Remember that old bone we were chewing on?
Judy:
The contradiction is that according to science,
your constraints, your sense of exercising an
act of will to overcome them, and your enjoyment
of all that are all *determined*, because the
behavior of the elementary particles that make
your mind,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Remember that old bone we were chewing on?
Indeed I do. I just got back home, and almost the
first thing I did was haul out Quantum Questions
to reread the entire The 'I' That Is God essay
from which I took the
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
A great example of this was when he came here, sometime in the
late 70s
I think, he apparently made the offhand remark that someone's sari
was
really nice, or something to that effect. Next time he came--most
of
Great points. Thanks for taking the time. I will take a little time
to make sure I let them sink in.
I can't resist this one to start:
The irony is that if what you're calling the group 'I'
is in fact the case, it means you are infinitely more
than just the currently living bodymind called
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on 6/15/06 10:58 AM, jim_flanegin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%
40yahoogroups.com
, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
This is a frequent
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Great points. Thanks for taking the time. I will take a little
time
to make sure I let them sink in.
I can't resist this one to start:
The irony is that if what you're calling the group 'I'
is in fact
With the caveat that expansion beyond limitations is an action more
of ongoing comprehension and appreciation, I agree that it is the
details that give sweetness to life (leading me to conclude that
whoever said, the devil is in the details was the devil himself).
It is pretty obvious to
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Great points. Thanks for taking the time. I will take a little
time
to make sure I let them sink in.
I can't resist this one to start:
The irony is that if what you're calling the group 'I'
is in fact
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
This is so abstract it's hard to get across, but do
you remember I said my experience of development of
consciousness was one of increasing transparency? Part
of that is that limitations become transparent.
I can't resist suggesting that perhaps the concept
that seemed so powerful and important *was itself
limited* as it existed in your mind at the time,
and that at a certain point you had grown beyond
what it meant to you then--but for various reasons,
instead of letting the concept expand along
Does this mean that I can take my time digitally adding you to the
Holy Tradition portrait?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
snip
This is so abstract it's hard to get across, but do
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't resist suggesting that perhaps the concept
that seemed so powerful and important *was itself
limited* as it existed in your mind at the time,
and that at a certain point you had grown beyond
what it
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does this mean that I can take my time digitally adding you to the
Holy Tradition portrait?
sheesh
Yeah, I think you can back-burner it for the next
few lives...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
OK. Whatever the basis for your leaving the movement,
what I find curious is that the way you talk about what
you say no longer appeals to you, it wouldn't appeal to
me either. It seems sort of stunted and shallow and
two-dimensional and colorless, just a lot of empty words.
I will have to give
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...]
So much of what you said seems to be a natural pattern of growing up
with our ideas whatever they are. I suspect that I am neither
uniquely flawed nor gifted in intellectual awareness, in or out of
TMO.
On Jun 18, 2006, at 5:18 PM, sparaig wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] So much of what you said seems to be a natural pattern of growing up with our ideas whatever they are. I suspect that I am neither uniquely flawed nor gifted in
Well, you also made it sound as though anyone and everyone in the TMO
was a liar as Andrew Skolnick quoted you in his JAMA article:
Are you a teacher? Is it news for you that people in the movement
lie, especially to reporters? I was speaking about my experience. Is
it different for you?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 18, 2006, at 5:18 PM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
[...]
So much of what you said seems to be a natural pattern of growing up
with our
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Well, you also made it sound as though anyone and everyone in the TMO
was a liar as Andrew Skolnick quoted you in his JAMA article:
Are you a teacher? Is it news for you that people in the movement
lie,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Well, you also made it sound as though anyone and everyone in the TMO
was a liar as Andrew Skolnick quoted you in his JAMA article:
Are you a teacher? Is it news for you that people in the movement
lie,
On Jun 18, 2006, at 5:34 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote:"Well, you also made it sound as though anyone and everyone in the TMO was a liar as Andrew Skolnick quoted you in his JAMA article:" Are you a teacher? Is it news for you that people in the movement lie, especially to reporters? I was
No, I was not a researcher.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 18, 2006, at 5:34 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
Well, you also made it sound as though anyone and everyone in the TMO
was a liar as Andrew Skolnick quoted you in his JAMA article:
Well, no I assumed you weren't. What I was asking was there any hint that some of the research had been "fudged" for PR purposes?On Jun 18, 2006, at 6:42 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote:No, I was not a researcher. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 18, 2006,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
Great points. Thanks for taking the time. I will take a little
time
to make sure I let them sink in.
