date:20070319

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hyperbolicgeometry"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ---IMO : the "pure" (Consciousness only) neo-Advaitin viewpoint 
> begs the question of why in the world "one" would even talk about 
> Enlightenment...

For fun, or for something to do to pleasantly pass
the time of an incarnation?  :-)

> ...or even "accept" something such as the statement of a 
> neo-Advaitin Guru such as HWL Poonja: "Ye are already 
> Enlightened".  

Who do you know who has done that? I certainly never
met the dude, and have only encountered one of his
students (Gangaji) twice, and those encounters cost
me not a penny and didn't impress me overmuch.

For the record, *my* feelings about "We are always
already enlightened" are based on my own experience
with fleeting enlightenment experiences. Once having
had that realization, that the state of enlightenment
was not "new," not something "different" than what
had preceded it, how can I go "back" after the 
experiences fade and believe that it is *not*
present at all times, even if I don't realize its
presence? *That's* the basis of my feelings about 
the subject, not anything anyone told me. Or sold me.

> Doesn't make sense.  If "they" are already Enlightened, 
> then who needs Poonjaji to tell them?? 

They don't. I didn't. But some people need to be
tricked into realizing the obvious, I guess. In
my opinion, *all* forms of Self Discovery are 
tricks; Neoadvaita is just one more, with its
own set of tricks and tricksters. Some of the 
tricksters are well-meaning and useful, others 
are charlatans, *just* as in all of the other 
forms of religion or spiritual practice or Self 
Discovery.

> I have a hypothesis: The neo-Advaitins have the need to 
> fork over money for special courses, where the Gurus 
> readily accept the money in payment for telling them 
> they're aleady Enlightened!. It's a money making 
> "POONJA-SCHEME"  Hee Hee!!!

Possibly. But some of them get what they pay for.
I wasn't one of them, but I know a few people
who seem pleased with the tiny amounts of money
they paid for seminars with Neoadvaitan teachers
(dozens of seminars over the years, the total cost
of all of them coming to less than the cost of 
starting TM today).

One chooses one's tricksters in life, and then
lives with the results of those choices. On the
whole, the folks I know who pursued a Neoadvaitan
path and spent less than $2000 over twenty years
pursuing it seem to feel that they've gotten a
higher "return on investment" than many others 
who put their money into other spiritual paths
and into the pockets of other spiritual teachers.

I just appreciate the *essential* difference 
between the two intellectual approaches -- one
says that enlightenment is "other," something
that must be "attained," and that there are 
things or beings or whatever out there in the
universe that can "prevent" its realization.
The other says that enlightenment is always
present at every moment, that all one has to
do is realize that, and that there is nothing
in the universe that can interfere with that
realization. For me it's a purely aesthethic
thing -- although *no* words can define the
issue of enlightenment, the latter description
comes closer to my own experiences.

Different strokes for different folks is all 
I'm sayin'...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Posts in 23.5 hours

2007-03-19 Thread geezerfreak

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Monday's count and commentary from my official counter:
> > > > 
> > > > I am a little light by 1/2 hour in order to get this done
> > > > and out the door. I actually read every post and did not
> > > > delete any. It was on the whole quite refreshing and a
> > > > major shift in content expect for a few knuckleheads.
> > > > I will continue till Thursday night. If the tone sustains
> > > > itself maybe all we ever needed was the threat to put them
> > > > on moderated. They clearly love to be here but have not
> > > > appreciated what a rare gift this is for them. In salesman
> > > > terms the take away works real well sometimes. Congrats. from
> > > > Anarchy to respectful Civility in 24 hours. Cool.
> > > 
> > > This is an attempt at humor, right?
> > > 
> > No.
> 
> Oh, that's too bad.
> 
>  And this makes 11 for you. Way over the limit.
> > Whoops, there's yet another one. 12.
> 
> Apparently some of us still aren't quite clear on
> the process here.
> 
> In the first place, posts asking for clarification
> of the new regime, according to Rick, were not to
> be counted toward a person's total.
> 
> In the second place, it hasn't yet been established
> when a "day" starts.  We're not all in the same time
> zone, obviously, so that has to be straightened out.
> Do we all count from midnight to midnight East Coast
> time?  Or do we count from midnight to midnight of
> whatever time zone we happen to be in?  Or midnight
> to midnight of whatever time zone the counting
> official happens to be in?  (In which case we need
> to know what that is.)
> 
> From midnight to midnight yesterday, EST (where I
> live), I made 11 posts, only three of which, I believe,
> were not asking for process clarification.  So I was
> actually well under my limit if my "day" is midnight
> to midnight EST.
> 
> So Rick, what's the story on when an individual
> poster's "day" begins, for counting purposes?
>
13

