On 06/11/2011 10:41 AM, sparaig wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote:
>> On 06/08/2011 10:18 AM, sparaig wrote:
>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
On Jun 8, 2011, at 2:52 AM, cardemaister wrote:
> [...]
> "Bhagavan S[h]ankara now left Prayaga
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote:
>
> On 06/08/2011 10:18 AM, sparaig wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
> >>
> >> On Jun 8, 2011, at 2:52 AM, cardemaister wrote:
[...]
> >>> "Bhagavan S[h]ankara now left Prayaga, and travelling through the
> >>>
On 06/08/2011 10:18 AM, sparaig wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 8, 2011, at 2:52 AM, cardemaister wrote:
>>
L.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
>
> The UC view of Vedanta, esp. in the Shank. tradition, not only
> avoid
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> > Do you think I'm a chronic liar?
>
> Do you lie to me? I don't think so.
Not what I asked, although presumably if I were a chronic
liar as Vaj asserted in his pos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> > > > I agree that MMY's scientific standards were pretty
> > > > > low, but not that he didn't
Nope. Lawson wasn't making a pronouncement to begin
with, nor was his response to Barry's question a
pronouncement. The only pronouncements in this
exchange have been Barry's--and they're flat-out
wrong.
Remarkably Stupid.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote:
>
> --- In Fai
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> > >
> > > I've found an interesting alternative definition:
> > >
> > > Willingness to surrender to dharma
> >
> >
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> >
> > I've found an interesting alternative definition:
> >
> > Willingness to surrender to dharma
>
> Define dharma. Show it to me scientifically. I'll wait.
The career/beha
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote:
>
> (snip)
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
> > >
> > > According to Robin Woodsworth Carlsen, TM-style "enlightenment" is
> > actually of form of induced psychosis. It is perceived exactly as
> > described, but is in f
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 8, 2011, at 2:52 AM, cardemaister wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >> L.
> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The UC view of Vedanta, esp. in the Shank. tradition, not only
> >>> avoids siddhis, it considers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> > >
> > [...]
> > > Yeah, exactly. If individual brains produce individual
> > > consciousnesses, you have t
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> > Granted, no Nobel Prizes to TMers, as far as we know (but
> > it's entirely possible we might not know if there were),
> > but I'm not positive scientific exploration per s
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> Granted, no Nobel Prizes to TMers, as far as we know (but
> it's entirely possible we might not know if there were),
> but I'm not positive scientific exploration per se is the
> sine qua non.
Other than Physicist-Sidha Brian Josephse
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" wrote:
> >
> > methinks you will be at this a long time Curtis. >
>
> At what? Understanding life? Till my dying day.
The first thought that flitted through my mind
when I re
Yep, I did a typo while writing but left it in place in the end.
Apparently you didn't get the pun.
Doesn't matter since it wasn't meant for you.
BTW, why would I care what you "think" about anything?
Your statement is only your professed self-opinion.
No doubt it must be terrifying to be you.
I'l
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" wrote:
>
> methinks you will be at this a long time Curtis. >
At what? Understanding life? Till my dying day.
And most people are really full of it about him IMO. Not understanding the
cultural context and the other messiahs of his time, pe
I was just restating your questions. I did not expect that you would reply
because the questions I asked were not directly aimed at you, they were kind of
rhetorical. The discussion your original post provoked forked off in various
directions. The reason I am assigning for having brought up th
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" wrote:
>
> turquoiseb:
> > Define dharma. Show it to me scientifically. I'll wait.
> >
> This is funny - Barry didn't define anything in his original
> questions, so now he wants us to define 'dharma', a basic
> term used in Hinduism and Buddhism.
turquoiseb:
> Define dharma. Show it to me scientifically. I'll wait.
>
This is funny - Barry didn't define anything in his original
questions, so now he wants us to define 'dharma', a basic
term used in Hinduism and Buddhism. Come to think of it,
has Barry ever defined anything? Go figure.
