[FairfieldLife] Hitopadesha on women (part 2 )

[cardemaister]

na lajjaa, na viniitatvaM,
 na daakSiNyaM, na bhiirutaa -
praarthanaabhaava evaikaH
 satiitve kaaraNaM striyaaH.

na lajjaa, na viniitatvam;
 na daakSiNyam; na bhiirutaa -
praarthanaa+abhaavaH; eva; ekaH
 satiitve kaaraNam; striyaaH.

It is not shyness or propriety, nor
is it good manners or fear -
it is only because they are not
propositioned that women stay virtuous.

It is not (na) shyness (lajjaa)
 or (na) propriety (viniitatvam), 
nor is it (na) good manners (daakSiNyam) 
or (na) fear (bhiirutaa) -
it is only because they are not
propositioned that women stay virtuous.

More literal translation of the second sentence:

praarthanaa+abhaavaH (proposition-nonexistence); 
eva (verily); ekaH (one: only)
 satiitve ("of" virtuousness) kaaraNam (reason);
 striyaaH (of a woman).

[FairfieldLife] Hitopadesha on women (part 1)

[cardemaister]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitopadesha

Hitopadesha (Sanskrit 
:हितोपदेश Hitopadeśa) is a collection of
Sanskrit   fables
  in prose and verse written in the
12 century C.E.   It is an
independent treatment of the Panchatantra
 .[1]
  It is meant as
an exposition on statecraft (including the conduct of war and peace and
the development of allies) but was produced in a format easily
digestible for young princes.
ghRtakumbhasamaa naarii, taptaan.gaarasamaH pumaan.tasmaad ghRtaM ca
vahniM ca naikatra sthaapayed budhaH.
ghRta-kumbha-samaa naarii, tapta-an.gaara-samaH pumaan.tasmaat; ghRtam;
ca vahnim; ca na; ekatra sthaapayet;  budhaH.
A woman is like a jar of butter, a man islike hot charcoal; a wise man
should neverkeep butter and fire in the same place.
A woman (naarii) is like (samaa: same [as]) a jar of butter
(ghRta-kumbha), a man (pumaan) is like (samaH) hot charcoal
(tapta-an.gara); [tasmaat: that's why(?)] a wise man (budhaH) should
never keep (na...sthaapayet) butter (ghRtam) and (ca) fire (vahnim) in
the same place (ekatra).
Translated by Judit Törzsök (~ tir-sirk; prolly a Hungarian family
name).

[FairfieldLife] Re: FDR Warning about Today's Republicans

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Denise Evans  wrote:
>
> This is great

If only we had a president that would speak like that today or this: 

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment 
insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of 
that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of 
course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you 
possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an 
occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is 
negligible and they are stupid." -Dwight D. Eisenhower

http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first-term/documents/1147.cfm


> 
> --- On Wed, 7/20/11, do.rflex  wrote:
> 
> From: do.rflex 
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] FDR Warning about Today's Republicans
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, July 20, 2011, 11:31 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
>   
>   
>   
> 
> 
> 
> FDR tells the truth about the leaders of the modern Republican
> 
> party. Somehow, in 1936, he foresaw what would be happening NOW.
> 
> 
> 
> Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUZGkNAUSvY
>

[FairfieldLife] Anniversary 1st man on the moon

[raunchydog]

"On the anniversary of the first man on the moon, and with the final space 
shuttle mission set to end Thursday, Wired.com takes a look back at the 
extraordinary amount of training astronauts go through before they are mission 
ready." 

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/07/moon-landing-gallery/

[FairfieldLife] Re: cognitive dissonance

[Ravi Yogi]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine 
wrote:
>
> On Jul 20, 2011, at 1:10 AM, Ravi Yogi wrote:
>
>
> > What BS? Barry - you are the classic example of CD on this list
here, bullying and screaming loud about people's exeriences and
complaining/cautioning newcomers about certain posters, trying to bully
people sharing their experiences and then when you get an earful back
you back off with your drama queen excuses of blaming posters who give
it back to you as posters you don't read, posters that are not worth
your time or occult energy sucking posters.
>
> LOL~~I gotta admit, this is damn good writing, Rav.
> No matter who it's about.  Concise and funny.
> Thanks.  Oh, and get a checking. :)
>
> Sal
Welcome Sal. I checked with Raviguru and he is cool with that, so get
used to minimal infinitely long  sentences with heavy doses of commas; 
generous offerings of hyphens, semicolons and conjunctions.
>

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Rick Archer]

Regarding Mark's comment: "I believe it's the sign of a developed being that
he or she can easily hold all the paradoxes."

 

Nisargadatta said something like "A good measure of spiritual maturity is
the degree to which one can appreciate paradox and ambiguity."

 

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Joe
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 11:29 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

 

  


Agreed 100%. If this is how it is, I'm going to start checking in here again
every day.
Great post!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> Thanks for this Mark. Awesome post.
> 
> 
> 
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

[mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 ]
> On Behalf Of Mark Landau
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 1:22 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 

> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, are we one dimensional? I believe it's the sign of a developed being
> that he or she can easily hold all the paradoxes. Not only can I have it
> both ways, but I must have it both ways and, beyond that, have it all ways
> that were, are or ever will be, if I am to do any justice to truth and
> reality. That's a lot of ways. I also believe that, ultimately, we must go
> beyond all the paradoxes and polarities, including the polarity of good
and
> bad (and that, of course, doesn't mean that we rush out to do all the
"bad"
> things we possibly can ASAP).
> 
> 
> 
> The truth of the matter, if anyone cares, is that, like Judith Bourke, who
I
> find to be a wonderful, honest person, I was in love with him (no,
prurient
> ones, not that way, though there are things I could say about that, too)
and
> the notion and seeming experience that TM could transform the world for
the
> better. Why else would I work seven days a week for the movement for
nearly
> five years and pay significantly to do so? Are we not all some blend of
the
> three gunas? Aren't there glorious and dark things about all of us?
> 
> 
> 
> M was no different. One of the most glorious things about him was his
> energy. I lived and basked in it pretty much straight for the seven months
> I was skin boy and for a lot of the five years I was with him. I went
> through withdrawal for two years when I lost it.
> 
> 
> 
> That's my voice in the background of DWTF when David cut to the archival
> footage of M entering the hall with Jerry carrying the skin saying
something
> like, "It was like divine air came down from heaven and I got addicted to
> it." Is that so very negative?
> 
> 
> 
> In one other sentence I said something like, "Remember how I said he could
> get into you and help you sleep? He could also get into you and completely
> pulverize you." Is that both "negative" and "positive"? Of course,
> one-dimensional believers would say having M pulverize you would be the
> greatest blessing. It could only be all positive. But what if he did it
> because he was pissed, out of sorts or sexually frustrated? Yes, IME, he
> definitely got sexually frustrated. In my total reworking of his own
words,
> the only man in all of recored history that anyone knew about who lived
> beyond the libido was Sukadeva.
> 
> 
> 
> I also said in the movie, "It took me a while to put the paradox together.
> How could he be wonderful and awful at the same time? Well, that's just
how
> it was. He was wonderful and awful at the same time." David filmed me for
> over two hours and he used the several minutes that suited his purpose in
> segueing from the more positive part of the film to the more negative.
> 
> 
> 
> So I feel no conflict or contradiction in saying "In my experience, they
> still carry a lot of his energy, as if the atoms and molecules have been
> entrained in it. And, of course, in India, they would be holy objects to
be
> revered. I have kept them very well protected and have handled them very
> little over the decades." and 
> 
> 
> 
> M abused women, devastated people right and left and was more concerned
with
> money than with treating people decently.
> 
> 
> 
> They're all simply true. And so were all the other totally glorious
aspects
> of that intense, complex man.
> 
> 
> 
> Was anyone else in the movie theater that night in Fiuggi, or wherever it
> was, when M's darshan got so strong that it made all the little, hanging
> crystals dance extravagantly and tinkle together as if there were a small
> tornado blowing through the hall? And probably only I saw this, but when M
> first got to Murren, the three mountain devas came to greet him. IME,
which
> of course many of you would completely howl at, they had been waiting for
> someone for centuries and thought, because of his light, that it might be
M.
> M went completely silent and looked u

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Rick Archer]

David, who made the film, definitely had an agenda. He interviewed me by
phone. I emphasized repeatedly that he should tell the whole story, and that
an honest telling would contain more positive than negative. But it appears
that he just wanted to do a hatchet job. So he interviewed Mark for two
hours, and chose something Mark said during those two hours that sounds
negative. 

 

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of tedadams108
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 9:08 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

 

  


Rick,

You're correct, I just didn't want to go on memory regarding
any particular thing Mark said. I watched the film late at 
night, it's in german, and I was not focused only on what 
Mark said. If I knew this issue regarding the sandals was going
to come up today I would have paid more attention. Fortunately
in his response, Mark does talk about some of the things he
said, albeit with a different slant than what comes out in the 
film. If you read Mark's post it's clear that unlike your 
impression that Mark never said anything bad about Maharishi,
that in the film several negative things are said. Granted
Mark's point about a paradox requires some positive points be
made. Anyone who views the film will not debate how Maharishi
was portrayed by Mark. There seems to be a tendency for people 
on here to make complicated and pick apart something that
was intended to be simple. In this case, simply.

1. Mark said very negative things about Maharishi.
2. Mark claims that the sandals worn by Maharishi 
have a magical quality. (IMO to enhance their marketability.)
3. Paradox aside, appeared contradictory.

To speak ill of someone then to turn around and try to profit
from the man's sandals is unsettling at best. Money often causes
one to compromise principles. I think that may be the case here.

If the shoe (sandal) fits...

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

[mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 ]
> On Behalf Of tedadams108
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 10:11 AM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 

> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do have compassion for Mark or anyone in financial difficulties.
> I have been observing the comments on Fairfield Life for many 
> years but until today was not inspired to post one of my own.
> For some reason it was hard for me to resist pointing out the
> hypocrisy since I had just seen the film. Perhaps I was a little
> "colorful" with my words, but they pale in comparison to the words
> used in the interview. Obviously there are people on here that
> fit either into the pro-TM camp or the anti-TM camp. I apparently hit 
> a nerve. I'm not taking sides here, just pointing out the facts
> and people can spin them the way they want. Interestingly, those
> who have an issue with my post are not addressing it's main point,
> rather my mention of being compassionate or acknowledging that 
> many have enjoyed financial success and have attributed it to their
> TM practice. The main point is not debatable.
> 
> The main reason it's not debatable is that you don't trust your memory
well
> enough to tell us what Mark said, so we can't very well debate something
we
> know nothing about.
>



  _  

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1518/3776 - Release Date: 07/20/11

[FairfieldLife] Re: Romantic Love and its relationship to Spirituality

[Ravi Yogi]

"What else IS deep Romantic Love but Unity? "
It is but fleeting, the center is in the other, you are tethered to the
other and the other is not always available. Sure it is a great start,
and once you are aware, sensitive you will inevitably to fall into
yourself, find the true center, the source of the real Unity.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote:
> > >
> > > Fitzgerald's statement 'the true test of a first
> > > rate mind is the ability to hold two contradictory
> > > ideas at the same time' really only works at the
> > > value of unity;
>
> And Bob Price replied:
> > Not sure Fitzgerald studied much Vedanta, my guess
> > is that Zelda was the source of his inspiration.
>
> My short answer to Bob's reply would be, "What about
> finding his inspiration in another human being, in
> this case Zelda, is not Unity?"
>
> My longer answer is the train of thought that Bob's
> comment triggered in me -- How do different spiritual
> traditions view Romantic Love? Is it considered an
> obstacle along the pathway to enlightenment, or is it
> considered a valuable tool for Self-realization?
>
> I ask because on another forum a number of folks are
> recapitulating their experience in a spiritual trip
> that was decidedly anti-relationship. Romantic Love
> was viewed as "overshadowing," and thus something that
> would sap your personal power, power that you could
> have used pursuing enlightenment. I have seen similar
> sentiments expressed on this forum.
>
> I'm not down with this. I *am* a victim of it, and
> spent far too many years of my life pushing Romantic
> Love and relationships away. That is, in a very real
> sense, my only regret from the time I spent on the
> formal spiritual path. By being "one-pointed," and
> feeling that the pursuit of Unity according to my
> teachers was more important than the pursuit of love,
> to some extent I closed myself to many opportunities
> to experience love, and thus to experience Unity.
>
> What else IS deep Romantic Love but Unity? You gaze
> into another sentient being's eyes and all that you
> see there is Self. In my spiritual travels I've seen
> whole mountains dissolve into pinpoints of light and
> become nothing but Self, dancing. But that was nothing
> compared to seeing the same thing happen when gazing
> into the eyes of someone I loved.
>
> I've written before here that I don't quite swing behind
> the idea that the one-pointed pursuit of enlightenment
> is the "highest goal in life." Similarly, I don't swing
> behind the notion that this relentless pursuit trumps
> the often far more effective spiritual technique of
> simply falling in love.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Zombie in My Gas Tank

[Ravi Yogi]

Hey Bob, granted we have had deep and meaningful conversations about
relation of CD to un-evolved minds (OK, OK I admit it was mostly
one-way); granted I did a very convincing act at batgap and you are
looking up to my acting skills to make your show a hit but I just can't
do this to you my man, I can't break your heart, derail this admirable
project of yours.
Pretending to be a Buddha is right up my alley but to be a zombie not,
pretending to be a Buddha was easy to pull off with being a dark skinned
Indian but not being a zombie. Being a zombie requires different skills,
different cultural conditioning, a highly un-cluttered, un-fettered,
un-evolved mind. There are many others here who are well qualified - may
I dare suggest your dear friend Barry, with his skills and low vibe,
slime-ball reputation he will be a total hit. And hey, you yourself in
the footsteps of Rick, do.rflex, Yifu - all of you would do a wonderful
job. After having made the grade through my batgap act, I will stick to
mocking the un-evolved, a little trick I learned from your dear friend.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price  wrote:
>
> Ravi,
>
>
>
> I was quite pleased to see you accepted the peace
> offering
> in my "cognitive dissonance" post. Thank you for your
> thoughtful
> response. I feel, our relationship is deepening with each exchange.
>
> I have to admit, my desire to bury the spitballs was
> a little self-serving,
> as I'm hoping you will consider doing me a very big
> favor.
>
> As you know, I've been working diligently on
> launching a new pod-cast
> with the working title "Zombie in My Gas
> Tank". The mission of "Zombie"
> will be to explore, go where no
> one has gone before, any and all
> questions concerning Emotional Intelligence
> (EI).  I'm hoping for
>  a thoughtful
> investigation into something, I feel is almost as important
> as enlightenment.
>
> And because, I'm such a huge believer in all things
> related to TM.
> I believe, I've come up with a concept that could be described
> as "doing less and accomplishing more". Instead of using
> Skype or
> expensive recording equipment- not to mention that
> "deer in the headlights
> look"- some guests get when asked a question
> they didn't expect, I've
> decided to post a series of EI questions, that the
> guest can take as long as
> they like to answer and then post so everyone
> can join in with something
> constructive.
>
> I've pondered long and hard about what the questions could
> be asked of
> my guests, and it became obvious to me that the "Proust Questionnaire"
> was made for this purpose. For anyone unfamiliar with the Proust
Questionnaire
> it is series of personality (EI) questions made famous by Marcel
Proust and
> more
> recently by VANITY FAIR (as I'm sure many know the last page of every
> issue includes
> a celebrity answering the questions).
>
> You can get more at the following links:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proust_Questionnaire
>
>
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2011/06/proust-albert-brooks-\
201106
>
>
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2011/05/proust-tina-fey-20110\
5
>
>
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/12/proust-harrison-ford-\
201012
>
>
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/10/proust-rafael-nadal-2\
01010
>
> http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2007/10/proust_simon200710
>
> There are 50+ questions in the first two
> questionnaires that Proust originally
> completed. I plan to submit around 20 of
> those questions to each Zombie guest.
>
> So Ravi, would you consider being my first quest? I
> would be honored.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Joe]

Agreed 100%. If this is how it is, I'm going to start checking in here again 
every day.
Great post!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> Thanks for this Mark. Awesome post.
> 
>  
> 
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Mark Landau
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 1:22 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> Wow, are we one dimensional?  I believe it's the sign of a developed being
> that he or she can easily hold all the paradoxes.  Not only can I have it
> both ways, but I must have it both ways and, beyond that, have it all ways
> that were, are or ever will be, if I am to do any justice to truth and
> reality.  That's a lot of ways.  I also believe that, ultimately, we must go
> beyond all the paradoxes and polarities, including the polarity of good and
> bad (and that, of course, doesn't mean that we rush out to do all the "bad"
> things we possibly can ASAP).
> 
>  
> 
> The truth of the matter, if anyone cares, is that, like Judith Bourke, who I
> find to be a wonderful, honest person, I was in love with him (no, prurient
> ones, not that way, though there are things I could say about that, too) and
> the notion and seeming experience that TM could transform the world for the
> better.  Why else would I work seven days a week for the movement for nearly
> five years and pay significantly to do so?  Are we not all some blend of the
> three gunas?  Aren't there glorious and dark things about all of us?
> 
>  
> 
> M was no different.  One of the most glorious things about him was his
> energy.  I lived and basked in it pretty much straight for the seven months
> I was skin boy and for a lot of the five years I was with him.  I went
> through withdrawal for two years when I lost it.
> 
>  
> 
> That's my voice in the background of DWTF when David cut to the archival
> footage of M entering the hall with Jerry carrying the skin saying something
> like, "It was like divine air came down from heaven and I got addicted to
> it."  Is that so very negative?
> 
>  
> 
> In one other sentence I said something like, "Remember how I said he could
> get into you and help you sleep?  He could also get into you and completely
> pulverize you."  Is that both "negative" and "positive"?  Of course,
> one-dimensional believers would say having M pulverize you would be the
> greatest blessing.  It could only be all positive.  But what if he did it
> because he was pissed, out of sorts or sexually frustrated?  Yes, IME, he
> definitely got sexually frustrated.  In my total reworking of his own words,
> the only man in all of recored history that anyone knew about who lived
> beyond the libido was Sukadeva.
> 
>  
> 
> I also said in the movie, "It took me a while to put the paradox together.
> How could he be wonderful and awful at the same time?  Well, that's just how
> it was.  He was wonderful and awful at the same time."  David filmed me for
> over two hours and he used the several minutes that suited his purpose in
> segueing from the more positive part of the film to the more negative.
> 
>  
> 
> So I feel no conflict or contradiction in saying "In my experience, they
> still carry a lot of his energy, as if the atoms and molecules have been
> entrained in it. And, of course, in India, they would be holy objects to be
> revered. I have kept them very well protected and have handled them very
> little over the decades."  and 
> 
>  
> 
> M abused women, devastated people right and left and was more concerned with
> money than with treating people decently.
> 
>  
> 
> They're all simply true.  And so were all the other totally glorious aspects
> of that intense, complex man.
> 
>  
> 
> Was anyone else in the movie theater that night in Fiuggi, or wherever it
> was, when M's darshan got so strong that it made all the little, hanging
> crystals dance extravagantly and tinkle together as if there were a small
> tornado blowing through the hall?  And probably only I saw this, but when M
> first got to Murren, the three mountain devas came to greet him.  IME, which
> of course many of you would completely howl at, they had been waiting for
> someone for centuries and thought, because of his light, that it might be M.
> M went completely silent and looked up at them for several moments while
> they communed.  He wasn't who they were waiting for, they left and the
> lecture went on.  And you should have seen the angel stations that
> congregated in the intersections of the pathways between the puja tables in
> the halls where M made teachers.  That's why he didn't like people walking
> around then.  I had to bust right through one of them to get to him to tell
> him something urgent while he was giving out the mantras.  The five or six
> angels in that one station took off in all directions like they had been
> stung.  (There, three little stories...)  
> 
>  
> 
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Ravi Yogi]

Donkeys or asses or something else, I'm going to leave this to any
expert zoologist on this list to classify them accordingly but I have to
say these beasts are highly adaptable and chameleon like, quick to
position themselves to devour their favorite targets.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
>
>
> Surely you don't mean doneys; you mean talking asses.
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" whynotnow7@
> wrote:
> >
> > Look! Talking donkeys!
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Jul 20, 2011, at 2:35 PM, turquoiseb wrote:
> > >
> > > > Did anyone else notice that in this single post Mark said more
> > > > positive
> > > > things about Maharishi than tedadams and danfriedman have said
> > > > in all of the posts they've made to Fairfield Life combined?
> > >
> > >
> > > Actually rather inspiring and hopeful. And he's OK with either
side
> > > of the coin.
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[tedadams108]

Rick,

You're correct, I just didn't want to go on memory regarding
any particular thing Mark said. I watched the film late at 
night, it's in german, and I was not focused only on what 
Mark said. If I knew this issue regarding the sandals was going
to come up today I would have paid more attention. Fortunately
in his response, Mark does talk about some of the things he
said, albeit with a different slant than what comes out in the 
film. If you read Mark's post it's clear that unlike your 
impression that Mark never said anything bad about Maharishi,
that in the film several negative things are said. Granted
Mark's point about a paradox requires some positive points be
made. Anyone who views the film will not debate how Maharishi
was portrayed by Mark. There seems to be a tendency for people 
on here to make complicated and pick apart something that
was intended to be simple. In this case, simply.

