a kind of a metaphysical study. So he may be in awe, yes. But he cannot LOVE reality as such, and he cannot develop a passion about it. (maybe some out there regard or sense this passion as something dangerous) There is no one there to love, except of course his spouse, his children etc. He can love everything in the objective world, but of course he cannot love the WHOLE Essence in a personified way. Similarely, a Buddhist, being an atheist (soft one)can have all the detachment in the world, but whatever awe Curtis or barry may have, it cannot translate into love - not at least in a unfified way towards the essence of everything. A believer to the contrary is more interested in loving God than proving him/her. An atheist is under the dictate of th mind - he can gauge what the mind can know and what the mind cannot know. A believer does not trust the rationale, he trusts his heart only. He is not interested in the truth of his mind, if he/she is practising, he will trust the truth of his heart/soul. This is completely internal and has no relationship to external reality. I am very much a fan of Kierkegaard when it comes to his views on subjectivity and choice: We cannot think our choices in life, we must live them; and even those choices that we often think about become different once life itself enters into the picture. For Kierkegaard, the type of objectivity that a scientist or historian might use misses the pointhumans are not motivated and do not find meaning in life through pure objectivity. Instead, they find it through passion, desire, and moral and religious commitment. These phenomena are not objectively provablenor do they come about through any form of analysis of the external world; they come about through inward reflection, a way of looking at one's life that evades objective scrutiny. Instead, true self-worth originates in a relation to something that transcends human powers, something that provides a meaning because it inspires awe and wonder and demands total and absolute commitment in achieving it. Johannes Climacus, in Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments, writes the following cryptic line: Subjectivity is Truth. To understand Climacus's concept of the individual, it is important to look at what he says regarding subjectivity. What is subjectivity? In very rough terms, subjectivity refers to what is personal to the individualwhat makes the individual who he is in distinction from others. It is what is insidewhat the individual can see, feel, think, imagine, dream, etc. It is often opposed to objectivitythat which is outside the individual, which the individual and others around can feel, see, measure, and think about. Another way to interpret subjectivity is the unique relationship between the subject and object. Scientists and historians, for example, study the objective world, hoping to elicit the truth of natureor perhaps the truth of history. In this way, they hope to predict how the future will unfold in accordance with these laws. In terms of history, by studying the past, the individual can perhaps elicit the laws that determine how events will unfoldin this way the individual can predict the future with more exactness and perhaps take control of events that
[FairfieldLife] Re: Who is in control of our lives?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Again, I think we're back to the issue of you not valuing I don't know and both Curtis and I valuing it a lot. We find some of our inspiration *in* not knowing. You seem to be more inspired by the belief that you *do* know certain things. A surprising, interesting and initially frustrating thing for me was taking some retreats with SSRS -- and his ample use of the phrase I don't know. Coming from the TMO, home of all knowledge view, SSRS was shocking, at first. But he gets very exited about the Mystery of It All. And that bewildered awe is a perfectly acceptable, appropriate response. He also says So What!? a lot. Which if used in ones own personal affairs, can be quite cleansing. To both good and bad events. I Don't Know. But So What! SSRS is a fake, no ? I don't know. So what? This is one of my all-time favorite jokes. One person asks the other: What do you think is worse in our society today, the general level of ignorance, or rather the pervading disinterest. The other person answers: I don't know, and I don't care.
[FairfieldLife] Re: request for cardemaister
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, george_deforest george.deforest@ wrote: eki, i saw this durga yantra, covered in sanskrit; i am hoping you might translate for me? TIA! http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a7/coolpraks/durgayant.jpg http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a7/coolpraks/durgayant.jpg I think I can try to translate only some words, mostly because the text is quite messy, and seems to contain ambiguous diacritics and characters that I'm not familiar with. I'll try to come up with something but that may take some time. The center-hexagram contains a quite known Chamunda mantra: 'Om Aim Hrim Klim Chamundaye Vichhe' 'Om Aim hrim klim' being in the center and the sylables starting from 'Cha' at the bottom triangle clockwise around until 'Che' For the circles around I leave it to Cardemaster, because I feel on much less safe ground, and its difficult to read it against the background http://www.devshoppe.com/YantrasandMantras.html http://www.shreemaa.org/drupal/node/1003
[FairfieldLife] Re: My God
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From my perspective, it seems that the premise that God is doing all the doing has absolutely *zero* implications for behavior, including how one thinks. It's just a theoretical metaphysical point that's fun to play with. (And if it happens to be true, it's God who's having fun playing with it.) I agree with you here Judy, only I would add, that the insight into this mechanics, which can be on various levels, not just intellectual, is also a part of this unfolding or ripening. Its as much part of the lila, as starting out with a super-ego.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Who is in control of our lives?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Again, I think we're back to the issue of you not valuing I don't know and both Curtis and I valuing it a lot. We find some of our inspiration *in* not knowing. You seem to be more inspired by the belief that you *do* know certain things. A surprising, interesting and initially frustrating thing for me was taking some retreats with SSRS -- and his ample use of the phrase I don't know. Coming from the TMO, home of all knowledge view, SSRS was shocking, at first. But he gets very exited about the Mystery of It All. And that bewildered awe is a perfectly acceptable, appropriate response. He also says So What!? a lot. Which if used in ones own personal affairs, can be quite cleansing. To both good and bad events. I Don't Know. But So What! SSRS is a fake, no ? I don't know. So what? This is one of my all-time favorite jokes. One person asks the other: What do you think is worse in our society today, the general level of ignorance, or rather the pervading disinterest. The other person answers: I don't know, and I don't care. Ah, ignorance. As opposed to...uh...what? Knowledge? Barry, could it be that you are just a bit over-interpreting? This is just a joke, its not invented by me, I am just retelling, translating from memory from German. Thats the problem I have currently with you: I am just saying something quite innocently, and all the red lights go on ... Its a joke! Can't you laugh? Didn't you say you prefer masters with a sense of humor? You are so much projecting at this point, that I find you useful exchange virtually impossible at the moment. Maybe go out, have a life - I'll go jogging now.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Who is in control of our lives?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: big snip Again, I think we're back to the issue of you not valuing I don't know and both Curtis and I valuing it a lot. We find some of our inspiration *in* not knowing. You seem to be more inspired by the belief that you *do* know certain things. You rightly say: 'You seem to be more inspired...' This is just one of your many projections, because I nowhere actually say this. Who says I don't value 'I don't know'? You are just putting things in my mouth or mind. But I tell you: 'I don't know and I don't care' snip snip Truth, to speak the truth is 1 of the 10 Commandments. So tell me something true. You are not getting my point here at all. You have snipped the last sentences and interspersed it with your comments. What I am trying to convey is a rather abstract thought, but it basically amounts to this: For me,when I adopt a belief, I don't need a proof. Its therefore okay, if I'm 'wrong'. I think there is not just one version of 'Truth', I could select my own private religion, make it up the way I want it. There is no need to legitimate it in any way. Its okay to believe in a myth, a fairy tale, if I just feel like. And if I want to believe that a rotten carrot is the ultimate reality, thats okay too. It seems that the main point of a rationalist atheist is, that he will not believe what cannot be proven. So his rationale is that he will only adopt a belief, if there is a proof. Thats his ethics. He believes in a reality that has to be proven. I was throughout the whole post referring to a rationalist atheist. I didn't write this post with you, a Bhuddist or a Taoist in mind. And I was suggesting, that this 'ethics' or moral is rooted in Christianity. That there can be many versions of truth, that truth isn't necessarily something objective, that it may indeed not be linear, is a more oriental idea. So I am saying to someone I imagine to be a rational atheist, that he is still rooted in a basically Christian approach. Something that is true for all sentient beings, at every moment of their lives, in every situation, and as heard from every state of consciousness. I'll wait. Then wait.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Who is in control of our lives?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...But the deeper part of me wanted to face the truth as I saw it no matter where it lead and that part won. Uups,Deeper part, Truth ... don't tell that to Barry ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Who is in control of our lives?