> J
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
> wrote:
> >
> > Turq's original 4 (or perhaps 3-1/2 or 3 questions). (Some slight
> > emphasis added) (-:
[quoting Barry from an earlier post:]
> > > I'm serious in this,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> > > I agree that MMY's scientific standards were pretty
> > > > low, but not that he didn't really believe what he said
> > > > about spirituality being measurably re
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
wrote:
>
> Turq's original 4 (or perhaps 3-1/2 or 3 questions). (Some slight
> emphasis added) (-:
>
> > Just for the fun of it, you understand. :-)
> >
> > 1. [W]hat exactly (in your opinion, of course, and welcomed
> > as the op
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> > I agree that MMY's scientific standards were pretty
> > > low, but not that he didn't really
Turq's original 4 (or perhaps 3-1/2 or 3 questions). (Some slight
emphasis added) (-:
>Just for the fun of it, you understand. :-)
>
1.
[W]hat exactly (in your opinion, of course, and welcomed as the opinion
it is) was the distinction that Maharishi was trying to draw between UC
and BC?
2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote:
>
> Although I'm not terribly interested in this discussion,
> I'm interested in how Lawson deals with your simple
> question below, "How would you know?" Seems to me he's
> just stating ideas in pronouncements, the same way they
> were stat
This post demonstrates why Barry deserves no attention
here other than scorn for being Remarkably Stupid or
a Stupid Liar, or both.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogro
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> >
> > I've found an interesting alternative definition:
> >
> > Willingness to surrender to dharma
>
> Define dharma. Show it to me scientifically. I'll
> wait.
My goodness. I w
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
>
> On Jun 7, 2011, at 11:00 PM, emptybill wrote:
> >
> > > Vaj:
> > > Give me some Don Juan Matus anytime over becoming
> > > the latest self-proclaimed Super-Rishi or Raja.
> >
> > Vaj quotes a fictional character from the Canteñada books
> > to n
On Jun 8, 2011, at 2:52 AM, cardemaister wrote:
L.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
The UC view of Vedanta, esp. in the Shank. tradition, not only
avoids siddhis, it considers them antithetical to the evolution
of consciousness.
So, why did "Shank." himself util
On Jun 7, 2011, at 11:00 PM, emptybill wrote:
Vaj:
Give me some Don Juan Matus anytime over becoming
the latest self-proclaimed Super-Rishi or Raja.
Vaj quotes a fictional character from the Canteñada books
to nail down his arguments. So is this guy a bull-shitter or not?
I think "troll" sums
Although I'm not terribly interested in this discussion,
I'm interested in how Lawson deals with your simple
question below, "How would you know?" Seems to me he's
just stating ideas in pronouncements, the same way they
were stated to him, without any more rational filtering
or analysis being per
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
> [...]
> > I think I would say "yes & yes". Between asterix (asterixes?),
> > true that. But I think those words are not expressing properly
> > his position as (fairly consistently)
"Bingo. Nothing could be more antithetical to science
that the belief that one can "know" things based solely
on one's own subjective experience."
Really? I appreciate that this sounds good to you, but you do this all the
time. You often declare the motives of others here as if known by you, with
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" wrote:
> >
> > This is not a definition but rather an interpretation.
> > Try "faithfulness' ... a present-tense definition of shraddha.
> >
>
> OK, just what does teh word "faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
>
>
> Shankara actually describes an eight-fold "ladder" of brahman, kind
> of his version of Patanjali's eighfold path, the last of which is
> that even the vritti of brahman is dropped and dissolved and
> "forgotten".
>
Whoa! Are you sure
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> > >
> > > I've found an interesting alternative definition:
> > >
> > > Willingness to surrender to dharma
> >
> >
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" wrote:
> > >
> > > One thing no revolutionary is about to do is conform
> > > wholeheartedly to the status quo
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> >
> > I've found an interesting alternative definition:
> >
> > Willingness to surrender to dharma
>
> Define dharma. Show it to me scientifically. I'll wait.
>(snip)
It is eve
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
>
> I've found an interesting alternative definition:
>
> Willingness to surrender to dharma
Define dharma. Show it to me scientifically. I'll wait.
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote:
> [...]
> > FWIW, according to
>
> L.
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
> >
> >
> > The UC view of Vedanta, esp. in the Shank. tradition, not only avoids
> > siddhis, it considers them antithetical to the evolution of consciousness.
> >
>
So, why did "Shank." himself utilize -- according to Shankara-dig-
v
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:55 PM, sparaig wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >>
> > [...]