 1. Mark said very negative things about Maharishi.
 2. Mark claims that the sandals worn by Maharishi 
have a magical quality. (IMO to enhance their marketability.)
 3. Paradox aside, appeared contradictory.

To speak ill of someone then to turn around and try to profit
from the man's sandals is unsettling at best. Money often causes
one to compromise principles. I think that may be the case here.

If the shoe (sandal) fits...

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of tedadams108
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 10:11 AM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> 
> I do have compassion for Mark or anyone in financial difficulties.
> I have been observing the comments on Fairfield Life for many 
> years but until today was not inspired to post one of my own.
> For some reason it was hard for me to resist pointing out the
> hypocrisy since I had just seen the film. Perhaps I was a little
> "colorful" with my words, but they pale in comparison to the words
> used in the interview. Obviously there are people on here that
> fit either into the pro-TM camp or the anti-TM camp. I apparently hit 
> a nerve. I'm not taking sides here, just pointing out the facts
> and people can spin them the way they want. Interestingly, those
> who have an issue with my post are not addressing it's main point,
> rather my mention of being compassionate or acknowledging that 
> many have enjoyed financial success and have attributed it to their
> TM practice. The main point is not debatable.
> 
> The main reason it's not debatable is that you don't trust your memory well
> enough to tell us what Mark said, so we can't very well debate something we
> know nothing about.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Alex Stanley]

I'm surprised, Jim, because I would have thought that you, of all people, would 
have no problem with holding a paradoxical view of MMY. Is the problem for you 
that it's inextricably tied to a used sandal salesman's sales tactic?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7"  wrote:
>
> All of this speculation is fun, though I doubt very much that 
> "multi-dimensional" Mark is going to see a life changing amount of money from 
> this. My offer for ten bucks and free shipping stands.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tedadams108  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > My intent was not to discuss a paradox, rather a contradiction. Perhaps 
> > much of the interview was removed in post production which skewed the 
> > impression that was given. And I guess people continue to find a way to 
> > meditate despite believing the paradox. I appreciate Mark's honesty even 
> > though I disagree with his need to be in a film. What is the motivation to 
> > point out the bad. Was the ego hurt that bad as to make it difficult to 
> > quietly enjoy what appeared to be very good  experiences with Maharishi? 
> > Apparently for Mark the bad in the paradox outweighed the good, otherwise 
> > it would be harder to give up sandals. I have a book that Maharishi wrote 
> > in for me that would be very difficult to sell. Perhaps if I was more 
> > absorbed in the paradox it would be easier, but because my ego is not 
> > intertwined in it, to give
> > it up for some money would be very difficult. Having said that, a person 
> > has to do what they have to do. If Mark needs money that bad, and selling 
> > sandals is a way to pay off some debts, so be it. Pointing out a paradox, 
> > of good and bad, does not negate the effect of speaking out the bad. At 
> > least in his response Mark is more forthcoming. Now the eventual buyer of 
> > the sandals can know more about how the seller feels about Maharishi and 
> > decide whether to let that influence his/her decision. I see a catch 22 
> > here, the eventual buyer likely will not accept the paradox. As such, the 
> > likely market for the sandals, at least for a significant amount of money, 
> > are the very people who are going to be turned off by the revelation by 
> > Mark of the paradox. They unlikely will want to financially support someone 
> > with such a view and will "boycott" the purchase. 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mark Landau  wrote:
> > >
> > > Wow, are we one dimensional?  I believe it's the sign of a developed 
> > > being that he or she can easily hold all the paradoxes.  Not only can I 
> > > have it both ways, but I must have it both ways and, beyond that, have it 
> > > all ways that were, are or ever will be, if I am to do any justice to 
> > > truth and reality.  That's a lot of ways.  I also believe that, 
> > > ultimately, we must go beyond all the paradoxes and polarities, including 
> > > the polarity of good and bad (and that, of course, doesn't mean that we 
> > > rush out to do all the "bad" things we possibly can ASAP).
> > > 
> > > The truth of the matter, if anyone cares, is that, like Judith Bourke, 
> > > who I find to be a wonderful, honest person, I was in love with him (no, 
> > > prurient ones, not that way, though there are things I could say about 
> > > that, too) and the notion and seeming experience that TM could transform 
> > > the world for the better.  Why else would I work seven days a week for 
> > > the movement for nearly five years and pay significantly to do so?  Are 
> > > we not all some blend of the three gunas?  Aren't there glorious and dark 
> > > things about all of us?
> > > 
> > > M was no different.  One of the most glorious things about him was his 
> > > energy.  I lived and basked in it pretty much straight for the seven 
> > > months I was skin boy and for a lot of the five years I was with him.  I 
> > > went through withdrawal for two years when I lost it.
> > > 
> > > That's my voice in the background of DWTF when David cut to the archival 
> > > footage of M entering the hall with Jerry carrying the skin saying 
> > > something like, "It was like divine air came down from heaven and I got 
> > > addicted to it."  Is that so very negative?
> > > 
> > > In one other sentence I said something like, "Remember how I said he 
> > > could get into you and help you sleep?  He could also get into you and 
> > > completely pulverize you."  Is that both "negative" and "positive"?  Of 
> > > course, one-dimensional believers would say having M pulverize you would 
> > > be the greatest blessing.  It could only be all positive.  But what if he 
> > > did it because he was pissed, out of sorts or sexually frustrated?  Yes, 
> > > IME, he definitely got sexually frustrated.  In my total reworking of his 
> > > own words, the only man in all of recored history that anyone knew about 
> > > who lived beyond the libido was Sukadeva.
> > > 
> > > I also said in the movie, "It took me a while to put the paradox

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[emptybill]

Surely you don't mean doneys; you mean talking asses.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" 
wrote:
>
> Look! Talking donkeys!
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Jul 20, 2011, at 2:35 PM, turquoiseb wrote:
> >
> > > Did anyone else notice that in this single post Mark said more
> > > positive
> > > things about Maharishi than tedadams and danfriedman have said
> > > in all of the posts they've made to Fairfield Life combined?
> >
> >
> > Actually rather inspiring and hopeful. And he's OK with either side
> > of the coin.
> >
>

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of danfriedman2002
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 2:09 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

 

  

Rick,

Since he's your informant, can you go back to clarify whether MMY said that
people should be careful making personal gain from a holy man's belongings. 

This would validate one side of the debate on FFL, and invalidate the other.

Why encourage speculation on FFL when the facts are available to you? 

It was clear to me from his/her post that that was personal opinion.

 

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Rick Archer]

Thanks for this Mark. Awesome post.

 

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Mark Landau
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 1:22 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

 

  

Wow, are we one dimensional?  I believe it's the sign of a developed being
that he or she can easily hold all the paradoxes.  Not only can I have it
both ways, but I must have it both ways and, beyond that, have it all ways
that were, are or ever will be, if I am to do any justice to truth and
reality.  That's a lot of ways.  I also believe that, ultimately, we must go
beyond all the paradoxes and polarities, including the polarity of good and
bad (and that, of course, doesn't mean that we rush out to do all the "bad"
things we possibly can ASAP).

 

The truth of the matter, if anyone cares, is that, like Judith Bourke, who I
find to be a wonderful, honest person, I was in love with him (no, prurient
ones, not that way, though there are things I could say about that, too) and
the notion and seeming experience that TM could transform the world for the
better.  Why else would I work seven days a week for the movement for nearly
five years and pay significantly to do so?  Are we not all some blend of the
three gunas?  Aren't there glorious and dark things about all of us?

 

M was no different.  One of the most glorious things about him was his
energy.  I lived and basked in it pretty much straight for the seven months
I was skin boy and for a lot of the five years I was with him.  I went
through withdrawal for two years when I lost it.

 

That's my voice in the background of DWTF when David cut to the archival
footage of M entering the hall with Jerry carrying the skin saying something
like, "It was like divine air came down from heaven and I got addicted to
it."  Is that so very negative?

 

In one other sentence I said something like, "Remember how I said he could
get into you and help you sleep?  He could also get into you and completely
pulverize you."  Is that both "negative" and "positive"?  Of course,
one-dimensional believers would say having M pulverize you would be the
greatest blessing.  It could only be all positive.  But what if he did it
because he was pissed, out of sorts or sexually frustrated?  Yes, IME, he
definitely got sexually frustrated.  In my total reworking of his own words,
the only man in all of recored history that anyone knew about who lived
beyond the libido was Sukadeva.

 

I also said in the movie, "It took me a while to put the paradox together.
How could he be wonderful and awful at the same time?  Well, that's just how
it was.  He was wonderful and awful at the same time."  David filmed me for
over two hours and he used the several minutes that suited his purpose in
segueing from the more positive part of the film to the more negative.

 

So I feel no conflict or contradiction in saying "In my experience, they
still carry a lot of his energy, as if the atoms and molecules have been
entrained in it. And, of course, in India, they would be holy objects to be
revered. I have kept them very well protected and have handled them very
little over the decades."  and 

 

M abused women, devastated people right and left and was more concerned with
money than with treating people decently.

 

They're all simply true.  And so were all the other totally glorious aspects
of that intense, complex man.

 

Was anyone else in the movie theater that night in Fiuggi, or wherever it
was, when M's darshan got so strong that it made all the little, hanging
crystals dance extravagantly and tinkle together as if there were a small
tornado blowing through the hall?  And probably only I saw this, but when M
first got to Murren, the three mountain devas came to greet him.  IME, which
of course many of you would completely howl at, they had been waiting for
someone for centuries and thought, because of his light, that it might be M.
M went completely silent and looked up at them for several moments while
they communed.  He wasn't who they were waiting for, they left and the
lecture went on.  And you should have seen the angel stations that
congregated in the intersections of the pathways between the puja tables in
the halls where M made teachers.  That's why he didn't like people walking
around then.  I had to bust right through one of them to get to him to tell
him something urgent while he was giving out the mantras.  The five or six
angels in that one station took off in all directions like they had been
stung.  (There, three little stories...)  

 

For me, the truth holds a higher priority than rules about the truth or any
rules that are more about control than the highest good.  Perhaps I am wrong
about that.  Do my circumstances prove that, one way or another?  I think
not.  In the actual words of the man himself, "Karma is unfathomable."  I do
love some of his sound bites.  Another one that would be appropriate here 

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of tedadams108
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 10:11 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

 

  


I do have compassion for Mark or anyone in financial difficulties.
I have been observing the comments on Fairfield Life for many 
years but until today was not inspired to post one of my own.
For some reason it was hard for me to resist pointing out the
hypocrisy since I had just seen the film. Perhaps I was a little
"colorful" with my words, but they pale in comparison to the words
used in the interview. Obviously there are people on here that
fit either into the pro-TM camp or the anti-TM camp. I apparently hit 
a nerve. I'm not taking sides here, just pointing out the facts
and people can spin them the way they want. Interestingly, those
who have an issue with my post are not addressing it's main point,
rather my mention of being compassionate or acknowledging that 
many have enjoyed financial success and have attributed it to their
TM practice. The main point is not debatable.

The main reason it's not debatable is that you don't trust your memory well
enough to tell us what Mark said, so we can't very well debate something we
know nothing about.

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): Sat Jul 16 00:00:00 2011
End Date (UTC): Sat Jul 23 00:00:00 2011
622 messages as of (UTC) Wed Jul 20 23:52:49 2011

50 authfriend 
43 Mark Landau 
40 turquoiseb 
34 whynotnow7 
33 Bhairitu 
32 richardjwilliamstexas 
32 obbajeeba 
29 nablusoss1008 
26 Bob Price 
24 Vaj 
20 danfriedman2002 
20 Sal Sunshine 
19 seventhray1 
19 Rick Archer 
17 raunchydog 
16 Alex Stanley 
15 curtisdeltablues 
13 emptybill 
12 Yifu 
11 sparaig 
11 cardemaister 
11 Tom Pall 
 9 johnt 
 9 John 
 9 Denise Evans 
 8 Ravi Yogi 
 6 wgm4u 
 6 tedadams108 
 5 merudanda 
 4 wayback71 
 4 feste37 
 4 Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
 4 Mike Dixon 
 4 "do.rflex" 
 3 metoostill 
 3 Robert 
 3 PaliGap 
 3 Duveyoung 
 2 Bill Coop 
 1 stevelf 
 1 shukra69 
 1 merlin 
 1 mainstream20016 
 1 jpgillam 
 1 William Parkinson 
 1 RoryGoff 
 1 Joe 
 1 Dick Mays 

Posters: 48
Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
=
Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
Standard Time (Winter):
US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Economic Collapse -- why it won't be stopped (and The Last Mountain)

[Denise Evans]

I must be missing something - this budget breakdown is likely not put out by 
right wing fringe groups if it is actually posted on whitehouse.gov.  It also 
doesn't reflect what will or will not be approved as it is just a beginning cut 
that we are watching get hashed out.  It does provide a useful graphic to help 
us understand where our monies are going and I'm glad it is posted.

Yes, the budget proportions reflect the reality that most of our current 
government expenditure is SS, Medicare and Medicaid and Defense...this is a 
known fact and not our president's fault - if the intent is to lay blame.  It 
is a good reminder that reform is needed, if we, the citizens, don't like the 
proportions shown.

--- On Wed, 7/20/11, richardjwilliamstexas  wrote:

From: richardjwilliamstexas 
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Economic Collapse -- why it won't be stopped (and 
The Last Mountain)
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, July 20, 2011, 3:21 PM















 
 



  



  
  
  



> > > This table says how the money is being allocated

> > > - way too much on war of course.

> > >

> > You sound like a reasonable person, Denise. Do you

> > see any trends in this chart:

> >

do.rflex:

> NOTE: It's a fake chart put out by fringe right wing 

> blogs and it's not supported by legitimate objective 

> facts 

> 

So, if Obama brought ALL the troops home tomorrow, and

reduced defense spending to zero, how much would he be 

able to reduce the $13 trillion federal deficit? 



And, why isn't this proposal included in Obama's recent

federal budget?



http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget






 





 



  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Romantic Love and its relationship to Spirituality

[Bob Price]

Turq, thanks for this post I enjoyed it immensely. A few comments below.



From: turquoiseb 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 4:21:22 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Romantic Love and its relationship to Spirituality


  
Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote:
> > 
> > Fitzgerald's statement 'the true test of a first 
> > rate mind is the ability to hold two contradictory 
> > ideas at the same time' really only works at the 
> > value of unity; 

And Bob Price replied:
> Not sure Fitzgerald studied much Vedanta, my guess 
> is that Zelda was the source of his inspiration.


turquoiseb 

My short answer to Bob's reply would be, "What about
finding his inspiration in another human being, in
this case Zelda, is not Unity?"
It could be  my blind spot, but when

I hear the word "Unity" I think the east and more specifically 
Vedanta. I don't believe Fitzgerald had any 
interest in Vedanta. On the other hand, he was mad about
Zelda who was nuttier that a fruit cake. Fitzgerald's alcoholism
was probably what saved him from being eaten alive by the discomfort
caused from loving some as crazy as Zelda. His life with Zelda- wild speculation
on my part, could have let him to make his statement about the the test of a 
good mind...
and opposing ideas He also said:
"I fell in love with her courage, her sincerity, and her flaming self respect. 
And it's these things I'd believe in, even if the whole world indulged in 
wild suspicions that she wasn't all she should be. I love her and it is the 
beginning of everything." 

turquoiseb 

My longer answer is the train of thought that Bob's

comment triggered in me -- How do different spiritual
traditions view Romantic Love? Is it considered an
obstacle along the pathway to enlightenment, or is it
considered a valuable tool for Self-realization?lar
Its interesting that the CD post lead you to Romantic Love
particularly in reference to Fitzgerald. IMO,
his love for Zelda was tragic but still 
had a spiritual, courtly, unrequited quality to it.
turquoiseb 

I ask because on another forum a number of folks are
recapitulating their experience in a spiritual trip
that was decidedly anti-relationship. Romantic Love
was viewed as "overshadowing," and thus something that
would sap your personal power, power that you could
have used pursuing enlightenment. I have seen similar
sentiments expressed on this forum. 
IMO, there is nothing spiritual about sexual guilt.
My experience with the RCC and Big M is that they both
understood the power you have when you control someone
sexually. Its about power. 
turquoiseb 
 
I'm not down with this. I *am* a victim of it, and 
spent far too many years of my life pushing Romantic
Love and relationships away. That is, in a very real
sense, my only regret from the time I spent on the
formal spiritual path. By being "one-pointed," and
feeling that the pursuit of Unity according to my
teachers was more important than the pursuit of love,
to some extent I closed myself to many opportunities
to experience love, and thus to experience Unity.
I'm not sure what I believe about "Unity", but I am
sure the only time I've been near anything like Unity
is when I experience love or empathy for another human being.
turquoiseb 


In my spiritual travels I've seen
whole mountains dissolve into pinpoints of light and
become nothing but Self, dancing. But that was nothing
compared to seeing the same thing happen when gazing
into the eyes of someone I loved. 
I could not agree more.
I've written before here that I don't quite swing behind
the idea that the one-pointed pursuit of enlightenment
is the "highest goal in life." Similarly, I don't swing
behind the notion that this relentless pursuit trumps
the often far more effective spiritual technique of 
simply falling in love.


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: cognitive dissonance

[Denise Evans]

I like this story - individual stories are so interesting to read...this story 
(and Mark's also I think) help to explain the idea that energy is accessible by 
all - yet our human responses are influenced heavily by our filters. For those 
who can wield energy and have practiced at this, it gives them a different, 
powerful, albeit more all-encompassing perspective in most cases, that can be 
used to teach.  It is always the human that insists on elevating other humans 
to pedestals and thinking of various individuals as beyond reproach.  I like 
thinking of the duality in us - without recognizing the duality...we seem 
doomed to development of individual and collective destructive pathologies that 
teach through experiential pain and suffering.

--- On Wed, 7/20/11, Ravi Yogi  wrote:

From: Ravi Yogi 
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: cognitive dissonance
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, July 20, 2011, 12:37 AM















 
 



  



  
  
  
I do appreciate the stories you have shared on Swami Rama and the ones from an 
earlier post challenging seekers with opposing views.
However I don't know if anyone suggested CD as being an intellectual thang, 
"discomfort" implies energy, emotion.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> 
> Because this subject interests me, I'll try a little
> harder to explain my approach to it. Unlike many here,
> including I think Xeno and some others, my approach to
> cognitive dissonance is not in the least intellectual.
> I don't perceive cognitive dissonance to be an intel-
> lectual phenomenon; it's an energy phenomenon.
> 
> A lot of my approach admittedly comes from the time I
> spent with Rama - Frederick Lenz. Whatever else he 
> may have been, he was a great connoisseur of energies,
> in the same way that others are connoisseurs of fine
> wines. He'd take us out to the desert, or to other
> places of power, and we'd meditate there and listen
> to him rap, and dig the energies. He'd occasionally
> try to explain the different energies, and help us
> try to take advantage of the energy of a particular
> place of power and draw upon it to make huge leaps
> in our spiritual progress. It seemed to work; in my
> experience I'd come back from those desert trips 
> blown out of my socks and blown out of my body. For
> several days there would be not only no self, but
> *nothing* one could hold onto as what only 24 hours
> ago we'd laughingly called "reality." Instead there
> was a subjective feeling of being totally "in flux,"
> a self-identity as energy, moving, not as self, fixed.
> 
> I really dug it. I still do, and still make Road Trips
> to places of power to immerse myself in the more 
> dynamic energies there and draw upon them to help me
> make changes in my life. But not everyone did. Some
> Rama students would be on the same hikes I was and
> we'd get to one particular place and they'd double
> up as if they'd been punched in the stomach. Rama
> would explain that there was a particularly strong
> energy field there and although they were perceiving
> it as negative or some kind of "attack," it was just
> energy. Then he'd advise them to eat a candy bar,
> because in his opinion sugar helped to "cut" the
> effect of strong energies like this. It always
> worked. Go figure.
> 
> So in my case I don't think of cognitive dissonance
> as being an intellectual thang at all; it's just a 
> particular intense, swirling band of energy. And I'm
> pretty comfortable with that energy. I'm so bent that
> I *get off* on that energy; it gets me high. 
> 
> Others, maybe not so much. For them there may be an
> immediate reaction to the energy that makes them want
> to make it GO AWAY. And they accomplish this via 
> denial, via rationalization, via diving for the most
> comforting "answer we've already prepared" dogma in
> their spiritual quiver that "explains" it, or via
> any number of other means. I rarely go there because
> to me the energy is comfortable. There is no dis-ease
> or discomfort caused by juggling seemingly contra-
> dictory concepts or ideas. They ARE contradictory,
> on one level of reality. On another, they aren't.
> For me the "answer" to the koan of contradictory
> ideas is found in transcending the plane of ideas
> and the intellect, and dealing with the CD situation 
> on the level of energy. 
> 
> This approach has helped me over the years in trying
> to resolve the energy nexus that was Rama himself.
> The guy was *simultaneously* able to meditate better
> than anyone I've ever met, able to "broadcast" higher
> states of attention to others, able to manifest many
> of the siddhis, and *at the same time* he was arguably
> a real dick, lacking in integrity, self-indulgent,
> a control freak, paranoid, and a bit of a charlatan. 
> What could be more of a CD situation than that?
> 
> There is no "answer" to be found on any intellectual
> plane for all of that. These things really were to some
> extent c

[FairfieldLife] Re: Economic Collapse -- why it won't be stopped (and The Last Mountain)

[richardjwilliamstexas]

> > > This table says how the money is being allocated
> > > - way too much on war of course.
> > >
> > You sound like a reasonable person, Denise. Do you
> > see any trends in this chart:
> >
do.rflex:
> NOTE: It's a fake chart put out by fringe right wing 
> blogs and it's not supported by legitimate objective 
> facts 
> 
So, if Obama brought ALL the troops home tomorrow, and
reduced defense spending to zero, how much would he be 
able to reduce the $13 trillion federal deficit? 