Curtis, this was one of your excellent posts, which at the time I ahd neglected. Today is Friday, and I still have a few posts free ;-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think where I differ with T is that he seems to believe that his experience of the was in a category beyond thinking. T I intuitively knew that here is no wrong that I can ever do, and I had a sense of universal love towards everybody and everything. There are experiences where thinking is stopped,and there is simply witnessing of a force. Thoughts are literally drained off your brain. This is another experience, as the one quoted above, where I claerly was reflecting, while having the experience. There was some 'insight' here, some intuition together with the experience in the bar (and coming from it) They were different years towns etc. I have had my share of revelations in this life and I understand how compelling they can feel. I don't doubt that this insight is useful to T, what I doubt is that it is of a qualitatively different character than my own insights. Here T sums up what he sees as my perspective: I would never judge your insights or intuitions. I just explain mine, and why I go for it. TCurtis is never tired to point out that he regards the same mystical experiences many of us share in a different way and strips them of any religious meaning they could have. In fact he tries to understand them rationally only, as I believe. Thus he places ratio[nality] highest, and I always understood this to mean a place where intellect is 'in control' I only disagree with this aspect of the characterization, that my insights are gained in this way: T: he tries to understand them rationallyonly, Okay, Curtis, I could not have known how this worked for you. I appreciate that there is more to it than pure intellectual reflection. What that 'more' is, one has to see, because due to the very nature of atheism it couldn't have been a ehm revelation of any sort, like a intuition coming from a higher, or more knowing source I assume. In fact, as you explain, as atheism is very much something defined through a negative, it can only be a reaction to this, the falling away of something, which you must feel is oppressing, thus a liberation. Yesterday in TV they interviewed this man (Richard Dawkins) who almost religiously endorses atheism, he just wrote a bestseller. The commentators said more or less that his viewpoints and argumentation wasn't really applying to Europe, as there are many more atheists here than in the USA. If you take East-Germany, the majority are actually atheists, and the people there, who are believers, did so against he ideological oppression of the former communist government, who had postulated a 'dialectic materialism' as a states-ideology. I would therefore categorize your liberating experience as a reflection of your own religious history, within the context of the type of religion followed in the USA. It certainly also is a reflection on Christianity a a whole, and whenever you or Turq speak of Theism, you mention 'a Creator God', yet this is in my oppinion not a defining factor of religion, or the kind of theism I persue. In fact Advaita, which has been my starting point, and still is defining very much what I believe, a personal God is admitted, as real as we are, but he is not a creator, as there is no creation at all, the universe is just a projection, a reflection within Maya, illussion. God, Ishwara, is still subject to Maya! That's the bottom-line. There are various other theologies especially with the Vaishnavas, who postulate a Creator-God, but very different than in Christianity. In Dvaita, eg. God is not the Creator, the universe and the souls are crated by samsara and karma, very much like in Buddhism,God is there rather for liberation instead of creation. Visishtadvaita claims God to be the 'efficient and material' cause of the universe. So its a Creator God, but we are all parts of God, like his limbs! So there are many different ways of looking at it, we in the west are usually just exposed to ONE mode of Theism, and if that comes along with oppressive thoughts and ideologies, like the threat of eternal condemnation, its quite understandable, that being free of these concepts must be a liberation. But what if you had never believed in any of these anyway, like me, who was not religiously raised? I didn't have all this baggage with me, I rather freely embraced spirituality, more like exploring it and going by my own experience only. This is a common misunderstanding about how certain people come to atheism. By limiting their faculties to one aspect of our cognitive and intuitive processes. It makes dismissing the insight much easier if I am only using one aspect of our ability to understand and all the deists are using their whole heart and mind. The truth for me is that my
[FairfieldLife] Re: Angela Tells It to The FF Enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I play more of a moderator role, because somebody needs to, but as you know, I want to interfere as little as possible and basically let the group run on automatic pilot, which it usually does. Now that answers the question, Who is in control? We are on autopilot..
[FairfieldLife] Re: Who is in control of our lives?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Long preface to my point. I admire, respect and -- what is the word -- cherish, am happy for you, seek, glow with respect -- not sure of the right word -- your relation with Mother Meera. Thanks. I am very happy about this. So with such access, I am curious if you just have opinions about many spiritual things -- or that you use that word to be polite. Both. First of all, when I am here, discussing, I go by my own experiences and sense of logic. Therefore I have to caution you: What I say is not necessarily Mothers opinion. But of course I am influenced by her, She is so to say in my blood, in my experiences and everything. Yet, not everybody who lives here would say the same things. This was puzzling for me at first when I came here, that there was an obvious lack of a uniformity of opinions or ideology. Mother herself is not very outspoken. She refuses purely intellectual talks. She mostly teaches through silence. That is not to say, that I don't have the opportunity to ask her questions. I did and I do occassionally. Some of them are published in books, maybe in a more general form. My predicament is though, as she is privy of many things, that wherever she is particular, I can't really say it. Or rather, I feel, if she tells me private stuff, I don't want to mess up with her, and tell it to the world. She said though, if I talk about her or about spiritual things with others, I can tell my own experiences - with her and with others. For example, I talked here about non-doership and free-will. Basically it is my experience and also the philosophy of Advaita, with a certain emphasis on Rameshs view. So, after I had seem him, I talked with her about the topic. I am not sure about the wording any more, but it was sort of like this: 'Is everything that happens the will of God?' She denied it, giving an example from politics. But then she said that it depends on the context in which one says this. She said that the teaching of Advaita about determination can be helpful, to gain detachment from the world, but that its not the end of the story. She also said that surrender to the will of God is good. Believing that everything is determined by the Divine, is one form of surrender to God. And I mean all of this in a positive, uplifting, friendly way. I know. In other words, and I have never met her, I give her a high probability of validity of knowledge. Don't ask me why, but I do. I don't know why,other than the picture of her glance sears me. I guess if I had your access (not the right word -- but the best I can do -- I imagine that I would have more than opinions. Yes, but even if she says things to you, its for you - she will not say the same thing to everybody. There was one guy here reading a book about ascended masters, like Maitreya etc. (not Benjamin Creme in this case) So he asked her if what is written in the book was true. She said that its not for her to say. She (paraphrased from memory) the truth is not fixed, but rather the contact he feels through the book. So, if he has an experience through the book, then there is truth, if not there isn't. She is certainly affirmative of beliefs of people, that is its okay for her if you believe in God in whatever way (Be it Maitreya, some Bodhisattva or whatever). She also says there is no way we can make a person believe. For example we shouldn't try to bring people to her, as people would be attracted to her by the Divine itself, if this was Gods will. She also says that all scriptures like Gita, Bible or Koran or Vedas are man-made. She even say that OM is a man-made word, and they were good at the time, but their teaching is not absolute. For example she doesn't believe in Vastu, or he need of yagnas. They are okay, if you do them with devotion to God, but thats about it. According to her there is no effect from recitations, unless you have believe in it and devotion to God. She would say that fire-ceremonies are not for our time. She also doesn't believe in the group effect. When I asked her once about it, she raised her finger and said: 'One person can save the world' (Meaning the Divine can do it) Its in the book. That is, I would have (IMO) a high probability of valid knowledge. (And I know this is not a strong epistimological case -- but I just feel she has correct knowledge for me. Don't ask me why. And I am rational enough to question such.) So again, if I speak up here, don't see me as a representative of Mother Meera in any way. I would not want it, she would not want it, and I am simply not. I feel honore that people connect me with her, and that I receive so much positive energy from this, but I'm not sure I can live up to it. ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: My God
Hi Barry. I haven't answered your other letter, I apologize. So I will comment on this one, if I may. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Me, I don't have a clue where my thoughts come from, Right. and I don't really care. Wrong. Your whole post how much you care. They certainly don't come from God. This is certainly contradictory to your above statement. If you don't know were thoughts come from, and if you can not say for certain, if there is a 'God' or waht exactly He /She /It exactly is, you cannot make this statement. If there is one, He/She/It has far better things to do than create the stuff that goes through my brain. Maybe yes, maybe not. Maybe its exactly this type of experiment which is really of utmost importance in the universe. Maybe He / She / It is just like a computer game designer, and you are one of the characters in the computer game, and you are his test object to receive artificial intelligence or / and a sense of a separate consciousness/ identity. ;-) snip I guess the bottom line for me is that, as new suggests below, claiming that God does every- thing and/or thinks all my thoughts sounds a tad...uh...self important to me. Why? Actually its not 'self'-important, but rather the opposite of it. You are contradicting yourself in many ways. In one way you say that you feel more 'free' when you have full authorship of 'your' action, that you like to have fullest control etc. OTOH you complain that your self gets too important if you don't have. It's like, God has nothing better to do than to plan all the minutiae of my life and every detail of it. Yeah, right. *That* is certainly likely. :-) It just doesn't mean that. Obviously assuming God to be all-powerful, omnipresent etc, wouldn't have to make decission of the kind 'this is more important, so I'll focus on this' There is no more important or less important, everything is of the same value - ultimately. And if you can do everything at the same time, if you are omnipresent, like you are