> >> Yeah, exactly. If individual brains produce individual
> >> consciousnesses, you have to do some fairly elabor
(snip)
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
> >
> > According to Robin Woodsworth Carlsen, TM-style "enlightenment" is
> actually of form of induced psychosis. It is perceived exactly as
> described, but is in fact a form of psychosis. Given that one can
> experience such things as
Not just faith but rather "faithfulness".
Pledging your fidelity of good faith.
Something or someone worthy of trust or belief.
Samaya - as in words of honor from a knight to his liege lord.
Prussian: "Troth" - truthfulness.
English - "Betroth" ... pledge of trust between a husband and wife.
"M
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> [...]
> > Yeah, exactly. If individual brains produce individual
> > consciousnesses, you have to do some fairly elaborate
> > acrobatics to speak of Consciousness. MMY was
Vaj:
Give me some Don Juan Matus anytime over becoming
the latest self-proclaimed Super-Rishi or Raja.
Vaj quotes a fictional character from the Canteñada books
to nail down his arguments. So is this guy a bull-shitter or not?
I think "troll" sums it up.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Va
true, but one doesn't have to know Skt or Hebrew in order to meet them. English
works well.
http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/emerald-butterfly.jpg
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" wrote:
>
> Angels are merely a Semitic notion.
>
> There are no "angels" in the Veda-s, Purana-s
At the core of an arrogant man is a traumatized child, hypothetically speaking,
again.:-) Why would anything be excluded from self-realization? Conversely, why
couldn't someone gain self-realization any number of ways? Notice that those
who have nothing good to say about the sidhis often had ver
Angels are merely a Semitic notion.
There are no "angels" in the Veda-s, Purana-s or Tantra-s.
"Angelos" means "messenger" in Greek, in other words
a news-bearer - not even a messenger of a "god".
In Hebrew, "mal'akh yhvh" means "messenger of yhvh.
That is all.
Fergit the notion that deva-s ar
methinks you will be at this a long time Curtis. Another dude, also with long
hair and a beard, has been gone for 2000+ years, and people are still arguing
about his message, purpose and intentions. And for the same reasons - they
cannot help but filter the guy through their own minds, coming up
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> I agree that MMY's scientific standards were pretty
> > low, but not that he didn't really believe what he said
> > about spirituality being measurably reflected in t
Jai Guru Dev dude!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" wrote:
> >
> > One thing no revolutionary is about to do is conform wholeheartedly to the
> > status quo, whether in terms of science or religion. Maharishi
There have always been wondrous and premature spiritual experiences on the way
to self realization. To make them the exclusive province of TM is absurd.
However, TM being very effective, especially with rounding, coupled with
Maharishi's decision not to take on lifestyle choices for *most* of us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" wrote:
>
> This is not a definition but rather an interpretation.
> Try "faithfulness' ... a present-tense definition of shraddha.
>
OK, just what does teh word "faith" mean? Belief without proof? Intuition?
Strong in God? Knowledge of things
The "Shank" tradition for Vaj is "Vidyaranya".
But he claim to be a dzogchen yogi so it doesn't
matter who he says is an authority. He reads books
and goes to webinars and teachings of Tibetans.
He has no guru-s or sampradaya.
He thinks of himself as the nor'easter Eckhart Tolle.
He makes this shit
This is not a definition but rather an interpretation.
Try "faithfulness' ... a present-tense definition of shraddha.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
>
> I've found an interesting alternative definition:
>
> Willingness to surrender to dharma
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoo
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
>
> According to Robin Woodsworth Carlsen, TM-style
> "enlightenment" is actually of form of induced psychosis.
Oh, and Robin Woodsworth Carlsen is definitely the go-to
person on the causes of psychosis. (That's why we always
use his middle name,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" wrote:
> >
> > One thing no revolutionary is about to do is conform
> > wholeheartedly to the status quo, whether in terms of science
> > or religion. Maharishi would have gotten nowhe
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" wrote:
>
> right, but you've gradually changed the terms and definitions. The original
> experession I believe was, or related to physical brains.