And, why isn't this proposal included in Obama's recent
federal budget?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget

[FairfieldLife] Re: Not Satire eliminate the old and disabled Judy

[richardjwilliamstexas]

johnlasher:
> The "eugenics" program is alive and well and 
> just like Hitler they want to eliminate the 
> non producers from society. 
>
Adolph Hitler was a National Socialist, but 
most of the early advocates of eugenics were 
liberal Democrats. You do realize that most 
early advocates of eugenics also were in 
support of family planning, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

"It is the welfare state that is in crisis and 
the Left is divided on the question of how to 
fix it. Anarchists, who are the cannon fodder 
of the extreme left, are sending the message 
that the Old Leftist politics has failed and 
the time has come to double down... "

Read more:

'The Crusade of Innocents'
http://tinyurl.com/2d7b8fn 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7"  wrote:
>
> All of this speculation is fun, though I doubt very much that 
> "multi-dimensional" Mark is going to see a life changing amount of money from 
> this. My offer for ten bucks and free shipping stands.

He made a mess of it riding two horses

In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tedadams108  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > My intent was not to discuss a paradox, rather a contradiction. Perhaps 
> > much of the interview was removed in post production which skewed the 
> > impression that was given. And I guess people continue to find a way to 
> > meditate despite believing the paradox. I appreciate Mark's honesty even 
> > though I disagree with his need to be in a film. What is the motivation to 
> > point out the bad. Was the ego hurt that bad as to make it difficult to 
> > quietly enjoy what appeared to be very good  experiences with Maharishi? 
> > Apparently for Mark the bad in the paradox outweighed the good, otherwise 
> > it would be harder to give up sandals. I have a book that Maharishi wrote 
> > in for me that would be very difficult to sell. Perhaps if I was more 
> > absorbed in the paradox it would be easier, but because my ego is not 
> > intertwined in it, to give
> > it up for some money would be very difficult. Having said that, a person 
> > has to do what they have to do. If Mark needs money that bad, and selling 
> > sandals is a way to pay off some debts, so be it. Pointing out a paradox, 
> > of good and bad, does not negate the effect of speaking out the bad. At 
> > least in his response Mark is more forthcoming. Now the eventual buyer of 
> > the sandals can know more about how the seller feels about Maharishi and 
> > decide whether to let that influence his/her decision. I see a catch 22 
> > here, the eventual buyer likely will not accept the paradox. As such, the 
> > likely market for the sandals, at least for a significant amount of money, 
> > are the very people who are going to be turned off by the revelation by 
> > Mark of the paradox. They unlikely will want to financially support someone 
> > with such a view and will "boycott" the purchase. 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mark Landau  wrote:
> > >
> > > Wow, are we one dimensional?  I believe it's the sign of a developed 
> > > being that he or she can easily hold all the paradoxes.  Not only can I 
> > > have it both ways, but I must have it both ways and, beyond that, have it 
> > > all ways that were, are or ever will be, if I am to do any justice to 
> > > truth and reality.  That's a lot of ways.  I also believe that, 
> > > ultimately, we must go beyond all the paradoxes and polarities, including 
> > > the polarity of good and bad (and that, of course, doesn't mean that we 
> > > rush out to do all the "bad" things we possibly can ASAP).
> > > 
> > > The truth of the matter, if anyone cares, is that, like Judith Bourke, 
> > > who I find to be a wonderful, honest person, I was in love with him (no, 
> > > prurient ones, not that way, though there are things I could say about 
> > > that, too) and the notion and seeming experience that TM could transform 
> > > the world for the better.  Why else would I work seven days a week for 
> > > the movement for nearly five years and pay significantly to do so?  Are 
> > > we not all some blend of the three gunas?  Aren't there glorious and dark 
> > > things about all of us?
> > > 
> > > M was no different.  One of the most glorious things about him was his 
> > > energy.  I lived and basked in it pretty much straight for the seven 
> > > months I was skin boy and for a lot of the five years I was with him.  I 
> > > went through withdrawal for two years when I lost it.
> > > 
> > > That's my voice in the background of DWTF when David cut to the archival 
> > > footage of M entering the hall with Jerry carrying the skin saying 
> > > something like, "It was like divine air came down from heaven and I got 
> > > addicted to it."  Is that so very negative?
> > > 
> > > In one other sentence I said something like, "Remember how I said he 
> > > could get into you and help you sleep?  He could also get into you and 
> > > completely pulverize you."  Is that both "negative" and "positive"?  Of 
> > > course, one-dimensional believers would say having M pulverize you would 
> > > be the greatest blessing.  It could only be all positive.  But what if he 
> > > did it because he was pissed, out of sorts or sexually frustrated?  Yes, 
> > > IME, he definitely got sexually frustrated.  In my total reworking of his 
> > > own words, the only man in all of recored history that anyone knew about 
> > > who lived beyond the libido was Sukadeva.
> > > 
> > > I also said in the movie, "It took me a while to put the paradox 
> > > together.  How could he be wonderful and awful at the same time?  Well, 
> > > that's just how it was.  He was wonderful and awful at the same time."  
> > > David filmed me for over two hou

[FairfieldLife] Re: Economic Collapse -- why it won't be stopped (and The Last Mountain)

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardjwilliamstexas"  
wrote:
>
>  Denise Evans:
> > This table says how the money is being allocated
> > - way too much on war of course.
> >
> You sound like a reasonable person, Denise. Do you
> see any trends in this chart:
>


NOTE: It's a fake chart put out by fringe right wing blogs and it's not 
supported by legitimate objective facts. 


"The costs of the War on Terror are often contested, as academics and critics 
of the component wars (including the Iraq War) have unearthed many hidden costs 
not represented in official estimates. 

"The most recent major report on these costs come from Brown University in the 
form of the Costs of War  project, which said the total for wars in Iraq, 
Afghanistan, and Pakistan is at least $3.2-4 trillion.[1]  

The report disavowed previous estimates of the Iraq War's cost as being under 
$1 trillion, saying the Department of Defense's direct spending on Iraq totaled 
at least $757.8 billion, but also highlighting the complementary costs at home, 
such as interest paid on the funds borrowed to finance the wars and a potential 
nearly $1 trillion in extra spending to care for veterans returning from combat 
through 2050.[2]

"According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 
2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of 
$2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because 
combat is being financed with borrowed money. 

The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, 
about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per U.S. 
citizen.[9][10]

Sources:

1. Costs of War. Brown University. http://costsofwar.org/

2. "Economic and Budgetary Costs of the Wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan 
to the United States: A Summary". Costs of War. Brown University. 
http://costsofwar.org/sites/default/files/articles/20/attachments/Economic%20Costs%20Summary.pdf.
 Retrieved 20 July 2011.

9. Richard Sammon (July 2007). "Iraq War: The Cost in Dollars". 
http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/The_True_Cost_0720723.html.
 Retrieved 2007-07-23. 

10. U.S. CBO estimates $2.4 trillion long-term war costs". Reuters. October 
2007. http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2450753720071024. 
Retrieved 2007-10-24.

More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

SEE ALSO:

Cause of decline in U.S. financial position

Both economic conditions and policy decisions significantly worsened the debt 
outlook since 2001, when large surpluses were forecast for the following decade 
by the CBO. 

The Pew Center reported in April 2011 the cause of a $12.7 trillion shift in 
the debt situation, from a 2001 CBO forecast of $2.3 trillion cumulative 
surplus by 2011 versus the estimated $10.4 trillion public debt in 2011. The 
major drivers were:

* Revenue declines due to two recessions, separate from the Bush tax cuts of 
2001 and 2003: 28%

* Defense spending increases: 15%

* Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 13%

* Increases in net interest: 11%

* Other non-defense spending: 10%

* Other tax cuts: 8%

* Obama Stimulus: 6%

* Medicare Part D: 2%

* Other reasons: 7%[55]

Similar analyses were reported by the New York Times in June 2009,[56] the 
Washington Post in April 2011[57] and the Center on Budget and Policy 
Priorities in May 2011.[58] 

Economist Paul Krugman wrote in May 2011: "What happened to the budget surplus 
the federal government had in 2000? The answer is, three main things. 

First, there were the Bush tax cuts, which added roughly $2 trillion to the 
national debt over the last decade. 

Second, there were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which added an additional 
$1.1 trillion or so. 

And third was the Great Recession, which led both to a collapse in revenue and 
to a sharp rise in spending on unemployment insurance and other safety-net 
programs."[59] 

A Bloomberg analysis in May 2011 attributed $2.0 trillion of the $9.3 trillion 
of public debt (20%) to additional military and intelligence spending since 
September 2001, plus another $45 billion annually in interest.[60]

All sources documented ny number, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

Re: [FairfieldLife] Economic Collapse -- Smack Down

[Denise Evans]

LOVE IT.
Alright, alright.I concede.Obama is not doing his job as a change 
agenthe has succumbed to the pressurehe has let us all down - he is 
mediating, not leadinghe should be going to the mat on everything...he 
should not be forwarding the corporate agendahe should not be worrying 
about winning in 2012he should be leading us in massive activist outcry on 
the streetsas an organizer he should organize massive "sit out the work 
month" events."eat only local food" events, etc.  
I  blame my maternal instincts in wanting to support our poor, exhausted, 
attacked leader..I blame my experience in corporate america for 
understanding in the smallest of ways that without support from your 
constituency and people that are willing to go to the mat with and for you and 
DESPITE youyou are screwed, period.  I blame the fact that it is impossible 
at this point for us armchair analyzers to expect that one administration in 
two years could make a sharp turn, let alone any noticeable turn...given the 
momentum of what is in place. 
Let us meditate and visualize love and light and pray for the gurus to release 
us from our karma so that we will become one of the enlightened ones and part 
of the new cosmic consciousness that will replace the hell that we sinners are 
headed for now.










--- On Tue, 7/19/11, Bob Price  wrote:

From: Bob Price 
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Economic Collapse -- why it won't be stopped (and 
The Last Mountain)
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" 
Date: Tuesday, July 19, 2011, 12:11 PM















 
 



  



  
  
  Denise,
I always enjoy your thoughtful posts, Barry also.
For a little comic relief on boundless greed can I recommend: 
episode #233 
Smack My Bernanke Up
http://c-realmpodcast.podomatic.com/

if you are in a hurry fast forward to 32:28 to get the alien view


From: Denise Evans 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 11:37:13 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Economic Collapse -- why it won't be stopped (and 
The Last Mountain)















 
 




  
  
  Thanks for posting this.  I agree with much of this and have for some 
time.  
I have also thought for some time that when the financial industry gambled away 
all the money in the most corrupt of ways that in no way should we have saved 
anything or anybody - if it would have taken down our global economies than so 
be it - lack of accountability hasn't been working for anyone.  The taxpayers 
saved corporate america and now we are paying the price - we already were 
paying the price, more of us were just brainwashed by our lifestyles. 
The natural consequence should have been allowed to happen in my opinion - it 
would have ushered in chaos and helped level the playing field and reset our 
value system. It would have helped clarify what is
 really going on and maybe spawn a revolution.  If I have to
 lose my house, start growing food, live in a tent and start working directly 
with others on basic survival than so be it - better than my life as a slave to 
corporate america and much better for the planet to have forced awareness in 
action. The collapse of our economy is our own damn fault - collectively.  
In the context of our continued political system, it is easy to "blame Obama" 
while we whine and cry and call foul - where is the loyalty - do we forget so 
fast what a McCain/Palin administration might have looked like?  Do we forget 
what 8 years of Bush and pandering to corporate america got us?  
If you don't stand for something, you stand for nothing and right now, we need 
to be throwing full support as citizens behind continued change and our 
president - I can't think of one
 person that would be better at this thankless job. There is no negotiating 
with the pathology of financial
 narcissism  - one has to play hard ball period - and considering what Obama 
faces and has faced, he has made unbelievable strides.  He has taken on 
corporate america and is the first to do this in recent decades; 2) he does 
have a moral compass (suggest reading Audience of Hope) 3) he continues the 
fight against all odds and with most of the middle class "wimping out" and 
hunkering down into a fear-based mentality and not understanding the larger 
picture.  Name one good political candidate on either side who could do better? 
 Thank God for Obama. 
On another topic - I saw The Last Mountain(top) movie this weekend. It is 
really excellent and addresses many political, policy, and human realities.
http://thelastmountainmovie.com/
This is also an excellent documentary on the Chauvet
 cave paintings in France and brings to the forefront other interesting issues
 such as how the connection to nature and the planet has so changed in our 
species as we continue to head down the path of separation.
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/chauvet/ 



--- On Mon, 7/18/11, Bhairitu  wrote:

From: Bhairitu 
Subject: [Fairfield

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[whynotnow7]

Look! Talking donkeys!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Jul 20, 2011, at 2:35 PM, turquoiseb wrote:
> 
> > Did anyone else notice that in this single post Mark said more  
> > positive
> > things about Maharishi than tedadams and danfriedman have said
> > in all of the posts they've made to Fairfield Life combined?
> 
> 
> Actually rather inspiring and hopeful. And he's OK with either side  
> of the coin.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[whynotnow7]

All of this speculation is fun, though I doubt very much that 
"multi-dimensional" Mark is going to see a life changing amount of money from 
this. My offer for ten bucks and free shipping stands.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tedadams108  wrote:
>
> 
> My intent was not to discuss a paradox, rather a contradiction. Perhaps much 
> of the interview was removed in post production which skewed the impression 
> that was given. And I guess people continue to find a way to meditate despite 
> believing the paradox. I appreciate Mark's honesty even though I disagree 
> with his need to be in a film. What is the motivation to point out the bad. 
> Was the ego hurt that bad as to make it difficult to quietly enjoy what 
> appeared to be very good  experiences with Maharishi? Apparently for Mark the 
> bad in the paradox outweighed the good, otherwise it would be harder to give 
> up sandals. I have a book that Maharishi wrote in for me that would be very 
> difficult to sell. Perhaps if I was more absorbed in the paradox it would be 
> easier, but because my ego is not intertwined in it, to give
> it up for some money would be very difficult. Having said that, a person has 
> to do what they have to do. If Mark needs money that bad, and selling sandals 
> is a way to pay off some debts, so be it. Pointing out a paradox, of good and 
> bad, does not negate the effect of speaking out the bad. At least in his 
> response Mark is more forthcoming. Now the eventual buyer of the sandals can 
> know more about how the seller feels about Maharishi and decide whether to 
> let that influence his/her decision. I see a catch 22 here, the eventual 
> buyer likely will not accept the paradox. As such, the likely market for the 
> sandals, at least for a significant amount of money, are the very people who 
> are going to be turned off by the revelation by Mark of the paradox. They 
> unlikely will want to financially support someone with such a view and will 
> "boycott" the purchase. 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mark Landau  wrote:
> >
> > Wow, are we one dimensional?  I believe it's the sign of a developed being 
> > that he or she can easily hold all the paradoxes.  Not only can I have it 
> > both ways, but I must have it both ways and, beyond that, have it all ways 
> > that were, are or ever will be, if I am to do any justice to truth and 
> > reality.  That's a lot of ways.  I also believe that, ultimately, we must 
> > go beyond all the paradoxes and polarities, including the polarity of good 
> > and bad (and that, of course, doesn't mean that we rush out to do all the 
> > "bad" things we possibly can ASAP).
> > 
> > The truth of the matter, if anyone cares, is that, like Judith Bourke, who 
> > I find to be a wonderful, honest person, I was in love with him (no, 
> > prurient ones, not that way, though there are things I could say about 
> > that, too) and the notion and seeming experience that TM could transform 
> > the world for the better.  Why else would I work seven days a week for the 
> > movement for nearly five years and pay significantly to do so?  Are we not 
> > all some blend of the three gunas?  Aren't there glorious and dark things 
> > about all of us?
> > 
> > M was no different.  One of the most glorious things about him was his 
> > energy.  I lived and basked in it pretty much straight for the seven months 
> > I was skin boy and for a lot of the five years I was with him.  I went 
> > through withdrawal for two years when I lost it.
> > 
> > That's my voice in the background of DWTF when David cut to the archival 
> > footage of M entering the hall with Jerry carrying the skin saying 
> > something like, "It was like divine air came down from heaven and I got 
> > addicted to it."  Is that so very negative?
> > 
> > In one other sentence I said something like, "Remember how I said he could 
> > get into you and help you sleep?  He could also get into you and completely 
> > pulverize you."  Is that both "negative" and "positive"?  Of course, 
> > one-dimensional believers would say having M pulverize you would be the 
> > greatest blessing.  It could only be all positive.  But what if he did it 
> > because he was pissed, out of sorts or sexually frustrated?  Yes, IME, he 
> > definitely got sexually frustrated.  In my total reworking of his own 
> > words, the only man in all of recored history that anyone knew about who 
> > lived beyond the libido was Sukadeva.
> > 
> > I also said in the movie, "It took me a while to put the paradox together.  
> > How could he be wonderful and awful at the same time?  Well, that's just 
> > how it was.  He was wonderful and awful at the same time."  David filmed me 
> > for over two hours and he used the several minutes that suited his purpose 
> > in segueing from the more positive part of the film to the more negative.
> > 
> > So I feel no conflict or contradiction in saying "In my experience, they 
> > still carry a lot of his 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[tedadams108]

My intent was not to discuss a paradox, rather a contradiction. Perhaps much of 
the interview was removed in post production which skewed the impression that 
was given. And I guess people continue to find a way to meditate despite 
believing the paradox. I appreciate Mark's honesty even though I disagree with 
his need to be in a film. What is the motivation to point out the bad. Was the 
ego hurt that bad as to make it difficult to quietly enjoy what appeared to be 
very good  experiences with Maharishi? Apparently for Mark the bad in the 
paradox outweighed the good, otherwise it would be harder to give up sandals. I 
have a book that Maharishi wrote in for me that would be very difficult to 
sell. Perhaps if I was more absorbed in the paradox it would be easier, but 
because my ego is not intertwined in it, to give
it up for some money would be very difficult. Having said that, a person has to 
do what they have to do. If Mark needs money that bad, and selling sandals is a 
way to pay off some debts, so be it. Pointing out a paradox, of good and bad, 
does not negate the effect of speaking out the bad. At least in his response 
Mark is more forthcoming. Now the eventual buyer of the sandals can know more 
about how the seller feels about Maharishi and decide whether to let that 
influence his/her decision. I see a catch 22 here, the eventual buyer likely 
will not accept the paradox. As such, the likely market for the sandals, at 
least for a significant amount of money, are the very people who are going to 
be turned off by the revelation by Mark of the paradox. They unlikely will want 
to financially support someone with such a view and will "boycott" the 
purchase. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mark Landau  wrote:
>
> Wow, are we one dimensional?  I believe it's the sign of a developed being 
> that he or she can easily hold all the paradoxes.  Not only can I have it 
> both ways, but I must have it both ways and, beyond that, have it all ways 
> that were, are or ever will be, if I am to do any justice to truth and 
> reality.  That's a lot of ways.  I also believe that, ultimately, we must go 
> beyond all the paradoxes and polarities, including the polarity of good and 
> bad (and that, of course, doesn't mean that we rush out to do all the "bad" 
> things we possibly can ASAP).
> 
> The truth of the matter, if anyone cares, is that, like Judith Bourke, who I 
> find to be a wonderful, honest person, I was in love with him (no, prurient 
> ones, not that way, though there are things I could say about that, too) and 
> the notion and seeming experience that TM could transform the world for the 
> better.  Why else would I work seven days a week for the movement for nearly 
> five years and pay significantly to do so?  Are we not all some blend of the 
> three gunas?  Aren't there glorious and dark things about all of us?
> 
> M was no different.  One of the most glorious things about him was his 
> energy.  I lived and basked in it pretty much straight for the seven months I 
> was skin boy and for a lot of the five years I was with him.  I went through 
> withdrawal for two years when I lost it.
> 
> That's my voice in the background of DWTF when David cut to the archival 
> footage of M entering the hall with Jerry carrying the skin saying something 
> like, "It was like divine air came down from heaven and I got addicted to 
> it."  Is that so very negative?
> 
> In one other sentence I said something like, "Remember how I said he could 
> get into you and help you sleep?  He could also get into you and completely 
> pulverize you."  Is that both "negative" and "positive"?  Of course, 
> one-dimensional believers would say having M pulverize you would be the 
> greatest blessing.  It could only be all positive.  But what if he did it 
> because he was pissed, out of sorts or sexually frustrated?  Yes, IME, he 
> definitely got sexually frustrated.  In my total reworking of his own words, 
> the only man in all of recored history that anyone knew about who lived 
> beyond the libido was Sukadeva.
> 
> I also said in the movie, "It took me a while to put the paradox together.  
> How could he be wonderful and awful at the same time?  Well, that's just how 
> it was.  He was wonderful and awful at the same time."  David filmed me for 
> over two hours and he used the several minutes that suited his purpose in 
> segueing from the more positive part of the film to the more negative.
> 
> So I feel no conflict or contradiction in saying "In my experience, they 
> still carry a lot of his energy, as if the atoms and molecules have been 
> entrained in it. And, of course, in India, they would be holy objects to be 
> revered. I have kept them very well protected and have handled them very 
> little over the decades."  and 
> 
> M abused women, devastated people right and left and was more concerned with 
> money than with treating people decently.
> 
> They're all simply true.  And so were

Re: [FairfieldLife] Real cost of Android?