present in every elementary particle, you could just do everything. Besides that I don't even believe God 'plans'. Planing is something humans do. God lives in the present, in the here and now ;-) Besides, who would really want to *live* in a world that you have no choice in, and no possible effect on? Actually you do without knowing. Thats the trick: You don't know, and you are not even asked. That, after all, is the bottom line of believing in either predestination or God- running-everything. BORING. *This* is what some people believe to give their lives meaning? If a computer game is boring to you or not depends on the intelligent design, and on your sense of identification with the main characters. Once your identification with the main character is lost, the game is basically over. I can't possibly imagine anything *less* mean- ingful than believing that you're some kind of robot or puppet just acting out God's will. That we are seeking 'meaning' is something you are making up. E.g. I am not trying to have meaning in life, rather I try to live the Truth of my Soul. I am quite sure you don't understand, and I am not trying to convince you. But rather than speculating about the motivations of people, and psycho-analysing them, you could simply listen to them, and refere to what they acually say or explained, especially if they have done so countless times in the past, IF you would be interested remotely in a meaningful dialoque. Otherwise you just try to 'defend' your own position - which you dob't need to do - or denigrate and belittle others by misrepresenting what they actually said. But people are different, and some might just find this belief the most inspiring thing in the world. Go figure. Yes, go figure. This kind of flaming will certainly not produce understanding of any sort. What do you actually want? Defend yourself? Get into an argument whose version of 'truth' -eh no, you would deny this - 'View', is more accurate etc. You somehow have to feel superior to those who have faith, and even though you claim that you 'don not know', you feel free to give loaded advice to everybody, aka 'keep on thinking for yourself, because you still can' snip It should be pointed out that most of the horror conquerors and megalomaniacs the planet has pro- duced claimed that God thinks my thoughts. They were in tune with God's will. They knew what God had in mind with His/Her/Its Grand Plan, not only for them personally, but for everyone else. Is this a compulsion you feel to talk like this, you can somehow not control? Why do you flame? Why do you do this? Really Barry, I don't understand your psychology here. You are an intelligent guy, so why do you come up with crap like this, knowing exactly that this is no what anyone here said. This is not the first time this topic of free-will and determination comes up. We, that is a number of
[FairfieldLife] Re: Who is in control of our lives?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I honestly think that a lot of the bottom line of why some people I'm out on this
[FairfieldLife] Re: Who is in control of our lives?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A question of net etiquette has arisen. Any comments as to how to end contribution to a topic? t3rinity wrote I'm out of here Actually I wrote 'I'm out on THIS' and Barry wrote the above response. The atmosphere is charged At a party, one has many conversations, some short and some long (as was the above exchange), and one excuses oneself after a particularly long conversation when deciding to move elsewhere in the room, or to get a breath of fresh air. What might be a good way at 'Rick's Party' to excuse one's self, to move to another part of the room ? How about, Excuse, me, but I'd like to get a breath of fresh air - would that work well ? I feel I have not offended or abused anyone. At the same time, I reserve the right to get out of a conversation quietly - out of different reasons. One reason is as simple as having not enough time. Conversations are not between two people alone. So something once started by me doesn't have to be continued by me unendingly. Others may have taken up the thread while I may loose interest in the particular direction the conversation flows. Maybe, at a particular point, I feel that a conversation 'deteriorates'. Sometimes, we have just expressed different viewpoints and leave it at that. There is no need to quarrel or convince anybody. Why then going down that road? Too many threads here have been just people defending themselves / accusing others etc. 'You said this, no you said this' There are surely some questions directed to me I haven't answered yet, but I will never be able to answer everything. Besides that, everything is just an opinion. I have this opinion, you have that opinion, fine, I have thought this, you have thought that, okay. I don't really feel it matters so much.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Who is in control of our lives?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael, I have to say that I think the problem is, as you state, in your understanding of atheism. Are the world's 500 million Buddhists atheists? I don't think so. First of all most of the 500 million Buddhists believe in some kind of spiritual entities, they just call them differently, like Buddhas or Bodhisatvas. But even strict Theravada Buddhists I wouldn't call atheists. The Buddha himself mentioed Brahma as the creator God, he just thought that there is something beyond it. I don't object to this view at all. Its actually very akin to Advaita. Advaita postulates a God, Ishwara, but places him to be part of Maya, Illusion. Some people would call Shankaras Advaita a concealed atheism, but its very much my position. Technically, they are. Their philosophy has no need to postulate a Creator or another entity that is in control of their lives. They see life as the eternal interplay of two forces -- karma and free will. Those two forces account for every phenomenon you can name or point to in the universe, without the need for a God or another entity to be responsible for it. May I note that ist interesting you call 'free will' a force. And I don't think its just a semantic mistake: Thats what Buddhism says, everything is just the interplay of forces. And mind you they say the same thing about the individual ego, its just a composite, nothing of an entity in itself. A composite of different elements (dathus I believe) held together by different forces (karma and Samsara). This is very much what I say: We are not an entity, we are a play of forces. The 'I' is an illusion which takes authorship of this interplay, and at the same time, this wrong identification is part of the play. There is no I doing it, its part of the play of forces. At the same time, would you say that Buddhists feel separate from the world, or independent from it? No. I certainly wouldn't. My experience has shown me that they tend to feel more of a sense of inter- dependence between all sentient beings than most people who go around talking about their belief in a God and how separate He/She/It is from them. I don't believe God is separate from us. We are totally God or we are part of God, either view is ikay with me. There is also no inherent belief in atheism that I am in charge of my life. I'm pretty sure than any New Orleans atheist who lived through Katrina doesn't believe that. What they are in charge of is how they handle what life throws at them. But thats what I mean. I deny that they are in charge of how to handle what life throws at them. I mean that thee are several levels of how o look at that. At an immediate level, thats what I would advise anybody to do as well: Just act in a responsible manner. Of course. But I believe that whether you follow such advise or fool around or how exactly you think what is responsible is not really in your hands. Its guided by forces not known to you. They tend, in my experience, to *take responsibility* for handling those setbacks and challenges, and neither blame God for them nor ask Him/Her/It for help in dealing with them. They just deal with them. A lot of people blame God, even if they are atheists. Or the blame life or whatever. OTOH people who are believers may just act very responsible and not blame God, as they feel it to be a test or they feel some other ways of support from God. Myself, I think it's all about preference. After 40+ years on a spiritual path, I have no need to postulate any kind of a God. I have never encountered a single phenomenon that requires the existence of a God to explain it. Therefore, using Occam's Razor, if a God is not necessary to explain the world I see around me, it is far more likely that there isn't one than that there is one. I totally understand your argument. When in young adolescence, I would call myself atheist as well. I was more a passive atheist or an agnostic, but I wouldn't kow at the time. With this I started TM, and read the Science of Being, very much swallowing the Vedantic concept of the impersonal, very much not taking God references in the book serious. But it was experiences that made me accept the God concept. Like somebody else here related, I was 'touched' by something in meditation along with a sudden certainty that this was pertaining to God, and that God actually existed. I simply believed this experience. I had more experiences like that, pertaining to a personal Godhead, in one case in its unmistakable female expression. Whatever my philosophic mindset may be, there is now way I could deny these experiences. I couldn't really interpret them any different, because personal Godhead is he very content of these experiences. And, at the time they were not affirmative of my beliefs but contrary to them. The only way I could interpret them differently is to call them delusional aberations of
[FairfieldLife] Madhusudana S. on Samyama (Re: Interesting translation of III 38)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually the way it's taught by lineal Patanjali masters is that siddhis are not to be cultivated via samyama but instead are spontaneous side-effects of samadhi. Swami Brahmananda Saraswati emphasized this as well. Hey there. While in India, I bought a book which was recommended here to me, the Bhagavad Gita with commentary by Madhusudana Saraswati, who was in the 16th century, a contemporary of Akbhar and a renovator of the Dasanami Order. It is because of him that Non-Brahmins are accepted into most Dasanami Orders. he was also a great Bhakta who synthezised the bhakti philosophies with Shankara Advaita. Here in verse 21 he calls samyama strongest of all disciplines This is what he says in his Invocation to the Gita. 20 Through the power of knowledge of reality (tattva-jnana) the results of actions (done in past lives) that have not commenced bearing fruit (anarabdha or sancita) get wholly destroyed, to be sure, and the results of actions (done in the present life after the dawn of knowledge) that are to bear fruit in the furure (agamini) do not accrue. 21 But because of disturbances created by the results of actions that have started bearing fruit (prarabdha), vasana (past impressions) does not get destroyed. That is eliminated through samyama, the strongest of all (the disciplines). 22. The five disciplines, viz yama (restraint) etc. (P.Y.Su 2.29) practised before become conducive to that samyama which is a triad consisting of dharana, dhyan and samadhi (see ibid. 3.1.4)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Unfortunately cultivation of siddhis, esp, via samyama is the opposite of that, according to the Shankaracharya tradition and numerous others. But not necessarily according to Patanjali. And certainly not according to Madhusudana Saraswati, reformator of Shankaras order in the 16th century. He in his Gita Bashaya describes Samyama as the most effective means. And AFAIK S. is only described in PYS III pertaining to siddhis. So this whole stance against samyama being against the Shankara tradition is only hot air from someone who doesn't know.