[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground for a Revival Movement: first sight of Guru Dev transcript
Forgive me Dome Buck flying light [:D] Selah: Should my spirit looks to Buck alone? Is my rock and my refuge his throne? Does in all my fears, in all my straits, My soul on his salvation only waits? Once has his mighty voice declared, Once and again my ears have heard, All power is' his eternal due; He must be feared and trusted too False are men of Golden Dome degree, The baser sort are vanity; Laid in the balance, both appear Light as a Buck-puff of empty air. [:x] --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Make not increasing gold your trust, Nor set your heart on glitt'ring dust; Why will you grasp the fleeting smoke, And not believe what Guru Dev hath spoke? For sov'reign pow'r reign not alone, Grace is the partner of the throne; Thy grace and justice mighty Guru, Shall well divide our last reward. Jai Guru Dev [SBS], -Buck in the Dome --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Dick Mays dickmays@ wrote: From: Purusha in Himalaya donotreply@ New post on Purusha in Himalaya Maharishi talks of his first sight of Guru Dev transcript by Andrew Lawson Kerr I found Guru Dev by the grace of God and by my desire to find him. In India, it's a very normal thing for a child to think of God and to find Him and converse with Him. God-realization is a very concrete experience in the Indian air, and this instills in every Indian heart a desire to find a way and to seek a good guide to help them reach the goal. This situation was true in my case in the early days. One day I was led by those, who knew I was fond of meeting saints, to a house somewhere in the forest, and then I was led up some stairs to a terrace. It so happened that this was a very dark night and I could barely see a chair with a few people sitting around it, all quiet. The silence there was so great that one felt hesitant to even breathe properly, because breath was felt so horribly in that atmosphere. As I came close to the chair a car came down a nearby road, and its highlights lit up the porch for a moment. Then I saw Guru Dev and I thought: Here is the sun This was the flashing moment of light, which decided my destiny. I somehow was able to speak with him. He asked me about everything I was doing, and when he heard I was student he said: First finish your studies. There was nothing to argue about or discuss. By the time I had finished my studies, he had become Shankaracharya in Jyotir Math. I was told that many people were going to that place and I went there and found Guru Dev, and then I stayed. This devotion to Guru Dev, devotion to one's Master, when you will go in detail of the Vedic tradition, to which we belong, it seems it has been of just this series of instances, where the disciple surrendered and got enlightened through surrender. And such surrender is not a thing on the thinking level or manipulation, no, it's a very genuine, innocent, abstract yet very concrete contact with the reality. The history of this tradition is full of these values of surrender to the Master and this is what sustains knowledge generation after generation The great impact of Guru Dev in his lifetime is in bringing out so clearly and in such simple worlds this technique of TM and his blessing for this Movement, which came out much after he left his body, because there was no occasion during his lifetime for any of his intimate blessed disciples to go out of his presence. That's why any such Movement to bless the world could not have started during his time. He was so divine, he was so sublime. It was not possible to think of one day away from him. It was just not possible. So his expression, his teachings, made the whole possibility of everyone to get onto this blessed state of unity through a scientific procedure, systematic procedure, because the truth is that not many people are at any time in any age in a position to follow this spontaneous and innocent path of surrender and get enlightenment. It is just not practical. It is not possible. And therefore a system, a procedure, a method, something very tangible, concrete yet based on the same spontaneous impulse of life which makes one surrender to his master-same spontaneous impulse of life. We just get sold out to something so sublime and so divine, same impulse takes the mind to the transcendent and getting this direct experience of this unboundedness. Same impulse of life, same tender innocent impulse of life seeking abundance is used spontaneously in that path of surrender to the master and living that unified state of life and the same tender impulse of life seeking for more and more is used in Transcendental Meditation in order to bring that unboundedness and rise eventually to unity. The same thing, the same value of life, used in this way bringing the same results; used in this way bringing the same results. And this is the greatness of his teaching. This is the fullness of his value for the world for all times.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground for a Revival Movement: first sight of Guru Dev transcript
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@... wrote: Forgive me Dome Buck flying light [:D] Selah: Should my spirit looks to Buck alone? Nay you ninny not me, look to the Unified Field. All the Ground for a Revival Movement that we need is in Jai Guru Dev Brahmananda Saraswati: The Guru Dev Swami Brahmananda Saraswati Spiritual Regeneration Movement. -Buck Is my rock and my refuge his throne? Does in all my fears, in all my straits, My soul on his salvation only waits? Once has his mighty voice declared, Once and again my ears have heard, All power is' his eternal due; He must be feared and trusted too False are men of Golden Dome degree, The baser sort are vanity; Laid in the balance, both appear Light as a Buck-puff of empty air. [:x] --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Make not increasing gold your trust, Nor set your heart on glitt'ring dust; Why will you grasp the fleeting smoke, And not believe what Guru Dev hath spoke? For sov'reign pow'r reign not alone, Grace is the partner of the throne; Thy grace and justice mighty Guru, Shall well divide our last reward. Jai Guru Dev [SBS], -Buck in the Dome --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Dick Mays dickmays@ wrote: From: Purusha in Himalaya donotreply@ New post on Purusha in Himalaya Maharishi talks of his first sight of Guru Dev transcript by Andrew Lawson Kerr I found Guru Dev by the grace of God and by my desire to find him. In India, it's a very normal thing for a child to think of God and to find Him and converse with Him. God-realization is a very concrete experience in the Indian air, and this instills in every Indian heart a desire to find a way and to seek a good guide to help them reach the goal. This situation was true in my case in the early days. One day I was led by those, who knew I was fond of meeting saints, to a house somewhere in the forest, and then I was led up some stairs to a terrace. It so happened that this was a very dark night and I could barely see a chair with a few people sitting around it, all quiet. The silence there was so great that one felt hesitant to even breathe properly, because breath was felt so horribly in that atmosphere. As I came close to the chair a car came down a nearby road, and its highlights lit up the porch for a moment. Then I saw Guru Dev and I thought: Here is the sun This was the flashing moment of light, which decided my destiny. I somehow was able to speak with him. He asked me about everything I was doing, and when he heard I was student he said: First finish your studies. There was nothing to argue about or discuss. By the time I had finished my studies, he had become Shankaracharya in Jyotir Math. I was told that many people were going to that place and I went there and found Guru Dev, and then I stayed. This devotion to Guru Dev, devotion to one's Master, when you will go in detail of the Vedic tradition, to which we belong, it seems it has been of just this series of instances, where the disciple surrendered and got enlightened through surrender. And such surrender is not a thing on the thinking level or manipulation, no, it's a very genuine, innocent, abstract yet very concrete contact with the reality. The history of this tradition is full of these values of surrender to the Master and this is what sustains knowledge generation after generation The great impact of Guru Dev in his lifetime is in bringing out so clearly and in such simple worlds this technique of TM and his blessing for this Movement, which came out much after he left his body, because there was no occasion during his lifetime for any of his intimate blessed disciples to go out of his presence. That's why any such Movement to bless the world could not have started during his time. He was so divine, he was so sublime. It was not possible to think of one day away from him. It was just not possible. So his expression, his teachings, made the whole possibility of everyone to get onto this blessed state of unity through a scientific procedure, systematic procedure, because the truth is that not many people are at any time in any age in a position to follow this spontaneous and innocent path of surrender and get enlightenment. It is just not practical. It is not possible. And therefore a system, a procedure, a method, something very tangible, concrete yet based on the same spontaneous impulse of life which makes one surrender to his master-same spontaneous impulse of life. We just get sold out to something so sublime and so divine, same impulse takes the mind to the transcendent and getting this direct experience of this unboundedness. Same impulse of life, same tender innocent impulse of life seeking abundance is used spontaneously in that path of surrender to the master and living that unified state of life and the
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: LOVE IT! THANKS. GOT MY ATTENTION. You prove my pet theory: when a person's first person perspective comesunwittingly, adventitiouslythrough their so-called attempts at a third person perspective (e.g. what you are telling me here) and what you get is strong and healthythen time to: BECOME ALERT. I am, via your post, alerted to the contingent solipsistic tendency in meI have never shaken this since I was a small child. But you are the first person on this blog to convince me I should be aware of the need to mortify this temptation whenever my putative enlightenment is undergoing a vivisection. It kind of comes with the territory of discussing your experience doesn't it? I wasn't suggesting that you were more that way than I would be if I were doing the same. It wasn't as pointed as that. I was speculating on why Turq's reaction was different than my own in relating to you here. I could understand why he went that way, but for me it is not how I believe I will get the most from our interaction. I would never take part in a vivisection of someone's important inner life. (well that doesn't mean I can NEVER come off like an asshole here!) We all have to set our own boundaries for discussions here. It is easy to be kind of flip and mean with things other people cherish. I mean if you came back and said blues is repetitive crap played by people who never mastered the guitar, I really wouldn't care, even though I like it so much. As the Roman's say, there is not accounting for taste. But no matter how much the blues is my life, it is never my identity so I don't personalize someone's different musical taste as a statement about me. It is about them. And it does tell me something about the person. But when dealing with the identity level experiences in Maharishi's programs or other spiritual experiences, we don't have that separation usually. Although I think it is intellectually healthy to develop that ability. Will try to maintain some credibility on this blog, as I have already learned a lot (e.g. CDB on the blues). You'll keep me honest, Curtis. No doubt about THAT. So, as GWB said: Bring it on. I took some time to connect with you on an emotional level first so we could see each other through the kinder lens of rapport. I cherish my skepticism about all things spiritual, but I don't want to be a dick about it. I want to relate to people here as if we have already had our first beer and found out we both love Mario Batali's regional Italian cooking show. (Do you get him up there, he is my Italian cooking guru from the food network.) I am aware that the Mission is NOT Accomplished (mission = perfect self-knowledge, perfect disinterestedness, perfect understanding). Acknowledgement of being human is always a good start. Frankly if you said anything else I would become instantly bored. It's just that I can only respond meaningfully to criticism which stands apart in its merit from the motives of my critic. Although you have gotten some posts that have been critical, nobody knows you here really. I personally don't think you deserve criticism for sharing your perspective here. You are understandably sensitive to some harshness coming your way. But there are a lot of responses that come from a more accepting place, Whynotnow and Rick for two examples. And Vaj should have some more interesting comments on how your experiences fit into the Vedic tradition. I'm sure I am missing others. But I doubt you will find me a critic here. We already have a friendly connection. I am not interested in squandering that potential for communication on trying to be more right about something than you are. Let's just explore where we draw our different lines of reality and assume that the other person has good reasons for the lines they have drawn. I am a fan of the concepts around maintaining healthy emotional and intellectual boundaries. You don't have to share my perspective for me to try to understand yours, and vise versa. It is only if we can acknowledge and be cool with the differences that we have a chance of expanding our views. It's going to be fun, Curtis. I appreciate the warning and the hidden admonition. I'm not sure that was my intention but OK. You got outside yourself completely in our discussion of the blues, letting me spread my little wings and fly. Much appreciated. But don't you DARE question the truth of my enlightenment, OK? I don't question that you had a shift of your internal state that was radical enough for you to associate it with the terms Maharishi used for higher states. My experience of the term is based on my own experiences with his
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
So I'm playing this gig in a Midwestern dive, usual Friday night crowd, couple of friends, couple of drunks. I'm working through my second set with the usual shouts from the back for me to play Freebird (I've played here for years and some drunks STILL don't know what I play and what I don't play!) A guy walks in wearing, I shit you not, full 10 inch platform heels covered on the sides with green neon sparkles. Other than that he is dressed normally, some version of Levi Strauss meets Calvin Kline. I take one look at him, one look at the crowd who has clocked his arrival as a congregation registering a loud fart in church. I pull him behind the chicken wire I perform behind(it's that kind of crowd). Just as he clears the edge of the wire the first bottles start bouncing off the mesh. He looks a bit shaken so I say to him, have a seat on this stool, here's a beer. (Blue Velvet interlude) FRANK (to Jeffrey) What kinda beer do you like? JEFFREY Heineken. FRANK FUCK THAT SHIT. PABST BLUE RIBBON!!! The thing is, I was a version of you around 15 years ago walking into the newsgroup called Alt Meditation Transcendental to process my own movement history through in the vitriolic atmosphere of people who were dead set on discrediting me. What they are good for is to engage you to do the heavy lifting on your perspective. But you have to be careful how much you let in because their interest is not friendly. But the work is totally worth it if it assists your own process of understanding the thing many of us did with Maharishi's teaching where we let it change us in a fundamental way and then decided that this was not the way we wanted to function. Your arc was much higher than mine, but the principle was the same for me. I had to decide how I was going to think about the states Maharishi's practices induced for myself, without the overriding but of course the goal of life is enlightenment, everybody knows that! So there will be many times when you will have had enough and need a break and decide you have done enough processing for a while but I hope you continue to work on your perspective here. Your piece that laid out the whole soaring tale of where you have been and where you are now was fascinating to me. I believe there is more about where you are now that could stimulate some great conversations here or in emails. My arc took me solidly into a humanistic perspective and yours seems to have landed you in some version of theism. For me, if any of the gods showed up at my gig, I would request that the waiter sat him right in in between the ladies room door and the kitchen door so that his elbows would be constantly rocked by the swinging doors until he had had enough and slinked off to spread some more Guinea worms in African ponds. No love lost there when I sent him packing. Anyway we have more to discuss if you can stomach the place. Comments interspersed below. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote RESPONSE: I got intellectually swarmed after starting to post on this blog, so after reading this post of yours, I just attempted to fight off all my closing-in-for-the-kill critics. I have never had the experience afforded to me by posting on this blog: the kinds of conversations and disputes that erupt spontaneously and never-endingly. It has, in a certain way, been quite wonderful for me, as I have found myself forced to respond in a multitude of different ways to the omnidirectional bullets fired at my head. I can't even account for my experience exactly; all I know is that, since I put down my enlightenment days, I have never had such a necessary work-outand not just by my mind. I have found myself forced to draw upon everything I have to survive the testing and provocation that has come my way. I am really quite grateful, especially for being able to get down that lengthy post this Sunday. After getting all that business out, I felt: Ah, I have explained my heterodox view of enlightenment and Hindu spirituality (as taught to my body and soul by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi). I can so totally relate. I loathed AMT but was drawn to the work and the effect it had on how I think about everything actually. I'm sure the inner work could be done in a less antagonistic atmosphere but there is something strangely compelling in having people's hands at your throat challenging you to the core that makes you have to hunker down and find out what you are made of. This place is a huge intellectual resource. I have hammered out a comfortable relationship with everyone over time so it is so much more relaxed to process ideas here for me now. I think
Re: [FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
Curtis, As always, thoughtful and considered. Thanks From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, June 27, 2011 10:03:17 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose] So I'm playing this gig in a Midwestern dive, usual Friday night crowd, couple of friends, couple of drunks. I'm working through my second set with the usual shouts from the back for me to play Freebird (I've played here for years and some drunks STILL don't know what I play and what I don't play!) A guy walks in wearing, I shit you not, full 10 inch platform heels covered on the sides with green neon sparkles. Other than that he is dressed normally, some version of Levi Strauss meets Calvin Kline. I take one look at him, one look at the crowd who has clocked his arrival as a congregation registering a loud fart in church. I pull him behind the chicken wire I perform behind(it's that kind of crowd). Just as he clears the edge of the wire the first bottles start bouncing off the mesh. He looks a bit shaken so I say to him, have a seat on this stool, here's a beer. (Blue Velvet interlude) FRANK (to Jeffrey) What kinda beer do you like? JEFFREY Heineken. FRANK FUCK THAT SHIT. PABST BLUE RIBBON!!! The thing is, I was a version of you around 15 years ago walking into the newsgroup called Alt Meditation Transcendental to process my own movement history through in the vitriolic atmosphere of people who were dead set on discrediting me. What they are good for is to engage you to do the heavy lifting on your perspective. But you have to be careful how much you let in because their interest is not friendly. But the work is totally worth it if it assists your own process of understanding the thing many of us did with Maharishi's teaching where we let it change us in a fundamental way and then decided that this was not the way we wanted to function. Your arc was much higher than mine, but the principle was the same for me. I had to decide how I was going to think about the states Maharishi's practices induced for myself, without the overriding but of course the goal of life is enlightenment, everybody knows that! So there will be many times when you will have had enough and need a break and decide you have done enough processing for a while but I hope you continue to work on your perspective here. Your piece that laid out the whole soaring tale of where you have been and where you are now was fascinating to me. I believe there is more about where you are now that could stimulate some great conversations here or in emails. My arc took me solidly into a humanistic perspective and yours seems to have landed you in some version of theism. For me, if any of the gods showed up at my gig, I would request that the waiter sat him right in in between the ladies room door and the kitchen door so that his elbows would be constantly rocked by the swinging doors until he had had enough and slinked off to spread some more Guinea worms in African ponds. No love lost there when I sent him packing. Anyway we have more to discuss if you can stomach the place. Comments interspersed below. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote RESPONSE: I got intellectually swarmed after starting to post on this blog, so after reading this post of yours, I just attempted to fight off all my closing-in-for-the-kill critics. I have never had the experience afforded to me by posting on this blog: the kinds of conversations and disputes that erupt spontaneously and never-endingly. It has, in a certain way, been quite wonderful for me, as I have found myself forced to respond in a multitude of different ways to the omnidirectional bullets fired at my head. I can't even account for my experience exactly; all I know is that, since I put down my enlightenment days, I have never had such a necessary work-out—and not just by my mind. I have found myself forced to draw upon everything I have to survive the testing and provocation that has come my way. I am really quite grateful, especially for being able to get down that lengthy post this Sunday. After getting all that business out, I felt: Ah, I have explained my heterodox view of enlightenment and Hindu spirituality (as taught to my body and soul by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi). I can so totally relate. I loathed AMT but was drawn to the work and the effect it had on how I think about everything actually. I'm sure the inner work could be done in a less antagonistic atmosphere but there is something strangely compelling in having people's hands at your throat challenging you to the core that makes you have to hunker down and find out what you are made of. This place is a huge intellectual resource. I have hammered out a comfortable relationship with everyone over time so it is so much more relaxed
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: Are you incapable of snipping, or just plain lazy? Forgot - lesson relearned.
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: RESPONSE: Don't hit a guy when he's already down, Turquoiseb. Haven't you already said enough, for Christ's sake? I need your counsel, not your cruel truthfulness. You've hit an undefended part of me, OK? And I need to nurse my wounds for a while. Now leave me alone. After this second blow, you've made me a bitter man. Did you know you would have THAT effect on me? Should have stopped after the first knock-down argument, turq. By the way, there's no way that you could be wrong. Believe me, your position is unassailable. Even the beautiful first person subjectivity behind it pierced me. One thing I DID learn from Maharishi: the aesthetics of irony (although his was more often unstated; but the deep cynicism inside that man's heart, it was a wonder to behold. No one had attitude like Maharishi. His inner experience of himself was of the nature of being INCAPABLE of humilityI certainly don't want to follow him in this.but his sense of irony? There he had no peers. But for all that the most magical human being since Christ I believe.) Is it time for me to STFU, Turq? Dear MZ, This is just an awesome response, I have to say I have totally fallen in love with your sense of irony, loved your earlier expression maximum sincerity with maximum irony and how you use irony to protect yourselves. Your comments on Maharishi seem very apt as well though I don't agree with the humility part, my behavior is something similar to that. I can be very humble and playful when listening and interacting with others but rarely do I run it to anyone with whom I can relate to so I can come across as sarcastic and distant. I can clearly see why I am destined to be single :-). Your opinions on solipsism are appreciated as well, I never ran in to this word before so I had to read it. Now the word really resonates with what I have felt and continue to feel. I also have been accused of being ironic and sarcastic, but that has been my way to protect myself, I'm a deeply intense person and if I really express myself with maximum sincerity very few have the ability to deal with it - so then I continue on in my playful, sarcastic way at work and in my interactions with others. So I'm similar to you in that if I don't think I can be sincere with the other person I operate in the ironic, sarcastic mode. So even if I don't agree with what you say, I'm hoping you stick around and are not offended by people questioning you. I feel we have only seen the surface of you and there's lot that's hidden behind the mask.