[Bhairitu]

On 07/20/2011 12:12 PM, Vaj wrote:
>
> On Jul 20, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Bhairitu wrote:
>
>> > The full Mac OS, to be released today, is only 30 USD.
>>
>> But you need a Mac to run it. IOW, a regular PC with a tweaked BIOS,
>> and an Apple logo on it, that would cost about 1/2 as much otherwise.
>
> I don't find that much difference, feature for feature. In fact Macs 
> are now less, simply because so many people are buying them. And 
> you're getting technology not available elsewhere, they're always 
> ahead of the curve.

Sounds like more people are buying the iPad than Macs:
http://www.macworld.co.uk/business/news/index.cfm?newsid=3292411


>> For the record I found the Mac OS to be a bit constricted for a
>> developer. They not only hand hold the users but the developers as well.
>
> Not so sure I see a difference. Open Source apps are the same, 
> regardless of the platform.

I'm talking about the UI API.  When I did some programming on a Mac I 
had to laugh as it seemed that Andy Herzfeld and the hacker gang created 
a hack.  I was used to the Amiga that had a more sophisticated UI with 
multiprocessing.  I recently read an article from a company that 
develops iPhone and Android apps and they also said the same thing about 
the iOS API.

But then you don't want to get me started on how much I hate Windows 
(nor how much I love Linux).

>
> Wait till the iLiver comes out. You'll just have to have one: you 
> never gain weight.
>
>

I hear they are working on the iMantra but don't tell the TMO.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Economic Collapse -- why it won't be stopped (and The Last Mountain)

[richardjwilliamstexas]

 Denise Evans:
> This table says how the money is being allocated
> - way too much on war of course.
>
You sound like a reasonable person, Denise. Do you
see any trends in this chart:

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[danfriedman2002]

On July 8, 2011 I wrote:

Re: Help a Saint -Lose Your BadgeNO SIGN EVER inDOMES

Curtis,

I grok your feelings, but, as different people are differrent, my feelings for 
Maharishi are neither complex, nor conflicted.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"  
> wrote:
> >
> > As if I would share my feelings for Maharishi with the likes of you.
> 
> Bingo. I did share some personal stories here years ago just be be reminded 
> by the Turq not to "throw pearls before swine"
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] FDR Warning about Today's Republicans

[Denise Evans]

This is great

--- On Wed, 7/20/11, do.rflex  wrote:

From: do.rflex 
Subject: [FairfieldLife] FDR Warning about Today's Republicans
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, July 20, 2011, 11:31 AM















 
 



  



  
  
  



FDR tells the truth about the leaders of the modern Republican

party. Somehow, in 1936, he foresaw what would be happening NOW.



Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUZGkNAUSvY 






 





 



  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Tom Pall]

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 3:22 PM, danfriedman2002
 wrote:
>
> The non-Member messages are most often posts to other Forums, provided 
> without attribution. In this case, FFL Members are denied the opportunity to 
> respond to these posts.
>

We do respond to these posts.  The one from the psychologist had lots
of responses.   So you think you're getting somewhere responding to
Nabbie Hays you're not getting responding to an anonymous poster?
Read the honepage.  Or is the monthly blast out we get.  We used to
have an anonymous login.  Now you're instructed to create a handle if
you want to post anonymously.

That's actually what you're doing, aren't you DR. B.M. aka
danfriedman2002, aren't you?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[danfriedman2002]

The non-Member messages are most often posts to other Forums, provided without 
attribution. In this case, FFL Members are denied the opportunity to respond to 
these posts.

So either the FFL Member who posts for his "friend" gets to hide behind his 
anaonymous "friend" (what I try to point out to Rick about his practice), or, 
alternatively, the non-Member gets to post without any responsibility attached 
for his/her words.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardjwilliamstexas"  
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> danfriedman:
> > What's happening is that FFL Members continue to 
> > post on behalf, or in spite of, non-Members. This 
> > has led to a number of misunderstandings, 
> > discontinuities, and worst, defamation posted 
> > behind this screen of provided anonymity.
> > 
> So, you're thinking that some members are posting
> messages on behalf of non-members, because some
> non-members don't want to become members, because
> they want to post defamation, so they get members
> to post it? Why can't the non-members just become
> members and post their own defamatory messages? 
> 
> This is just outrageous!!!
> 
> > > > Can FairfieldLife adopt a Policy restricting 
> > > > non-member posting? This issue has come up 
> > > > before, and has led to many misunderstandings.
> > > > 
> > > Apparently posting to FFL is available only to
> > > members. Non-members can read, but not post.
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: FDR Warning about Today's Republicans

[richardjwilliamstexas]

do.rflex:
> FDR tells the truth about the leaders of 
> the modern Republican party. 
>
Don't you just hate that Republican Party,
the party of Abraham Lincoln!

"The question is, can he run on his record 
in 2012, and the answer is no, because it's 
abysmal. 

He took a trillion dollars and where it went, 
nobody knows. He dismantled healthcare, he 
weakened America around the world, he sold 
out the State of Israel. 

All he's got to run on is being a Democrat 
and indicting the other fellow..."

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/06/14/mamet-on-obama/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Vaj]

On Jul 20, 2011, at 2:35 PM, turquoiseb wrote:

Did anyone else notice that in this single post Mark said more  
positive

things about Maharishi than tedadams and danfriedman have said
in all of the posts they've made to Fairfield Life combined?



Actually rather inspiring and hopeful. And he's OK with either side  
of the coin.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"  
wrote:
>
> As if I would share my feelings for Maharishi with the likes of you.

Bingo. I did share some personal stories here years ago just be be reminded by 
the Turq not to "throw pearls before swine"

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
> > On Behalf Of Bill Coop
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 3:04 AM
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > > The real prize would be the deerskin.  I think I heard that it
> > > was inherited from Guru Dev. 
> > 
> > I think he went through several deerskins over the years. They
> > tend to wear out.
> 
> Some years ago, I bought Petra a deerskin when I was out in Colorado for a 
> Waking Down retreat. The thing shed hair like crazy, and she soon grew tired 
> of cleaning up after it.

Mine is 30 years old and in perfect condition, never shed as much as a hair. 
What a cozy place to meditate, on that skin :-)
As a hunter perhaps you would know that the condition of the skin would depend 
on the time of year the deer departed with it's skin.

[FairfieldLife] Whose government IS it?

[do.rflex]

2 cartoons 

Take a look: 
http://mariopiperni.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Bagley.jpg


Take *another* look: 
http://mariopiperni.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/carlson.jpg


Now, look up the word "plutocracy".

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[danfriedman2002]

Tom,

You are confusing linking with the practice of non-Members posting without 
attribution. Two different things.

Also, in the example that you cite, where: "posts show up as forwarded to FFL 
on behalf of of a member." there IS ATTRIBUTION: "On Behalf Of William 
Parkinson". This is precisely what I am suggesting.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 9:25 AM, danfriedman2002
>  wrote:
> > Moderators,
> >
> > Can FairfieldLife adopt a Policy restricting non-member posting? This issue 
> > has come up before, and has led to many misunderstandings.
> >
> > Dan Friedman
> >
> 
> 
> That sort of policy restriction doesn't go far enough.   We need to
> restrict all links that don't direct to FFL messages or files.  Links
> to HuffPuff, CNN, links to the TMO, links to sites mentioning TM,
> religion, world affairs, other forms of meditation.   We also need to
> restrict posts about iPads, iPhones, the GPL, movies, TV shows what
> someone heard on the radio.  All such content was produced by people
> who are not members of FFL.  These products, websites and media were
> not produced to members of FFL.   Only FFL members are entitled to
> produce and state ideas posted in FFL.  Secretary of State Hilary
> Clinton is not a member of FFL.  If someone quotes or includes a link
> containing something Secretary Clinton said, how are we to challenge
> what she said?   How are we to hold the secretary accountable?
> 
> Notice that some posts show up as forwarded to FFL on behalf of of a
> member.  See the below.
> 
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of William Parkinson
> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 11:48 AM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: How to pronounce the mantras
> 
> We have to figure out how/why this happens and stop it as well.
> Forwarding is forwarding.
>

[FairfieldLife] Forwarded email policy (was: Re: Maharishi's Sandals)

[danfriedman2002]

Tom,

You are incorrect. And I certainly do not "wants the owner's password to FFL so 
he can clean house (of non-TMers first)."

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall  wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 4:04 PM, danfriedman2002
>  wrote:
> > Alex,
> >
> > Characterizing my raising an objection as "whining" is really a 
> > conversation stopper.
> >
> > Ending your post with "case closed" doesn't further the conversation either.
> >
> > You can close your mind, but not open debate.
> 
> I believe that Alex excels in putting himself in the guise of a Nazi
> ass here on FFL.  But in this case I agree with him.  You are a whiner
> and the conversation should be stopped.   Rick posts blissninny
> forwards, in the middle forwards, forwards which further his leftist
> agenda and stomp on the TMO agenda forwards.
> 
> Now we have a military guy who forwards political and humorous stuff
> but using his name.  Should be stop him from forwarding these in his
> posts?
> 
> As already stated, you're making as much of a fool of yourself as our
> horse's *ss breeder who wants the owner's password to FFL so he can
> clean house (of non-TMers first).  Much of what Buck/Doug says can be
> taken as a joke.  Your whining, on the other hand, is a joke.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Rupert Murdoch gets pied

[richardjwilliamstexas]

Joe:
> Living in that Texas cematary seems to have made Willy 
> a bit 'tarded!
>
So, you're prejudiced against Texans - I always thought
so. But, I didn't 'equate' anything - I just posted the 
quote. Speaking of a culture of hate, don't you just 
hate that 'Willy' from Texas? 

Hey, Joe - you can call me 'Willy' if it makes you feel
superior, and it helps demonize me - I don't mind, but
do you have to be hypocritical as well? Go figure.

> > > "I wonder if Obama, MediaMatters, Jon Stewart, indeed
> > > the rest of the media at large, will accept personal
> > > responsibility for creating a 'culture of hate' that
> > > led to this attack the way they demanded Palin do
> > > after the Giffords incident?"
> > >
> > > http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/124634/
> > 
> > Apples and oranges.  In this climate of disproportionate 
> > wealth the rich should be made to feel as uncomfortable 
> > as possible. And a more aggressive populace would make 
> > sure they are relieved of their burden.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Forwarded email policy (was: Re: Maharishi's Sandals)

[Tom Pall]

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 4:04 PM, danfriedman2002
 wrote:
> Alex,
>
> Characterizing my raising an objection as "whining" is really a conversation 
> stopper.
>
> Ending your post with "case closed" doesn't further the conversation either.
>
> You can close your mind, but not open debate.

I believe that Alex excels in putting himself in the guise of a Nazi
ass here on FFL.  But in this case I agree with him.  You are a whiner
and the conversation should be stopped.   Rick posts blissninny
forwards, in the middle forwards, forwards which further his leftist
agenda and stomp on the TMO agenda forwards.

Now we have a military guy who forwards political and humorous stuff
but using his name.  Should be stop him from forwarding these in his
posts?

As already stated, you're making as much of a fool of yourself as our
horse's *ss breeder who wants the owner's password to FFL so he can
clean house (of non-TMers first).  Much of what Buck/Doug says can be
taken as a joke.  Your whining, on the other hand, is a joke.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Economic Collapse -- why it won't be stopped (and The Last Mountain)

[Denise Evans]

I am actually not scared - it is an equity issue for me.  We shouldn't elevate 
the few at the expense of the many - doesn't make for a functional society.
It's a simple moral issue for me...I am no economist and am not against 
"cutting spending" - but perhaps we delve a little deeper and start to 
re-evaluate our values and how to make some of the good ideas of health care 
for all, a safety net for the elderly, etc. a workable reality. 

This table says how the money is being allocated - way too much on war of 
course.

--- On Wed, 7/20/11, richardjwilliamstexas  wrote:

From: richardjwilliamstexas 
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Economic Collapse -- why it won't be stopped (and 
The Last Mountain)
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, July 20, 2011, 6:45 AM















 
 



  



  
  
  



> "But why insist on higher taxes in the middle of weakest 

> economic recovery in the post-World War II era?"

> 

Denise Evans:

> Because it isn't "the American people don't want higher

> taxes"the question is "do the american people want 

> a proportionately fair tax system on the money made from 

> the corporations and wealth aristocrats (that is not 

> coming back to us via the "trickle down theory or will 

> it ever) on the backs of us working class." This is 

> another Republican myth that they are spreading to instill 

> fear.

> 

You sound really scared. So, how much would reforming the 

corporate tax code bring down the federal deficit of $13 

trillion? 



This idea is not in Obama's recent federal budget. Why not?



http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget






 





 



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tedadams108  wrote:
>
> 
> I'm a little confused. Is this the same Mark Landau who spoke such unkind 
> words about Maharishi in the film "David Wants To Fly."? When attempting to 
> sell Maharishi's sandals  there are no unkind words spoken, only glorifying 
> words, probably as an attempt to increase the marketability of the sandals.
> I have compassion for Mark that he is having financial 
> challenges in this economy, like so many others. Apparently his
> involvement with Maharishi did not result in financial well being
> as it did for so many others (John Gray, Barbara DeAngeles, Deepak Chopra, 
> etc., and the many wealthy meditators living in Fairfield and around the 
> world. Maybe it's more difficult to get Nature Support when one cavils about 
> the Master. I'm sure someone would
> appreciate having the sandals and would be willing to pay something
> for them. My guess is that the only value to Mark would be for firewood.


That's interesting news, never heard this. Did Maharishi personally give him 
the sandals or did he simply put them in his suitcase ?

[FairfieldLife] Forwarded email policy (was: Re: Maharishi's Sandals)

[danfriedman2002]

Alex,

Characterizing my raising an objection as "whining" is really a conversation 
stopper.

Ending your post with "case closed" doesn't further the conversation either.

You can close your mind, but not open debate.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"  
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > And this is your thoughtful response to a Member's suggestion?
> > Your free speech defect is showing.
> 
> You are free to whine, and I'm free to call you on it. No one is preventing 
> you from expressing your opinion about how the group is run, although I'm not 
> alone in wishing you'd put an end to that particular drama. In any event, 
> Rick has addressed your suggestion, and as I predicted, he is not inclined to 
> implement it. Case closed.
>

[FairfieldLife] Movie review: Unknown

[Bhairitu]

"Unknown" with Liam Neeson made the rental shelves this week.  It 
arrived yesterday from Netfix on Bluray.  First off I had to fast 
forward through the trailers.  Damn Warner Brothers anyway.  Most of 
those trailers I had already seen.  But you couldn't chapter click 
through them either and of course menu button was disabled too.  I 
remember the days when DVDs were new and WB had the courtesy to even 
leave the FBI warning to the end so you could just get into the movie.  
Their rental discs come with no extras.  They want you to buy the full 
featured disc.  But I would say the movie isn't worth it.  Though it had 
its moments many of the scenes were poorly executed.   This is probably 
another case of the "big studio" giving a small director known for his 
film "Orphan" a chance.  Most of these guys are used to working with 
small crews and small budgets.  Maybe they should stick to that.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1401152/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[danfriedman2002]

Sounds like your open mind is made up for the future.

Do you realize what you're saying?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of danfriedman2002
> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 3:58 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> Rick,
> 
> There is no apology necessary, but I do suggest attributing the friend's
> name. Then there's a record of who said what to whom. Just like on a Public
> Forum.
> 
> Sorry. On FFL people have the right to remain anonymous. That's the way it
> has always been and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > From a friend (with apologies to Dan Friendman):
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Dear Rick
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > MMY had several sets of sandals made for him over the years. Mark's were
> > not the original set. Helen Lutes had a set of sandals that M left behind
> > when new ones came as did a few others. 
> > 
> > Mark had the sandals M used during that time period. But they were not the
> > first set.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Five million? 
> > 
> > Should be careful making personal gain from a holy man's belongings. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Bevan has some rules about that and if Mark connects to Rajas he may come
> > across those rules. We had some items and ran into the rules. Nothing
> > happened as a result.
> > 
> > I think the rules come from MMY.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Perhaps Mark should try Craig's list instead.
> >
> 
> 
> 
>   _  
> 
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1518/3774 - Release Date: 07/19/11
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Economic Collapse -- why it won't be stopped (and The Last Mountain)

[Denise Evans]

I've seen this and always thought it spoke volumes."illusion vs 
reality"...in politics - Democratic or Republican - two sides of the same coin. 
 Having said that, in concept and theory I fall on the Democratic side 
believing that they represent the lesser evil...but in the end, all politicians 
are corrupted by the money..it is the corporations that are pushing the agenda 
and it does not include the concept of "public good."
I think Obama is pushing the "equity" issue out to the public while buckling to 
the reality of trying to negotiate a budget in an environment of political 
extremism.  Is the larger good a compromise or a fight to the death?  He is 
compromising - there will be another fight...Obama has taken the corporate 
powers/financial industry on in many ways and irritated them to no end by 
raising the issues again and again.  
The equity issue is easy for us citizens to understand so it gets vetted.  
Having worked years in the corporate environment and coming from a family that 
confuses money with love.I have strong opinions on the importance of 
messaging the concept of sharing and accountability.  Concentrated wealth 
breeds fear and bad behavior and lack of accountability in almost all 
caseswe, as shareholders, need to rethink the entire model of how we define 
"value and profit."  Again, they made their profits on our backs and we allowed 
them to concentrate wealth and power and the evils it has brought.  The movie 
The Last Mountain brings this directly into perspective.
No, asking corporate america and the billionaires to pay their fair share won't 
solve our budget woes, but it will send a message that we are all accountable 
and is the only thing they care about and the only place to hit them - in their 
pocketbook.  Concentrating wealth privately at the expense of the masses is not 
the answer!  
Corporate america is fighting back, in part, by refusing to hire, etc. We 
bailed them out and we're being paid back for our generosity now - what is not 
clear about this message?  When a system is all about the money period, there 
is no conscience at workwhich is why part of me wishes we allowed the 
institutions to fail and chaos to descendperhaps a more conscious and 
connected "new world order" would have emerged from the ashes to benefit the 
generations to come.
Corporations (as a stereotypical category) are all about greater and greater 
monetary profits period - the system is flawed completely - we have sold our 
soul to a short-sighted and unsustainable model.  The "trickle down" theory is 
a huge myth and has been tested time and time again.  The only way to change 
behavior at this point is to force it - and fair and proportional taxation by 
the government for and by the people is one tiny way we can send a message.  
If we give up on the concept of "government" and gut the powers we gave to our 
government to oblivion, we will pay with the loss of our society.  Just a 
repetition of history...many civilizations have gone down before usthe 
future generations will have to start again.  Mother nature will ultimately 
take care of herself - that seems to be evidently clear these days. 