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 mainstream20016@ wrote: Curtis, this is addressed to you and I'm sure you will respond, but.may I ? Trinity3, why would you doubt that he doesn't feel independent of unconscious processes, and that he uses them (uncoscious processes) for his art ? It seems that Curtis is fully one with the creative expressions from their inception, through their expression through his art, in his case blues music performance. The concept of control of the process was introduced by your question, and isn't what he asserts. He seems to be a fully enlightened artist, at one with the first creative impulse, through its relative expression of his own voice, guitar, and physical expression. Expanding the range of awareness of the conscious mind to percieve the first impulses of creativity is what FFLers have been doing naturally for a very long time. -Mainstream Mainstream, maybe I am doing injustice to Curtis, I am certainly not doubting his creative process. Its simply my understanding of atheism as a philosophy of life. Religion, any religion certainly questions the independence of our mind /ego (while I am aware that Christianity makes it a special point that God gave man freedom of decision - not my belief) and makes it dependent on another entity, atheism asserts us that we alone are in control of our lives. At least thats what I have understood it to mean until now. Of course, everyone is aware of 'limitations' we all have,imposed to us by nature. But there is a fundamental belief that we are ourself in charge of what we believe in, that we with our mind can logically understand life and should reject irrationality. In fact religion is seen as 'irrational' by atheists, which implies that they believe in a rational understanding of life. IOW they regard ratio higher than feelings or experiences (as Curtis is never tired to point out that he regards the same mystical experiences many of us share in a different way and strips them of any religious meaning they could have.) In fact he tries to understand them rationally only, as I believe. Thus he places ratio highest, and I always understood this to mean a place where intellect is 'in control' t3rinity, you have a polar opposite view from atheism regarding the authorship of any person's thoughts. While atheism denies the existence of God, you attribute all thoughts to God - Even the thoughts of atheists' that deny God's existence!! Yes. Why do you believe that humans do not have free will ? The question I would have is: Who has the free will? Very much, what we consider ourselves to be, is just a bundle of desires impressions, reactions etc. This is how most people define themselves. They say: this is who I am. And why? Because I wanted it that way. Research shows that most of what we want and think are rationalizations, and that decisions are formed in the brain a split second before we become aware of it! What we do, and what we say why we do something are two separate issues! If you call that entity, who decides for you, life or God, or if it is simply the result of eternally cycling material processes is not my point here. My point is the illussiory character of our selves. I put the decision making into 'Gods' hand as this is a convenient term most people can relate to. I don't mean to prove the existence of a God by denying free-will. Rather I point out that an atheist has unproven belief systems, he is hardly aware of: His belief in a separate ego and his own decision-making. An atheist in short believes in himself being in charge through his ratio. Is the concept of free will too removed from the belief that God authors all ? What if God authored free will ? How would that concept fit for you ? Its Christianity. Doesn't fit for me. Why do you decide the way you decide? Why do you think the way you think, and why do others think differently than you? Then if you decide the wrong way, you have to go to eternal hell, that's the conclusion of religious free will. According to Christianities free will Curtis is doomed because he is an atheist. According to my theory of determination its simlpy a phase in his evolutionary development, and there is no guilt only different levels of understanding, and different mental and spiritual capacities. Chose what you like ;-)Everyone obviously thinks his way of thinking to be the best. But thoughts are just things that flow in the atmosphere, and we pick them up according to a feeling of resonance. That simply is there. You are not doing it, it simply happens. So there is no guilt or sin, there is just an evolutionary development. Understanding happens, its not something you can do.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kaladevi93 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Unfortunately cultivation of siddhis, esp, via samyama is the opposite of that, according to the Shankaracharya tradition and numerous others. But not necessarily according to Patanjali. And certainly not according to Madhusudana Saraswati, reformator of Shankaras order in the 16th century. He in his Gita Bashaya describes Samyama as the most effective means. And AFAIK S. is only described in PYS III pertaining to siddhis. So this whole stance against samyama being against the Shankara tradition is only hot air from someone who doesn't know. If that is the case then someone who doesn't know would be Shankaracharya Vidyaranya and the many others he quotes! Once again you are confusing the triad of yogic absorptions with using this triad to cultivate siddhis. There is a huge difference! How do you think samyama is actually used in non-magical traditions? You don't seem to be aware what that method is based on your remarks!!! If thats the case then make us aware rather than being purposefully vague here. In the quotes above Madhusudana is particularely making references to the YS, hradly a magical tradition. AFAIK the word occures only in the context of the 3rd Chapter which is about Siddhis. There has to be a distinction to be made regarding attachment to Siddhis and their practise. You are ignoring this. Otherwise give your sources.
[FairfieldLife] Madhusudana S. on Samyama (Re: Interesting translation of III 38)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kaladevi93 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Actually the way it's taught by lineal Patanjali masters is that siddhis are not to be cultivated via samyama but instead are spontaneous side-effects of samadhi. Swami Brahmananda Saraswati emphasized this as well. Hey there. While in India, I bought a book which was recommended here to me, the Bhagavad Gita with commentary by Madhusudana Saraswati, who was in the 16th century, a contemporary of Akbhar and a renovator of the Dasanami Order. It is because of him that Non-Brahmins are accepted into most Dasanami Orders. he was also a great Bhakta who synthezised the bhakti philosophies with Shankara Advaita. Here in verse 21 he calls samyama strongest of all disciplines This is what he says in his Invocation to the Gita. 20 Through the power of knowledge of reality (tattva-jnana) the results of actions (done in past lives) that have not commenced bearing fruit (anarabdha or sancita) get wholly destroyed, to be sure, and the results of actions (done in the present life after the dawn of knowledge) that are to bear fruit in the furure (agamini) do not accrue. 21 But because of disturbances created by the results of actions that have started bearing fruit (prarabdha), vasana (past impressions) does not get destroyed. That is eliminated through samyama, the strongest of all (the disciplines). 22. The five disciplines, viz yama (restraint) etc. (P.Y.Su 2.29) practised before become conducive to that samyama which is a triad consisting of dharana, dhyan and samadhi (see ibid. 3.1.4) I asked Vajranatha about this as he is over his posting limit. Samyama is not a bad practice by itself. It is when it is used to manifest siddhis that it causes obscuration of the natural state. In the context quoted it refers to the triad of yogic absorptions and not to cultivating of siddhis. Different context, different meaning. Other more specific references refer to the Gita and explain that samyama used for siddhis will lead to emotional and mental obscurations. Please be careful of your context as it is not a good idea to be encouraging people to use samyama to manifest siddhis! Please see the reference in verse 22: PYS 3.1.4 This is the Chapter followed by the explanation how siddhis are developed through Samyama. It is Vaj ignoring the context here.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kaladevi93 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kaladevi93 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Unfortunately cultivation of siddhis, esp, via samyama is the opposite of that, according to the Shankaracharya tradition and numerous others. But not necessarily according to Patanjali. And certainly not according to Madhusudana Saraswati, reformator of Shankaras order in the 16th century. He in his Gita Bashaya describes Samyama as the most effective means. And AFAIK S. is only described in PYS III pertaining to siddhis. So this whole stance against samyama being against the Shankara tradition is only hot air from someone who doesn't know. If that is the case then someone who doesn't know would be Shankaracharya Vidyaranya and the many others he quotes! Once again you are confusing the triad of yogic absorptions with using this triad to cultivate siddhis. There is a huge difference! How do you think samyama is actually used in non-magical traditions? You don't seem to be aware what that method is based on your remarks!!! If thats the case then make us aware rather than being purposefully vague here. In the quotes above Madhusudana is particularely making references to the YS, hradly a magical tradition. AFAIK the word occures only in the context of the 3rd Chapter which is about Siddhis. There has to be a distinction to be made regarding attachment to Siddhis and their practise. You are ignoring this. Otherwise give your sources. You would do better to find an authentic teacher who can explain such things to you as you seem very confused. I cannot initiate you on a message board, what a crazy thing to ask. I certainly didn't ask you for anything. If its all 'secret knowledge' stop discussing! Stop fussing around and being personal. Madhusadana is referring to the triad of absorptions not performing those absorptions on the siddhi formulae (which *are* used in yogic magical traditions). They are not used in the advaita tradition of Shankara. You are just repeating yourself, without giving the required reference, nor do you address the occurence of the reference given i.e PYS III You are just getting personal and threatening. Madhusudanas Bhashya is a commonly available scholastic work, so one should be able to discuss it relatively emotionless on a public forum. If you (or Vaj) don't like this, refrain from discussing here and keep your secrets to yourselves. If this is what your teacher is recommending, I'd be very concerned about that teachers worthiness to teach. See, I am not discussing my teacher, or any teacher, and I wouldn't listen to your judgments, as your tone suggests you are an arrogant 'I know it all and better than everyone' Make clear and rational arguments and we can talk. IIRC the Advaitasiddhi by the same author is also against cultivation of siddhis!!! (I will try to find a quote if I can). Good, try. Your comments do me show the danger of naive people reading texts without guidance, only an agenda. Talking about agendas, what do you think you have? The truth should be your first priority, not your agenda to protect dangerous practices you are attached to. The whole tone of your post is one of superiority, personal attack, and threatening. Your opinion of 'truth' smacks of fundamentalism. Maybe you are just not so sure about everything, why use personalattack otherwise?
