Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
On 3/10/2014 7:01 PM, emilymae...@yahoo.com wrote: Richard, neither you or Share take yourselves or what you post seriously; I think that is what you two find so attractive about each other. Two peas in a pod. However, if posting here maintains your mental and emotional health and helps you be kind to Rita, than more power to you. Thanks for the advice, Emily, seriously.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
On 3/10/2014 8:43 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: Richard, we do not take your posts seriously per your instructions. The term 'Internet Troll' is frequently abused to slander opponents in heated debates and is frequently misapplied by those who are ignorant of internet etiquette. Judy posted a lie about me, CALLING ME A TROLL, in order to try to get others to shun me, that's been her whole purpose in posting to FFL from her very first posting years ago. She recruited you to do the same to Barry, to try to get rid of him, that's my point. It's a very low down tactic on discussion groups to call someone a troll when they've been posting for over ten years. It makes Judy look like a very hateful person, full of grudges, and not a fair or truthful person at all - instead she comes off like an angry, vindictive old bully. Go figure. If something is not to be taken seriously does this mean it can ever be a meaningful contribution? It's just kind of sad to realize that Judy is in fact, the poser here. She is not helping anyone, so far as I can tell, to understand the mechanics of consciousness. Judy is NOT a spiritual teacher. Her sole purpose is to distract and discredit and belittle, in order to inflate her own ego. that's what I think. Seriously. (Don't pay any attention to Richard, for pete's sake. He's just trolling, as usual.)
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/10/2014 8:43 PM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote: Richard,we do not take your posts seriously per your instructions. The term 'Internet Troll' is frequently abused to slander opponents in heated debates and is frequently misapplied by those who are ignorant of internet etiquette. Judy posted a lie about me, CALLING ME A TROLL, in order to try to get others to shun me, that's been her whole purpose in posting to FFL from her very first posting years ago. She recruited you to do the same to Barry, to try to get rid of him, that's my point. It's a very low down tactic on discussion groups to call someone a troll when they've been posting for over ten years. It makes Judy look like a very hateful person, full of grudges, and not a fair or truthful person at all - instead she comes off like an angry, vindictive old bully. Go figure. You're trolling here. But then we all know not to take you seriously, especially when you tell us to, which you seem to be doing more and more. But your posts speak for themselves and someone today just referred to reading your posts as equivalent to visiting a mental institution. Go think about that for a split second or two, pundit. If something is not to be taken seriously does this mean it can ever be a meaningful contribution? It's just kind of sad to realize that Judy is in fact, the poser here. She is not helping anyone, so far as I can tell, to understand the mechanics of consciousness. Judy is NOT a spiritual teacher. Her sole purpose is to distract and discredit and belittle, in order to inflate her own ego. that's what I think. Seriously. Seriously? Guffaw. It's time to take your meds now, pundit sir. (Don't pay any attention to Richard, for pete's sake. He's just trolling, as usual.)
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
On 3/11/2014 9:02 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: You're trolling here. The term 'Internet Troll' is frequently abused to slander opponents in heated debates and is frequently misapplied by those who are ignorant of Internet etiquette. But then we all know not to take you seriously, especially when you tell us to, which you seem to be doing more and more. But your posts speak for themselves and someone today just referred to reading your posts as equivalent to visiting a mental institution. Go think about that for a split second or two, pundit. Translation: I don't like you Richard because you live in Texas with those brown-skinned Tejano cowboys.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
On 3/9/2014 6:03 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: *Rakshasas* /raksasas/ (Sanskrit) According to the Dictionary of Hinduism, the term Raksasa is ...an epithet applied in the Rig Veda to Indian indigenes whose characteristics were likened to demons of popular folklore. Most of the native resistance to the Aryan invasion was made from fortified positions or by less organized tribes which consisted of guerrilla tactics from forest hiding places, which Indra was constantly invoked to burn and destroy (R.V. I.76,3, etc). Rakshasa: 1. Aryan term for South Asian native inhabitants. 2. Vedic term of derogation for dark skinned Indian aborigines. 3. a demon; an evil spirit that comes out of the forest at night to wander about; who often take the shape of husbands or lovers for the purposes of fornication. They are called confounders of the sacrifice who at one time used to lay in wait at fjords to kill those who tried to cross (Kaus. Br. XII.1). Reference: The Dictionary of Hinduism Its Mythology, Folklore, Philosophy, Literature, and History By M. and J. Stutley Harper Row, 1977 p.245
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
I also wondered why it was so difficult for some to follow the flow. Go figure :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/9/2014 7:49 AM, salyavin808 wrote: I'd say please press the show message history before posting so we can see what you are on about There are only about six or seven us having an online conversation these days - I can remember what each one you has posted the day before. I don't need no message history because I keep up with the conversations. I don't need to go back and re-read what anyone wrote last week or last year. By this time, we already know how everyone feels in general about things. So, click the three buttons if you want to - I'm using Thunderbird and I don't miss a thing. Or, just keep up with the conversation and the flow. If you don't want to dance, why did you even come to the dance party? That's what I think.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
On 3/10/2014 4:51 AM, nablusoss1008 wrote: I also wondered why it was so difficult for some to follow the flow. Go figure :-) It has been suggested that the reason some of the FFL informants can't keep up with the conversation flow is because of ADD. But, it's much simpler than that - they are working to make a living. Some others don't want to keep up with the flow of the conversation because that's not their reason for them being here. Only serious posters keep up with the flow - the others are not serious respondents - it's just a part-time thing when they don't have anything better to do and so they just pose as informants. You also need to realize that for some, this posting is their only real spiritual practice for the entire day, so we should appreciate their efforts to keep the group interesting. The fact is, some people just suck at being good conversationalists. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
I see. If you work, you cannot be serious here. What is it about FFL that makes it so importantly serious that a conversation, argument must proceed a certain way? Does this require a certain kind of obsession? Enlightenment is the ultimate joke. Why not just have fun? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/10/2014 4:51 AM, nablusoss1008 wrote: I also wondered why it was so difficult for some to follow the flow. Go figure :-) It has been suggested that the reason some of the FFL informants can't keep up with the conversation flow is because of ADD. But, it's much simpler than that - they are working to make a living. Some others don't want to keep up with the flow of the conversation because that's not their reason for them being here. Only serious posters keep up with the flow - the others are not serious respondents - it's just a part-time thing when they don't have anything better to do and so they just pose as informants. You also need to realize that for some, this posting is their only real spiritual practice for the entire day, so we should appreciate their efforts to keep the group interesting. The fact is, some people just suck at being good conversationalists. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
I don't believe anybody said it was so difficult. It's just a nuisance. And the point is that you could eliminate that nuisance with a single mouse click, as Salyavin, Michael, and I have asked you to. There's no reason for you not to do it except to be deliberately discourteous. This may come as a shock to you, but it's not necessarily the case that everyone is so utterly fascinated by your conversations that the flow will stick in their minds. (Don't pay any attention to Richard, for pete's sake. He's just trolling, as usual.) I also wondered why it was so difficult for some to follow the flow. Go figure :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/9/2014 7:49 AM, salyavin808 wrote: I'd say please press the show message history before posting so we can see what you are on about There are only about six or seven us having an online conversation these days - I can remember what each one you has posted the day before. I don't need no message history because I keep up with the conversations. I don't need to go back and re-read what anyone wrote last week or last year. By this time, we already know how everyone feels in general about things. So, click the three buttons if you want to - I'm using Thunderbird and I don't miss a thing. Or, just keep up with the conversation and the flow. If you don't want to dance, why did you even come to the dance party? That's what I think.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
OK, did I get it right now ? Anyways, what makes you think I even read the post from MJ and Sal ? I do sometimes read your though but haven't even seen the see all messages thing, I'm not here often enough to have even noticed it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I don't believe anybody said it was so difficult. It's just a nuisance. And the point is that you could eliminate that nuisance with a single mouse click, as Salyavin, Michael, and I have asked you to. There's no reason for you not to do it except to be deliberately discourteous. This may come as a shock to you, but it's not necessarily the case that everyone is so utterly fascinated by your conversations that the flow will stick in their minds. (Don't pay any attention to Richard, for pete's sake. He's just trolling, as usual.) I also wondered why it was so difficult for some to follow the flow. Go figure :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/9/2014 7:49 AM, salyavin808 wrote: I'd say please press the show message history before posting so we can see what you are on about There are only about six or seven us having an online conversation these days - I can remember what each one you has posted the day before. I don't need no message history because I keep up with the conversations. I don't need to go back and re-read what anyone wrote last week or last year. By this time, we already know how everyone feels in general about things. So, click the three buttons if you want to - I'm using Thunderbird and I don't miss a thing. Or, just keep up with the conversation and the flow. If you don't want to dance, why did you even come to the dance party? That's what I think.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
Yes, thank you. OK, did I get it right now ? Anyways, what makes you think I even read the post from MJ and Sal ? I do sometimes read your though but haven't even seen the see all messages thing, I'm not here often enough to have even noticed it. I don't believe anybody said it was so difficult. It's just a nuisance. And the point is that you could eliminate that nuisance with a single mouse click, as Salyavin, Michael, and I have asked you to. There's no reason for you not to do it except to be deliberately discourteous. This may come as a shock to you, but it's not necessarily the case that everyone is so utterly fascinated by your conversations that the flow will stick in their minds. (Don't pay any attention to Richard, for pete's sake. He's just trolling, as usual.) I also wondered why it was so difficult for some to follow the flow. Go figure :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/9/2014 7:49 AM, salyavin808 wrote: I'd say please press the show message history before posting so we can see what you are on about There are only about six or seven us having an online conversation these days - I can remember what each one you has posted the day before. I don't need no message history because I keep up with the conversations. I don't need to go back and re-read what anyone wrote last week or last year. By this time, we already know how everyone feels in general about things. So, click the three buttons if you want to - I'm using Thunderbird and I don't miss a thing. Or, just keep up with the conversation and the flow. If you don't want to dance, why did you even come to the dance party? That's what I think.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