> But, glad we agree if the definitions are expanded to embrace all types of
> nervous systems, subtle
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
>
> On Jun 6, 2011, at 9:38 PM, sparaig wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> It kind of shows how un-seriously Maharishi took this information that it
> >> would be up to ME to cough up thi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" wrote:
>
> One thing no revolutionary is about to do is conform wholeheartedly to the
> status quo, whether in terms of science or religion. Maharishi would have
> gotten nowhere fast had he looked to science to validate his techniques. So
>
right, but you've gradually changed the terms and definitions. The original
experession I believe was, or related to physical brains.
But, glad we agree if the definitions are expanded to embrace all types of
nervous systems, subtle or gross.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrot
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" wrote:
>
> You're not making sense. True, everything is Consciousness all the way down,
> but not "brains all the way down". Physically dead people can be considered
> human, but can function intelligently without brains. I've met many of them.
> ..
What evah. bah! Waves hand...
L.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 6, 2011, at 9:38 PM, sparaig wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> It kind of shows how un-seriously Maharishi took this information that it
>
You're obscuring the issues by conflating "brains" with subtle nervous systems.
In ordinary every day parlance, Angels are considered not having BRAINS
(physical nervous systems)...and don't bring up the Biblical statement about
physically embodied Angels.
...
It's obvious that Angels may have s
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" wrote:
>
> One thing no revolutionary is about to do is conform wholeheartedly to the
> status quo, whether in terms of science or religion. Maharishi would have
> gotten nowhere fast had he looked to science to validate his techniques. So
>
On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:55 PM, sparaig wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>>
> [...]
>> Yeah, exactly. If individual brains produce individual
>> consciousnesses, you have to do some fairly elaborate
>> acrobatics to speak of Consciousness. MMY was definitely
>> an
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
[...]
> Yeah, exactly. If individual brains produce individual
> consciousnesses, you have to do some fairly elaborate
> acrobatics to speak of Consciousness. MMY was definitely
> an Idealist (matter is emergent from consciousness)
> r
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> This distinction is a classic case of Maharishi's two teachings, the one he
> used for PR (scientific materialism) and the one he pulled out when there
> were believers in the room. He used his PR message to appear sciency (A
According to Robin Woodsworth Carlsen, TM-style "enlightenment" is actually of
form of induced psychosis. It is perceived exactly as described, but is in fact
a form of psychosis. Given that one can experience such things as "the universe
as fluctuations of consciousness" while under the influen
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
[...]
> I think I would say "yes & yes". Between asterix (asterixes?),
> true that. But I think those words are not expressing properly
> his position as (fairly consistently) expressed elsewhere. MMY
> was not a reductionist/materialist as
You're not making sense. True, everything is Consciousness all the way down,
but not "brains all the way down". Physically dead people can be considered
human, but can function intelligently without brains. I've met many of them.
...
Re: the notion that people must have physical nervous systems i
On Jun 6, 2011, at 9:38 PM, sparaig wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> wrote:
>>
>> It kind of shows how un-seriously Maharishi took this information that it
>> would be up to ME to cough up this furball!
> [...]
>> And given that the so called enlightened ha
But in the context of the statement, everything IS physical. And [human]
consciousness is a product of the functioning of the human brain. The fact that
everything physical is consciousness all the way down doesn't mean that human
consciousness can perceive this unless it is functioning in a cer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote:
>
> Which comes first, the 'Soul' or the 'Body'?...
> Do you remember being in the 'Womb'?
> Where were you between 'Lives'...?
> When you drop the body, will you still 'Exist'?
> Does your body know it 'Exists'...
> Or is 'Consciousness' the
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote:
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> >
> > "Every experience has its level of physiology, and so unbounded awareness
> > has its own level of physiology which can be measured. Every aspect of life
> > is inte
I've found an interesting alternative definition:
Willingness to surrender to dharma
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote:
[...]
> FWIW, according to Pata�jali, shraddhaa (usually translated to 'faith')
> seems to be a /conditio sine qua non/ for samaadhi:
>
> shraddhaavi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" wrote:
>
> thx, on his stmt that everything is physical, consciousness is a product of
> brain functioning, etc; sounds a lot like Sam Harris. (scientific
> materialism), brain comes first.
> ...
