[FairfieldLife] Re: Islam's Sunni-Shiite Split
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is an excellent article which explains the background of the > conflict in Iraq and elsewhere in the world. The next step is for > the leaders of these sects to recognize the differences and > peacefully coexist in the name of their own religion. Perhaps, this > is too much to ask for those who are blind to the truth. > > Regards, > > John R. > I hope you don't seriously think that Muslims are different from other religionists, certainly not different from the "Christians" of Europe who have been killing each other for centuries. In Northern Ireland, the war was between Catholics and Protestants, but really, it's more of a political struggle for power for one's own group than a fight over religious differences.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Islam's Sunni-Shiite Split
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "suziezuzie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Islam's Sunni-Shiite split By Dan Murphy, Staff writer of The > Christian Science Monitor > Wed Jan 17, 3:00 AM ET > > > > To the outsider, the differences between the Sunni and Shiite Islamic > sects are hard to recognize. > > The five pillars of Islam - daily prayer; fasting during Ramadan; > alms giving; the pilgrimage to Mecca; and belief in one, unitary god - > are at the core of both faiths, and most mainstream clerics in each > denomination recognize adherents of the other side as "legitimate" > Muslims. > > The Koran is the sacred text for both. They believe Muhammad was the > prophet and that there will be a resurrection followed by a final > judgment when the world ends. > > Adding to the potential confusion is the insistence of many Muslims > not to be identified as Shiite or Sunni, saying they are Muslims and > Muslims only. > > But, as recent events inIraq and Lebanon have shown, the > differences between the believers are not only seen as important by > the communities but now, as they have for centuries, rest at the core > of bloody political struggles. > > While there are superficial differences between the sects - > differences in prayer and carrying out ritual ablutions, for > instance - the arena of conflict between the two has long been > political. > > The split between the two main branches of Islam is nearly 1,400 > years old, and started with a fight over who should lead the faithful > after the prophet Muhammad's death in 632. One side believed that > direct descendants of the prophet should take up the mantle of the > caliph - the leader of the world's faithful. They were known as the > Shiat-Ali, or "partisans of Ali," after the prophet's cousin and son- > in-law Ali, whom they favored to become caliph. In time, they came > simply to be known as Shiites. > > The other side, the Sunnis, thought that any worthy man could lead > the faithful, regardless of lineage, and favored Abu Bakr, an early > convert to Islam who had married into Muhammad's family. "Sunni" is > derived from the Arab word for "followers" and is shorthand > for "followers of the prophet." > > The Shiites were the eventual losers in a violent struggle for > mastery that lasted decades, a fact now reflected in their minority > status within global Islam. > > But while the civil war now raging between Shiite and Sunni in Iraq > is sometimes cast as an extension of this age-old religious struggle, > today's conflict is about something slightly different. > > While religious differences are real and remain important, the > breakdown over Shiite and Sunni in Iraq is about group identity as > much as it is about disagreements over proper worship. > > In Iraq, many Sunnis and Shiites who are not particularly devout are > participating in the bloodshed, fighting to advance group interests. > > "I think that Sunni and Shiite group identifiers have become more > important in a lot of ways that are not essentially religious,'' says > Barbara Petzen, an expert at Harvard University's Middle Eastern > Studies Center. > > Nevertheless, there are some key religious differences. Shiite > veneration of the holy family, that is, the descendants of Muhammad, > has contributed to a much more centralized and hierarchical clergy > than in the Sunni world. > > All religious Shiites nominally observe the advice of an ayatollah on > how to follow the law of Islam, or ~~i~~sharia~~/i~~, in the modern > context. For many in Iraq, this role is fulfilled by Ayatollah Ali al- > Sistani. > > Sunni Islam is much less centralized. In this respect, the > differences between Sunni and Shiite Islam superficially approach the > differences between the Roman Catholic Church and most Protestant > denominations. > > Though a majority inIran and Iraq, Shiites make up just 15 > percent of the world's Muslims. Their history of defeat and frequent > subjugation has also led to a cult of death and martyrdom within > Shiism. > > The major Shiite holidays celebrate the glorious defeats and > martyrdoms of Imam Ali and Imam Hussein, Ali's son, as typified by > the preeminent Shiite holiday of Ashura, which marks the slaughter of > Hussein and his followers outside the Iraqi city of Karbala by a > Sunni caliph in 680. > > In Iraq and Iran, the holiday is marked by elaborate processions of > men reenacting their own passion play, many of whom self-flagellate > with chains to the beat of drums. > > Such expressions of piety are looked at with disgust by hard-line > Sunnis like the clergy in Saudi Arabia, who view the veneration of > Hussein and other members of the prophet's family as a violation of > monotheism. This view has frequently led extremist groups like Al > Qaeda to attack Shiites as heretics. > > The fact that Shiites have long been oppressed - first und
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Record Opium Harvest Begins Soon In Afghanistan'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert Gimbel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It seems like strange timing to me; > That the US would decrease it's presence in Afghanistan; > Right at the time when the heroin crop is coming in. > Any connection? > > R.Gimbel Seattle,WA > Strange in what way? Pending an answer, find below links from two very different media sources that paint the same picture as far as concern the White House's couldn't care less attitude toward allegedly dangerous drugs that flood the West: http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=12534 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2814861.stm
[FairfieldLife] Islam's Sunni-Shiite Split
Islam's Sunni-Shiite split By Dan Murphy, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor Wed Jan 17, 3:00 AM ET To the outsider, the differences between the Sunni and Shiite Islamic sects are hard to recognize. The five pillars of Islam - daily prayer; fasting during Ramadan; alms giving; the pilgrimage to Mecca; and belief in one, unitary god - are at the core of both faiths, and most mainstream clerics in each denomination recognize adherents of the other side as "legitimate" Muslims. The Koran is the sacred text for both. They believe Muhammad was the prophet and that there will be a resurrection followed by a final judgment when the world ends. Adding to the potential confusion is the insistence of many Muslims not to be identified as Shiite or Sunni, saying they are Muslims and Muslims only. But, as recent events inIraq and Lebanon have shown, the differences between the believers are not only seen as important by the communities but now, as they have for centuries, rest at the core of bloody political struggles. While there are superficial differences between the sects - differences in prayer and carrying out ritual ablutions, for instance - the arena of conflict between the two has long been political. The split between the two main branches of Islam is nearly 1,400 years old, and started with a fight over who should lead the faithful after the prophet Muhammad's death in 632. One side believed that direct descendants of the prophet should take up the mantle of the caliph - the leader of the world's faithful. They were known as the Shiat-Ali, or "partisans of Ali," after the prophet's cousin and son- in-law Ali, whom they favored to become caliph. In time, they came simply to be known as Shiites. The other side, the Sunnis, thought that any worthy man could lead the faithful, regardless of lineage, and favored Abu Bakr, an early convert to Islam who had married into Muhammad's family. "Sunni" is derived from the Arab word for "followers" and is shorthand for "followers of the prophet." The Shiites were the eventual losers in a violent struggle for mastery that lasted decades, a fact now reflected in their minority status within global Islam. But while the civil war now raging between Shiite and Sunni in Iraq is sometimes cast as an extension of this age-old religious struggle, today's conflict is about something slightly different. While religious differences are real and remain important, the breakdown over Shiite and Sunni in Iraq is about group identity as much as it is about disagreements over proper worship. In Iraq, many Sunnis and Shiites who are not particularly devout are participating in the bloodshed, fighting to advance group interests. "I think that Sunni and Shiite group identifiers have become more important in a lot of ways that are not essentially religious,'' says Barbara Petzen, an expert at Harvard University's Middle Eastern Studies Center. Nevertheless, there are some key religious differences. Shiite veneration of the holy family, that is, the descendants of Muhammad, has contributed to a much more centralized and hierarchical clergy than in the Sunni world. All religious Shiites nominally observe the advice of an ayatollah on how to follow the law of Islam, or ~~i~~sharia~~/i~~, in the modern context. For many in Iraq, this role is fulfilled by Ayatollah Ali al- Sistani. Sunni Islam is much less centralized. In this respect, the differences between Sunni and Shiite Islam superficially approach the differences between the Roman Catholic Church and most Protestant denominations. Though a majority inIran and Iraq, Shiites make up just 15 percent of the world's Muslims. Their history of defeat and frequent subjugation has also led to a cult of death and martyrdom within Shiism. The major Shiite holidays celebrate the glorious defeats and martyrdoms of Imam Ali and Imam Hussein, Ali's son, as typified by the preeminent Shiite holiday of Ashura, which marks the slaughter of Hussein and his followers outside the Iraqi city of Karbala by a Sunni caliph in 680. In Iraq and Iran, the holiday is marked by elaborate processions of men reenacting their own passion play, many of whom self-flagellate with chains to the beat of drums. Such expressions of piety are looked at with disgust by hard-line Sunnis like the clergy in Saudi Arabia, who view the veneration of Hussein and other members of the prophet's family as a violation of monotheism. This view has frequently led extremist groups like Al Qaeda to attack Shiites as heretics. The fact that Shiites have long been oppressed - first under the Ottoman Empire, later under states like Iraq and Saudi Arabia - has led to a strong identification with the injustices suffered by Hussein, and have lent a political dimension to Shiite worship. Ashura celebrations, for instance, were banned underSaddam Hussein, who feared they could lea
[FairfieldLife] Articles- Lynch/Donovan @ DC Embassy- best TM pub in over 30 years
The Wash. Post article today led the Reliable Source section, the most prominent placement in the paper for non-hard news articles. The Reliable Source covers celebrity activities in Washington, and reflective of the general culture, is probably read more closely by more readers of the Post than page 1. As such, the TM publicity genereated today by these articles is the best publicity the TM movement has received in over 30 years. The tone of the articles indicates that much good will is flowing in the direction of the TM movement. Congrats to all involved. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "george_deforest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > bob brigante wrote: > > > > today's Washington Post: > > At the Hungarian Embassy, Dinner and a Moviemaker > > in addition to that Washington Post story, > the same news event as covered by rival Washington Times: > > THE WASHINGTON TIMES > Embassy Row > > Mellow fellow > > By James Morrison > Published January 15, 2007 > > Hungary's rock 'n' roll ambassador had a hurdy-gurdy weekend, as he > hosted '60s pop legend Donovan and American cult film director > David Lynch. > > Ambassador Andras Simonyi, who plays lead guitar in his own > diplomatic rock band, promotes popular and classical music > and other forms of the arts to further the goals of his government. > He has jammed with rock legends such as Tommy Ramone of the Ramones > and Jeff "Skunk" Baxter, who played with the '70s bands > Steely Dan and the Doobie Brothers. > > Donovan Philips Leitch, the Scottish singer-songwriter with hits > such as "Mellow Yellow" and "Hurdy-Gurdy Man," performed for > a stellar Washington audience of diplomats and promoters of the arts. > > Guests included British Ambassador David Manning; Irish Ambassador > Noel Fahey; John Bruton, the European Union's ambassador; > Bonnie McElveen-Hunter, a former U.S. ambassador to Finland > and current chairwoman of the American Red Cross; and > Michael Sonnenreich, former president of the Washington > National Opera. > > Mr. Lynch has directed films such as "Blue Velvet" and > "Elephant Man" and the television series "Twin Peaks." > > > > today's Washington Post: > > > > At the Hungarian Embassy, Dinner and a Moviemaker > > > > By Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts > > Wednesday, January 17, 2007; Page C03 > > > > Who knew official Washington was so eager to find its inner bliss? > > Or that it harbored a yearning for gentle '60s folk-rock? > > When Hungarian Ambassador Andras Simonyi planned a dinner > > for director David Lynch and Scottish singer Donovan -- > > both here to lecture at the Kennedy Center > > on the benefits of meditation -- he anticipated > > an intimate affair. > > > > "The smaller embassies, you send out 90 invitations, you get 30" > > he mused Saturday night, looking out at a seated crowd > > so big it had to be moved from his home to the embassy. > > "We sent out invitations, and we kept getting 'yes'". > > > > About 60 guests (including Tony Lake, Zbigniew Brzezinski, > > and GWU prez Stephen Trachtenberg listened to the > > auteur of dark visions like "Blue Velvet" and "Mulholland Drive" > > explain how transcendental meditation has changed his life > > and why it should be taught in schools. > > > > "We grow in happiness. Creativity starts to flow," said > > the surprisingly earnest Lynch (a little like Kyle MacLachlan > > as Agent Dale Cooper in Lynch's '90s series "Twin Peaks"). > > "You're getting out of bed looking forward to the doing > > of the thing. A job that's boring becomes more exciting." > > He also threw in mentions of quantum physics, unified fields, > > prefrontal cortices and something about "water the root, > > and enjoy the fruit." Hey, sounds good. > > > > Donovan, who has joined Lynch on his TM tour (last week, > > Lincoln Center; this week, LA's Kodak Theatre), was praised > > by Simonyi for pioneering the kind of rock that "caused > > the Iron Curtain to fall." > > > > The singer, in turn, invited the ambassador -- a guitarist > > with D.C. diplomat band Coalition of the Willing -- onstage > > to join him for his old hit "Colours." > > > > You know, the one that goes "Yellow is the color of > > my true love's hair"? Except that the second verse, > > as delivered by the Hungarian, went something like this: > > K ék az ég mikor ébredek / a reggel ha felkelek. > > Come on, everyone, sing along! >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Lynch/Donovan at Hungarian embassy in D.C.
> bob brigante wrote: > > today's Washington Post: > At the Hungarian Embassy, Dinner and a Moviemaker in addition to that Washington Post story, the same news event as covered by rival Washington Times: THE WASHINGTON TIMES Embassy Row Mellow fellow By James Morrison Published January 15, 2007 Hungary's rock 'n' roll ambassador had a hurdy-gurdy weekend, as he hosted '60s pop legend Donovan and American cult film director David Lynch. Ambassador Andras Simonyi, who plays lead guitar in his own diplomatic rock band, promotes popular and classical music and other forms of the arts to further the goals of his government. He has jammed with rock legends such as Tommy Ramone of the Ramones and Jeff "Skunk" Baxter, who played with the '70s bands Steely Dan and the Doobie Brothers. Donovan Philips Leitch, the Scottish singer-songwriter with hits such as "Mellow Yellow" and "Hurdy-Gurdy Man," performed for a stellar Washington audience of diplomats and promoters of the arts. Guests included British Ambassador David Manning; Irish Ambassador Noel Fahey; John Bruton, the European Union's ambassador; Bonnie McElveen-Hunter, a former U.S. ambassador to Finland and current chairwoman of the American Red Cross; and Michael Sonnenreich, former president of the Washington National Opera. Mr. Lynch has directed films such as "Blue Velvet" and "Elephant Man" and the television series "Twin Peaks." > today's Washington Post: > > At the Hungarian Embassy, Dinner and a Moviemaker > > By Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts > Wednesday, January 17, 2007; Page C03 > > Who knew official Washington was so eager to find its inner bliss? > Or that it harbored a yearning for gentle '60s folk-rock? > When Hungarian Ambassador Andras Simonyi planned a dinner > for director David Lynch and Scottish singer Donovan -- > both here to lecture at the Kennedy Center > on the benefits of meditation -- he anticipated > an intimate affair. > > "The smaller embassies, you send out 90 invitations, you get 30" > he mused Saturday night, looking out at a seated crowd > so big it had to be moved from his home to the embassy. > "We sent out invitations, and we kept getting 'yes'". > > About 60 guests (including Tony Lake, Zbigniew Brzezinski, > and GWU prez Stephen Trachtenberg listened to the > auteur of dark visions like "Blue Velvet" and "Mulholland Drive" > explain how transcendental meditation has changed his life > and why it should be taught in schools. > > "We grow in happiness. Creativity starts to flow," said > the surprisingly earnest Lynch (a little like Kyle MacLachlan > as Agent Dale Cooper in Lynch's '90s series "Twin Peaks"). > "You're getting out of bed looking forward to the doing > of the thing. A job that's boring becomes more exciting." > He also threw in mentions of quantum physics, unified fields, > prefrontal cortices and something about "water the root, > and enjoy the fruit." Hey, sounds good. > > Donovan, who has joined Lynch on his TM tour (last week, > Lincoln Center; this week, LA's Kodak Theatre), was praised > by Simonyi for pioneering the kind of rock that "caused > the Iron Curtain to fall." > > The singer, in turn, invited the ambassador -- a guitarist > with D.C. diplomat band Coalition of the Willing -- onstage > to join him for his old hit "Colours." > > You know, the one that goes "Yellow is the color of > my true love's hair"? Except that the second verse, > as delivered by the Hungarian, went something like this: > K ék az ég mikor ébredek / a reggel ha felkelek. > Come on, everyone, sing along!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
> Somebody's getting his buttons pushed. Na na na na na na. > > lurk ---yep, caught that one right before it left my mind forever. thanks for remembering.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Cosmic Consciousness or Personality Disorder
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "peterklutz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "peterklutz" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "peterklutz" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "suziezuzie" > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > When someone starts meditating, is the flatness (separation > of Self > > > > > > from sense perception) that they begin to feel is a prelude to > > > Cosmic > > > > > > Consciousness or the beginnings of personality pathology > that has > > > > > > nothing to do with enlightenment? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the beginning of CC. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The perception that you are outside your body is a pathological > > > thing. CC isn't the same. > > > > > > > > > > I see that you have already been sorted out by someone else for your > > > faulty reply, so I'll just make the observation that you would have > > > spared yourself the embarrassment if you have taken the time to > > > actually read the post you replied to before replying. > > > > > > The issue you responded to is "beginning of CC" - not CC per se. > > > > > > Not that it matters, you're wrong anyway. > > > > > > Moreover, as you approach CC it's more about the body being external > > > to You, rather than the way you choose to misconstrue it. > > > > > > > There's no internal OR external. > > > > Thanks for proving that (1) not only do you not know what you are a > communicating about; but also (2) are you unable to read; or (3) your > ego is so damaged by the feedback you have gotten in this thread that > you start to purposely misrepresent the postings of others. > Huh. You said: as you approach CC, it's more about the body being external to You, rather than the way you choose to misconstrue it. I said: There's no internal OR external. That sums up the last exchange, right? Now, the question arises: do YOU understand what I said?