Nabby, it actually is a link says 'show message history' in the reply window which you now seem to have found. I missed it for a while. But occasionally I will enter a thread not replying to a particular post, and then either delete the previous message(s) or do not show message history. But if you are responding to a specific post, it really helps clarify the thread because Neo does not sort out the sub-discussions that take place within a thread as the old interface used to. All the Yahoo servers I have access to now have the Neo interface, so I no longer can access the old interface, which had remained on servers Yahoo uses for e-mail for ATT in the U.S. I do not have time to stay on FFL continuously, and even after a day a discussion veers off so far it becomes hard to follow. I am unable to read all posts, but I do not segregate posters into 'good' and 'bad' piles and not read them because they disagree with me. Most people here ignore me anyway. I read your posts. I disagree with many of them. I think there are many faults with the way the TMO functions, and that much of what it provides is off track for enlightenment. Still I found the TM techniques I have received functional for the most part and they were a great aid in clarifying my experience, and were the primary ones I used for most of the time I have meditated. My thoughts on these techniques is actually much more positive now than it was ten years ago; others' seem to have the opposite experience. I think there is a distinction between people who succeed with TM and those who do not and it might be this: If a person's reason for starting TM is for enlightenment and no other purpose, and that is the overriding drive for his/her practice, than I think the person has a good chance. If a person is involved simply for the experience of community, for intellectual understandings, or because you think in spite of denials it really is a 'true' religion, or you just want a 'better' life, I think failure is a definite and probable possibility. And I would say this applies to any so-called path of enlightenment, Buddhist, Christian, Sufi, Taoist, etc., that focus on the main purpose of these experiential tracks is essential for success, otherwise there is a lack of focus in why one is doing it. For example, waiting for a Messiah to save you and bring about heaven on Earth is probably not a good way to approach enlightenment because you are off-loading focus to someone else. There are people on FFL that are going to annoy you; they are not likely all the same ones that annoy me. We each have a set of preferences. No doubt I have annoyed you many times. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : OK, did I get it right now ? Anyways, what makes you think I even read the post from MJ and Sal ? I do sometimes read your though but haven't even seen the see all messages thing, I'm not here often enough to have even noticed it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I don't believe anybody said it was so difficult. It's just a nuisance. And the point is that you could eliminate that nuisance with a single mouse click, as Salyavin, Michael, and I have asked you to. There's no reason for you not to do it except to be deliberately discourteous. This may come as a shock to you, but it's not necessarily the case that everyone is so utterly fascinated by your conversations that the flow will stick in their minds. (Don't pay any attention to Richard, for pete's sake. He's just trolling, as usual.) I also wondered why it was so difficult for some to follow the flow. Go figure :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/9/2014 7:49 AM, salyavin808 wrote: I'd say please press the show message history before posting so we can see what you are on about There are only about six or seven us having an online conversation these days - I can remember what each one you has posted the day before. I don't need no message history because I keep up with the conversations. I don't need to go back and re-read what anyone wrote last week or last year. By this time, we already know how everyone feels in general about things. So, click the three buttons if you want to - I'm using Thunderbird and I don't miss a thing. Or, just keep up with the conversation and the flow. If you don't want to dance, why did you even come to the dance party? That's what I think.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
Good points anartaxius. However my experience shows that the motivation for staying with TM can be anything. I know people who began meditating for simple reasons of health and have been doing TM regularily now for 54 years. Believe me, for some of these people enlightenment has never been a motivation. I guess some of them could (and probably already has) popped without even thinking much about it, and certainly without making a fuss about it. Mostly the quitters has too much rajas to be able to sit quietly in any form of meditation. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Nabby, it actually is a link says 'show message history' in the reply window which you now seem to have found. I missed it for a while. But occasionally I will enter a thread not replying to a particular post, and then either delete the previous message(s) or do not show message history. But if you are responding to a specific post, it really helps clarify the thread because Neo does not sort out the sub-discussions that take place within a thread as the old interface used to. All the Yahoo servers I have access to now have the Neo interface, so I no longer can access the old interface, which had remained on servers Yahoo uses for e-mail for ATT in the U.S. I do not have time to stay on FFL continuously, and even after a day a discussion veers off so far it becomes hard to follow. I am unable to read all posts, but I do not segregate posters into 'good' and 'bad' piles and not read them because they disagree with me. Most people here ignore me anyway. I read your posts. I disagree with many of them. I think there are many faults with the way the TMO functions, and that much of what it provides is off track for enlightenment. Still I found the TM techniques I have received functional for the most part and they were a great aid in clarifying my experience, and were the primary ones I used for most of the time I have meditated. My thoughts on these techniques is actually much more positive now than it was ten years ago; others' seem to have the opposite experience. I think there is a distinction between people who succeed with TM and those who do not and it might be this: If a person's reason for starting TM is for enlightenment and no other purpose, and that is the overriding drive for his/her practice, than I think the person has a good chance. If a person is involved simply for the experience of community, for intellectual understandings, or because you think in spite of denials it really is a 'true' religion, or you just want a 'better' life, I think failure is a definite and probable possibility. And I would say this applies to any so-called path of enlightenment, Buddhist, Christian, Sufi, Taoist, etc., that focus on the main purpose of these experiential tracks is essential for success, otherwise there is a lack of focus in why one is doing it. For example, waiting for a Messiah to save you and bring about heaven on Earth is probably not a good way to approach enlightenment because you are off-loading focus to someone else. There are people on FFL that are going to annoy you; they are not likely all the same ones that annoy me. We each have a set of preferences. No doubt I have annoyed you many times. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : OK, did I get it right now ? Anyways, what makes you think I even read the post from MJ and Sal ? I do sometimes read your though but haven't even seen the see all messages thing, I'm not here often enough to have even noticed it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I don't believe anybody said it was so difficult. It's just a nuisance. And the point is that you could eliminate that nuisance with a single mouse click, as Salyavin, Michael, and I have asked you to. There's no reason for you not to do it except to be deliberately discourteous. This may come as a shock to you, but it's not necessarily the case that everyone is so utterly fascinated by your conversations that the flow will stick in their minds. (Don't pay any attention to Richard, for pete's sake. He's just trolling, as usual.) I also wondered why it was so difficult for some to follow the flow. Go figure :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/9/2014 7:49 AM, salyavin808 wrote: I'd say please press the show message history before posting so we can see what you are on about There are only about six or seven us having an online conversation these days - I can remember what each one you has posted the day before. I don't need no message history because I keep up with the conversations. I don't need to go back and re-read what anyone wrote last week or last year. By this time, we already know how everyone feels in general about things. So, click the three buttons if you want to - I'm using Thunderbird and I don't miss a
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
On 3/10/2014 9:10 AM, anartax...@yahoo.com wrote: If you work, you cannot be serious here. It works for me - posting from a home office and chatting on the internet at the same time, all hours of the day and night, is fun and I take it very seriously. I've been posting since 1998 and will probably be posting somewhere until they pry the laptop out of my cold dead hands. Thanks for all the information you've posted, but I just don't need to see the conversation history right now. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
On 3/10/2014 9:10 AM, anartax...@yahoo.com wrote: What is it about FFL that makes it so importantly serious that a conversation, argument must proceed a certain way? That's because we are old and we have already made up our minds about things and so we're not going to change much anymore. We have everything all figured out and we know what we want to do and there is no other way. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
On 3/10/2014 9:11 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: This may come as a shock to you, but it's not necessarily the case that everyone is so utterly fascinated by your conversations that the flow will stick in their minds. You totally missed the point of posting to FFL. Who cares what other people think of you or say about you? The ONLY fascination here is seeing your own words published on the internet! If the flow of the conversation doesn't suit you, then maybe you should consider keeping your pie hole shut and stop breaking up the flow of the conversation with your dumb Neo suggestions. That's what I think.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
On 3/10/2014 9:19 AM, nablusoss1008 wrote: (Don't pay any attention to Richard, for pete's sake. He's just trolling, as usual.) You need to stop the lying, Judy. Calling someone a troll makes assumptions about a writer's motives that are impossible to determine unless you are a mind reader. The term troll is highly subjective, and some posts will look like trolling to some while seeming like meaningful contributions to others.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
On 3/10/2014 9:28 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: I don't believe anybody said it was so difficult. It's just a nuisance. It's more than a nuisance - it's a pain, as is the rest of Neo. It's Yahoo's way to dumb things down for the newbies, I guess. You can't even see the threaded posts sequentially for an easy read and response; it takes up nearly half the screen with advertisements; the search is a waste of time; and it's just nerdy as hell, almost worse that the Yahoo Neo email reader. Stop trying to tell people it's any good at all. Thanks.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
Richard, neither you or Share take yourselves or what you post seriously; I think that is what you two find so attractive about each other. Two peas in a pod. However, if posting here maintains your mental and emotional health and helps you be kind to Rita, than more power to you. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/10/2014 9:10 AM, anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... wrote: If you work, you cannot be serious here. It works for me - posting from a home office and chatting on the internet at the same time, all hours of the day and night, is fun and I take it very seriously. I've been posting since 1998 and will probably be posting somewhere until they pry the laptop out of my cold dead hands. Thanks for all the information you've posted, but I just don't need to see the conversation history right now. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
Emily, thanks for saying I'm similar to Richard. I take that as a compliment. On Monday, March 10, 2014 7:01 PM, emilymae...@yahoo.com emilymae...@yahoo.com wrote: Richard, neither you or Share take yourselves or what you post seriously; I think that is what you two find so attractive about each other. Two peas in a pod. However, if posting here maintains your mental and emotional health and helps you be kind to Rita, than more power to you. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/10/2014 9:10 AM, anartaxius@... wrote: If you work, you cannot be serious here. It works for me - posting from a home office and chatting on the internet at the same time, all hours of the day and night, is fun and I take it very seriously. I've been posting since 1998 and will probably be posting somewhere until they pry the laptop out of my cold dead hands. Thanks for all the information you've posted, but I just don't need to see the conversation history right now. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/10/2014 9:19 AM, nablusoss1008 wrote: (Don't pay any attention to Richard, for pete's sake. He's just trolling, as usual.) You need to stop the lying, Judy. Calling someone a troll makes assumptions about a writer's motives that are impossible to determine unless you are a mind reader. The term troll is highly subjective, and some posts will look like trolling to some while seeming like meaningful contributions to others. Richard, we do not take your posts seriously per your instructions. If something is not to be taken seriously does this mean it can ever be a meaningful contribution?