[FairfieldLife] Re: Posts in 23.5 hours

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Monday's count and commentary from my official counter:
> > > 
> > > I am a little light by 1/2 hour in order to get this done
> > > and out the door. I actually read every post and did not
> > > delete any. It was on the whole quite refreshing and a
> > > major shift in content expect for a few knuckleheads.
> > > I will continue till Thursday night. If the tone sustains
> > > itself maybe all we ever needed was the threat to put them
> > > on moderated. They clearly love to be here but have not
> > > appreciated what a rare gift this is for them. In salesman
> > > terms the take away works real well sometimes. Congrats. from
> > > Anarchy to respectful Civility in 24 hours. Cool.
> > 
> > This is an attempt at humor, right?
> > 
> No.

Oh, that's too bad.

 And this makes 11 for you. Way over the limit.
> Whoops, there's yet another one. 12.

Apparently some of us still aren't quite clear on
the process here.

In the first place, posts asking for clarification
of the new regime, according to Rick, were not to
be counted toward a person's total.

In the second place, it hasn't yet been established
when a "day" starts.  We're not all in the same time
zone, obviously, so that has to be straightened out.
Do we all count from midnight to midnight East Coast
time?  Or do we count from midnight to midnight of
whatever time zone we happen to be in?  Or midnight
to midnight of whatever time zone the counting
official happens to be in?  (In which case we need
to know what that is.)

>From midnight to midnight yesterday, EST (where I
live), I made 11 posts, only three of which, I believe,
were not asking for process clarification.  So I was
actually well under my limit if my "day" is midnight
to midnight EST.

So Rick, what's the story on when an individual
poster's "day" begins, for counting purposes?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Posts in 23.5 hours

2007-03-19 Thread geezerfreak

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > Monday's count and commentary from my official counter:
> > 
> > I am a little light by 1/2 hour in order to get this done
> > and out the door. I actually read every post and did not
> > delete any. It was on the whole quite refreshing and a
> > major shift in content expect for a few knuckleheads.
> > I will continue till Thursday night. If the tone sustains
> > itself maybe all we ever needed was the threat to put them
> > on moderated. They clearly love to be here but have not
> > appreciated what a rare gift this is for them. In salesman
> > terms the take away works real well sometimes. Congrats. from
> > Anarchy to respectful Civility in 24 hours. Cool.
> 
> This is an attempt at humor, right?
> 
No. And this makes 11 for you. Way over the limit. Whoops, there's yet
another one. 12.

[FairfieldLife] Re: time does not exist

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hyperbolicgeometry" 
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > >  Of course, we know the answer (Hee hee!!): the universe is
> > > built on turtles,.all the aaa down!. Thus,
> > > the "cause" of any given turtle is the one below.
> > >   If this sounds like an infinite regress, then check this out:
> > > http://www.tinyurl.com/26vmed
> > 
> > Yow.  Somebody sure was having a few nightmares.
> >
> Great concept though, and this could be so much more. As it is,
> it reminds me of the kind of art I did when I was in my early 
> teens, all full of angst and not mature enough to appreciate the 
> subtleties of more uplifting images.