[FairfieldLife] All Glory to Guru Dev? At least Paul Schilpp was impressed . . .
>From Paul Masons website. Speech quoted in 'Amrit Kana' (a book of quotations of Guru Dev, Shankaracharya Swami Brahmanand Saraswati. The speech is from an event on 22nd December 1950, and the speaker is 'Dr. Paal', most probably Professor Paul Arthur Schilpp:- 'To-day we are here to do homage to his Holiness, Shri Jagatguru Shankaracharya Ananta Sri Vibhusita Swami Brahmananda Saraswati of Jyotirmath, Badarikasram - the Superman, the seer, the sage, who is one of the few rare individuals amongst the billions of the citizens of the world, whom we would unhesitatingly choose if and when we would be called upon to describe the spiritual and cultural capital of our nation, if and when the world would feel the need of evoking the part our nation can play in it, who is beyond any controversy, one of the rare few who have contributed and can still contribute something to universal peaceful progress, who have risen by their talent and genius above their fellow countrymen, above their fellowmen of the world and have thus gained a place for themselves at the head of humanity, at the extreme spearhead of civilization. Standing here at a time when everywhere in the world everybody feels not a little bewildered at an immense increase in the sense of human power, we can hardly exaggerate the necessity of teachers like his Holiness the Jagatguru. You will pardon me if I venture; at this assemblage of eminent philosophers, to refer to an aspect of our Hindu Philosophy which seems for the time being, to be too much belittled by the power-intoxicated world. Our Vedic philosophers The civilized world today is indeed in an age of spiritual chaos, intellectual doubt and political decadence. Civilized man today no doubt has acquired immense scientific and mechanical resources, but seems hopelessly to lack the wisdom to apply them to the best advantage. This is why we witness a growing sense of frustration seizing every mind almost everywhere. The whole world seems to be suffering from an epidemic of hysteria. We do not know which way the truth lies. Perhaps even here it will be true to say that every truth, however true in itself, yet taken apart from others, becomes only a snare. In reality, perhaps, each is one thread of a complex weft, and no thread can be taken apart from the weft. But this much seems to be certain that there is this paralysing fear and alarm almost everywhere in the world-everywhere even the most powerful minds have not succeeded in escaping it altogether. Everywhere humanity is beginning to feel that we are being betrayed by what is false within, - we are almost giving way to find ourselves spiritually paralysed. This indeed is a deadly malady. The patient here must first of all be brought to see that he is sick and to want to get well and to do of himself what is needed to get well. Perhaps something is away both with the heart and the brain. The world needs philosopher-teachers like His Holiness Shri Jagatguru Shankaracharya who can reveal the world of values and can make us realize that, that is the real world. The world badly needs guidance to a creed of values and ideals. The world needs a teacher who can dispel our fears and can remove all sense of frustration or least in so far as it is only an internal malady. We need a teacher who has succeeded in gaining for himself freedom to be alone, who does not require any power, who can cure both heart and Brain. We are in an age in which the meeting of the traditionally alien cultures of the Orient and the Occident has become inevitable. We need a teacher with sufficient gift of intellectual imagination and divine inspiration who can help the smooth working of this meeting, the working out of this meeting in such a way that the values of each civilization complement and re-inforce rather than combat and destroy those of the other. We cannot avoid the sight of conflicting economic, political, religious, artistic and other ideological doctrines and the consequent fear and feeling of helplessness, We need a teacher who can teach us how to get out of the crisis in valuation in this realm of conflict, who can teach us how to avert the danger of spiritual paralysis facing us. His Holiness Sri Jagatguru Shankaracharya, having gained the freedom to be alone, did also fully realize the means of escaping from loneliness. In these days of doubts and difficulties if we can at all safely turn our eyes for guidance to any one it should be to this superman the overpowering influence of whose genius appears indeed in the light of divine inspiration, the superman who has succeeded in ridding himself of any ambition for power. Saintly guidance from a seer like Sri Jagatguru alone can ensure an abiding peace.' Dr. Paal's biography from the Northwestern University website: Paul Arthur Schilpp was born in Dillenburg, Germany on February 6, 1897. Hi
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote snip In his view almost every romantic relationship was initiated by women, > and most of the time involved them using their occult > abilities to (at the very least) attract the man' > s attention and get him to focus on her. snip I had a relationship with a lady -her female instincts so finely honed that this cat and mouse game was right there out in the open, (and just beneath the surface somehow ). She nearly caught her prey, and yet I knew it was not the right match. How hard it was to pry myself away. It was extrodinary to see her ply her trade. Good stuff. We still remain distant friends. lurk >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Cosmic Consciousness or Personality Disorder
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "suziezuzie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "peterklutz" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "suziezuzie" > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > When someone starts meditating, is the flatness (separation > of > > Self > > > > > from sense perception) that they begin to feel is a prelude > to > > Cosmic > > > > > Consciousness or the beginnings of personality pathology that > > has > > > > > nothing to do with enlightenment? > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the beginning of CC. > > > > > > > > > > > > The perception that you are outside your body is a pathological > > thing. CC isn't the same. > > > > > > > > > > > Cosmic Consciousness means that one lives 24/7 one's real nature, > > bliss consciousness, and that phenomenal reality, including the > body, > > is experienced as separate from consciousness, although the > > relationship is friendly. It is only in Unity Consciousness that > this > > sense of duality is ended -- one sees a tree as a tree, but the > sense > > of it's being oneself is dominant. > > > > The term 'outside' as in 'outside the body' is used from a physical- > limited understanding, that things are understood to be outside the > body because this is how we experience the world, subject-object > relationships. So for lack of a better word or description, since the > Self is unlimited by space and time, i.e., nonlocalized, the > description, 'outside' in the case of witnessing would refer to 'not > connected' or un connected or disconnected, viewing from a different > point of dimensional-fulness-reality, etc. The idea of being out of > the body also refers to grosser astral perceptions in which a denser > (astral) spirit can move out of the physical-body dimension. > Witnessing gives an idea of watching but not necessarily from a > distance. > As you imply, it is not only space people witnessing is disconnected from, but from all of the oneness of space-time continuum - with the practical result of people also feeling disconnected from the present - the here and now - when witnessing. In fact, I suspect this is the first encounter most TMers have with witnessing - the feeling of being lost in time after a deep meditation. Lost in space comes later :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Cosmic Consciousness or Personality Disorder
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "peterklutz" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "peterklutz" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "suziezuzie" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > When someone starts meditating, is the flatness (separation of Self > > > > > from sense perception) that they begin to feel is a prelude to > > Cosmic > > > > > Consciousness or the beginnings of personality pathology that has > > > > > nothing to do with enlightenment? > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the beginning of CC. > > > > > > > > > > The perception that you are outside your body is a pathological > > thing. CC isn't the same. > > > > > > > I see that you have already been sorted out by someone else for your > > faulty reply, so I'll just make the observation that you would have > > spared yourself the embarrassment if you have taken the time to > > actually read the post you replied to before replying. > > > > The issue you responded to is "beginning of CC" - not CC per se. > > > > Not that it matters, you're wrong anyway. > > > > Moreover, as you approach CC it's more about the body being external > > to You, rather than the way you choose to misconstrue it. > > > > There's no internal OR external. > Thanks for proving that (1) not only do you not know what you are a communicating about; but also (2) are you unable to read; or (3) your ego is so damaged by the feedback you have gotten in this thread that you start to purposely misrepresent the postings of others.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, was Guru Dev in CC or GC or UC???? Acording to ...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You forgot to add me to the list: > Peter L. Sutphen, Douchebag (17.4) > Oh yeah? Well I've just been rated 17.419-- as a result of having completed my 500th consecutive pronunciation of "Maharshi". Sorry dude.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist? (or just "cosmic debris")
Since someone brought up Zappa, he of course wrote this song after a brief encounter with Chimnoy who I believe Zappa met via Jean-Luc Ponty's Mahavishnu Orchestra connections. Jim gordon (drums) John guerin (drums) Aynsley dunbar (drums) Ralph humphrey (drums) Jack bruce (bass) Erroneous (bass) Tom fowler (bass) Frank zappa (bass, lead vocals, guitar) George duke (keyboards, background vocals) Don "sugar cane" harris (violin) Jean-luc ponty (violin) Ruth underwood (percussion) Ian underwood (saxophone) Napoleon murphy brock (saxophone, background vocals) Sal marquez (trumpet) Bruce fowler (trombone) Ray collins (background vocals) Kerry mcnabb (background vocals) Susie glower (background vocals) Debbie (background vocals) Lynn (background vocals) Ruben ladron de guevara (background vocals) Robert camarena (background vocals) The mystery man came over And he said "i'm outta sight!" He said for a nominal service charge I could reach nirvana tonight If i was ready, willing and able To pay him his regular fee He would drop all the rest of His pressing affairs and devote His attention to me But i said "look here brother Who you jiving with that cosmik debris? Now who you jiving with that cosmik debris? Look here brother, don't waste your time on me" The mystery man got nervous And he fidgeted around a bit He reached in the pocket of his mystery robe And he whipped out a shaving kit Now i thought it was a razor And a can of foaming goo But he told me right then when the top popped open There was nothin' his box won't do With the oil of aphrodite, and the dust of the grand wazoo He said "you might not believe this, little fella But it'll cure your asthma too" And i said "look here brother Who you jiving with that cosmik debris? Now what kind of a guru are you, anyway? Look here brother, don't waste your time on me" (don't waste your time) "i've got troubles of my own", i said "and you can't help me out So, take your meditations and your preparations And ram it up your snout!" "but i got the crystal ball", he said And held it to the light So i snatched it all away from him And i showed him how to do it right I wrapped a newspaper 'round my head So i looked like i was deep I said some mumbo-jumbo, then I told him he was going to sleep I robbed his rings and pocketwatch And everything else i found I had that sucker hypnotized He couldn't even make a sound I proceeded to tell him his future, then As long as he was hanging around I said "the price of meat has just gone up And your old lady has just gone down!" And i said "look here brother-who you Jiving with that cosmik debris? Now is that a real poncho or is that a sears poncho? Don't you know, you could make more money as a butcher? So, don't waste your time on me" Don't waste it, don't waste your time on me (shanti) - Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, was Guru Dev in CC or GC or UC???? Acording to ...
You forgot to add me to the list: Peter L. Sutphen, Douchebag (17.4) --- nablusos108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Lsoma@ > wrote: > > > > > > According to Saint Anthony channeled through a a > close friend-Guru > > Dev is > > > presently in the third level > > > > I'll just say that Saint Anthony has to enunciate > more clearly. The > > above is incorrect. I've forgotten how to relate > to levels of > > consciousness but I will say that if there are 7 > levels in the sixth > > dimension (wtf?), Guru Dev is level 7, at least. > > I strongly think that "chanellers" are often mislead > by their > subconsciousness, or enteties on the other side who > like to create > havoc and disintegration, or who just like to have > fun. > > At the point of "death" all will have reached a > point of evolution, on > a scale I believe starts at 0,1 for the first > incarnation as humans and > culiminates in 7,0, which is the status of Maitreya, > the Christ now > being amongst us today after having created a > Mahavirupta body. I will > give a few examples from "Maitreyas Mission, vol > III" by Benjamin > Creme. It should be food for thought, especially > regarding the Divine > status of Guru Dev. > > These are just a very few and random examples: > > Akexander, Rolf (1.8) > Ananada Mayee Ma Avatar > Aquinas, Thomas (2.0) > Aristotle (2.4) > Armstrong, Louis (0.6) > Asoka, Indian Emperor, (3.0) > Aurobindo Ghose, India, Mystic (3.7) > Bailey, Alice. Occultist (3.2) > Beckett, Samuel, writer (1.6) > Beethoven, Ludwig van (3.1) > Besant, Annie, Theosophist (2.15) > Blake , William (2.2) > Blavatsky, HP, occultist (4.0) > Brandt, Willy. Politician (2.97) > Carnegie, Andrew. Industrialist (1.6) > Cayce, Edgar. Claivoyant (1.7) > Chavez, Cesar. Labour leader (1.5) > Chopin, Frederic. Composer (2.0) > Churchill, Winston. Statesman (3.0) > Confucious. Philosopher (5.0) > Crowley, Aleister. Occultist (1.6)¨ > Francis of Assisi. Saint (3.5) > Guevara, Che. Revolutionary leader (1.7) > Gurdieff, Georges. Teacher (2.2) > Hoover, Herbert. President (2.0) > Jesus of Nazareth. Great spiritual teacher (4.0) > John the Baptist. Prophet (3.3) > Krishnamurti. Spiritual teacher (4.0) > Lennon, John. (1.6) > Leonardo Da Vinci (4.4)¨ > Lincoln, Abraham (3.3) > Marx, Carl. (2.2) > Morrison, Jim (1.4) > Mozart, WA (3.0) > Muktananda (4.0) > Nityananda, Bhagavan (4.5) > Patanjali (4.3) > Rajneesh (2.3) > Ramana Maharshi. Avatar > Rembrandt (3.0) > Roerich, Helena. Occultist (4.0) > Zoroaster (4.5) > Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, Shankaracharya of > Jyotir Math, Guru of > Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (6.0) > > A close look at this incomplete, but important list > will reveal that in > seniority among the Master of Wisdom, not including > the Avatars, Guru > Dev is second only to the Master of Masters, our > oldest Brother, > Maitreya. According to Benjamin Creme, Brahmananda > Saraswati is > currently not in incarnation. > > This is a random and incomplete list. For more > information, please see; > http://www.shareintl.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!' > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/
[FairfieldLife] Ottumwans not crazy about hog lots either
http://www.ottumwacourier.com/local/local_story_016235613.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hindus opposing EU swastika ban
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Hindus in Europe have joined forces against a German proposal to ban > the display of the swastika across the European Union, a Hindu leader said. > > Ramesh Kallidai of the Hindu Forum of Britain said the swastika had been > a symbol of peace for thousands of years before the Nazis adopted it." > More: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6269627.stm > Maybe the krauts should also ban the Crucifix, since the Iron Cross was a symbol of German militarism (revived by Hitler in 1939) which killed millions in the 20th Century: http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/neo-nazi_iron-cross.asp
[FairfieldLife] Lynch/Donovan at Hungarian embassy in D.C.
today's Washington Post: At the Hungarian Embassy, Dinner and a Moviemaker By Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts Wednesday, January 17, 2007; Page C03 Who knew official Washington was so eager to find its inner bliss? Or that it harbored a yearning for gentle '60s folk-rock? When Hungarian Ambassador Andras Simonyi planned a dinner for director David Lynch and Scottish singer Donovan -- both here to lecture at the Kennedy Center on the benefits of meditation -- he anticipated an intimate affair. "The smaller embassies, you send out 90 invitations, you get 30," he mused Saturday night, looking out at a seated crowd so big it had to be moved from his home to the embassy. "We sent out invitations, and we kept getting 'yes.' " About 60 guests (including Tony Lake, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and GWU prez Stephen Trachtenberg listened to the auteur of dark visions like "Blue Velvet" and "Mulholland Drive" explain how transcendental meditation has changed his life and why it should be taught in schools. "We grow in happiness. Creativity starts to flow," said the surprisingly earnest Lynch (a little like Kyle MacLachlan as Agent Dale Cooper in Lynch's '90s series "Twin Peaks"). "You're getting out of bed looking forward to the doing of the thing. A job that's boring becomes more exciting." He also threw in mentions of quantum physics, unified fields, prefrontal cortices and something about "water the root, and enjoy the fruit." Hey, sounds good. Donovan, who has joined Lynch on his TM tour (last week, Lincoln Center; this week, LA's Kodak Theatre), was praised by Simonyi for pioneering the kind of rock that "caused the Iron Curtain to fall." The singer, in turn, invited the ambassador -- a guitarist with D.C. diplomat band Coalition of the Willing -- onstage to join him for his old hit "Colours." You know, the one that goes "Yellow is the color of my true love's hair"? Except that the second verse, as delivered by the Hungarian, went something like this: K ék az ég mikor ébredek / a reggel ha felkelek. Come on, everyone, sing along!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, was Guru Dev in CC or GC or UC???? Acording to ...