--- On Tue, 7/19/11, raunchydog  wrote:

From: raunchydog 
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Economic Collapse -- why it won't be stopped (and 
The Last Mountain)
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, July 19, 2011, 7:27 PM















 
 



  



  
  
  Our country has moved so far to the right that there's hardly any 
difference between a Republican who wants to cut Social Security and Medicare 
and a Democrat who wants to cut Social Security and Medicare but raise taxes 
slightly.  Ronald Reagan raised taxes and IMO was more of a Democrat than 
Obama. 



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-budget-deals-of-reagan-bush-clinton-and-obama-in-one-chart/2011/07/06/gIQA98w11H_blog.html



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Denise Evans  wrote:

>

> Because it isn't "the American people don't want higher taxes"the 
> question is "do the american people want a proportionately fair tax system on 
> the money made from the corporations and wealth aristocrats (that is not 
> coming back to us via the "trickle down theory or will it ever) on the backs 
> of us working class."  This is another Republican myth that they are 
> spreading to instill fear.

> 

> --- On Tue, 7/19/11, richardjwilliamstexas  wrote:

> 

> From: richardjwilliamstexas 

> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Economic Collapse -- why it won't be stopped 
> (and The Last Mountain)

> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

> Date: Tuesday, July 19, 2011, 3:26 PM

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>  

>  

> 

> 

> 

>   

> 

> 

> 

>   

>   

>   > > In the context of our continued political system, it is

> 

> > > easy to "blame Obama" while we whine and cry and call

> 

> > > foul - where is the loyalty

> 

>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[danfriedman2002]

But Richard, you have been vehemently defending secretive posting, and 
defending the practice by stating that that Rick and Curtice are resiting 
secrets.

What's up with that? What a tangle we weave with all these secrets.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardjwilliamstexas"  
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> danfriedman:
> > In reply to your first paragraph:  You are not "seconding
> > the motion", but rather introducing your own "motion", as 
> > your charactarization of my suggestion as "outing of people 
> > against their will" is incorrect...
> > 
> You do know that Rick and Curtis and a few others 
> were leaders in the TM cult movement - I don't know 
> the exact hierarchy these folks claim, but at one time 
> it was apparently very influential, to hear them talk 
> about it. 
> 
> You need to be aware of the fact that for the most 
> part, we are dealing with TM Teachers on this forum, 
> Dan, and it is by their training to be very secretive 
> about all their activities that are TM-related. 
> 
> One of the moderators' brother is a TM Raja, but he 
> won't talk much about it or answer any questions about 
> what happened to all the money. Can you believe that?
> 
> There are only a few rank-and-file TMers on this list.
> But, apparently there are over a dozen or more simple 
> lurkers. Go figure.
> 
> In fact, you could characterize this forum as a site 
> for TMO informants, who are supposed to be doing the 
> informing, with news about the comings-and-goings of 
> MMY, but he's dead, so in reality, most of the dialog
> is just mostly speculation about what's going on with
> the TM Movement, or what houses are for sale up in
> Vedic City.
> 
> It's been my experience that only insiders know what's
> going on in the TMO - and none are respondents on this
> forum. You're not going to get very much discussion
> about the 'mechanics of consciousness' here, Dan, 
> except for maybe Lawson or Judy.
> 
> > Your other 4 paragraphs devolve further. I interpret 
> > them to be support for your critisism of my suggestion, 
> > which you mischaracterized anyway (see above).
> > 
> > > I just want to second the motion for more restrictions 
> > > on posters here and more outing of people against 
> > > their will.  Our need to know who is posting is much 
> > > more important than their privacy.  
> > > 
> > > Also I would like to see a lot less of posters using 
> > > passive construction in their writing.  We need MORE 
> > > action verbs, not less.  Any chance you can include 
> > > that demand in your new rules?
> > > 
> > > And (last thing) how about a total ban on anyone 
> > > referring to Guru Dev as "that homeless guy who hit 
> > > the lottery."  It is offensive to dwelling impaired 
> > > Americans. 
> > > 
> > > Oh yeah (seriously, last thing) and I'm getting a 
> > > little sick of the phrase UFO when we know damn well 
> > > who these aliens are and where they are from. (I'm 
> > > talking to you El Salvador)
> > > 
> > > Oops (I promise last last last) If you wouldn't mind, 
> > > I would like to see a shot of female posters in a wet 
> > > T-shirt.  Not to be sexist but in the spirit of the 
> > > fullest possible dis-clothes-her.
> > >
>

[FairfieldLife] Forwarded email policy (was: Re: Maharishi's Sandals)

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"  
wrote:
>
> 
> And this is your thoughtful response to a Member's suggestion?
> Your free speech defect is showing.

You are free to whine, and I'm free to call you on it. No one is preventing you 
from expressing your opinion about how the group is run, although I'm not alone 
in wishing you'd put an end to that particular drama. In any event, Rick has 
addressed your suggestion, and as I predicted, he is not inclined to implement 
it. Case closed.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[danfriedman2002]

Rick,

Since he's your informant, can you go back to clarify whether MMY said that 
people should be careful making personal gain from a holy man's belongings.  

This would validate one side of the debate on FFL, and invalidate the other.

Why encourage speculation on FFL when the facts are available to you? 



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of danfriedman2002
> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 4:03 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> Rick,
> 
> Here's the first instance where the facts need to be questioned because
> there was no attribution of the source.
> 
> Can't you provide your Sources?
> 
> Nope. This person has the right to remain anonymous. Without that right,
> he/she wouldn't have provided this information.
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> 
> [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  ]
> > On Behalf Of Mark Landau
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 12:47 PM
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> 
> > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Thank you for this. Truth is always the best. So they are not as rare as I
> > had thought, but, still, I believe, quite rare and, to many, quite
> precious.
> > And, yes, the rules will probably get in the way for many, though I would
> be
> > surprised if they actually came from M. So somewhere between 5 million and
> > 0. Who knows what will come of this?
> > 
> > I suppose if he could fly under the radar, some raja may say "Damn the
> > rules; I want the sandals."
> >
> 
> 
> 
>   _  
> 
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1518/3774 - Release Date: 07/19/11
>

[FairfieldLife] Forwarded email policy (was: Re: Maharishi's Sandals)

[danfriedman2002]

And this is your thoughtful response to a Member's suggestion? Your free speech 
defect is showing.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"  
> wrote:
> > 
> > Also, you obvious desire to eliminate any dissent on "his Yahoo
> > group", is obvious and misplaced. I have never expressed an 
> >"intent to unsubscribe".
> 
> I misinterpreted your words:
> 
> "Then I registered on Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi, but recommend staying away from 
> this Yahoo Group; as a matter of fact, I'm going to cancel my membership in 
> it right now."
> 
> I assumed "this Yahoo Group" was referring to the one you posted it on (FFL), 
> as opposed to the other group, Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi. It sounded to me like 
> you were going to cancel your membership in FFL. 
> 
> My desire isn't so much to eliminate dissent but to eliminate needless, 
> unproductive whining about meta issues. When the posting limits were 
> proposed, there was support behind it from a lot of people, and the limits 
> were put in place (BTW, I was not in favor of posting limits.) You, OTOH, are 
> a single voice whining about how the group is run, with no one joining in to 
> support you. And, my recollection is that this isn't the first time you've 
> done this.
> 
> Requesting a ban on forwarded emails is a major restriction on what is 
> otherwise an extreme free speech zone. That rule would mean that the 
> informational TMO emails that Dick Mays posts here would be against the 
> rules. So, how do we allow people to post useful info in the form of 
> forwarded emails while preventing people from posting forwarded emails that 
> Dan Friedman, alone, doesn't think should be posted? Make FFL moderated, you 
> a moderator, and have you approve every post? Not gonna happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Moderators,
> > > > 
> > > > Can FairfieldLife adopt a Policy restricting non-member posting?
> > > > This issue has come up before, and has led to many 
> > > > misunderstandings.
> > >  
> > > Probably not gonna happen. It's basically a Law of Nature that if Rick 
> > > receives something interesting in email, he's very likely to post it to 
> > > FFL. This is his Yahoo group, and he's set it up the way he wants it set 
> > > up. You clearly have major issues with how this group is run, so I 
> > > suggest you follow through with your intent to unsubscribe because it's 
> > > highly unlikely that Rick is going to change the group to accommodate 
> > > your particular needs.
> > >
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Real cost of Android?

[Vaj]

On Jul 20, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Bhairitu wrote:


> The full Mac OS, to be released today, is only 30 USD.

But you need a Mac to run it. IOW, a regular PC with a tweaked BIOS,
and an Apple logo on it, that would cost about 1/2 as much otherwise.


I don't find that much difference, feature for feature. In fact Macs  
are now less, simply because so many people are buying them. And  
you're getting technology not available elsewhere, they're always  
ahead of the curve.



For the record I found the Mac OS to be a bit constricted for a
developer. They not only hand hold the users but the developers as  
well.


Not so sure I see a difference. Open Source apps are the same,  
regardless of the platform.


Wait till the iLiver comes out. You'll just have to have one: you  
never gain weight.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[danfriedman2002]

I expected your asshole remark. What was it you are saying?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"  
> wrote:
> >
> > Curtis,
> > 
> > In reply to your first paragraph:  You are not "seconding 
> > the motion", but rather introducing your own "motion", as 
> > your charactarization of my suggestion as "outing of people 
> > against their will" is incorrect.
> 
> How is it "incorrect?" That is EXACTLY what you
> are asking for, and have been asking since you
> descended upon this forum.
> 
> > Your other 4 paragraphs devolve further. I interpret them 
> > to be support for your critisism of my suggestion, which 
> > you mischaracterized anyway (see above).
> 
> IMHO, Curtis didn't mischaracterize your intent in any way.
> You made your intent very clear. You want to know the names
> of people who post on this forum. So far, you have only
> wanted to know the names of the people whose ideas you
> disagree with. I leave it up to the conspiracy theorists
> here to determine the "why" of this.
> 
> When you first appeared here, I took you to task for this
> 'tude, and do so again. When you first went all drama queen
> on having your Holy Opinion questioned, you pitched a hissy
> fit and demanded that I stop referencing you on this forum.
> I did so. I neither mentioned you nor referred to you in
> any post since February. And then, out of the blue, you
> come barging in and run the same number all over again,
> upbraiding me for "speaking your name in vain."
> 
> Get The Fuck Over Yourself. 
> 
> Neither you nor your opinions of How Fairfield Life Should
> Be Run are terribly of interest to me. I suspect I'm not
> alone in this, and that most on this forum -- judging from
> their lack of "piling on" to your adolescent demands -- 
> probably agree with me. What makes this forum special, and
> of value to those who appreciate it, is exactly the thing
> that you seem to find most threatening.
> 
> People can come onto this forum and speak their minds. They
> can do so using their legal names or using an alias. If one
> of them isn't a member and chooses to send something to Rick
> to repost anonymously, they have the right to do so, and
> he respects that right.
> 
> YOU want to "out" them. Don't you think that's more than a
> little sick, and straying over the line into spiritual
> fascism? I do. 
> 
> And now I'll go back to what I was successfully doing before
> YOU dragged me back into this -- ignoring your silly ass. 
> I suggest you do the same thing with me, and with other
> perfectly legitimate opinions expressed here, whether you
> agree with them or not.
> 
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey Rick,
> > > 
> > > I just want to second the motion for more restrictions on posters here 
> > > and more outing of people against their will.  Our need to know who is 
> > > posting is much more important than their privacy.  
> > > 
> > > Also I would like to see a lot less of posters using passive construction 
> > > in their writing.  We need MORE action verbs, not less.  Any chance you 
> > > can include that demand in your new rules?
> > > 
> > > And (last thing) how about a total ban on anyone referring to Guru Dev as 
> > > "that homeless guy who hit the lottery."  It is offensive to dwelling 
> > > impaired Americans. 
> > > 
> > > Oh yeah (seriously, last thing) and I'm getting a little sick of the 
> > > phrase UFO when we know damn well who these aliens are and where they are 
> > > from. (I'm talking to you El Salvador)
> > > 
> > > Oops (I promise last last last) If you wouldn't mind, I would like to see 
> > > a shot of female posters in a wet T-shirt.  Not to be sexist but in the 
> > > spirit of the fullest possible dis-clothes-her.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > > [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
> > > > On Behalf Of nablusoss1008
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 4:55 PM
> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > >   
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > >  , "danfriedman2002"
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > This is now the second instance where the facts provided by this
> > > > non-Member are questioned.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Rick, wouldn't it just make more sense to provide attribution? Do your
> > > > Sources need to be protected?
> > > > > 
> > > > > More transparency, please.
> > > > 
> > > > You must be joking ! Rick's motto is the wilder the rumor the better, at
> > > > least if it aims at a saint. 
> > > > No transparency please !
> > > > 
> > > > So says Nabby, whose real name none of us know, and who delights in 
> > > > sto

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[danfriedman2002]

As if I would share my feelings for Maharishi with the likes of you.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> Did anyone else notice that in this single post Mark said more positive
> things about Maharishi than tedadams and danfriedman have  said
> in all of the posts they've made to Fairfield Life combined?
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mark Landau  wrote:
> >
> > Wow, are we one dimensional?  I believe it's the sign of a developed
> being that he or she can easily hold all the paradoxes.  Not only can I
> have it both ways, but I must have it both ways and, beyond that, have
> it all ways that were, are or ever will be, if I am to do any justice to
> truth and reality.  That's a lot of ways.  I also believe that,
> ultimately, we must go beyond all the paradoxes and polarities,
> including the polarity of good and bad (and that, of course, doesn't
> mean that we rush out to do all the "bad" things we possibly can ASAP).
> >
> > The truth of the matter, if anyone cares, is that, like Judith Bourke,
> who I find to be a wonderful, honest person, I was in love with him (no,
> prurient ones, not that way, though there are things I could say about
> that, too) and the notion and seeming experience that TM could transform
> the world for the better.  Why else would I work seven days a week for
> the movement for nearly five years and pay significantly to do so?  Are
> we not all some blend of the three gunas?  Aren't there glorious and
> dark things about all of us?
> >
> > M was no different.  One of the most glorious things about him was his
> energy.  I lived and basked in it pretty much straight for the seven
> months I was skin boy and for a lot of the five years I was with him.  I
> went through withdrawal for two years when I lost it.
> >
> > That's my voice in the background of DWTF when David cut to the
> archival footage of M entering the hall with Jerry carrying the skin
> saying something like, "It was like divine air came down from heaven and
> I got addicted to it."  Is that so very negative?
> >
> > In one other sentence I said something like, "Remember how I said he
> could get into you and help you sleep?  He could also get into you and
> completely pulverize you."  Is that both "negative" and "positive"?  Of
> course, one-dimensional believers would say having M pulverize you would
> be the greatest blessing.  It could only be all positive.  But what if
> he did it because he was pissed, out of sorts or sexually frustrated? 
> Yes, IME, he definitely got sexually frustrated.  In my total reworking
> of his own words, the only man in all of recored history that anyone
> knew about who lived beyond the libido was Sukadeva.
> >
> > I also said in the movie, "It took me a while to put the paradox
> together.  How could he be wonderful and awful at the same time?  Well,
> that's just how it was.  He was wonderful and awful at the same time." 
> David filmed me for over two hours and he used the several minutes that
> suited his purpose in segueing from the more positive part of the film
> to the more negative.
> >
> > So I feel no conflict or contradiction in saying "In my experience,
> they still carry a lot of his energy, as if the atoms and molecules have
> been entrained in it. And, of course, in India, they would be holy
> objects to be revered. I have kept them very well protected and have
> handled them very little over the decades."  and
> >
> > M abused women, devastated people right and left and was more
> concerned with money than with treating people decently.
> >
> > They're all simply true.  And so were all the other totally glorious
> aspects of that intense, complex man.
> >
> > Was anyone else in the movie theater that night in Fiuggi, or wherever
> it was, when M's darshan got so strong that it made all the little,
> hanging crystals dance extravagantly and tinkle together as if there
> were a small tornado blowing through the hall?  And probably only I saw
> this, but when M first got to Murren, the three mountain devas came to
> greet him.  IME, which of course many of you would completely howl at,
> they had been waiting for someone for centuries and thought, because of
> his light, that it might be M.  M went completely silent and looked up
> at them for several moments while they communed.  He wasn't who they
> were waiting for, they left and the lecture went on.  And you should
> have seen the angel stations that congregated in the intersections of
> the pathways between the puja tables in the halls where M made teachers.
> That's why he didn't like people walking around then.  I had to bust
> right through one of them to get to him to tell him something urgent
> while he was giving out the mantras.  The five or six angels in that one
> station took off in all directions like they had been stung.  (There,
> three little stories...)
> >
> > For me, the truth holds a higher priority than rules about the truth
> or any rules that are more 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Real cost of Android?

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> On 07/20/2011 01:43 AM, cardemaister wrote:
> > http://www.unwiredview.com/2011/07/13/the-real-cost-of-android-potentially-60-per-device-in-patent-fees/
> >
> > The real cost of Android? Potentially $60+ per device in patent fees
> 
> All this is losers in the game trying to make up for their lack of 
> innovation and their closed platforms.  Most of the patents probably 
> should never have been granted.  There are too many software patents 
> that are just the way a computer or Turing engine would work.  Those 
> should not be patentable.  I can't walk into an electronics store and 
> buy an HD DVR for $200 or less.  The hardware technology we have 
> available that should be possible.  Nope, it's the patents that Tivo 
> owns that keeps them off the shelves.  And at least one of those patents 
> if butt silly: the ability to read a file you have open for writing.
> 
> Android is winning because it is open source.  
>

That's probably true. Tomorrow might be devastating for us
Nokia share holders.

I have to admit I "hate" my Nokia N8. I like much more my ZTE Blade
Android phone. But I downright love my iPad!

But I was stoopid enough not to sell my NOK-s right  after the distribution of 
dividend...

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/flashquotes.aspx?symbol=NOK&selected=NOK

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[turquoiseb]

Did anyone else notice that in this single post Mark said more positive
things about Maharishi than tedadams and danfriedman have  said
in all of the posts they've made to Fairfield Life combined?


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mark Landau  wrote:
>
> Wow, are we one dimensional?  I believe it's the sign of a developed
being that he or she can easily hold all the paradoxes.  Not only can I
have it both ways, but I must have it both ways and, beyond that, have
it all ways that were, are or ever will be, if I am to do any justice to
truth and reality.  That's a lot of ways.  I also believe that,
ultimately, we must go beyond all the paradoxes and polarities,
including the polarity of good and bad (and that, of course, doesn't
mean that we rush out to do all the "bad" things we possibly can ASAP).
>
> The truth of the matter, if anyone cares, is that, like Judith Bourke,
who I find to be a wonderful, honest person, I was in love with him (no,
prurient ones, not that way, though there are things I could say about
that, too) and the notion and seeming experience that TM could transform
the world for the better.  Why else would I work seven days a week for
the movement for nearly five years and pay significantly to do so?  Are
we not all some blend of the three gunas?  Aren't there glorious and
dark things about all of us?
>
> M was no different.  One of the most glorious things about him was his
energy.  I lived and basked in it pretty much straight for the seven
months I was skin boy and for a lot of the five years I was with him.  I
went through withdrawal for two years when I lost it.
>
> That's my voice in the background of DWTF when David cut to the
archival footage of M entering the hall with Jerry carrying the skin
saying something like, "It was like divine air came down from heaven and
I got addicted to it."  Is that so very negative?
>
> In one other sentence I said something like, "Remember how I said he
could get into you and help you sleep?  He could also get into you and
completely pulverize you."  Is that both "negative" and "positive"?  Of
course, one-dimensional believers would say having M pulverize you would
be the greatest blessing.  It could only be all positive.  But what if
he did it because he was pissed, out of sorts or sexually frustrated? 
Yes, IME, he definitely got sexually frustrated.  In my total reworking
of his own words, the only man in all of recored history that anyone
knew about who lived beyond the libido was Sukadeva.
>
> I also said in the movie, "It took me a while to put the paradox
together.  How could he be wonderful and awful at the same time?  Well,
that's just how it was.  He was wonderful and awful at the same time." 
David filmed me for over two hours and he used the several minutes that
suited his purpose in segueing from the more positive part of the film
to the more negative.
>
> So I feel no conflict or contradiction in saying "In my experience,
they still carry a lot of his energy, as if the atoms and molecules have
been entrained in it. And, of course, in India, they would be holy
objects to be revered. I have kept them very well protected and have
handled them very little over the decades."  and
>
> M abused women, devastated people right and left and was more
concerned with money than with treating people decently.
>
> They're all simply true.  And so were all the other totally glorious
aspects of that intense, complex man.
>
> Was anyone else in the movie theater that night in Fiuggi, or wherever
it was, when M's darshan got so strong that it made all the little,
hanging crystals dance extravagantly and tinkle together as if there
were a small tornado blowing through the hall?  And probably only I saw
this, but when M first got to Murren, the three mountain devas came to
greet him.  IME, which of course many of you would completely howl at,
they had been waiting for someone for centuries and thought, because of
his light, that it might be M.  M went completely silent and looked up
at them for several moments while they communed.  He wasn't who they
were waiting for, they left and the lecture went on.  And you should
have seen the angel stations that congregated in the intersections of
the pathways between the puja tables in the halls where M made teachers.
That's why he didn't like people walking around then.  I had to bust
right through one of them to get to him to tell him something urgent
while he was giving out the mantras.  The five or six angels in that one
station took off in all directions like they had been stung.  (There,
three little stories...)
>
> For me, the truth holds a higher priority than rules about the truth
or any rules that are more about control than the highest good.  Perhaps
I am wrong about that.  Do my circumstances prove that, one way or
another?  I think not.  In the actual words of the man himself, "Karma
is unfathomable."  I do love some of his sound bites.  Another one that
would be appropriate here is "There are n

[FairfieldLife] Re: Rupert Murdoch gets pied

[Joe]

Just dropped in to see what was going on at FFL after not looking in for 
months. I see Willy is equating a pie in the face to a gunshot to the brain.