Re: [FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:30 AM, maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote: Dear Rick, If my enlightenment was not the real deal, then in all that I say about enlightenment, I will be revealing this discrepancy between my version of Unity Consciousness and the real version. Somehow, if I was not in the same essential state of consciousness that Maharishi was in, someone like yourself would detect this in the absence of that perspective which would give legitimacy and credibility to everything I say about both what enlightenment is, and what it was like to be enlightened. The fact that you are forced to fall back on the a priori assumption that, because you believe enlightenment to be a real state of affairs (I believe it to be a real state of experience with consequent definitive parameters of behaviour and abilities, but for all that not a state of consciousness which is coincident with ultimate reality), and I am repudiating the metaphysical validity of enlightenment—claiming I am now de-enlightened,—it must perforce be the case that my enlightenment was not the real deal. Because, you see, if it had been the real deal, how could I, given your absolute belief in its ontological truthfulness, reject this belief, reject the truth of enlightenment? You must, because I am denouncing the state of enlightenment (and Unity Consciousness) as a form of extraordinary mystical deceit of the mind, conclude that: He was not really enlightened, because his ego is still intact, and besides, anyone who was REALLY enlightened, would not be able to make themselves unenlightened, nor would they dream of rejecting this state of consciousness as being false to reality. Given then your fundamental belief that enlightenment has to be true, you have no other choice but to write as you have written above, because, for you, it is never going to be a question of determining whether or not enlightenment corresponds to reality (whether it indeed is a true state of affairs for a human being and objectively and truthfully represents reality as it really is). For you enlightenment HAS TO BE TRUE. To question its intrinsic validity as a metaphysically bona fide state of human experience and functioning is tantamount to denying what essentially constitutes your highest vision of what life is all about. To deprive you of this belief is the functional equivalent of forcing you to give up your belief in God. For you, then, Rick, enlightenment (the belief in this reality) is as unquestioned and solid and irrefutable as someone else's belief that Christ was God. It is your religion. Why so? Because you cannot conceive, given your experiences and observations and history, of ever bringing it (the idea of enlightenment) before a tribunal of critical judgment where—like the existence of God—it would be subject to real debate and argument. As to whether indeed it is a natural state of consciousness and functioning for the human person. You MUST therefore conclude that since I am on a mission to debunk your religion, and that I once claimed to have intimate familiarity with that religion (once having been according to my own testimony, the very embodiment of that religion: i.e. in Unity Consciousness), and now have disavowed that religion, that I WAS NEVER THEREFORE A TRUE BELIEVER IN THAT RELIGION. Or rather, never really knew what that religion (enlightenment) was all about. For me, Rick, the question is determined by my experience. I have never met or read about anyone who conclusively demonstrates to me that they are in possession—actual possession—of a more desirable state of consciousness then the one we were born into. Although paradoxically, had I met myself enlightened, in my non-enlightened state, I would certainly have believe in his (my) enlightenment as much as I believed in Maharishi's. My enlightenment was proven to me in ten thousand different ways—in every moment of my life when I lived under that state of consciousness. No, for me, Rick, it is you who give yourself away, because you evidently cannot countenance the idea that enlightenment just might be what I say it is. But you are unwilling or unable to subject enlightenment to a true acid test. You have no surefire way of knowing whether enlightenment exists as a true and objectively valid state of consciousness. What is your proof that this state of consciousness exists such that you know it is the perfect representation of what reality is? By your reading of books on the subject? by your interviews with these guests who purportedly have entered into a state of realization? by your experience with Maharishi? Where does this absolute and unshakeable belief originate? I suggest it has been absorbed into your being through your TM and Maharishi experience just like Mother's Milk. It has taken up residence inside of you in a way
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@... wrote: On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:30 AM, maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Dear Rick, If my enlightenment was not the real deal, then in all that I say about enlightenment, I will be revealing this discrepancy between my version of Unity Consciousness and the real version. Somehow, if I was not in the same essential state of consciousness that Maharishi was in, someone like yourself would detect this in the absence of that perspective which would give legitimacy and credibility to everything I say about both what enlightenment is, and what it was like to be enlightened. The fact that you are forced to fall back on the a priori assumption that, because you believe enlightenment to be a real state of affairs (I believe it to be a real state of experience with consequent definitive parameters of behaviour and abilities, but for all that not a state of consciousness which is coincident with ultimate reality), and I am repudiating the metaphysical validity of enlightenmentclaiming I am now de-enlightened,it must perforce be the case that my enlightenment was not the real deal. Because, you see, if it had been the real deal, how could I, given your absolute belief in its ontological truthfulness, reject this belief, reject the truth of enlightenment? You must, because I am denouncing the state of enlightenment (and Unity Consciousness) as a form of extraordinary mystical deceit of the mind, conclude that: He was not really enlightened, because his ego is still intact, and besides, anyone who was REALLY enlightened, would not be able to make themselves unenlightened, nor would they dream of rejecting this state of consciousness as being false to reality. Given then your fundamental belief that enlightenment has to be true, you have no other choice but to write as you have written above, because, for you, it is never going to be a question of determining whether or not enlightenment corresponds to reality (whether it indeed is a true state of affairs for a human being and objectively and truthfully represents reality as it really is). For you enlightenment HAS TO BE TRUE. To question its intrinsic validity as a metaphysically bona fide state of human experience and functioning is tantamount to denying what essentially constitutes your highest vision of what life is all about. To deprive you of this belief is the functional equivalent of forcing you to give up your belief in God. For you, then, Rick, enlightenment (the belief in this reality) is as unquestioned and solid and irrefutable as someone else's belief that Christ was God. It is your religion. Why so? Because you cannot conceive, given your experiences and observations and history, of ever bringing it (the idea of enlightenment) before a tribunal of critical judgment wherelike the existence of Godit would be subject to real debate and argument. As to whether indeed it is a natural state of consciousness and functioning for the human person. You MUST therefore conclude that since I am on a mission to debunk your religion, and that I once claimed to have intimate familiarity with that religion (once having been according to my own testimony, the very embodiment of that religion: i.e. in Unity Consciousness), and now have disavowed that religion, that I WAS NEVER THEREFORE A TRUE BELIEVER IN THAT RELIGION. Or rather, never really knew what that religion (enlightenment) was all about. For me, Rick, the question is determined by my experience. I have never met or read about anyone who conclusively demonstrates to me that they are in possessionactual possessionof a more desirable state of consciousness then the one we were born into. Although paradoxically, had I met myself enlightened, in my non-enlightened state, I would certainly have believe in his (my) enlightenment as much as I believed in Maharishi's. My enlightenment was proven to me in ten thousand different waysin every moment of my life when I lived under that state of consciousness. No, for me, Rick, it is you who give yourself away, because you evidently cannot countenance the idea that enlightenment just might be what I say it is. But you are unwilling or unable to subject enlightenment to a true acid test. You have no surefire way of knowing whether enlightenment exists as a true and objectively valid state of consciousness. What is your proof that this state of consciousness exists such that you know it is the perfect representation of what reality is? By your reading of books on the subject? by your interviews with these guests who purportedly have entered into a state of realization? by your experience with Maharishi? Where does this absolute and unshakeable belief originate? I suggest
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@... wrote: RC, are your experiences so beyond the rest of us, your concepts so profound we can't understand with simple language that you must use so many words to get your meaning and concepts across? Are you wanting to get points across to us FFL readers, wanting to dazzle us with lots of words, or incapable of responding to anyone but yourself? We speak English here. We use few words to get our meaning across. Rick, to whom you're responding, is a case study in the economy of words and tightness of expression. Yet you feel you need to blast him with what might pass for some as rhetoric but what for others, like me, appears to be just talking shit to windmills. Could you perhaps edit your responses so that us mere mortals can grok what you're saying? Or is that we're mere mortals a problem in itself? Neat reply Tom. I know just how you feel Morphius
Re: [FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:20 AM, maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote: RESPONSE: Thomas, could you provide an example of a sentence or two, from the letter above, which illustrates the problem of the intelligibility and clearness of my argument? Not easily. Your bombast runs through every word. I don't know if you're modeling yourself after a 19th century itinerant American speechifier, someone who would have performed to the enthralled crowds at, for example, Chautauqua Park in Fairfield during Chautauqua's hayday, or W.C. Fields, who I suspect was making fun of those itinerant speechifiers. Whichever, doesn't matter. You've told us over and over again how very open and receptive to Earhard you were the day of the massacre and that a massacre ensued but never described the assault. You used the word transgression or transgressed when describing yoru interaction with Earhard. IMO an inappropriate word chosen for theatrical effect and not to convey to us mere mortals what actually went on. I'm creating a histrionic label for your posts in Gmail so I can readily find them when I'm hankering for the 1840s rhetorical genre your posts embody. Thanks for adding to the variety of FairfieldLife.
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@... wrote: On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:20 AM, maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote: RESPONSE: Thomas, could you provide an example of a sentence or two, from the letter above, which illustrates the problem of the intelligibility and clearness of my argument? Not easily. Your bombast runs through every word. I don't know if you're modeling yourself after a 19th century itinerant American speechifier, someone who would have performed to the enthralled crowds at, for example, Chautauqua Park in Fairfield during Chautauqua's hayday, or W.C. Fields, who I suspect was making fun of those itinerant speechifiers. Whichever, doesn't matter. You've told us over and over again how very open and receptive to Earhard you were the day of the massacre and that a massacre ensued but never described the assault. You used the word transgression or transgressed when describing yoru interaction with Earhard. IMO an inappropriate word chosen for theatrical effect and not to convey to us mere mortals what actually went on. I'm creating a histrionic label for your posts in Gmail so I can readily find them when I'm hankering for the 1840s rhetorical genre your posts embody. Thanks for adding to the variety of FairfieldLife. RESPONSE: Then, you're just going to leave a guy twisting in the proverbial wind, Tom? How about some intervention. I think it mean to just mock someone without providing some remedy that the speechifier could apply to cure his malady. If I incur any more wounds from persons such as yourself (who seem to be unwilling to benefit from my superior vantage point on the universe), I am just going to take my ball and go home. Never to be heard from again. Do you really want to be responsible for an act of this magnitude? I am, after all, a missionary at heart, and if the natives will not bow down and obey me (find perfect agreement with everything I say and HOW I SAY IT) then I shall abandon them in their benightedness. Please reconsider, Thomas. Histrionic, any idea how much that hurts? No, I suppose you don't.
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
MZ, here's a free clue to explain to you why I got no more than two sentences into the self-serving drivel below: I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR 'ENLIGHTENMENT.' It (meaning the stories you tell others and yourself about your experiences and what you think they mean or meant) obviously are very important to YOU, because you just won't STFU about them. All these years later and you still won't STFU about them. Someday you might want to figure out that expecting other people to be interested in your subjective state of consciousness is like expecting them to be interested in your retelling of a vivid dream experience you had the previous night. Ever try this? Ever watch people's eyes glaze over after a minute or so, as if they were thinking, Why oh why won't this guy STFU about an experience that was meaningful only to him? Clue: That's exactly what they were thinking. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Dear Rick, If my enlightenment was not the real deal, then in all that I say about enlightenment, I will be revealing this discrepancy between my version of Unity Consciousness and the real version. Somehow, if I was not in the same essential state of consciousness that Maharishi was in, someone like yourself would detect this in the absence of that perspective which would give legitimacy and credibility to everything I say about both what enlightenment is, and what it was like to be enlightened. The fact that you are forced to fall back on the a priori assumption that, because you believe enlightenment to be a real state of affairs (I believe it to be a real state of experience with consequent definitive parameters of behaviour and abilities, but for all that not a state of consciousness which is coincident with ultimate reality), and I am repudiating the metaphysical validity of enlightenmentclaiming I am now de-enlightened,it must perforce be the case that my enlightenment was not the real deal. Because, you see, if it had been the real deal, how could I, given your absolute belief in its ontological truthfulness, reject this belief, reject the truth of enlightenment? You must, because I am denouncing the state of enlightenment (and Unity Consciousness) as a form of extraordinary mystical deceit of the mind, conclude that: He was not really enlightened, because his ego is still intact, and besides, anyone who was REALLY enlightened, would not be able to make themselves unenlightened, nor would they dream of rejecting this state of consciousness as being false to reality. Given then your fundamental belief that enlightenment has to be true, you have no other choice but to write as you have written above, because, for you, it is never going to be a question of determining whether or not enlightenment corresponds to reality (whether it indeed is a true state of affairs for a human being and objectively and truthfully represents reality as it really is). For you enlightenment HAS TO BE TRUE. To question its intrinsic validity as a metaphysically bona fide state of human experience and functioning is tantamount to denying what essentially constitutes your highest vision of what life is all about. To deprive you of this belief is the functional equivalent of forcing you to give up your belief in God. For you, then, Rick, enlightenment (the belief in this reality) is as unquestioned and solid and irrefutable as someone else's belief that Christ was God. It is your religion. Why so? Because you cannot conceive, given your experiences and observations and history, of ever bringing it (the idea of enlightenment) before a tribunal of critical judgment wherelike the existence of Godit would be subject to real debate and argument. As to whether indeed it is a natural state of consciousness and functioning for the human person. You MUST therefore conclude that since I am on a mission to debunk your religion, and that I once claimed to have intimate familiarity with that religion (once having been according to my own testimony, the very embodiment of that religion: i.e. in Unity Consciousness), and now have disavowed that religion, that I WAS NEVER THEREFORE A TRUE BELIEVER IN THAT RELIGION. Or rather, never really knew what that religion (enlightenment) was all about. For me, Rick, the question is determined by my experience. I have never met or read about anyone who conclusively demonstrates to me that they are in possessionactual possessionof a more desirable state of consciousness then the one we were born into. Although paradoxically, had I met myself enlightened, in my non-enlightened state, I would certainly have believe in his (my) enlightenment as much as I believed in Maharishi's. My enlightenment was proven to me in ten thousand different waysin every moment of my life when I lived under that state of consciousness. No, for me, Rick, it is you who give yourself away, because you evidently
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
Dear maskedzebra - all I see is a lot of intellectual jugglery and nothing concrete. Can you please, if it's even possible for you, describe in a few lines each on your enlightenment, the reasons why you thought it was mystical deceit and your current de-enlightenment process. Please use generic terms - there's someone like me who has no knowledge of CC, GC and shudderthank god I don't :-). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: Dear Rick, If my enlightenment was not the real deal, then in all that I say about enlightenment, I will be revealing this discrepancy between my version of Unity Consciousness and the real version. Somehow, if I was not in the same essential state of consciousness that Maharishi was in, someone like yourself would detect this in the absence of that perspective which would give legitimacy and credibility to everything I say about both what enlightenment is, and what it was like to be enlightened. The fact that you are forced to fall back on the a priori assumption that, because you believe enlightenment to be a real state of affairs (I believe it to be a real state of experience with consequent definitive parameters of behaviour and abilities, but for all that not a state of consciousness which is coincident with ultimate reality), and I am repudiating the metaphysical validity of enlightenmentclaiming I am now de-enlightened,it must perforce be the case that my enlightenment was not the real deal. Because, you see, if it had been the real deal, how could I, given your absolute belief in its ontological truthfulness, reject this belief, reject the truth of enlightenment? You must, because I am denouncing the state of enlightenment (and Unity Consciousness) as a form of extraordinary mystical deceit of the mind, conclude that: He was not really enlightened, because his ego is still intact, and besides, anyone who was REALLY enlightened, would not be able to make themselves unenlightened, nor would they dream of rejecting this state of consciousness as being false to reality. Given then your fundamental belief that enlightenment has to be true, you have no other choice but to write as you have written above, because, for you, it is never going to be a question of determining whether or not enlightenment corresponds to reality (whether it indeed is a true state of affairs for a human being and objectively and truthfully represents reality as it really is). For you enlightenment HAS TO BE TRUE. To question its intrinsic validity as a metaphysically bona fide state of human experience and functioning is tantamount to denying what essentially constitutes your highest vision of what life is all about. To deprive you of this belief is the functional equivalent of forcing you to give up your belief in God. For you, then, Rick, enlightenment (the belief in this reality) is as unquestioned and solid and irrefutable as someone else's belief that Christ was God. It is your religion. Why so? Because you cannot conceive, given your experiences and observations and history, of ever bringing it (the idea of enlightenment) before a tribunal of critical judgment wherelike the existence of Godit would be subject to real debate and argument. As to whether indeed it is a natural state of consciousness and functioning for the human person. You MUST therefore conclude that since I am on a mission to debunk your religion, and that I once claimed to have intimate familiarity with that religion (once having been according to my own testimony, the very embodiment of that religion: i.e. in Unity Consciousness), and now have disavowed that religion, that I WAS NEVER THEREFORE A TRUE BELIEVER IN THAT RELIGION. Or rather, never really knew what that religion (enlightenment) was all about. For me, Rick, the question is determined by my experience. I have never met or read about anyone who conclusively demonstrates to me that they are in possessionactual possessionof a more desirable state of consciousness then the one we were born into. Although paradoxically, had I met myself enlightened, in my non-enlightened state, I would certainly have believe in his (my) enlightenment as much as I believed in Maharishi's. My enlightenment was proven to me in ten thousand different waysin every moment of my life when I lived under that state of consciousness. No, for me, Rick, it is you who give yourself away, because you evidently cannot countenance the idea that enlightenment just might be what I say it is. But you are unwilling or unable to subject enlightenment to a true acid test. You have no surefire way of knowing whether enlightenment exists as a true and objectively valid state of consciousness. What is your proof that this state of consciousness exists such that you know it is the perfect representation of what reality is? By your reading of books on the subject? by your interviews with these guests who purportedly have entered into a state of
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
Don't speak for everyone Barry, I'm interested in his enlightenment. Here's a clue to explain to you why I make fun of you because I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR OPINIONS ON ENLIGHTENMENT, so STFU Barry. I know you feel threatened when anyone uses the E word, but again if someone is talking about the E word ST...FU. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: MZ, here's a free clue to explain to you why I got no more than two sentences into the self-serving drivel below: I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR 'ENLIGHTENMENT.' It (meaning the stories you tell others and yourself about your experiences and what you think they mean or meant) obviously are very important to YOU, because you just won't STFU about them. All these years later and you still won't STFU about them. Someday you might want to figure out that expecting other people to be interested in your subjective state of consciousness is like expecting them to be interested in your retelling of a vivid dream experience you had the previous night. Ever try this? Ever watch people's eyes glaze over after a minute or so, as if they were thinking, Why oh why won't this guy STFU about an experience that was meaningful only to him? Clue: That's exactly what they were thinking. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Dear Rick, If my enlightenment was not the real deal, then in all that I say about enlightenment, I will be revealing this discrepancy between my version of Unity Consciousness and the real version. Somehow, if I was not in the same essential state of consciousness that Maharishi was in, someone like yourself would detect this in the absence of that perspective which would give legitimacy and credibility to everything I say about both what enlightenment is, and what it was like to be enlightened. The fact that you are forced to fall back on the a priori assumption that, because you believe enlightenment to be a real state of affairs (I believe it to be a real state of experience with consequent definitive parameters of behaviour and abilities, but for all that not a state of consciousness which is coincident with ultimate reality), and I am repudiating the metaphysical validity of enlightenmentclaiming I am now de-enlightened,it must perforce be the case that my enlightenment was not the real deal. Because, you see, if it had been the real deal, how could I, given your absolute belief in its ontological truthfulness, reject this belief, reject the truth of enlightenment? You must, because I am denouncing the state of enlightenment (and Unity Consciousness) as a form of extraordinary mystical deceit of the mind, conclude that: He was not really enlightened, because his ego is still intact, and besides, anyone who was REALLY enlightened, would not be able to make themselves unenlightened, nor would they dream of rejecting this state of consciousness as being false to reality. Given then your fundamental belief that enlightenment has to be true, you have no other choice but to write as you have written above, because, for you, it is never going to be a question of determining whether or not enlightenment corresponds to reality (whether it indeed is a true state of affairs for a human being and objectively and truthfully represents reality as it really is). For you enlightenment HAS TO BE TRUE. To question its intrinsic validity as a metaphysically bona fide state of human experience and functioning is tantamount to denying what essentially constitutes your highest vision of what life is all about. To deprive you of this belief is the functional equivalent of forcing you to give up your belief in God. For you, then, Rick, enlightenment (the belief in this reality) is as unquestioned and solid and irrefutable as someone else's belief that Christ was God. It is your religion. Why so? Because you cannot conceive, given your experiences and observations and history, of ever bringing it (the idea of enlightenment) before a tribunal of critical judgment wherelike the existence of Godit would be subject to real debate and argument. As to whether indeed it is a natural state of consciousness and functioning for the human person. You MUST therefore conclude that since I am on a mission to debunk your religion, and that I once claimed to have intimate familiarity with that religion (once having been according to my own testimony, the very embodiment of that religion: i.e. in Unity Consciousness), and now have disavowed that religion, that I WAS NEVER THEREFORE A TRUE BELIEVER IN THAT RELIGION. Or rather, never really knew what that religion (enlightenment) was all about. For me, Rick, the question is determined by my experience. I have never met or read about anyone who conclusively demonstrates to me that they are in possessionactual possessionof a
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Dear Rick, If my enlightenment was not the real deal, then in all that I say about enlightenment, I will be revealing this discrepancy between my version of Unity Consciousness and the real version. Somehow, if I was not in the same essential state of consciousness that Maharishi was in, someone like yourself would detect this in the absence of that perspective which would give legitimacy and credibility to everything I say about both what enlightenment is, and what it was like to be enlightened. The fact that you are forced to fall back on the a priori assumption that, because you believe enlightenment to be a real state of affairs (I believe it to be a real state of experience with consequent definitive parameters of behaviour and abilities, but for all that not a state of consciousness which is coincident with ultimate reality), and I am repudiating the metaphysical validity of enlightenmentclaiming I am now de-enlightened,it must perforce be the case that my enlightenment was not the real deal. Because, you see, if it had been the real deal, how could I, given your absolute belief in its ontological truthfulness, reject this belief, reject the truth of enlightenment? You must, because I am denouncing the state of enlightenment (and Unity Consciousness) as a form of extraordinary mystical deceit of the mind, conclude that: He was not really enlightened, because his ego is still intact, and besides, anyone who was REALLY enlightened, would not be able to make themselves unenlightened, nor would they dream of rejecting this state of consciousness as being false to reality. Given then your fundamental belief that enlightenment has to be true, you have no other choice but to write as you have written above, because, for you, it is never going to be a question of determining whether or not enlightenment corresponds to reality (whether it indeed is a true state of affairs for a human being and objectively and truthfully represents reality as it really is). For you enlightenment HAS TO BE TRUE. To question its intrinsic validity as a metaphysically bona fide state of human experience and functioning is tantamount to denying what essentially constitutes your highest vision of what life is all about. To deprive you of this belief is the functional equivalent of forcing you to give up your belief in God. For you, then, Rick, enlightenment (the belief in this reality) is as unquestioned and solid and irrefutable as someone else's belief that Christ was God. It is your religion. Why so? Because you cannot conceive, given your experiences and observations and history, of ever bringing it (the idea of enlightenment) before a tribunal of critical judgment wherelike the existence of Godit would be subject to real debate and argument. As to whether indeed it is a natural state of consciousness and functioning for the human person. You MUST therefore conclude that since I am on a mission to debunk your religion, and that I once claimed to have intimate familiarity with that religion (once having been according to my own testimony, the very embodiment of that religion: i.e. in Unity Consciousness), and now have disavowed that religion, that I WAS NEVER THEREFORE A TRUE BELIEVER IN THAT RELIGION. Or rather, never really knew what that religion (enlightenment) was all about. For me, Rick, the question is determined by my experience. I have never met or read about anyone who conclusively demonstrates to me that they are in possessionactual possessionof a more desirable state of consciousness then the one we were born into. Although paradoxically, had I met myself enlightened, in my non-enlightened state, I would certainly have believe in his (my) enlightenment as much as I believed in Maharishi's. My enlightenment was proven to me in ten thousand different waysin every moment of my life when I lived under that state of consciousness. No, for me, Rick, it is you who give yourself away, because you evidently cannot countenance the idea that enlightenment just might be what I say it is. But you are unwilling or unable to subject enlightenment to a true acid test. You have no surefire way of knowing whether enlightenment exists as a true and objectively valid state of consciousness. What is your proof that this state of consciousness exists such that you know it is the perfect representation of what reality is? By your reading of books on the subject? by your interviews with these guests who purportedly have entered into a state of realization? by your experience with Maharishi? Where does this absolute and unshakeable belief originate? I suggest it has been absorbed into your being through your TM and Maharishi experience just like