Good question. Not really- more egotistical to take offense at being ranked in this way, IMO. And just to allay any possible misunderstanding, I am not suggesting you are taking offense at this ranking. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "llundrub" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Anyone see anything sort of egotistical about ranking people? > > > - Original Message - > From: "nablusos108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 2:31 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, was Guru Dev in CC or GC or UC > Acording to ... > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Lsoma@ wrote: > > > > > > According to Saint Anthony channeled through a a close friend- Guru > > Dev is > > > presently in the third level > > > > I'll just say that Saint Anthony has to enunciate more clearly. The > > above is incorrect. I've forgotten how to relate to levels of > > consciousness but I will say that if there are 7 levels in the sixth > > dimension (wtf?), Guru Dev is level 7, at least. > > I strongly think that "chanellers" are often mislead by their > subconsciousness, or enteties on the other side who like to create > havoc and disintegration, or who just like to have fun. > > At the point of "death" all will have reached a point of evolution, on > a scale I believe starts at 0,1 for the first incarnation as humans and > culiminates in 7,0, which is the status of Maitreya, the Christ now > being amongst us today after having created a Mahavirupta body. I will > give a few examples from "Maitreyas Mission, vol III" by Benjamin > Creme. It should be food for thought, especially regarding the Divine > status of Guru Dev. > > These are just a very few and random examples: > > Akexander, Rolf (1.8) > Ananada Mayee Ma Avatar > Aquinas, Thomas (2.0) > Aristotle (2.4) > Armstrong, Louis (0.6) > Asoka, Indian Emperor, (3.0) > Aurobindo Ghose, India, Mystic (3.7) > Bailey, Alice. Occultist (3.2) > Beckett, Samuel, writer (1.6) > Beethoven, Ludwig van (3.1) > Besant, Annie, Theosophist (2.15) > Blake , William (2.2) > Blavatsky, HP, occultist (4.0) > Brandt, Willy. Politician (2.97) > Carnegie, Andrew. Industrialist (1.6) > Cayce, Edgar. Claivoyant (1.7) > Chavez, Cesar. Labour leader (1.5) > Chopin, Frederic. Composer (2.0) > Churchill, Winston. Statesman (3.0) > Confucious. Philosopher (5.0) > Crowley, Aleister. Occultist (1.6)¨ > Francis of Assisi. Saint (3.5) > Guevara, Che. Revolutionary leader (1.7) > Gurdieff, Georges. Teacher (2.2) > Hoover, Herbert. President (2.0) > Jesus of Nazareth. Great spiritual teacher (4.0) > John the Baptist. Prophet (3.3) > Krishnamurti. Spiritual teacher (4.0) > Lennon, John. (1.6) > Leonardo Da Vinci (4.4)¨ > Lincoln, Abraham (3.3) > Marx, Carl. (2.2) > Morrison, Jim (1.4) > Mozart, WA (3.0) > Muktananda (4.0) > Nityananda, Bhagavan (4.5) > Patanjali (4.3) > Rajneesh (2.3) > Ramana Maharshi. Avatar > Rembrandt (3.0) > Roerich, Helena. Occultist (4.0) > Zoroaster (4.5) > Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math, Guru of > Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (6.0) > > A close look at this incomplete, but important list will reveal that in > seniority among the Master of Wisdom, not including the Avatars, Guru > Dev is second only to the Master of Masters, our oldest Brother, > Maitreya. According to Benjamin Creme, Brahmananda Saraswati is > currently not in incarnation. > > This is a random and incomplete list. For more information, please see; > http://www.shareintl.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!' > Yahoo! Groups Links >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, was Guru Dev in CC or GC or UC???? Acording to ...
Anyone see anything sort of egotistical about ranking people? - Original Message - From: "nablusos108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 2:31 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, was Guru Dev in CC or GC or UC Acording to ... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Lsoma@ wrote: > > > > According to Saint Anthony channeled through a a close friend-Guru > Dev is > > presently in the third level > I'll just say that Saint Anthony has to enunciate more clearly. The > above is incorrect. I've forgotten how to relate to levels of > consciousness but I will say that if there are 7 levels in the sixth > dimension (wtf?), Guru Dev is level 7, at least. I strongly think that "chanellers" are often mislead by their subconsciousness, or enteties on the other side who like to create havoc and disintegration, or who just like to have fun. At the point of "death" all will have reached a point of evolution, on a scale I believe starts at 0,1 for the first incarnation as humans and culiminates in 7,0, which is the status of Maitreya, the Christ now being amongst us today after having created a Mahavirupta body. I will give a few examples from "Maitreyas Mission, vol III" by Benjamin Creme. It should be food for thought, especially regarding the Divine status of Guru Dev. These are just a very few and random examples: Akexander, Rolf (1.8) Ananada Mayee Ma Avatar Aquinas, Thomas (2.0) Aristotle (2.4) Armstrong, Louis (0.6) Asoka, Indian Emperor, (3.0) Aurobindo Ghose, India, Mystic (3.7) Bailey, Alice. Occultist (3.2) Beckett, Samuel, writer (1.6) Beethoven, Ludwig van (3.1) Besant, Annie, Theosophist (2.15) Blake , William (2.2) Blavatsky, HP, occultist (4.0) Brandt, Willy. Politician (2.97) Carnegie, Andrew. Industrialist (1.6) Cayce, Edgar. Claivoyant (1.7) Chavez, Cesar. Labour leader (1.5) Chopin, Frederic. Composer (2.0) Churchill, Winston. Statesman (3.0) Confucious. Philosopher (5.0) Crowley, Aleister. Occultist (1.6)¨ Francis of Assisi. Saint (3.5) Guevara, Che. Revolutionary leader (1.7) Gurdieff, Georges. Teacher (2.2) Hoover, Herbert. President (2.0) Jesus of Nazareth. Great spiritual teacher (4.0) John the Baptist. Prophet (3.3) Krishnamurti. Spiritual teacher (4.0) Lennon, John. (1.6) Leonardo Da Vinci (4.4)¨ Lincoln, Abraham (3.3) Marx, Carl. (2.2) Morrison, Jim (1.4) Mozart, WA (3.0) Muktananda (4.0) Nityananda, Bhagavan (4.5) Patanjali (4.3) Rajneesh (2.3) Ramana Maharshi. Avatar Rembrandt (3.0) Roerich, Helena. Occultist (4.0) Zoroaster (4.5) Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math, Guru of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (6.0) A close look at this incomplete, but important list will reveal that in seniority among the Master of Wisdom, not including the Avatars, Guru Dev is second only to the Master of Masters, our oldest Brother, Maitreya. According to Benjamin Creme, Brahmananda Saraswati is currently not in incarnation. This is a random and incomplete list. For more information, please see; http://www.shareintl.org To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Record Opium Harvest Begins Soon In Afghanistan'
We will know next year if there are more heroin ODs or more reports of higher than 30 percent heroin showing up in major cities. - Original Message - From: Robert Gimbel To: fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 1:53 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] 'Record Opium Harvest Begins Soon In Afghanistan' It seems like strange timing to me; That the US would decrease it's presence in Afghanistan; Right at the time when the heroin crop is coming in. Any connection? -- Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut.
Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Is America Ready For a Black or a Woman?'
Please let's stay upwind of the corpse of rotten Tom Pall . > Them niggrahs and bitches need to know there place > now. They better not get all uppity and try to be in > charge. Bible says it ain't the natural order of > things. > > > > >> >> >> >> - >> Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and >> always stay connected to friends. > > > > > > Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com. Try it > now. > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!' > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
[FairfieldLife] Bradjolina
Are living in New Orleans now and sending their kids to a French Quarter charter school.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
No this will clear it up once and for all. You can't live without her, so you might as well be sweet and make good lovin. That's the settled issue. - Original Message - From: "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 10:12 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist? > Borat definitively settled this question with his cultural wisdom from > Kazakhstan's laws of nature. > > "We say in Kazakhstan, "You find me woman with brain, I find you a > horse with...Wings."" > > He also has quoted scientific research done in his country proving > that a woman's brain is smaller than a mans. > > I hope this clears this issue up once and for all. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "llundrub" wrote: >> > >> > Fuck Lenz RIP, no offense intended but he was less than >> > a nobody because he just baffled you fuckers with bullshit >> > which none of you can get out of your mind as if that >> > illusion made some bit of difference. >> >> Not had your coffee yet today, Llun? :-) >> >> I *get* it. You don't like the guy, having heard stories >> about him you didn't like. Some of those stories are true, >> and even if all of them were true, he still offered some >> very real knowledge and experiences to those who studied >> with him. Me, I'm comfortable with regarding him as a >> guy with problems who nonetheless taught me some useful >> things about spiritual development. I feel the same way >> about Maharishi. >> >> > Women reach enlightenment instantaneously just as do men... >> >> But *far* fewer women realize enlightenment than men. >> That has been true in every era, and still seems to >> be true today. I think the Rama guy had a clue or two >> as to why that is. >> >> > ...you must name your enlightenment first to find the >> > lineage where women still reign and there are plenty, >> > in India. >> >> "Where women reign" is not the issue. Where a large >> number of the women *students* realize their enlight- >> enment is. Name one tradition where that is true. >> I'll wait. >> >> > Whole cults centered around the supremacy of the >> > female, and if any of you spent a day at Shakti Sadana >> > you would meet plenty of enlightened women. >> >> *I* would not be so foolish as to meet someone and >> consider them enlightened, without, say, meditating >> with them quite a few times, in different situations >> and environments. If you have lower standards, you >> can consider as many people enlightened as you want. >> >> > So screw this lecture. It's as lame as Lenz. And as >> > dead an issue. >> >> The guy's daid all right. So will you be, and much >> sooner than you'd like. So it goes... :-) >> >> Remember back to when you almost stormed off this >> group in a huff because Jim was doing a troll thang >> about Tibetan Buddhism? At that time you were all >> self-righteous posturing about how lowvibe it was >> to rank on some study you'd never undertaken >> personally and didn't understand. What has changed >> in the last few weeks since then that enables you >> to rank on someone you never met or studied with, >> eh? :-) >> >> Hint: you just woke up needing to rant, and the >> mention of someone you don't like gave you that >> opportunity. Unlike you (in your previous rants >> following Jim's posts), I'm not going to take >> either your likes and dislikes or your rants >> personally and threaten to storm off the group. >> What you think of the Rama guy doesn't really >> affect me one way or another. I have enough >> on my plate just figuring out what *I* think >> of him. :-) >> > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!' > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
I've seen Lenz in person. Jim knows next to shoe leather about TB. - Original Message - From: "TurquoiseB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 9:23 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist? > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "llundrub" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Fuck Lenz RIP, no offense intended but he was less than >> a nobody because he just baffled you fuckers with bullshit >> which none of you can get out of your mind as if that >> illusion made some bit of difference. > > Not had your coffee yet today, Llun? :-) > > I *get* it. You don't like the guy, having heard stories > about him you didn't like. Some of those stories are true, > and even if all of them were true, he still offered some > very real knowledge and experiences to those who studied > with him. Me, I'm comfortable with regarding him as a > guy with problems who nonetheless taught me some useful > things about spiritual development. I feel the same way > about Maharishi. > >> Women reach enlightenment instantaneously just as do men... > > But *far* fewer women realize enlightenment than men. > That has been true in every era, and still seems to > be true today. I think the Rama guy had a clue or two > as to why that is. > >> ...you must name your enlightenment first to find the >> lineage where women still reign and there are plenty, >> in India. > > "Where women reign" is not the issue. Where a large > number of the women *students* realize their enlight- > enment is. Name one tradition where that is true. > I'll wait. > >> Whole cults centered around the supremacy of the >> female, and if any of you spent a day at Shakti Sadana >> you would meet plenty of enlightened women. > > *I* would not be so foolish as to meet someone and > consider them enlightened, without, say, meditating > with them quite a few times, in different situations > and environments. If you have lower standards, you > can consider as many people enlightened as you want. > >> So screw this lecture. It's as lame as Lenz. And as >> dead an issue. > > The guy's daid all right. So will you be, and much > sooner than you'd like. So it goes... :-) > > Remember back to when you almost stormed off this > group in a huff because Jim was doing a troll thang > about Tibetan Buddhism? At that time you were all > self-righteous posturing about how lowvibe it was > to rank on some study you'd never undertaken > personally and didn't understand. What has changed > in the last few weeks since then that enables you > to rank on someone you never met or studied with, > eh? :-) > > Hint: you just woke up needing to rant, and the > mention of someone you don't like gave you that > opportunity. Unlike you (in your previous rants > following Jim's posts), I'm not going to take > either your likes and dislikes or your rants > personally and threaten to storm off the group. > What you think of the Rama guy doesn't really > affect me one way or another. I have enough > on my plate just figuring out what *I* think > of him. :-) > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!' > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > Barry, you're far and away the most consistently > > > > uptight person on this forum. You simply cannot > > > > tolerate disagreement with your views. > > > > > > Yeah, right, Judy. Like the "discussion over > > > wine" I had with Curtis the other day, the one > > > in which we held completely opposite viewpoints > > > on karma, but in which there was no uptightness > > > or intolerance. Or, at least there wasn't until > > > you tried to barge into the discussion and turn > > > it *into* an argument, calling my opinion "a > > > 'false reading' of what karma as determinism > > > implies. You probably noticed that we both > > > ignored you, because we were having a mutually > > > respectful discussion, and you wanted to turn > > > it into something else. :-) > > > > Let's have a look at the comment of mine > > Barry refers to: > > > > -- > > > > [Barry wrote:] > > > Someone > > > who believed in a (IMO) false reading of karma as > > > determinism would never even *try* to come up with > > > technologies to ease the suffering of those born > > > with birth defects; they'd think somehow that the > > > kids "deserved" them. > > > > FWIW, this is *by no means* a necessary consequence > > of a reading of karma as determinism. It's a "false > > reading" of what karma as determinism implies. > > > > -- > > > > This is what Barry perceives to be "uptightness > > or intolerance" on my part. In fact, I was simply > > *making a correction* to Barry's misunderstanding > > of karma as determinism. No "argument" was > > involved or necessary, just acceptance of the > > correction by him. > > You've just proved my point, Judy. > > You believe that you were making a "correction" > of my "misunderstanding." That is *in fact* what I was doing. > > I made no such "correction" of Curtis' position > on karma, nor did I suggest it was based on any > kind of "misunderstanding." I fully accepted the > legitimacy of his position, and presented a > counterpoint to it based on my understanding. Well, actually you did, in exactly the same way I made my comment to you. You explained to Curtis, for example, that the notion of "deserving" doesn't necessarily enter into a belief in karma, nor does such a belief necessarily imply anything like "God's will" or feeling like a victim (all things that Curtis had been assuming in his side of the discussion). Look at what you wrote again that I was commenting on: "Someone who believed in a (IMO) false reading of karma as determinism would never even *try* to come up with technologies to ease the suffering of those born with birth defects; they'd think somehow that the kids 'deserved' them." And I responded: FWIW, this is *by no means* a necessary consequence of a reading of karma as determinism. It's a "false reading" of what karma as determinism implies. What's the difference, Barry? Hint: The difference is who made the correction. When a TMer does it, it's "uptight" and "intolerant" and "threatened." When you do it, it's nothing of the sort. That was my point to start with, see? > You don't discuss, Judy, you "correct" other > people's "misunderstandings." Uh, no. Sometimes I discuss, and sometimes, when necessary, I correct. In this case, you made a mistake, and I corrected you. And *you* are all hot and bothered because I corrected your mistake, labeling the correction as "intolerant" and "uptight," when those terms clearly refer to your reaction rather than my correction. It's fine to disagree with the view of karma as determinism. But to disagree with it on the basis of your misunderstanding of what it implies doesn't make any sense. You obviously recognize this yourself, since you pointed out Curtis's misunderstandings of what a belief in karma implies. That's all I was doing with regard to your misunderstanding of karma as determinism. Curtis didn't freak out about your having made those comments, but you're freaking out about mine. And that, again, is my point: You label TMers as "uptight" and "threatened" and "intolerant" when they are simply making corrections, when you have absolutely no problem doing it yourself.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" > wrote: > > > > > > Also, don't forget the insinuations of 'bad ju-ju' coming our way > > > when we criticize him. I think he said something like I could > > > continue my criticism of his religion, but beware the > consequences, > > > much as he said to Kirk that he would die before he was ready. > > > > > > Ooooh, spooky! > > > > It's all in the "ear of the beholder," Jim. I have > > *never* insinuated what you think I did. > > [From the post Jim is referring to:] > > > Signing off now...you do what you think is right. > > > But if you decide to keep this stuff up and it winds > > > up comin' back on ya in ways you didn't foresee, don't > > > say I didn't try to warn you. > > Sounds like an insinuation of "bad ju-ju" coming Jim's > way to me as well. > Yes, the warning to me in addition to the reminder to LLundrub that he will die before he is ready are just innocuous little phrases, meant to help us, according to the Big Buddhist. Odd that he hasn't spoken that way to others here. Perhaps it should be phrased openly to all who post here: 1. Careful what you say, for you may be judged as non-Realized, and therefore be disrespected on this forum, if you say the wrong thing, and 2. If you criticize the Big Buddhist, you will die before you are ready to die. Shouldn't these pearls of wisdom be added to the FFL intro, just so any newbies here know in advance?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, was Guru Dev in CC or GC or UC???? Acording to ...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Lsoma@ wrote: > > > > According to Saint Anthony channeled through a a close friend-Guru > Dev is > > presently in the third level > I'll just say that Saint Anthony has to enunciate more clearly. The > above is incorrect. I've forgotten how to relate to levels of > consciousness but I will say that if there are 7 levels in the sixth > dimension (wtf?), Guru Dev is level 7, at least. I strongly think that "chanellers" are often mislead by their subconsciousness, or enteties on the other side who like to create havoc and disintegration, or who just like to have fun. At the point of "death" all will have reached a point of evolution, on a scale I believe starts at 0,1 for the first incarnation as humans and culiminates in 7,0, which is the status of Maitreya, the Christ now being amongst us today after having created a Mahavirupta body. I will give a few examples from "Maitreyas Mission, vol III" by Benjamin Creme. It should be food for thought, especially regarding the Divine status of Guru Dev. These are just a very few and random examples: Akexander, Rolf (1.8) Ananada Mayee Ma Avatar Aquinas, Thomas (2.0) Aristotle (2.4) Armstrong, Louis (0.6) Asoka, Indian Emperor, (3.0) Aurobindo Ghose, India, Mystic (3.7) Bailey, Alice. Occultist (3.2) Beckett, Samuel, writer (1.6) Beethoven, Ludwig van (3.1) Besant, Annie, Theosophist (2.15) Blake , William (2.2) Blavatsky, HP, occultist (4.0) Brandt, Willy. Politician (2.97) Carnegie, Andrew. Industrialist (1.6) Cayce, Edgar. Claivoyant (1.7) Chavez, Cesar. Labour leader (1.5) Chopin, Frederic. Composer (2.0) Churchill, Winston. Statesman (3.0) Confucious. Philosopher (5.0) Crowley, Aleister. Occultist (1.6)¨ Francis of Assisi. Saint (3.5) Guevara, Che. Revolutionary leader (1.7) Gurdieff, Georges. Teacher (2.2) Hoover, Herbert. President (2.0) Jesus of Nazareth. Great spiritual teacher (4.0) John the Baptist. Prophet (3.3) Krishnamurti. Spiritual teacher (4.0) Lennon, John. (1.6) Leonardo Da Vinci (4.4)¨ Lincoln, Abraham (3.3) Marx, Carl. (2.2) Morrison, Jim (1.4) Mozart, WA (3.0) Muktananda (4.0) Nityananda, Bhagavan (4.5) Patanjali (4.3) Rajneesh (2.3) Ramana Maharshi. Avatar Rembrandt (3.0) Roerich, Helena. Occultist (4.0) Zoroaster (4.5) Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math, Guru of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (6.0) A close look at this incomplete, but important list will reveal that in seniority among the Master of Wisdom, not including the Avatars, Guru Dev is second only to the Master of Masters, our oldest Brother, Maitreya. According to Benjamin Creme, Brahmananda Saraswati is currently not in incarnation. This is a random and incomplete list. For more information, please see; http://www.shareintl.org