Living in that Texas cematary seems to have made Willy a bit 'tarded!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> On 07/19/2011 03:32 PM, richardjwilliamstexas wrote:
> >
> > Bhairitu:
> >> Or do they so fear the old grinch they're afraid to
> >> post it...
> >>
> > "I wonder if Obama, MediaMatters, Jon Stewart, indeed
> > the rest of the media at large, will accept personal
> > responsibility for creating a 'culture of hate' that
> > led to this attack the way they demanded Palin do
> > after the Giffords incident?"
> >
> > http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/124634/
> 
> Apples and oranges.  In this climate of disproportionate wealth the rich 
> should be made to feel as uncomfortable as possible.   And a more 
> aggressive populace would make sure they are relieved of their burden.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Real cost of Android?

[Bhairitu]

On 07/20/2011 09:34 AM, Vaj wrote:
>
> On Jul 20, 2011, at 4:43 AM, cardemaister wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.unwiredview.com/2011/07/13/the-real-cost-of-android-potentially-60-per-device-in-patent-fees/
>>  
>>
>>
>> The real cost of Android? Potentially $60+ per device in patent fees
>
>
> The full Mac OS, to be released today, is only 30 USD.

But you need a Mac to run it.  IOW, a regular PC with a tweaked BIOS, 
and an Apple logo on it, that would cost about 1/2 as much otherwise.

For the record I found the Mac OS to be a bit constricted for a 
developer.   They not only hand hold the users but the developers as well.

[FairfieldLife] FDR Warning about Today's Republicans

[do.rflex]

FDR tells the truth about the leaders of the modern Republican
party. Somehow, in 1936, he foresaw what would be happening NOW.

Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUZGkNAUSvY 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jul 20, 2011, at 11:25 AM, turquoiseb wrote:

> Gawd, it's another Dan. Would you like him to post his
> school records, including any detention halls he had to
> sit through, too?

I would, dammit.

Sal

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Mark Landau]

Wow, are we one dimensional?  I believe it's the sign of a developed being that 
he or she can easily hold all the paradoxes.  Not only can I have it both ways, 
but I must have it both ways and, beyond that, have it all ways that were, are 
or ever will be, if I am to do any justice to truth and reality.  That's a lot 
of ways.  I also believe that, ultimately, we must go beyond all the paradoxes 
and polarities, including the polarity of good and bad (and that, of course, 
doesn't mean that we rush out to do all the "bad" things we possibly can ASAP).

The truth of the matter, if anyone cares, is that, like Judith Bourke, who I 
find to be a wonderful, honest person, I was in love with him (no, prurient 
ones, not that way, though there are things I could say about that, too) and 
the notion and seeming experience that TM could transform the world for the 
better.  Why else would I work seven days a week for the movement for nearly 
five years and pay significantly to do so?  Are we not all some blend of the 
three gunas?  Aren't there glorious and dark things about all of us?

M was no different.  One of the most glorious things about him was his energy.  
I lived and basked in it pretty much straight for the seven months I was skin 
boy and for a lot of the five years I was with him.  I went through withdrawal 
for two years when I lost it.

That's my voice in the background of DWTF when David cut to the archival 
footage of M entering the hall with Jerry carrying the skin saying something 
like, "It was like divine air came down from heaven and I got addicted to it."  
Is that so very negative?

In one other sentence I said something like, "Remember how I said he could get 
into you and help you sleep?  He could also get into you and completely 
pulverize you."  Is that both "negative" and "positive"?  Of course, 
one-dimensional believers would say having M pulverize you would be the 
greatest blessing.  It could only be all positive.  But what if he did it 
because he was pissed, out of sorts or sexually frustrated?  Yes, IME, he 
definitely got sexually frustrated.  In my total reworking of his own words, 
the only man in all of recored history that anyone knew about who lived beyond 
the libido was Sukadeva.

I also said in the movie, "It took me a while to put the paradox together.  How 
could he be wonderful and awful at the same time?  Well, that's just how it 
was.  He was wonderful and awful at the same time."  David filmed me for over 
two hours and he used the several minutes that suited his purpose in segueing 
from the more positive part of the film to the more negative.

So I feel no conflict or contradiction in saying "In my experience, they still 
carry a lot of his energy, as if the atoms and molecules have been entrained in 
it. And, of course, in India, they would be holy objects to be revered. I have 
kept them very well protected and have handled them very little over the 
decades."  and 

M abused women, devastated people right and left and was more concerned with 
money than with treating people decently.

They're all simply true.  And so were all the other totally glorious aspects of 
that intense, complex man.

Was anyone else in the movie theater that night in Fiuggi, or wherever it was, 
when M's darshan got so strong that it made all the little, hanging crystals 
dance extravagantly and tinkle together as if there were a small tornado 
blowing through the hall?  And probably only I saw this, but when M first got 
to Murren, the three mountain devas came to greet him.  IME, which of course 
many of you would completely howl at, they had been waiting for someone for 
centuries and thought, because of his light, that it might be M.  M went 
completely silent and looked up at them for several moments while they 
communed.  He wasn't who they were waiting for, they left and the lecture went 
on.  And you should have seen the angel stations that congregated in the 
intersections of the pathways between the puja tables in the halls where M made 
teachers.  That's why he didn't like people walking around then.  I had to bust 
right through one of them to get to him to tell him something urgent while he 
was giving out the mantras.  The five or six angels in that one station took 
off in all directions like they had been stung.  (There, three little 
stories...)  

For me, the truth holds a higher priority than rules about the truth or any 
rules that are more about control than the highest good.  Perhaps I am wrong 
about that.  Do my circumstances prove that, one way or another?  I think not.  
In the actual words of the man himself, "Karma is unfathomable."  I do love 
some of his sound bites.  Another one that would be appropriate here is "There 
are no absolutes in the relative."

You're only confused because you're thinking one-dimensionally.  When you move 
beyond that, try watching my interview in the film again.  You may, or may not, 
see it slightly differently.

Thank you

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Bob Price]

Of course Mark can have it two ways, you need to read more of Turq's posts!
He can also have it two ways without being able to thrive on CD.
What if Mark used to hang with Charles Manson but didn't know what he
was really like until after the murders (I understand Charlie charmed no 
less a charmer than Tim Leary)? And he happened to have an old pair of 
Charlie's jeans and there was a market for them. Of course he could condemn
Charlie in film and turn around and try and sell the jeans on eBay with no CD 
required.



From: tedadams108 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 6:46:47 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals


  
Ok, forget about the famous meditator references. My main point is the 
contradiction between representing Maharishi as bad in the film but glorifying 
the man in the sandals. Can't have it both ways. The sandals are more valuable 
when worn by someone of high regard. Mark did not speak well of Maharishi in 
the film. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> The idea you are floating here, that the loyal devotees became wealthy and 
> those who criticized ended up poor, is plain daft. 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tedadams108  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > I'm a little confused. Is this the same Mark Landau who spoke such unkind 
> > words about Maharishi in the film "David Wants To Fly."? When attempting to 
> > sell Maharishi's sandals  there are no unkind words spoken, only glorifying 
> > words, probably as an attempt to increase the marketability of the sandals.
> > I have compassion for Mark that he is having financial 
> > challenges in this economy, like so many others. Apparently his
> > involvement with Maharishi did not result in financial well being
> > as it did for so many others (John Gray, Barbara DeAngeles, Deepak Chopra, 
> > etc., and the many wealthy meditators living in Fairfield and around the 
> > world. Maybe it's more difficult to get Nature Support when one cavils 
> > about the Master. I'm sure someone would
> > appreciate having the sandals and would be willing to pay something
> > for them. My guess is that the only value to Mark would be for firewood.
> >
>


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Bob Price]

Of course Mark can have it two ways, you need to read more of Turq's posts!

He can also have it two ways without being able to thrive on CD.
What if Mark used to hang with Charles Manson but didn't know what he
was really like until after the murders (I understand Charlie charmed no 
less a charmer than Tim Leary)? And he happened to have an old pair of 
Charlie's jeans and there was a market for them. Of course he could condemn
Charlie in film and then turn around and try and sell the jeans on eBay with no 
CD required.



From: tedadams108 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 6:46:47 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals


  
Ok, forget about the famous meditator references. My main point is the 
contradiction between representing Maharishi as bad in the film but glorifying 
the man in the sandals. Can't have it both ways. The sandals are more valuable 
when worn by someone of high regard. Mark did not speak well of Maharishi in 
the film. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> The idea you are floating here, that the loyal devotees became wealthy and 
> those who criticized ended up poor, is plain daft. 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tedadams108  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > I'm a little confused. Is this the same Mark Landau who spoke such unkind 
> > words about Maharishi in the film "David Wants To Fly."? When attempting to 
> > sell Maharishi's sandals  there are no unkind words spoken, only glorifying 
> > words, probably as an attempt to increase the marketability of the sandals.
> > I have compassion for Mark that he is having financial 
> > challenges in this economy, like so many others. Apparently his
> > involvement with Maharishi did not result in financial well being
> > as it did for so many others (John Gray, Barbara DeAngeles, Deepak Chopra, 
> > etc., and the many wealthy meditators living in Fairfield and around the 
> > world. Maybe it's more difficult to get Nature Support when one cavils 
> > about the Master. I'm sure someone would
> > appreciate having the sandals and would be willing to pay something
> > for them. My guess is that the only value to Mark would be for firewood.
> >
>


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Not Satire eliminate the old and disabled Judy

[johnt]

It's the same exact evil. It's just that the Fascists have become more subtle 
about how they do it. Many right wing Republicans are still linked to the Nazis 
of WW2. Prescott Bush was almost charged with treason for dealing with Hitler 
during the war, but his connections quashed it. The "eugenics" program is alive 
and well and just like Hitler they want to eliminate the non producers from 
society. Greed and lust for power has always been at the root of it.No they 
aren't rounding them up in the street, too visible. They're just feeding them 
poison and cutting off health care to eliminate millions.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "johnt"  wrote:
> >
> > What I'm saying, and I fully understand what satire and irony
> > are, is that this is too serious a situation to deal with
> > subtly or through sarcasm. The point I was trying to make is
> > not a matter of you "doing my homework" asking you (Judy) to
> > write a satire on the holocaust, but to demonstrate that with
> > such a serious threat to millions neither you nor most people
> > would be willing to approach the holocaust in that manner.
> 
> You're quite right, I wouldn't. But there's a significant
> difference between allowing people to die for lack of
> health care, and deliberately rounding them up and gassing
> them to death. They're still just as dead, but the *malice*
> involved is vastly greater with the Holocaust. You can't
> really satirize that degree of malice the way you can
> ignorance, greed, and lack of empathy.
> 
> 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Nobody is "making light of or trivializing" the issue in
> > > question. That's not what satire does--quite the opposite.
> > > Maybe this will help: satire is like mockery. Everett is
> > > *mocking* those who think it's a good idea to cut Medicare
> > > and Medicaid and Social Security, pointing out that
> > > they're stupid and cruel and insensitive and greedy. He's
> > > being sarcastic when he praises the idea.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "johnt"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > I'm not stupid you arrogant * It's just that making light or 
> > > > trivializing a potential genocide is what I object to. Don't bother 
> > > > responding if you're to stupid to get my point.
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "johnt"  
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Judy,
> > > > > > Perhaps you could write an example of a satire about the
> > > > > > holocaust so I can have more of an idea of how you think
> > > > > > this literary form is being used, not being an English
> > > > > > scholar myself.
> > > > > 
> > > > > No, I'm not going to do your homework for you. There's
> > > > > no need to be an "English scholar" to understand what
> > > > > satire is.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Did you read the Wikipedia entry I linked to on "A 
> > > > > Modest Proposal"? You might also read Wikipedia's entry
> > > > > on satire:
> > > > > 
> > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
> > > > > 
> > > > > Take a look at both of these, then if you still have 
> > > > > questions, get back to me, OK?
> > > > > 
> > > > > > The number of deaths of the most helpless in society due
> > > > > > to this movement by some Republicans could easily result
> > > > > > in many more than 6 million deaths.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Right. That's what the writer was pointing out. He thinks
> > > > > that's a terrible idea. If you understand that he's NOT
> > > > > in favor of cutting Medicaid and Medicare and read his
> > > > > piece with that in mind, I think you'll quickly recognize
> > > > > what satire is.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "johnt"  
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The fact is, that elements in the Republican party and indeed 
> > > > > > > Obama are talking about cutting Medicaid and Medicare. If they 
> > > > > > > succeed this will have the actual effect of shorting the lives of 
> > > > > > > the poor, elderly and disabled as quoted in the article, and will 
> > > > > > > indeed lessen the expenses to the government without raising 
> > > > > > > taxes on corporations and the wealthy. Regardless of the author's 
> > > > > > > intent, which may have admittedly been to raise public ire, what 
> > > > > > > he's said is actually happening. It would be similar to having a 
> > > > > > > satire on the Holocaust which should still raise public 
> > > > > > > indignation. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "johnt" 
> > > > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Not only is the Wall Street Journal involved in a wiretapping
> > > > > > > > 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tedadams108  wrote:
>
> I think in your very articulate way you are missing my point.
> 
> My point is more specific and was not meant (despite my 
> colorful words)to comment on Mark's devotion to Maharishi
> or his TM practice. It's been well documented on here of
> Mark's disillusionment. 

It has not. I'd never heard his name before this
latest tempest in a pisspot, and I've been here
for years. A search of the archives seems to 
indicate that there was only one such mention 
of him with regard to this film, back in a post 
in February. Before that, any mentions of him 
were from 2007 or earlier. Are you sure you
haven't caught Judy Sensitivity Disease? :-)

> Like you said, people can have 
> doubts or question aspects of the Movement, and I am not 
> questioning Mark's doing so. He has a right to feel the way
> he wants to. Again, the main point is
> 
> After seeing the film David Wants to Fly, the interview with 
> Mark is not flattering of Maharishi...to say the least. 

Why should it be?

> As such, the following quote from Mark's post couldn't 
> conflict more with the man he described in the interview.
> 
> "In my experience, they still carry a lot of his energy, 
> as if the atoms and molecules have been entrained in it.  
> And, of course, in India, they would be holy objects to 
> be revered. I have kept them very well protected and have 
> handled them very little over the decades."

I see no dichotomy in his either saying this or believing
it, *whatever* else he may think of Maharishi.

> I guess it's possible to speak ill of someone one minute 
> and speak so highly of his sandals the next. 

I don't see why not. His sandals, after all, never banged
groupies while claiming to be celibate. 

Caveat: If they did, any you know intimate details, please
don't post them. TMI. :-)

> My guess is that what Mark said in the film expresses his 
> true feelings, but he can't express them here because it 
> may compromise the value of what he is trying to sell. 

Your guess is yours, and you are welcome to it. I have
no idea what his "true feelings" are, and my bet is that
despite your best guess, neither do you.

> Maybe Mark can post the interview he had in the film on 
> here, the questions and answers. 

Gawd, it's another Dan. Would you like him to post his
school records, including any detention halls he had to
sit through, too?

> If read my main point becomes obvious to anyone who 
> chooses to be objective and not already biased.

I completely disagree, which is why I spoke up. From my
point of view, it's YOU who is biased. 

Furthermore, you are trying your best to push your bias
into other people's minds and keep him from being able
to sell something that many would consider valuable to
the people who might be in the market for it. From my
point of view the "main point" of your post was to 
tarnish his image so that potential buyers would become
afraid to buy from him for fear of catching his OTP 
cooties.

I cannot help but notice that in none of your delurking
posts have you said anything positive about Maharishi
so far. You've only dissed those whose opinions of him
you don't seem to agree with. Do you honestly consider
that "positivity?" Just sayin'.


> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tedadams108  wrote:
> > >
> > > I do have compassion for Mark or anyone in financial difficulties.
> > > I have been observing the comments on Fairfield Life for many 
> > > years but until today was not inspired to post one of my own.
> > > For some reason it was hard for me to resist pointing out the
> > > hypocrisy since I had just seen the film. Perhaps I was a little
> > > "colorful" with my words, but they pale in comparison to the words
> > > used in the interview. Obviously there are people on here that
> > > fit either into the pro-TM camp or the anti-TM camp. I apparently 
> > > hit a nerve. I'm not taking sides here, just pointing out the facts
> > > and people can spin them the way they want. Interestingly, those
> > > who have an issue with my post are not addressing it's main point,
> > > rather my mention of being compassionate or acknowledging that 
> > > many have enjoyed financial success and have attributed it to their
> > > TM practice. The main point is not debatable.
> > 
> > The "main point," as you put it, is completely debatable.
> > 
> > You are trying to make the case that a person who has
> > mixed feelings about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is somehow
> > "off," and should be looked down upon. You made that 
> > very clear with your "sandals as firewood" comment in
> > your first post. 
> > 
> > It is NOT a given that anyone who has conflicting 
> > feelings about Maharishi is a Bad Guy, despite what
> > you are trying diligently to infer. One would IMO have
> > to be categorically insane to NOT have conflicting
> > feelings about Maharishi, if they'd spent any time 
> > a

Re: [FairfieldLife] Real cost of Android?

[Tom Pall]

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 4:43 AM, cardemaister  wrote:
>
> http://www.unwiredview.com/2011/07/13/the-real-cost-of-android-potentially-60-per-device-in-patent-fees/
>
> The real cost of Android? Potentially $60+ per device in patent fees
>


The real cost of Android and other smart phones is your innocence,
your soul, your privacy and if you get pulled over by the police and
they take your phone away to dump it, you freedom and virgin *ss.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[emptybill]

Obviously no one needed to poison you Vag.
Like a little slithering naga, you carry yours internally.
You then spit it at others.
Nice trick.
When & where were you initiated in TM and TM-Sidhis?
Who are your gurus? What is your sampradaya?
Aren't you are just another make-believe bullshitter?


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 19, 2011, at 5:31 PM, emptybill wrote:
>
> > According to my informant (a former student of MMY, a former MIU
> > professor, a close teacher of SSRS who now is a professor and a
> > Sankhya-Yoga scholar) SSRS was always devoted to MMY and had only
> > love for him until the "final endlessness". According to this
> > scholar, SSRS said, quite often, that MMY had nothing but Deva Ma's
> > will to fulfill, i.e. that this was his sole purpose in life and
> > that Her Divine Will was all that concerned him in this earthly
life.
>
> So your confession is that this Deva Ma is behind the molestation of
> the young women, the poisoning and the hundreds who went insane or
> died under Mahesh.
>
> It sounds like it's time to contact Homeland Security. Obviously
> another enemy combatant. Perhaps Hindu Al Qaeda.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Real cost of Android?