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: MZ, here's a free clue to explain to you why I got no more than two sentences into the self-serving drivel below: I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR 'ENLIGHTENMENT.' It (meaning the stories you tell others and yourself about your experiences and what you think they mean or meant) obviously are very important to YOU, because you just won't STFU about them. All these years later and you still won't STFU about them. Someday you might want to figure out that expecting other people to be interested in your subjective state of consciousness is like expecting them to be interested in your retelling of a vivid dream experience you had the previous night. Ever try this? Ever watch people's eyes glaze over after a minute or so, as if they were thinking, Why oh why won't this guy STFU about an experience that was meaningful only to him? Clue: That's exactly what they were thinking. Response: I never anticipated I would be on the receiving end of a final knock-down argument like the one above. If I had known (I should have) such an extraordinary summing up of myself (negatively) were possible, don't worry, I would have STFU. But you see, Turq, I thought it appropriate to explain what my perspective is on enlightenment, TM, Maharishi.You have convinced me I was in a dream about this. And the embarrassment and humiliation I now experience (after reading what you have said about me above) goes way beyond what you might calculate would be the case. Have some pity on me, Turq: now you've got toI don't say you canput me back together again. Will you? I was wrong, but my INTENTION in my response to Rick was as sincere and innocent as his was in calling me out. And before I came smack up against YOUR argument I was sure what I said there was logical and persuasive. But that was BEFORE I had thought of, much less encountered directlyand oh so mercilessly,YOUR STFU argument. Believe me, Turq, it is a killer. And thanks. How about I tell you why I think Jimmy Fallon is the most talented person on television. Interested in THAT? Whatever you do with this post (the one I am writing now), Turq, don't ever accuse me of being ironicbecause given the devastating power of your post above, THAT would be even more ironic. The Lord loves a broken, contrite heartand I hope he is paying attention right now. Because this is where I'm atand it's YOUR fault, Turq. But then again he (God) seems to have STFU quite some time ago. Which is why Enlightenment seems such a good idea. (The West can't provide any inspired alternative to the East; ergo, the East annexes spirituality as we have known it.) Time for me to STFU now, Turq. Thank you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Dear Rick, If my enlightenment was not the real deal, then in all that I say about enlightenment, I will be revealing this discrepancy between my version of Unity Consciousness and the real version. Somehow, if I was not in the same essential state of consciousness that Maharishi was in, someone like yourself would detect this in the absence of that perspective which would give legitimacy and credibility to everything I say about both what enlightenment is, and what it was like to be enlightened. The fact that you are forced to fall back on the a priori assumption that, because you believe enlightenment to be a real state of affairs (I believe it to be a real state of experience with consequent definitive parameters of behaviour and abilities, but for all that not a state of consciousness which is coincident with ultimate reality), and I am repudiating the metaphysical validity of enlightenmentclaiming I am now de-enlightened,it must perforce be the case that my enlightenment was not the real deal. Because, you see, if it had been the real deal, how could I, given your absolute belief in its ontological truthfulness, reject this belief, reject the truth of enlightenment? You must, because I am denouncing the state of enlightenment (and Unity Consciousness) as a form of extraordinary mystical deceit of the mind, conclude that: He was not really enlightened, because his ego is still intact, and besides, anyone who was REALLY enlightened, would not be able to make themselves unenlightened, nor would they dream of rejecting this state of consciousness as being false to reality. Given then your fundamental belief that enlightenment has to be true, you have no other choice but to write as you have written above, because, for you, it is never going to be a question of determining whether or not enlightenment corresponds to reality (whether it indeed is a true state of affairs for a human being and objectively and truthfully represents reality as it really is). For you enlightenment HAS TO BE TRUE. To question its
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: RESPONSE: Seems like reasonable request, Ravi. Let me work on it, OK? Dear maskedzebra - all I see is a lot of intellectual jugglery and nothing concrete. Can you please, if it's even possible for you, describe in a few lines each on your enlightenment, the reasons why you thought it was mystical deceit and your current de-enlightenment process. Please use generic terms - there's someone like me who has no knowledge of CC, GC and shudderthank god I don't :-). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: Dear Rick, If my enlightenment was not the real deal, then in all that I say about enlightenment, I will be revealing this discrepancy between my version of Unity Consciousness and the real version. Somehow, if I was not in the same essential state of consciousness that Maharishi was in, someone like yourself would detect this in the absence of that perspective which would give legitimacy and credibility to everything I say about both what enlightenment is, and what it was like to be enlightened. The fact that you are forced to fall back on the a priori assumption that, because you believe enlightenment to be a real state of affairs (I believe it to be a real state of experience with consequent definitive parameters of behaviour and abilities, but for all that not a state of consciousness which is coincident with ultimate reality), and I am repudiating the metaphysical validity of enlightenmentclaiming I am now de-enlightened,it must perforce be the case that my enlightenment was not the real deal. Because, you see, if it had been the real deal, how could I, given your absolute belief in its ontological truthfulness, reject this belief, reject the truth of enlightenment? You must, because I am denouncing the state of enlightenment (and Unity Consciousness) as a form of extraordinary mystical deceit of the mind, conclude that: He was not really enlightened, because his ego is still intact, and besides, anyone who was REALLY enlightened, would not be able to make themselves unenlightened, nor would they dream of rejecting this state of consciousness as being false to reality. Given then your fundamental belief that enlightenment has to be true, you have no other choice but to write as you have written above, because, for you, it is never going to be a question of determining whether or not enlightenment corresponds to reality (whether it indeed is a true state of affairs for a human being and objectively and truthfully represents reality as it really is). For you enlightenment HAS TO BE TRUE. To question its intrinsic validity as a metaphysically bona fide state of human experience and functioning is tantamount to denying what essentially constitutes your highest vision of what life is all about. To deprive you of this belief is the functional equivalent of forcing you to give up your belief in God. For you, then, Rick, enlightenment (the belief in this reality) is as unquestioned and solid and irrefutable as someone else's belief that Christ was God. It is your religion. Why so? Because you cannot conceive, given your experiences and observations and history, of ever bringing it (the idea of enlightenment) before a tribunal of critical judgment wherelike the existence of Godit would be subject to real debate and argument. As to whether indeed it is a natural state of consciousness and functioning for the human person. You MUST therefore conclude that since I am on a mission to debunk your religion, and that I once claimed to have intimate familiarity with that religion (once having been according to my own testimony, the very embodiment of that religion: i.e. in Unity Consciousness), and now have disavowed that religion, that I WAS NEVER THEREFORE A TRUE BELIEVER IN THAT RELIGION. Or rather, never really knew what that religion (enlightenment) was all about. For me, Rick, the question is determined by my experience. I have never met or read about anyone who conclusively demonstrates to me that they are in possessionactual possessionof a more desirable state of consciousness then the one we were born into. Although paradoxically, had I met myself enlightened, in my non-enlightened state, I would certainly have believe in his (my) enlightenment as much as I believed in Maharishi's. My enlightenment was proven to me in ten thousand different waysin every moment of my life when I lived under that state of consciousness. No, for me, Rick, it is you who give yourself away, because you evidently cannot countenance the idea that enlightenment just might be what I say it is. But you are unwilling or unable to subject enlightenment to a true acid test. You have no surefire way of knowing whether enlightenment exists as a true and objectively valid state of consciousness. What is your proof that this state of
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@... wrote: MZ- I think you have some interesting things to say. But the way you write is so condensed that it obscures your ideas. It could be that I simply struggle to read it and get fatigued. That's part of what I was getting at in my earlier quip. The writing style just SCREAMS You must take my experiences seriously, because they were...uh... MY experiences, and this is MY view of what they mean! Bzzt. Not gonna happen. And I wonder if you think in the same style you write. This occurred to me as well, because what I saw in the little I was able to wade through was that MZ basically *ignored* Rick's original question (What makes you think your experience was the real deal, and bears any similarity to what truly enlightened people were/are experiencing?) and went all defensive instead. Color me not impressed.
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Dear Rick, If my enlightenment was not the real deal, then in all that I say about enlightenment, I will be revealing this discrepancy between my version of Unity Consciousness and the real version. Somehow, if I was not in the same essential state of consciousness that Maharishi was in, someone like yourself would detect this in the absence of that perspective which would give legitimacy and credibility to everything I say about both what enlightenment is, and what it was like to be enlightened. The fact that you are forced to fall back on the a priori assumption that, because you believe enlightenment to be a real state of affairs (I believe it to be a real state of experience with consequent definitive parameters of behaviour and abilities, but for all that not a state of consciousness which is coincident with ultimate reality), and I am repudiating the metaphysical validity of enlightenmentclaiming I am now de-enlightened,it must perforce be the case that my enlightenment was not the real deal. Because, you see, if it had been the real deal, how could I, given your absolute belief in its ontological truthfulness, reject this belief, reject the truth of enlightenment? You must, because I am denouncing the state of enlightenment (and Unity Consciousness) as a form of extraordinary mystical deceit of the mind, conclude that: He was not really enlightened, because his ego is still intact, and besides, anyone who was REALLY enlightened, would not be able to make themselves unenlightened, nor would they dream of rejecting this state of consciousness as being false to reality. Given then your fundamental belief that enlightenment has to be true, you have no other choice but to write as you have written above, because, for you, it is never going to be a question of determining whether or not enlightenment corresponds to reality (whether it indeed is a true state of affairs for a human being and objectively and truthfully represents reality as it really is). For you enlightenment HAS TO BE TRUE. To question its intrinsic validity as a metaphysically bona fide state of human experience and functioning is tantamount to denying what essentially constitutes your highest vision of what life is all about. To deprive you of this belief is the functional equivalent of forcing you to give up your belief in God. For you, then, Rick, enlightenment (the belief in this reality) is as unquestioned and solid and irrefutable as someone else's belief that Christ was God. It is your religion. Why so? Because you cannot conceive, given your experiences and observations and history, of ever bringing it (the idea of enlightenment) before a tribunal of critical judgment wherelike the existence of Godit would be subject to real debate and argument. As to whether indeed it is a natural state of consciousness and functioning for the human person. You MUST therefore conclude that since I am on a mission to debunk your religion, and that I once claimed to have intimate familiarity with that religion (once having been according to my own testimony, the very embodiment of that religion: i.e. in Unity Consciousness), and now have disavowed that religion, that I WAS NEVER THEREFORE A TRUE BELIEVER IN THAT RELIGION. Or rather, never really knew what that religion (enlightenment) was all about. For me, Rick, the question is determined by my experience. I have never met or read about anyone who conclusively demonstrates to me that they are in possessionactual possessionof a more desirable state of consciousness then the one we were born into. Although paradoxically, had I met myself enlightened, in my non-enlightened state, I would certainly have believe in his (my) enlightenment as much as I believed in Maharishi's. My enlightenment was proven to me in ten thousand different waysin every moment of my life when I lived under that state of consciousness. No, for me, Rick, it is you who give yourself away, because you evidently cannot countenance the idea that enlightenment just might be what I say it is. But you are unwilling or unable to subject enlightenment to a true acid test. You have no surefire way of knowing whether enlightenment exists as a true and objectively valid state of consciousness. What is your proof that this state of consciousness exists such that you know it is the perfect representation of what reality is? By your reading of books on the subject? by your interviews with these guests who purportedly have entered into a state of realization? by your experience with Maharishi? Where
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@ wrote: MZ- I think you have some interesting things to say. But the way you write is so condensed that it obscures your ideas. It could be that I simply struggle to read it and get fatigued. That's part of what I was getting at in my earlier quip. The writing style just SCREAMS You must take my experiences seriously, because they were...uh... MY experiences, and this is MY view of what they mean! Bzzt. Not gonna happen. And I wonder if you think in the same style you write. This occurred to me as well, because what I saw in the little I was able to wade through was that MZ basically *ignored* Rick's original question (What makes you think your experience was the real deal, and bears any similarity to what truly enlightened people were/are experiencing?) and went all defensive instead. Color me not impressed. RESPONSE: Don't hit a guy when he's already down, Turquoiseb. Haven't you already said enough, for Christ's sake? I need your counsel, not your cruel truthfulness. You've hit an undefended part of me, OK? And I need to nurse my wounds for a while. Now leave me alone. After this second blow, you've made me a bitter man. Did you know you would have THAT effect on me? Should have stopped after the first knock-down argument, turq. By the way, there's no way that you could be wrong. Believe me, your position is unassailable. Even the beautiful first person subjectivity behind it pierced me. One thing I DID learn from Maharishi: the aesthetics of irony (although his was more often unstated; but the deep cynicism inside that man's heart, it was a wonder to behold. No one had attitude like Maharishi. His inner experience of himself was of the nature of being INCAPABLE of humilityI certainly don't want to follow him in this.but his sense of irony? There he had no peers. But for all that the most magical human being since Christ I believe.) Is it time for me to STFU, Turq?
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
Hey MZ, You have a real contribution of perspective to contribute here and right now you are getting a bit of the circling pack action. I believe it is because you are here with a well thought out perspective that challenges many of ours, as well as the difficulty of transcending (oh shit flashback!) the inevitable narcissistic impression that comes with the territory of describing your subjective experiences and focusing on yourself in front of strangers. Which is what I am guessing prompted Turq's reaction that I often share about some writers. (The old: MY orgasm is the most fascinating thing in the world to me, and YOURS is the least.) We get a lot of me me me types floating through. I would like to make the case that you have more to offer than that if you will stick around. I appreciated your intense data dump in response to Rick because it is going to take a lot of words to map across our perspectives. So I hope you weather the early difficulties because right now you are attempting to map across concepts to so many people at once it must be very frustrating. I hope that wasn't too presumptively Dr. Phil (do you get that butthole's show in Canada?) and that you get my intention. In other words, please stick around and I think anyone who cares to will have some ideas and perspectives challenged by your input. But it is gunna take some time. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Dear Rick, If my enlightenment was not the real deal, then in all that I say about enlightenment, I will be revealing this discrepancy between my version of Unity Consciousness and the real version. Somehow, if I was not in the same essential state of consciousness that Maharishi was in, someone like yourself would detect this in the absence of that perspective which would give legitimacy and credibility to everything I say about both what enlightenment is, and what it was like to be enlightened. The fact that you are forced to fall back on the a priori assumption that, because you believe enlightenment to be a real state of affairs (I believe it to be a real state of experience with consequent definitive parameters of behaviour and abilities, but for all that not a state of consciousness which is coincident with ultimate reality), and I am repudiating the metaphysical validity of enlightenmentclaiming I am now de-enlightened,it must perforce be the case that my enlightenment was not the real deal. Because, you see, if it had been the real deal, how could I, given your absolute belief in its ontological truthfulness, reject this belief, reject the truth of enlightenment? You must, because I am denouncing the state of enlightenment (and Unity Consciousness) as a form of extraordinary mystical deceit of the mind, conclude that: He was not really enlightened, because his ego is still intact, and besides, anyone who was REALLY enlightened, would not be able to make themselves unenlightened, nor would they dream of rejecting this state of consciousness as being false to reality. Given then your fundamental belief that enlightenment has to be true, you have no other choice but to write as you have written above, because, for you, it is never going to be a question of determining whether or not enlightenment corresponds to reality (whether it indeed is a true state of affairs for a human being and objectively and truthfully represents reality as it really is). For you enlightenment HAS TO BE TRUE. To question its intrinsic validity as a metaphysically bona fide state of human experience and functioning is tantamount to denying what essentially constitutes your highest vision of what life is all about. To deprive you of this belief is the functional equivalent of forcing you to give up your belief in God. For you, then, Rick, enlightenment (the belief in this reality) is as unquestioned and solid and irrefutable as someone else's belief that Christ was God. It is your religion. Why so? Because you cannot conceive, given your experiences and observations and history, of ever bringing it (the idea of enlightenment) before a tribunal of critical judgment wherelike the existence of Godit would be subject to real debate and argument. As to whether indeed it is a natural state of consciousness and functioning for the human person. You MUST therefore conclude that since I am on a mission to debunk your religion, and that I once claimed to have intimate familiarity with that religion (once having been according to my own testimony, the very embodiment of
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: MZ, here's a free clue to explain to you why I got no more than two sentences into the self-serving drivel below: I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR 'ENLIGHTENMENT.' It (meaning the stories you tell others and yourself about your experiences and what you think they mean or meant) obviously are very important to YOU, because you just won't STFU about them. All these years later and you still won't STFU about them. Someday you might want to figure out that expecting other people to be interested in your subjective state of consciousness is like expecting them to be interested in your retelling of a vivid dream experience you had the previous night. Ever try this? Ever watch people's eyes glaze over after a minute or so, as if they were thinking, Why oh why won't this guy STFU about an experience that was meaningful only to him? Clue: That's exactly what they were thinking. Response: I never anticipated I would be on the receiving end of a final knock-down argument like the one above. If I had known (I should have) such an extraordinary summing up of myself (negatively) were possible, don't worry, I would have STFU. But you see, Turq, I thought it appropriate to explain what my perspective is on enlightenment, TM, Maharishi.You have convinced me I was in a dream about this. ... Given the fact that you felt the need to go on for another 275 words about this, color me not convinced that you are convinced. :-) I'll try to explain further. In my reply, I used an analogy to try to help you understand why some (like...uh...myself) might not be hanging on your every word as you talk, talk, talk about your subjective experiences and what you think they mean. I suggested that (on the receiving end) it was a lot like having to sit there and listen to someone going on and on about the vivid dream they had the previous night, and how incredibly meaningful that dream was to them. What possible relevance to my life could someone else's dream have? I *get* that it's important to the person trying to tell me how important it was to him, but it's just *not* important to me. Similarly, what possible relevance to my life could *your* subjective experience of supposed higher states of consciousness have, much less what you've decided they mean or don't mean? You strike me as someone who is used to easy audiences, meaning the kind of blissninny New Age people you might have met in Fairfield or in the TM movement. For many of them, someone talking about their supposed state of consciousness might be fascinating. They might sit there in rapt awe and let you go on and on about such subjective experiences, and a few of them might even be impressed by them. I'm...uh...not one of those people. I've had a few cool subjective experiences myself, and have no need to bolster my faith in any particular dogma or path by hearing stories told by those who claim to have reached one of the goals of such a path. Just bores my socks off, dude. It's NOT (despite what some would have you believe) that I have any particular problem with people claiming to have experienced supposed higher states of consciousness. How could I? I've had them myself. That said, I don't find it a terribly good use of my time to listen to others talk about *their* experiences, much less what they think they mean. Boring. I'd rather be off having experiences of my own. I'm not an easy audience for people wanting to talk, talk, talk about their subjective experiences. I've had my own. I'm also not the kinda person who is going to assume that what you say about your experiences or your purported state of consciousness -- past or present -- is true, just because you say it. Some people are. Given your reaction -- some would say overreaction -- to people not treating your words the way you wanted them to, you might be happier trying your spiel on easier audiences. I don't give a shit about your experiences decades ago in Fairfield. If you have any interest for me at all, it will be based on who and what you are today, here and now. And it will be based on what you can come up with to say that might have some relationship to my life. Talking about your subjective experiences and expecting people to be as fasc- inated by them as you were (and obviously still are) is just not gonna cut it. I'd rather read people swapping good recipes for lemon meringue pie. Are we clear? I have nothing against you. I'm not looking to knock you down. I'm just bored by some of your raps, that's all. They have no relevance to my life. And I some- times get the feeling that you don't CARE whether what you say has any relevance to my life, or anyone else's. You give the impression of someone writing with the expectation that others will find his subjective, inner life fascinating, just because
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
LOVE IT! THANKS. GOT MY ATTENTION. You prove my pet theory: when a person's first person perspective comesunwittingly, adventitiouslythrough their so-called attempts at a third person perspective (e.g. what you are telling me here) and what you get is strong and healthythen time to: BECOME ALERT. I am, via your post, alerted to the contingent solipsistic tendency in meI have never shaken this since I was a small child. But you are the first person on this blog to convince me I should be aware of the need to mortify this temptation whenever my putative enlightenment is undergoing a vivisection. Will try to maintain some credibility on this blog, as I have already learned a lot (e.g. CDB on the blues). You'll keep me honest, Curtis. No doubt about THAT. So, as GWB said: Bring it on. I am aware that the Mission is NOT Accomplished (mission = perfect self-knowledge, perfect disinterestedness, perfect understanding). It's just that I can only respond meaningfully to criticism which stands apart in its merit from the motives of my critic. It's going to be fun, Curtis. I appreciate the warning and the hidden admonition. But don't you DARE question the truth of my enlightenment, OK? That's where we part company. Just be as flattering, fawning, and sycophantic as you can. When it comes to my beautiful achievement of Unity Consciousness. I'd like to be taken somewhere through writing on this blog. So keep delivering, Curtis baby. You STF have so far. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Hey MZ, You have a real contribution of perspective to contribute here and right now you are getting a bit of the circling pack action. I believe it is because you are here with a well thought out perspective that challenges many of ours, as well as the difficulty of transcending (oh shit flashback!) the inevitable narcissistic impression that comes with the territory of describing your subjective experiences and focusing on yourself in front of strangers. Which is what I am guessing prompted Turq's reaction that I often share about some writers. (The old: MY orgasm is the most fascinating thing in the world to me, and YOURS is the least.) We get a lot of me me me types floating through. I would like to make the case that you have more to offer than that if you will stick around. I appreciated your intense data dump in response to Rick because it is going to take a lot of words to map across our perspectives. So I hope you weather the early difficulties because right now you are attempting to map across concepts to so many people at once it must be very frustrating. I hope that wasn't too presumptively Dr. Phil (do you get that butthole's show in Canada?) and that you get my intention. In other words, please stick around and I think anyone who cares to will have some ideas and perspectives challenged by your input. But it is gunna take some time. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Dear Rick, If my enlightenment was not the real deal, then in all that I say about enlightenment, I will be revealing this discrepancy between my version of Unity Consciousness and the real version. Somehow, if I was not in the same essential state of consciousness that Maharishi was in, someone like yourself would detect this in the absence of that perspective which would give legitimacy and credibility to everything I say about both what enlightenment is, and what it was like to be enlightened. The fact that you are forced to fall back on the a priori assumption that, because you believe enlightenment to be a real state of affairs (I believe it to be a real state of experience with consequent definitive parameters of behaviour and abilities, but for all that not a state of consciousness which is coincident with ultimate reality), and I am repudiating the metaphysical validity of enlightenmentclaiming I am now de-enlightened,it must perforce be the case that my enlightenment was not the real deal. Because, you see, if it had been the real deal, how could I, given your absolute belief in its ontological truthfulness, reject this belief, reject the truth of enlightenment? You must, because I am denouncing the state of enlightenment (and Unity Consciousness) as a form of extraordinary mystical deceit of the mind, conclude that: He was not really enlightened, because his ego is still intact, and besides, anyone who was REALLY enlightened, would not be able to make themselves unenlightened, nor would they dream
[FairfieldLife] No Ground
Dear maskedzebra - all I see is a lot of intellectual jugglery and nothing concrete. Can you please, if it's even possible for you, describe in a few lines each on your enlightenment, the reasons why you thought it was mystical deceit and your current de-enlightenment process. Please use generic terms - there's someone like me who has no knowledge of CC, GC and shudderthank god I don't :-). ( Accuracy, detail, substance, and specifics appear to be the kryptonite of most message broad presentations. Intellectual jugglery and total absence of concrete facts are the main styles of all that is sold on line. When asked for specifics, all the reasons for not providing any will be trotted out along with a series of obfuscations and misdirection, all with an utmost of lofty plausible could be sounding big words to make one appear intelligent. Opinions and spin and personal points of views misrepresented as facts is the basis of all that can be found in these discussions, for the most part. )
Re: [FairfieldLife] No Ground
On Jun 23, 2011, at 12:07 PM, blastedactresses wrote: Dear maskedzebra - all I see is a lot of intellectual jugglery and nothing concrete. Can you please, if it's even possible for you, describe in a few lines each on your enlightenment, the reasons why you thought it was mystical deceit and your current de-enlightenment process. Please use generic terms - there's someone like me who has no knowledge of CC, GC and shudderthank god I don't :-). ( Accuracy, detail, substance, and specifics appear to be the kryptonite of most message broad presentations. Intellectual jugglery and total absence of concrete facts are the main styles of all that is sold on line. When asked for specifics, all the reasons for not providing any will be trotted out along with a series of obfuscations and misdirection, all with an utmost of lofty plausible could be sounding big words to make one appear intelligent. Opinions and spin and personal points of views misrepresented as facts is the basis of all that can be found in these discussions, for the most part. ) For a mere 8 dollars and 50 cents the secrets of the multiverse could be yours!