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, thanks for saying I'm similar to Richard. I take that as a compliment. I figured you might. On Monday, March 10, 2014 7:01 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Richard, neither you or Share take yourselves or what you post seriously; I think that is what you two find so attractive about each other. Two peas in a pod. However, if posting here maintains your mental and emotional health and helps you be kind to Rita, than more power to you. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/10/2014 9:10 AM, anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... wrote: If you work, you cannot be serious here. It works for me - posting from a home office and chatting on the internet at the same time, all hours of the day and night, is fun and I take it very seriously. I've been posting since 1998 and will probably be posting somewhere until they pry the laptop out of my cold dead hands. Thanks for all the information you've posted, but I just don't need to see the conversation history right now. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote : Richard, neither you or Share take yourselves or what you post seriously; I think that is what you two find so attractive about each other. Two peas in a pod. However, if posting here maintains your mental and emotional health and helps you be kind to Rita, than more power to you. I'm warnin' you all: don't fuck with Emily. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/10/2014 9:10 AM, anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... wrote: If you work, you cannot be serious here. It works for me - posting from a home office and chatting on the internet at the same time, all hours of the day and night, is fun and I take it very seriously. I've been posting since 1998 and will probably be posting somewhere until they pry the laptop out of my cold dead hands. Thanks for all the information you've posted, but I just don't need to see the conversation history right now. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
Define spiritual accomplishments. I'll wait... Seriously, try. What can you come up with that falls outside the general area of I *claim* to have had the following completely subjective experiences.? For me, there is no such criterion. Creating a tradition means nothing, and number of students means nothing. Certainly making a lot of money means nothing, or Maharishi would be a spiritual luminary, instead of being the sad joke he's considered by most people on the planet. Performing (or even claiming to have performed) sidhis doesn't do diddley for me, because I've been there, done that with witnessing sidhis, and know that they don't have anything to do with spiritual accomplishment, or even with being a nice guy. I've seen at least one person levitate fer real and turn invisible and stuff like that and then turn around and act like a total dick. As for austere and disciplined, what makes you believe those criteria have anything to do with spiritual realization, or accomplishment? As for what the Buddha was trying to say, I personally would venture that no human being on earth -- including the original Buddha -- has ever known that. I hold the supposed Buddhist canon as being no more reflective of anything actually said or taught by the original Buddha than the New Testament is reflective of anything actually said or taught by the supposed Jesus. *Without exception*, any of the scriptures suggesting otherwise in either case were written by non-enlightened people decades to centuries after the supposed teacher's life. *** I think you're trying to cling to generic rules and regs for spiritual teachers made up by those who have never been spiritual teachers, only groupies on the sidelines. Me, I just like characters, and the Turquoise Bee certainly was one. I don't like him because he was some grandiose spiritual master, but because he was a great *character*. One of the stories about him I like best is that there is a possibility that he *wasn't* murdered by the Chinese, but that instead he faked his death so that he could free himself from the yoke of being the Dalai Lama and just walk the earth, like Caine in Kung-fu. :-) *** I'm serious about this, by the way. I don't believe that anything of any lasting value about either enlightenment or spiritual realization or attaining it can *possibly* be captured in words. My experience in life suggests to me that any of these things can be conveyed only by transmission from a living person who embodies that which he or she is hoping to share with others. No words are necessary for this process to occur, and no words can possibly capture what is transmitted wordlessly. IMO, of course. From: s3raph...@yahoo.com s3raph...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 9, 2014 4:46 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM Thanks for the reply. I followed your link and enjoyed the poems. Turquoise Bee was clearly someone who enjoyed the more earthy pleasures. And he didn't try to hide his preferences so can't be accused of being a hypocrite. Nothing wrong with that - but did he display any spiritual accomplishments? I'm sure that an austere, disciplined Theravada Buddhist would dismiss Turquoise Bee as a man who had no sympathy or understanding of what the Buddha was trying to say. Tibetan Buddhists have always struck me as being enriched (contaminated?) by other traditions (such as Bon) so I can never decide whether they are esoteric masters or lost souls. Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche was a more recent superstar. He openly slept with his female disciples. I recall someone claiming in mitigation that his compulsive promiscuity was not what it seemed: he actually preferred cuddling up to his women for emotional comfort rather than engaging in a hedonistic sex session. But that only makes it seem worse! Does practising being a Buddhist leave you emotionally needy and insecure? If so what's the point?
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
Emily, methunks that there is no disconnect between enlightenment, which you asked about, and life, which was the context of my answer and includes BOTH kinds of smile (-: On Saturday, March 8, 2014 9:10 PM, emilymae...@yahoo.com emilymae...@yahoo.com wrote: Methinks you may have changed what I was asking to make an attempt to talk of the topic, life. I have now changed my own context to Share talking about life and I am amused (in a friendly way). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, emptybill and Doc are way better at describing it than I am. I just have glimpses and sense it all around in everything and everyone. It's a state of wondrous paradox. On Saturday, March 8, 2014 7:02 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Share, how does your comment relate to the article and to what Emptybill's comment was? Can you elaborate? What is enlightenment to you. Sounds like you think it is a thing? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emptybill, Sorry, I did not weep, I read and enjoyed, thank you. It's ok if enlightenment gets me instead of me getting it. Six of one, half dozen of another (-: So we could say, combining your words and punditsir's: enlightenment is only gonna get me as much as it gets me. That feels right. On Saturday, March 8, 2014 2:24 PM, emptybill@... emptybill@... wrote: Share, Sorry to have to say it again to you but none of us will get anyenlightenment at all, not now or at any time - never, ever. Enlightenment is a silly scam to get you to want something that you already are by nature. It is more accurately called selling water by the river. There is nothing to obtain other than the direct discernment of your real nature. Read it and weep. http://www.nevernotpresent.com/faqs/relationship-yoga-vedanta/
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
Buddhists seem to have a BIG PR problem. Everyone is familiar with all of the celebrities who practice and endorse TM. But Buddhism has the little DL dude, and Uma Thurman's dad, and the DL does nothing except smile, and no one has ever heard of Uma Thurman's dad.:-) It is not a religion that proselytizes, so has no grand cathedrals to display, either. The transmission method of enlightening a student is exactly what Guru Dev used to enlighten Maharishi, but Maharishi was smart enough to recognize that it would not work in the modern world, so he brought out TM. Aside from a few sticks in the mud, TM is widely recognized as a way to transmit all the tools necessary for enlightenment. The additional benefit, is that the student is far more independent of the teacher, with TM, than hanging on his coattails, as is true of the Buddhist transmission method. Buddhism creates beautiful art, probably the most beautiful, depicting the state of inner serenity. That appears to be its sole purpose, aside from giving a few westerners swelled heads. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Define spiritual accomplishments. I'll wait... Seriously, try. What can you come up with that falls outside the general area of I *claim* to have had the following completely subjective experiences.? For me, there is no such criterion. Creating a tradition means nothing, and number of students means nothing. Certainly making a lot of money means nothing, or Maharishi would be a spiritual luminary, instead of being the sad joke he's considered by most people on the planet. Performing (or even claiming to have performed) sidhis doesn't do diddley for me, because I've been there, done that with witnessing sidhis, and know that they don't have anything to do with spiritual accomplishment, or even with being a nice guy. I've seen at least one person levitate fer real and turn invisible and stuff like that and then turn around and act like a total dick. As for austere and disciplined, what makes you believe those criteria have anything to do with spiritual realization, or accomplishment? As for what the Buddha was trying to say, I personally would venture that no human being on earth -- including the original Buddha -- has ever known that. I hold the supposed Buddhist canon as being no more reflective of anything actually said or taught by the original Buddha than the New Testament is reflective of anything actually said or taught by the supposed Jesus. *Without exception*, any of the scriptures suggesting otherwise in either case were written by non-enlightened people decades to centuries after the supposed teacher's life. *** I think you're trying to cling to generic rules and regs for spiritual teachers made up by those who have never been spiritual teachers, only groupies on the sidelines. Me, I just like characters, and the Turquoise Bee certainly was one. I don't like him because he was some grandiose spiritual master, but because he was a great *character*. One of the stories about him I like best is that there is a possibility that he *wasn't* murdered by the Chinese, but that instead he faked his death so that he could free himself from the yoke of being the Dalai Lama and just walk the earth, like Caine in Kung-fu. :-) *** I'm serious about this, by the way. I don't believe that anything of any lasting value about either enlightenment or spiritual realization or attaining it can *possibly* be captured in words. My experience in life suggests to me that any of these things can be conveyed only by transmission from a living person who embodies that which he or she is hoping to share with others. No words are necessary for this process to occur, and no words can possibly capture what is transmitted wordlessly. IMO, of course. From: s3raphita@... s3raphita@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 9, 2014 4:46 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM Thanks for the reply. I followed your link and enjoyed the poems. Turquoise Bee was clearly someone who enjoyed the more earthy pleasures. And he didn't try to hide his preferences so can't be accused of being a hypocrite. Nothing wrong with that - but did he display any spiritual accomplishments? I'm sure that an austere, disciplined Theravada Buddhist would dismiss Turquoise Bee as a man who had no sympathy or understanding of what the Buddha was trying to say. Tibetan Buddhists have always struck me as being enriched (contaminated?) by other traditions (such as Bon) so I can never decide whether they are esoteric masters or lost souls. Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche was a more recent superstar. He openly slept with his female disciples. I recall someone claiming in mitigation that his compulsive promiscuity was not what it seemed: he actually preferred cuddling up to his women for emotional comfort rather