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
You're right, of course, Sal. Just curious. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 17, 2007, at 1:26 PM, Marek Reavis wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine > > wrote: > >> > > **snip** > >>> Not as odd as Moon Unit and Dweezil, I hope. That's > >>> what Frank Zappa named his kids. :-) > >> > >> Moon dropped the second part of her name--makes it much nicer. But > > if > >> you think those are awful, you ought to hear some of the Vedic > >> concoctions some TM people have come up with. > >> > >> Sal > >> > > **end** > > > > Uh-oh, Sal, I may be an offender. Any examples you could share? > > > > Marek, > I don't want to make anybody feel bad, some may be on this list. And > my kids' names aren't run-of-the-mill either. > > Sal >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, was Guru Dev in CC or GC or UC???? Acording to MMY-CC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 17, 2007, at 11:06 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine > > wrote: > > > >>> just noting that for some people there can be a very > >>> powerful heart-value to intellectual knowledge > >> > >> We were talking about dry intellectual knowledge, for one thing. > > > > But I'm pointing out that "dry" is in the eye > > of the beholder. What's "dry" for one person > > may be very rich and "juicy" for another. > > Like for whom, exactly? Like *me*, for one. That's the point I was making, Sal. And I'm not alone by any means. I would say that having to have the > heart-value in our lives is one thing that is fairly universal, and for > good reason--it's part and parcel of what makes us human. Millions of > years ago, caring for each other was the only thing that kept us from > being eaten alive. Basically, it's hard-wired into our brains. Right. And for me, some kinds of intellectual knowledge invoke that heart-value. > > Nobody likes to be bored up the wall, Judy. Including me. You can chat away all you > want, but your own feelings about the TMO (I believe you've said you > "loathed" the org, right?) speak for themselves. I said it sucked. I've probably said I loathed it too. That has nothing to do with what I'm saying about intellectual knowledge having heart-value for me. And most others feel > the same way, or else we'd still be there, listening to such > scintillating tidbits as, "When the point collapses upon itself... > (Yawn) I never *was* in the TMO. But my point is that what some (perhaps most) find boring, others find deeply emotionally moving. Is that some kind of a *problem* for you?? > > > > > For > >> another, I imagine that the above is true for very few, seeing as > >> how many have fled the TMO citing just that reason, amongst others. > > > > Could well be. I wasn't suggesting it was common, > > just noting that the other ain't universal. > > > > See above. No idea what point you think you're making here. No idea why you're even arguing with me. I described my experience of certain kinds of intellectual knowledge. What on earth are you objecting to?
Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Is America Ready For a Black or a Woman?'
In a message dated 1/17/07 7:26:25 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes! George W. Bush has proven once and for all; That a white guy is not always the best choice; So, America is ready for anyone now. Thanks George! Were there any other candidates that were non white or male running in 2000 and 2004? Will Americans be foolish enough to vote for or against somebody based strictly on their race or gender?
[FairfieldLife] 'Record Opium Harvest Begins Soon In Afghanistan'
It seems like strange timing to me; That the US would decrease it's presence in Afghanistan; Right at the time when the heroin crop is coming in. Any connection? - Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut.
[FairfieldLife] 'Record Opium Harvest Begins Soon In Afghanistan'
It seems like strange timing to me; That the US would decrease it's presence in Afghanistan; Right at the time when the heroin crop is coming in. Any connection? R.Gimbel Seattle,WA - It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
On Jan 17, 2007, at 1:26 PM, Marek Reavis wrote: > Uh-oh, Sal, I may be an offender. Any examples you could share? See my message to Vaj. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
On Jan 17, 2007, at 1:26 PM, Marek Reavis wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> > **snip** >>> Not as odd as Moon Unit and Dweezil, I hope. That's >>> what Frank Zappa named his kids. :-) >> >> Moon dropped the second part of her name--makes it much nicer. But > if >> you think those are awful, you ought to hear some of the Vedic >> concoctions some TM people have come up with. >> >> Sal >> > **end** > > Uh-oh, Sal, I may be an offender. Any examples you could share? > Marek, I don't want to make anybody feel bad, some may be on this list. And my kids' names aren't run-of-the-mill either. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
On Jan 17, 2007, at 1:37 PM, Vaj wrote: > > On Jan 17, 2007, at 2:10 PM, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > > Moon dropped the second part of her name--makes it much nicer. But if > you think those are awful, you ought to hear some of the Vedic > concoctions some TM people have come up with. > > > Shaniquah Shakti? I missed that one. Compared to that, Moon sounds almost normal. Alright, I'll play--try Beyana, Toody, and Terinel. A couple of these poor kids have been trying to get away from their names almost as long as they've had them. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
On Jan 17, 2007, at 2:10 PM, Sal Sunshine wrote: Moon dropped the second part of her name--makes it much nicer. But if you think those are awful, you ought to hear some of the Vedic concoctions some TM people have come up with. Shaniquah Shakti?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > **snip** > > Not as odd as Moon Unit and Dweezil, I hope. That's > > what Frank Zappa named his kids. :-) > > Moon dropped the second part of her name--makes it much nicer. But if > you think those are awful, you ought to hear some of the Vedic > concoctions some TM people have come up with. > > Sal > **end** Uh-oh, Sal, I may be an offender. Any examples you could share? Marek
[FairfieldLife] Re: Comments on VI 3: Raamaanuja
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote: > > > > > > 6.3 Aruruksoh, for one who wishes to ascend, who has not ascended, > > i.e. for that very person who is unable to remain established in > > Dhyanayoga;- > > for which person who is desirous to ascend?-munch, for the sage, > > i.e. for one who has renounced the results of actions;-trying to > ascend to > > what?-yogam, to (Dhyana-) yoga; karma, action; ucyate, is said to be; > > the karanam, means. Tasya, for that person, again; yoga-arudhasya, > > when he has ascended to (Dhyana-) yoga; samah, inaction, withdrawl > > from all actions; eva, alone; ucyate, is said to be; karanam, the means > > for remaining poised in the state of meditation. This is the meaning. To > > the extent that one withdraws from actions, the mind of that man who is > > at cease and self-controlled becomes concentrated. When this occurs, > > he at once becomes established in Yoga. And accordingly has it been > > said by Vyasa: 'For a Brahmana there is no wealth conparable to (the > > knowledge of) oneness, sameness, truthfulness, character, equipoise, > > harmlessness, straightforwardness and withdrawal from various actions' > > (Mbh. Sa. 175.37). > > > > > 6.3 Aruruksoh etc for a sage : For a man of wisdom. Action : > that which requires to be performed. Cause (1st) : a means to attain. > Quietude : to remain uninterrupted at the stage [already] achieved. > Here Cause (2nd) is an indicator. The same idea is made clear as- > 6.3 Karma Yoga is said to be the means for an aspirant for release who 'seeks to climb the heights of Yoga,' i.e., the vision of the self. For the same person, when he has climbed the 'heights of Yoga,' i.e., when he is established in Yoga --- tranquility, i.e., freedom from actions is said to be the means. A man should perform actions until he has attained release (Moksa) in the form of the vision of the self. Full release comes only with the fall of the body. The 'vision of the self' referred to here is called Moksa by courtesy. When does not become established in Yoga? Sri Krsna replies:
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
On Jan 17, 2007, at 12:16 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> Very nice, thanks. When I was in high school I was so taken with >> Tolkien and Middle Earth and the whole cast of characters that >> populated it that I was determined to name the first two children I >> fathered after Frodo's two friends, Meriodac (Merry) and Pippin. >> >> Luckily enough for my two children that sankalpa had faded by the >> time of their arrival. They still got stuck with odd names, though, >> just not Middle Earth ones. > > Not as odd as Moon Unit and Dweezil, I hope. That's > what Frank Zappa named his kids. :-) Moon dropped the second part of her name--makes it much nicer. But if you think those are awful, you ought to hear some of the Vedic concoctions some TM people have come up with. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Comments on VI 3: Abhinavagupta
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 6.3 Aruruksoh, for one who wishes to ascend, who has not ascended, > i.e. for that very person who is unable to remain established in > Dhyanayoga;- > for which person who is desirous to ascend?-munch, for the sage, > i.e. for one who has renounced the results of actions;-trying to ascend to > what?-yogam, to (Dhyana-) yoga; karma, action; ucyate, is said to be; > the karanam, means. Tasya, for that person, again; yoga-arudhasya, > when he has ascended to (Dhyana-) yoga; samah, inaction, withdrawl > from all actions; eva, alone; ucyate, is said to be; karanam, the means > for remaining poised in the state of meditation. This is the meaning. To > the extent that one withdraws from actions, the mind of that man who is > at cease and self-controlled becomes concentrated. When this occurs, > he at once becomes established in Yoga. And accordingly has it been > said by Vyasa: 'For a Brahmana there is no wealth conparable to (the > knowledge of) oneness, sameness, truthfulness, character, equipoise, > harmlessness, straightforwardness and withdrawal from various actions' > (Mbh. Sa. 175.37). > 6.3 Aruruksoh etc for a sage : For a man of wisdom. Action : that which requires to be performed. Cause (1st) : a means to attain. Quietude : to remain uninterrupted at the stage [already] achieved. Here Cause (2nd) is an indicator. The same idea is made clear as-
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: **snip** > > Luckily enough for my two children that sankalpa had faded by the > > time of their arrival. They still got stuck with odd names, though, > > just not Middle Earth ones. > > Not as odd as Moon Unit and Dweezil, I hope. That's > what Frank Zappa named his kids. :-) > **end** No, not quite that odd. Their mother and I were adroit enough (just barely) to avoid Dadaism. They've managed to thrive, regardless. But then, so have Moon Unit and Dweezil.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, was Guru Dev in CC or GC or UC???? Acording to MMY-CC!
On Jan 17, 2007, at 11:06 AM, authfriend wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >>> just noting that for some people there can be a very >>> powerful heart-value to intellectual knowledge >> >> We were talking about dry intellectual knowledge, for one thing. > > But I'm pointing out that "dry" is in the eye > of the beholder. What's "dry" for one person > may be very rich and "juicy" for another. Like for whom, exactly? I would say that having to have the heart-value in our lives is one thing that is fairly universal, and for good reason--it's part and parcel of what makes us human. Millions of years ago, caring for each other was the only thing that kept us from being eaten alive. Basically, it's hard-wired into our brains. Nobody likes to be bored up the wall, Judy. You can chat away all you want, but your own feelings about the TMO (I believe you've said you "loathed" the org, right?) speak for themselves. And most others feel the same way, or else we'd still be there, listening to such scintillating tidbits as, "When the point collapses upon itself... (Yawn) > > For >> another, I imagine that the above is true for very few, seeing as >> how many have fled the TMO citing just that reason, amongst others. > > Could well be. I wasn't suggesting it was common, > just noting that the other ain't universal. > See above.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > Barry, you're far and away the most consistently > > > uptight person on this forum. You simply cannot > > > tolerate disagreement with your views. > > > > Yeah, right, Judy. Like the "discussion over > > wine" I had with Curtis the other day, the one > > in which we held completely opposite viewpoints > > on karma, but in which there was no uptightness > > or intolerance. Or, at least there wasn't until > > you tried to barge into the discussion and turn > > it *into* an argument, calling my opinion "a > > 'false reading' of what karma as determinism > > implies. You probably noticed that we both > > ignored you, because we were having a mutually > > respectful discussion, and you wanted to turn > > it into something else. :-) > > Let's have a look at the comment of mine > Barry refers to: > > -- > > [Barry wrote:] > > Someone > > who believed in a (IMO) false reading of karma as > > determinism would never even *try* to come up with > > technologies to ease the suffering of those born > > with birth defects; they'd think somehow that the > > kids "deserved" them. > > FWIW, this is *by no means* a necessary consequence > of a reading of karma as determinism. It's a "false > reading" of what karma as determinism implies. > > -- > > This is what Barry perceives to be "uptightness > or intolerance" on my part. In fact, I was simply > *making a correction* to Barry's misunderstanding > of karma as determinism. No "argument" was > involved or necessary, just acceptance of the > correction by him. You've just proved my point, Judy. You believe that you were making a "correction" of my "misunderstanding." I made no such "correction" of Curtis' position on karma, nor did I suggest it was based on any kind of "misunderstanding." I fully accepted the legitimacy of his position, and presented a counterpoint to it based on my understanding. I made it very clear that that's what I was doing in my first post to him, and he expressed his appreciation of that fact. You don't discuss, Judy, you "correct" other people's "misunderstandings." That's just what you are, and why you chose the profession you did. In that profession, it makes you valuable. On this forum, it only makes you a fanatic.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" > wrote: > > > > > > Also, don't forget the insinuations of 'bad ju-ju' coming our > > > way > > > when we criticize him. I think he said something like I could > > > continue my criticism of his religion, but beware the > > > consequences, > > > much as he said to Kirk that he would die before he was ready. > > > > > > Ooooh, spooky! > > > > It's all in the "ear of the beholder," Jim. I have > > *never* insinuated what you think I did. > > [From the post Jim is referring to:] > > > Signing off now...you do what you think is right. > > > But if you decide to keep this stuff up and it winds > > > up comin' back on ya in ways you didn't foresee, don't > > > say I didn't try to warn you. > > Sounds like an insinuation of "bad ju-ju" coming Jim's > way to me as well. So there are two of you who are paranoid? Cool. At least you can keep each other company. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" wrote: > > He referred to me as an 'obsessive fuck', which then > > becomes "merely corrected a few of your inaccurate > > statements". LOL! > > The term was 'obsessed fuck,' Jim. It's posted, > in context, in my earlier reply. A sane person, > reading the entire four paragraphs, might interpret > them as gentle advice to someone who really *was* > acting like an obsessed fuck at the time Or an even saner person might interpret those paragraphs as an attempted putdown of someone who had pushed his buttons by an obsessed fuck who was exceptionally uptight over having had his buttons pushed.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" wrote: > > > > Also, don't forget the insinuations of 'bad ju-ju' coming our way > > when we criticize him. I think he said something like I could > > continue my criticism of his religion, but beware the consequences, > > much as he said to Kirk that he would die before he was ready. > > > > Ooooh, spooky! > > It's all in the "ear of the beholder," Jim. I have > *never* insinuated what you think I did. [From the post Jim is referring to:] > > Signing off now...you do what you think is right. > > But if you decide to keep this stuff up and it winds > > up comin' back on ya in ways you didn't foresee, don't > > say I didn't try to warn you. Sounds like an insinuation of "bad ju-ju" coming Jim's way to me as well.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > Barry, you're far and away the most consistently > > uptight person on this forum. You simply cannot > > tolerate disagreement with your views. > > Yeah, right, Judy. Like the "discussion over > wine" I had with Curtis the other day, the one > in which we held completely opposite viewpoints > on karma, but in which there was no uptightness > or intolerance. Or, at least there wasn't until > you tried to barge into the discussion and turn > it *into* an argument, calling my opinion "a > 'false reading' of what karma as determinism > implies. You probably noticed that we both > ignored you, because we were having a mutually > respectful discussion, and you wanted to turn > it into something else. :-) Let's have a look at the comment of mine Barry refers to: -- [Barry wrote:] > Someone > who believed in a (IMO) false reading of karma as > determinism would never even *try* to come up with > technologies to ease the suffering of those born > with birth defects; they'd think somehow that the > kids "deserved" them. FWIW, this is *by no means* a necessary consequence of a reading of karma as determinism. It's a "false reading" of what karma as determinism implies. -- This is what Barry perceives to be "uptightness or intolerance" on my part. In fact, I was simply *making a correction* to Barry's misunderstanding of karma as determinism. No "argument" was involved or necessary, just acceptance of the correction by him. Barry appears to see the phrase "false reading" as somehow inflammatory, when in fact I was echoing the very same phrase *he* had used in the quote immediately preceding in (incorrectly) putting down the karma-as-determinism view. I couldn't possibly have made my own points more definitively than Barry just did for me: he cannot tolerate disagreement with (or correction of) his views; and no matter how mild a comment a TMer may make, he perceives the TMer to be "uptight." Notice also the fantasy element I mentioned in my earlier post: Barry imagines that I wanted to start an argument because he and Curtis were having a "mutually respectful discussion," even going on to suggest that I was "threatened" by his (incorrect) view. It's quite obvious from the foregoing who is *really* feeling "threatened" here. Thanks for playing, Barry! > > I've had similar on-opposite-sides-of-the- > philosophical-fence with many others here. > It's *you* who has to turn every disagreement > on *matters of opinion* into a head-to-head > argument, Judy. It's *you* who is threatened > when someone believes something different than > you do, and who feels compelled to argue over > it, often calling the other party a "coward" > or worse when they don't feel like arguing. > And it's *you* who usually claims to have "won" > those arguments, when you've managed to drag > the discussion down to the level of argument- > ation, or who even claims to have "won" when > the other person just ignores you. > > And again, I doubt that there are many here > who would disagree with this assessment of you. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
> > wrote:
> > > I'd wonder whether the reason so few women are
> > > in the historical record as having achieved
> > > enlightenment is not because so few women actually
> > > achieved enlightenment, but rather because so few
> > > who did were noted as having done so in the
> > > historical record--either because they weren't
> > > mentioned at all by the men who wrote the record,
> > > or because these men didn't recognize or didn't
> > > bother to note or even actively suppressed that
> > > information.
