Hi Ravi, If you speak English *and* another language, which I am assuming you do...I consider that an amazing feat, equally impressive as anything I've talked about.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Yogi" <raviyogi@...> wrote: > > Thanks but I wouldn't know what that would be :-). > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@> > wrote: > > > > Yep - totally agree. I am sure that you are also inherently free or > advanced in ways that I am not. :-) > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Yogi" raviyogi@ wrote: > > > > > > Thanks Jim, sounds good, utility then. My point being that even if I > was able to see them it would just be a bonus, something fun to talk > about - yes something extra added to my life in terms of utility or fun. > But it will not make any difference to my completeness, same goes with > any other siddhis. They are ultimately all material. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > "I don't see Angels, nor I do believe in them - but certainly can > see the possibility that a certain refined nervous system can see the > angles and other celestial being around them. However there is no > salvation outside of you, so this is all optional entertainment really." > > > > > > > > Perhaps at first the experience would be unsettling, however the > experience of the celestial worlds is sufficiently subtle to be only > perceived when there is not any sort of excitement or expectation in the > mind. So it becomes a normal extension of the senses that is rarely used > or thought about. Only useful if needed, not entertainment ever.:-) > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Yogi" <raviyogi@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Denise Evans <dmevans365@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey there "nit-wit", you are beginning to sound like Ravi > "pimp" > > > > > "whore" Yogi. Â > > > > > > > > > > > Err..Denise, pardon me, but that would be Ravi "The Lover" Yogi > and no > > > > > nitwit can sound like the narcissistic, manic depressive, low > vibe, > > > > > slimeball enlightened asshole like me. > > > > > I don't see Angels, nor I do believe in them - but certainly can > see the > > > > > possibility that a certain refined nervous system can see the > angles and > > > > > other celestial being around them. However there is no salvation > outside > > > > > of you, so this is all optional entertainment really. > > > > > > > > > > > I have a few questions for you about angels, as I am seeing > someone > > > > > who is healing my spiritual grid and the angels are helping, > according > > > > > to her. Â I'm one of those unfortunate ones who can't "see" > anything > > > > > in this lifetime. Â Maybe next time 'round. Â Are angels > > > > > unconditional and is there salvation for us sinners? Â I'm > assuming > > > > > the answer is "yes", but having also been told I'm a > "perpetrator" in > > > > > this life, I worry about condemnation...although less and less. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > From: whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ > > > > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2011 7:01 AM > > > > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: "You don't believe what we > believe, > > > > > therefore you hate it...and us" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Â > > > > > > You just proved my point. Now, run along kiddie and play in > your > > > > > selective memory some more. I won't push your buttons anymore, > though > > > > > you are challenged to find mine. And while we're at it, even > though you > > > > > make a big pretense of not reading my posts, you eat up every > word with > > > > > a spoon don't you? To the point of trying to borrow the ideas I > express. > > > > > I didn't use to call you "Bozotronic Barry" for nothing, you > nit-wit. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" > <whynotnow7@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The states of mind you describe below are almost as > retarded > > > > > > > > as yours, "If you are self-realized, you think you are > better > > > > > > > > than me". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ahem. This is too good a setup to pass up. Might I cite > > > > > > > a quotation from the same self-announced self realized > > > > > > > person who wrote the above, posted *by him* less than > > > > > > > 24 hours ago: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "The angels, gods and saints I have directed [sic] > > > > > > > interacted with are a lot more real than either of > > > > > > > you, but please, continue with your fantasy! A dull > > > > > > > nervous system doesn't have the ability of refined > > > > > > > perception and so cannot see the lifeforms all > > > > > > > around us. Maybe next life? and believe me I am > > > > > > > being generous with you two nit-wits." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No "thinking I'm better than others" there, nope. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The fascinating thing is that Jimbo really doesn't > > > > > > > *remember* being as arrogant and elitist and as > > > > > > > condescending as he was less than a day ago when > > > > > > > he wrote this. In his case, "being in the now" > > > > > > > seems to mean "I can't remember what *I* said > > > > > > > yesterday." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jim, you *DO* think that you're better than us. > > > > > > > Anyone who doesn't believe in the same fairy tales > > > > > > > you do has, *according to you*, a "dull nervous > > > > > > > system," and is a "nit-wit." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think that you can find a single person > > > > > > > on this forum who doesn't believe this about you. > > > > > > > It "comes through" in almost every post you write. > > > > > > > How we were always able to tell it was you back > > > > > > > when you were pretending to be someone else? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why is it that you are unable to see what is so > > > > > > > apparent to everyone else? Is being that totally > > > > > > > self-unaware a part of being what you call self- > > > > > > > realization? If so, why do you believe that anyone > > > > > > > would want to "achieve" it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now prove how unattached to your own "fictional > > > > > > > stories" and the image you try to project of being > > > > > > > enlightened (and thus unattached and "above" get- > > > > > > > ting your buttons pushed) by responding to this > > > > > > > post and any others I make this week with a series > > > > > > > of putdowns. That is your normal pattern on this > > > > > > > forum, and yes, I'm taunting you to repeat it. I'm > > > > > > > even telling you about it *in advance* because > > > > > > > I know that you're powerless to stop it. I'm > > > > > > > merely doing what I have said in the past that > > > > > > > I do -- predicting what your behavior will be, > > > > > > > and then allowing you the opportunity to prove > > > > > > > me correct. My bet is that you cannot help but > > > > > > > do so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb > <no_reply@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a couple of threads going on recently, both > involving > > > > > > > > > Curtis, that I think are revelatory about the state of > mind of > > > > > > > > > many FFL members. Although I've only skimmed the first > few para- > > > > > > > > > graphs of each, it seems to me that the anti-Curtis > participants > > > > > > > > > are trying to make the same case (see Subject line). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In one, someone is trying to make the case that because > Curtis > > > > > > > > > feels free to mock the concept of God and/or deliver > unto Him > > > > > > > > > the blame for all the Bad Stuff even believers in Him > admit > > > > > > > > > He's responsible for, that means he "hates" God. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bzzzzzzzt. Does not compute. This line of unreasoning is > as > > > > > > > > > stupid as someone who believes that Porky Pig is God > saying > > > > > > > > > that someone who pokes fun at Porky Pig "hates" him. > PORKY > > > > > > > > > PIG DOES NOT EXIST. He's a fictional character. For > > > > > > > > > those of us who are non-believers in God, is God. How > can > > > > > > > > > someone who doesn't believe that God EXISTS "hate" Him? > > > > > > > > > This is just so stupid I don't see how anyone could > possibly > > > > > > > > > propose such an idiotic argument. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the other thread, someone who is heavily attached to > the > > > > > > > > > word-for-word parroted dogma taught to her by Maharishi > and > > > > > > > > > his minions is claiming that because Vaj not only > *isn't* > > > > > > > > > attached to it but feels free to use his own mind and > his > > > > > > > > > own much broader experience with spiritual pursuits to > come > > > > > > > > > up with more exact descriptions of TM and what it > entails, > > > > > > > > > he was never a TM teacher. The anti-Vaj person also > tries > > > > > > > > > -- often -- to claim that Vaj "hates" Maharishi and TM > and > > > > > > > > > TMers, and is saying what he says out of malice, and > with > > > > > > > > > nefarious intent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bzzzzzt. I don't really see it that way. What I see *in > > > > > > > > > both cases* is people who are heavily invested in and > attached > > > > > > > > > to a set of beliefs indulging in 1) projection of their > own > > > > > > > > > emotions (projecting their own hatred onto others), and > 2) > > > > > > > > > protection of their own self importance (I believe in > this > > > > > > > > > stuff, therefore it's true). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What does it MATTER if Curtis doesn't believe in God and > > > > > > > > > you do? His beliefs don't affect you in any way. The > fact > > > > > > > > > that he occasionally pokes hilarious fun at a *made-up > > > > > > > > > concept* shouldn't really affect you at all. But it > DOES. > > > > > > > > > So much so that you leave all sense of reason behind and > > > > > > > > > suggest that he "hates" the made-up concept. WTF? Please > > > > > > > > > take your Porky Pig-ism back to the spiritual > kindergarten > > > > > > > > > you learned it in and get a checking. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > W.r.t Vaj, the fact that you are still so terrified of > > > > > > > > > saying something that isn't in the approved catechism of > > > > > > > > > TM dogma *does not mean* that Vaj should be or has to be > > > > > > > > > similarly terrified. He has learned something you have > not, > > > > > > > > > the ability to think for himself. You suggesting that > this > > > > > > > > > is a sin merely reveals how strongly you believe that > > > > > > > > > thinking for yourself IS a sin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From my point of view, Curtis "hates God" no more than > Vaj > > > > > > > > > "hates Maharishi or TMers." They merely poke fun at > things > > > > > > > > > that more than deserve to be made fun of, sometimes > indulging > > > > > > > > > in hyperbole to do so. This hyperbole pushes the > attachment > > > > > > > > > buttons of the True Believers, who then react by > parroting > > > > > > > > > *another* piece of dogma that they've been taught, the > phrase > > > > > > > > > in the Subject line of this post. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's embarrassing. If you had half a clue, you'd be as > > > > > > > > > embarrassed saying this stuff you say as some of us are > > > > > > > > > watching you say it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