[FairfieldLife] Madhusudana S. on Samyama (Re: Interesting translation of III 38)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kaladevi93 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'll have to ask him later as I only have one post left for the day. IIRC the initiated interpretation is in the order the text is meant to be read. In that order samyama is described and ALL THE MAGICAL FORMULA ARE TO BE SKIPPED. The text picks up where they end with the description of mastering yogic discrimination. People who just read the text as if it were to be read in a sequence will miss this. So it seems to me you don't understand they way it is read for the initiated. Your quote refers to a verse and there is no mention of the siddhis (unless you forgot to post that?). It does not refer to samyama on the siddhis at all. This is why you have missed the context. No Madhusudanas text doesn't, but expicitely refers to PYS 3.1.4 Following is the description of samyama in relation to siddhis. There is also no doubt if you read Vyasas commentary of 3.1.6 where Siddhis are explicitely mentioned in the application of samyama. It is said that the lower stages have to be practiced before the higher. 'Reading of others minds' is mentioned as a lower level in the same commentary (as an example). So, i am simply following the scriptures, and references as they are being made. You are just dodging around interweaved with threats. Your naivete is showing. Dangerously so. What about some yamas first? Eg the abondenment of krodha. Then talk of higher practices
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You have the right to say anything you want. When you say I am God I have the right to say Uh oh. I have my reasons. Or not. Most reasons are rationalizations, as brain research suggests. What you think to be 'my decision' or 'my reason' is very often, if not always a later rationalization of processes in the brain which are under the threshold of your awareness. And yet you feel sure (most of us do) that its us doing it, us thinking and us being independent. E.g. in my view, which is just a POV, are are an atheist, precisely because God wants you to be so. In my view we are not independent units, but are guided by a cosmic force, that you might call 'God' The sense of the I and doer-ship is one of the greatest miracles. Which you take for granted obviously.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hutterists?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has anybody heard of 'hutterists'(sp?)? I think they are some kind of Christian communists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Hutter
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hutterists?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: Has anybody heard of 'hutterists'(sp?)? I think they are some kind of Christian communists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Hutter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutterite
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
First of all: Thanks for your answer Curtis. My comments follow. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: You have the right to say anything you want. When you say I am God I have the right to say Uh oh. I have my reasons. Or not. Most reasons are rationalizations, as brain research suggests. What you think to be 'my decision' or 'my reason' is very often, if not always a later rationalization of processes in the brain which are under the threshold of your awareness. And yet you feel sure (most of us do) that its us doing it, us thinking and us being independent. A lack of compelling evidence has nothing to do with unconscious processes. I don't feel independent of unconscious processes. Quite the opposite, I use them for my art. When you say: 'I use them for my art' you obviously feel in charge that you have some kind of control of what is conscious and what is unconscious, its exactly that which I am doubting.This transition of unconscious processes to conscious ones is something we are obviously not aware of, so how could 'you' possibly control them? I know what you mean, and I am sure that you have worked out a means to be creative in that way, but I am obviously challenging he overall picture. Which is that the I, ego is in control. Being confident about knowledge is not undermined by studies on our rationalization processes. There are many methods that we use to avoid this among many possible human cognitive errors. I am not talking about errors here, but about the general process of brain-processes coming into awareness. These processes in your brain are not under your control. But the result of these processes are then , once they come into awareness, owned by an ego, the self, with which we identify. From reading your posts until so far, I have got the impression, that you have sort of a naive belief into the ego, your sense of self, as a given. You take whatever appears to be as it is, as the truth, as far as I understood you. E.g. in my view, which is just a POV, are are an atheist, precisely because God wants you to be so. In my view we are not independent units, but are guided by a cosmic force, that you might call 'God' The sense of the I and doer-ship is one of the greatest miracles. Which you take for granted obviously. I don't take our sense of I an doer-ship for granted, I love being alive. I just don't believe that any of the explanations for how we got here rise above mythology. (which has its valuable uses) I am satisfied with the miracle of life itself without the overlay concepts of cosmic forces. My awe, wonder, joy and even bliss come from being alive, not from one of the many, many God concepts. Even people who believe in God, know that whatever we think about him /her or them is a concept. Ask the most fundamentalist Muslim, and he will tell you that God cannot be described or understood by the mind. So when you talk about God, you talk about something indescribable. As such you have a metaphor for the indescribable, and that is God. I would say most people are aware of this. If you say ' I do not know God (as he is beyound the mind)' or if you say 'I do not know the origin of the world' whats the difference really? If you say: ' I am satisfied with the miracles of live' you obviously simply substitute the word 'God' with 'life', as an overall concept of the processes going on in the world. I don't see any big difference there. If you speak of the 'miracle' you even more so use religious terminology. If you find these concepts useful in interpreting your experiences of your consciousness, that is your business. Sure. I feel using concepts of something I experience with certainty (God) as helpful of getting things 'out of the way'. I mean why bother with questions I can have a metaphor for as a working hypothesis? I don't have to think about things my intellect cannot grasp. (and I can still use my intellect to probe deeper into 'higher realties' having such expressions and metaphors I can work with. Its like the steps of a ladder I can use) But not adapting these concepts doesn't make me take anything for granted. It seems you have taken many things for granted, for example that you are in control of your actions. Or that he intellect is a valid means to understand reality, which exceeds personal experience. You yourself have decided not to adapt literally hundreds of God concepts to arrive at the one that works for you. I am actually not exactly sure in how many Gods/gods I believe ;-)But basically there is no big difference in believing in 108 Gods or only 107 Gods or actually just one God. It doesn't matter, as you believe there is a consciousness beyound your individual mind
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ordinary village people don't have a problem with conceptualizing persons as heroes or devatas. http://youtube.com/watch?v=JWPTtJ-Z4lU The ordinary Village People speak out. I don't get it. This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Scorpio / Can't Stop Productions
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curtis, this is addressed to you and I'm sure you will respond, but.may I ? Trinity3, why would you doubt that he doesn't feel independent of unconscious processes, and that he uses them (uncoscious processes) for his art ? It seems that Curtis is fully one with the creative expressions from their inception, through their expression through his art, in his case blues music performance. The concept of control of the process was introduced by your question, and isn't what he asserts. He seems to be a fully enlightened artist, at one with the first creative impulse, through its relative expression of his own voice, guitar, and physical expression. Expanding the range of awareness of the conscious mind to percieve the first impulses of creativity is what FFLers have been doing naturally for a very long time. -Mainstream Mainstream, maybe I am doing injustice to Curtis, I am certainly not doubting his creative process. Its simply my understanding of atheism as a philosophy of life. Religion, any religion certainly questions the independence of our mind /ego (while I am aware that Christianity makes it a special point that God gave man freedom of decision - not my belief) and makes it dependent on another entity, atheism asserts us that we alone are in control of our lives. At least thats what I have understood it to mean until now. Of course, everyone is aware of 'limitations' we all have,imposed to us by nature. But there is a fundamental belief that we are ourself in charge of what we believe in, that we with our mind can logically understand life and should reject irrationality. In fact religion is seen as 'irrational' by atheists, which implies that they believe in a rational understanding of life. IOW they regard ratio higher than feelings or experiences (as Curtis is never tired to point out that he regards the same mystical experiences many of us share in a different way and strips them of any religious meaning they could have.) In fact he tries to understand them rationally only, as I believe. Thus he places ratio highest, and I always understood this to mean a place where intellect is 'in control'
[FairfieldLife] Re: TIME to BAN LURK
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Write the ticket and get on with your life so I can get on with mine. Don't keep standing there demanding that I apologize to you. I have *no problem* with paying the fine. I don't really know the issue here, just out of curiosity and for the sake of the fun of it: If the fine was to apologize, what would you do? Lets say Rick says, the fine is to apologize to the person you insulted, would you be okay to say so?