[Vaj]

On Jul 20, 2011, at 4:43 AM, cardemaister wrote:



http://www.unwiredview.com/2011/07/13/the-real-cost-of-android- 
potentially-60-per-device-in-patent-fees/


The real cost of Android? Potentially $60+ per device in patent fees



The full Mac OS, to be released today, is only 30 USD.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Economic Collapse -- why it won't be stopped (and The Last Mountain)

[Bhairitu]

Probably because we have never had a situation where people could 
accumulate absurd amounts of wealth.  And many of these people like 
Murdoch were influencing society in negative ways.  Try to run a 
competitive business against these crooks and you'll have good reason to 
hate the rich.  Run into one who thinks they are superior to you and 
you'll have reason to hate them.  They are monetarily obese.  I'm fine 
with people who might have a wealth of a few million dollars.  But 
billions?  That to me mean they are mentally ill.

Let's have a world for the people and not just the few overprivileged!

On 07/20/2011 12:55 AM, Ravi Yogi wrote:
> Yeah, what's up with this liberal fascination of elite, so now even the
> "shift" and "Light of Consciousness" cannot really start and has to wait
> until the elite is taken care of first, can't even see this funny
> contradiction  :-). Funny the conservatives also talk about liberal
> elite. Why do they need to recognize emptiness or arrogance or why does
> anyone else need to recognize it? What is this arrogance, does it even
> exist - I'm sure if you ask and talk to the "so-called rich" you will
> come back feeling sorry for them :-). In fact I say emptiness or
> arrogance always exists in oneself and is just an illusion outside of
> you.
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7"
> wrote:
>> no sweat. They will recognize their emptiness soon enough. In the
> meantime, make a decent life for yourself Robert. No need to put your
> attention on the mirage of the rich.
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" babajii_99@ wrote:
>>>
>>> More and more will the 'Light of Consciousness' shine on the
> arrogance of the corporate elites, so that they pay their fair
> share...there is a shift coming...soon, stand by..
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: States of Consciousness

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Jul 14, 2011, at 4:02 PM, sparaig wrote:
> 
> > Can't find where he mentions shamatha by name. He mentions someone  
> > else's proposed categorization of meditation into 2 main groups and  
> > proposes that TM belongs in a 3rd category...
> 
> 
> In the neurological division of different types of meditation there  
> are two: FA and OM IIRC. FA is shamatha, i.e. TM, shamatha, etc.
> 
> The TM researchers, without providing parallel research, tried to  
> invent a faux category I believe they called "automatic transcending"  
> or some similar diversion. Due to the lack of similar, parallel  
> evidence, I don't believe anyone but the radical TMers believed it.  
> It's just part of their underlying belief that they must maintain  
> some sort of "unique" brand-name recognition.
>

You've seen their evidence for why they propose this 3rd category of meditation 
and you can't even recall what they call the category?


H


Lawson

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rupert Murdoch gets pied

[Bhairitu]

On 07/20/2011 06:37 AM, richardjwilliamstexas wrote:
>
>>> "I wonder if Obama, MediaMatters, Jon Stewart, indeed
>>> the rest of the media at large, will accept personal
>>> responsibility for creating a 'culture of hate' that
>>> led to this attack the way they demanded Palin do
>>> after the Giffords incident?"
>>>
> Bhairitu:
>> Apples and oranges.
>>
> So, the 'culture of hate' is different when the liberal
> media does it?

Gifford was just a congresswoman not a billionaire.  Murdoch has been 
messing with society with his right wing megaphone.  These monetarily 
obese people need to be put on a diet.

>
>
>> In this climate of disproportionate wealth the rich
>> should be made to feel as uncomfortable as possible.
>>
> Don't you just hate those 'rich' people?

Not all rich people, just the monetarily obese.  Who needs more than a 
$12 million estate anyway?  Money addicts apparently.

>> And a more aggressive populace would make sure they
>> are relieved of their burden.
>>
> Where do you think you think you're going to get a more
> aggressive populace that will vote for communism?

When they are broke, living in the streets and hungry.  How do you think 
that FDR got his "New Deal" programs passed?  The capitalists feared 
that the populace might rise up and overthrow them in a Bolshevik style 
revolution.  By the government providing such programs it curbed the 
tide that might have resulted in such a revolution.   In other countries 
like Germany and Italy the capitalists used other methods to stem such a 
revolution.

BTW, as someone pointed out the other on another forum, there has never 
been a communist country.  Just totalitarian countries claiming to be 
communist.  What you fear is not communism but authoritarianism.

> You refuse to even take part in a Tea Party Rally to
> support reducing the size of government!

Why would I join the Tea Party?  To overthrow it and make it a liberal 
one?  I'm sorry but capitalism has soiled it's bed with the extreme 
inequality it produces.  Either it is doomed or civilization is.

> Go figure.

Not with your math.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: States of Consciousness

[Vaj]

On Jul 14, 2011, at 4:02 PM, sparaig wrote:

Can't find where he mentions shamatha by name. He mentions someone  
else's proposed categorization of meditation into 2 main groups and  
proposes that TM belongs in a 3rd category...



In the neurological division of different types of meditation there  
are two: FA and OM IIRC. FA is shamatha, i.e. TM, shamatha, etc.


The TM researchers, without providing parallel research, tried to  
invent a faux category I believe they called "automatic transcending"  
or some similar diversion. Due to the lack of similar, parallel  
evidence, I don't believe anyone but the radical TMers believed it.  
It's just part of their underlying belief that they must maintain  
some sort of "unique" brand-name recognition.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Real cost of Android?

[Bhairitu]

On 07/20/2011 01:43 AM, cardemaister wrote:
> http://www.unwiredview.com/2011/07/13/the-real-cost-of-android-potentially-60-per-device-in-patent-fees/
>
> The real cost of Android? Potentially $60+ per device in patent fees

All this is losers in the game trying to make up for their lack of 
innovation and their closed platforms.  Most of the patents probably 
should never have been granted.  There are too many software patents 
that are just the way a computer or Turing engine would work.  Those 
should not be patentable.  I can't walk into an electronics store and 
buy an HD DVR for $200 or less.  The hardware technology we have 
available that should be possible.  Nope, it's the patents that Tivo 
owns that keeps them off the shelves.  And at least one of those patents 
if butt silly: the ability to read a file you have open for writing.

Android is winning because it is open source.  The 18th century thinking 
of so many corporations hates the open source concept because it means 
it can't be owned.  It is a form of collectivism which is good for the 
people.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Romantic Love and its relationship to Spirituality

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote:
> > > 
> > > Fitzgerald's statement 'the true test of a first 
> > > rate mind is the ability to hold two contradictory 
> > > ideas at the same time' really only works at the 
> > > value of unity; 
> 
> And Bob Price replied:
> > Not sure Fitzgerald studied much Vedanta, my guess 
> > is that Zelda was the source of his inspiration.
> 
> My short answer to Bob's reply would be, "What about
> finding his inspiration in another human being, in
> this case Zelda, is not Unity?"
> 
> My longer answer is the train of thought that Bob's
> comment triggered in me -- How do different spiritual
> traditions view Romantic Love? Is it considered an
> obstacle along the pathway to enlightenment, or is it
> considered a valuable tool for Self-realization?
> 
> I ask because on another forum a number of folks are
> recapitulating their experience in a spiritual trip
> that was decidedly anti-relationship. Romantic Love
> was viewed as "overshadowing," and thus something that
> would sap your personal power, power that you could
> have used pursuing enlightenment. I have seen similar
> sentiments expressed on this forum. 
> 
> I'm not down with this. I *am* a victim of it, and 
> spent far too many years of my life pushing Romantic
> Love and relationships away. That is, in a very real
> sense, my only regret from the time I spent on the
> formal spiritual path. By being "one-pointed," and
> feeling that the pursuit of Unity according to my
> teachers was more important than the pursuit of love,
> to some extent I closed myself to many opportunities
> to experience love, and thus to experience Unity.
> 
> What else IS deep Romantic Love but Unity? You gaze
> into another sentient being's eyes and all that you
> see there is Self. In my spiritual travels I've seen
> whole mountains dissolve into pinpoints of light and
> become nothing but Self, dancing. But that was nothing
> compared to seeing the same thing happen when gazing
> into the eyes of someone I loved. 
> 
> I've written before here that I don't quite swing behind
> the idea that the one-pointed pursuit of enlightenment
> is the "highest goal in life." Similarly, I don't swing
> behind the notion that this relentless pursuit trumps
> the often far more effective spiritual technique of 
> simply falling in love.
>
About 95 percent of the human population gets romantically involved one way or 
another, and the remainder are the monkish, nunish types. It is these latter 
that seem to gravitate most strongly into spiritual organizations, perhaps 
because they are total klutzes when it comes to relating to people 
biologically. Yet it is this same group that thus ends up dominating the life 
of many spiritual communities. We can conclude that this ultimately results in 
philosophies developing in these communities that are basically contrary to the 
impulses of the general population and thus, from a spiritual point of view, 
have a tendency to misdirect the path of the average guy and gal.

[FairfieldLife] Zombie in My Gas Tank

[Bob Price]

Ravi,



I was quite pleased to see you accepted the peace
offering 
in my "cognitive dissonance" post. Thank you for your
thoughtful 
response. I feel, our relationship is deepening with each exchange. 

I have to admit, my desire to bury the spitballs was
a little self-serving, 
as I'm hoping you will consider doing me a very big
favor. 

As you know, I've been working diligently on
launching a new pod-cast 
with the working title "Zombie in My Gas
Tank". The mission of "Zombie" 
will be to explore, go where no
one has gone before, any and all 
questions concerning Emotional Intelligence
(EI).  I'm hoping for
 a thoughtful
investigation into something, I feel is almost as important 
as enlightenment. 

And because, I'm such a huge believer in all things
related to TM. 
I believe, I've come up with a concept that could be described 
as "doing less and accomplishing more". Instead of using 
Skype or
expensive recording equipment- not to mention that 
"deer in the headlights
look"- some guests get when asked a question 
they didn't expect, I've
decided to post a series of EI questions, that the 
guest can take as long as
they like to answer and then post so everyone 
can join in with something
constructive.

I've pondered long and hard about what the questions could
be asked of 
my guests, and it became obvious to me that the "Proust Questionnaire" 
was made for this purpose. For anyone unfamiliar with the Proust Questionnaire 
it is series of personality (EI) questions made famous by Marcel Proust and
more 
recently by VANITY FAIR (as I'm sure many know the last page of every
issue includes 
a celebrity answering the questions). 

You can get more at the following links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proust_Questionnaire

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2011/06/proust-albert-brooks-201106

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2011/05/proust-tina-fey-201105

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/12/proust-harrison-ford-201012

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/10/proust-rafael-nadal-201010

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2007/10/proust_simon200710

There are 50+ questions in the first two
questionnaires that Proust originally 
completed. I plan to submit around 20 of
those questions to each Zombie guest.

So Ravi, would you consider being my first quest? I
would be honored.

[FairfieldLife] Re: States of Consciousness

[sparaig]

Can't find where he mentions shamatha by name. He mentions someone else's 
proposed categorization of meditation into 2 main groups and proposes that TM 
belongs in a 3rd category...

L
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> Wow, does he mischaracterize shamatha mediation. Not a very honest  
> presentation.
> 
> But sadly, not surprising.
> 
> On Jul 14, 2011, at 12:17 PM, sparaig wrote:
> 
> > New book: http://www.pdf-archive.com/2011/07/01/consciousness- 
> > states-cosic-2011/consciousness-states-cosic-2011.pdf chapter 10 is  
> > about enlightenment, TM-style by Fred Travis
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[tedadams108]

I think in your very articulate way you are missing my point.

My point is more specific and was not meant (despite my 
colorful words)to comment on Mark's devotion to Maharishi
or his TM practice. It's been well documented on here of
Mark's disillusionment. Like you said, people can have 
doubts or question aspects of the Movement, and I am not 
questioning Mark's doing so. He has a right to feel the way
he wants to. Again, the main point is

After seeing the film David Wants to Fly, the interview with Mark
is not flattering of Maharishi...to say the least. As such, the following quote 
from Mark's post couldn't conflict more with the
man he described in the interview.

"In my experience, they still carry a lot of his energy, as if the atoms and 
molecules have been entrained in it.  And, of course, in India, they would be 
holy objects to be revered.  I have kept them very well protected and have 
handled them very little over the decades."

I guess it's possible to speak ill of someone one minute and speak so
highly of his sandals the next. My guess is that what Mark said in 
the film expresses his true feelings, but he can't express them here
because it may compromise the value of what he is trying to sell. 
Maybe Mark can post the interview he had in the film on here, the questions and 
answers. If read my main point becomes obvious to anyone who chooses to be 
objective and not already biased.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tedadams108  wrote:
> >
> > I do have compassion for Mark or anyone in financial difficulties.
> > I have been observing the comments on Fairfield Life for many 
> > years but until today was not inspired to post one of my own.
> > For some reason it was hard for me to resist pointing out the
> > hypocrisy since I had just seen the film. Perhaps I was a little
> > "colorful" with my words, but they pale in comparison to the words
> > used in the interview. Obviously there are people on here that
> > fit either into the pro-TM camp or the anti-TM camp. I apparently 
> > hit a nerve. I'm not taking sides here, just pointing out the facts
> > and people can spin them the way they want. Interestingly, those
> > who have an issue with my post are not addressing it's main point,
> > rather my mention of being compassionate or acknowledging that 
> > many have enjoyed financial success and have attributed it to their
> > TM practice. The main point is not debatable.
> 
> The "main point," as you put it, is completely debatable.
> 
> You are trying to make the case that a person who has
> mixed feelings about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is somehow
> "off," and should be looked down upon. You made that 
> very clear with your "sandals as firewood" comment in
> your first post. 
> 
> It is NOT a given that anyone who has conflicting 
> feelings about Maharishi is a Bad Guy, despite what
> you are trying diligently to infer. One would IMO have
> to be categorically insane to NOT have conflicting
> feelings about Maharishi, if they'd spent any time 
> around him. 
> 
> Now that you've delurked, let's see whether you have
> anything positive to say about the man you're defend-
> ing, or only negative things to say about those who
> honestly deal with their conflicting feelings about
> him. The latter is easy. Many of the posters on this 
> forum provide a testament to this. But the former?
> 
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tedadams108  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There is a reason Mark was put in the film and it was 
> > > > not to say nice things about Maharishi. I do remember
> > > > a couple things that were said but rather than paraphrase 
> > > > it would be best to see the film or to ask your initiate 
> > > > directly.
> > > 
> > > Whoa! More "TM Compassion." 
> > > 
> > > Now it's Rick's fault if one of his initiates
> > > is deemed Off The Program by someone with a 
> > > stick up their butt.
> > > 
> > > K-Y dude. It's not just for sex. Just sayin'.
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: cognitive dissonance

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Yogi"  wrote:
>
> I do appreciate the stories you have shared on Swami Rama and the ones
> from an earlier post challenging seekers with opposing views.
> However I don't know if anyone suggested CD as being an intellectual
> thang, "discomfort" implies energy, emotion.

I found Turq's response useful. I do not think of cognitive dissonance as 
energy myself, or think about energy fields (except for physics) perhaps 
because I have a tendency to avoid terminology from woo-woo land. I did read 
Castaneda's books long ago, where he described the 'lines of the world', 
energies as something one could see. Castaneda's friends are said to have 
regarded him as a big liar. How much he just made up in his writings is an 
unknown. However, cognitive dissonance, in common parlance at least starts with 
the intellect because you have two ideas that share a discrepancy, and you have 
an emotional attachment to one or both of those ideas. It is that deeper level 
of emotional attachment that results in a problem for people. Without the 
emotional connexion, there is no problem.

Most of my life, different places all feel kind of like the same place to me, 
and now I have a better idea of why that is, so relating to the idea of places 
of power does not resonate with me. So either I am a dull boy, or others have 
an imagination far more active than mine.

I find it gratifying that Turq revealed something of his experiences here, 
although he would not give a damn that I feel that. His posts have brought up 
some interesting material from others on the forum this time.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> >
> > Because this subject interests me, I'll try a little
> > harder to explain my approach to it. Unlike many here,
> > including I think Xeno and some others, my approach to
> > cognitive dissonance is not in the least intellectual.
> > I don't perceive cognitive dissonance to be an intel-
> > lectual phenomenon; it's an energy phenomenon.
> >
> > A lot of my approach admittedly comes from the time I
> > spent with Rama - Frederick Lenz. Whatever else he
> > may have been, he was a great connoisseur of energies,
> > in the same way that others are connoisseurs of fine
> > wines. He'd take us out to the desert, or to other
> > places of power, and we'd meditate there and listen
> > to him rap, and dig the energies. He'd occasionally
> > try to explain the different energies, and help us
> > try to take advantage of the energy of a particular
> > place of power and draw upon it to make huge leaps
> > in our spiritual progress. It seemed to work; in my
> > experience I'd come back from those desert trips
> > blown out of my socks and blown out of my body. For
> > several days there would be not only no self, but
> > *nothing* one could hold onto as what only 24 hours
> > ago we'd laughingly called "reality." Instead there
> > was a subjective feeling of being totally "in flux,"
> > a self-identity as energy, moving, not as self, fixed.
> >
> > I really dug it. I still do, and still make Road Trips
> > to places of power to immerse myself in the more
> > dynamic energies there and draw upon them to help me
> > make changes in my life. But not everyone did. Some
> > Rama students would be on the same hikes I was and
> > we'd get to one particular place and they'd double
> > up as if they'd been punched in the stomach. Rama
> > would explain that there was a particularly strong
> > energy field there and although they were perceiving
> > it as negative or some kind of "attack," it was just
> > energy. Then he'd advise them to eat a candy bar,
> > because in his opinion sugar helped to "cut" the
> > effect of strong energies like this. It always
> > worked. Go figure.
> >
> > So in my case I don't think of cognitive dissonance
> > as being an intellectual thang at all; it's just a
> > particular intense, swirling band of energy. And I'm
> > pretty comfortable with that energy. I'm so bent that
> > I *get off* on that energy; it gets me high.
> >
> > Others, maybe not so much. For them there may be an
> > immediate reaction to the energy that makes them want
> > to make it GO AWAY. And they accomplish this via
> > denial, via rationalization, via diving for the most
> > comforting "answer we've already prepared" dogma in
> > their spiritual quiver that "explains" it, or via
> > any number of other means. I rarely go there because
> > to me the energy is comfortable. There is no dis-ease
> > or discomfort caused by juggling seemingly contra-
> > dictory concepts or ideas. They ARE contradictory,
> > on one level of reality. On another, they aren't.
> > For me the "answer" to the koan of contradictory
> > ideas is found in transcending the plane of ideas
> > and the intellect, and dealing with the CD situation
> > on the level of energy.
> >
> > This approach has helped me over the years in trying
> > to resolve the energy nexus that was Rama himself

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sleep and TM (are youstill there RC?)

[richardjwilliamstexas]

> > The TM mantras appear repeatedly in numerous 
> > different tantras...
> >
cardemaister:
> Gotta admit that might be true, actually!
> 
> Think 'twas prolly Mahaa-nirvaaNa-tantra or 
> somesuch that has my mantra... 
>
White 'Tara' in Vajrayana Buddhism is 'Sarasvati' 
in Hindu Sri Vidya. According to Blofield, White 
Tara counteracts illness and thereby helps to 
bring about a long life. 

The Tara sadhana was revealed to the Nath Siddha 
Tilopa in 995 C.E., who is the human father of 
the Karma Kagyu sect of Tibet. 

Read more:

'The Tantric Mysticism of Tibet'
A Practical Guide to the Theory, Purpose, and 
Techniques of Tantric Meditation
by John Blofeld
Penguin, 1992

'The Cult of Tara'
Magic and Ritual in Tibet
by Stephen Beyer
University of California Press 1992

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to pronounce the mantras

[emptybill]

Raunch

Don't look any further! You might have to shoulder the burden of
knowing Sal's mantra if you read the reply.

So don't do it! You'll become the lap dog of demons.