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Buddhists seem to have a BIG PR problem. Maybe they don't spend as much on advertising as the TMO? Maybe they (shock horror) don't think it's as important. Everyone is familiar with all of the celebrities who practice and endorse TM. How could we be otherwise, in our shallow age whether a celebrity does something is the most important indicator of its worth. Just the other day I got an email from TM HQ about how many famous slebs do TM, not sure what I was supposed to think of it, maybe if I do TM I'll be famous like them, is that it? Or is it just to say that I chose wisely because all these fabulous people sit still in the same way I used to? TM is widely recognized as a way to transmit all the tools necessary for enlightenment. Widely recognised by.? The additional benefit, is that the student is far more independent of the teacher, with TM, than hanging on his coattails, as is true of the Buddhist transmission method. Not even remotely true, you can practise any meditation anywhere. You didn't do much research for this did you? And what about Buck in the Dome and all the others who spend hours and hours every day and thousands and thousands extra on add-ons like prayers and east facing homes. The TMO encourages dependence for your own good. Most TM-lifers never get beyond thinking there is an alternative to the slavish dogma. The longer you are involved, the less chance there is of learning anything else. Buddhism creates beautiful art, probably the most beautiful, depicting the state of inner serenity. That appears to be its sole purpose, aside from giving a few westerners swelled heads. I agree with you about the art but maybe Buddhists think they are better off without Russell Brand and world renowned physicists talking bollocks on their behalf? There's something to be said for humility. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Define spiritual accomplishments. I'll wait... Seriously, try. What can you come up with that falls outside the general area of I *claim* to have had the following completely subjective experiences.? For me, there is no such criterion. Creating a tradition means nothing, and number of students means nothing. Certainly making a lot of money means nothing, or Maharishi would be a spiritual luminary, instead of being the sad joke he's considered by most people on the planet. Performing (or even claiming to have performed) sidhis doesn't do diddley for me, because I've been there, done that with witnessing sidhis, and know that they don't have anything to do with spiritual accomplishment, or even with being a nice guy. I've seen at least one person levitate fer real and turn invisible and stuff like that and then turn around and act like a total dick. As for austere and disciplined, what makes you believe those criteria have anything to do with spiritual realization, or accomplishment? As for what the Buddha was trying to say, I personally would venture that no human being on earth -- including the original Buddha -- has ever known that. I hold the supposed Buddhist canon as being no more reflective of anything actually said or taught by the original Buddha than the New Testament is reflective of anything actually said or taught by the supposed Jesus. *Without exception*, any of the scriptures suggesting otherwise in either case were written by non-enlightened people decades to centuries after the supposed teacher's life. *** I think you're trying to cling to generic rules and regs for spiritual teachers made up by those who have never been spiritual teachers, only groupies on the sidelines. Me, I just like characters, and the Turquoise Bee certainly was one. I don't like him because he was some grandiose spiritual master, but because he was a great *character*. One of the stories about him I like best is that there is a possibility that he *wasn't* murdered by the Chinese, but that instead he faked his death so that he could free himself from the yoke of being the Dalai Lama and just walk the earth, like Caine in Kung-fu. :-) *** I'm serious about this, by the way. I don't believe that anything of any lasting value about either enlightenment or spiritual realization or attaining it can *possibly* be captured in words. My experience in life suggests to me that any of these things can be conveyed only by transmission from a living person who embodies that which he or she is hoping to share with others. No words are necessary for this process to occur, and no words can possibly capture what is transmitted wordlessly. IMO, of course. From: s3raphita@... s3raphita@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 9, 2014 4:46 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM Thanks for the reply
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
If you don't mind, I'll let you two debate the merits or demerits of Buddhism, and just practice a little humility myself. If it wasn't clear from my initial reply to s3raphita, I am the furthest thing from a formal Buddhist on the planet. I don't even completely believe that the writings attributed to the original Buddha have anything to do with anything he ever taught, and wouldn't give them any more credence if I *did* believe they did. He was Just Another Guy. That, in fact, seems to have been his essential teaching, that he was Just Another Guy. Anyone who feels the need to elevate him onto some kind of pedestal for saying that has completely missed the point.Furthermore, the notion of any spiritual tradition either wanting or needing PR seems to me to have similarly missed the point. I find it difficult to conceive of anyone stupid enough to believe that PR in such a scenario would ever be needed, much less a good thing. As for comparing the tradition of Buddhism to the tradition (insert derisive laughter here) of TM, that strikes me as similar to comparing real history to stories read on Fox News by bimbos. :-) From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 9, 2014 1:23 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Buddhists seem to have a BIG PR problem. Maybe they don't spend as much on advertising as the TMO? Maybe they (shock horror) don't think it's as important. Everyone is familiar with all of the celebrities who practice and endorse TM. How could we be otherwise, in our shallow age whether a celebrity does something is the most important indicator of its worth. Just the other day I got an email from TM HQ about how many famous slebs do TM, not sure what I was supposed to think of it, maybe if I do TM I'll be famous like them, is that it? Or is it just to say that I chose wisely because all these fabulous people sit still in the same way I used to? TM is widely recognized as a way to transmit all the tools necessary for enlightenment. Widely recognised by.? The additional benefit, is that the student is far more independent of the teacher, with TM, than hanging on his coattails, as is true of the Buddhist transmission method. Not even remotely true, you can practise any meditation anywhere. You didn't do much research for this did you? And what about Buck in the Dome and all the others who spend hours and hours every day and thousands and thousands extra on add-ons like prayers and east facing homes. The TMO encourages dependence for your own good. Most TM-lifers never get beyond thinking there is an alternative to the slavish dogma. The longer you are involved, the less chance there is of learning anything else. Buddhism creates beautiful art, probably the most beautiful, depicting the state of inner serenity. That appears to be its sole purpose, aside from giving a few westerners swelled heads. I agree with you about the art but maybe Buddhists think they are better off without Russell Brand and world renowned physicists talking bollocks on their behalf? There's something to be said for humility. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Define spiritual accomplishments. I'll wait... Seriously, try. What can you come up with that falls outside the general area of I *claim* to have had the following completely subjective experiences.? For me, there is no such criterion. Creating a tradition means nothing, and number of students means nothing. Certainly making a lot of money means nothing, or Maharishi would be a spiritual luminary, instead of being the sad joke he's considered by most people on the planet. Performing (or even claiming to have performed) sidhis doesn't do diddley for me, because I've been there, done that with witnessing sidhis, and know that they don't have anything to do with spiritual accomplishment, or even with being a nice guy. I've seen at least one person levitate fer real and turn invisible and stuff like that and then turn around and act like a total dick. As for austere and disciplined, what makes you believe those criteria have anything to do with spiritual realization, or accomplishment? As for what the Buddha was trying to say, I personally would venture that no human being on earth -- including the original Buddha -- has ever known that. I hold the supposed Buddhist canon as being no more reflective of anything actually said or taught by the original Buddha than the New Testament is reflective of anything actually said or taught by the supposed Jesus. *Without exception*, any of the scriptures suggesting otherwise in either case were written by non-enlightened people decades to centuries after the supposed teacher's life. *** I think you're trying
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
Salyavin, it was something about NATO being one of three rakshasas. On Sunday, March 9, 2014 7:49 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: I'd say please press the show message history before posting so we can see what you are on about but then I saw the words Benjamin Creme and realised I probably wasn't missing much. But do it anyway Nabby, it helps with the flow... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : He didn't say. But Mr. Benjamin Crème has said that the material forces that was driven underground as an effect of WWII has resurfaced in Israel and in a undisclosed place in Eastern Europe.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
From the information Emptybill posted: Will I get everything I want when I'm enlightened? No. But once you know self, you won’t want anything else. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, methunks that there is no disconnect between enlightenment, which you asked about, and life, which was the context of my answer and includes BOTH kinds of smile (-: On Saturday, March 8, 2014 9:10 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Methinks you may have changed what I was asking to make an attempt to talk of the topic, life. I have now changed my own context to Share talking about life and I am amused (in a friendly way). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, emptybill and Doc are way better at describing it than I am. I just have glimpses and sense it all around in everything and everyone. It's a state of wondrous paradox. On Saturday, March 8, 2014 7:02 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Share, how does your comment relate to the article and to what Emptybill's comment was? Can you elaborate? What is enlightenment to you. Sounds like you think it is a thing? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emptybill, Sorry, I did not weep, I read and enjoyed, thank you. It's ok if enlightenment gets me instead of me getting it. Six of one, half dozen of another (-: So we could say, combining your words and punditsir's: enlightenment is only gonna get me as much as it gets me. That feels right. On Saturday, March 8, 2014 2:24 PM, emptybill@... emptybill@... wrote: Share, Sorry to have to say it again to you but none of us will get any enlightenment at all, not now or at any time - never, ever. Enlightenment is a silly scam to get you to want something that you already are by nature. It is more accurately called selling water by the river. There is nothing to obtain other than the direct discernment of your real nature. Read it and weep. http://www.nevernotpresent.com/faqs/relationship-yoga-vedanta/ http://www.nevernotpresent.com/faqs/relationship-yoga-vedanta/
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
My experience has been more like, 'be careful what you wish for' - due to thoughts being entertained at a more powerful place, desires happen - all of them. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote : From the information Emptybill posted: Will I get everything I want when I'm enlightened? No. But once you know self, you won’t want anything else. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, methunks that there is no disconnect between enlightenment, which you asked about, and life, which was the context of my answer and includes BOTH kinds of smile (-: On Saturday, March 8, 2014 9:10 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Methinks you may have changed what I was asking to make an attempt to talk of the topic, life. I have now changed my own context to Share talking about life and I am amused (in a friendly way). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, emptybill and Doc are way better at describing it than I am. I just have glimpses and sense it all around in everything and everyone. It's a state of wondrous paradox. On Saturday, March 8, 2014 7:02 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Share, how does your comment relate to the article and to what Emptybill's comment was? Can you elaborate? What is enlightenment to you. Sounds like you think it is a thing? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emptybill, Sorry, I did not weep, I read and enjoyed, thank you. It's ok if enlightenment gets me instead of me getting it. Six of one, half dozen of another (-: So we could say, combining your words and punditsir's: enlightenment is only gonna get me as much as it gets me. That feels right. On Saturday, March 8, 2014 2:24 PM, emptybill@... emptybill@... wrote: Share, Sorry to have to say it again to you but none of us will get any enlightenment at all, not now or at any time - never, ever. Enlightenment is a silly scam to get you to want something that you already are by nature. It is more accurately called selling water by the river. There is nothing to obtain other than the direct discernment of your real nature. Read it and weep. http://www.nevernotpresent.com/faqs/relationship-yoga-vedanta/ http://www.nevernotpresent.com/faqs/relationship-yoga-vedanta/
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote : From the information Emptybill posted: Will I get everything I want when I'm enlightened? No. But once you know self, you won’t want anything else. I'm glad you could make heads or tails from what Share wrote below because I couldn't figure it out except the methunks part. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, methunks that there is no disconnect between enlightenment, which you asked about, and life, which was the context of my answer and includes BOTH kinds of smile (-: On Saturday, March 8, 2014 9:10 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Methinks you may have changed what I was asking to make an attempt to talk of the topic, life. I have now changed my own context to Share talking about life and I am amused (in a friendly way). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, emptybill and Doc are way better at describing it than I am. I just have glimpses and sense it all around in everything and everyone. It's a state of wondrous paradox. On Saturday, March 8, 2014 7:02 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Share, how does your comment relate to the article and to what Emptybill's comment was? Can you elaborate? What is enlightenment to you. Sounds like you think it is a thing? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emptybill, Sorry, I did not weep, I read and enjoyed, thank you. It's ok if enlightenment gets me instead of me getting it. Six of one, half dozen of another (-: So we could say, combining your words and punditsir's: enlightenment is only gonna get me as much as it gets me. That feels right. On Saturday, March 8, 2014 2:24 PM, emptybill@... emptybill@... wrote: Share, Sorry to have to say it again to you but none of us will get any enlightenment at all, not now or at any time - never, ever. Enlightenment is a silly scam to get you to want something that you already are by nature. It is more accurately called selling water by the river. There is nothing to obtain other than the direct discernment of your real nature. Read it and weep. http://www.nevernotpresent.com/faqs/relationship-yoga-vedanta/ http://www.nevernotpresent.com/faqs/relationship-yoga-vedanta/