> > >
> > > Some feminists use the term "herstory" to refer
> > > to women's history to emphasize that the standard
> > > records, largely written by men ("HIS-story"),
> > > have tended to ignore women.
> > >
> > Yep- agreed. It is also just the enlightened *teachers* who tend
to
> > make it into the books and historical records. There are many
more
> > enlightened men and women who just do their thing and pass on,
> > unrecorded.
>
> I should add that in a hypothetical matriarchal
> society whose records were written by women, it
> would probably appear that there were very few
> enlightened *men*.
>
Agree.
[FairfieldLife] 'Leadership Worldwide On The Wane'
Worldwide leadership is on the wane; Whether you look here or abroad, it is the same. Weak and incompetent leadership, with low poll ratings throughout. US, Israel, Russia, Britain, Iran, and a country called Iraq- Without any leader at all. Maharishi had predicted the decline and collapse of the old paradigm. And it seems we are in that transition now. Transitions can seem dangerous. But the clamor for real leadership worldwide, is well on it's way of coming to fruition- very soon... Soon. - Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Also, don't forget the insinuations of 'bad ju-ju' coming our way > when we criticize him. I think he said something like I could > continue my criticism of his religion, but beware the consequences, > much as he said to Kirk that he would die before he was ready. > > Ooooh, spooky! It's all in the "ear of the beholder," Jim. I have *never* insinuated what you think I did. And as for my comment to Llun today, almost *everybody* dies before they are ready to. That's all I had in mind. If you saw something else in it, that's what's in *your* mind. Here, for example, is what you refer to above as an "insinuation of 'bad ju-ju' coming your way." > Jim, with all due respect, I don't think you're fooling > anyone. This has nothing to do with Tibetan Buddhism > *or* your pretend claim that some people here are... > uh...TB TBs. It's all about having made a fool of > yourself a couple of days ago by posting some *really* > stupid stuff, and about the fact that you're still > pissed with yourself about having done that. > > I don't think it's helping to convince anyone here > that you have achieved any kind of realization for > you to act like an obsessed fuck. In fact, I suspect > it's helping to convince them that you and realization > are not quite on the friendly terms you have been > hinting you are. > > This is just a suggestion. You can keep on trying to > dig up and post as much dirt about the Dalai Lama and > about Tibetan Buddhism as you like. He ain't my teacher, > and it's not my tradition, so it's not like it affects > me one way or another. But I really do think you're off > the deep end on this one, Jim, 'way out in the Injured > Ego Gotta Get Revenge Zone, and that rarely works out > the way you think it will when you're caught up in the > middle of the obsession. > > Signing off now...you do what you think is right. > But if you decide to keep this stuff up and it winds > up comin' back on ya in ways you didn't foresee, don't > say I didn't try to warn you. What I had in mind at the time was people on this forum losing respect for you. At least one went on record as having done just that after your little trolling adventure, and I suspect that he was not alone in feeling that way. To have perceived this statement and the one I made to Llun earlier as some kind of veiled threat *does* say a lot about one of us, Jim, but I think it says a lot more about you than it does me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Very nice, thanks. When I was in high school I was so taken with > Tolkien and Middle Earth and the whole cast of characters that > populated it that I was determined to name the first two children I > fathered after Frodo's two friends, Meriodac (Merry) and Pippin. > > Luckily enough for my two children that sankalpa had faded by the > time of their arrival. They still got stuck with odd names, though, > just not Middle Earth ones. Not as odd as Moon Unit and Dweezil, I hope. That's what Frank Zappa named his kids. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Barry, you're far and away the most consistently > uptight person on this forum. You simply cannot > tolerate disagreement with your views. Yeah, right, Judy. Like the "discussion over wine" I had with Curtis the other day, the one in which we held completely opposite viewpoints on karma, but in which there was no uptightness or intolerance. Or, at least there wasn't until you tried to barge into the discussion and turn it *into* an argument, calling my opinion "a 'false reading' of what karma as determinism implies. You probably noticed that we both ignored you, because we were having a mutually respectful discussion, and you wanted to turn it into something else. :-) I've had similar on-opposite-sides-of-the- philosophical-fence with many others here. It's *you* who has to turn every disagreement on *matters of opinion* into a head-to-head argument, Judy. It's *you* who is threatened when someone believes something different than you do, and who feels compelled to argue over it, often calling the other party a "coward" or worse when they don't feel like arguing. And it's *you* who usually claims to have "won" those arguments, when you've managed to drag the discussion down to the level of argument- ation, or who even claims to have "won" when the other person just ignores you. And again, I doubt that there are many here who would disagree with this assessment of you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > wrote: > > > > > > > Your perception that any of the "Tibetan Buddhists" on > > > > the group with the exception of Llundrub reacted the > > > > way you claim is as flawed as your perception of Lenz > > > > killing himself out of guilt. Vaj and I merely corrected > > > > a few of your inaccurate statements; only Llun got > > > > uptight about what you said. > > > > > > However, it seems that any such corrections by > > > TMers of inaccurate statements by TM critics are > > > characterized as the TMers "getting uptight." > > > > Only when they obviously *are* uptight, enough > > to resort to character assassination in their > > replies. > > You mean, the way you do? > > That's been your modus operandi for > > over a decade, so I don't think anyone can be > > blamed for thinking that criticism of TM makes > > you more than a little uptight. > Also, don't forget the insinuations of 'bad ju-ju' coming our way when we criticize him. I think he said something like I could continue my criticism of his religion, but beware the consequences, much as he said to Kirk that he would die before he was ready. Ooooh, spooky!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
Very nice, thanks. When I was in high school I was so taken with
Tolkien and Middle Earth and the whole cast of characters that
populated it that I was determined to name the first two children I
fathered after Frodo's two friends, Meriodac (Merry) and Pippin.
Luckily enough for my two children that sankalpa had faded by the
time of their arrival. They still got stuck with odd names, though,
just not Middle Earth ones.
**
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"
wrote:
> >
> > Hey, Sparaig, what is the background on the moniker, Sparaig?
> > Sparrow is cool and seemingly related to Sparaig, but I've always
> > been puzzled by it. If you don't mind my asking, that is.
> >
> > Marek
>
> Sparrow was short for Sparrowhawk, the wizard in Usala K. LeGuinn's
Earthsea series. I
> tried to use it as my SCA name but was veoted. Sparrow seemed
acceptable, at least
> unoffcially. Sparaig was chosen because it was Celtic. I THOUGHT it
meant Sparrowhawk,
> but apparently only means Sparrow, at least according to all the
etymological sources I can
> now find.
>
> Evangeline autographed my copies of the Mabinogion with "For
Sparrow, who thinks he is
> a bird." Those were stolen by my roommate in the USAF (typical).
>
>
>
>
> >
> > **
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > I'd wonder whether the reason so few women are
> > > > > > in the historical record as having achieved
> > > > > > enlightenment is not because so few women actually
> > > > > > achieved enlightenment, but rather because so few
> > > > > > who did were noted as having done so in the
> > > > > > historical record--either because they weren't
> > > > > > mentioned at all by the men who wrote the record,
> > > > > > or because these men didn't recognize or didn't
> > > > > > bother to note or even actively suppressed that
> > > > > > information.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Some feminists use the term "herstory" to refer
> > > > > > to women's history to emphasize that the standard
> > > > > > records, largely written by men ("HIS-story"),
> > > > > > have tended to ignore women.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Yep- agreed. It is also just the enlightened *teachers* who
> > tend to
> > > > > make it into the books and historical records. There are
many
> > more
> > > > > enlightened men and women who just do their thing and pass
on,
> > > > > unrecorded.
> > > >
> > > > I should add that in a hypothetical matriarchal
> > > > society whose records were written by women, it
> > > > would probably appear that there were very few
> > > > enlightened *men*.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You'd have to go back to before the Mabinogion to find that
kind of
> > nonsense...
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mabinogi
> > >
> > >
> > > note: Evangeline Walton was a dear friend, so take
the "nonsense"
> > comment as irony. She
> > > knew me as "sparrow" rather than sparaig.
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangeline_Walton
> > >
> >
>
[FairfieldLife] Hindus opposing EU swastika ban
"Hindus in Europe have joined forces against a German proposal to ban the display of the swastika across the European Union, a Hindu leader said. Ramesh Kallidai of the Hindu Forum of Britain said the swastika had been a symbol of peace for thousands of years before the Nazis adopted it." More: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6269627.stm
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > Your perception that any of the "Tibetan Buddhists" on > > > the group with the exception of Llundrub reacted the > > > way you claim is as flawed as your perception of Lenz > > > killing himself out of guilt. Vaj and I merely corrected > > > a few of your inaccurate statements; only Llun got > > > uptight about what you said. > > > > However, it seems that any such corrections by > > TMers of inaccurate statements by TM critics are > > characterized as the TMers "getting uptight." > > Only when they obviously *are* uptight, enough > to resort to character assassination in their > replies. You mean, the way you do? That's been your modus operandi for > over a decade, so I don't think anyone can be > blamed for thinking that criticism of TM makes > you more than a little uptight. Barry, you've been into "character assassination" as long as I've known you. Even the mildest comment from a TMer is likely to elicit a rant from you involving elaborate fantasies about how the TMer thinks and believes and behaves, all of it negative, and very largely inaccurate. > You probably haven't noticed that other people > here can state their positive beliefs about TM > and about Maharishi *without* having to put > someone else down in the same post. You have > a long history of being unable to do this. That's fascinating. I *often* do this, in fact, always have, even in response to you, and you're completely blind to it. The fact is that what's almost impossible is for me to make a positive comment about TM or MMY without your attacking me for doing so. Same with Lawson and Jim and other TM supporters. > You may *claim* that you're not angry when > you react in what I would suggest *most* > people here perceive as an angry manner, > but...uh...we don't believe you. Says Barry, resorting to his mantra of appeal to a consensus that he couldn't possibly have any idea about. And at the same time, projecting *his* tendency to anger onto me. Barry, you're far and away the most consistently uptight person on this forum. You simply cannot tolerate disagreement with your views.
[FairfieldLife] Comments on VI 3: Shankara
6.3 Aruruksoh, for one who wishes to ascend, who has not ascended, i.e. for that very person who is unable to remain established in Dhyanayoga;- for which person who is desirous to ascend?-munch, for the sage, i.e. for one who has renounced the results of actions;-trying to ascend to what?-yogam, to (Dhyana-) yoga; karma, action; ucyate, is said to be; the karanam, means. Tasya, for that person, again; yoga-arudhasya, when he has ascended to (Dhyana-) yoga; samah, inaction, withdrawl from all actions; eva, alone; ucyate, is said to be; karanam, the means for remaining poised in the state of meditation. This is the meaning. To the extent that one withdraws from actions, the mind of that man who is at cease and self-controlled becomes concentrated. When this occurs, he at once becomes established in Yoga. And accordingly has it been said by Vyasa: 'For a Brahmana there is no wealth conparable to (the knowledge of) oneness, sameness, truthfulness, character, equipoise, harmlessness, straightforwardness and withdrawal from various actions' (Mbh. Sa. 175.37).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hey, Sparaig, what is the background on the moniker, Sparaig?
> Sparrow is cool and seemingly related to Sparaig, but I've always
> been puzzled by it. If you don't mind my asking, that is.
>
> Marek
Sparrow was short for Sparrowhawk, the wizard in Usala K. LeGuinn's Earthsea
series. I
tried to use it as my SCA name but was veoted. Sparrow seemed acceptable, at
least
unoffcially. Sparaig was chosen because it was Celtic. I THOUGHT it meant
Sparrowhawk,
but apparently only means Sparrow, at least according to all the etymological
sources I can
now find.
Evangeline autographed my copies of the Mabinogion with "For Sparrow, who
thinks he is
a bird." Those were stolen by my roommate in the USAF (typical).
>
> **
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > I'd wonder whether the reason so few women are
> > > > > in the historical record as having achieved
> > > > > enlightenment is not because so few women actually
> > > > > achieved enlightenment, but rather because so few
> > > > > who did were noted as having done so in the
> > > > > historical record--either because they weren't
> > > > > mentioned at all by the men who wrote the record,
> > > > > or because these men didn't recognize or didn't
> > > > > bother to note or even actively suppressed that
> > > > > information.
> > > > >
> > > > > Some feminists use the term "herstory" to refer
> > > > > to women's history to emphasize that the standard
> > > > > records, largely written by men ("HIS-story"),
> > > > > have tended to ignore women.
> > > > >
> > > > Yep- agreed. It is also just the enlightened *teachers* who
> tend to
> > > > make it into the books and historical records. There are many
> more
> > > > enlightened men and women who just do their thing and pass on,
> > > > unrecorded.
> > >
> > > I should add that in a hypothetical matriarchal
> > > society whose records were written by women, it
> > > would probably appear that there were very few
> > > enlightened *men*.
> > >
> >
> > You'd have to go back to before the Mabinogion to find that kind of
> nonsense...
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mabinogi
> >
> >
> > note: Evangeline Walton was a dear friend, so take the "nonsense"
> comment as irony. She
> > knew me as "sparrow" rather than sparaig.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangeline_Walton
> >
>
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
Hey, Sparaig, what is the background on the moniker, Sparaig?
Sparrow is cool and seemingly related to Sparaig, but I've always
been puzzled by it. If you don't mind my asking, that is.
Marek
**
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
> > > wrote:
> > > > I'd wonder whether the reason so few women are
> > > > in the historical record as having achieved
> > > > enlightenment is not because so few women actually
> > > > achieved enlightenment, but rather because so few
> > > > who did were noted as having done so in the
> > > > historical record--either because they weren't
> > > > mentioned at all by the men who wrote the record,
> > > > or because these men didn't recognize or didn't
> > > > bother to note or even actively suppressed that
> > > > information.
> > > >
> > > > Some feminists use the term "herstory" to refer
> > > > to women's history to emphasize that the standard
> > > > records, largely written by men ("HIS-story"),
> > > > have tended to ignore women.