.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" 
wrote:

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" jstein@ wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" 
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That what it says in the checking notes of D.J. Wahl Ghoul.
> > > > Apparently he can't keep his sources separate.
> > > >
> > > > Still got a doubt that he never learned any of it?
> > >
> > > Not moi. That's been clear for some time.
> >
> > All his various smoking-gun missteps along these lines
> > are just the kinds of things someone on the outside
> > looking in would be likely to assume about how the
> > technique is taught and practiced. It makes perfect
> > sense for such a person to figure that something called
> > "checking" in the TM context would of course involve
> > having one's mantra checked, either as part of the
> > routine or upon request. He may even be remembering
> > point 23E from having read the checking notes and
> > erroneously thinking that's what it refers to.
> >
>
> Checking doesn't mean checking the mantra. The purpose of checking is
to give the right *experience* of meditation, which is effortless
meditation. Other than point 23E, the only time an initiator explicitly
checks the pronunciation of a mantra is individually with new meditators
after the third night of checking. The wording in Maharishi's checking
notes is brilliant and in this instance very delicate so as not to make
a big deal out of it or risk disturbing the innocence and naturalness of
meditation:
>
> "And you remember your mantra?" [Assumes everything is AOK, but
whether yes or no, it doesn't matter.] "Whisper softly what you feel it
is." [This is so cool. You engage his "quiet feeling" not his noisy
intellect by saying, "What do you *think* it is?"] If the mantra was
wrong, you just reassure him it is all right now. Anything that creates
doubt and confusion about meditation or pronunciation of the mantra is
the antithesis of the checking procedure and effortless meditation.
>
>
> >
> > > > No wonder he won't give out the basic names of
> > > > his initiator and his course(s).
> > > >
> > > > But I am impressed.
> > > > Apparently Namkhai Norbu's webinars now give
> > > > modified instructions in TM. It's just no longer the
> > > > same old vajra-japa you seen in the Buddhist Tantras.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" LEnglish5@
wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj 
wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > One POV worth considering is that since TM does not
> > > > > > > generally oppose the mantra changing in sound or quality
> > > > > > > or speed, etc., ones mantra could change and they would
> > > > > > > not remember the "original" sound they were given, but
> > > > > > > the morphed version. I know mine morphed so that I had
> > > > > > > to be re-told it on checking several times...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As much as anythign else I suspect that that was a nod to
> > > > > > your anxiety, rather than an essential part of checking...
> > > > >
> > > > > He seems to think that it's a routine part of checking
> > > > > for the meditator to tell the checker his/her mantra,
> > > > > whereupon the checker corrects it if necessary.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not the case. Any TMer who's ever been checked would
> > > > > know this; any TM teacher (or anyone who has taken
> > > > > checker training) would know this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Even if the meditator *asks* to have the mantra checked,
> > > > > it's extremely unlikely the checker would "nod to his
> > > > > anxiety." The checking procedure is formulated so as to
> > > > > *disallow* checking of the mantra (see point 23E of the
> > > > > checking notes). The checking procedure is designed to
> > > > > make the meditator comfortable with using whatever s/he
> > > > > remembers, "morphed" or otherwise.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's not impossible that if the meditator made a huge
> > > > > fuss, his/her initiator might be brought in to check
> > > > > his/her mantra, but the checker would stand on his/her
> > > > > head to avoid it by simply going through the regular
> > > > > checking procedure loops as many times as necessary in
> > > > > the hope that the meditator says the hell with it. The
> > > > > whole idea is to discourage any anxiety the meditator
> > > > > may have about correct pronunciation.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] TV Heads up: Breaking Bad returns tonight

[Bhairitu]

If you are a fan of one of the best shows on television, one that breaks 
the mold that Hollywood is afraid to break, it returns on AMC tonight.  
Wonder if the producers strategically delayed the show until after the 
Emmy nominations were released so that "Mad Men" might actually get a 
chance.

http://www.amctv.com/shows/breaking-bad

Been having some fun today looking up films shot with DSLR cameras.  
Guess I'm going to have to get one now.  Up until a couple years ago 
microbudget filmmaking was done with prosumer camcorders costing above 
the $5000 mark.  But there are films shot these days on inexpensive DSLR 
cameras because you can use different lenses and the look is much like 
35mm motion picture photography.   There are some films that have been 
shot with a Canon EOS T2i ($799 MSRP) though many on the list belong 
have been shot with the list below have been shot with a Canon 7D 
($1500) and some with the Canon 5dmkii ($2400).

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?198927-DSLR-Feature-Film-List

Check out some of the trailers.  There have been a few like "Rubber" 
that I have recommended here.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tedadams108  wrote:
>
> I do have compassion for Mark or anyone in financial difficulties.
> I have been observing the comments on Fairfield Life for many 
> years but until today was not inspired to post one of my own.
> For some reason it was hard for me to resist pointing out the
> hypocrisy since I had just seen the film. Perhaps I was a little
> "colorful" with my words, but they pale in comparison to the words
> used in the interview. Obviously there are people on here that
> fit either into the pro-TM camp or the anti-TM camp. I apparently 
> hit a nerve. I'm not taking sides here, just pointing out the facts
> and people can spin them the way they want. Interestingly, those
> who have an issue with my post are not addressing it's main point,
> rather my mention of being compassionate or acknowledging that 
> many have enjoyed financial success and have attributed it to their
> TM practice. The main point is not debatable.

The "main point," as you put it, is completely debatable.

You are trying to make the case that a person who has
mixed feelings about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is somehow
"off," and should be looked down upon. You made that 
very clear with your "sandals as firewood" comment in
your first post. 

It is NOT a given that anyone who has conflicting 
feelings about Maharishi is a Bad Guy, despite what
you are trying diligently to infer. One would IMO have
to be categorically insane to NOT have conflicting
feelings about Maharishi, if they'd spent any time 
around him. 

Now that you've delurked, let's see whether you have
anything positive to say about the man you're defend-
ing, or only negative things to say about those who
honestly deal with their conflicting feelings about
him. The latter is easy. Many of the posters on this 
forum provide a testament to this. But the former?


> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tedadams108  wrote:
> > >
> > > There is a reason Mark was put in the film and it was 
> > > not to say nice things about Maharishi. I do remember
> > > a couple things that were said but rather than paraphrase 
> > > it would be best to see the film or to ask your initiate 
> > > directly.
> > 
> > Whoa! More "TM Compassion." 
> > 
> > Now it's Rick's fault if one of his initiates
> > is deemed Off The Program by someone with a 
> > stick up their butt.
> > 
> > K-Y dude. It's not just for sex. Just sayin'.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Guru Dev must have taken out several with his Vedic Deer rifle.
> 
> I wonder who got the Guru Dev moosehead?

Wait a minute... ya mean that story about how animals go up to the great 
masters and drop dead to offer their skins isn't true? 

[FairfieldLife] Re: cognitive dissonance

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

Yes, in music dissonance drives forward. If you look at the history of Western 
music, it starts with chant, vocal, music primarily driven by the power of the 
meaning of words. Even as such music became polyphonic and dissonance appeared, 
the music was rather like a very even tapestry, a kind of bland concoction of 
musical lines. While harmony was the result, composers thought in terms of 
combining individual musical lines rather than the 'vertical' structure of 
harmony. About 1600 composers began to experiment more with purely instrumental 
compositions, and without the words they discovered that to hold listeners' 
attention they had to find devices by which to extend musical vocabulary and 
expanding the vocabulary of dissonance and harmony was one of the solutions. 
These new musical devices of course are now added back in to vocal music as 
well. Western Classical music contains far more driving dissonance than popular 
music. The most well known example is the opening of last movement of 
Beethoven's 9th Symphony, which is a real scrunch, demanding a significant 
resolution.

The driven effect depends on the consonance of harmony, in music that is highly 
dissonant throughout, certain forms of jazz, or 20th century atonal 
compositions, the effect of resolution is less apparent, thus the greatest 
effect is produced when dissonance and consonance are at their extremes.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> On 07/16/2011 08:39 AM, Bob Price wrote:
> >> I'm curious what everyone thinks is 
> >> the difference between cognitive
> >> dissonance ("people have a motivational 
> >> drive to reduce dissonance") and what 
> >> F. Scott Fitzgerald said: "the true test 
> >> of a first rate mind is the ability to hold 
> >> two contradictory ideas at the same time".
> >>
> >>
> >> If the theory of cognitive dissonance
> >> and Fitzgerald are both right would
> >> that mean the natural tendency
> >> of the mind is to become less
> >> intelligent?
> 
> The most common use of dissonance is in music.  If I play a dissonant 
> chord the ear wants it resolved.  Therefore it creates motion in music.
> 
> Elsewhere on the Internet including YouTube I use a handle of Captain 
> Bebops which is cognitively dissonant because you have Captain, a 
> military rank, paired with Bebops, a jazz term or two things you 
> wouldn't ordinarily put together.  A handle like that sticks out a 
> little more than something like frank123xy or bsmith2020.  Bhairtu, 
> however, is a homonym. ;-)
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Vaj]

On Jul 20, 2011, at 7:48 AM, Rick Archer wrote:

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com  
[mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bill Coop

Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 3:04 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals





The real prize would be the deerskin.  I think I heard that it was  
inherited from Guru Dev.


I think he went through several deerskins over the years. They tend  
to wear out.



Guru Dev must have taken out several with his Vedic Deer rifle.

I wonder who got the Guru Dev moosehead?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[tedadams108]

I do have compassion for Mark or anyone in financial difficulties.
I have been observing the comments on Fairfield Life for many 
years but until today was not inspired to post one of my own.
For some reason it was hard for me to resist pointing out the
hypocrisy since I had just seen the film. Perhaps I was a little
"colorful" with my words, but they pale in comparison to the words
used in the interview. Obviously there are people on here that
fit either into the pro-TM camp or the anti-TM camp. I apparently hit 
a nerve. I'm not taking sides here, just pointing out the facts
and people can spin them the way they want. Interestingly, those
who have an issue with my post are not addressing it's main point,
rather my mention of being compassionate or acknowledging that 
many have enjoyed financial success and have attributed it to their
TM practice. The main point is not debatable.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tedadams108  wrote:
> >
> > There is a reason Mark was put in the film and it was 
> > not to say nice things about Maharishi. I do remember
> > a couple things that were said but rather than paraphrase 
> > it would be best to see the film or to ask your initiate 
> > directly.
> 
> Whoa! More "TM Compassion." 
> 
> Now it's Rick's fault if one of his initiates
> is deemed Off The Program by someone with a 
> stick up their butt.
> 
> K-Y dude. It's not just for sex. Just sayin'.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Vaj]

On Jul 20, 2011, at 4:04 AM, Bill Coop wrote:

The real prize would be the deerskin.  I think I heard that it was  
inherited from Guru Dev.


LOL!

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Vaj]

On Jul 19, 2011, at 5:31 PM, emptybill wrote:

According to my informant (a former student of MMY, a former MIU  
professor, a close teacher of SSRS who now is a professor and a  
Sankhya-Yoga scholar) SSRS was always devoted to MMY and had only  
love for him until the "final endlessness". According to this  
scholar, SSRS said, quite often, that MMY had nothing but Deva Ma's  
will to fulfill, i.e. that this was his sole purpose in life and  
that Her Divine Will was all that concerned him in this earthly life.


So your confession is that this Deva Ma is behind the molestation of  
the young women, the poisoning and the hundreds who went insane or  
died under Mahesh.


It sounds like it's time to contact Homeland Security. Obviously  
another enemy combatant. Perhaps Hindu Al Qaeda.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tedadams108  wrote:
>
> There is a reason Mark was put in the film and it was 
> not to say nice things about Maharishi. I do remember
> a couple things that were said but rather than paraphrase 
> it would be best to see the film or to ask your initiate 
> directly.

Whoa! More "TM Compassion." 

Now it's Rick's fault if one of his initiates
is deemed Off The Program by someone with a 
stick up their butt.

K-Y dude. It's not just for sex. Just sayin'.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"  
> wrote:
> >
> > Curtis,
> > 
> > In reply to your first paragraph:  You are not "seconding 
> > the motion", but rather introducing your own "motion", as 
> > your charactarization of my suggestion as "outing of people 
> > against their will" is incorrect.
> 
> How is it "incorrect?" That is EXACTLY what you
> are asking for, and have been asking since you
> descended upon this forum.
> 
> > Your other 4 paragraphs devolve further. I interpret them 
> > to be support for your critisism of my suggestion, which 
> > you mischaracterized anyway (see above).
> 
> IMHO, Curtis didn't mischaracterize your intent in any way.
> You made your intent very clear. You want to know the names
> of people who post on this forum.

A little clarification here, since of course we can't
expect Barry to do anything but attempt to confuse the
issue:

Dan has been very clear that what he doesn't like is
Rick's posting of anonymous emails from nonmembers. I
don't recall Dan complaining about members using handles.
As Nabby just pointed out, the difference is that members
who use handles tend to have an ongoing presence on the
forum and to respond to comments and questions; and they
therefore have some ostensible accountability for what
they post, unlike the anonymous writers of the emails
Rick posts.

 So far, you have only
> wanted to know the names of the people whose ideas you
> disagree with. I leave it up to the conspiracy theorists
> here to determine the "why" of this.

No conspiracy theory required. The vast majority of
emails from nonmembers that Rick posts anonymously 
involve ideas Dan disagrees with. I can't remember the
last anonymous email posted by Rick that was positive
about TM/MMY/the TMO. So this remark from Barry is
disingenuous as well.

> When you first appeared here, I took you to task for this
> 'tude, and do so again. When you first went all drama queen
> on having your Holy Opinion questioned, you pitched a hissy
> fit and demanded that I stop referencing you on this forum.
> I did so. I neither mentioned you nor referred to you in
> any post since February. And then, out of the blue, you
> come barging in and run the same number all over again,
> upbraiding me for "speaking your name in vain."

This is false, and Barry knows it. Dan had been having
conversations with others here since June 23 that had
nothing to do with Barry; he did not just "come barging
in out of the blue" and demand that Barry stop using his
name. And by the time Dan did address Barry on this 
issue, Barry *had* been referring to Dan, using his name.

What happened was that on July 11, Dan made an offhand
reference to the unpleasant episode involving Barry from
January, without mentioning Barry's name. Curtis wanted
to know who the perp was, and I posted message numbers
from the archives for the January episode. Curtis read
the posts and then accused Dan of having misrepresented
the episode.

Then *Barry* "barged in" and piled on to Curtis's
accusation, using Dan's name, and himself misrepresented
the episode. That's the point at which Dan "upbraided"
Barry for using his name after promising not to do so.

(To be fair to Barry, he could hardly participate in the
discussion about the January episode in which he had
been involved without mentioning Dan's name. On the
other hand, Dan had not used Barry's name, as noted,
when he mentioned the episode and was not participating
in the discussion about it, which was primarily between
Curtis and me until Barry got involved.)

For the record, I don't have any objection to Rick
posting the anonymous emails, although I understand Dan's
gripe about them and think he had a perfect right to
bring it up and make his point. I also think, however,
that Dan's point has been more than made, and if I were
Dan, I'd back off. Rick isn't going to change his policy
based on Dan's complaint, and that's *Rick's* right.

But I don't feel the need to demonize Dan about this as
Barry does. And I think if Barry finds the temptation
to demonize him irresistible, he at least ought to
refrain from *misrepresenting* what Dan has done and
said, as he has in this post and several others.


This is my 50th for the week. See you in a few days.





> 
> Get The Fuck Over Yourself. 
> 
> Neither you nor your opinions of How Fairfield Life Should
> Be Run are terribly of interest to me. I suspect I'm not
> alone in this, and that most on this forum -- judging from
> their lack of "piling on" to your adolescent demands -- 
> probably agree with me. What makes this forum special, and
> of value to those who appreciate it, is exactly the thing
> that you seem to find most threatening.
> 
> People can come onto this forum and speak their minds. They
> can do so using their legal names or using an alias. If one
> of them isn't a member and chooses to send something to Rick
> to repost anonymously, they have

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[richardjwilliamstexas]

> > What a doofus. I'll give him ten bucks for the 
> > sandals, free shipping.
> >
Sal Sunshine:
> ...I still stand by what I said originally, that 
> he'd be lucky to get $1000 or anything close.
> 
Maybe so, but how much could you get for a pair
of your own worn-out sandals, a few cents? LoL!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[tedadams108]

Rick,

The entire film was posted on youtube. It has since been
removed. It is in german, but the interview with Mark Landau
is in english. The following are the people interviewed in 
the film:

Judith Bourque, Earl Kaplan, John Knapp, and Mark Landau. As you
can assume the producer did not choose these people to glorify
Maharishi, rather to make the points he wanted to make in the film.
I would be paraphrasing since I cannot go back and listen since
the videos were removed, but in each of the interviews, including
the one with Mark, the viewer comes away with a very negative 
impression of Maharishi. There is a reason Mark was put in the film
and it was not to say nice things about Maharishi. I do remember
a couple things that were said but rather than paraphrase it would be best to 
see the film or to ask your initiate directly.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of tedadams108
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 8:47 AM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> Ok, forget about the famous meditator references. My main point is the
> contradiction between representing Maharishi as bad in the film but
> glorifying the man in the sandals. Can't have it both ways. The sandals are
> more valuable when worn by someone of high regard. Mark did not speak well
> of Maharishi in the film. 
> 
> What did he say, for those of us who didn't see the film? I've never heard
> Mark speak ill of Maharishi.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[richardjwilliamstexas]

whynotnow:
> No, it came from a deer I am pretty sure.
> 
Probably from Corbett Park.

http://www.corbettpark.com/

>From what I've read, Guru Dev did not sit on a 'deerskin'; 
he meditated on an antelope skin. The skin, which was
given to Guru Dev by his guru Swami Krishnanada Saraswati, 
which the great Guru Dev meditated on, was inherited by 
his successor, in direct desciplic succession. 

Not only the skin, but the gold gilt high chair and the 
Raja Umbrella, the sandals, the japa beads, the water pot 
and the staff of Guru Dev.

Also, the Jyotirmath Ashram, the buildings and all the 
Ashram property, both at Jypotirmath and at the Shankar 
Math at Allahabad, were inherited by Guru Dev's successor. 

Guru Dev's successor was H.H. Swami Shantanand Saraswati, 
as reported in the Indian Press. All the above listed 
items are now in the possession of Swami Vasudevananda 
Saraswati, the current representative of the line of 
Brahmanada Saraswati.

Read more:

Subject: The Shankaracharyas Today
Author: Willytex
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: July 1, 2003
http://tinyurl.com/3ugc62k

Sources:

'The Times of India'
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/

"The Whole Thing, the Real Thing"
The Official Biography of Guru Dev

"A Tradition of Teachers: Shankara and the Jagadgurus Today"
By William Cenkner, Ph.D. 

> > The real prize would be the deerskin.  
> > I think I heard that it was inherited
> > from Guru Dev.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[turquoiseb]

Compassion. As expressed by -- and exemplified by -- a long-
term practitioner of the Transcendental Meditation(TM) 
technique (one assumes), self-proclaimed as the highest,
most effective means of spiritual development on the planet.

Interesting dharma talk.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tedadams108  wrote:
>
> 
> I'm a little confused. Is this the same Mark Landau who 
> spoke such unkind words about Maharishi in the film "David 
> Wants To Fly."? When attempting to sell Maharishi's sandals  
> there are no unkind words spoken, only glorifying words, 
> probably as an attempt to increase the marketability of 
> the sandals.
> 
> I have compassion for Mark that he is having financial 
> challenges in this economy, like so many others. Apparently 
> his involvement with Maharishi did not result in financial 
> well being as it did for so many others (John Gray, Barbara 
> DeAngeles, Deepak Chopra, etc., and the many wealthy 
> meditators living in Fairfield and around the world. Maybe 
> it's more difficult to get Nature Support when one cavils 
> about the Master. 
> 
> I'm sure someone would appreciate having the sandals and 
> would be willing to pay something for them. My guess is 
> that the only value to Mark would be for firewood.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7"  wrote:
>
> No, it came from a deer I am pretty sure.


Funny surreal connection Jim!  


> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bill Coop  wrote:
> >
> > The real prize would be the deerskin.  I think I heard that it was inherited
> > from Guru Dev.
> >
>

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of tedadams108
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 8:47 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

 

  

Ok, forget about the famous meditator references. My main point is the
contradiction between representing Maharishi as bad in the film but
glorifying the man in the sandals. Can't have it both ways. The sandals are
more valuable when worn by someone of high regard. Mark did not speak well
of Maharishi in the film. 

What did he say, for those of us who didn't see the film? I've never heard
Mark speak ill of Maharishi.

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jul 20, 2011, at 8:53 AM, whynotnow7 wrote:

>> What a doofus. I'll give him ten bucks for the sandals, free shipping.

LOL...I admit I'm not too surprised to hear about this.
(Would love to see the film but NF hasn't gotten it 
yet and doesn't seem to know when it will.)  
Trash-talking someone (publicly no less) but then 
attempting to make $$ off of your "devotion" to 
him? Mark, meet Cognitive Dissonance.  I'm sure
you two will have a long and happy relationship. :)

(And I still stand by what I said originally, that he'd
be lucky to get $1000 or anything close.)

>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tedadams108  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Ok, forget about the famous meditator references. My main point is the 
>>> contradiction between representing Maharishi as bad in the film but 
>>> glorifying the man in the sandals. Can't have it both ways. The sandals are 
>>> more valuable when worn by someone of high regard. Mark did not speak well 
>>> of Maharishi in the film.