Or at least more *interesting* images.  But the
execution is terrific.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Posts in 23.5 hours

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Monday's count and commentary from my official counter:
> 
> I am a little light by 1/2 hour in order to get this done
> and out the door. I actually read every post and did not
> delete any. It was on the whole quite refreshing and a
> major shift in content expect for a few knuckleheads.
> I will continue till Thursday night. If the tone sustains
> itself maybe all we ever needed was the threat to put them
> on moderated. They clearly love to be here but have not
> appreciated what a rare gift this is for them. In salesman
> terms the take away works real well sometimes. Congrats. from
> Anarchy to respectful Civility in 24 hours. Cool.

This is an attempt at humor, right?



> 
> Alex moderator 1
> Amarnath 2
> judy 10
> Bharait 2
> Cardmeister 2 
> coshlnx 3
> curtis 1
> Doug hamilton 3 
> Geezerfreak 2
> George Deforest 1
> Hyperbolic 2
> gullible fool moderator 5
> jim flanigan 4
> Llundrub 5
> Lurk 3
> Peter 1
> Matrix 1
> MDixon 1
> Qntmpt 1
> Quantum 2
> Willitex 9
> Nablus 3 same post three times
> Rick moderator 9
> offworld 6 (2 repeat)
> Sal 2
> Barry 5 (1 repeat)
> Vaj 4
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: time does not exist

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hyperbolicgeometry" 
>  wrote:
> 
> >  Of course, we know the answer (Hee hee!!): the universe is
> > built on turtles,.all the aaa down!. Thus,
> > the "cause" of any given turtle is the one below.
> >   If this sounds like an infinite regress, then check this out:
> > http://www.tinyurl.com/26vmed
> 
> Yow.  Somebody sure was having a few nightmares.
>
Great concept though, and this could be so much more. As it is, it 
reminds me of the kind of art I did when I was in my early teens, all 
full of angst and not mature enough to appreciate the subtleties of 
more uplifting images.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Posts in 23.5 hours

Rick Archer wrote:
> Monday's count and commentary from my official counter:
>
Monday didn't start until 12:00 AM, Rick.

Richard J. Williams 12:04 am
Richard J. Williams 12:29 pm
Richard J. Williams 1:06 pm
Richard J. Williams 1:27 pm
Richard J. Williams 11:15 pm

[FairfieldLife] Re: time does not exist

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

> Well, we've hashed out a lot of things in the past day or two, and 
the 
> result--we've gone from semi-chaos to near-total boredom. 

Yea, I say 5 per day is too few. 12 per day would work better.  Of 
course the real solution is self discipline.  That's the elusive Holy 
Grail

lurk
>

[FairfieldLife] Posts in 23.5 hours

Monday's count and commentary from my official counter:

I am a little light by 1/2 hour in order to get this done and out the door.
I actually read every post and did not delete any. It was on the whole quite
refreshing and a major shift in content expect for a few knuckleheads.
I will continue till Thursday night. If the tone sustains itself maybe all
we ever needed was the threat to put them on moderated. They clearly love to
be here but have not appreciated what a rare gift this is for them. In
salesman terms the take away works real well sometimes. Congrats. from
Anarchy to respectful Civility in 24 hours. Cool.

Alex moderator 1
Amarnath 2
judy 10
Bharait 2
Cardmeister 2 
coshlnx 3
curtis 1
Doug hamilton 3 
Geezerfreak 2
George Deforest 1
Hyperbolic 2
gullible fool moderator 5
jim flanigan 4
Llundrub 5
Lurk 3
Peter 1
Matrix 1
MDixon 1
Qntmpt 1
Quantum 2
Willitex 9
Nablus 3 same post three times
Rick moderator 9
offworld 6 (2 repeat)
Sal 2
Barry 5 (1 repeat)
Vaj 4

[FairfieldLife] Re: time does not exist

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hyperbolicgeometry" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  Of course, we know the answer (Hee hee!!): the universe is
> built on turtles,.all the aaa down!. Thus,
> the "cause" of any given turtle is the one below.
>   If this sounds like an infinite regress, then check this out:
> http://www.tinyurl.com/26vmed