I can't resist this one
Both statements are accurate to my experience. Protecting the group's
more controversial beliefs from outsiders did not usually cause me
conflict. The end justified the means. This point was important to
Andrew because he couldn't understand how a person could willfully
deceive JAMA about their
I can't think of any examples of that because I believed the research
was valid. Since then I have read perspectives of the research that
exposes the weaknesses, but while in the group I was not interested in
this perspective at all. There was never a sincere commitment to the
scientific method,
Vaj wrote:
What I was asking was there any hint
that some of the research had been fudged for PR purposes?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't think of any examples of that because I believed the
research was valid. Since then I have
There are actually quite a few factual inaccuracies
in that earlier alt.m.t quote. Are there any of them
you'd like to correct now?
Nope. But thanks for asking.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vaj wrote:
What I was asking was there any hint
Title: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
on 6/15/06 11:40 AM, authfriend at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am pretty sure we got this idea about his state from him. I
don't think it is assumptive on our part. If you treat him in
any way other then as enlightened
Title: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
on 6/15/06 10:58 AM, jim_flanegin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a frequent mistake people make
Title: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
on 6/15/06 11:53 AM, curtisdeltablues at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And also regarding getting escorted out, were those that this
happened to respectful? Just curious, because we'd be treated
similarly in any company meeting
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You made a number of new points that are helping me understand how you
are seeing the quote. It will take some time for me to unpack it. I
think this is worth the time. It is as good a tool as any to discuss
On Jun 16, 2006, at 1:30 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: I also remember the effect he had on other practitioners--esp. his students--they were legendary (to put it very nicely). As I rememebr, in dharma circles, there was some mention that either he or a student of his made the claim he was a
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
That was really interesting, thanks!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:20 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
Good points. This one interested me the
On Jun 14, 2006, at 10:56 PM, coshlnx wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" jstein@ wrote: However, there could be a good deal of semantic ambiguity here, in light of how MMY defines Unity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 14, 2006, at 1:43 PM, TurquoiseB wrote:
It was just a fascinating evening for me, watching
her avoiding her own perceptions. I did not tell
her before the talk that Rama could do siddhis, or
to watch for them, and
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
That was really interesting, thanks!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Jun 14,
On Jun 15, 2006, at 8:03 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 14, 2006, at 1:43 PM, TurquoiseB wrote:
It was just a fascinating evening for me, watching
her avoiding her own perceptions. I did not tell
her before the talk that
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 8:03 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
Unless of course she was pissed because she realized he was using
some form of suggestion...
Some Buddhist
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, coshlnx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:
However, there could be a good deal of semantic
ambiguity here, in light of
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, coshlnx coshlnx@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:
This is a frequent mistake people make, *assuming* that Maharishi
[or another guru] is enlightened (I think psychologists refer to
this phenomenon as transference), and then based on that assumption,
interpret what Maharishi says as true, often misintepreting and
misunderstanding what the guru
The enlightened person,
according to MMY's teaching, doesn't make
mistakes *from nature's perspective*; but it's
entirely possible for nature to want the
enlightened person to make a mistake, for
nature's own unfathomable purposes (e.g., to
nudge the person's followers into using their
own
@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:21 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy
Field'
"The enlightened person,according to MMY's teaching, doesn't
makemistakes *from nature's "perspective"*; but it'sentirely possible
for nature to "want" theenlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a frequent mistake people make, *assuming* that Maharishi
[or another guru] is enlightened (I think psychologists refer to
this phenomenon as transference), and then based on that
assumption,
and others resources, and then they call him Shiva. Ha
Ha.