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: LOVE IT! THANKS. GOT MY ATTENTION. You prove my pet theory: when a person's first person perspective comesunwittingly, adventitiouslythrough their so-called attempts at a third person perspective (e.g. what you are telling me here) and what you get is strong and healthythen time to: BECOME ALERT. I am, via your post, alerted to the contingent solipsistic tendency in meI have never shaken this since I was a small child. But you are the first person on this blog to convince me I should be aware of the need to mortify this temptation whenever my putative enlightenment is undergoing a vivisection. It kind of comes with the territory of discussing your experience doesn't it? I wasn't suggesting that you were more that way than I would be if I were doing the same. It wasn't as pointed as that. I was speculating on why Turq's reaction was different than my own in relating to you here. I could understand why he went that way, but for me it is not how I believe I will get the most from our interaction. I would never take part in a vivisection of someone's important inner life. (well that doesn't mean I can NEVER come off like an asshole here!) We all have to set our own boundaries for discussions here. It is easy to be kind of flip and mean with things other people cherish. I mean if you came back and said blues is repetitive crap played by people who never mastered the guitar, I really wouldn't care, even though I like it so much. As the Roman's say, there is not accounting for taste. But no matter how much the blues is my life, it is never my identity so I don't personalize someone's different musical taste as a statement about me. It is about them. And it does tell me something about the person. But when dealing with the identity level experiences in Maharishi's programs or other spiritual experiences, we don't have that separation usually. Although I think it is intellectually healthy to develop that ability. Will try to maintain some credibility on this blog, as I have already learned a lot (e.g. CDB on the blues). You'll keep me honest, Curtis. No doubt about THAT. So, as GWB said: Bring it on. I took some time to connect with you on an emotional level first so we could see each other through the kinder lens of rapport. I cherish my skepticism about all things spiritual, but I don't want to be a dick about it. I want to relate to people here as if we have already had our first beer and found out we both love Mario Batali's regional Italian cooking show. (Do you get him up there, he is my Italian cooking guru from the food network.) I am aware that the Mission is NOT Accomplished (mission = perfect self-knowledge, perfect disinterestedness, perfect understanding). Acknowledgement of being human is always a good start. Frankly if you said anything else I would become instantly bored. It's just that I can only respond meaningfully to criticism which stands apart in its merit from the motives of my critic. Although you have gotten some posts that have been critical, nobody knows you here really. I personally don't think you deserve criticism for sharing your perspective here. You are understandably sensitive to some harshness coming your way. But there are a lot of responses that come from a more accepting place, Whynotnow and Rick for two examples. And Vaj should have some more interesting comments on how your experiences fit into the Vedic tradition. I'm sure I am missing others. But I doubt you will find me a critic here. We already have a friendly connection. I am not interested in squandering that potential for communication on trying to be more right about something than you are. Let's just explore where we draw our different lines of reality and assume that the other person has good reasons for the lines they have drawn. I am a fan of the concepts around maintaining healthy emotional and intellectual boundaries. You don't have to share my perspective for me to try to understand yours, and vise versa. It is only if we can acknowledge and be cool with the differences that we have a chance of expanding our views. It's going to be fun, Curtis. I appreciate the warning and the hidden admonition. I'm not sure that was my intention but OK. You got outside yourself completely in our discussion of the blues, letting me spread my little wings and fly. Much appreciated. But don't you DARE question the truth of my enlightenment, OK? I don't question that you had a shift of your internal state that was radical enough for you to associate it with the terms Maharishi used for higher states. My experience of the term is based on my own experiences with his programs, so we may differ on what we mean by the term enlightenment. I'm not sure how clear Maharishi himself was on the concept of it or what he was experiencing. I
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: I am, via your post, alerted to the contingent solipsistic tendency in meI have never shaken this since I was a small child. But you are the first person on this blog to convince me I should be aware of the need to mortify this temptation whenever my putative enlightenment is undergoing a vivisection. It kind of comes with the territory of discussing your experience doesn't it? I wasn't suggesting that you were more that way than I would be if I were doing the same. It wasn't as pointed as that. I was speculating on why Turq's reaction was different than my own in relating to you here. I could understand why he went that way, but for me it is not how I believe I will get the most from our interaction. I would never take part in a vivisection of someone's important inner life. I'm curious, Curtis, as to whether you think that's what I was doing -- trying to slice and dice his important inner life. From my side, what I thought I was doing was saying that I didn't CARE much about his inner life, and that it wasn't important to me. As for vivisecting claims of supposed higher states of consciousness, Yes, I sometimes indulge in that (although I don't think I was in this case). I find it's an interesting way to see whether someone who claims to have achieved a state beyond ego or small self or whatever can walk the talk of their claim. As we have seen in the past, some can and some can't. I think that Tom Traynor did a pretty good job of presenting himself as somewhat self realized on this forum, without feeling the need to lash out at those who might not either buy it or be impressed by it. I think that Dr. Pete, in the rare times that he's made suggestions about where he's at, has similarly mainly walked his talk. I think that Rory, in his most recent appearance on this forum (as opposed to his earlier playdates) did a pretty good job of keeping it in his pants, emotional-reaction-wise. Others...uh...not so much. As I've said before, I don't think we can vivisect what is essentially unprovable. Those who claim to be in higher states of consciousness are undoubtedly having *some* experience. What it is neither I nor (in my opinion) they can really say. It's when they (as blastedactresses has pointed out so well recently) try to turn their subjective experiences into some kind of truth or pronouncement that I might be tempted to have a little Let's poke at the supposedly enlightened person and see if there's really no self in there or whether there's a really BIG one waiting to lash out in defensiveness and anger fun with them. Like blastedactresses, I do not buy that anyone can extrapolate from their subjective experience something called truth. In my view, whatever they experience is nothing more -- or less -- than subjective experience. As such, there is nothing that I or anyone else can say to prove or disprove it. When they cross the line from relating a subjective experience to making pronouncements about what that experience means, and calling those pronouncements truth, I might try to remind them that what they're saying may be nothing more than opinion, and thus no more truth than anyone else's opinion. ANYONE else's opinion. And that includes supposed holy men from the present or past. I don't swing behind the idea that ANY of their opinions is truth.
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
Thanks for explaining that in some detail. I think we go about connecting to new posters in different and sometimes opposite ways. And I am using what your way discovers about someone as I hope you are mine. I try for rapport an common ground and you break rapport and see how they react. Both seem valid and suite our own personality and interests here. Seeing if a person can discuss their inner life in a non defensive manor is certainly a prerequisite to being able to hang, and we are both sensitive to the implications of claims of higher states with regard to what kind of higher ground they are claiming in a discussion. I think we both have a pretty negative reaction to that. But I don't share your conclusions about what it shows about the ego. In my model it reveals the health of emotional and intellectual boundaries. It they are healthy and strong then we can discuss. But if they are not, then there is a fragility of personality that I want to respect. To answer your first question, I didn't miss your point but I did miss some of your motivation so thanks for clearing that up. Personally I think MZ is going to stimulate a LOT of discussions with posters here and I am all for that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: I am, via your post, alerted to the contingent solipsistic tendency in meI have never shaken this since I was a small child. But you are the first person on this blog to convince me I should be aware of the need to mortify this temptation whenever my putative enlightenment is undergoing a vivisection. It kind of comes with the territory of discussing your experience doesn't it? I wasn't suggesting that you were more that way than I would be if I were doing the same. It wasn't as pointed as that. I was speculating on why Turq's reaction was different than my own in relating to you here. I could understand why he went that way, but for me it is not how I believe I will get the most from our interaction. I would never take part in a vivisection of someone's important inner life. I'm curious, Curtis, as to whether you think that's what I was doing -- trying to slice and dice his important inner life. From my side, what I thought I was doing was saying that I didn't CARE much about his inner life, and that it wasn't important to me. As for vivisecting claims of supposed higher states of consciousness, Yes, I sometimes indulge in that (although I don't think I was in this case). I find it's an interesting way to see whether someone who claims to have achieved a state beyond ego or small self or whatever can walk the talk of their claim. As we have seen in the past, some can and some can't. I think that Tom Traynor did a pretty good job of presenting himself as somewhat self realized on this forum, without feeling the need to lash out at those who might not either buy it or be impressed by it. I think that Dr. Pete, in the rare times that he's made suggestions about where he's at, has similarly mainly walked his talk. I think that Rory, in his most recent appearance on this forum (as opposed to his earlier playdates) did a pretty good job of keeping it in his pants, emotional-reaction-wise. Others...uh...not so much. As I've said before, I don't think we can vivisect what is essentially unprovable. Those who claim to be in higher states of consciousness are undoubtedly having *some* experience. What it is neither I nor (in my opinion) they can really say. It's when they (as blastedactresses has pointed out so well recently) try to turn their subjective experiences into some kind of truth or pronouncement that I might be tempted to have a little Let's poke at the supposedly enlightened person and see if there's really no self in there or whether there's a really BIG one waiting to lash out in defensiveness and anger fun with them. Like blastedactresses, I do not buy that anyone can extrapolate from their subjective experience something called truth. In my view, whatever they experience is nothing more -- or less -- than subjective experience. As such, there is nothing that I or anyone else can say to prove or disprove it. When they cross the line from relating a subjective experience to making pronouncements about what that experience means, and calling those pronouncements truth, I might try to remind them that what they're saying may be nothing more than opinion, and thus no more truth than anyone else's opinion. ANYONE else's opinion. And that includes supposed holy men from the present or past. I don't swing behind the idea that ANY of their opinions is truth.
Re: [FairfieldLife] No Ground
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:07 PM, blastedactresses no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Dear maskedzebra - all I see is a lot of intellectual jugglery and nothing concrete. Can you please, if it's even possible for you, describe in a few lines each on your enlightenment, the reasons why you thought it was mystical deceit and your current de-enlightenment process. Please use generic terms - there's someone like me who has no knowledge of CC, GC and shudderthank god I don't :-). ( Accuracy, detail, substance, and specifics appear to be the kryptonite of most message broad presentations. Intellectual jugglery and total absence of concrete facts are the main styles of all that is sold on line. When asked for specifics, all the reasons for not providing any will be trotted out along with a series of obfuscations and misdirection, all with an utmost of lofty plausible could be sounding big words to make one appear intelligent. Opinions and spin and personal points of views misrepresented as facts is the basis of all that can be found in these discussions, for the most part. ) Is it also required when one's been enlightened or announces they are enlightened to have diarrhea of the keyboard?I read very carefully and critically and am able to piece together the meaning of text badly translated from language to language to language and finally English. It's been a requirement of my job for decades.I read here the worlds of the Enlightened and there are nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs and occasionally some punctuation scattered amongst the run ons. Yet I can't piece together this verb with that noun, this adjective with this adverb. I thought that the closer one gets to enlightenment, the fewer extraneous thoughts one gets. The more organized the mind is, the more able the person is to crystallize even the most ineffable so that it can be understood by each reader/hearer, though of course the understanding is at the level of the person receiving the words. Seems to me that disordered thoughts wind up in disordered words. That make it up as you go along jargon is another sign of disordered thoughts and a basic inability to connect with other people. I'd expect that as all this becomes THAT, communication becomes easier and clearer between both speaker and listener. No?
[FairfieldLife] No Ground
Is it also required when one's been enlightened or announces they are enlightened to have diarrhea of the keyboard?I read very carefully and critically and am able to piece together the meaning of text badly translated from language to language to language and finally English. It's been a requirement of my job for decades.I read here the worlds of the Enlightened and there are nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs and occasionally some punctuation scattered amongst the run ons. Yet I can't piece together this verb with that noun, this adjective with this adverb. I thought that the closer one gets to enlightenment, the fewer extraneous thoughts one gets. The more organized the mind is, the more able the person is to crystallize even the most ineffable so that it can be understood by each reader/hearer, though of course the understanding is at the level of the person receiving the words. Seems to me that disordered thoughts wind up in disordered words. That make it up as you go along jargon is another sign of disordered thoughts and a basic inability to connect with other people. I'd expect that as all this becomes THAT, communication becomes easier and clearer between both speaker and listener. No? ( Perhaps. To my ear, most enlightened or enlightenment talk, and people who actually have the face to lob that word around, usually just sound like they are one-upping others. And I only ever hear it on the www. In real life, I never hear this word being used in every day conversations. It would just be embarrassing to do so I think. Also, I have been around a a lot of people and I have never met a person, who i admired or granted my attention to, who claimed to be or even ever once used the word enlightened or enlightenment . )
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
Response: I never anticipated I would be on the receiving end of a final knock-down argument like the one above. If I had known (I should have) such an extraordinary summing up of myself (negatively) were possible, don't worry, I would have STFU. But you see, Turq, I thought it appropriate to explain what my perspective is on enlightenment, TM, Maharishi.You have convinced me I was in a dream about this. ... turquoiseb: Given the fact that you felt the need to go on for another 275 words about this, color me not convinced that you are convinced. :-) Turq, STFU and let the people talk. This is NOT your newsgroup, it's Rick's. You've had fifteen years to post your POV. Get some sleep! I'll try to explain further. In my reply, I used an analogy to try to help you understand why some (like...uh...myself) might not be hanging on your every word as you talk, talk, talk about your subjective experiences and what you think they mean. I suggested that (on the receiving end) it was a lot like having to sit there and listen to someone going on and on about the vivid dream they had the previous night, and how incredibly meaningful that dream was to them. What possible relevance to my life could someone else's dream have? I *get* that it's important to the person trying to tell me how important it was to him, but it's just *not* important to me. Similarly, what possible relevance to my life could *your* subjective experience of supposed higher states of consciousness have, much less what you've decided they mean or don't mean? You strike me as someone who is used to easy audiences, meaning the kind of blissninny New Age people you might have met in Fairfield or in the TM movement. For many of them, someone talking about their supposed state of consciousness might be fascinating. They might sit there in rapt awe and let you go on and on about such subjective experiences, and a few of them might even be impressed by them. I'm...uh...not one of those people. I've had a few cool subjective experiences myself, and have no need to bolster my faith in any particular dogma or path by hearing stories told by those who claim to have reached one of the goals of such a path. Just bores my socks off, dude. It's NOT (despite what some would have you believe) that I have any particular problem with people claiming to have experienced supposed higher states of consciousness. How could I? I've had them myself. That said, I don't find it a terribly good use of my time to listen to others talk about *their* experiences, much less what they think they mean. Boring. I'd rather be off having experiences of my own. I'm not an easy audience for people wanting to talk, talk, talk about their subjective experiences. I've had my own. I'm also not the kinda person who is going to assume that what you say about your experiences or your purported state of consciousness -- past or present -- is true, just because you say it. Some people are. Given your reaction -- some would say overreaction -- to people not treating your words the way you wanted them to, you might be happier trying your spiel on easier audiences. I don't give a shit about your experiences decades ago in Fairfield. If you have any interest for me at all, it will be based on who and what you are today, here and now. And it will be based on what you can come up with to say that might have some relationship to my life. Talking about your subjective experiences and expecting people to be as fasc- inated by them as you were (and obviously still are) is just not gonna cut it. I'd rather read people swapping good recipes for lemon meringue pie. Are we clear? I have nothing against you. I'm not looking to knock you down. I'm just bored by some of your raps, that's all. They have no relevance to my life. And I some- times get the feeling that you don't CARE whether what you say has any relevance to my life, or anyone else's. You give the impression of someone writing with the expectation that others will find his subjective, inner life fascinating, just because he finds it fascinating. Some might. Many New Agers or long-term TMers might. I'm neither one of those. I'm just a guy who likes to jackpot ideas around for the fun of it, with other people who like the same thing. What I write on this forum is my OPINION, nothing more. I try my best to never claim that this opinion is either fact, or that anyone else should share it. You give the impression of someone who is convinced that his subjective view of the world and how it works is more than opinion. Good luck finding people who might agree with you about this. You haven't found one in me.
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
In a little less severe terms, I think this nails it. OTOH, I have been enjoying some of the other posts. But can anybody bite into this? Jiminy Christmas. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: MZ, here's a free clue to explain to you why I got no more than two sentences into the self-serving drivel below: I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR 'ENLIGHTENMENT.' It (meaning the stories you tell others and yourself about your experiences and what you think they mean or meant) obviously are very important to YOU, because you just won't STFU about them. All these years later and you still won't STFU about them. Someday you might want to figure out that expecting other people to be interested in your subjective state of consciousness is like expecting them to be interested in your retelling of a vivid dream experience you had the previous night. Ever try this? Ever watch people's eyes glaze over after a minute or so, as if they were thinking, Why oh why won't this guy STFU about an experience that was meaningful only to him? Clue: That's exactly what they were thinking. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Dear Rick, If my enlightenment was not the real deal, then in all that I say about enlightenment, I will be revealing this discrepancy between my version of Unity Consciousness and the real version. Somehow, if I was not in the same essential state of consciousness that Maharishi was in, someone like yourself would detect this in the absence of that perspective which would give legitimacy and credibility to everything I say about both what enlightenment is, and what it was like to be enlightened. The fact that you are forced to fall back on the a priori assumption that, because you believe enlightenment to be a real state of affairs (I believe it to be a real state of experience with consequent definitive parameters of behaviour and abilities, but for all that not a state of consciousness which is coincident with ultimate reality), and I am repudiating the metaphysical validity of enlightenmentclaiming I am now de-enlightened,it must perforce be the case that my enlightenment was not the real deal. Because, you see, if it had been the real deal, how could I, given your absolute belief in its ontological truthfulness, reject this belief, reject the truth of enlightenment? You must, because I am denouncing the state of enlightenment (and Unity Consciousness) as a form of extraordinary mystical deceit of the mind, conclude that: He was not really enlightened, because his ego is still intact, and besides, anyone who was REALLY enlightened, would not be able to make themselves unenlightened, nor would they dream of rejecting this state of consciousness as being false to reality. Given then your fundamental belief that enlightenment has to be true, you have no other choice but to write as you have written above, because, for you, it is never going to be a question of determining whether or not enlightenment corresponds to reality (whether it indeed is a true state of affairs for a human being and objectively and truthfully represents reality as it really is). For you enlightenment HAS TO BE TRUE. To question its intrinsic validity as a metaphysically bona fide state of human experience and functioning is tantamount to denying what essentially constitutes your highest vision of what life is all about. To deprive you of this belief is the functional equivalent of forcing you to give up your belief in God. For you, then, Rick, enlightenment (the belief in this reality) is as unquestioned and solid and irrefutable as someone else's belief that Christ was God. It is your religion. Why so? Because you cannot conceive, given your experiences and observations and history, of ever bringing it (the idea of enlightenment) before a tribunal of critical judgment wherelike the existence of Godit would be subject to real debate and argument. As to whether indeed it is a natural state of consciousness and functioning for the human person. You MUST therefore conclude that since I am on a mission to debunk your religion, and that I once claimed to have intimate familiarity with that religion (once having been according to my own testimony, the very embodiment of that religion: i.e. in Unity Consciousness), and now have disavowed that religion, that I WAS NEVER THEREFORE A TRUE BELIEVER IN THAT RELIGION. Or rather, never really knew what that religion (enlightenment) was all about. For me, Rick, the question is determined by my experience. I have never met or read about anyone who conclusively demonstrates to me that they are in possessionactual possessionof a more desirable state of consciousness then the one we were born into. Although paradoxically, had I met myself enlightened, in my non-enlightened state, I
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
Are you incapable of snipping, or just plain lazy? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Dear Rick, If my enlightenment was not the real deal, then in all that I say about enlightenment, I will be revealing this discrepancy between my version of Unity Consciousness and the real version. Somehow, if I was not in the same essential state of consciousness that Maharishi was in, someone like yourself would detect this in the absence of that perspective which would give legitimacy and credibility to everything I say about both what enlightenment is, and what it was like to be enlightened. The fact that you are forced to fall back on the a priori assumption that, because you believe enlightenment to be a real state of affairs (I believe it to be a real state of experience with consequent definitive parameters of behaviour and abilities, but for all that not a state of consciousness which is coincident with ultimate reality), and I am repudiating the metaphysical validity of enlightenmentclaiming I am now de-enlightened,it must perforce be the case that my enlightenment was not the real deal. Because, you see, if it had been the real deal, how could I, given your absolute belief in its ontological truthfulness, reject this belief, reject the truth of enlightenment? You must, because I am denouncing the state of enlightenment (and Unity Consciousness) as a form of extraordinary mystical deceit of the mind, conclude that: He was not really enlightened, because his ego is still intact, and besides, anyone who was REALLY enlightened, would not be able to make themselves unenlightened, nor would they dream of rejecting this state of consciousness as being false to reality. Given then your fundamental belief that enlightenment has to be true, you have no other choice but to write as you have written above, because, for you, it is never going to be a question of determining whether or not enlightenment corresponds to reality (whether it indeed is a true state of affairs for a human being and objectively and truthfully represents reality as it really is). For you enlightenment HAS TO BE TRUE. To question its intrinsic validity as a metaphysically bona fide state of human experience and functioning is tantamount to denying what essentially constitutes your highest vision of what life is all about. To deprive you of this belief is the functional equivalent of forcing you to give up your belief in God. For you, then, Rick, enlightenment (the belief in this reality) is as unquestioned and solid and irrefutable as someone else's belief that Christ was God. It is your religion. Why so? Because you cannot conceive, given your experiences and observations and history, of ever bringing it (the idea of enlightenment) before a tribunal of critical judgment wherelike the existence of Godit would be subject to real debate and argument. As to whether indeed it is a natural state of consciousness and functioning for the human person. You MUST therefore conclude that since I am on a mission to debunk your religion, and that I once claimed to have intimate familiarity with that religion (once having been according to my own testimony, the very embodiment of that religion: i.e. in Unity Consciousness), and now have disavowed that religion, that I WAS NEVER THEREFORE A TRUE BELIEVER IN THAT RELIGION. Or rather, never really knew what that religion (enlightenment) was all about. For me, Rick, the question is determined by my experience. I have never met or read about anyone who conclusively demonstrates to me that they are in possessionactual possessionof a more desirable state of consciousness then the one we were born into. Although paradoxically, had I met myself enlightened, in my non-enlightened state, I would certainly have believe in his (my) enlightenment as much as I believed in Maharishi's. My enlightenment was proven to me in ten thousand different waysin every moment of my life when I lived under that state of consciousness. No, for me, Rick, it is you who give yourself away, because you evidently cannot countenance the idea that enlightenment just might be what I say it is. But you are unwilling or unable to subject enlightenment to a true acid test. You have no surefire way of knowing whether enlightenment exists as a true and objectively valid state of consciousness. What is your proof that this state of consciousness exists such that you know it is the perfect representation of what reality is? By your reading of books on the subject? by your interviews with these guests who purportedly have entered into a state of realization? by your experience with Maharishi? Where does this absolute and unshakeable belief originate? I suggest it has been absorbed into your being through your TM and Maharishi
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: I am, via your post, alerted to the contingent solipsistic tendency in meI have never shaken this since I was a small child. But you are the first person on this blog to convince me I should be aware of the need to mortify this temptation whenever my putative enlightenment is undergoing a vivisection. It kind of comes with the territory of discussing your experience doesn't it? I wasn't suggesting that you were more that way than I would be if I were doing the same. It wasn't as pointed as that. I was speculating on why Turq's reaction was different than my own in relating to you here. I could understand why he went that way, but for me it is not how I believe I will get the most from our interaction. I would never take part in a vivisection of someone's important inner life. I'm curious, Curtis, as to whether you think that's what I was doing -- trying to slice and dice his important inner life. From my side, what I thought I was doing was saying that I didn't CARE much about his inner life, and that it wasn't important to me. Why couldn't you say it in about 100 fewer words, and it's always so self referral, me, me, me. Okay, you made that point. It doesn't work for you. So move on. I think we got the point. As for vivisecting claims of supposed higher states of consciousness, Yes, I sometimes indulge in that (although I don't think I was in this case). I find it's an interesting way to see whether someone who claims to have achieved a state beyond ego or small self or whatever can walk the talk of their claim. As we have seen in the past, some can and some can't. I think that Tom Traynor did a pretty good job of presenting himself as somewhat self realized on this forum, without feeling the need to lash out at those who might not either buy it or be impressed by it. I think that Dr. Pete, in the rare times that he's made suggestions about where he's at, has similarly mainly walked his talk. I think that Rory, in his most recent appearance on this forum (as opposed to his earlier playdates) did a pretty good job of keeping it in his pants, emotional-reaction-wise. Others...uh...not so much. As I've said before, I don't think we can vivisect what is essentially unprovable. Those who claim to be in higher states of consciousness are undoubtedly having *some* experience. What it is neither I nor (in my opinion) they can really say. It's when they (as blastedactresses has pointed out so well recently) try to turn their subjective experiences into some kind of truth or pronouncement that I might be tempted to have a little Let's poke at the supposedly enlightened person and see if there's really no self in there or whether there's a really BIG one waiting to lash out in defensiveness and anger fun with them. Like blastedactresses, I do not buy that anyone can extrapolate from their subjective experience something called truth. In my view, whatever they experience is nothing more -- or less -- than subjective experience. As such, there is nothing that I or anyone else can say to prove or disprove it. When they cross the line from relating a subjective experience to making pronouncements about what that experience means, and calling those pronouncements truth, I might try to remind them that what they're saying may be nothing more than opinion, and thus no more truth than anyone else's opinion. ANYONE else's opinion. And that includes supposed holy men from the present or past. I don't swing behind the idea that ANY of their opinions is truth.