Yow.  Somebody sure was having a few nightmares.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: time does not exist

2007-03-19 Thread Sal Sunshine


On Mar 19, 2007, at 9:55 PM, hyperbolicgeometry wrote:


---thanks, all has to do with the arrows of time; ie. about 8 semi-
distinct (but all related) apparent, real, (or both) groups of
phenomena which point to a linear progression of events which people
interpret as time.  Among the various arrows, physicists are MOST
interested in the Entropic arrow of time,


Well, we've hashed out a lot of things in the past day or two, and the 
result--we've gone from semi-chaos to near-total boredom.  I guess this 
is an improvement, of sorts.  Good job, Rick. :)


Hopefully at some point  we'll reach some happy medium.  Or even some 
unhappy medium.



first elucidated around the

turn of the 19-th to 20-centuries by Ludwig Boltzmann

Surely not *the* Ludwig Boltzmann?

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: OffWorld on "The Two Paradigms"

2007-03-19 Thread hyperbolicgeometry

---IMO : the "pure" (Consciousness only) neo-Advaitin viewpoint begs 
the question of why in the world "one" would even talk about 
Enlightenment, or even "accept" something such as the statement of a 
neo-Advaitin Guru such as HWL Poonja: "Ye are already Enlightened".  
Doesn't make sense.  If "they" are already Enlightened, then who 
needs Poonjaji to tell them?? 
 I have a hypothesis: The neo-Advaitins have the need to fork over 
money for special courses, where the Gurus readily accept the money 
in payment for telling them they're aleady Enlightened!. It's a money 
making "POONJA-SCHEME"  Hee Hee!!!


 In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
> wrote:
> snip
> < > most prevalent approaches to Self Realization.
> > 
> > Although there are more than two, of course, I 
> > think that one can safely sort them into two piles.
> > The first pile has a label that says, "Believes in
> > the concept of non-enlightenment, and the existence
> > of things that can prevent enlightenment." The
> > second label says, "Believes in the ever-present
> > existence of enlightenment, that one is always
> > already enlightened, that the only thing necessary
> > to be enlightened is to *realize* that you already
> > are enlightened, and that no obstacles to that
> > realization can or do exist." 
> 
> 
> Good start. Existentialism, and its opposite...Existentialism.
>  
> 
> > 
> > It seems to me that TM and many other forms of 
> > spiritual development fall into the first box,>>
> 
> 
> Except that the most common phrase used by Maharishi over 50 years 
> is "the Self". Think about it Turquoise.
> 
> 
> > whereas some forms of Advaita or Neo-Advaita or
> > Zen or Taoism fall into the latter. *Both* of
> > these approaches and "ways of seeing" are valid,
> > in my opinion, in that they describe reality from
> > a particular state of attention. One's *predilection*
> > for one description or the other is all that matters.
> > 
> > In the "I believe in non-enlightenment" box, there
> > seems to me to be a fascination with BLAME. "I'm
> > not enlightened because of my stress/my samskaras/
> > my sins/the state of the world/other people fucking
> > with me/all of the above. If these things weren't
> > present, I'd have an easier pathway to enlightenment."
> > 
> > In the "I'm always already enlightened" box, there
> > seems to be no such fixation on BLAME. It's a path
> > that is more concerned with CHOICE. "At every moment
> > of every day, I have the choice to realize and live
> > my ever-present enlightenment. My ability to *make*
> > that choice is not affected by anything.">>
> 
> 
> ""Kierkegaard also focused on the deep anxiety of human existence --
 