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
Well, it is amusing to watch Share's mind...I wonder if she was following mine. The word methinks is one used by Shakespeare. Shakespeare wrote of paradox and, if you will, wondrous paradox. And on this topic of paradox, from the book Shakespeare and the Paradox we find the following: Whatever else it is designed to do to incite its audience's wonder, the paradox dazzles by its mental gymnastics, by its manipulation even prestidigitation, of ideas, true or false. The rhetorical paradox is, further, paradoxical in its double aim of dazzling - that is, of arresting thought altogether in the possessive experience of wonder - and of stimulating further questions, speculation, qualification, even contradiction on the part of that wondering audience. Of course, she did not answer my first question, which was how did her comment relate to Emptybill's post? This was the most important question for her, of course, and she dismissed it, but...she is where she is.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
Methinks the lady doth protest too much. The one in Seattle that is! The thing is Emily, I replied to emptybill as I was moved to reply and in a way that made sense to me. One has to start there I think and see what happens next. On Sunday, March 9, 2014 12:12 PM, emilymae...@yahoo.com emilymae...@yahoo.com wrote: Well, it is amusing to watch Share's mind...I wonder if she was following mine. The word methinks is one used by Shakespeare. Shakespeare wrote of paradox and, if you will, wondrous paradox. And on this topic of paradox, from the book Shakespeare and the Paradox we find the following: Whatever else it is designed to do to incite its audience's wonder, the paradox dazzles by its mental gymnastics, by its manipulation even prestidigitation, of ideas, true or false. The rhetorical paradox is, further, paradoxical in its double aim of dazzling - that is, of arresting thought altogether in the possessive experience of wonder - and of stimulating further questions, speculation, qualification, even contradiction on the part of that wondering audience. Of course, she did not answer my first question, which was how did her comment relate to Emptybill's post? This was the most important question for her, of course, and she dismissed it, but...she is where she is.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
But Share, something did happen next. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Methinks the lady doth protest too much. The one in Seattle that is! The thing is Emily, I replied to emptybill as I was moved to reply and in a way that made sense to me. One has to start there I think and see what happens next. On Sunday, March 9, 2014 12:12 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Well, it is amusing to watch Share's mind...I wonder if she was following mine. The word methinks is one used by Shakespeare. Shakespeare wrote of paradox and, if you will, wondrous paradox. And on this topic of paradox, from the book Shakespeare and the Paradox we find the following: Whatever else it is designed to do to incite its audience's wonder, the paradox dazzles by its mental gymnastics, by its manipulation even prestidigitation, of ideas, true or false. The rhetorical paradox is, further, paradoxical in its double aim of dazzling - that is, of arresting thought altogether in the possessive experience of wonder - and of stimulating further questions, speculation, qualification, even contradiction on the part of that wondering audience. Of course, she did not answer my first question, which was how did her comment relate to Emptybill's post? This was the most important question for her, of course, and she dismissed it, but...she is where she is.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
On 3/9/2014 3:01 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote: I've seen at least one person levitate fer real and turn invisible and stuff like that and then turn around and act like a total dick. Maybe we don't care if you're a dick or not, or where you have been - we just want you to tell us the secret of the levitation and how to turn ourselves invisible. If someone could fly and hover and disappear it would be almost criminal to keep such techniques a secret. If you can't or won't teach us how to do these things, then maybe you should just keep your big pie hole shut about spiritual paths and teachers. Either put up or shut up. That's what I think. Otherwise you're just posting prattle and pablum. Go figure. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
On 3/9/2014 6:23 AM, doctordumb...@rocketmail.com wrote: What are the other two rakshasas, besides NATO? It would probably be a good idea to look up what the work rakshasas means in Sanskrit. Maybe some people don't realize is this was the word used by the Caucasian Aryan invaders of India to describe the dark-skinned native inhabitants. The word in Sanskrit usage means a black-devil. It would probably be good idea to keep in mind that the U.S. President is black - it hasn't been determined if he is he devil or not. Go figure. Reference: Dictionary of Hinduism Its Mythology, Folklore, Philosophy, Literature, and History By M. and J. Stutley Harper Row, 1977
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
On 3/8/2014 9:46 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote: Does practising being a Buddhist leave you emotionally needy and insecure? If so what's the point? You need to realize that this is a pattern: what students learn from their teachers sometimes they become. So far as we can tell from his writings, the TB bowed at the feet of MMY and then Rama, for many years. According to sources posting to FFL, both of these teachers taught their students to enjoy sexual activities. So, it's probably just natural for the TB, who we know as Uncle Tantra, to be greatly influenced by the personal behavior of his teachers. Maybe the TB got brainwashed by a cult and so now he believes being on a spiritual path includes sleeping with your students like the Great Sixth did. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
On 3/9/2014 6:58 AM, doctordumb...@rocketmail.com wrote: Buddhism has the little DL dude, and Uma Thurman's dad, and the DL does nothing except smile, and no one has ever heard of Uma Thurman's dad Buddhism has the Buddha AND the DL dude, and there a millions of Buddhists that have heard of Uma and her Dad. You may be surprised, since you don't seem very well-read, that you've been practicing Buddhism all these years. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
On 3/9/2014 7:49 AM, salyavin808 wrote: I'd say please press the show message history before posting so we can see what you are on about There are only about six or seven us having an online conversation these days - I can remember what each one you has posted the day before. I don't need no message history because I keep up with the conversations. I don't need to go back and re-read what anyone wrote last week or last year. By this time, we already know how everyone feels in general about things. So, click the three buttons if you want to - I'm using Thunderbird and I don't miss a thing. Or, just keep up with the conversation and the flow. If you don't want to dance, why did you even come to the dance party? That's what I think.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
I am SO tired of your Chimp at the keyboard routine... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/9/2014 6:58 AM, doctordumbass@... mailto:doctordumbass@... wrote: Buddhism has the little DL dude, and Uma Thurman's dad, and the DL does nothing except smile, and no one has ever heard of Uma Thurman's dad Buddhism has the Buddha AND the DL dude, and there a millions of Buddhists that have heard of Uma and her Dad. You may be surprised, since you don't seem very well-read, that you've been practicing Buddhism all these years. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
On 3/9/2014 8:45 PM, doctordumb...@rocketmail.com wrote: I am SO tired of your Chimp at the keyboard routine... You are not even making any sense. Anyone who meditates with the goal of attaining enlightenment is a Buddhist.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
On 3/8/2014 7:37 AM, doctordumb...@rocketmail.com wrote: What is, a final renunciation??? Sounds like people getting confused, between a monk's life of solitude, and a worldly person's active life. This concept is a false one - no matter what a person's state of consciousness, there is no actual lifestyle change, whether they are attached to the objects of perception, or not. The unenlightened mind has a habit of taking wisdom, and transforming it, into insanity.:-) A monk's way of life sounds boring to me. I do much better when I have things to do like talk to Rita, or play and listen to music. There's nothing better than taking a walk with Rita and our dogs - that's enlightenment in action! Many times people miss out on the very small moments of life - it is amazing what can happen in the human brain in extremely shorts units of time during meditation. Sometimes an extremely small unit of time may lead to life-altering changes in one's general outlook. You are only going to get as much enlightenment as you are going to get. What you have to do is answer the big question: What exactly, do I REALLY want to be doing? According to Vince Lombardi, You are a success the very moment you set a goal. No matter how enlightened you think you are there still remains the important issues. First comes relationships; then after that, comes affordability and the criteria for shelter and transportation. Remember that just because you are in an enlightened state, you still have to be concerned with your proximity to food stores, medical facilities, strip malls and shopping centers. Almost NOBODY gets away from the tea-stall wallah! --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
Richard, you've said it before and I really like that phrase: you are only going to get as much enlightenment as you're going to get. It just sounds right and profound and funny too. Also like the bit about the tea stall wallah. All in all, a gem of a post (-: In Austin, is the Whole Foods in a nice area? On Saturday, March 8, 2014 10:21 AM, Richard J. Williams pundits...@gmail.com wrote: On 3/8/2014 7:37 AM, doctordumb...@rocketmail.com wrote: What is, a final renunciation??? Sounds like people getting confused, between a monk's life of solitude, and a worldly person's active life. This concept is a false one - no matter what a person's state of consciousness, there is no actual lifestyle change, whether they are attached to the objects of perception, or not. The unenlightened mind has a habit of taking wisdom, and transforming it, into insanity.:-) A monk's way of life sounds boring to me. I do much better when I have things to do like talk to Rita, or play and listen to music. There's nothing better than taking a walk with Rita and our dogs - that's enlightenment in action! Many times people miss out on the very small moments of life - it is amazing what can happen in the human brain in extremely shorts units of time during meditation. Sometimes an extremely small unit of time may lead to life-altering changes in one's general outlook. You are only going to get as much enlightenment as you are going to get. What you have to do is answer the big question: What exactly, do I REALLY want to be doing? According to Vince Lombardi, You are a success the very moment you set a goal. No matter how enlightened you think you are there still remains the important issues. First comes relationships; then after that, comes affordability and the criteria for shelter and transportation. Remember that just because you are in an enlightened state, you still have to be concerned with your proximity to food stores, medical facilities, strip malls and shopping centers. Almost NOBODY gets away from the tea-stall wallah! This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
Share, Sorry to have to say it again to you but none of us will get any enlightenment at all, not now or at any time - never, ever. Enlightenment is a silly scam to get you to want something that you already are by nature. It is more accurately called selling water by the river. There is nothing to obtain other than the direct discernment of your real nature. Read it and weep. http://www.nevernotpresent.com/faqs/relationship-yoga-vedanta/ http://www.nevernotpresent.com/faqs/relationship-yoga-vedanta/
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
Emptybill, Sorry, I did not weep, I read and enjoyed, thank you. It's ok if enlightenment gets me instead of me getting it. Six of one, half dozen of another (-: So we could say, combining your words and punditsir's: enlightenment is only gonna get me as much as it gets me. That feels right. On Saturday, March 8, 2014 2:24 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: Share, Sorry to have to say it again to you but none of us will get anyenlightenment at all, not now or at any time - never, ever. Enlightenment is a silly scam to get you to want something that you already are by nature. It is more accurately called selling water by the river. There is nothing to obtain other than the direct discernment of your real nature. Read it and weep. http://www.nevernotpresent.com/faqs/relationship-yoga-vedanta/
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
Share, how does your comment relate to the article and to what Emptybill's comment was? Can you elaborate? What is enlightenment to you. Sounds like you think it is a thing? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emptybill, Sorry, I did not weep, I read and enjoyed, thank you. It's ok if enlightenment gets me instead of me getting it. Six of one, half dozen of another (-: So we could say, combining your words and punditsir's: enlightenment is only gonna get me as much as it gets me. That feels right. On Saturday, March 8, 2014 2:24 PM, emptybill@... emptybill@... wrote: Share, Sorry to have to say it again to you but none of us will get any enlightenment at all, not now or at any time - never, ever. Enlightenment is a silly scam to get you to want something that you already are by nature. It is more accurately called selling water by the river. There is nothing to obtain other than the direct discernment of your real nature. Read it and weep. http://www.nevernotpresent.com/faqs/relationship-yoga-vedanta/ http://www.nevernotpresent.com/faqs/relationship-yoga-vedanta/