> > > >
> > > Yep- agreed. It is also just the enlightened *teachers* who
tend to
> > > make it into the books and historical records. There are many
more
> > > enlightened men and women who just do their thing and pass on,
> > > unrecorded.
> >
> > I should add that in a hypothetical matriarchal
> > society whose records were written by women, it
> > would probably appear that there were very few
> > enlightened *men*.
> >
>
> You'd have to go back to before the Mabinogion to find that kind of
nonsense...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mabinogi
>
>
> note: Evangeline Walton was a dear friend, so take the "nonsense"
comment as irony. She
> knew me as "sparrow" rather than sparaig.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangeline_Walton
>
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > Your perception that any of the "Tibetan Buddhists" on > > the group with the exception of Llundrub reacted the > > way you claim is as flawed as your perception of Lenz > > killing himself out of guilt. Vaj and I merely corrected > > a few of your inaccurate statements; only Llun got > > uptight about what you said. > > However, it seems that any such corrections by > TMers of inaccurate statements by TM critics are > characterized as the TMers "getting uptight." Only when they obviously *are* uptight, enough to resort to character assassination in their replies. That's been your modus operandi for over a decade, so I don't think anyone can be blamed for thinking that criticism of TM makes you more than a little uptight. You probably haven't noticed that other people here can state their positive beliefs about TM and about Maharishi *without* having to put someone else down in the same post. You have a long history of being unable to do this. You may *claim* that you're not angry when you react in what I would suggest *most* people here perceive as an angry manner, but...uh...we don't believe you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > I should add that in a hypothetical matriarchal > > society whose records were written by women, it > > would probably appear that there were very few > > enlightened *men*. > > So you're saying that in these hypothetical > matricarchal societies, the women would be > as sexist and as stupid as the men? Very good, Barry. For once you haven't, uh, misunderstood me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
> > wrote:
> > > I'd wonder whether the reason so few women are
> > > in the historical record as having achieved
> > > enlightenment is not because so few women actually
> > > achieved enlightenment, but rather because so few
> > > who did were noted as having done so in the
> > > historical record--either because they weren't
> > > mentioned at all by the men who wrote the record,
> > > or because these men didn't recognize or didn't
> > > bother to note or even actively suppressed that
> > > information.
> > >
> > > Some feminists use the term "herstory" to refer
> > > to women's history to emphasize that the standard
> > > records, largely written by men ("HIS-story"),
> > > have tended to ignore women.
> > >
> > Yep- agreed. It is also just the enlightened *teachers* who tend to
> > make it into the books and historical records. There are many more
> > enlightened men and women who just do their thing and pass on,
> > unrecorded.
>
> I should add that in a hypothetical matriarchal
> society whose records were written by women, it
> would probably appear that there were very few
> enlightened *men*.
>
You'd have to go back to before the Mabinogion to find that kind of nonsense...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mabinogi
note: Evangeline Walton was a dear friend, so take the "nonsense" comment as
irony. She
knew me as "sparrow" rather than sparaig.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangeline_Walton
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
> > wrote:
> > > I'd wonder whether the reason so few women are
> > > in the historical record as having achieved
> > > enlightenment is not because so few women actually
> > > achieved enlightenment, but rather because so few
> > > who did were noted as having done so in the
> > > historical record--either because they weren't
> > > mentioned at all by the men who wrote the record,
> > > or because these men didn't recognize or didn't
> > > bother to note or even actively suppressed that
> > > information.
> > >
> > > Some feminists use the term "herstory" to refer
> > > to women's history to emphasize that the standard
> > > records, largely written by men ("HIS-story"),
> > > have tended to ignore women.
> >
> > Yep- agreed. It is also just the enlightened *teachers* who tend
> > to make it into the books and historical records. There are many
> > more enlightened men and women who just do their thing and pass
> > on, unrecorded.
>
> I should add that in a hypothetical matriarchal
> society whose records were written by women, it
> would probably appear that there were very few
> enlightened *men*.
So you're saying that in these hypothetical
matricarchal societies, the women would be
as sexist and as stupid as the men?
:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your perception that any of the "Tibetan Buddhists" on > the group with the exception of Llundrub reacted the > way you claim is as flawed as your perception of Lenz > killing himself out of guilt. Vaj and I merely corrected > a few of your inaccurate statements; only Llun got > uptight about what you said. However, it seems that any such corrections by TMers of inaccurate statements by TM critics are characterized as the TMers "getting uptight."
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
> wrote:
> > I'd wonder whether the reason so few women are
> > in the historical record as having achieved
> > enlightenment is not because so few women actually
> > achieved enlightenment, but rather because so few
> > who did were noted as having done so in the
> > historical record--either because they weren't
> > mentioned at all by the men who wrote the record,
> > or because these men didn't recognize or didn't
> > bother to note or even actively suppressed that
> > information.
> >
> > Some feminists use the term "herstory" to refer
> > to women's history to emphasize that the standard
> > records, largely written by men ("HIS-story"),
> > have tended to ignore women.
> >
> Yep- agreed. It is also just the enlightened *teachers* who tend to
> make it into the books and historical records. There are many more
> enlightened men and women who just do their thing and pass on,
> unrecorded.
I should add that in a hypothetical matriarchal
society whose records were written by women, it
would probably appear that there were very few
enlightened *men*.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
> wrote:
> > I'd wonder whether the reason so few women are
> > in the historical record as having achieved
> > enlightenment is not because so few women actually
> > achieved enlightenment, but rather because so few
> > who did were noted as having done so in the
> > historical record--either because they weren't
> > mentioned at all by the men who wrote the record,
> > or because these men didn't recognize or didn't
> > bother to note or even actively suppressed that
> > information.
> >
> > Some feminists use the term "herstory" to refer
> > to women's history to emphasize that the standard
> > records, largely written by men ("HIS-story"),
> > have tended to ignore women.
> >
> Yep- agreed. It is also just the enlightened *teachers* who tend to
> make it into the books and historical records. There are many more
> enlightened men and women who just do their thing and pass on,
> unrecorded.
>
Which raises the question "why so few female enlightened teachers?"
The answer of course, is that even if a female is enlightened, like as not, her
boyfriend will
get the credit...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, was Guru Dev in CC or GC or UC???? Acording to MMY-CC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 17, 2007, at 10:17 AM, authfriend wrote: > > >> And when that happens, usually the org > >> promoting the dry intellectual stuff finds some way to blame the > >> person, citing character defects or some other reason. > > > > For the record, I wasn't "blaming" anybody or anything, > > Just for the record, I said "the org." I know. I was dissociating myself from "the org" in this regard. > > just noting that for some people there can be a very > > powerful heart-value to intellectual knowledge > > We were talking about dry intellectual knowledge, for one thing. But I'm pointing out that "dry" is in the eye of the beholder. What's "dry" for one person may be very rich and "juicy" for another. For > another, I imagine that the above is true for very few, seeing as > how many have fled the TMO citing just that reason, amongst others. Could well be. I wasn't suggesting it was common, just noting that the other ain't universal.
[FairfieldLife] Gaara of the Desert (sand waterfall)
I've been watching Naruto, yet another typical juevenile anime from Japan. It centers around Naruto, a young, happy-go-lucky ninja-in-training and his friends and companions. For instance, we have Gaara of the Desert, a young man whose mother was sacrificed to a demon by his father in order to entice the demon to inhabit Gaara and give him enormous powers. This was done becaeus the ninja village was losing its prestige and the father realized the need for an ultimate weapon--his son--who could defeat any foe. As the story arc introducing Gaara progresses, we learn that Naruto and Gaara have much the same background: both were deliberately exposed to a demon when an infant in order to protect their villages (Naruto is the unknowing prison for HIS demon, which was trapped within the infant Naruto during a fight to protect the village from its ravages) . Both Naruto and Gaara were shunned by the villagers who feared their power and strangeness. However, there are important differences... Naruto eventually finds a few true friends and acceptance amongst members of his team of ninjas. Gaara, on the other hand, always had his strangeness thrown in his face. His father, fearing his uncontrollable power, would send assassins against him as he got older. Gaara's own beloved uncle, the only one who ever treated him with kindness, was one of those assassins. As he died as a result of Gaara's counterattack, Gaara's uncle reveals that he never truely loved Gaara and resented him for his sister's death. Gaara, realizing that literally no-one in the world has ever loved him (even his own mother, according to his uncle, died cursing him), uses his power to etch the Chinese character for "love' into his forehead to symbolize that the only love he can ever know is his own, and vows to live every moment to its fullest, rejoicing in his ability to kill others. Naruto, on the other hand, pledges to become the Hokage, the chief ninja and ultimte protector of the village, when he grows up. We meet Gaara at age 13, several years after he killed his uncle... Japanese anime is definitely juevenile in nature, with no character development...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Lenz may have been perceptive about some areas of psychology > regarding men and women. However, I've read some things about > him and his seduction of women under the guise of helping them > spiritually that were disgusting to put it mildly. Having known a few of these women and heard how they described their affairs with him *while they were going on*, and then later, when they discovered that they were not going to become Mrs. Lenz, I don't tend to take all reports seriously. One woman bored my ass off telling me how wonderful her first sexual encounter was with him, and then six months later went to the papers and claimed that he had waved a gun around and threatened her. That detail was...uh...missing in her earlier recounting of the story, to me and to dozens of other people she talked to. That said, there were some of his female students that he definitely should *not* have gotten involved with, and did. I consider that a major failing on his part. > With him wildly enjoying for a while the role of a wolf > in sheep's clothing, I find it impossible to take anything > he said respectfully or seriously. So you're one of those judgmental people who believe that if someone has a fault or faults that you don't like, they cannot have any good qualities? Or that they cannot possibly know anything worth teaching, in a spiritual sense? Just checking, because last time I checked the teacher you revere (while never having met him) has a fairly well-documented history of having been a wolf in sheep's pussies himself. Wouldn't that mean that, to be consistent, you should find it impossible to take anything Maharishi says respectfully or seriously? > He was a mixed up kid who discovered a gift for gab, and > was killed by his guilt. I don't think guilt had anything whatsoever to do with his death. Ego, yes. Drugs, yes. An inability to take responsibility for his actions, yes. But guilt, no. > PS My earlier comments regarding Tibetan Buddhism and Buddhism in > general were designed to see if I could elicit similar behavior from > those on here who after religiously knocking TM and the followers of > Maharishi, then castigate those who reply as TBs. It worked- The > Buddhists mirrored the TB behavior perfectly. No need to repeat any > of it- Just clarifying that it was more than a trolling exercise. Your perception that any of the "Tibetan Buddhists" on the group with the exception of Llundrub reacted the way you claim is as flawed as your perception of Lenz killing himself out of guilt. Vaj and I merely corrected a few of your inaccurate statements; only Llun got uptight about what you said. I just figured you were having a hissy fit because you'd embarrassed yourself earlier in the discussion. :-) But your description of what you had in mind above, even if it were true, is the definition of trolling. That's what you were doing.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, was Guru Dev in CC or GC or UC???? Acording to ...
On Jan 17, 2007, at 10:52 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > Me: It sure would make my dramatic "Mary Poppins" floating umbrella > entrance more comfortible! Sign me up. > You and Michael Jackson, Curtis. Hey, now that I think about it, maybe that's where he got the idea. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, was Guru Dev in CC or GC or UC???? Acording to MMY-CC!
Comment below: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > **snip** > > I suspect one can experience *any* emotion, strong or > otherwise, in enlightenment, because the emotion *is* > enlightenment, as is everything else the enlightened > being experiences. The Self need not be "overwhelmed" > to experience any part of what is, essentially, itSelf. > The histories of supposedly-enlightened saints in > almost all spiritual traditions (including Hinduism) > are *full* of stories of them displaying strong > emotions -- of bhakti or compassion or whatever. > > Emotions come and go. That is their nature, and the > nature of having a body. **snip to end** Nicely put. If you read or listen to any of the supposedly- enlightened saints (including Maharishi when he's not trying to promote some program or project) the message consistently is that Enlightenment Is (and never isn't). Ignorance is merely the denial of reality. Nothing changes (when there's awakening) except the realization of what already Is. If you mistakenly believe that you've mislaid your eyeglasses, even while you're wearing them, when you realize where they "are", does your vision suddenly improve? Or do you just relax and appreciate what is present before you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, was Guru Dev in CC or GC or UC???? Acording to ...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > According to Saint Anthony channeled through a a close friend-Guru Dev is > presently in the third level > of the sixth dimension. He would have to reach the 7th level to be in G.C. > I'm talking about a permanent > state of this awareness not momentary experiences. He died in C.C. I'll just say that Saint Anthony has to enunciate more clearly. The above is incorrect. I've forgotten how to relate to levels of consciousness but I will say that if there are 7 levels in the sixth dimension (wtf?), Guru Dev is level 7, at least.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I'd wonder whether the reason so few women are
> in the historical record as having achieved
> enlightenment is not because so few women actually
> achieved enlightenment, but rather because so few
> who did were noted as having done so in the
> historical record--either because they weren't
> mentioned at all by the men who wrote the record,
> or because these men didn't recognize or didn't
> bother to note or even actively suppressed that
> information.
>
> Some feminists use the term "herstory" to refer
> to women's history to emphasize that the standard
> records, largely written by men ("HIS-story"),
> have tended to ignore women.
>
Yep- agreed. It is also just the enlightened *teachers* who tend to
make it into the books and historical records. There are many more
enlightened men and women who just do their thing and pass on,
unrecorded.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, was Guru Dev in CC or GC or UC???? Acording to ...
Vaj "> Let's not forget that chair and the umbrella. People in ignorance > just don't have chairs like that. > > I bet if you could make enough of 'em they'd sell like hotcakes. " Me: It sure would make my dramatic "Mary Poppins" floating umbrella entrance more comfortible! Sign me up. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jan 17, 2007, at 11:22 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > > > Robert: "I'm sure was in the highest state of consciousness, > > looking at the pictures of him..." (snipped for comedic effect) > > > > Me: I know! How did he get his hair to lie flat and behave in a humid > > climate without gel or mousse?! Now thats a sidhi! > > > Let's not forget that chair and the umbrella. People in ignorance > just don't have chairs like that. > > I bet if you could make enough of 'em they'd sell like hotcakes. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, was Guru Dev in CC or GC or UC???? Acording to ...
On Jan 17, 2007, at 11:22 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Robert: "I'm sure was in the highest state of consciousness, looking at the pictures of him..." (snipped for comedic effect) Me: I know! How did he get his hair to lie flat and behave in a humid climate without gel or mousse?! Now thats a sidhi! Let's not forget that chair and the umbrella. People in ignorance just don't have chairs like that. I bet if you could make enough of 'em they'd sell like hotcakes.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, was Guru Dev in CC or GC or UC???? Acording to MMY-CC!
On Jan 17, 2007, at 10:17 AM, authfriend wrote: >> And when that happens, usually the org >> promoting the dry intellectual stuff finds some way to blame the >> person, citing character defects or some other reason. > > For the record, I wasn't "blaming" anybody or anything, Just for the record, I said "the org." > just noting that for some people there can be a very > powerful heart-value to intellectual knowledge We were talking about dry intellectual knowledge, for one thing. For another, I imagine that the above is true for very few, seeing as how many have fled the TMO citing just that reason, amongst others. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "llundrub" wrote: > > > > Fuck Lenz RIP, no offense intended but he was less than > > a nobody because he just baffled you fuckers with bullshit > > which none of you can get out of your mind as if that > > illusion made some bit of difference. > > Not had your coffee yet today, Llun? :-) > > I *get* it. You don't like the guy, having heard stories > about him you didn't like. Some of those stories are true, > and even if all of them were true, he still offered some > very real knowledge and experiences to those who studied > with him. Me, I'm comfortable with regarding him as a > guy with problems who nonetheless taught me some useful > things about spiritual development. I feel the same way > about Maharishi. > > > Women reach enlightenment instantaneously just as do men... > > But *far* fewer women realize enlightenment than men. > That has been true in every era, and still seems to > be true today. I think the Rama guy had a clue or two > as to why that is. > > > ...you must name your enlightenment first to find the > > lineage where women still reign and there are plenty, > > in India. > > "Where women reign" is not the issue. Where a large > number of the women *students* realize their enlight- > enment is. Name one tradition where that is true. > I'll wait. > > > Whole cults centered around the supremacy of the > > female, and if any of you spent a day at Shakti Sadana > > you would meet plenty of enlightened women. > > *I* would not be so foolish as to meet someone and > consider them enlightened, without, say, meditating > with them quite a few times, in different situations > and environments. If you have lower standards, you > can consider as many people enlightened as you want. > > > So screw this lecture. It's as lame as Lenz. And as > > dead an issue. > > The guy's daid all right. So will you be, and much > sooner than you'd like. So it goes... :-) > > Remember back to when you almost stormed off this > group in a huff because Jim was doing a troll thang > about Tibetan Buddhism? At that time you were all > self-righteous posturing about how lowvibe it was > to rank on some study you'd never undertaken > personally and didn't understand. What has changed > in the last few weeks since then that enables you > to rank on someone you never met or studied with, > eh? :-) > > Hint: you just woke up needing to rant, and the > mention of someone you don't like gave you that > opportunity. Unlike you (in your previous rants > following Jim's posts), I'm not going to take > either your likes and dislikes or your rants > personally and threaten to storm off the group. > What you think of the Rama guy doesn't really > affect me one way or another. I have enough > on my plate just figuring out what *I* think > of him. :-) > Lenz may have been perceptive about some areas of psychology regarding men and women. However, I've read some things about him and his seduction of women under the guise of helping them spiritually that were disgusting to put it mildly. With him wildly enjoying for a while the role of a wolf in sheep's clothing, I find it impossible to take anything he said respectfully or seriously. He was a mixed up kid who discovered a gift for gab, and was killed by his guilt. PS My earlier comments regarding Tibetan Buddhism and Buddhism in general were designed to see if I could elicit similar behavior from those on here who after religiously knocking TM and the followers of Maharishi, then castigate those who reply as TBs. It worked- The Buddhists mirrored the TB behavior perfectly. No need to repeat any of it- Just clarifying that it was more than a trolling exercise.
Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Is America Ready For a Black or a Woman?'
--- Robert Gimbel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes! > George W. Bush has proven once and for all; > That a white guy is not always the best choice; > So, America is ready for anyone now. > Thanks George! Them niggrahs and bitches need to know there place now. They better not get all uppity and try to be in charge. Bible says it ain't the natural order of things. > > > > - > Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and > always stay connected to friends. Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com. Try it now.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield is the Consciousness Brahmasthan of the USA
The idea is to "send the top students" to Kansas. But top students know their Geography, American History, and Logic. Kansas has not been the center of the USA since 1959. So much for "Total Knowledge" :) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "llundrub" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There's not supposed to be anything on the Brahmastan anyway. > > > - Original Message - > From: "dhamiltony2k5" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 2:29 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield is the Consciousness Brahmasthan of > the USA > > > > >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "allanrosenzweig" > >> wrote: > >> > >> Let's focus on building Fairfield & Vedic City first, before > >>wasting > >> money on an expired and expensive notion of the center being in > >> Kansas. > >> > >> Here is an interesting site http://Brahmasthan.US that says: > >> > >> The Physical Brahmasthan of the United States is 17 miles west of > >> Castle Rock, South Dakota, the Geographical Center of all 50 > >>states - > >> the total unified country of the USA - since 1959. > >> > >> Until 1958, over 48 years ago, the Geographical Center of lower 48 > >> states only was near Lebanon, Kansas. Alaska, the largest state, > >> pulled the previous Brahmasthan significantly North West from > >>Kansas, > >> when President Eisenhower signed it as the 49th state on January 3, > >> 1959. It moved again, when Hawaii became the 50th state on August > >> 21, 1959 > >> > >> The Population Center of the United States is Edgar Springs, > >>Missouri > >> according to 2000 census. This is about 200 miles south from Vedic > >> City, Iowa, the Consciousness Brahmasthan of America. > >> > >> Fairfield Iowa is near the Center of the American People, the > >> Consciousness Brahmasthan of the United States > >> > > > > Yeah, i hear that the Kaplan brothers had arranged for and bought the > > geographic center for the movement before they left, and now the > > TMorg gots the burnt pork-chop up there in Kansas. > > > > > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Or go to: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > > and click 'Join This Group!' > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, was Guru Dev in CC or GC or UC???? Acording to MMY-CC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > On Jan 16, 2007, at 10:18 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > My own belief, for what it is worth, is that any form of > > > "overwhelming" emotion is, by definition, a sign of not > > > being fully established in CC, but that doesn't denigrate > > > what he was feeling... > > Yes, in fact it does, whereas Vaj's comment does not. > > Sparaig is saying, in essence, that Marek could not > possibly have felt what he felt and been fully estab- > lished in CC. He's saying that *anybody* who can be "overwhelmed" by emotion cannot be fully established in CC. But he's using "overwhelmed" in a specific technical sense, rather than to refer to just an extremely powerful emotion. Whether that's how Marek was using the term is another question. He'd have to tell us whether the emotion actually did "overwhelm" (overshadow) the Self, which is what Lawson means by the term. > As for sparaig's notion that one cannot experience > strong, even "overwhelming" emotion in enlightenment, > I'd suggest that's Just Another Idea *About* Enlight- > enment, formed from the point of view of non-enlight- > enment. > > I suspect one can experience *any* emotion, strong or > otherwise, in enlightenment, because the emotion *is* > enlightenment, as is everything else the enlightened > being experiences. The Self need not be "overwhelmed" > to experience any part of what is, essentially, itSelf. Which is just what Lawson was pointing out: if the Self *is* overwhelmed (overshadowed) by an emotion, that is, by definition (MMY's and that of many others), not enlightenment. > The histories of supposedly-enlightened saints in > almost all spiritual traditions (including Hinduism) > are *full* of stories of them displaying strong > emotions -- of bhakti or compassion or whatever. Strong, but not *overwhelming* (overshadowing). > Emotions come and go. That is their nature, and the > nature of having a body. Sparaig obviously expects > that nature to *change* once one realizes one's > enlightenment; What Lawson is suggesting changes is that in enlightenment, the Self is no longer subject to being overwhelmed by anything, for the very reason you stated above: everything *is* the Self. > Sparaig's view seems to me a belief that someone who > is not comfortable with strong emotions and who finds > them "overwhelming" might develop. Nope. Before enlightenment, everyone has their own "overwhelm" point. Some can tolerate stronger emotions than others before becoming overwhelmed by them. After enlightenment, no emotion is strong enough to overwhelm (overshadow) the Self, no matter what the threshold for being overwhelmed prior to enlightenment.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, was Guru Dev in CC or GC or UC???? Acording to ...
Robert: "I'm sure was in the highest state of consciousness, looking at the pictures of him..." (snipped for comedic effect) Me: I know! How did he get his hair to lie flat and behave in a humid climate without gel or mousse?! Now thats a sidhi! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Gimbel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > To me Guru Dev, is at the same level as Jesus Christ, or Buddha, or > any of the other enlightened ones. > He is one with 'Holy Spirit'; > So, he is one with everyone, and everything. > This is too hard to understand by the mind. > It's not a mental thing- > Which sometimes these 'channelings' seem to be; > Very 'mental'. > Sometimes just for people to avoid facing real issues or real feelings. > But Guru Dev, I'm sure was in the highest state of consciousness, > looking at the pictures of him, and the kind of life he led, and the > kind of profound teacher he guided to bring to the world, the silence > of inner life, and the truth of the soul. > R.G. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, was Guru Dev in CC or GC or UC???? Acording to MMY-CC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 16, 2007, at 11:37 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" > > wrote: > > > >> Maharishi's teaching have always been rather dry and academic, even > >> more so the last couple of decades. His circular expositions of > >> silence, and silence into silence, and silence out of silence, etc., > >> etc., just have no juice for me. And they don't effectively speak > >> to my experience, either. It mostly seems to be dry > >> intellectualization with no ground either in heart or the > >> experience along my path. > > > > FWIW, there can be such profound beauty in > > intellectual knowledge that it actually moves > > the heart and inspires devotion. > > That's the party line, of course, and what you're 'supposed' to > believe. Actually, it's my personal experience. Never heard it as the "party line." It came as a surprise to me. > But, being human, that rarely happens for most people, since > the heart value is basically what *makes* us human and people know > instinctively when it's lacking--and respond exactly as Marek's > friend (and most of the rest of us) did, by going elsewhere where > it's more in evidence. And when that happens, usually the org > promoting the dry intellectual stuff finds some way to blame the > person, citing character defects or some other reason. For the record, I wasn't "blaming" anybody or anything, just noting that for some people there can be a very powerful heart-value to intellectual knowledge, as a counter to the tendency of devotional folks to put down that kind of knowledge (and those who enjoy it) as being *devoid* of that value. Different strokes for different folks, that's all. Putdowns in this regard are gratuitous either way.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
Borat definitively settled this question with his cultural wisdom from Kazakhstan's laws of nature. "We say in Kazakhstan, "You find me woman with brain, I find you a horse with...Wings."" He also has quoted scientific research done in his country proving that a woman's brain is smaller than a mans. I hope this clears this issue up once and for all. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "llundrub" wrote: > > > > Fuck Lenz RIP, no offense intended but he was less than > > a nobody because he just baffled you fuckers with bullshit > > which none of you can get out of your mind as if that > > illusion made some bit of difference. > > Not had your coffee yet today, Llun? :-) > > I *get* it. You don't like the guy, having heard stories > about him you didn't like. Some of those stories are true, > and even if all of them were true, he still offered some > very real knowledge and experiences to those who studied > with him. Me, I'm comfortable with regarding him as a > guy with problems who nonetheless taught me some useful > things about spiritual development. I feel the same way > about Maharishi. > > > Women reach enlightenment instantaneously just as do men... > > But *far* fewer women realize enlightenment than men. > That has been true in every era, and still seems to > be true today. I think the Rama guy had a clue or two > as to why that is. > > > ...you must name your enlightenment first to find the > > lineage where women still reign and there are plenty, > > in India. > > "Where women reign" is not the issue. Where a large > number of the women *students* realize their enlight- > enment is. Name one tradition where that is true. > I'll wait. > > > Whole cults centered around the supremacy of the > > female, and if any of you spent a day at Shakti Sadana > > you would meet plenty of enlightened women. > > *I* would not be so foolish as to meet someone and > consider them enlightened, without, say, meditating > with them quite a few times, in different situations > and environments. If you have lower standards, you > can consider as many people enlightened as you want. > > > So screw this lecture. It's as lame as Lenz. And as > > dead an issue. > > The guy's daid all right. So will you be, and much > sooner than you'd like. So it goes... :-) > > Remember back to when you almost stormed off this > group in a huff because Jim was doing a troll thang > about Tibetan Buddhism? At that time you were all > self-righteous posturing about how lowvibe it was > to rank on some study you'd never undertaken > personally and didn't understand. What has changed > in the last few weeks since then that enables you > to rank on someone you never met or studied with, > eh? :-) > > Hint: you just woke up needing to rant, and the > mention of someone you don't like gave you that > opportunity. Unlike you (in your previous rants > following Jim's posts), I'm not going to take > either your likes and dislikes or your rants > personally and threaten to storm off the group. > What you think of the Rama guy doesn't really > affect me one way or another. I have enough > on my plate just figuring out what *I* think > of him. :-) >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, was Guru Dev in CC or GC or UC???? Acording to MMY-CC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jan 17, 2007, at 7:17 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > As for sparaig's notion that one cannot experience > > strong, even "overwhelming" emotion in enlightenment, > > I'd suggest that's Just Another Idea *About* Enlight- > > enment, formed from the point of view of non-enlight- > > enment. > > > > I suspect one can experience *any* emotion, strong or > > otherwise, in enlightenment, because the emotion *is* > > enlightenment, as is everything else the enlightened > > being experiences. The Self need not be "overwhelmed" > > to experience any part of what is, essentially, itSelf. > > The histories of supposedly-enlightened saints in > > almost all spiritual traditions (including Hinduism) > > are *full* of stories of them displaying strong > > emotions -- of bhakti or compassion or whatever. > > > > Emotions come and go. That is their nature, and the > > nature of having a body. Sparaig obviously expects > > that nature to *change* once one realizes one's > > enlightenment; I don't. Before enlightenment, chop > > wood, carry water, and occasionally experience strong > > emotions. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water, > > and occasionally experience strong emotions. > > > > Sparaig's view seems to me a belief that someone who > > is not comfortable with strong emotions and who finds > > them "overwhelming" might develop. So many of the ideas > > that people have *about* enlightenment seem to me to be > > based on their own fears and aversions, and the hope > > that the things that inspire those fears and aversions > > will no longer appear in one's life after one realizes > > enlightenment. But they will. And we'll still have to > > deal with them, just as we did before realization. In > > this case, the issue is not the emotions but who > > experiences them. > > A quote I posted last night says it nicely: > > 51. All-consuming Openness > > All and everything reverted to openness, > its nature is beyond denial or assertion; > just as all worlds and life-forms open into space, > so emotion and evaluating thought > melt into hyperspaciousness. > Now here, now gone in a flashthoughts leave no trace, > and opened up wide to seamless gnosis > hopes and fears are no longer credible, > the stake that tethers the mind in its field is extracted, > and Samsara, the city of delusion, is evacuated. > > Like clouds emerging in the sky and then dissolving therein, all > events originate in spaciousness and are finally released into the > same space. Upon such intuition, assertion and denial and all > emotion, all mental states and functions, return to the empty > holistic seed, original hyperspaciousness, and thus the entire > mentality of samsaric delusion dissolves into timeless purity. This > secret transmission implies living in the undivided openness of > intrinsic emptiness. > And you consider this a situation (or however you want to label it) where "overwhelming" emotion can exist?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, was Guru Dev in CC or GC or UC???? Acording to MMY-CC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > On Jan 16, 2007, at 10:18 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > >> > > >> On Jan 16, 2007, at 6:13 PM, Marek Reavis wrote: > There have been passages in my life when I was overcome > with what I can only refer to as 'transcendental bhakti' > and I found myself on the ground, on my knees in spontaneous > prayer, eyes streaming tears of gratitude and in such > unbearable sweetness that it was incomprehensible > that I could survive it. If that is part of the program > I don't know how or why it isn't spoken about more directly. > >>> > >>> Have you read "Love and God"? After all, it sounds like > >>> you already wrote your own version. ;-) > > > > > > Are you mocking him, by chance? > > > > > > My own belief, for what it is worth, is that any form of > > > "overwhelming" emotion is, by definition, a sign of not > > > being fully established in CC, but that doesn't denigrate > > > what he was feeling... > > Yes, in fact it does, whereas Vaj's comment does not. > > Sparaig is saying, in essence, that Marek could not > possibly have felt what he felt and been fully estab- > lished in CC. First, I don't think Marek has ever > suggested that he *is* fully established in CC, so > his comment is a non-sequitur to begin with, but even > if he had, this particular *idea* of what life in > enlightenment is like is IMO as baseless as many of > the other ideas *about* enlightenment he's spouted here. > > > > On the other hand, YOUR comment certainly "feels" derogatory. > > It didn't to me. I don't think Vaj meant it that way, either. > > > Since I know quite well what I meant, we'll chock another > > one up to the "ear of the beholder." What an idiot. > > Agreed. > > As for sparaig's notion that one cannot experience > strong, even "overwhelming" emotion in enlightenment, > I'd suggest that's Just Another Idea *About* Enlight- > enment, formed from the point of view of non-enlight- > enment. > > I suspect one can experience *any* emotion, strong or > otherwise, in enlightenment, because the emotion *is* > enlightenment, as is everything else the enlightened > being experiences. The Self need not be "overwhelmed" > to experience any part of what is, essentially, itSelf. > The histories of supposedly-enlightened saints in > almost all spiritual traditions (including Hinduism) > are *full* of stories of them displaying strong > emotions -- of bhakti or compassion or whatever. > > Emotions come and go. That is their nature, and the > nature of having a body. Sparaig obviously expects > that nature to *change* once one realizes one's > enlightenment; I don't. Before enlightenment, chop > wood, carry water, and occasionally experience strong > emotions. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water, > and occasionally experience strong emotions. > > Sparaig's view seems to me a belief that someone who > is not comfortable with strong emotions and who finds > them "overwhelming" might develop. So many of the ideas > that people have *about* enlightenment seem to me to be > based on their own fears and aversions, and the hope > that the things that inspire those fears and aversions > will no longer appear in one's life after one realizes > enlightenment. But they will. And we'll still have to > deal with them, just as we did before realization. In > this case, the issue is not the emotions but who > experiences them. > Of course, "overwhelming," in this context, would refer to "overwhelming [the Self]," which, by definition, means you're not enlightened, but let's not let common sense get in the way of another fun dig...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, was Guru Dev in CC or GC or UC???? Acording to MMY-CC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jan 16, 2007, at 10:18 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Jan 16, 2007, at 6:13 PM, Marek Reavis wrote: > >> > >>> Comment below: > >>> > >>> ** > >>> > >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > >>> **snip** > > He does mention bhakti, but it's more *transcendental bhakti* > and is > present in the transitional refinement of GC. In other words it's > >>> not > 'falling down in the street with your tambourine Hare Krishna > >>> bhakti' > but an inner, yogic bhakti, Love & God and all that. I also wonder > >>> if > part of that also has to do with making his system of yoga fit into > >>> a > more western adapted model, devoid of any overtly "Hindu" elements. > > >>> **end** > >>> > >>> There have been passages in my life when I was overcome with what I > >>> can > >>> only refer to as 'transcendental bhakti' and I found myself on the > >>> ground, on my knees in spontaneous prayer, eyes streaming tears of > >>> gratitude and in such unbearable sweetness that it was > >>> incomprehensible > >>> that I could survive it. If that is part of the program I don't > >>> know > >>> how or why it isn't spoken about more directly. > >> > >> Have you read "Love and God"? After all, it sounds like you already > >> wrote your own version. ;-) > >> > > > > Are you mocking him, by chance? > > > > My own belief, for what it is worth, is that any form of > > "overwhelming" emotion is, by > > definition, a sign of not being fully established in CC, but that > > doesn't denigrate what he > > was feeling... > > > > On the other hand, YOUR comment certainly "feels" derogatory. > > Since I know quite well what I meant, we'll chock another one up to > the "ear of the beholder." What an idiot. > Yep. Applying for Vlodrop Fool as we speak...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, was Guru Dev in CC or GC or UC???? Acording to ...