> the feeling that there is no purpose, indeed nothing, at its core. 
> Finding a way to counter this nothingness, by embracing existence, 
> is the fundamental theme of existentialism, and the explanation for 
> the philosophy's name. While someone who claims to believe in 
> reality might be called a "realist," or someone who believes in a 
> deity a "deist," someone who believes fundamentally only in 
> existence, and seeks to find meaning in his life solely by 
embracing 
> existence, is an existentialist.""
> 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism#Major_concepts_in_existen
> tialism
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > I kinda prefer the latter path, but I understand those
> > who prefer the former. It's a safer path, full of 
> > prescriptions for the things one must do to avoid the
> > obstacles and "become" enlightened, and equally full
> > of proscriptions against doing any of the things that
> > "prevent" enlightenment.
> > 
> > The "I'm already enlightened, if I just choose to 
> > realize that" approach doesn't tend to have that many
> > do's and don'ts. What would be the point, if neither
> > the do's nor the don'ts have any effect on one's
> > always-already-present enlightenment?>>
> 
> 
> They are one and the same. They are not different. It is like the 
> Buddhist and the Vedantist argueing about about the "Self" (Atman) 
> and the "no-self" (Anatman). They are the EXACTLY same thing, just 
> that people like to argue for a hobby (kinda like this board really)
> 
> OffWorld
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > Anyway, I'm just throwing this out as a potential 
> > topic for discussion. If anyone is interested in the
> > subject, pile on. If not, carry on and use your five
> > posts as you choose.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: time does not exist

2007-03-19 Thread hyperbolicgeometry

---thanks, all has to do with the arrows of time; ie. about 8 semi-
distinct (but all related) apparent, real, (or both) groups of 
phenomena which point to a linear progression of events which people 
interpret as time.  Among the various arrows, physicists are MOST 
interested in the Entropic arrow of time, first elucidated around the 
turn of the 19-th to 20-centuries by Ludwig Boltzmann.; especially as 
it relates to Cosmology (investigated now by people like S. Hawking 
and A. Linde of Stanford).
 The problem with such cosmological studies is getting experimental 
data; as opposed to (say) molecular and atomic physics where one can 
observe the trajectories of particles in a cloud chamber.
 The various phenomena you mention (below); are key ingredients in 
the cosmological arrow of time which physicists like Hawking are 
investigating with a view to at least (short of outright proof); 
coming up with a plausible hypothesis.  But even on that level there 
is much disagreement.  
 The very first step is to ascertain whether there is a "real" arrow 
of time in physics, and not some illusion.  It appears the answer 
is "yes" (again, strictly in the relative sense, since from the Neo-
Advaitin POV, nothing exists anyway, so why bother!).
 In terms of quantum particles, the question of the existence of an 
arrow of time is somehow connected to chirality; i.e. right vs left-
handedness.  In other words, IF an arrow of time exists, then 
mathematical physicists are allowed to say things like "IF", THEN 
this would imply that(...).
  For example, say a cosmic ray particle enters the earths atmosphere 
and it twists right or left. An "equivalency" might (I'm more or less 
making this one up) be something like: "If an arrow of time exists, 
then we can expect more right twisting particles than left".
 Thus, short of actual proof, scientists look for circumstantial 
proof.
 The MOST important physical entity relating to an arrow of time is 
the Cosmic Background Radiation, left over fromt the "Big Bang".
 But this begs the question (as you suggest), how and why is the 
universe winding down from the Big Bang. 
 Of course, we know the answer (Hee hee!!): the universe is built on 
turtles,.all the aaa down!. Thus, the "cause" of 
any given turtle is the one below.
  If this sounds like an infinite regress, then check this out:
http://www.tinyurl.com/26vmed 
...but in answer to your question as to why galaxies "die"; we only 
have various hypotheses to go on.  Of course, one could say that 
various "universes" (as eggs within the total Meta-universe or 
Metaverse). ...undergo cyclical incarnations; but those incarnations 
also "seem" to have an arrow of time.  Mystery!.
  Another mystery is that most of the arrows exist only on a macro 
level.  Time is fully reversible on a quantum level. The question 
of "decoherance" enters here.  At what point does an Entropic arrow 
of time enter the picture? (ie. if you examine matter on a quantum 
level, then atomic, then molecular, etc; attempting to pin down how, 
when, and where the arrows of time enter the picuture is probably as 
difficult as ascertaining when GRAVITY enters the picture. (pointing 
to the biggest unanswered question of physics: reconciling quantum 
reality with the known facts about gravity).
 Another unanswered question pertains to Roger Penrose's speculations 
on the nature of MIND, (mind/brain); and to the extent to which mind 
participates in quantum reality.
 Given the notion that the mind is a quantum computer, then it should 
be capable of virtually instantaneous (and statistically correct ont 
he whole) findings!.
 Judging from the abundance of disagreements on this forum, it 
appears that there could be some glitches to Penrose's hypothesis. 
Either that, or there's an information glut: the various 
disagreements arise to the plethora of conflicting data.  I suspect 
that most of the data is in perfect agreement. It's only the 
personalities that are in conflict.