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
Emily, emptybill and Doc are way better at describing it than I am. I just have glimpses and sense it all around in everything and everyone. It's a state of wondrous paradox. On Saturday, March 8, 2014 7:02 PM, emilymae...@yahoo.com emilymae...@yahoo.com wrote: Share, how does your comment relate to the article and to what Emptybill's comment was? Can you elaborate? What is enlightenment to you. Sounds like you think it is a thing? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emptybill, Sorry, I did not weep, I read and enjoyed, thank you. It's ok if enlightenment gets me instead of me getting it. Six of one, half dozen of another (-: So we could say, combining your words and punditsir's: enlightenment is only gonna get me as much as it gets me. That feels right. On Saturday, March 8, 2014 2:24 PM, emptybill@... emptybill@... wrote: Share, Sorry to have to say it again to you but none of us will get anyenlightenment at all, not now or at any time - never, ever. Enlightenment is a silly scam to get you to want something that you already are by nature. It is more accurately called selling water by the river. There is nothing to obtain other than the direct discernment of your real nature. Read it and weep. http://www.nevernotpresent.com/faqs/relationship-yoga-vedanta/
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
Methinks you may have changed what I was asking to make an attempt to talk of the topic, life. I have now changed my own context to Share talking about life and I am amused (in a friendly way). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, emptybill and Doc are way better at describing it than I am. I just have glimpses and sense it all around in everything and everyone. It's a state of wondrous paradox. On Saturday, March 8, 2014 7:02 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Share, how does your comment relate to the article and to what Emptybill's comment was? Can you elaborate? What is enlightenment to you. Sounds like you think it is a thing? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emptybill, Sorry, I did not weep, I read and enjoyed, thank you. It's ok if enlightenment gets me instead of me getting it. Six of one, half dozen of another (-: So we could say, combining your words and punditsir's: enlightenment is only gonna get me as much as it gets me. That feels right. On Saturday, March 8, 2014 2:24 PM, emptybill@... emptybill@... wrote: Share, Sorry to have to say it again to you but none of us will get any enlightenment at all, not now or at any time - never, ever. Enlightenment is a silly scam to get you to want something that you already are by nature. It is more accurately called selling water by the river. There is nothing to obtain other than the direct discernment of your real nature. Read it and weep. http://www.nevernotpresent.com/faqs/relationship-yoga-vedanta/ http://www.nevernotpresent.com/faqs/relationship-yoga-vedanta/
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
Seraph, rather than being the final refusal to lose one's individuality or the final grasping at a gratifying experience? maybe it's simply a case of extreme devotion, wanting to adore the Beloved rather than become one with the Beloved. On Thursday, March 6, 2014 9:18 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote: The Ramakrishna reference I was trying to recall above came from The Eye in the Triangle: An Interpretation of Aleister Crowley by Israel Regardie (by the way: the best short account of Crowley's life). Sri Ramakrishna said I want to taste sugar, not become sugar. So what you have here is a final refusal to lose one's individuality. I appreciate Doc's comments above but I can't help feeling that a true seer (Ramana Maharshi?) would have abandoned that final grasping at a gratifying experience.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Seraph, rather than being the final refusal to lose one's individuality or the final grasping at a gratifying experience? maybe it's simply a case of extreme devotion, wanting to adore the Beloved rather than become one with the Beloved. I find it strange that those who involve themselves with, preoccupy their life with all the hooplah associated with these purported states of consciousness also seem to place valuation on all of it. Why not just let life flow along, unfold and be amazed by simply being able to love another human being or appreciate deeply a piece of music? But I do like your question. On Thursday, March 6, 2014 9:18 PM, s3raphita@... s3raphita@... wrote: The Ramakrishna reference I was trying to recall above came from The Eye in the Triangle: An Interpretation of Aleister Crowley by Israel Regardie (by the way: the best short account of Crowley's life). Sri Ramakrishna said I want to taste sugar, not become sugar. So what you have here is a final refusal to lose one's individuality. I appreciate Doc's comments above but I can't help feeling that a true seer (Ramana Maharshi?) would have abandoned that final grasping at a gratifying experience.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
Ann, the flowing along of life IS the Beloved. As is another person. As is the piece of music. Even being preoccupied with this or that is the Beloved. In my experience, the Beloved is all inclusive. Which means including Bawwy. Go figure! On Friday, March 7, 2014 8:32 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Seraph, rather than being the final refusal to lose one's individuality or the final grasping at a gratifying experience? maybe it's simply a case of extreme devotion, wanting to adore the Beloved rather than become one with the Beloved. I find it strange that those who involve themselves with, preoccupy their life with all the hooplah associated with these purported states of consciousness also seem to place valuation on all of it. Why not just let life flow along, unfold and be amazed by simply being able to love another human being or appreciate deeply a piece of music? But I do like your question. On Thursday, March 6, 2014 9:18 PM, s3raphita@... s3raphita@... wrote: The Ramakrishna reference I was trying to recall above came from The Eye in the Triangle: An Interpretation of Aleister Crowley by Israel Regardie (by the way: the best short account of Crowley's life). Sri Ramakrishna said I want to taste sugar, not become sugar. So what you have here is a final refusal to lose one's individuality. I appreciate Doc's comments above but I can't help feeling that a true seer (Ramana Maharshi?) would have abandoned that final grasping at a gratifying experience.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
From: Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 7, 2014 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM Ann, the flowing along of life IS the Beloved. As is another person. As is the piece of music. Even being preoccupied with this or that is the Beloved. In my experience, the Beloved is all inclusive. Which means including Bawwy. Go figure! You'll have to pardon me if I bail on being beloved by Ann, even in theory. After all, look what that did for Robin Carlsen. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
turq, the Beloved is life and it's too late. It already loves you (-: On Friday, March 7, 2014 9:21 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 7, 2014 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM Ann, the flowing along of life IS the Beloved. As is another person. As is the piece of music. Even being preoccupied with this or that is the Beloved. In my experience, the Beloved is all inclusive. Which means including Bawwy. Go figure! You'll have to pardon me if I bail on being beloved by Ann, even in theory. After all, look what that did for Robin Carlsen. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Ann, the flowing along of life IS the Beloved. As is another person. As is the piece of music. Even being preoccupied with this or that is the Beloved. In my experience, the Beloved is all inclusive. Which means including Bawwy. Go figure! I do believe you may be right, Share! On Friday, March 7, 2014 8:32 AM, awoelflebater@... awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Seraph, rather than being the final refusal to lose one's individuality or the final grasping at a gratifying experience? maybe it's simply a case of extreme devotion, wanting to adore the Beloved rather than become one with the Beloved. I find it strange that those who involve themselves with, preoccupy their life with all the hooplah associated with these purported states of consciousness also seem to place valuation on all of it. Why not just let life flow along, unfold and be amazed by simply being able to love another human being or appreciate deeply a piece of music? But I do like your question. On Thursday, March 6, 2014 9:18 PM, s3raphita@... s3raphita@... wrote: The Ramakrishna reference I was trying to recall above came from The Eye in the Triangle: An Interpretation of Aleister Crowley by Israel Regardie (by the way: the best short account of Crowley's life). Sri Ramakrishna said I want to taste sugar, not become sugar. So what you have here is a final refusal to lose one's individuality. I appreciate Doc's comments above but I can't help feeling that a true seer (Ramana Maharshi?) would have abandoned that final grasping at a gratifying experience.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: Share Long sharelong60@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 7, 2014 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM Ann, the flowing along of life IS the Beloved. As is another person. As is the piece of music. Even being preoccupied with this or that is the Beloved. In my experience, the Beloved is all inclusive. Which means including Bawwy. Go figure! You'll have to pardon me if I bail on being beloved by Ann, even in theory. After all, look what that did for Robin Carlsen. :-) You bet your bippy, so start behaving yourself 'cause I got a mean streak a mile long and I ain't afraid to use it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
On 3/7/2014 9:09 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote: But more importantly: what is this new handle: TurquoiseBee? The Turquoise Bee: The Sixth Dalai Lama of Tibet who is reincarnated as the FFL TB - True Believer. Go figure. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
From: s3raph...@yahoo.com s3raph...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 8, 2014 4:09 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM But more importantly: what is this new handle: TurquoiseBee? Is it someone making fun of TurquoiseB or has Barry grown wings? Don't know how important it is, but now that I've been Neo'd I post from two different locations. If I'm replying to another post, I use email, but if I'm starting a new topic (which is often), I use Neo, and for some reason its identifier for me is set to 'TurquoiseBee'. Both screen names had their genesis and inspiration in the same person, my favorite spiritual figure in history, the Sixth Dalai Lama. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/topics/50856 Hanging on the wall behind me as I type this is one of my most prized possessions, a 17th-century Tibetan high lama's robe. It is from one of the monasteries where the original Turquoise Bee lived and taught during his lifetime, and thus could possibly have been worn by him.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
Barry, I think everyone here has noticed that this is how you talk about your experiences, including in this very post. (Nice to see that you're reading Ann's posts these days, though.) Does anyone notice that there seems to be an *inverse* one-upsmanship going down here? More of a one-downsmanship: If someone talks about experiences that don't match mine, *theirs* are wrong. All that Bawwy did, after all, was to report his everyday experience, and point out that in the larger field of meditation sitting with a mind full of thoughts is NOT considered meditating at all. This is one of the reasons (only one, of many) why TM is considered a beginner's technique in most of these traditions. But rather than accept that, and be comfortable with their own experience if it's made them happy so far, some TMers seem to feel the need to get all defensive, as if *their* experience (lost in thought most of the time, one has to assume) was the very *definition* of right meditation, and anyone who describes some other experience must be showing off. Sounds a little insecure and neurotic to me. After all, they could have discerned the possible truth of what I and many others on this forum have said about other forms of meditation simply by trying them. Oh. I forgot. Couldn't do that. Maharishi would spank, and say Off the program. Even though he's dead. Fascinating how long cult indoctrination can last, isn't it? :-) From: awoelflebater@... awoelflebater@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2014 3:59 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Re transcending is a non-event and definitely not interesting.: Not interesting? Freud, Jung, Sartre and assorted behaviourists claimed that an experience of pure consciousness (awareness without an object) was impossible. So if pure awareness *is* a possible experience it blows such theories out of the water and is very suggestive indeed. It implies that we have a Transcendental Ego before - and after - we learn our role-play games. I was amused back in the day when a friend of mine, a young woman, in my early days in the movement said to me one time that asking someone if they had ever had a clear experience of transcending was rather like asking someone if they had lost their virginity! There's definitely a hierarchy in place here: an I'm more spiritual than you one-upmanship role play going on! Yes and here at FFL when Bawwy gets going on about his experiences as if he deserves some sort of special status. Shall we all create some sort of award for him, do you think?