To me Guru Dev, is at the same level as Jesus Christ, or Buddha, or any of the other enlightened ones. He is one with 'Holy Spirit'; So, he is one with everyone, and everything. This is too hard to understand by the mind. It's not a mental thing- Which sometimes these 'channelings' seem to be; Very 'mental'. Sometimes just for people to avoid facing real issues or real feelings. But Guru Dev, I'm sure was in the highest state of consciousness, looking at the pictures of him, and the kind of life he led, and the kind of profound teacher he guided to bring to the world, the silence of inner life, and the truth of the soul. R.G.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, was Guru Dev in CC or GC or UC???? Acording to MMY-CC!
On Jan 16, 2007, at 11:37 PM, authfriend wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> Maharishi's teaching have always been rather dry and academic, even >> more so the last couple of decades. His circular expositions of >> silence, and silence into silence, and silence out of silence, etc., >> etc., just have no juice for me. And they don't effectively speak >> to my experience, either. It mostly seems to be dry >> intellectualization with no ground either in heart or the >> experience along my path. > > FWIW, there can be such profound beauty in > intellectual knowledge that it actually moves > the heart and inspires devotion. That's the party line, of course, and what you're 'supposed' to believe. But, being human, that rarely happens for most people, since the heart value is basically what *makes* us human and people know instinctively when it's lacking--and respond exactly as Marek's friend (and most of the rest of us) did, by going elsewhere where it's more in evidence. And when that happens, usually the org promoting the dry intellectual stuff finds some way to blame the person, citing character defects or some other reason. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Interesting Q&A session, interesting question. For what
> it's worth, Rama (Frederick Lenz) used to give a very
> strong talk entitled, "Why don't more women attain
> enlightenment?" A strong part of his focus was on the
> enlightenment of women, and he had some equally strong
> opinions on the subject. I'll gloss over a few of them
> here, for anyone who is interested.
>
> First, he said that from his perspective women should
> *theoretically* be more able to realize enlightenment
> than men, because of the more refined qualities of their
> subtle bodies. So it's a puzzler when you look at his-
> torical records and discover that so few women actually
> *did* realize enlightenment.
I'd wonder whether the reason so few women are
in the historical record as having achieved
enlightenment is not because so few women actually
achieved enlightenment, but rather because so few
who did were noted as having done so in the
historical record--either because they weren't
mentioned at all by the men who wrote the record,
or because these men didn't recognize or didn't
bother to note or even actively suppressed that
information.
Some feminists use the term "herstory" to refer
to women's history to emphasize that the standard
records, largely written by men ("HIS-story"),
have tended to ignore women.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "llundrub" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Fuck Lenz RIP, no offense intended but he was less than > a nobody because he just baffled you fuckers with bullshit > which none of you can get out of your mind as if that > illusion made some bit of difference. Not had your coffee yet today, Llun? :-) I *get* it. You don't like the guy, having heard stories about him you didn't like. Some of those stories are true, and even if all of them were true, he still offered some very real knowledge and experiences to those who studied with him. Me, I'm comfortable with regarding him as a guy with problems who nonetheless taught me some useful things about spiritual development. I feel the same way about Maharishi. > Women reach enlightenment instantaneously just as do men... But *far* fewer women realize enlightenment than men. That has been true in every era, and still seems to be true today. I think the Rama guy had a clue or two as to why that is. > ...you must name your enlightenment first to find the > lineage where women still reign and there are plenty, > in India. "Where women reign" is not the issue. Where a large number of the women *students* realize their enlight- enment is. Name one tradition where that is true. I'll wait. > Whole cults centered around the supremacy of the > female, and if any of you spent a day at Shakti Sadana > you would meet plenty of enlightened women. *I* would not be so foolish as to meet someone and consider them enlightened, without, say, meditating with them quite a few times, in different situations and environments. If you have lower standards, you can consider as many people enlightened as you want. > So screw this lecture. It's as lame as Lenz. And as > dead an issue. The guy's daid all right. So will you be, and much sooner than you'd like. So it goes... :-) Remember back to when you almost stormed off this group in a huff because Jim was doing a troll thang about Tibetan Buddhism? At that time you were all self-righteous posturing about how lowvibe it was to rank on some study you'd never undertaken personally and didn't understand. What has changed in the last few weeks since then that enables you to rank on someone you never met or studied with, eh? :-) Hint: you just woke up needing to rant, and the mention of someone you don't like gave you that opportunity. Unlike you (in your previous rants following Jim's posts), I'm not going to take either your likes and dislikes or your rants personally and threaten to storm off the group. What you think of the Rama guy doesn't really affect me one way or another. I have enough on my plate just figuring out what *I* think of him. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, was Guru Dev in CC or GC or UC???? Acording to ...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Lou: "According to Saint Anthony channeled through a a close > friend-Guru Dev is presently in the third level of the sixth > dimension. He would have to reach the 7th level to be in > G.C." > > Me: I bumped into him coming out of a W.C. at the third level > of the sixth dimension. He was only using the one on the third > level cuz the one on seven had a line. We hung out a bit, he's > still kinda bitter about how MMY used his name to nail all those > hot chicks. Has a "rep" for silence but I gotta tell you, after > knocking a few back you can't shut the guy up. We promised to > exchange Diwalli cards next year and I put him in a cab after > making him promise not to drive. Oh yeah, and Saint Anthony > tried to "channel" me once. That old queen should stop > trying to "convert" people if you catch my drift. LOL. Finally, a definition of "channeling" I can agree with. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, was Guru Dev in CC or GC or UC???? Acording to ...
Lou: "According to Saint Anthony channeled through a a close friend-Guru Dev is presently in the third level of the sixth dimension. He would have to reach the 7th level to be in G.C." Me: I bumped into him coming out of a W.C. at the third level of the sixth dimension. He was only using the one on the third level cuz the one on seven had a line. We hung out a bit, he's still kinda bitter about how MMY used his name to nail all those hot chicks. Has a "rep" for silence but I gotta tell you, after knocking a few back you can't shut the guy up. We promised to exchange Diwalli cards next year and I put him in a cab after making him promise not to drive. Oh yeah, and Saint Anthony tried to "channel" me once. That old queen should stop trying to "convert" people if you catch my drift. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > According to Saint Anthony channeled through a a close friend-Guru Dev is > presently in the third level > of the sixth dimension. He would have to reach the 7th level to be in G.C. > I'm talking about a permanent > state of this awareness not momentary experiences. He died in C.C. A > permanent state of U.C. can not > be achieved as long as their is a subject (body) of any type. You would have > to ascend to the 12th dimension in order to fully dissolve the subject and > object. Most of what people call U.C. in the TMO or elsewhere is not unity. At > best a glimpse here and there. Just enjoy the ride. Trying to rush > enlightenment is spiritual ego. Regardless of what state of awareness we want to > experience the present state of awareness is most important. By doing TM on a > regular basis we are rushing the process enough. We signed up for priority mail > and many people want overnight mail. Most cannot handle overnight and will do > more damage > in the end in trying to avoid the necessary effort of conscious awareness > along the path that is required by a day to day living of setting small goals > each day along the path. Transcend/Focus, Transcend/Focus. This > is the royal road to enlightenment. Lou Valentino JGD. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
Fuck Lenz RIP, no offense intended but he was less than a nobody because he just baffled you fuckers with bullshit which none of you can get out of your mind as if that illusion made some bit of difference. Women reach enlightenment instantaneously just as do men, you must name your enlightenment first to find the lineage where women still reign and there are plenty, in India. Whole cults centered around the supremacy of the female, and if any of you spent a day at Shakti Sadana you would meet plenty of enlightened women. So screw this lecture. It's as lame as Lenz. And as dead an issue. - Original Message - From: "TurquoiseB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 7:48 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist? > Interesting Q&A session, interesting question. For what > it's worth, Rama (Frederick Lenz) used to give a very > strong talk entitled, "Why don't more women attain > enlightenment?" A strong part of his focus was on the > enlightenment of women, and he had some equally strong > opinions on the subject. I'll gloss over a few of them > here, for anyone who is interested. > > First, he said that from his perspective women should > *theoretically* be more able to realize enlightenment > than men, because of the more refined qualities of their > subtle bodies. So it's a puzzler when you look at his- > torical records and discover that so few women actually > *did* realize enlightenment. His explanation for why > this is was twofold -- because of men and because of > women. > > Men have pretty much always suppressed women, socially > and spiritually. The interview you posted, even though > Swami Bharati Tirtha did his best to dodge the subject, > made the case that the very scriptures his religion is > based on and the structures of the religious hierarchies > within that religion are inherently biased against > women. Add to that the social realities of being a > woman in many eras of history -- the foremost being > unable to work for pay, and thus being dependent on > either finding a man to support them or living with > their birth family for life -- and you have an envir- > onment that was hardly conducive to the study of > enlightenment. > > But it was this very suppression of women that, in > Rama's view, helped to create the other "gotcha" at > work in the question of why more women don't attain > enlightenment. *Because of* the need to attract a > man to support them, (in Rama's view) women attained > a higher proficiency with the occult arts than men > did. They became adept at the mini-siddhis that make > up the "science of attraction," the ability to "make > someone fall in love with you." In his view almost > every romantic relationship was initiated by women, > and most of the time involved them using their occult > abilities to (at the very least) attract the man' > s attention and get him to focus on her. And, as he > pointed out, there is really "no harm, no foul" in > doing this, because women *had very few alternatives*. > Finding a man was their only hope of getting out of > the parental house and having a life even remotely > their own. > > [ If you bristle at this notion, I might suggest that > if you're a woman you might not appreciate being > busted, and if you're a guy, you might not appreciate > the idea that your romantic decisions in life have not > entirely been your own. :-) Me, I've studied relationships > for most of my life, and I have no problems with this view. ] > > So he felt that although this occult manipulation of > men's attention fields was justified, given the status > that the men had relegated women to, it was terrifically > problematic for those women who wanted to realize their > enlightenment. Why? Because if you are in the state of > attention in which you are consciously manipulating others, > that state of attention to some extent *disallows* the > state of attention that supports enlightenment. The more > you use your attention to manipulate others occultly, > the less of that attention is available for the study > of enlightenment. A large part of his study, when working > with women, involved helping them to realize consciously > when they were manipulating others occultly, and in > presenting alternatives to doing so. > > The original lecture was two hours long, so this "capsule > version" of it hardly does the subject justice, but since > Jonathan opened the subject for discussion, I thought I'd > throw out some of these ideas for people's consideration. > Over and out... > > Unc > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!' > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, was Guru Dev in CC or GC or UC???? Acording to MMY-CC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wmurphy77 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Comment below:
> > >
> > > **
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wmurphy77 wrote:
> > > >
> > > >**snip**
> > > >
> > > > True, in man, it is limited in its expression, ("The silence
which
> > > is
> > > > experienced in cosmic consciousness, and which separates the Self
> > > from
> > > > activity, is on an *infinitely* smaller scale, for it is on the
> > > level
> > > > of individual existence", Gita CHVI vs3)
> >
> >
> > It that supposed to be a *translation* of Giitaa VI verse 3?
> >
> > aarurukSor muner yogaM
> > karma kaaraNam ucyate
> > yogaaruuDhasya tasyaiva
> > shamaH kaaraNam ucyate
> >
> > IMO, Maharishi's ( & Vernon Katz's?) translation is as
> > accurate as it can get.
>
> That 'was' from MMY's Bhagavad Gita...verbatum!
>
Sorry, I misunderstood...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, was Guru Dev in CC or GC or UC???? Acording to ...
Neitzche said a man's spirituality went to the pinnacle of his sexuality or something like that. If so then Lou got any stories? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 4:33 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, was Guru Dev in CC or GC or UC Acording to ... According to Saint Anthony channeled through a a close friend-Guru Dev is presently in the third level of the sixth dimension. He would have to reach the 7th level to be in G.C. I'm talking about a permanent state of this awareness not momentary experiences. He died in C.C. A permanent state of U.C. can not be achieved as long as their is a subject (body) of any type. You would have to ascend to the 12th dimension in order to fully dissolve the subject and object. Most of what people call U.C. in the TMO or elsewhere is not unity. At best a glimpse here and there. Just enjoy the ride. Trying to rush enlightenment is spiritual ego. Regardless of what state of awareness we want to experience the present state of awareness is most important. By doing TM on a regular basis we are rushing the process enough. We signed up for priority mail and many people want overnight mail. Most cannot handle overnight and will do more damage in the end in trying to avoid the necessary effort of conscious awareness along the path that is required by a day to day living of setting small goals each day along the path. Transcend/Focus, Transcend/Focus. This is the royal road to enlightenment. Lou Valentino JGD.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
Interesting Q&A session, interesting question. For what it's worth, Rama (Frederick Lenz) used to give a very strong talk entitled, "Why don't more women attain enlightenment?" A strong part of his focus was on the enlightenment of women, and he had some equally strong opinions on the subject. I'll gloss over a few of them here, for anyone who is interested. First, he said that from his perspective women should *theoretically* be more able to realize enlightenment than men, because of the more refined qualities of their subtle bodies. So it's a puzzler when you look at his- torical records and discover that so few women actually *did* realize enlightenment. His explanation for why this is was twofold -- because of men and because of women. Men have pretty much always suppressed women, socially and spiritually. The interview you posted, even though Swami Bharati Tirtha did his best to dodge the subject, made the case that the very scriptures his religion is based on and the structures of the religious hierarchies within that religion are inherently biased against women. Add to that the social realities of being a woman in many eras of history -- the foremost being unable to work for pay, and thus being dependent on either finding a man to support them or living with their birth family for life -- and you have an envir- onment that was hardly conducive to the study of enlightenment. But it was this very suppression of women that, in Rama's view, helped to create the other "gotcha" at work in the question of why more women don't attain enlightenment. *Because of* the need to attract a man to support them, (in Rama's view) women attained a higher proficiency with the occult arts than men did. They became adept at the mini-siddhis that make up the "science of attraction," the ability to "make someone fall in love with you." In his view almost every romantic relationship was initiated by women, and most of the time involved them using their occult abilities to (at the very least) attract the man' s attention and get him to focus on her. And, as he pointed out, there is really "no harm, no foul" in doing this, because women *had very few alternatives*. Finding a man was their only hope of getting out of the parental house and having a life even remotely their own. [ If you bristle at this notion, I might suggest that if you're a woman you might not appreciate being busted, and if you're a guy, you might not appreciate the idea that your romantic decisions in life have not entirely been your own. :-) Me, I've studied relationships for most of my life, and I have no problems with this view. ] So he felt that although this occult manipulation of men's attention fields was justified, given the status that the men had relegated women to, it was terrifically problematic for those women who wanted to realize their enlightenment. Why? Because if you are in the state of attention in which you are consciously manipulating others, that state of attention to some extent *disallows* the state of attention that supports enlightenment. The more you use your attention to manipulate others occultly, the less of that attention is available for the study of enlightenment. A large part of his study, when working with women, involved helping them to realize consciously when they were manipulating others occultly, and in presenting alternatives to doing so. The original lecture was two hours long, so this "capsule version" of it hardly does the subject justice, but since Jonathan opened the subject for discussion, I thought I'd throw out some of these ideas for people's consideration. Over and out... Unc
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, was Guru Dev in CC or GC or UC???? Acording to ...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Trying to rush > enlightenment is spiritual ego. Regardless of what state of awareness we want to experience the present state of awareness is most important. By doing TM on a regular basis we are rushing the process enough. We signed up for priority mail and many people want overnight mail. Most cannot handle overnight and will do more damage > in the end in trying to avoid the necessary effort of conscious awareness along the path that is required by a day to day living of setting small goals each day along the path. Transcend/Focus, Transcend/Focus. This is the royal road to enlightenment. Good Advice. lurk >
[FairfieldLife] 'Is America Ready For a Black or a Woman?'
Yes! George W. Bush has proven once and for all; That a white guy is not always the best choice; So, America is ready for anyone now. Thanks George! - Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and always stay connected to friends.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, was Guru Dev in CC or GC or UC???? Acording to MMY-CC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"
> wrote:
> >
> > Comment below:
> >
> > **
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wmurphy77 wrote:
> > >
> > >**snip**
> > >
> > > True, in man, it is limited in its expression, ("The silence which
> > is
> > > experienced in cosmic consciousness, and which separates the Self
> > from
> > > activity, is on an *infinitely* smaller scale, for it is on the
> > level
> > > of individual existence", Gita CHVI vs3)
>
>
> It that supposed to be a *translation* of Giitaa VI verse 3?
>
> aarurukSor muner yogaM
> karma kaaraNam ucyate
> yogaaruuDhasya tasyaiva
> shamaH kaaraNam ucyate
>
> IMO, Maharishi's ( & Vernon Katz's?) translation is as
> accurate as it can get.
That 'was' from MMY's Bhagavad Gita...verbatum!