[FairfieldLife] Re: TIME to BAN LURK
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't just get into the issue itself, as I really haven't followed it up, and my question/comment was just related to your example (of he cop) and the way you had worded it. When I reacted (and, I dare say, overreacted) to this, he followed up by trying to character- ize me as an abortion counselor, someone who actively tried to get women to consider abortions. IOW you feel that you were insulted before, and your overreaction was just a reaction to this insult, probably more concealed than yours. You feel that the person 'deserved' the insult. Thats of course a problem with enforcing non-flaming, that there can be insults hidden, like 'abortion counselor' (I didn't know its an insult, in Germany it wouldn't be) In any case, concerning this particular issue I am on the same side as you. But I guess it is more about courtesy and following group consensus. The other point is, even if you where insulted, it doesn't give you the right to respond in kind. And, as I wrote about before, I just don't apolo- gize because someone is demanding it of me. So I guess the overall answer to your question is No. If Fairfield Life turned into the kind of place where people were expected to apologize for the behavior that the majority of people declared inappropriate, I would bail from it far more quickly than I bailed from the TM movement, which tried to do exactly that. Now thats interesting. You had to leave the movement because you didn't apologize?
[FairfieldLife] Re: TIME to BAN LURK
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey, I used to be a stripper *for* the TM movement. Seriously. And I used to *love* saying it that way. It used to make the Purusha-types-before-there-was-a-Purusha *so* uptight. :-) I was a photostripper for MIU Press. Back in the days before digital presses, you had to shoot negs of the typeset copy and then paste them up in cer- tain configurations and then shoot printing plates from them. In America, this process is called stripping. Thats what I did too! There was paste-up, montage (stripping, I didn't know the term) and plate-making (exposing montage-films on photo-senstive plates in a certain sequence. We used double-page spreads and positioned them with a computed machine on the appropriate place of the plate). I was most of the time in the movement plate-maker, never did paste-up, but did a lot of montage, even at Purusha I was mainly in charge of the montage still going on.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hello from India
Dear Tanmay, Mother Meera does not usually see people outside Darshan. We have a program in India extended until September 17th. Anyone is welcome, but you should ideally phone before coming. The phone number is on the webpage: http://mothermeeraindia.com Please make any inquiries directly through this number. I have once asked Mother on behalf of another (american) Gurus disciple, and she didn't want to have the meeting. She told me that such meetings are usually only for the disciples. If your Guru is enlightened she will not really have the need to meet anyone. If she still wants, she can come to the regular Darshan. You might think that this is not on the same level, but some have done this, I know of one Guru with quite some following who has come 4 - 5 times. At the 28th of September Mother will be back to Germany, so October will be too late. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Before I ask the next question, I simply state there is a transparency in my path, it is actually required. It is asked, if something is not transparent, then perhaps it should be looked at to see if this is a useful thing for one to keep in their life. While transparency is a significant spiritul thing in my path, no coment for how others choose or their Guru procedes with or without transparency. I will just comment that it is something to think over maybe as one may realize that something they are trying to hide from being revealed may in fact be something that is not useful for their own evolution. This policy is how it is in my path and not meaning to say it must be in all other paths or your path, what ever path that is, is better or worse. I am stating something that exists in my path only, no need for asumptions that I think something about another path where this policy is not in place. I do however see a profound usefullness in the transparency policy that is in my path. Ok, now I will be in India with my Guru from mid october through mid december. Maybe we will be in Rishikesh alot but may travel around as well. If anyone asked me that their Guru is interested in meeting my Guru, heads would roll if the disciple did not inform my Guru that such requests are there. Once again, while this is something in my path, I saw a circus atmosphere in another path after I accepted an intitial inventation on behalf of my Guru to meet their guru. It may have been that the disciples took it upon themselves to decide that such a request would not be forwared to their guru. My Guru's response to this is the operation is skewed that such a thing would take place. Be that as it may, I accept what ever comes along. Should it be that we are in the near and if Mother Meera is there at the time we are and if you have contact to Mother Meera, then I am requesting that you let Mother Meera know that a disciple of my Guru, Swami Ganga-Puri Kaliuttamananda-Giri is interested to set up a meeting with Mother Meera. Let me know Tanmay --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: Just wanted to send you a hello from here. I am now since about one week in Madanapalle, with a small group of people. We have a nice time, its not too hot, as Madanapalle is higher, I just bought a cycle. We were also one day in Tiruvannamalai, and stayed in one of the oldest Ashrams there. Who is the group you are with? Tanmay People around Mother Meera
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hello from India
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: Just wanted to send you a hello from here. I am now since about one week in Madanapalle, with a small group of people. We have a nice time, its not too hot, as Madanapalle is higher, I just bought a cycle. We were also one day in Tiruvannamalai, and stayed in one of the oldest Ashrams there. Who is the group you are with? Tanmay People around Mother Meera Is she traveling with you (I mean localized with you) Yes
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hello from India
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: t3rinity wrote: Just wanted to send you a hello from here. I am now since about one week in Madanapalle, with a small group of people. We have a nice time, its not too hot, as Madanapalle is higher, I just bought a cycle. We were also one day in Tiruvannamalai, and stayed in one of the oldest Ashrams there. I know you've traveled much to India over the years. Do you see much change to the country over the last ten years, especially with the economy? I know they are having a tech boom but like the US that doesn't get everywhere. But I did read an article in the local Indian magazine by some Indians who returned and thought they were going waltz right in an pick up a nice house in a great neighbor cheap and live like kings. But they found that was no longer possible. Well, I'm not buying houses or ground here, but I heard that prices in Tiruvannamalai for ground are doubling every year. You can also clearly see that Hotel prices in big cities are rising, its not anymore possible to have a sort of nice place for 200 rupees, so you rather pay up to 800 - 1000, and yet this is still good value. I have just eaten a very good indian meal for Rps 18. Now I get over 50 Rps per 1 Euro. It depends very much on where you are. There is still a big number of people being very poor, or even those people who are on the lower scale of middle class, and for them there is a low cost infra-structure. So, I would say its mixed. Comparatively to other countries its still one of the cheapest countries to live in. If you look at the streets, the cars, the cell-phones, much has changed. 10 years ago there was mainly the ambassador, now it has become rather rare. Tiruvannamalai is also a special example as it is flooded by westerners, ex-poonjaji, ex-osho. Its an elorado of western seekers, satsang culture with different Gurus being there. Best see http://arunachalagrace.blogspot.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hello from India
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: t3rinity wrote: Just wanted to send you a hello from here. I am now since about one week in Madanapalle, with a small group of people. We have a nice time, its not too hot, as Madanapalle is higher, I just bought a cycle. We were also one day in Tiruvannamalai, and stayed in one of the oldest Ashrams there. I know you've traveled much to India over the years. Do you see much change to the country over the last ten years, especially with the economy? I know they are having a tech boom but like the US that doesn't get everywhere. But I did read an article in the local Indian magazine by some Indians who returned and thought they were going waltz right in an pick up a nice house in a great neighbor cheap and live like kings. But they found that was no longer possible. Well, I'm not buying houses or ground here, but I heard that prices in Tiruvannamalai for ground are doubling every year. You can also clearly see that Hotel prices in big cities are rising, its not anymore possible to have a sort of nice place for 200 rupees, so you rather pay up to 800 - 1000, and yet this is still good value. I have just eaten a very good indian meal for Rps 18. Now I get over 50 Rps per 1 Euro. It depends very much on where you are. There is still a big number of people being very poor, or even those people who are on the lower scale of middle class, and for them there is a low cost infra-structure. So, I would say its mixed. Comparatively to other countries its still one of the cheapest countries to live in. If you look at the streets, the cars, the cell-phones, much has changed. 10 years ago there was mainly the ambassador, now it has become rather rare. Tiruvannamalai is also a special example as it is flooded by westerners, ex-poonjaji, ex-osho. Its an elorado of western seekers, satsang culture with different Gurus being there. Best see http://arunachalagrace.blogspot.com
[FairfieldLife] Hello from India
Just wanted to send you a hello from here. I am now since about one week in Madanapalle, with a small group of people. We have a nice time, its not too hot, as Madanapalle is higher, I just bought a cycle. We were also one day in Tiruvannamalai, and stayed in one of the oldest Ashrams there.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hello from India
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: Just wanted to send you a hello from here. I am now since about one week in Madanapalle, with a small group of people. We have a nice time, its not too hot, as Madanapalle is higher, I just bought a cycle. We were also one day in Tiruvannamalai, and stayed in one of the oldest Ashrams there. Who is the group you are with? Tanmay People around Mother Meera
[FairfieldLife] Re: A comparison of Hogwart's School to Maharishi School of the Age of Enlighten
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Truth is stranger than fiction. A comparison of Hogwart's School to Maharishi School of the Age of Enlightenment. Education should help one use critical thinking to distinguish from flights of fantasy. http://losthorizon.org/found/Hogwarts/index.htm Nice find, but IMO fantasy is important for creative thinking. This photo http://losthorizon.org/found/Hogwarts/VedicMaster.jpg is certainly NOT pertaining to TM, but the late American Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saiva_Siddhanta_Church Btw. http://losthorizon.org/found/Hogwarts/GermanyAyurVeda.jpg is 15 min from where I live.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Twelve Disciples of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Horseshit. How about a list of the 10 or 12 TM teachers who worked their butts off in the field and initiated hundreds and in a few cases thousands of individuals in the TM technique, while MMY sat on his butt surrounded by celebrities? I'm really sorry for you Turq, but chances you get included are rather low. ;- There are people on this forum who have done more to spread Maharishi's message of love and enlightenment and bliss than anyone you mentioned. And what thanks did they get from the person they worked as shills for? So why should they be awarded for deceiving people, instead of feeling guilt and shame as Empty suggests?