 In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Interesting post.  If time does not exist, why do people, 
> civilizations, planets and galaxies die?
> 
> I once read a passage from Swedenbourg, a European mystic, who 
stated 
> that time does not exist in heaven.  There are only changes of 
> events.  The angels and inhabitants of heaven apparently can 
remember 
> all of the changes since they have attained enlightenment and 
> immortality.
> 
> Back on earth, we cannot remember well nor do we live forever.  So, 
> time is part of the manifest universe, just as the other three 
> dimensions.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> John R.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "coshlnx"  wrote:
> >
> > i.e. not from a neo-Advaitin point of view since nothing exists 
> from 
> > that point of  view.  From a strictly relative point of view, 
> Barbour 
> > argues that time doesn't exist.  As a physicist, he has to 
s

[FairfieldLife] OffWorld on "The Two Paradigms"

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
snip
< most prevalent approaches to Self Realization.
> 
> Although there are more than two, of course, I 
> think that one can safely sort them into two piles.
> The first pile has a label that says, "Believes in
> the concept of non-enlightenment, and the existence
> of things that can prevent enlightenment." The
> second label says, "Believes in the ever-present
> existence of enlightenment, that one is always
> already enlightened, that the only thing necessary
> to be enlightened is to *realize* that you already
> are enlightened, and that no obstacles to that
> realization can or do exist." 

Good start. Existentialism, and its opposite...Existentialism.

> 
> It seems to me that TM and many other forms of 
> spiritual development fall into the first box,>>

Except that the most common phrase used by Maharishi over 50 years 
is "the Self". Think about it Turquoise.

> whereas some forms of Advaita or Neo-Advaita or
> Zen or Taoism fall into the latter. *Both* of
> these approaches and "ways of seeing" are valid,
> in my opinion, in that they describe reality from
> a particular state of attention. One's *predilection*
> for one description or the other is all that matters.
> 
> In the "I believe in non-enlightenment" box, there
> seems to me to be a fascination with BLAME. "I'm
> not enlightened because of my stress/my samskaras/
> my sins/the state of the world/other people fucking
> with me/all of the above. If these things weren't
> present, I'd have an easier pathway to enlightenment."
> 
> In the "I'm always already enlightened" box, there
> seems to be no such fixation on BLAME. It's a path
> that is more concerned with CHOICE. "At every moment
> of every day, I have the choice to realize and live
> my ever-present enlightenment. My ability to *make*
> that choice is not affected by anything.">>

""Kierkegaard also focused on the deep anxiety of human existence -- 
the feeling that there is no purpose, indeed nothing, at its core. 
Finding a way to counter this nothingness, by embracing existence, 
is the fundamental theme of existentialism, and the explanation for 
the philosophy's name. While someone who claims to believe in 
reality might be called a "realist," or someone who believes in a 
deity a "deist," someone who believes fundamentally only in 
existence, and seeks to find meaning in his life solely by embracing 
existence, is an existentialist.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism#Major_concepts_in_existen
tialism