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: I might be tempted to have a little Let's poke at the supposedly enlightened person and see if there's really no self in there or whether there's a really BIG one waiting to lash out in defensiveness and anger fun with them. You know it does get a little old, but evidently not for you. Having spoken your peace you might just want stand back and let things play out. But, you seem to feel a need to keep on keeping on. When I think everyone else would wish that you would sometimes just STFU. Like blastedactresses, I do not buy that anyone can extrapolate from their subjective experience something called truth. In my view, whatever they experience is nothing more -- or less -- than subjective experience. As such, there is nothing that I or anyone else can say to prove or disprove it. When they cross the line from relating a subjective experience to making pronouncements about what that experience means, and calling those pronouncements truth, I might try to remind them that what they're saying may be nothing more than opinion, and thus no more truth than anyone else's opinion. ANYONE else's opinion. And that includes supposed holy men from the present or past. I don't swing behind the idea that ANY of their opinions is truth.
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: When they cross the line from relating a subjective experience to making pronouncements about what that experience means, and calling those pronouncements truth, I might try to remind them that what they're saying may be nothing more than opinion, and thus no more truth than anyone else's opinion. ANYONE else's opinion. And that includes supposed holy men from the present or past. I don't swing behind the idea that ANY of their opinions is truth. Says he whose buttons cannot be pushed.
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Thanks for explaining that in some detail. I think we go about connecting to new posters in different and sometimes opposite ways. And I am using what your way discovers about someone as I hope you are mine. I try for rapport an common ground and you break rapport and see how they react. Both seem valid and suite our own personality and interests here. Do you see the results in the different styles? In one case what results is dialogue that leads to some possible new perspectives. The other results in mostly boring rehashes. Seeing if a person can discuss their inner life in a non defensive manor is certainly a prerequisite to being able to hang, and we are both sensitive to the implications of claims of higher states with regard to what kind of higher ground they are claiming in a discussion. I think we both have a pretty negative reaction to that. But I don't share your conclusions about what it shows about the ego. In my model it reveals the health of emotional and intellectual boundaries. It they are healthy and strong then we can discuss. But if they are not, then there is a fragility of personality that I want to respect. To answer your first question, I didn't miss your point but I did miss some of your motivation so thanks for clearing that up. Personally I think MZ is going to stimulate a LOT of discussions with posters here and I am all for that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: I am, via your post, alerted to the contingent solipsistic tendency in meI have never shaken this since I was a small child. But you are the first person on this blog to convince me I should be aware of the need to mortify this temptation whenever my putative enlightenment is undergoing a vivisection. It kind of comes with the territory of discussing your experience doesn't it? I wasn't suggesting that you were more that way than I would be if I were doing the same. It wasn't as pointed as that. I was speculating on why Turq's reaction was different than my own in relating to you here. I could understand why he went that way, but for me it is not how I believe I will get the most from our interaction. I would never take part in a vivisection of someone's important inner life. I'm curious, Curtis, as to whether you think that's what I was doing -- trying to slice and dice his important inner life. From my side, what I thought I was doing was saying that I didn't CARE much about his inner life, and that it wasn't important to me. As for vivisecting claims of supposed higher states of consciousness, Yes, I sometimes indulge in that (although I don't think I was in this case). I find it's an interesting way to see whether someone who claims to have achieved a state beyond ego or small self or whatever can walk the talk of their claim. As we have seen in the past, some can and some can't. I think that Tom Traynor did a pretty good job of presenting himself as somewhat self realized on this forum, without feeling the need to lash out at those who might not either buy it or be impressed by it. I think that Dr. Pete, in the rare times that he's made suggestions about where he's at, has similarly mainly walked his talk. I think that Rory, in his most recent appearance on this forum (as opposed to his earlier playdates) did a pretty good job of keeping it in his pants, emotional-reaction-wise. Others...uh...not so much. As I've said before, I don't think we can vivisect what is essentially unprovable. Those who claim to be in higher states of consciousness are undoubtedly having *some* experience. What it is neither I nor (in my opinion) they can really say. It's when they (as blastedactresses has pointed out so well recently) try to turn their subjective experiences into some kind of truth or pronouncement that I might be tempted to have a little Let's poke at the supposedly enlightened person and see if there's really no self in there or whether there's a really BIG one waiting to lash out in defensiveness and anger fun with them. Like blastedactresses, I do not buy that anyone can extrapolate from their subjective experience something called truth. In my view, whatever they experience is nothing more -- or less -- than subjective experience. As such, there is nothing that I or anyone else can say to prove or disprove it. When they cross the line from relating a subjective experience to making pronouncements about what that experience means, and calling those pronouncements truth, I might try to remind them that what they're saying may be nothing more than opinion, and thus no more
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: masked zebra wrote: RESPONSE: Not a single person in my lifetime has demonstrated impeccably and infallibly that such a ground of all being even exists. That is, if I am to go by his/her claim to become the embodiment of such an irreducible level of reality. In fact, I would go further: I have not observed a single person who even gives evidence that they have made contact with such a fundamental form of reality. **The only person who can conclusively demonstrate it is you. Even then of course, you can fool yourself.:-) All the teachers teach are pointers to self realization. No one can give that to you. I look at it as reaching a point of mental coordination, unifying the heart and intellect so that life gets smoother. So far as I can tell, that is the big super pay off to initial self-realization, budding enlightenment, life gets smoother. Still have to do the same stuff, but it is easier. As to what one book or teacher refers to that way of living doesn't matter. It's all based on experience anyway, so if you want to call it blue cheese, please do. **I like to think of it as better coordination because coordination is based on practice and use, vs. belief, so there is nothing to memorize or keep in mind. Just a matter of coordination over time. The dawning of self-realization is mechanical. For me the 'home of all the laws of nature' is a metaphysical fiction. Sure, the EXPERIENCE seems to verify this reality (via TM), but, given how wonderfully convincing one's initial experiences are of TM (the auguring of everything MMY promises), the final pay-off (nothing to show for it, an extraordinarily disappointing trajectory of 'progress' in one's 'evolution' over decades of doing TM), logically forces one to conclude: THESE EXPERIENCES ARE FALSE; that is, they DO NOT COINCIDE WITH REALITY. There IS no such thing as Enlightenment. **Enlightenment isn't an experience. There may be a noticeable transition to establishing that first permanent candle of silence within, but once established, learning and developing and changing has to continue - nothing to hold it back, so enlightenment doesn't really point to one experience, except there may be a sudden and lasting realization of that first candle of silence being kindled. After that, life continues like it did before. RESPONSE: Is all of this coming out of your own private experience, whynotnow? If it is experimental knowledge than obviously we have a sharp disagreement. But if it is a dogma which you are attempting to verify in your own life by looking at your life from this perspective, then all that I can say is: even if you achieve enlightenment, it will represent a reality that, while as you say, is mechanically produced, nevertheless misrepresents what reality is. Saint Francis Xavier went to India to destroy those Hindu idols. And did all this within an undeniable supernatural grace. I have made the empirical discoveryafter writing 11 books (while Enlightened) and conducting countless theatrical seminars (also while enlightened) that I was profoundly DECEIVED. And I have made it my life's ambition to eliminate the deleterious effects of Maharishi and TM upon my mind and body. I sense the sincerity, clarity, and confidence in what you say in rebuttal to what I have said. But I also sense that where I have come to know what I say isif you will permit me to say thisa deeper place, closer to reality than from where you are contradicting me. But who knows? You may be dead right. It's just that I gave up a lot to become de-enlightened (powers, abilities, context), but I had no choice: life was punishing me for my error, the error of Enlightenment. Because while such a state of consciousness does indeed exist, it is createdyes, mechanicallyand sustained by mystical intelligences (devas) which ultimately do not seek the happiness of human beings. On the contrary. And I know this from direct experience. Thank you for your comments. It took me a while to get to them.
RE: [FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
Unfortunately, no time for much participation in these wonderful discussions, but one quick point: MZ, you seem to be evaluating enlightenment, Indian spirituality, etc., on the basis of your experience of enlightenment. What makes you think your experience was the real deal, and bears any similarity to what truly enlightened people were/are experiencing? I read one of your books 20-30 years ago, and watched the RC show with fascination from the sidelines, but I didn't get the sense that you were living enlightenment. It was some sort of awakening which to you had the flavor of Unity, but your ego was very much intact, which is not the case with genuine, abiding awakening. IOW, a very preliminary glimpse, profound as it may have been, but not a standard by which anyone else's state or tradition could reliably be judged or evaluated. I say this in friendship. No negativity implied or intended. One other thing. Don't jump to conclusions. Cultivate what Zen calls don't know mind. Very helpful tool. Not only consistency, but certainty, is the hobgoblin of little minds.
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
thx, MZ,...I agree with your overall perspective since it agrees with (imo - seems to) with Nichiren's Buddhism. Main idea: Enlightenment is a process, not an end-goal in itself. ... If true, this pov would provide an alternative to much of Advaita (especially MMY's brand), Neo-Advaita; but less of an alternative to Muktananda's Kashmir Saivism. I've seen Muktananda several times in the after-physical life state. He was trapped in the lower astral but is making gradual progress toward the higher planes (probably where his guru Nityananda is). ... However (a) if your objections to the Gods or gods include Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, Yidams, etc; I would object to that. In a way, the GOHONZON can be considered a Deity, although it's essentialy a Mandala embracing (foremost); the impersonal Holographic Principle. ... Although your statements on the surface may contradict Jim's, imo there's not much of a disagreement IF: (a) one accepts that there are certain evolutionary jumps (saltations, quantum leaps), representing discrete levels of Reality through direct realization, having listed signposts. ... But after this juncture, many of the Advaitins diverge from the eternally progressive model, stating outright that after CC or higher, (and physical death), the purpose of life has been fulfilled and there's no more finite existence (any bodies gross or subtle simply disintegrate with the components being dispersed...poof!). ... Maybe that's what you're objecting to. At any rate, this end of existence model is contradicted by Shankara; and alternative models of eternal growth and evolution may be found within Buddhism and other Traditions. ... http://www.originalpurity.org/gurulin/graphics/amiti.jpg PS: the notion of E. as a process has the advantage of being a great leveler since all sincere seekers after the truth would be in the same boat, with no claimants on a pedestal saying I've got It with the rest of the crowd somehow lower. ... If there have been any Enlightened persons in Nichiren's Buddhism, it's unlikely they would state they've arrived, since arrival is an eternal progression in that modelno end of story. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: masked zebra wrote: RESPONSE: Not a single person in my lifetime has demonstrated impeccably and infallibly that such a ground of all being even exists. That is, if I am to go by his/her claim to become the embodiment of such an irreducible level of reality. In fact, I would go further: I have not observed a single person who even gives evidence that they have made contact with such a fundamental form of reality. **The only person who can conclusively demonstrate it is you. Even then of course, you can fool yourself.:-) All the teachers teach are pointers to self realization. No one can give that to you. I look at it as reaching a point of mental coordination, unifying the heart and intellect so that life gets smoother. So far as I can tell, that is the big super pay off to initial self-realization, budding enlightenment, life gets smoother. Still have to do the same stuff, but it is easier. As to what one book or teacher refers to that way of living doesn't matter. It's all based on experience anyway, so if you want to call it blue cheese, please do. **I like to think of it as better coordination because coordination is based on practice and use, vs. belief, so there is nothing to memorize or keep in mind. Just a matter of coordination over time. The dawning of self-realization is mechanical. For me the 'home of all the laws of nature' is a metaphysical fiction. Sure, the EXPERIENCE seems to verify this reality (via TM), but, given how wonderfully convincing one's initial experiences are of TM (the auguring of everything MMY promises), the final pay-off (nothing to show for it, an extraordinarily disappointing trajectory of 'progress' in one's 'evolution' over decades of doing TM), logically forces one to conclude: THESE EXPERIENCES ARE FALSE; that is, they DO NOT COINCIDE WITH REALITY. There IS no such thing as Enlightenment. **Enlightenment isn't an experience. There may be a noticeable transition to establishing that first permanent candle of silence within, but once established, learning and developing and changing has to continue - nothing to hold it back, so enlightenment doesn't really point to one experience, except there may be a sudden and lasting realization of that first candle of silence being kindled. After that, life continues like it did before. RESPONSE: Is all of this coming out of your own private experience, whynotnow? If it is experimental knowledge than obviously we have a sharp disagreement. But if it is a dogma which you are attempting to verify in your own life by looking at
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
yeah, I don't really write speculatively, so yeah, based on my experience. Some people interpret stuff differently. Fine with me. I think you hit on something when you mention having given up context when you gave up Enlightenment. There is something to that, in that I must hold and identify an I am enlightened thought in order to validate the state. On the other hand I find the experiential reality of being self realized, enlightened, is that there is maybe ten percent of the volume of thoughts in the mind as before. (That, in and of itself, is a huge relief and burden lifted.) Not as much junk mail - lol. So whatever it is called or not called, enlightenment or something else, it can only claim its identity with us when we think it, and since my thoughts are much less, I don't think about enlightenment or self realization much at all. It is either there or not, doesn't matter which. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: masked zebra wrote: RESPONSE: Not a single person in my lifetime has demonstrated impeccably and infallibly that such a ground of all being even exists. That is, if I am to go by his/her claim to become the embodiment of such an irreducible level of reality. In fact, I would go further: I have not observed a single person who even gives evidence that they have made contact with such a fundamental form of reality. **The only person who can conclusively demonstrate it is you. Even then of course, you can fool yourself.:-) All the teachers teach are pointers to self realization. No one can give that to you. I look at it as reaching a point of mental coordination, unifying the heart and intellect so that life gets smoother. So far as I can tell, that is the big super pay off to initial self-realization, budding enlightenment, life gets smoother. Still have to do the same stuff, but it is easier. As to what one book or teacher refers to that way of living doesn't matter. It's all based on experience anyway, so if you want to call it blue cheese, please do. **I like to think of it as better coordination because coordination is based on practice and use, vs. belief, so there is nothing to memorize or keep in mind. Just a matter of coordination over time. The dawning of self-realization is mechanical. For me the 'home of all the laws of nature' is a metaphysical fiction. Sure, the EXPERIENCE seems to verify this reality (via TM), but, given how wonderfully convincing one's initial experiences are of TM (the auguring of everything MMY promises), the final pay-off (nothing to show for it, an extraordinarily disappointing trajectory of 'progress' in one's 'evolution' over decades of doing TM), logically forces one to conclude: THESE EXPERIENCES ARE FALSE; that is, they DO NOT COINCIDE WITH REALITY. There IS no such thing as Enlightenment. **Enlightenment isn't an experience. There may be a noticeable transition to establishing that first permanent candle of silence within, but once established, learning and developing and changing has to continue - nothing to hold it back, so enlightenment doesn't really point to one experience, except there may be a sudden and lasting realization of that first candle of silence being kindled. After that, life continues like it did before. RESPONSE: Is all of this coming out of your own private experience, whynotnow? If it is experimental knowledge than obviously we have a sharp disagreement. But if it is a dogma which you are attempting to verify in your own life by looking at your life from this perspective, then all that I can say is: even if you achieve enlightenment, it will represent a reality that, while as you say, is mechanically produced, nevertheless misrepresents what reality is. Saint Francis Xavier went to India to destroy those Hindu idols. And did all this within an undeniable supernatural grace. I have made the empirical discoveryafter writing 11 books (while Enlightened) and conducting countless theatrical seminars (also while enlightened) that I was profoundly DECEIVED. And I have made it my life's ambition to eliminate the deleterious effects of Maharishi and TM upon my mind and body. I sense the sincerity, clarity, and confidence in what you say in rebuttal to what I have said. But I also sense that where I have come to know what I say isif you will permit me to say thisa deeper place, closer to reality than from where you are contradicting me. But who knows? You may be dead right. It's just that I gave up a lot to become de-enlightened (powers, abilities, context), but I had no choice: life was punishing me for my error, the error of Enlightenment. Because while such a state of consciousness does indeed exist, it is createdyes, mechanicallyand sustained by mystical
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote: Dear Rick, If my enlightenment was not the real deal, then in all that I say about enlightenment, I will be revealing this discrepancy between my version of Unity Consciousness and the real version. Somehow, if I was not in the same essential state of consciousness that Maharishi was in, someone like yourself would detect this in the absence of that perspective which would give legitimacy and credibility to everything I say about both what enlightenment is, and what it was like to be enlightened. The fact that you are forced to fall back on the a priori assumption that, because you believe enlightenment to be a real state of affairs (I believe it to be a real state of experience with consequent definitive parameters of behaviour and abilities, but for all that not a state of consciousness which is coincident with ultimate reality), and I am repudiating the metaphysical validity of enlightenmentclaiming I am now de-enlightened,it must perforce be the case that my enlightenment was not the real deal. Because, you see, if it had been the real deal, how could I, given your absolute belief in its ontological truthfulness, reject this belief, reject the truth of enlightenment? You must, because I am denouncing the state of enlightenment (and Unity Consciousness) as a form of extraordinary mystical deceit of the mind, conclude that: He was not really enlightened, because his ego is still intact, and besides, anyone who was REALLY enlightened, would not be able to make themselves unenlightened, nor would they dream of rejecting this state of consciousness as being false to reality. Given then your fundamental belief that enlightenment has to be true, you have no other choice but to write as you have written above, because, for you, it is never going to be a question of determining whether or not enlightenment corresponds to reality (whether it indeed is a true state of affairs for a human being and objectively and truthfully represents reality as it really is). For you enlightenment HAS TO BE TRUE. To question its intrinsic validity as a metaphysically bona fide state of human experience and functioning is tantamount to denying what essentially constitutes your highest vision of what life is all about. To deprive you of this belief is the functional equivalent of forcing you to give up your belief in God. For you, then, Rick, enlightenment (the belief in this reality) is as unquestioned and solid and irrefutable as someone else's belief that Christ was God. It is your religion. Why so? Because you cannot conceive, given your experiences and observations and history, of ever bringing it (the idea of enlightenment) before a tribunal of critical judgment wherelike the existence of Godit would be subject to real debate and argument. As to whether indeed it is a natural state of consciousness and functioning for the human person. You MUST therefore conclude that since I am on a mission to debunk your religion, and that I once claimed to have intimate familiarity with that religion (once having been according to my own testimony, the very embodiment of that religion: i.e. in Unity Consciousness), and now have disavowed that religion, that I WAS NEVER THEREFORE A TRUE BELIEVER IN THAT RELIGION. Or rather, never really knew what that religion (enlightenment) was all about. For me, Rick, the question is determined by my experience. I have never met or read about anyone who conclusively demonstrates to me that they are in possessionactual possessionof a more desirable state of consciousness then the one we were born into. Although paradoxically, had I met myself enlightened, in my non-enlightened state, I would certainly have believe in his (my) enlightenment as much as I believed in Maharishi's. My enlightenment was proven to me in ten thousand different waysin every moment of my life when I lived under that state of consciousness. No, for me, Rick, it is you who give yourself away, because you evidently cannot countenance the idea that enlightenment just might be what I say it is. But you are unwilling or unable to subject enlightenment to a true acid test. You have no surefire way of knowing whether enlightenment exists as a true and objectively valid state of consciousness. What is your proof that this state of consciousness exists such that you know it is the perfect representation of what reality is? By your reading of books on the subject? by your interviews with these guests who purportedly have entered into a state of realization? by your experience with Maharishi? Where does this absolute and unshakeable belief originate? I suggest it has been absorbed into your being through your TM and Maharishi experience just like Mother's Milk. It has taken up residence inside of you in a way that utterly forbids any re-examination of it along the lines that I am pursuing in these