- Original Message -
From: Kirk
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy
Field'
'Nature' is a fallacy. This teaching
is the bane of religious
: curtisdeltablues
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:21 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
The enlightened person,
according to MMY's teaching, doesn't make
mistakes *from nature's perspective*; but it's
entirely possible for nature to want
On Jun 14, 2006, at 7:43 PM, sparaig wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:20 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Good points. This one interested me the most: "rather by recognizing that mysticism is completely beyond science." It is beyond
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a frequent mistake people make, *assuming* that Maharishi
[or another guru] is enlightened (I think psychologists refer to
this phenomenon as transference), and then based on that
assumption,
ce in a while. -
Original Message - From: curtisdeltablues To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:21 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife]
Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field' "The enlightened
person, according to MMY's teaching, doesn't make mistakes *from
nature
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, coshlnx coshlnx@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin
jflanegi@
wrote:
@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:21 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
The enlightened person,
according to MMY's teaching, doesn't make
mistakes *from nature's perspective*; but it's
entirely possible for nature to want the
enlightened person
On Jun 15, 2006, at 2:20 AM, sparaig wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That was really interesting, thanks! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:20 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Good
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So many people here considering themselves freethinking TMers who
have gotten away from the cultish mentality, and yet, like a grain of
sand in an oyster, people have made a pearl out of the utter mythical
nonsense that MMY
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The enlightened person,
according to MMY's teaching, doesn't make
mistakes *from nature's perspective*; but it's
entirely possible for nature to want the
enlightened person to make a mistake, for
nature's own
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
This is a frequent mistake people make, *assuming* that Maharishi
[or another guru] is enlightened (I think psychologists refer to
And also regarding getting escorted out, were those that this
happened to respectful? Just curious, because we'd be treated
similarly in any company meeting if openly challenging a CEO
disrespecfully- not making any assumptions here, just gethering
info. Thanks
You make a good point here.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 2:20 AM, sparaig wrote:
snip
Well, let's see, Ken Wilber, a rather superficial (sorry Judy)
philosopher who has had a few
grad-level QM courses as part of his work in biology, concludes
that QM
Did your wife perhaps have some doubts about
whether you were enlightened?
Yeah, that was it. She had way too much counter-evidence!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And also regarding getting escorted out, were those that this
happened to respectful? Just curious, because we'd be treated
similarly in any company meeting if openly challenging a CEO
disrespecfully- not making
--- jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So many people here considering themselves
freethinking TMers who
have gotten away from the cultish mentality, and
yet, like a grain of
sand in an oyster, people have made
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
Just because he said he was enlightened, why did
they believe it?
This is a deep point. I'm sure you know all about Lifton's
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
That was really interesting, thanks!
--- In
I don't know 'Lifton' or what that refers to. My take on why people
ascribe stuff to their teachers is they want to personalize their
own inner transformation, and the teacher is a convenient...target?
lol.
I'm sure this is true in many relationships. I think when he adopted
the name Maharishi,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 14, 2006, at 7:43 PM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:20 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
Good points. This one interested me the most:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, coshlnx coshlnx@ wrote:
---
MMY=Shiva...You didn't
know that? Who else could hebe?
Sudra Mahesh
Varma
__._,_.___
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
SPONSORED LINKS
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
I've always interpretted no mistake as meaning that a mistake is
something that detracts
from one's evolution towards higher states of consciousness.
I'll bet you a zillion dollars you can't come up with an
A great example of this was when he came here, sometime in the late 70s I think, he apparently made the offhand remark that someone's sari was really nice, or something to that effect. Next time he came--most of the women were wearing saris, and he couldn't believe it and wanted to know why.
Sal
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
MMY=Shiva...You didn't know that? Who else could he
be?
Sudra Mahesh Varma
I vote for Bob's Big Boy! checkered overalls and everything.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--
Yahoo!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know 'Lifton' or what that refers to. My take on why
people
ascribe stuff to their teachers is they want to personalize their
own inner transformation, and the teacher is a convenient...target?
lol.
On Jun 15, 2006, at 1:34 PM, sparaig wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 14, 2006, at 7:43 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:20 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Good points. This
Flippancy isn't neccesarily a sense
of humour. It's more a state of egoic conceit.