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Twelve Disciples of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi'
The Universe only recognizes itself.:-) How egoistic! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, for most of us there will be no reward for all that we do, except the reward of the work itself. No parades or TV shows or wealth. No fame or groupies or brass plaques somewhere. Just whatever we accomplish for ourselves, by ourselves, for ourselves. That's it. And its no one else's fault, unless we want to set it up that way, and impotently rage against a Universe that wasn't set up to provide us with fame and recognition in the first place. The Universe only recognizes itself.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Fun
See http://static.scribd.com/docs/3q9ijytgerdp2.swf go to page 8 cartoon top right. One quote on this page: I was an atheist until I found out I was God. spotted on a T-shirt in Auroville.
[FairfieldLife] Re: For your Indian Friends
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am just trying to get this web page up, about Mother Meera in India http://www.mothermeeraindia.com I'm a bit proud we got all the php and css right :-) Darshans were just prolonged from August 18 - Sept. 2 http://www.mothermeeraindia.com You can register online. See also: http://www.wikimapia.org/#lat=13.552714lon=78.494265z=18l=5m=av=2show=/1776016/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi-What he did, and why he did it!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote: You think God is stupid? Well bliss is stupid according to seer sri pete. And since God is bliss, you do the math. Well, to be stupid is good for yoga, someone I know says. Hi, I think innocent is much better for yoga.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote: You think God is stupid? Well bliss is stupid according to seer sri pete. And since God is bliss, you do the math. Well, to be stupid is good for yoga, someone I know says. Hi, I think innocent is much better for yoga.:-) Its partly synonymous but not completely. To be innocent can be an instruction, to be stupid is more like a natural condition. ;-) Furthermore, knowing one is stupid will lead to humility, which is again good for yoga. Being clever will likely lead to a reliance on the mind, which is likely a hindrance.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi-What he did, and why he did it!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote: You think God is stupid? Well bliss is stupid according to seer sri pete. And since God is bliss, you do the math. Well, to be stupid is good for yoga, someone I know says.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Kumbha Mela- First to be held in U.S.'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The sight of naked, ashed Sadhus traipsing down Main Street, Irvine will be worth the price of admission alone. http://youtube.com/watch?v=mNtseiHzXK0 http://youtube.com/watch?v=CpCU2Tm9Xo0 http://youtube.com/watch?v=3Ty-v1gRfpA http://youtube.com/watch?v=I5Zxz2WCBr8 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert Gimbel babajii_99@ wrote: New York, Aug 22, IANS) Kumbha Mela, the most sacred of all Hindu pilgrimages, will be held for the first time in the United States. The Mela in the US is being organised on Sep 10 at Bren Center, University of California Irvine, to usher in world peace by infusing collective positivity, according to a press release. It is being organised under the auspices of Paramahamsa Nithyananda, Nithyananda Foundation; Swami Ishwarananda, Chinmaya Mission; Swami Sarvadevananda, Vedanta Society; Dr. Acharya Yogeesh, Yogeesh Ashram; and the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh. The highlights of the celebrations will include a powerful Vishwa Shanti Yagna, a Vedic style fire ceremony to invoke peace energy through one of the purest elements of nature - fire - an abhishekam, or offering of water from 21 holy rivers of India to all the deities, and a grand procession with participation by various spiritual organisations from across the US, the release stated. 'Homas' and 'aartis' will add to the daylong rituals, which will start at 2 p.m. In India, the Mela is held four times every 12 years and rotates between Prayag (Allahabad), Haridwar, Ujjain and Nashik. Each twelve-year cycle includes one Maha Kumbh Mela in Allahabad, which is attended by millions of people, making it the largest gathering anywhere in the world. Legend has it that in the Vedic ages, gods and demons made a temporary agreement to work together churning 'amrita' or the nectar of immortality from the Ksheera Sagara (primordial ocean of milk), and to share the nectar equally. However, when the urn or 'Kumbha' containing the nectar appeared, the demons ran away with it. The gods then gave a chase and for 12 days and 12 nights the two sides fought for the possession of the urn. In the course of the battle, four drops of nectar fell at Prayag, Haridwar, Nashik and Ujjain. Hence the Mela is held at these four places.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which Scripture Did this Come From?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sri Sri Google-ji tells me it's from the writings of Spinoza. Then, according to the description below, he would be closer to Visishtadvaita than to Shankara. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: God, or substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality, necessarily exists. Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived. God acts solely by the laws of his own nature and is not constrained by anyone. God is the indwelling and not the transient cause of all things. God and all the attributes of God are eternal. Intellect, in function finite, or in function infinite, must comprehend the attributes of God and the modifications of God, and nothing else.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can a crazy person be enlightened?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The other day glancing though the usual posts on this list I noted someone saying that MMY was crazy and the debate aside whether he is enlightened was thinking about whether a crazy person could be enlightened? I vote yes because craziness is a relative state of mind and even though many here have been programmed to believe that in enlightenment the external behavior would appear super sane I don't believe that is necessarily the case at all. Of course that leads to a debate on what exactly is craziness? To me most people in the world are crazy or at least zombies who sleep walk through lives every day. Even in that state of sleep walk externally they may appear totally sane or the norm but follow them around for a day (if you can stand it) they might turn out to be totally blind or wacko. What do you think? Typically, many of the Avadhutas, would act crazy, no ordinary communication, no doubt hey would be closed away in the west. They have no interest in money, traveling, disciples, and usually don't belong to any lineage. In Hinduism they are usually asociated with Dattatreya, who is surrounded by dogs. The Avadhut Gita is attributed to him. This is what one Avadhut has to say: 'The world calls me mad. I am mad, you are mad, all the world is mad. Who is not mad? Still these madman call me mad. Some are mad after name and fame. Some are mad after money. Some are mad after flesh. But blessed is he who is mad after God; such a madcap am I!' (translated by S. Thakar, Songs of the Avadhut) http://www.rangavadhoot.com/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think some here, perhaps Rory and Jim, have expressed something of that sort. I do know that when you are dreaming, its hard to accept that you are dreaming -- but assume you are awake. Though sometimes in the dream, you can be aware its a dream. But not so often, i think. I used to have this quite frequently at a time - not now. I was dreaming and aware that I dream. I wanted to wake up, and finally woke up. I even tried to open my eyelids with my hand, and thought I was awake, but was still dreaming, because certain things didn't fit. So, its very well possible to dream that one wakes up and is awake. That is not to say that I am with you in the case of Jimmy and Rory. When I was asked the same question that you asked Jim and Rory, I have thought, what I would answer from my own very limited perspective of being only an infinitesimal particle of Rory, which I am sure I am, my answer would be the following, again judging from whatever little experiences I might have: How do you know, when you think you are free, that this is not just another dream, in reality you are in a prison, just dreaming to be free? Well, I would have no interest in the question, I would be thoroughly detached from the issue of being FREE or not. Whatever is is, if it's a prison or otherwise. If I am just a dream being dreamed by a person in coma in a hospital in NY, its okay too. Whatever is IS, and if its illusion then it's illusion, so what. Wanting to be certain about freedom would just mean that I view that freedom as a goal, another object of the mind to be attained. Whereas my certainty is that I am not the actor, and there is no achievement. Of course you could pretend to have detachment, not being the actor etc, but you would have to work very hard to convince yourself. And then you could realize that there is really nothing you could do about that too.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: snip When I was asked the same question that you asked Jim and Rory, I have thought, what I would answer from my own very limited perspective of being only an infinitesimal particle of Rory, which I am sure I am, snip I might be even more fun if you also admit that *I* am also an infitesimal particle of You; it works both ways :-) That can't be. That overstrains my brain. This turnaround thing has a limit, tell this to Byron. You can't be a particle of something, which is a particle of you already. What you mean is Indras net: Everything reflects everything else.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My experience with the awakened Kundalini