[FairfieldLife] No Ground Of All Being [was Re: Help a Saint - Lose]
masked zebra wrote: RESPONSE: Not a single person in my lifetime has demonstrated impeccably and infallibly that such a ground of all being even exists. That is, if I am to go by his/her claim to become the embodiment of such an irreducible level of reality. In fact, I would go further: I have not observed a single person who even gives evidence that they have made contact with such a fundamental form of reality. **The only person who can conclusively demonstrate it is you. Even then of course, you can fool yourself.:-) All the teachers teach are pointers to self realization. No one can give that to you. I look at it as reaching a point of mental coordination, unifying the heart and intellect so that life gets smoother. So far as I can tell, that is the big super pay off to initial self-realization, budding enlightenment, life gets smoother. Still have to do the same stuff, but it is easier. As to what one book or teacher refers to that way of living doesn't matter. It's all based on experience anyway, so if you want to call it blue cheese, please do. **I like to think of it as better coordination because coordination is based on practice and use, vs. belief, so there is nothing to memorize or keep in mind. Just a matter of coordination over time. The dawning of self-realization is mechanical. For me the 'home of all the laws of nature' is a metaphysical fiction. Sure, the EXPERIENCE seems to verify this reality (via TM), but, given how wonderfully convincing one's initial experiences are of TM (the auguring of everything MMY promises), the final pay-off (nothing to show for it, an extraordinarily disappointing trajectory of 'progress' in one's 'evolution' over decades of doing TM), logically forces one to conclude: THESE EXPERIENCES ARE FALSE; that is, they DO NOT COINCIDE WITH REALITY. There IS no such thing as Enlightenment. **Enlightenment isn't an experience. There may be a noticeable transition to establishing that first permanent candle of silence within, but once established, learning and developing and changing has to continue - nothing to hold it back, so enlightenment doesn't really point to one experience, except there may be a sudden and lasting realization of that first candle of silence being kindled. After that, life continues like it did before.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque -- Let a 1000 Blossoms Bloom
On Aug 26, 2010, at 10:02 PM, emptybill wrote: Judy, In spite of my stridence, my point is simple. Become educated about Islam. I do not mean the Islam of academics and apologists but rather how Islam is actually understood and actually practiced in Muslim culture. There is no such thing as religion in Islam; this is a Western notion. For any Muslim who is a real Muslim. there is only deen – life lived according to Sharia. This is the doorway to understanding the reality of Dar-as-Salaam. In my estimation, this is the only way to understand the threat of Islam to Western culture and more specifically to America. Whether we can ever come to peaceful resolution, I don't know. I personally doubt it. No matter what happens, I don't believe in Kumbaya accommodation. For you personally, you will decide to believe as you feel fit. However, the actual truth is that we both are not just Kafir (in the sense of non-believers) but we are the ones who obstruct or veil the truth. This is not my judgment but the verdict of Islam. I remember posting a website dedicated to the progressive dhimmitude in (IIRC) Bangladesh whereby as Islam came into the ascendency, Hindu's lost the right to own land and other out and out horrors. Despite being a list with a large number of admirers of Hindu culture and religion, people said very little. This isn't some right-wing whacko reaction to Islam and India, it's about the gradual institution of Sharia that I've heard about from academics who lived in Bangladesh and Bengal for many years and what they've observed. I don't believe that most westerners are even aware that these events are occurring, you certainly don't hear about it on the nightly news. Same in Kashmir, where hundreds of thousands of pundit families (in our lifetimes) have fled for their lives. No one wants to talk about it, as many fear being branded anti-Islamic when these are simple realities of our modern world. It's happening today.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque -- Let a 1000 Blossoms Bloom
...I think extremist Christianity is *far* more of a threat to this country than moderate Islam. yifuxero: that's for sure! (threat of Christian Fundamentalism). Though Huckabee seems to be a nice fellow, I would have difficulty accepting a person as President... So, you would not be in favor of electing a president that was a fundamentalist Christian or a fundamentalist Muslim (or fundamentalist Mormon). Judy seems to agree that would be very serious threat, but we just elected a fundamentalist president - Barak Obama, who was born into a fundamentalist Muslim family and became a fundamentalist Christian. From what I've read, Obama may not think building the center at the present site is a very wise thing to do. Is Obama wrong? There seems to be a disconnect here. What, exactly, would you be objecting to - that Obama attended a fundamentalist church for twenty years, or that all of his relatives are Muslims? Why would a person's religion have anything to do with being the President? who believes that humans walked the earth at the same time as the dinosaurs. The world - particularly the US - needs a major paradigm shift. Sorry to disappoint the TM TB'ers (should any be reading this); but MMY's influence has been close to zero in uplifting Global awareness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque -- Let a 1000 Blossoms Bloom
possessed while she was already married to a husband on the battlefield; she is lawful for you as long as you give her time to be cleansed. (2) He also said, when asked about the meaning of the verse that allows a man to have intercourse with a woman captive even though she is married,(3) that this interpretation is based, no doubt, on the traditions of Muhammad regarding captive women. Abu Sa`id al-Khudri narrated: On the day of Hunain, the Messenger of God sent a detachment to Awtas. They arrayed for the battle, fought them, conquered them and took some women captives from them. Yet, some of the friends of the Messenger of God were hesitant [to have sex with them] on account of their unbelieving husbands. Then God revealed: 'Nor [should you marry] any [already] married women.' Since the relationship between a man and concubines has nothing to do with the issue of marriage, and they theoretically don't have the rights and competence that free women enjoy, we don't find a separate chapter on them in the sources of jurisprudence. This can be explained by the fact that they aren't regarded as persons, but as possessions belonging to their owner, as was the case in the Old Testament. (7) Therefore, they cannot marry their owners legally. Yet, a slave-owner has the right to marry his female slave off without her permission-- he then acts as her owner, not her guardian. As for the children of that slave, they are slaves like their mother, whether their father is a freeman or a slave, since they belong to their mother's owner. It is true that the Sharia allows a Muslim to enjoy [sexual relations with] all his slave women, provided that they be Muslims [or of the people of the Book] and unmarried, yet it emphasises the great difference between this kind of marriage and regular legal marriage. As long as the man remains the owner of the slave woman, they argue, this same right of ownership prevents him from marrying her. If he wants to marry her, he has to pay her a marriage dowry (sadaq). As to children of the slave from her owner, they are as free as the other children of the man in all respects.(8) A man has the right to marry someone else's slave, if she is a believer, as long as her owner approves of it. The Sharia, however, places additional conditions on this sort of marriage, since the children coming from this marriage have no freedom.(9) The most striking evidence (although by no means the only one) is the great massacre of the Jewish tribe of Quraiza (bani koreitza). The Quraiza had sided with the Meccans during the War of the Ditch in 627 A.D and Muhammad, after having successfully repelled the Meccan army, laid siege to the Quraiza fortress with the aim to 'punish' the Quraiza tribe. He soon overcame his puny adversary -- and subsequently even refused the defeated tribe's offer to depart from their land leaving all their possessions behind. The 700 to 800 men of the Quraiza tribe were taken to trenches built over night and one by one struck with fateful blows tossing them into the mass grave. The men thus massacred -- the more fortunate of the women were taken as concubines (with Mohammad himself taking as his concubine a beautiful Jewess by the name of Rihana) or forced into marriage with Muslims. The rest of the women and children were sold as slaves among the Bedouin tribes of Nejd. --- On Thu, 8/26/10, tartbrain no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque -- Let a 1000 Blossoms Bloom Date: Thursday, August 26, 2010, 8:36 AM Â It seems we are not yet in the full sun of the AoE. I envision such a time where the impulse would be, amongst most if not all -- Wow, great idea. A community center focused on cross-cultural understanding and brother/sisterhood. And a place to show gratitude too (for which formal worship is a type of that). We should build a similar place for our traditions, and encourage all of the wonderful and magnificent cultural traditions of the world to create similar places of understanding, gratitude and communications. We should build a ring of such centers around ground zero, twelve would be nice. To commemorate peace, and brother/sisterhood throughout the world. (Oh, and also the same at other ground zeros -- Hiroshoma, Drezdin, concentration camps of past, and refugee camps of present, major suicide bomber and roadside bomb sites, bleitzkeig sites, gulags, Normandy, large battle field sites) Â
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque?
Joe: As you know Tex, I was referring to this one, No, Joe, this one - the one in the thread where she waxed you for saying the 'Tex' lied about the New Yorkers being against the Islamic Center. Everyone knows you're prejudiced against people that live in Texas. How many times have you called me 'Tex' and how many times has Judy called me a 'willytex'? You two can't even bring yourselves to address me by my name. That's alright, if you want to dehumanize me, but just for the record, my name is Richard. Why are you so prejudiced. Joe? Most New Yorkers are for it Tex. Again, you lie. Most New Yorkers are against it, Joe, like in the article from the New York Times that I posted. You are supposed to read the messages BEFORE you call people liars. authfriend: Actually, he's correct, for NYC and NY State as a whole. It's Manhattanites--who haven't been deceived by the lies--who are for it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: Joe: As you know Tex, I was referring to this one, No, Joe, this one - the one in the thread where she waxed you Apparently Judy likes her men Brazil-style, first Willie, now Joe. for saying the 'Tex' lied about the New Yorkers being against the Islamic Center. Everyone knows you're prejudiced against people that live in Texas. How many times have you called me 'Tex' and how many times has Judy called me a 'willytex'? You two can't even bring yourselves to address me by my name. That's alright, if you want to dehumanize me, but just for the record, my name is Richard. Why are you so prejudiced. Joe? Most New Yorkers are for it Tex. Again, you lie. Most New Yorkers are against it, Joe, like in the article from the New York Times that I posted. You are supposed to read the messages BEFORE you call people liars. authfriend: Actually, he's correct, for NYC and NY State as a whole. It's Manhattanites--who haven't been deceived by the lies--who are for it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque -- Let a 1000 Blossoms Bloom
BTW, I think extremist Christianity is *far* more of a threat to this country than moderate Islam... Joe: My god yes. All we need is for one of these loony-tunes (think Sarah Palin) who say that God/Jesus is speaking directly to them to get in to the White House. From what I've read, Joe, the current president is a religious fundamentalist. If Pastor Jeremiah Wright isn't a fundie, I don't know what is! You're not making any sense. Why would a person's religion have anything to do with running for public office in the U.S.A.? One potential beacon could be President Barack Obama, the country's first black president and the son of a Muslim father. But Obama suffers politically from the erroneous belief by some Americans that he was born outside the United States and that he, a Christian, is really a Muslim... Read more: 'Analysis: Lack of national Muslim leader seen in NY furor' By Daniel Trotta Reuters, August 25, 2010 http://tinyurl.com/27egojk Wait, we already did! W. Bush said that he took advice from his real father, not his biological father. That worked out really well didn't it. Religious extremism of any stripe is not a good thing. To bring this home to FFL, there is a reason the current TMO is referred to as the TM Taliban.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque -- Let a 1000 Blossoms Bloom
Not going to say what kind of person your sputtering furies sound like. emptybill: Become educated about Islam... When Rauf and Khan won approval for their 15-story mosque-topped Cordoba House from a Manhattan community board this spring, they advertised their project as all about doing their part for harmony and healing near the site of the Sept. 11 attacks. When it turned out that a majority of New Yorkers, and Americans generally, think this project is more like rubbing salt in a wound, Khan shifted focus. She's now talking about the Cordoba project as a test of American religious tolerance. If a majority of Americans--cognizant that the Sept. 11 attacks were carried out by Muslims, in the name of Islam--think it's inappropriate to stage that test near the edge of Ground Zero, Khan's retort is that they must be bigots... Read more: 'Cashing In On Ground Zero' Forbes, August 24, 2010 http://tinyurl.com/266m85l
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque -- Let a 1000 Blossoms Bloom
When you throw enough crap out there, something is bound to stick. Part of Al Qaeda's strategy (not that these Muslims are) is to use our own laws and values against us to attack us. Build the Mosque/ Islamic Community Center so close to ground zero and Al Qaeda calls it a victory center for their cause, stop it, and they and their sympathizers call Americans bigots and Islamophobic. Their problem is, that's worse than the pot calling the kettle black since nobody is making an attempt to stop building the center any place else, while in Saudi Arabia you can't so much as bring a scripture from any other religion into their country, much less build a house of worship. From: WillyTex willy...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, August 27, 2010 6:56:46 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque -- Let a 1000 Blossoms Bloom Not going to say what kind of person your sputtering furies sound like. emptybill: Become educated about Islam... When Rauf and Khan won approval for their 15-story mosque-topped Cordoba House from a Manhattan community board this spring, they advertised their project as all about doing their part for harmony and healing near the site of the Sept. 11 attacks. When it turned out that a majority of New Yorkers, and Americans generally, think this project is more like rubbing salt in a wound, Khan shifted focus. She's now talking about the Cordoba project as a test of American religious tolerance. If a majority of Americans--cognizant that the Sept. 11 attacks were carried out by Muslims, in the name of Islam--think it's inappropriate to stage that test near the edge of Ground Zero, Khan's retort is that they must be bigots... Read more: 'Cashing In On Ground Zero' Forbes, August 24, 2010 http://tinyurl.com/266m85l
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque -- Let a 1000 Blossoms Bloom
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@ wrote: Judy, In spite of my stridence, my point is simple. Become educated about Islam. I do not mean the Islam of academics and apologists but rather how Islam is actually understood and actually practiced in Muslim culture. There is no such thing as religion in Islam; this is a Western notion. For any Muslim who is a real Muslim. there is only deen life lived according to Sharia. This is the doorway to understanding the reality of Dar-as-Salaam. What I'm interested in is how moderate American Muslims understand Islam, and Sharia. I've seen no evidence that their views are as extreme as you describe and a good deal of evidence to the contrary. Perhaps you'd consider such people not real Muslims, but where does that leave us? When you accuse Fareed Zakaria of deliberately disguising the degree of utter contradiction that exists between Islam and the West, if you're including moderate Islam in this country, I just have to tune out, because I don't believe that accusation is rational. BTW, I think extremist Christianity is *far* more of a threat to this country than moderate Islam. I believe Islam is a Theocracy, this in itself is inconsistent with American Democracy and the separation of church and state.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque -- Let a 1000 Blossoms Bloom
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u wg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@ wrote: Judy, In spite of my stridence, my point is simple. Become educated about Islam. I do not mean the Islam of academics and apologists but rather how Islam is actually understood and actually practiced in Muslim culture. There is no such thing as religion in Islam; this is a Western notion. For any Muslim who is a real Muslim. there is only deen life lived according to Sharia. This is the doorway to understanding the reality of Dar-as-Salaam. What I'm interested in is how moderate American Muslims understand Islam, and Sharia. I've seen no evidence that their views are as extreme as you describe and a good deal of evidence to the contrary. Perhaps you'd consider such people not real Muslims, but where does that leave us? When you accuse Fareed Zakaria of deliberately disguising the degree of utter contradiction that exists between Islam and the West, if you're including moderate Islam in this country, I just have to tune out, because I don't believe that accusation is rational. BTW, I think extremist Christianity is *far* more of a threat to this country than moderate Islam. I believe Islam is a Theocracy, this in itself is inconsistent with American Democracy and the separation of church and state. What I'm interested in is how moderate American Muslims understand Islam, and Sharia. I've seen no evidence that their views are as extreme as you describe and a good deal of evidence to the contrary. (I can say it a third time if you don't get it this time around.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque -- Let a 1000 Blossoms Bloom
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: snip From what I've read, Joe, the current president is a religious fundamentalist. No, he's a liberal Christian. If Pastor Jeremiah Wright isn't a fundie, I don't know what is! You're right, you don't know what Christian fundamentalism is.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque -- Let a 1000 Blossoms Bloom
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@... wrote: snip When you throw enough crap out there, something is bound to stick. Part of Al Qaeda's strategy (not that these Muslims are) is to use our own laws and values against us to attack us. Build the Mosque/ Islamic Community Center so close to ground zero and Al Qaeda calls it a victory center for their cause, stop it, and they and their sympathizers call Americans bigots and Islamophobic. Thing is, if the center is built and proves to be what it promises, it will not only refute Al Qaeda's victory claim but will be a very public rejection of Muslim extremism. If the center's opponents succeed in preventing it from being built, however, the claim that Americans are Islamophobic bigots will be much more difficult to refute. Their problem is, that's worse than the pot calling the kettle black since nobody is making an attempt to stop building the center any place else However, there are several other places in the U.S. where there is intense opposition to Muslims building *anything*. And there's a Christian church in Florida whose pastor has organized a Burn the Koran Day and is urging people all over the country to send Korans to the church to be burned.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque?
As you know Tex, I was referring to this one, No, Joe, this one - the one in the thread where she waxed you tartbrain: Apparently Judy likes her men Brazil-style, first Willie, now Joe. The only man I know of, fer sure, that Judy likes is a guy living down in Brazil - at least she USED to like him. For years this guy posted smears against the Maharihsi, Jerry Jarvis, Texans, Christians, Mormons, and Jews, in hundreds of posts on Usenet, without a peep of protest from Judy. But when he voted against Hillary Clinton, Judy started hating the guy to no end! Now he can hardly get in a word edgewise, without her going ballistic. Judy called me a bigot for posting a news clip about the New York Islamic Center. Go figure. This gal Judy is a rabid left-winger liberal, fer sure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque?
Beats me Tex, I guess you just inspire my prejudice. At least I'm only prejudiced against one person. That would be you Willy-boy. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: Joe: As you know Tex, I was referring to this one, No, Joe, this one - the one in the thread where she waxed you for saying the 'Tex' lied about the New Yorkers being against the Islamic Center. Everyone knows you're prejudiced against people that live in Texas. How many times have you called me 'Tex' and how many times has Judy called me a 'willytex'? You two can't even bring yourselves to address me by my name. That's alright, if you want to dehumanize me, but just for the record, my name is Richard. Why are you so prejudiced. Joe? Most New Yorkers are for it Tex. Again, you lie. Most New Yorkers are against it, Joe, like in the article from the New York Times that I posted. You are supposed to read the messages BEFORE you call people liars. authfriend: Actually, he's correct, for NYC and NY State as a whole. It's Manhattanites--who haven't been deceived by the lies--who are for it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque?