- Original Message -
From: jim_flanegin
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 12:46 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy
Field'
--- In FairfieldLife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 1:34 PM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Jun 14, 2006, at 7:43 PM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
Peter wrote:
--- jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So many people here considering themselves
freethinking TMers who
have gotten away from the cultish mentality, and
yet, like a grain of
sand in an
[Quoting Schroedinger:]
Let us see whether we cannot draw the correct, noncontradictory
conclusion from the following two premises:
(i) My body functions as a pure mechanism according to the Laws
of Nature [determinism].
ME: This is about the physical body.
(ii) Yet I know, by
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 12:46 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernhardt@
wrote:
MMY=Shiva...You didn't know that? Who else could he
be?
Sudra Mahesh Varma
I vote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
snip
Also, I'm not at all sure what Wilber says in this
vein contradicts Hagelin. I think
On Jun 15, 2006, at 3:31 PM, sparaig wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 15, 2006, at 1:34 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:On Jun 14, 2006, at 7:43 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Quoting Schroedinger:]
Let us see whether we cannot draw the correct, noncontradictory
conclusion from the following two premises:
(i) My body functions as a pure mechanism according to the Laws
of
OK- but I was being seriously absurd- there's a
place for that I thought...---Oh, yes, that's okay then.
__._,_.___
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
OK- but I was being seriously absurd- there's a place for that I
thought...
---Oh, yes, that's okay then.
Just to clarify, Peter had asked who else Maharishi could be? I
thought that the way he asked the question
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
[Quoting Schroedinger:]
Let us see whether we cannot draw the correct, noncontradictory
conclusion from the following two
So you see, I was being seriously absurd. Maybe it
worked, and maybe it didn't. Just a little bit of fun. ---I think we both missed the mark and that he
meant that everybody is Shiva.
__._,_.___
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 3:31 PM, sparaig wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 15, 2006, at 1:34 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Jun 14, 2006, at 7:43 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
On Jun 15, 2006, at 9:28 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: I can see how a magical display would make more sense, esp. if inner qualities were lacking. It makes sense if you weren't there. If you were there, it seems a lot like someone trying to cling to his preconceptions. :-) In this case what it
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
[...]
I was going by the talk, which was represented as showing that
anyone who talks
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernhardt@
wrote:
OK- but I was being seriously absurd- there's a place for that I
thought...
---Oh, yes, that's okay then.
Just to clarify, Peter
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernhardt@
wrote:
OK- but I was being seriously absurd- there's a place for that
I
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
[...]
I was
On Jun 15, 2006, at 7:23 PM, sparaig wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" jstein@ wrote: [...] I was going by the talk, which was
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
[Quoting Schroedinger:]
Let us see whether we cannot
You made a number of new points that are helping me understand how you
are seeing the quote. It will take some time for me to unpack it. I
think this is worth the time. It is as good a tool as any to discuss
the relationship of mind and body and the possibility for universal
consciousness. The
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 9:28 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
I can see how a magical display would make more sense, esp.
if inner qualities were lacking.
It makes sense if you weren't there. If you were
there, it seems a lot like
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've seen people sit and watch someone levitate and
admit it verbally as it happens and then get up and
leave the room and then claim the next day that it never
happened, and that they had never said such a thing.
This reification of a concept of
some 'nature' is a fallacy.
After enlightenment, there is not much ownership, it is just easier to
do what nature wants because it is easiest to support nature, and in turn
nature supports us. I know it sounds crazy, but it is simply the way it is.
So
The fully enlightened people alive right now are all
dead.---Not
so.
__._,_.___
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
SPONSORED LINKS
Yes, of course. And the experience of Self realization
is nothing more than reaching a level of functioning where this is
unimpeded. Nothing more than just that. "Practice makes
perfect".This idea of a
level of functioning is a fallacy. How can there be an up or a down in
spacetime?
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 12:27 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Clarifying The Energy
Field'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
"jim_flanegin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, OK- Got it. So my
question back is, what practical difference in your life would it make
if you witness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yes, of course. And the experience of Self realization is nothing
more than reaching a level of functioning where this is unimpeded.
Nothing more than just that. Practice makes perfect.
This idea of a level of
1 - 100 of 204 matches
Mail list logo