You're forgetting: it is consciousness all the way d
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" wrote:
>
> One thing no revolutionary is about to do is conform
> wholeheartedly to the status quo, whether in terms of science
> or religion. Maharishi would have gotten nowhere fast had he
> looked to science to validate his techniques. So like
One thing no revolutionary is about to do is conform wholeheartedly to the
status quo, whether in terms of science or religion. Maharishi would have
gotten nowhere fast had he looked to science to validate his techniques. So
like all visionaries, he spoke the language of his audience as appropr
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > > wrote:
> > >
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > He found the presentation of scientific materialism useful as a ma
"authfriend" wrote:
> Any hint of inconsistency, even if it's obviously just
> a matter of "loose talk," will serve as an excuse for
> Maharishi-bashing.---
I don't agree that this was loose talk. It was a consistent pattern of how he
presented himself to certain audiences. Having spent days
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > This distinction is a classic case of Maharishi's two
> > > teachings, the one
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> wrote:
> >
>
> > He found the presentation of scientific materialism useful as a marketing
> > strategy, which he laid out explicitly in his SOB. (favorite acronym ever!)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> He found the presentation of scientific materialism useful as a marketing
> strategy, which he laid out explicitly in his SOB. (favorite acronym ever!)
He did?
It's a long time since I SOBbed ;-)
But I did read it once, c
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> wrote:
> >
> > This distinction is a classic case of Maharishi's two teachings, the one he
> > used for PR (scientific materialism) and the one he pulled out when there
>
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> wrote:
> >
> > This distinction is a classic case of Maharishi's two
> > teachings, the one he used for PR (scientific materialism)
> > and the one he pulled out when there we
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" jstein@ wrote:
>
> > > I think I would say "yes & yes". Between asterix (asterixes?)
>
> Noes! "Asterix the Gaul"!
> > Singular: asterisk. Plural: asterisks. (From the Greek
> > *aster
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> wrote:
> >
> > This distinction is a classic case of Maharishi's two
> > teachings, the one he used for PR (scientific materialism)
> > and the one he pulled out when there were
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> > I think I would say "yes & yes". Between asterix (asterixes?)
Noes! "Asterix the Gaul"!
> Singular: asterisk. Plural: asterisks. (From the Greek
> *aster-iskos*, "little star.")
Thanks. "Little star". Spot on!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> This distinction is a classic case of Maharishi's two
> teachings, the one he used for PR (scientific materialism)
> and the one he pulled out when there were believers in the
> room. He used his PR message to appear sciency (A m
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > thx, on his stmt that every
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> This distinction is a classic case of Maharishi's two teachings, the one he
> used for PR (scientific materialism) and the one he pulled out when there
> were believers in the room. He used his PR message to appear sciency (A
This distinction is a classic case of Maharishi's two teachings, the one he
used for PR (scientific materialism) and the one he pulled out when there were
believers in the room. He used his PR message to appear sciency (A method he
actually had contempt for.)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.c
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" wrote:
> > >
> > > thx, on his stmt that everything is physical, consciousness
> > > is a product of brain functioning, etc;
Robert:
> Which comes first, the 'Soul' or the 'Body'?...
> Do you remember being in the 'Womb'?
> Where were you between 'Lives'...?
> When you drop the body, will you still 'Exist'?
> Does your body know it 'Exists'...
> Or is 'Consciousness' the 'First Cause'?
>
These questions cannot be answe
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Isn't it more accurately summarized as "everything
> > > has a physical level, consciousness is correlated
> > > with brain functioning"? Metaphysically that's a
> > > big difference...
> > >
> authfriend:
> > Correlation d
> > Isn't it more accurately summarized as "everything
> > has a physical level, consciousness is correlated
> > with brain functioning"? Metaphysically that's a
> > big difference...
> >
authfriend:
> Correlation does not imply causation. But he was
> explicit that consciousness is caused by
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" wrote:
> >
> > thx, on his stmt that everything is physical, consciousness
> > is a product of brain functioning, etc;
>
> You think that's what it says? (The statement from MMY below).
That
> FWIW, according to Patañjali, shraddhaa (usually
> translated to 'faith') seems to be a /conditio
> sine qua non/ for samaadhi...
>
Well, yes, you have to have a certain amount of faith
that the goal exists: samadhi. We don't know for sure
that a state of samadhi exists, unless we experience
i
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