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I am typing in a dark room in Germany. Hey, come out! The sun is shining.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip I don't view the ego in the way you seem to be using it and losing my personality is not a goal for me. As I understand it, enlightenment doesn't mean losing one's personality, only the attachment to and identification with it. The personality remains as it was. That was how I understood it in MMY's system also. I was commenting on the Koan: I'd like to give you the following koan: If you loose your own personality, you can afford to be non-equal. I think it is pretty clear that personalities don't diminish in any way from spiritual practices judging from this group! Sure Curtis, but of course I do mean it the way Judy described. For me its rather a 'view', a fundamental understanding that personailty, the external persona, my habits, thought habits, opininions etc are arbitrary and not chosen by 'me'. As such I understand the extreme relativity of what 'I am' in an external way. So 'losing ones's personality' would refer to such an understanding.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
Thanks Curtis for your quick response, and especially for not taking offense in any way. That really speaks for you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for taking the time to respond in detail. I think you have brought out some very good points about our different world views. I do agree with your point about people's differences concerning talents, intelligence and skills. You have correctly noted that I do not recognize the same meaning value in some spiritual experiences that some here do. It is not because I can not relate to them, it is because I view their value differently. What it means is where we differ. I don't recognize that a person's inner experiences make him higher than me in any way. I see this 'higher' only in a contextual way. For example 'more evolved towards a certain state of consciousness'. For example, somebody could be from a completely different philosophy, lets say a Dualist in the sense of Madhva. I could see that he is possibly very advanced at his path, even though I differ from him about the ultimate goal.And yet there are many common elements on the path.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenging the primary assumption
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This assumption forms the entire *basis* of guru yoga. You should do what the guru says because he's *right*; his perceptions are accurate, free from distortion, unclouded by the things that cloud our perceptions. The enlightened being's 'take' on things equates to Truth, because only in enlightenment can one begin to *perceive* Truth. And so on and so on. So who believes that this is true? Not in the way you describe it Barry. I think the way you describe it here is a thorough mis-representation of of what Guru Yoga is all about, and I am fully for it. Lets analyze 'You should do what the Guru says..' okay until this point, but everything from then on is an oversimplification which distorts truth and the merits of this path. In my view it is an energetic thing. For this energetic transmission to happen, there is what I would call a 'working agreement', which both the Guru and the disciple are aware of. The Guru knows that the disciple sees God in him/her, that he is a channel of this energy and will work on the disciples energy-body and ego. A 'mature' disciple would be able to distinguish between the relative persona of the Guru, his /her humanity, and that what lies beyond it, and it would be a grave mistake to mix the two up. Most Gurus I know about teach this in one way or the other: to not mix up the two, his realtive outside personality and the Divine essence behind. The disciple is asked to focus on he Divine essence, which is the same as in himself, therefore most traditions say that the Guru is within yourself. The Guru is also within the disciple not just in this abstract absolute way, but in an energetic and alchemical way, in his energy-field. For this to work there has to be a close interaction between Guru and disciple. The disciple has to live with the Guru and has to watch him/her in everyday interactions. I believe this is not the path for many people, but it certainly is a valid path many great saints have walked. A disciple has to be surrendered to the Guru, which he understands represents God to him in he relative field.It is a way to make the abstract concept of God grasp-able in a person. Now I am not saying that this concept cannot be misused, and that there cannot be false Gurus, that there can't be power trips of Gurus etc. But to take misuse as your measuring rod, you are likely to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenging the primary assumption
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So let's open the question up to the group. This *is* a really interesting group, full of strong spiritual seekers who have spent the better part of their lives pursuing enlightenment. So whaddyathink? When you realize your own enlightenment (or now that you have), will your perceptions be (or are your perceptions now) 100% accurate, unclouded by any stress or samskaras or anything that could render them less than objective truth, or Cosmic Truth? Just to answer this, as I had overseen this question the first time: No, I don't think there is 100% unclouded perception in the relative. I am not enlightened, at least not 100%, so I can't really judge 100% ;-) ... but then for me it is not important if something is 100% 'correct' .. it would also mean there is no evolution possible, which I don't believe. If I'm with an enlightened, I allow him to be human and err. OTOH I believe that everything that happens has a purpose, and that all our mistakes guide us in the right direction. There is no 'wrong' from an ultimate perspective, and especially not if you are sincere in your own pursuit.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you want to use paradox as a vehicle, try running through a couple hundred mahavakyas you don't already know an answer to or have discursive ideas about. Sorry Vaj, there are only 4 mahavakyas, all else are just vakyas. Maybe you mean koans. Its not the same, it has a different underlying principle, and it comes from different paths with different goals and spiritual perspectives.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 24, 2007, at 9:23 AM, t3rinity wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: If you want to use paradox as a vehicle, try running through a couple hundred mahavakyas you don't already know an answer to or have discursive ideas about. Sorry Vaj, there are only 4 mahavakyas, all else are just vakyas. Maybe you mean koans. Its not the same, it has a different underlying principle, and it comes from different paths with different goals and spiritual perspectives. I was referring to the 600 or so mahavakyas of the Chinese kung-an (called koans in Japanese) which are also used to stimulate waking in some Buddhist schools. The goal, awakening, is the same, but the View is different. It was actually my Patanjali guru who turned me on to the fact that these kung-an are a more detailed and rigorous set of mahavakyas. Sure, but then its Buddhism, not Advaita Vedanta right. Working with paradoxes to stop the mind momentarily is not the purpose of the Upanishadic Mahavakyas. The traditional advaitic method is quite different, and consists in a thorough acceptance and understanding of the advaitic truth as it is confirmed by vedic scripture - thats traditional Advaita in opposition to Neo-Advaita. The premises are the acceptance that this world is unreal and only Brahman is real. The Neo-Advaitins have appropriated the term 'Advaita' in order to describe an experience of Unity or their understanding of it, and mix with it all kinds of psychological or New Age methods. But Advaita is firmly rooted in scripture, it is 'Vedanta', the end of 'veda'. It consists of Sravana (Hearing or listening to the highest spiritual truth), Manana (The process of reasoning in which one reflects on the spiritual teacher's words and meditates upon their meaning) and Nididhyasana (Deep meditation on the truth of Brahman) Mahavakya Literally, great saying. A Vedantic formula that declares the oneness of the individual soul with Brahman. (Each mahavakya in Vedanta comes from a different of the main Upanishads. Each of these Upanishad belongs to a different Veda, hence only 4 Mahavakyas) see:http://www.vedanta.org/wiv/glossary/glossary_mr.html I suggest to investigate terms from spiritual path within their own respective philosophies and not a hotchpotch of new age ideas.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Byron Katie's the work a form of moodmaking?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 24, 2007, at 12:09 PM, t3rinity wrote: I suggest to investigate terms from spiritual path within their own respective philosophies and not a hotchpotch of new age ideas. I couldn't agree more, but then of course I get called a traditionalist. sigh Not by me though. I appreciate when people have an insight or some background knowledge of the terms they are actually using. And it's of course ridiculous by some ( I just read a post stating this) to interpret this as a 'showing up' or trying to be knowledge-wise upscale etc. Should we all be just dumb and stupid, in order to not show off? We would always be just on the surface of things. Instead, when using terms, one could as well try to be a little bit more knowledgeable about the history and /or philosophic context. Why don't people stay out of a discussion rather than using this 'We are all the same and you are just trying to show off' logic which is childish and just shows an inferiority complex. (Sorry, this wasn't directed to you ;-)) Not just advaita vedanta uses mahavakyas to introduce the state of unitary awakening. Okay, accepted, but the word then has a different meaning. I didn't know, and its good to be clear about it.