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
Doc, my guess is that he was replying to this: That self-abnegation taught for centuries; the killing of desires, is inhuman, and inhumane. Why would we get to discover the ever increasing riches of the inner and outer worlds, to then deny them, in favor of some sattvic intoxication? The quote sounds like a misunderstanding, of the relationship, of our individual identity, to Unity. There is no loss of individual self-hood in such a state (of Unity). Rather, individual self-hood, is simply seen, and lived, in its proper place, secondary, to our Infinite nature. Our infinite nature, then, takes the primary place, in terms of what we identify, as ourselves. The individual personality, and self expression continue, but now in service to the Infinite. No more primary identification with the individual self, but no lack of ability or growth or personality occurs, either, as a result of this shift of identification. On Thursday, March 6, 2014 12:08 PM, doctordumb...@rocketmail.com doctordumb...@rocketmail.com wrote: I agree with you, in principle, but have no idea, which post of mine, you are referring to. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Thanks for clarifying this point Dr. It's an important point and one which to use if you want to distinguish real teachers from the charlatan's.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
Does anyone notice that there seems to be an *inverse* one-upsmanship going down here? More of a one-downsmanship: If someone talks about experiences that don't match mine, *theirs* are wrong. All that Bawwy did, after all, was to report his everyday experience, and point out that in the larger field of meditation sitting with a mind full of thoughts is NOT considered meditating at all. This is one of the reasons (only one, of many) why TM is considered a beginner's technique in most of these traditions. But rather than accept that, and be comfortable with their own experience if it's made them happy so far, some TMers seem to feel the need to get all defensive, as if *their* experience (lost in thought most of the time, one has to assume) was the very *definition* of right meditation, and anyone who describes some other experience must be showing off. Sounds a little insecure and neurotic to me. After all, they could have discerned the possible truth of what I and many others on this forum have said about other forms of meditation simply by trying them. Oh. I forgot. Couldn't do that. Maharishi would spank, and say Off the program. Even though he's dead. Fascinating how long cult indoctrination can last, isn't it? :-) From: awoelfleba...@yahoo.com awoelfleba...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2014 3:59 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Re transcending is a non-event and definitely not interesting.: Not interesting? Freud, Jung, Sartre and assorted behaviourists claimed that an experience of pure consciousness (awareness without an object) was impossible. So if pure awareness *is* a possible experience it blows such theories out of the water and is very suggestive indeed. It implies that we have a Transcendental Ego before - and after - we learn our role-play games. I was amused back in the day when a friend of mine, a young woman, in my early days in the movement said to me one time that asking someone if they had ever had a clear experience of transcending was rather like asking someone if they had lost their virginity! There's definitely a hierarchy in place here: an I'm more spiritual than you one-upmanship role play going on! Yes and here at FFL when Bawwy gets going on about his experiences as if he deserves some sort of special status. Shall we all create some sort of award for him, do you think?
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
Ann, it would be interesting to hook up to EEG apparatus some people who are blanking and compare their brain waves to people practicing TM. And just for fun, let's throw in some people practicing mindfulness! On Monday, March 3, 2014 11:46 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Exactly right. To call transcending an experience confuses the issue when you get down to the nitty-gritty. I don't think it's gobbledygook semantics, it's just that we don't have a language of transcendence, so we often have to go through semantic contortions. Exactly, there doesn't seem to be an exact language to really describe it because I'm not sure it's describable as we don't actually experience it except for afterwards perhaps thinking we had just transcended because we realize we were not thinking anything. Just trying to define it makes me confused. As far as I'm concerned transcendence seems like blanking. We're told this is a good thing. I guess I'll have to take other's word for it. You make an excellent point when you saythe line between being conscious of something and having a thought about that something is very fine if not non-existent. It is non-existent! And that's crucial to the mechanics of TM. BTW, when Seraphita says, So you are *not* doing what Maharshi says, she is referring--I think!--not to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi but to Ramana Maharshi. I could be wrong, but I don't think MMY ever gave any such instruction with regard to waking, unless it was some sort of specialized advanced technique. I don't remember MMY saying anything about this but I'm no authority on him or TM for that matter. - Maharishi said that everyone passes through transcendence as they go from one state of consciousness to another (waking to dreaming to sleeping and back again). He probably would not have recommended trying to hold one's awareness in that in-between stage, at least not for ordinary meditators. Sounds to me as though Ramana Maharshi was turning a description of his spontaneous experience into a prescription for practice instead of just letting it develop naturally in his students. Ann, one might well not notice an instant of transcendence between waking and sleeping--it's easy enough to miss when one is meditating (since there's quite literally nothing to it, nothing to be aware of). Yes, and I make this point in a recent post to Seraphita. You know, this transcendence business is a funny one because it seems like you only realize you were transcending after the fact and that is kind of like having had amnesia and someone tells you that for the last five minutes you were bellydancing except you don't remember a thing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Re Ann's The transition between waking and sleeping is not transcendence in my book. It is full of thoughts and awareness that do not feel transcendental at all.: So you are *not* doing what Maharshi says. You have to hold your awareness at the point you wake up *before* thoughts arise. Presumably it worked for Ramana because he was in a state of Unity already; his suggestion is that it could work for others also. I mention him as his ideas rather nicely dovetail with Lynch's description of transcending during meditation. And I mention Lynch and the commentator on the article as their take on TM as an intermediate state between sleep and waking is more helpful than the Official TM approach using bubble diagrams. Re Richard's Meditation means to think things over. So, TM meditation is based on thinking. Anyone who can think is probably already practising a basic meditation.: If meditation means thinking then Transcendental Meditation suggests going beyond thinking. But meditation only means thinking in western contexts. Easterners use whatever word they use in their language for meditation in a sense closer to western ideas of contemplation.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
I like this comment better: formersufferer I did TM for eleven years 30 years back and finished up with a severe type of epilepsy whereby I would have fits lasting up to five hours, and I became very unstable and unbalanced. I gave it up and was involved in a TV programme exposing it, called Credo. Prof Peter Fenwick of the Maudesley Psychiatric Hospital did some research which he reported on the programme. He explained that the EEG waves of a person practising TM and those of someone having an epileptic fit are identical. There has been quite a lot of research showing how damaging TM is but the TM people have a lot of money which enables them to override the truth. TM IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS IN THE LONG TERM DESPITE APPEARING TO BE RELAXING in the short term. Some shots of whisky might have a similar effect On Mon, 3/3/14, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 3, 2014, 4:37 PM ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: One comment I appreciate is this one from Denis Postle:I've been doing TM off and on for decades. A key thing to appreciate about it is that it is a reliable way of taking us to the hypnogogic and hypnopompic junctions between sleep and awake and keeping us hovering there. With very tangible results . . . David Lynch says something similar in his book Catching the Big Fish. To those who wonder what transcending is like, Lynch says that everyone has already experienced it. When you're lying in bed at night waiting for sleep to come you occasionally have a sudden sinking feeling as your awareness dips towards unconsciousness. It feels rather disconcerting and actually jolts you awake. Lynch claims that TM is essentially training you to bounce around at that level as a regular routine. Ramana Maharshi recommended his followers to try a similar practice: when waking up in the morning keep your consciousness at the point where you've just emerged from sleep into conscious awareness but *before* any thinking kicks in. Maharshi claimed that learning to balance yourself at this razor's edge would enable you to see the true nature of the Self. Anyone want to claim Denis, Lynch and Maharshi are talking nonsense? Funny you should ask that because while reading their assertion it simply did not resonate with my experience. The transition between waking and sleeping is not transcendence in my book. It is full of thoughts and awareness that do not feel transcendental at all. But I have zero other evidence than my subjectivity and gut feeling to back this up.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
This one is quite good too: I tried it. Got it bought for me as a gift. Yeah it did feel good the first couple of times, but no better than breathing exercises I've done before. Everyone there seemed to gob the nonsense that goes with it about thought bubbles and the absolute base of human thought. What a load of wishy washy nonsense made up by a man with a mind for making cash. Apart from the lack of institutional infiltration, it's all very L Ron Hubbard. I'd like to see a truly scientific comparison of TM versus breathing excersises with placebo. On Mon, 3/3/14, Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com wrote: Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 3, 2014, 4:43 PM I like this comment better: formersufferer I did TM for eleven years 30 years back and finished up with a severe type of epilepsy whereby I would have fits lasting up to five hours, and I became very unstable and unbalanced. I gave it up and was involved in a TV programme exposing it, called Credo. Prof Peter Fenwick of the Maudesley Psychiatric Hospital did some research which he reported on the programme. He explained that the EEG waves of a person practising TM and those of someone having an epileptic fit are identical. There has been quite a lot of research showing how damaging TM is but the TM people have a lot of money which enables them to override the truth. TM IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS IN THE LONG TERM DESPITE APPEARING TO BE RELAXING in the short term. Some shots of whisky might have a similar effect On Mon, 3/3/14, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 3, 2014, 4:37 PM ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: One comment I appreciate is this one from Denis Postle:I've been doing TM off and on for decades. A key thing to appreciate about it is that it is a reliable way of taking us to the hypnogogic and hypnopompic junctions between sleep and awake and keeping us hovering there. With very tangible results . . . David Lynch says something similar in his book Catching the Big Fish. To those who wonder what transcending is like, Lynch says that everyone has already experienced it. When you're lying in bed at night waiting for sleep to come you occasionally have a sudden sinking feeling as your awareness dips towards unconsciousness. It feels rather disconcerting and actually jolts you awake. Lynch claims that TM is essentially training you to bounce around at that level as a regular routine. Ramana Maharshi recommended his followers to try a similar practice: when waking up in the morning keep your consciousness at the point where you've just emerged from sleep into conscious awareness but *before* any thinking kicks in. Maharshi claimed that learning to balance yourself at this razor's edge would enable you to see the true nature of the Self. Anyone want to claim Denis, Lynch and Maharshi are talking nonsense? Funny you should ask that because while reading their assertion it simply did not resonate with my experience. The transition between waking and sleeping is not transcendence in my book. It is full of thoughts and awareness that do not feel transcendental at all. But I have zero other evidence than my subjectivity and gut feeling to back this up.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