No, it's Willy who is obsessed with waxing. My sources tell me that he gets a full body Brazilian style wax every few days. He likes to be smooth as a cue-ball when visiting his cemetery. --- In FairfieldLifeing @yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willytex@ wrote: Joe: As you know Tex, I was referring to this one, No, Joe, this one - the one in the thread where she waxed you Apparently Judy likes her men Brazil-style, first Willie, now Joe. for saying the 'Tex' lied about the New Yorkers being against the Islamic Center. Everyone knows you're prejudiced against people that live in Texas. How many times have you called me 'Tex' and how many times has Judy called me a 'willytex'? You two can't even bring yourselves to address me by my name. That's alright, if you want to dehumanize me, but just for the record, my name is Richard. Why are you so prejudiced. Joe? Most New Yorkers are for it Tex. Again, you lie. Most New Yorkers are against it, Joe, like in the article from the New York Times that I posted. You are supposed to read the messages BEFORE you call people liars. authfriend: Actually, he's correct, for NYC and NY State as a whole. It's Manhattanites--who haven't been deceived by the lies--who are for it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfr...@... wrote: No, it's Willy who is obsessed with waxing. My sources tell me that he gets a full body Brazilian style wax every few days. He likes to be smooth as a cue-ball when visiting his cemetery. Is that what Jesus would have done? (Your sources seem pretty close to ground zero. I pray they don't have video.) --- In FairfieldLifeing @yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willytex@ wrote: Joe: As you know Tex, I was referring to this one, No, Joe, this one - the one in the thread where she waxed you Apparently Judy likes her men Brazil-style, first Willie, now Joe. for saying the 'Tex' lied about the New Yorkers being against the Islamic Center. Everyone knows you're prejudiced against people that live in Texas. How many times have you called me 'Tex' and how many times has Judy called me a 'willytex'? You two can't even bring yourselves to address me by my name. That's alright, if you want to dehumanize me, but just for the record, my name is Richard. Why are you so prejudiced. Joe? Most New Yorkers are for it Tex. Again, you lie. Most New Yorkers are against it, Joe, like in the article from the New York Times that I posted. You are supposed to read the messages BEFORE you call people liars. authfriend: Actually, he's correct, for NYC and NY State as a whole. It's Manhattanites--who haven't been deceived by the lies--who are for it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willytex@ wrote: authfriend: Not surprsingly, this is yet another falsehood designed to smear Rauf and his project: Now obviously, these are Muslim historians writing two-to-three-hundred years after the events they describe... I did not write the last three lines above, as you know. You imported them and pretended you were quoting me. As you also know, the notion that the name Cordoba is somehow incendiary is false. Imam Feisal says he chose 'Cordoba' in recollection of a time when the rest of Europe had sunk into the Dark Ages but Muslims, Jews and Christians created an oasis of art, culture and science. Some months ago I watched a most inspiring program on Cordoba by art historian Andrew Graham-Dixon (The Art of Spain). Unfortunately I don't think it's easy to watch outside the UK. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b008wthr I say inspiring as it gave an intimation of a better life, an idea of what an age of enlightenment might look like: a comfortable marriage of religion, philosophy, science, learning, sensual and aesthetic pleasure, and religious and social tolerance. I don't know if it was all true, or just over-sold by Graham- Dixon. But I found it really impressive! From a review: When the invading Moors - the Arabs and Berbers of north Africa - took Córdoba in 711, they made it into one of the great cities of the world. In the congenial environment of Andalusia they created a culture that could also encompass the other two peoples of the book, Christians and Jews, with a rare degree of enlightenment. They made every aspect of life - eating, drinking, bathing - into a work of art, and had a deep commitment to learning. Their grasp of mathematics overflowed spectacularly into the intricate patterns that filled every inch of their most splendid buildings. The motivation was religious - to avoid the representation of God or living beings - and the combination of ornate decoration with water-filled gardens at the Alhambra palace in Granada came close to creating the illusion that paradise, the garden that awaits the righteous, can be made on Earth. http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/jan/31/art By the by, he also visited the church of levitating nun Teresa of Ávila in the series. From Wiki: ...the ascent of the soul in four stages (The Autobiography Chs. 10-22): The first, or mental prayer, is that of devout contemplation or concentration, the withdrawal of the soul from without and specially the devout observance of the passion of Christ and penitence (Autobiography 11.20). The second is the prayer of quiet, in which at least the human will is lost in that of God by virtue of a charismatic, supernatural state given of God, while the other faculties, such as memory, reason, and imagination, are not yet secure from worldly distraction. While a partial distraction is due to outer performances such as repetition of prayers and writing down spiritual things, yet the prevailing state is one of quietude (Autobiography 14.1). The devotion of union is not only a supernatural but an essentially ecstatic state. Here there is also an absorption of the reason in God, and only the memory and imagination are left to ramble. This state is characterized by a blissful peace, a sweet slumber of at least the higher soul faculties, a conscious rapture in the love of God. The fourth is the devotion of ecstasy or rapture, a passive state, in which the consciousness of being in the body disappears (2 Corinthians 12:2-3). Sense activity ceases; memory and imagination are also absorbed in God or intoxicated. Body and spirit are in the throes of a sweet, happy pain, alternating between a fearful fiery glow, a complete impotence and unconsciousness, and a spell of strangulation, intermitted sometimes by such an ecstatic flight that the body is literally lifted into space. This after half an hour is followed by a reactionary relaxation of a few hours in a swoon-like weakness, attended by a negation of all the faculties in the union with God. From this the subject awakens in tears; it is the climax of mystical experience, productive of the trance. (Indeed, she was said to have been observed levitating during Mass on more than one occasion.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Imam Feisal says he chose 'Cordoba' in recollection of a time when the rest of Europe had sunk into the Dark Ages but Muslims, Jews and Christians created an oasis of art, culture and science. Some months ago I watched a most inspiring program on Cordoba by art historian Andrew Graham-Dixon (The Art of Spain). Unfortunately I don't think it's easy to watch outside the UK. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b008wthr I say inspiring as it gave an intimation of a better life, an idea of what an age of enlightenment might look like: a comfortable marriage of religion, philosophy, science, learning, sensual and aesthetic pleasure, and religious and social tolerance. I don't know if it was all true, or just over-sold by Graham- Dixon. But I found it really impressive! Probably a bit oversold as to the reality, but it's the ideal that's important here. snip Their grasp of mathematics overflowed spectacularly into the intricate patterns that filled every inch of their most splendid buildings. The motivation was religious - to avoid the representation of God or living beings - and the combination of ornate decoration with water-filled gardens at the Alhambra palace in Granada came close to creating the illusion that paradise, the garden that awaits the righteous, can be made on Earth. Tangentially, Slate.com had a fascinating article back in December 2001 pointing out that Minoru Yamasaki had made liberal use of Islamic religious architectural themes in designing the World Trade Center. The implied narrow, pointed arches on the bottom part of the facades, for example, were very Islamic. (The Western Gothic arch was derived from the Islamic original.) The design of the courtyard, moreover, echoed that of the Qa'ba courtyard at Mecca. Plus which, Yamasaki was one of the favorite architects of the Saudi royal family. The article concludes: Having rejected modernism and the Saudi royal family, it's no surprise that Bin Laden would turn against Yamasaki's work in particular. He must have seen how Yamasaki had clothed the World Trade Center, a monument of Western capitalism, in the raiment of Islamic spirituality. Such mixing of the sacred and the profane is old hat to us--after all, Cass Gilbert's classic Woolworth Building, dubbed the Cathedral to Commerce, is decked out in extravagant Gothic regalia. But to someone who wants to purify Islam from commercialism, Yamasaki's implicit Mosque to Commerce would be anathema. To Bin Laden, the World Trade Center was probably not only an international landmark but also a false idol. http://www.slate.com/id/2060207 In this light, that famous poignant photograph of the sliver of facade left standing after the towers collapsed is even more iconic than we realized.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque?
So, why are most New Yorkers opposed? Joe: Just for you Tex: So, why are most New Yorkers opposed, Joe? Glenn Beck calling Imam Rauf a good muslim on Good Morning America: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008230004
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque?
Now obviously, these are Muslim historians writing two-to-three-hundred years after the events they describe... authfriend: I did not write the last three lines above, as you know. So, you don't agree that obviously, these are Muslim historians writing two-to-three-hundred years after the events they describe. You imported them and pretended you were quoting me. Quoting the author of the site you cited. As you also know, the notion that the name Cordoba is somehow incendiary is false. Not incendiary to you. But it is a fact that the Cordoba Mosque in Sapin used to be a Christian church, but was converted to a mosque during the Islamic conquest of Spain and was captured in 711 by a Muslim army. You failed to point this out. Imam Feisal says he chose 'Cordoba' in recollection of a time when the rest of Europe had sunk into the Dark Ages but Muslims, Jews and Christians created an oasis of art, culture and science. http://www.economist.com/node/16743239 If any of you had legitimate complaints against building the center, you wouldn't have to keep lying about it. Most New Yorkers are objecting to the center but I have no opinion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: So, why are most New Yorkers opposed? Because they've been misled and misinformed by the right-wing bigots such as yourself. That's a statewide poll, BTW. A majority of Manhattan residents are in favor of it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: Now obviously, these are Muslim historians writing two-to-three-hundred years after the events they describe... authfriend: I did not write the last three lines above, as you know. So, you don't agree that obviously, these are Muslim historians writing two-to-three-hundred years after the events they describe. I did not express an opinion either way, as you know. You imported them and pretended you were quoting me. Quoting the author of the site you cited. You imported those lines and pretended you were quoting me. As you also know, the notion that the name Cordoba is somehow incendiary is false. Not incendiary to you. Not incendiary to anyone who's aware of the history, as you know. But it is a fact that the Cordoba Mosque in Sapin used to be a Christian church, but was converted to a mosque during the Islamic conquest of Spain and was captured in 711 by a Muslim army. You failed to point this out. The link I provided points out all the relevant information, including the above, as you know. Imam Feisal says he chose 'Cordoba' in recollection of a time when the rest of Europe had sunk into the Dark Ages but Muslims, Jews and Christians created an oasis of art, culture and science. http://www.economist.com/node/16743239 If any of you had legitimate complaints against building the center, you wouldn't have to keep lying about it. Most New Yorkers are objecting to the center As I noted in another post, most *Manhattanites* are in favor of it. They're a lot harder for the bigots such as yourself to mislead. but I have no opinion. Bullshit. You wouldn't be pushing lies about it if you didn't. Have you ever had anybody spit at you? Please consider yourself virtually spat upon.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfr...@... wrote: Most New Yorkers are for it Tex. Again, you lie. It's what you do. Actually, he's correct, for NYC and NY State as a whole. It's Manhattanites--who haven't been deceived by the lies-- who are for it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willytex@ wrote: So, why are most New Yorkers opposed? Joe: Just for you Tex: So, why are most New Yorkers opposed, Joe? Glenn Beck calling Imam Rauf a good muslim on Good Morning America: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008230004
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque?
Most New Yorkers are for it Tex. Again, you lie. Most New Yorkers are against it, Joe, like in the article from the New York Times that I posted. You are supposed to read the messages BEFORE you call people liars. authfriend: Actually, he's correct, for NYC and NY State as a whole. It's Manhattanites--who haven't been deceived by the lies--who are for it. From what I've read, over 68 percent of the American people think it's wrong for Daisey Khan and her husband to build a mosque so close to the World Trade Center site. Demonizing that 68 percent of the American people as 'Islamophobic' or 'extremists' or saying that they 'hate' muslims while insisting on building a mosque at that site only irritates the situation. Nobody is talking about denying Khan and her husband the right to worship their God. This issue isn't going away. It's likely to be even more contentious in coming days and not because of the right wing 'ginning up' controversy. It's because the organizers of the mosque are attempting to ram it down the throat of a public which opposes it... Read more: 'Ground Zero Mosque: Where Do These People Come From?' http://tinyurl.com/38yuoem
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque?
So, why are most New Yorkers opposed? authfriend: Because they've been misled and misinformed The entire 68% of Americans have been misled and misinformed - I don't think so. by the right-wing bigots such as yourself. This is just another obvious example of prejudice against people that live in Texas. I did not state my opinion about the Islamic Center in New York City. Apparently you and Joe are the bigots! That's a statewide poll, BTW. A majority of Manhattan residents are in favor of it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque?
If any of you had legitimate complaints against building the center, you wouldn't have to keep lying about it. Joe: Indeed. Willy has had no coherent comebacks to any of the truth regarding this matter that has been thrown at him. Therefore he does what he does he lies... You can't lie about the facts, Joe. Some 62 per cent are now against the project compared to 54 per cent in July. Rauf's comments drew condemnation from Debra Burlingame, head of 9/11 Families for a Strong America, who said they left her feeling disgusted. 'This man is out there preaching politics and advancing anti-American propaganda,' she said... Read more: 'Islamic cleric behind Ground Zero mosque says U.S. has killed more innocent civilians than Al Qaeda' By Daniel Bates Daily Mail, August 24, 2010 http://tinyurl.com/2vpezsg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque?
I have no opinion. authfriend: Bullshit. You wouldn't be pushing lies about it if you didn't. Have you ever had anybody spit at you? Please consider yourself virtually spat upon. Stop the lying, Judy, you know that I didn't post an opinion of wheteher or not the Islamic Center in New York should be built two blocks from Ground Zero. But if the New Yorkers don't want an Islamic Center in downtown New York, two blocks from Ground Zero, who am I to say otherwise? You live in New Jersey! What's it to you if the Sufis have a church in Manhattan or not? What's it to you if a guy down in Texas wants to discuss a church in Manhattan? Maybe you should just shut your big pie hole and stop 'spiting' on everybody that doesn't agree with you! Still, it's worth pointing out that, as offensive as Rauf's post-9/11 comments were, they pale in comparison to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's now-infamous post-9/11 declaration that the chickens have come home to roost... Read more: 'Ground Zero mosque: A bittersweet moment in American religious history' By Eric Trager New York Daily News, August 5, 2010 http://tinyurl.com/26fnmx6
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque -- Let a 1000 Blossoms Bloom
It seems we are not yet in the full sun of the AoE. I envision such a time where the impulse would be, amongst most if not all -- Wow, great idea. A community center focused on cross-cultural understanding and brother/sisterhood. And a place to show gratitude too (for which formal worship is a type of that). We should build a similar place for our traditions, and encourage all of the wonderful and magnificent cultural traditions of the world to create similar places of understanding, gratitude and communications. We should build a ring of such centers around ground zero, twelve would be nice. To commemorate peace, and brother/sisterhood throughout the world. (Oh, and also the same at other ground zeros -- Hiroshoma, Drezdin, concentration camps of past, and refugee camps of present, major suicide bomber and roadside bomb sites, bleitzkeig sites, gulags, Normandy, large battle field sites)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: Most New Yorkers are for it Tex. Again, you lie. Most New Yorkers are against it, Joe, like in the article from the New York Times that I posted. You are supposed to read the messages BEFORE you call people liars. authfriend: Actually, he's correct, for NYC and NY State as a whole. It's Manhattanites--who haven't been deceived by the lies--who are for it. From what I've read, over 68 percent of the American people think it's wrong for Daisey Khan and her husband to build a mosque so close to the World Trade Center site. Demonizing that 68 percent of the American people as 'Islamophobic' or 'extremists' or saying that they 'hate' muslims while insisting on building a mosque at that site only irritates the situation. Of course, I didn't say either. I said people had been *misled* by the right-wing bigoted extremists. Nobody is talking about denying Khan and her husband the right to worship their God. Nobody is saying anybody is talking about denying them this right. Try *for once* making an argument without hauling out battalions of straw men. This issue isn't going away. It's likely to be even more contentious in coming days and not because of the right wing 'ginning up' controversy. It's because the organizers of the mosque are attempting to ram it down the throat of a public which opposes it... And the public opposes it *because of the bigoted right- wing ginning it up,* involving huge numbers of lies and misleading statements.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque -- Let a 1000 Blossoms Bloom
). As to children of the slave from her owner, they are as free as the other children of the man in all respects.(8) A man has the right to marry someone else's slave, if she is a believer, as long as her owner approves of it. The Sharia, however, places additional conditions on this sort of marriage, since the children coming from this marriage have no freedom.(9) The most striking evidence (although by no means the only one) is the great massacre of the Jewish tribe of Quraiza (bani koreitza). The Quraiza had sided with the Meccans during the War of the Ditch in 627 A.D and Muhammad, after having successfully repelled the Meccan army, laid siege to the Quraiza fortress with the aim to 'punish' the Quraiza tribe. He soon overcame his puny adversary -- and subsequently even refused the defeated tribe's offer to depart from their land leaving all their possessions behind. The 700 to 800 men of the Quraiza tribe were taken to trenches built over night and one by one struck with fateful blows tossing them into the mass grave. The men thus massacred -- the more fortunate of the women were taken as concubines (with Mohammad himself taking as his concubine a beautiful Jewess by the name of Rihana) or forced into marriage with Muslims. The rest of the women and children were sold as slaves among the Bedouin tribes of Nejd. --- On Thu, 8/26/10, tartbrain no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque -- Let a 1000 Blossoms Bloom Date: Thursday, August 26, 2010, 8:36 AM It seems we are not yet in the full sun of the AoE. I envision such a time where the impulse would be, amongst most if not all -- Wow, great idea. A community center focused on cross-cultural understanding and brother/sisterhood. And a place to show gratitude too (for which formal worship is a type of that). We should build a similar place for our traditions, and encourage all of the wonderful and magnificent cultural traditions of the world to create similar places of understanding, gratitude and communications. We should build a ring of such centers around ground zero, twelve would be nice. To commemorate peace, and brother/sisterhood throughout the world. (Oh, and also the same at other ground zeros -- Hiroshoma, Drezdin, concentration camps of past, and refugee camps of present, major suicide bomber and roadside bomb sites, bleitzkeig sites, gulags, Normandy, large battle field sites)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: I have no opinion. authfriend: Bullshit. You wouldn't be pushing lies about it if you didn't. Have you ever had anybody spit at you? Please consider yourself virtually spat upon. Stop the lying, Judy, you know that I didn't post an opinion of wheteher or not the Islamic Center in New York should be built two blocks from Ground Zero. Bullshit. You wouldn't be pushing lies about t if you didn't. But if the New Yorkers don't want an Islamic Center in downtown New York, two blocks from Ground Zero, who am I to say otherwise? Presumably you're a citizen of the United States and can express your opinion on anything you want. And BTW, Manhattanites--the center is to be built in downtown Manhattan--are in favor of it being two blocks from ground zero. You live in New Jersey! What's it to you if the Sufis have a church in Manhattan or not? What was it to the folks from all over the country who joined the marches in Selma if blacks were being discriminated against there? First they came for the Jews...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque?
Manhattan residents are what I was speaking of Judybut I see where New Yorkers is too broad a phrase (even though it's the one most often used to describe Manhattanites.) I suspect that's what Tex had in mind as well, but he'll surely grab on to the life raft offered. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: Most New Yorkers are for it Tex. Again, you lie. It's what you do. Actually, he's correct, for NYC and NY State as a whole. It's Manhattanites--who haven't been deceived by the lies-- who are for it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willytex@ wrote: So, why are most New Yorkers opposed? Joe: Just for you Tex: So, why are most New Yorkers opposed, Joe? Glenn Beck calling Imam Rauf a good muslim on Good Morning America: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008230004
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque?
Still smarting from the waxing Judy gave you, eh Tex? Relax and try to calm down fella. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: Most New Yorkers are for it Tex. Again, you lie. Most New Yorkers are against it, Joe, like in the article from the New York Times that I posted. You are supposed to read the messages BEFORE you call people liars. authfriend: Actually, he's correct, for NYC and NY State as a whole. It's Manhattanites--who haven't been deceived by the lies--who are for it. From what I've read, over 68 percent of the American people think it's wrong for Daisey Khan and her husband to build a mosque so close to the World Trade Center site. Demonizing that 68 percent of the American people as 'Islamophobic' or 'extremists' or saying that they 'hate' muslims while insisting on building a mosque at that site only irritates the situation. Nobody is talking about denying Khan and her husband the right to worship their God. This issue isn't going away. It's likely to be even more contentious in coming days and not because of the right wing 'ginning up' controversy. It's because the organizers of the mosque are attempting to ram it down the throat of a public which opposes it... Read more: 'Ground Zero Mosque: Where Do These People Come From?' http://tinyurl.com/38yuoem
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfr...@... wrote: Manhattan residents are what I was speaking of Judybut I see where New Yorkers is too broad a phrase (even though it's the one most often used to describe Manhattanites.) Not really, Joe. Everyone who lives in any of the five boroughs considers themselves a New Yorker. It's really only non-New Yorkers who would use the term to refer only to Manhattanites. I suspect that's what Tex had in mind as well, but he'll surely grab on to the life raft offered. He was hoping everyone would assume New Yorkers meant Manhattanites. He knew it didn't.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque?
Most New Yorkers are for it Tex. Again, you lie. It's what you do. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: So, why are most New Yorkers opposed? Joe: Just for you Tex: So, why are most New Yorkers opposed, Joe? Glenn Beck calling Imam Rauf a good muslim on Good Morning America: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008230004
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque -- Let a 1000 Blossoms Bloom
, as was the case in the Old Testament. (7) Therefore, they cannot marry their owners legally. Yet, a slave-owner has the right to marry his female slave off without her permission-- he then acts as her owner, not her guardian. As for the children of that slave, they are slaves like their mother, whether their father is a freeman or a slave, since they belong to their mother's owner. It is true that the Sharia allows a Muslim to enjoy [sexual relations with] all his slave women, provided that they be Muslims [or of the people of the Book] and unmarried, yet it emphasises the great difference between this kind of marriage and regular legal marriage. As long as the man remains the owner of the slave woman, they argue, this same right of ownership prevents him from marrying her. If he wants to marry her, he has to pay her a marriage dowry (sadaq). As to children of the slave from her owner, they are as free as the other children of the man in all respects.(8) A man has the right to marry someone else's slave, if she is a believer, as long as her owner approves of it. The Sharia, however, places additional conditions on this sort of marriage, since the children coming from this marriage have no freedom.(9) The most striking evidence (although by no means the only one) is the great massacre of the Jewish tribe of Quraiza (bani koreitza). The Quraiza had sided with the Meccans during the War of the Ditch in 627 A.D and Muhammad, after having successfully repelled the Meccan army, laid siege to the Quraiza fortress with the aim to 'punish' the Quraiza tribe. He soon overcame his puny adversary -- and subsequently even refused the defeated tribe's offer to depart from their land leaving all their possessions behind. The 700 to 800 men of the Quraiza tribe were taken to trenches built over night and one by one struck with fateful blows tossing them into the mass grave. The men thus massacred -- the more fortunate of the women were taken as concubines (with Mohammad himself taking as his concubine a beautiful Jewess by the name of Rihana) or forced into marriage with Muslims. The rest of the women and children were sold as slaves among the Bedouin tribes of Nejd. --- On Thu, 8/26/10, tartbrain no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque -- Let a 1000 Blossoms Bloom Date: Thursday, August 26, 2010, 8:36 AM Â It seems we are not yet in the full sun of the AoE. I envision such a time where the impulse would be, amongst most if not all -- Wow, great idea. A community center focused on cross-cultural understanding and brother/sisterhood. And a place to show gratitude too (for which formal worship is a type of that). We should build a similar place for our traditions, and encourage all of the wonderful and magnificent cultural traditions of the world to create similar places of understanding, gratitude and communications. We should build a ring of such centers around ground zero, twelve would be nice. To commemorate peace, and brother/sisterhood throughout the world. (Oh, and also the same at other ground zeros -- Hiroshoma, Drezdin, concentration camps of past, and refugee camps of present, major suicide bomber and roadside bomb sites, bleitzkeig sites, gulags, Normandy, large battle field sites) Â
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque?