seriously? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote: I like this comment better: formersufferer I did TM for eleven years 30 years back and finished up with a severe type of epilepsy whereby I would have fits lasting up to five hours, and I became very unstable and unbalanced. I gave it up and was involved in a TV programme exposing it, called Credo. Prof Peter Fenwick of the Maudesley Psychiatric Hospital did some research which he reported on the programme. He explained that the EEG waves of a person practising TM and those of someone having an epileptic fit are identical. There has been quite a lot of research showing how damaging TM is but the TM people have a lot of money which enables them to override the truth. TM IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS IN THE LONG TERM DESPITE APPEARING TO BE RELAXING in the short term. Some shots of whisky might have a similar effect On Mon, 3/3/14, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 3, 2014, 4:37 PM ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: One comment I appreciate is this one from Denis Postle:I've been doing TM off and on for decades. A key thing to appreciate about it is that it is a reliable way of taking us to the hypnogogic and hypnopompic junctions between sleep and awake and keeping us hovering there. With very tangible results . . . David Lynch says something similar in his book Catching the Big Fish. To those who wonder what transcending is like, Lynch says that everyone has already experienced it. When you're lying in bed at night waiting for sleep to come you occasionally have a sudden sinking feeling as your awareness dips towards unconsciousness. It feels rather disconcerting and actually jolts you awake. Lynch claims that TM is essentially training you to bounce around at that level as a regular routine. Ramana Maharshi recommended his followers to try a similar practice: when waking up in the morning keep your consciousness at the point where you've just emerged from sleep into conscious awareness but *before* any thinking kicks in. Maharshi claimed that learning to balance yourself at this razor's edge would enable you to see the true nature of the Self. Anyone want to claim Denis, Lynch and Maharshi are talking nonsense? Funny you should ask that because while reading their assertion it simply did not resonate with my experience. The transition between waking and sleeping is not transcendence in my book. It is full of thoughts and awareness that do not feel transcendental at all. But I have zero other evidence than my subjectivity and gut feeling to back this up.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
well it was his experience, didn't Marshy say never doubt your experiences? On Mon, 3/3/14, doctordumb...@rocketmail.com doctordumb...@rocketmail.com wrote: Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 3, 2014, 5:18 PM seriously? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote: I like this comment better: formersufferer I did TM for eleven years 30 years back and finished up with a severe type of epilepsy whereby I would have fits lasting up to five hours, and I became very unstable and unbalanced. I gave it up and was involved in a TV programme exposing it, called Credo. Prof Peter Fenwick of the Maudesley Psychiatric Hospital did some research which he reported on the programme. He explained that the EEG waves of a person practising TM and those of someone having an epileptic fit are identical. There has been quite a lot of research showing how damaging TM is but the TM people have a lot of money which enables them to override the truth. TM IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS IN THE LONG TERM DESPITE APPEARING TO BE RELAXING in the short term. Some shots of whisky might have a similar effect On Mon, 3/3/14, awoelflebater@... awoelflebater@... wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 3, 2014, 4:37 PM ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: One comment I appreciate is this one from Denis Postle:I've been doing TM off and on for decades. A key thing to appreciate about it is that it is a reliable way of taking us to the hypnogogic and hypnopompic junctions between sleep and awake and keeping us hovering there. With very tangible results . . . David Lynch says something similar in his book Catching the Big Fish. To those who wonder what transcending is like, Lynch says that everyone has already experienced it. When you're lying in bed at night waiting for sleep to come you occasionally have a sudden sinking feeling as your awareness dips towards unconsciousness. It feels rather disconcerting and actually jolts you awake. Lynch claims that TM is essentially training you to bounce around at that level as a regular routine. Ramana Maharshi recommended his followers to try a similar practice: when waking up in the morning keep your consciousness at the point where you've just emerged from sleep into conscious awareness but *before* any thinking kicks in. Maharshi claimed that learning to balance yourself at this razor's edge would enable you to see the true nature of the Self. Anyone want to claim Denis, Lynch and Maharshi are talking nonsense? Funny you should ask that because while reading their assertion it simply did not resonate with my experience. The transition between waking and sleeping is not transcendence in my book. It is full of thoughts and awareness that do not feel transcendental at all. But I have zero other evidence than my subjectivity and gut feeling to back this up.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
On 3/3/2014 10:53 AM, Michael Jackson wrote: I'd like to see a truly scientific comparison of TM versus breathing excersises with placebo. What exactly, would a TM placebo look like? Maybe you don't need to meditate or practice TM - everyone is already transcending even without a technique. Maybe you've gone about as far down the spiritual path as you are able to this time around. You are only going to get as much enlightenment as you are going to get. Maybe you should just give up your spiritual striving and get to work on something else and just enjoy. Go figure. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
Placebos themselves, including medical ones, seem to work on the principle of samyama which of course medical researchers are unaware of. Shows that consciousness is very powerful and there is a strong mind over matter effect. On 03/03/2014 11:28 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote: On 3/3/2014 10:53 AM, Michael Jackson wrote: I'd like to see a truly scientific comparison of TM versus breathing excersises with placebo. What exactly, would a TM placebo look like? Maybe you don't need to meditate or practice TM - everyone is already transcending even without a technique. Maybe you've gone about as far down the spiritual path as you are able to this time around. You are only going to get as much enlightenment as you are going to get. Maybe you should just give up your spiritual striving and get to work on something else and just enjoy. Go figure. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
Love to see that tried with other mantra meditation techniques. The effect should be the same. But here's a thought. What if epilepsy is merely the body's attempt to throw off stress gone out of control? I think many of us who have had strong meditations have observed movements that might be attributed to epilepsy but some of us also note it is just a release of something from a muscle group and it often goes away immediately. Yoga asanas were developed to do some of this too. Just says how primitive western medicine is but I would encourage the medical researchers to dig deeper and they may indeed come up with an non drug way of curing folks of epilepsy. On 03/03/2014 08:43 AM, Michael Jackson wrote: I like this comment better: formersufferer I did TM for eleven years 30 years back and finished up with a severe type of epilepsy whereby I would have fits lasting up to five hours, and I became very unstable and unbalanced. I gave it up and was involved in a TV programme exposing it, called Credo. Prof Peter Fenwick of the Maudesley Psychiatric Hospital did some research which he reported on the programme. He explained that the EEG waves of a person practising TM and those of someone having an epileptic fit are identical. There has been quite a lot of research showing how damaging TM is but the TM people have a lot of money which enables them to override the truth. TM IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS IN THE LONG TERM DESPITE APPEARING TO BE RELAXING in the short term. Some shots of whisky might have a similar effect On Mon, 3/3/14, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 3, 2014, 4:37 PM ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: One comment I appreciate is this one from Denis Postle:I've been doing TM off and on for decades. A key thing to appreciate about it is that it is a reliable way of taking us to the hypnogogic and hypnopompic junctions between sleep and awake and keeping us hovering there. With very tangible results . . . David Lynch says something similar in his book Catching the Big Fish. To those who wonder what transcending is like, Lynch says that everyone has already experienced it. When you're lying in bed at night waiting for sleep to come you occasionally have a sudden sinking feeling as your awareness dips towards unconsciousness. It feels rather disconcerting and actually jolts you awake. Lynch claims that TM is essentially training you to bounce around at that level as a regular routine. Ramana Maharshi recommended his followers to try a similar practice: when waking up in the morning keep your consciousness at the point where you've just emerged from sleep into conscious awareness but *before* any thinking kicks in. Maharshi claimed that learning to balance yourself at this razor's edge would enable you to see the true nature of the Self. Anyone want to claim Denis, Lynch and Maharshi are talking nonsense? Funny you should ask that because while reading their assertion it simply did not resonate with my experience. The transition between waking and sleeping is not transcendence in my book. It is full of thoughts and awareness that do not feel transcendental at all. But I have zero other evidence than my subjectivity and gut feeling to back this up.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
On 3/3/2014 10:43 AM, Michael Jackson wrote: TM IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS IN THE LONG TERM DESPITE APPEARING TO BE RELAXING in the short term. Maybe it's time to review what we know about basic TM: Meditation means to think things over. So, TM meditation is based on thinking. Anyone who can think is probably already practicing a basic meditation. And, there's probably not a person on the entire planet that doesn't pause one or twice a day and take stock of their own mental contents. And, we're all transcending, even without a technique. TM is just like diving within - you just close your eyes and dive into your own mind and start thinking. TM is just a technique to take the right angle in the diving. So, you tell me how THINKING is going to be extremely dangerous in the long term? Go figure. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
If meditation means thinking then Transcendental Meditation suggests going beyond thinking. But meditation only means thinking in western contexts. Easterners use whatever word they use in their language for meditation in a sense closer to western ideas of contemplation. According to Charles Lutes, the term Transcendental means to go beyond; meditation means thinking. Hence, 'Transcendental Meditation' means to go beyond thinking. So, how could could anyone cause physiological change by just thinking? http://www.maharishiphotos.com/tmintro.html On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 4:31 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote: Re Ann's The transition between waking and sleeping is not transcendence in my book. It is full of thoughts and awareness that do not feel transcendental at all.: So you are *not* doing what Maharshi says. You have to hold your awareness at the point you wake up *before* thoughts arise. Presumably it worked for Ramana because he was in a state of Unity already; his suggestion is that it could work for others also. I mention him as his ideas rather nicely dovetail with Lynch's description of transcending during meditation. And I mention Lynch and the commentator on the article as their take on TM as an intermediate state between sleep and waking is more helpful than the Official TM approach using bubble diagrams. Re Richard's Meditation means to think things over. So, TM meditation is based on thinking. Anyone who can think is probably already practising a basic meditation.: If meditation means thinking then Transcendental Meditation suggests going beyond thinking. But meditation only means thinking in western contexts. Easterners use whatever word they use in their language for meditation in a sense closer to western ideas of contemplation.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
On 3/3/2014 1:50 PM, Bhairitu wrote: Love to see that tried with other mantra meditation techniques. There are no mantras or mental meditation techniques that can cause physiological change. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
Really? Most all mantras cause physiological change. Your statement happens to also throw out a lot of TM research. On 03/03/2014 04:24 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote: On 3/3/2014 1:50 PM, Bhairitu wrote: Love to see that tried with other mantra meditation techniques. There are no mantras or mental meditation techniques that can cause physiological change. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Funny article from the Guardian Newspaper about TM
On 3/3/2014 6:32 PM, Bhairitu wrote: Really? Most all mantras cause physiological change. Your statement happens to also throw out a lot of TM research. There are no double-blind scientific studies that prove the mind can alter a physical object at will. If that were possible, it would be like a Copernican revolution in science - to be able to alter physiology with a thought or by willing it to be so. There is a theory that the mind can influence some physiological functions, but it has not been proven. We have only one single witness, so far, to having witnessed levitation, so that has not been proved beyond a doubt since it apparently wasn't reported to the scientific community to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Go figure. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