I'm sure that's true and it's why most of the country commonly uses New York to refer to Manhatten. They say New York State or name a borough (I use a studio in Brooklyn) to get more literal about other-than-Manhatten places. Sloppy language use, but certainly quite common. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: Manhattan residents are what I was speaking of Judybut I see where New Yorkers is too broad a phrase (even though it's the one most often used to describe Manhattanites.) Not really, Joe. Everyone who lives in any of the five boroughs considers themselves a New Yorker. It's really only non-New Yorkers who would use the term to refer only to Manhattanites.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque
Why would anybody spend one hundred million dollars to build a community center and mosque in an area that doesn't have an Islamic community? How do those that support this effort feel about Carmelite nuns wanting to build a convent next to Auschwitz to pray for the souls of those murder there? Are they as outraged as Jews from around the world at the insensitivity of it?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque
Legally, no problems. But Muslims of all stripes have huge P. R. problem in this country because of the radical element of Islam. Moderates Muslims need to speak up more. If they build there you can almost guarantee that it will be damaged on a regular basis. Peter On Aug 26, 2010, at 2:02 PM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com wrote: Why would anybody spend one hundred million dollars to build a community center and mosque in an area that doesn't have an Islamic community? How do those that support this effort feel about Carmelite nuns wanting to build a convent next to Auschwitz to pray for the souls of those murder there? Are they as outraged as Jews from around the world at the insensitivity of it?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@... wrote: Why would anybody spend one hundred million dollars to build a community center and mosque in an area that doesn't have an Islamic community? It does have an Islamic community, plus many Muslims who work in the area. (And no mosque in the building, just a prayer space.) There are already two mosques in the general area, but they don't have nearly enough room for the Muslims who would use them for prayer. There has been a prayer space in the old Burlington Coat Factory building for some time for those who can't get into the other mosques to pray. (Muslims are required to pray five times a day.) How do those that support this effort feel about Carmelite nuns wanting to build a convent next to Auschwitz to pray for the souls of those murder there? Are they as outraged as Jews from around the world at the insensitivity of it? That was a different situation in many respects. Just for one thing, the convent took over a building at the site that had been used to store the gas for the gas chambers, made it into a convent, and stayed there for *nine years* until they were finally ordered to leave. The community center (in case you hadn't heard this yet) is not to be built on the ground zero site, it's two blocks away in a business district. If you know that area of town, you know it's a different world from the ground zero site.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque
All semitic religions are inherently fundamentalistic in the core of their teachings. It's because they evolved in pre-industrial first-wave civilisation. Their archaic anachronistic worldview don't fit in a modern global civilisation. It leads to the clash of memes. --- On Thu, 8/26/10, Peter L Sutphen drpetersutp...@yahoo.com wrote: Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque Date: Thursday, August 26, 2010, 11:10 AM Legally, no problems. But Muslims of all stripes have huge P. R. problem in this country because of the radical element of Islam. Moderates Muslims need to speak up more. If they build there you can almost guarantee that it will be damaged on a regular basis. Peter On Aug 26, 2010, at 2:02 PM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com wrote: Why would anybody spend one hundred million dollars to build a community center and mosque in an area that doesn't have an Islamic community? How do those that support this effort feel about Carmelite nuns wanting to build a convent next to Auschwitz to pray for the souls of those murder there? Are they as outraged as Jews from around the world at the insensitivity of it?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque
Exactly, creating more and more resentment on each side. It's just not a wise move and will not create more tolerance and understanding. I'm afraid Muslims are becoming too *Americanized* by demanding their *rights* at the expense of sensitivity, only to be hurting themselves more in the long run. From: Peter L Sutphen drpetersutp...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, August 26, 2010 11:10:31 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque Legally, no problems. But Muslims of all stripes have huge P. R. problem in this country because of the radical element of Islam. Moderates Muslims need to speak up more. If they build there you can almost guarantee that it will be damaged on a regular basis. Peter On Aug 26, 2010, at 2:02 PM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com wrote: Why would anybody spend one hundred million dollars to build a community center and mosque in an area that doesn't have an Islamic community? How do those that support this effort feel about Carmelite nuns wanting to build a convent next to Auschwitz to pray for the souls of those murder there? Are they as outraged as Jews from around the world at the insensitivity of it?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque
My understanding is that the area doesn't have an Islamic community, at least of significant number, certainly not worthy of one hundred million dollars that could hold up to a thousand worshipers. Yes, I'm aware there are other mosques in the general area that nobody seems to care about. So the Cordoba project is to accommodate the over flow of the other mosques? From: authfriend jst...@panix.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, August 26, 2010 11:25:59 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@... wrote: Why would anybody spend one hundred million dollars to build a community center and mosque in an area that doesn't have an Islamic community? It does have an Islamic community, plus many Muslims who work in the area. (And no mosque in the building, just a prayer space.) There are already two mosques in the general area, but they don't have nearly enough room for the Muslims who would use them for prayer. There has been a prayer space in the old Burlington Coat Factory building for some time for those who can't get into the other mosques to pray. (Muslims are required to pray five times a day.) How do those that support this effort feel about Carmelite nuns wanting to build a convent next to Auschwitz to pray for the souls of those murder there? Are they as outraged as Jews from around the world at the insensitivity of it? That was a different situation in many respects. Just for one thing, the convent took over a building at the site that had been used to store the gas for the gas chambers, made it into a convent, and stayed there for *nine years* until they were finally ordered to leave. The community center (in case you hadn't heard this yet) is not to be built on the ground zero site, it's two blocks away in a business district. If you know that area of town, you know it's a different world from the ground zero site.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@... wrote: My understanding is that the area doesn't have an Islamic community, at least of significant number Several thousand Muslims live and/or work in the area. Not sure how you're defining community. Have you ever been to New York? The residences in this neighborhood (and in most of Manhattan) are apartment buildings, not separate homes. The Muslims don't live in an *enclave* all together. Around 56,000 people live in the area full time; the population rises to 300,000 during the day. certainly not worthy of one hundred million dollars that could hold up to a thousand worshipers. Again, it isn't a *mosque*. It's a community center, for the *entire* community in that area, not just Muslims. Good community centers cost that much to build and outfit. Yes, I'm aware there are other mosques in the general area One is four blocks from Ground Zero (two blocks from the community center site), the other is 12 blocks. that nobody seems to care about. So the Cordoba project is to accommodate the over flow of the other mosques? No, Mike, it's a *community center*, featuring facilities for the use of the entire community. It will have a *prayer space*--not a mosque--for Muslims to accommodate overflow at prayer times. Also in the center will be a swimming pool, an auditorium, a culinary school, and all kinds of other amenities for the community (which is why it isn't a mosque--a mosque can't have any other facilities in it). From: authfriend jst...@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, August 26, 2010 11:25:59 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote: Why would anybody spend one hundred million dollars to build a community center and mosque in an area that doesn't have an Islamic community? It does have an Islamic community, plus many Muslims who work in the area. (And no mosque in the building, just a prayer space.) There are already two mosques in the general area, but they don't have nearly enough room for the Muslims who would use them for prayer. There has been a prayer space in the old Burlington Coat Factory building for some time for those who can't get into the other mosques to pray. (Muslims are required to pray five times a day.)   How do those that support this effort feel about Carmelite nuns wanting to build a convent next to Auschwitz to pray for the souls of those murder there? Are they as outraged as Jews from around the world at the insensitivity of it? That was a different situation in many respects. Just for one thing, the convent took over a building at the site that had been used to store the gas for the gas chambers, made it into a convent, and stayed there for *nine years* until they were finally ordered to leave. The community center (in case you hadn't heard this yet) is not to be built on the ground zero site, it's two blocks away in a business district. If you know that area of town, you know it's a different world from the ground zero site.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@... wrote: Exactly, creating more and more resentment on each side. It's just not a wise move and will not create more tolerance and understanding. I'm afraid Muslims are becoming too *Americanized* by demanding their *rights* at the expense of sensitivity, only to be hurting themselves more in the long run. How presumptuous of American Muslims to behave like other Americans! Funny how there's so little sensitivity to the fact that this controversy has handed Al Qaeda a huge propaganda victory without their having to lift a finger, innit? From: Peter L Sutphen drpetersutp...@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, August 26, 2010 11:10:31 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque Legally, no problems. But Muslims of all stripes have huge P. R. problem in this country because of the radical element of Islam. Moderates Muslims need to speak up more. If they build there you can almost guarantee that it will be damaged on a regular basis. Ironically, it's just as likely to be a target for extremist Muslims. They'll be happy to work hand in hand with our American bigots.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque
Don't confuse Mike with facts Judy. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote: Why would anybody spend one hundred million dollars to build a community center and mosque in an area that doesn't have an Islamic community? It does have an Islamic community, plus many Muslims who work in the area. (And no mosque in the building, just a prayer space.) There are already two mosques in the general area, but they don't have nearly enough room for the Muslims who would use them for prayer. There has been a prayer space in the old Burlington Coat Factory building for some time for those who can't get into the other mosques to pray. (Muslims are required to pray five times a day.) How do those that support this effort feel about Carmelite nuns wanting to build a convent next to Auschwitz to pray for the souls of those murder there? Are they as outraged as Jews from around the world at the insensitivity of it? That was a different situation in many respects. Just for one thing, the convent took over a building at the site that had been used to store the gas for the gas chambers, made it into a convent, and stayed there for *nine years* until they were finally ordered to leave. The community center (in case you hadn't heard this yet) is not to be built on the ground zero site, it's two blocks away in a business district. If you know that area of town, you know it's a different world from the ground zero site.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque
Mike, please state specifically why you believe this area of NYC doesn't have a Muslim community. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@... wrote: My understanding is that the area doesn't have an Islamic community, at least of significant number, certainly not worthy of one hundred million dollars that could hold up to a thousand worshipers. Yes, I'm aware there are other mosques in the general area that nobody seems to care about. So the Cordoba project is to accommodate the over flow of the other mosques? From: authfriend jst...@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, August 26, 2010 11:25:59 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote: Why would anybody spend one hundred million dollars to build a community center and mosque in an area that doesn't have an Islamic community? It does have an Islamic community, plus many Muslims who work in the area. (And no mosque in the building, just a prayer space.) There are already two mosques in the general area, but they don't have nearly enough room for the Muslims who would use them for prayer. There has been a prayer space in the old Burlington Coat Factory building for some time for those who can't get into the other mosques to pray. (Muslims are required to pray five times a day.)   How do those that support this effort feel about Carmelite nuns wanting to build a convent next to Auschwitz to pray for the souls of those murder there? Are they as outraged as Jews from around the world at the insensitivity of it? That was a different situation in many respects. Just for one thing, the convent took over a building at the site that had been used to store the gas for the gas chambers, made it into a convent, and stayed there for *nine years* until they were finally ordered to leave. The community center (in case you hadn't heard this yet) is not to be built on the ground zero site, it's two blocks away in a business district. If you know that area of town, you know it's a different world from the ground zero site.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque?
Bullshit. You wouldn't be pushing lies about it if you didn't. Have you ever had anybody spit at you? Please consider yourself virtually spat upon. Stop the lying, Judy, you know that I didn't post an opinion of wheteher or not the Islamic Center in New York should be built two blocks from Ground Zero. authfriend: Bullshit. You wouldn't be pushing lies about [i]t if you didn't. Bullshit. Stop the lying, Judy - I'm not pushing' anything and you know that very well. But if you read FFL you'll see many more instances of open bigotry toward Texans, Mormons, Isrealis, Hindus, or evangelical Christians, than you will toward Muslims. Why is that? As part of that recognition of American sensitivities, Imam Rauf should probably consider alternative locations for his Islamic center. Yes, it seems wrong to give in to the opportunistic bigots, but it may still be the right and healing thing to do... http://tinyurl.com/23lafe5 ...one could argue that Cordoba House risks doing more harm than good. Organizer Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who has a history of interfaith cooperation, says he intends to promote moderate Islam. Nevertheless, he might do more to encourage religious comity if he voluntarily took the project elsewhere. http://tinyurl.com/286vh42
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque?
Joe: Still smarting from the waxing Judy gave you, eh Tex? You mean the waxing Judy gave you for not realizing that most New Yorkers are opposed to the Islamic Center? Or the waxing Judy gave you for lying about what 'Tex' wrote? Joe: Most New Yorkers are for it Tex. Again, you lie. Most New Yorkers are against it, Joe, like in the article from the New York Times that I posted. You are supposed to read the messages BEFORE you call people liars. authfriend: Actually, he's correct, for NYC and NY State as a whole. It's Manhattanites--who haven't been deceived by the lies--who are for it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque?
As you know Tex, I was referring to this one, Judy to Tex: Bullshit. You wouldn't be pushing lies about it if you didn't. Have you ever had anybody spit at you? Please consider yourself virtually spat upon. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: Joe: Still smarting from the waxing Judy gave you, eh Tex?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque
If 56,000 people need to pray 5 times a day, Park51 ain't gonna be big enough, but I know a place about 2 blocks away that I'm sure the Saudis would love to buy and build a Mosque/community center complete with swimming pool, racket ball courts and Camel race track, all facing Mecca. From: authfriend jst...@panix.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, August 26, 2010 1:00:34 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@... wrote: My understanding is that the area doesn't have an Islamic community, at least of significant number Several thousand Muslims live and/or work in the area. Not sure how you're defining community. Have you ever been to New York? The residences in this neighborhood (and in most of Manhattan) are apartment buildings, not separate homes. The Muslims don't live in an *enclave* all together. Around 56,000 people live in the area full time; the population rises to 300,000 during the day. certainly not worthy of one hundred million dollars that could hold up to a thousand worshipers. Again, it isn't a *mosque*. It's a community center, for the *entire* community in that area, not just Muslims. Good community centers cost that much to build and outfit. Yes, I'm aware there are other mosques in the general area One is four blocks from Ground Zero (two blocks from the community center site), the other is 12 blocks. that nobody seems to care about. So the Cordoba project is to accommodate the over flow of the other mosques? No, Mike, it's a *community center*, featuring facilities for the use of the entire community. It will have a *prayer space*--not a mosque--for Muslims to accommodate overflow at prayer times. Also in the center will be a swimming pool, an auditorium, a culinary school, and all kinds of other amenities for the community (which is why it isn't a mosque--a mosque can't have any other facilities in it). From: authfriend jst...@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, August 26, 2010 11:25:59 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote: Why would anybody spend one hundred million dollars to build a community center and mosque in an area that doesn't have an Islamic community? It does have an Islamic community, plus many Muslims who work in the area. (And no mosque in the building, just a prayer space.) There are already two mosques in the general area, but they don't have nearly enough room for the Muslims who would use them for prayer. There has been a prayer space in the old Burlington Coat Factory building for some time for those who can't get into the other mosques to pray. (Muslims are required to pray five times a day.)   How do those that support this effort feel about Carmelite nuns wanting to build a convent next to Auschwitz to pray for the souls of those murder there? Are they as outraged as Jews from around the world at the insensitivity of it? That was a different situation in many respects. Just for one thing, the convent took over a building at the site that had been used to store the gas for the gas chambers, made it into a convent, and stayed there for *nine years* until they were finally ordered to leave. The community center (in case you hadn't heard this yet) is not to be built on the ground zero site, it's two blocks away in a business district. If you know that area of town, you know it's a different world from the ground zero site.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque -- Let a 1000 Blossoms Bloom
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptyb...@... wrote: snip Wherever Muslims live in the West is either Dar-al-Dawa or Dar-al-Kufr. Jihad is not optional it is one of the five pillars of their faith and is part of their vocation in the West. Saying that Muslim ideas and practices are Just a residue from the middle ages shows the depth of incoherence between the actual reality and the feeble intellectual acumen such defenders bring to the table. So I guess us dhimmi-dummies have no choice; we have to kill them all before they kill us, right? Most Media Muslims disguise the degree of utter contradiction that exists between Islam and the West. One of our most current examples is CNN's Fareed Zakaria. The truth is that all the fundamental values we take for common in our post-Enlightenment culture are anathema to Islam. Always wondered about that Fareed guy, all mealy- mouthed while secretly plotting to take over CNN and turn it into SNN, Sharia News Network. So if all the Fairfield Losers don't like it too bad. Your sputtering furies are exactly what a Dhimmi sounds like. Not going to say what kind of person your sputtering furies sound like.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@... wrote: If 56,000 people need to pray 5 times a day, Park51 ain't gonna be big enough 56,000 people?? Only the Muslims need to pray five times a day. but I know a place about 2 blocks away that I'm sure the Saudis would love to buy and build a Mosque/community center complete with swimming pool, racket ball courts and Camel race track, all facing Mecca. You're losing it, Mike, and in an extremely unattractive direction. Sorry I had to unsettle you by explaining away so many of your cherished misconceptions. But you know, that's pretty much the difference between a bigot and a nonbigot. If a nonbigot has a misconception and it's explained to them, they adjust their thinking accordingly. If a bigot has a misconception and it's explained to them, they freak out. From: authfriend jst...@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, August 26, 2010 1:00:34 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote: My understanding is that the area doesn't have an Islamic community, at least of significant number Several thousand Muslims live and/or work in the area. Not sure how you're defining community. Have you ever been to New York? The residences in this neighborhood (and in most of Manhattan) are apartment buildings, not separate homes. The Muslims don't live in an *enclave* all together. Around 56,000 people live in the area full time; the population rises to 300,000 during the day. certainly not worthy of one hundred million dollars that could hold up to a thousand worshipers. Again, it isn't a *mosque*. It's a community center, for the *entire* community in that area, not just Muslims. Good community centers cost that much to build and outfit. Yes, I'm aware there are other mosques in the general area One is four blocks from Ground Zero (two blocks from the community center site), the other is 12 blocks. that nobody seems to care about. So the Cordoba project is to accommodate the over flow of the other mosques? No, Mike, it's a *community center*, featuring facilities for the use of the entire community. It will have a *prayer space*--not a mosque--for Muslims to accommodate overflow at prayer times. Also in the center will be a swimming pool, an auditorium, a culinary school, and all kinds of other amenities for the community (which is why it isn't a mosque--a mosque can't have any other facilities in it). From: authfriend jstein@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, August 26, 2010 11:25:59 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote: Why would anybody spend one hundred million dollars to build a community center and mosque in an area that doesn't have an Islamic community? It does have an Islamic community, plus many Muslims who work in the area. (And no mosque in the building, just a prayer space.) There are already two mosques in the general area, but they don't have nearly enough room for the Muslims who would use them for prayer. There has been a prayer space in the old Burlington Coat Factory building for some time for those who can't get into the other mosques to pray. (Muslims are required to pray five times a day.) ààHow do those that support this effort feel about Carmelite nuns wanting to build a convent next to Auschwitz to pray for the souls of those murder there? Are they as outraged as Jews from around the world at the insensitivity of it? That was a different situation in many respects. Just for one thing, the convent took over a building at the site that had been used to store the gas for the gas chambers, made it into a convent, and stayed there for *nine years* until they were finally ordered to leave. The community center (in case you hadn't heard this yet) is not to be built on the ground zero site, it's two blocks away in a business district. If you know that area of town, you know it's a different world from the ground zero site.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque -- Let a 1000 Blossoms Bloom
Judy, In spite of my stridence, my point is simple. Become educated about Islam. I do not mean the Islam of academics and apologists but rather how Islam is actually understood and actually practiced in Muslim culture. There is no such thing as religion in Islam; this is a Western notion. For any Muslim who is a real Muslim. there is only deen life lived according to Sharia. This is the doorway to understanding the reality of Dar-as-Salaam. In my estimation, this is the only way to understand the threat of Islam to Western culture and more specifically to America. Whether we can ever come to peaceful resolution, I don't know. I personally doubt it. No matter what happens, I don't believe in Kumbaya accommodation. For you personally, you will decide to believe as you feel fit. However, the actual truth is that we both are not just Kafir (in the sense of non-believers) but we are the ones who obstruct or veil the truth. This is not my judgment but the verdict of Islam. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@ wrote: snip Wherever Muslims live in the West is either Dar-al-Dawa or Dar-al-Kufr. Jihad is not optional it is one of the five pillars of their faith and is part of their vocation in the West. Saying that Muslim ideas and practices are Just a residue from the middle ages shows the depth of incoherence between the actual reality and the feeble intellectual acumen such defenders bring to the table. So I guess us dhimmi-dummies have no choice; we have to kill them all before they kill us, right? Most Media Muslims disguise the degree of utter contradiction that exists between Islam and the West. One of our most current examples is CNN's Fareed Zakaria. The truth is that all the fundamental values we take for common in our post-Enlightenment culture are anathema to Islam. Always wondered about that Fareed guy, all mealy- mouthed while secretly plotting to take over CNN and turn it into SNN, Sharia News Network. So if all the Fairfield Losers don't like it too bad. Your sputtering furies are exactly what a Dhimmi sounds like. Not going to say what kind of person your sputtering furies sound like.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque -- Let a 1000 Blossoms Bloom
Water buffalo crossing a river in Pune. http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/08/26/business/engineering.html --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptyb...@... wrote: Judy, In spite of my stridence, my point is simple. Become educated about Islam. I do not mean the Islam of academics and apologists but rather how Islam is actually understood and actually practiced in Muslim culture. There is no such thing as religion in Islam; this is a Western notion. For any Muslim who is a real Muslim. there is only deen life lived according to Sharia. This is the doorway to understanding the reality of Dar-as-Salaam. In my estimation, this is the only way to understand the threat of Islam to Western culture and more specifically to America. Whether we can ever come to peaceful resolution, I don't know. I personally doubt it. No matter what happens, I don't believe in Kumbaya accommodation. For you personally, you will decide to believe as you feel fit. However, the actual truth is that we both are not just Kafir (in the sense of non-believers) but we are the ones who obstruct or veil the truth. This is not my judgment but the verdict of Islam. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@ wrote: snip Wherever Muslims live in the West is either Dar-al-Dawa or Dar-al-Kufr. Jihad is not optional it is one of the five pillars of their faith and is part of their vocation in the West. Saying that Muslim ideas and practices are Just a residue from the middle ages shows the depth of incoherence between the actual reality and the feeble intellectual acumen such defenders bring to the table. So I guess us dhimmi-dummies have no choice; we have to kill them all before they kill us, right? Most Media Muslims disguise the degree of utter contradiction that exists between Islam and the West. One of our most current examples is CNN's Fareed Zakaria. The truth is that all the fundamental values we take for common in our post-Enlightenment culture are anathema to Islam. Always wondered about that Fareed guy, all mealy- mouthed while secretly plotting to take over CNN and turn it into SNN, Sharia News Network. So if all the Fairfield Losers don't like it too bad. Your sputtering furies are exactly what a Dhimmi sounds like. Not going to say what kind of person your sputtering furies sound like.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ground Zero Mosque -- Let a 1000 Blossoms Bloom
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptyb...@... wrote: Judy, In spite of my stridence, my point is simple. Become educated about Islam. I do not mean the Islam of academics and apologists but rather how Islam is actually understood and actually practiced in Muslim culture. There is no such thing as religion in Islam; this is a Western notion. For any Muslim who is a real Muslim. there is only deen life lived according to Sharia. This is the doorway to understanding the reality of Dar-as-Salaam. What I'm interested in is how moderate American Muslims understand Islam, and Sharia. I've seen no evidence that their views are as extreme as you describe and a good deal of evidence to the contrary. Perhaps you'd consider such people not real Muslims, but where does that leave us? When you accuse Fareed Zakaria of deliberately disguising the degree of utter contradiction that exists between Islam and the West, if you're including moderate Islam in this country, I just have to tune out, because I don't believe that accusation is rational. BTW, I think extremist Christianity is *far* more of a threat to this country than moderate Islam. In my estimation, this is the only way to understand the threat of Islam to Western culture and more specifically to America. Whether we can ever come to peaceful resolution, I don't know. I personally doubt it. No matter what happens, I don't believe in Kumbaya accommodation. For you personally, you will decide to believe as you feel fit. However, the actual truth is that we both are not just Kafir (in the sense of non-believers) but we are the ones who obstruct or veil the truth. This is not my judgment but the verdict of Islam. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@ wrote: snip Wherever Muslims live in the West is either Dar-al-Dawa or Dar-al-Kufr. Jihad is not optional it is one of the five pillars of their faith and is part of their vocation in the West. Saying that Muslim ideas and practices are Just a residue from the middle ages shows the depth of incoherence between the actual reality and the feeble intellectual acumen such defenders bring to the table. So I guess us dhimmi-dummies have no choice; we have to kill them all before they kill us, right? Most Media Muslims disguise the degree of utter contradiction that exists between Islam and the West. One of our most current examples is CNN's Fareed Zakaria. The truth is that all the fundamental values we take for common in our post-Enlightenment culture are anathema to Islam. Always wondered about that Fareed guy, all mealy- mouthed while secretly plotting to take over CNN and turn it into SNN, Sharia News Network. So if all the Fairfield Losers don't like it too bad. Your sputtering furies are exactly what a Dhimmi sounds like. Not going to say what kind of person your sputtering furies sound like.