> 
> I kinda prefer the latter path, but I understand those
> who prefer the former. It's a safer path, full of 
> prescriptions for the things one must do to avoid the
> obstacles and "become" enlightened, and equally full
> of proscriptions against doing any of the things that
> "prevent" enlightenment.
> 
> The "I'm already enlightened, if I just choose to 
> realize that" approach doesn't tend to have that many
> do's and don'ts. What would be the point, if neither
> the do's nor the don'ts have any effect on one's
> always-already-present enlightenment?>>

They are one and the same. They are not different. It is like the 
Buddhist and the Vedantist argueing about about the "Self" (Atman) 
and the "no-self" (Anatman). They are the EXACTLY same thing, just 
that people like to argue for a hobby (kinda like this board really)

OffWorld

> 
> Anyway, I'm just throwing this out as a potential 
> topic for discussion. If anyone is interested in the
> subject, pile on. If not, carry on and use your five
> posts as you choose.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: time does not exist

2007-03-19 Thread John

Interesting post.  If time does not exist, why do people, 
civilizations, planets and galaxies die?

I once read a passage from Swedenbourg, a European mystic, who stated 
that time does not exist in heaven.  There are only changes of 
events.  The angels and inhabitants of heaven apparently can remember 
all of the changes since they have attained enlightenment and 
immortality.

Back on earth, we cannot remember well nor do we live forever.  So, 
time is part of the manifest universe, just as the other three 
dimensions.

Regards,

John R.














--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "coshlnx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> i.e. not from a neo-Advaitin point of view since nothing exists 
from 
> that point of  view.  From a strictly relative point of view, 
Barbour 
> argues that time doesn't exist.  As a physicist, he has to support 
> this by a mathematical proof or an abundance of circumstantial 
> evidence.
> From wiki:
> 
> Julian Barbour (born 1937) is a British physicist with research 
> interests in loop quantum gravity. He is the author of The End of 
> Time, The Discovery of Dynamics and Absolute or Relative Motion?. 
He 
> has also co-authored books with Vladimir Pavlovich Vizgin and with 
> Herbert Pfister.
> 
> He holds the controversial view that time does not exist, and that 
> most of physics' problems arise from assuming that it does exist. 
He 
> argues that we have no evidence of the past other than our memory 
of 
> it, and no evidence of the future other than our belief in it. It 
is 
> all an illusion: there is no motion and no change. He argues that 
the 
> illusion of time is what we interpret through what he calls "time 
> capsules," which are "any fixed pattern that creates or encodes the 
> appearance of motion, change or history."
> 
> Barbour lives in Oxford, England. Since receiving his Ph. D. on the 
> foundations of Einstein's general theory of relativity at the 
> University of Cologne in 1968, he has supported himself and his 
> family without a job in academia, working part time as a translator 
> to leave him ample time to think about the nature of time.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: time does not exist

Yes it is clear that time does not exist from the point of view of 
physics, and Barbour is correct that most problems in physics arise 
from the assumption that it does. Time is a convenient illusion that 
is set up by the internal necessity of the universe to interact 
within itself, but the pre-Planck era has no discernible difference 
from the sub-Planck scale of this era. Therefore those two quantum 
regions/existencies are one and the same.  
The activities of the universe are same now as they were in 
the "beginning". From our human level, we call it 'story', but it is 
just the interplay of forces by necessity. Lastly, the second 
mistake that science makes is to assume that the hard workings of 
nature or physics are alien to us and therefore harsh, but that is a 
fallacious assumtion. The "harsh forces of nature"... they are who 
we are, we are not distinct from them, therefore we are at home and 
blissful within this realm. It is our playground, and it is us.

OffWorld

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "coshlnx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> i.e. not from a neo-Advaitin point of view since nothing exists 
from 
> that point of  view.  From a strictly relative point of view, 
Barbour 
> argues that time doesn't exist.  As a physicist, he has to support 
> this by a mathematical proof or an abundance of circumstantial 
> evidence.
> From wiki:
> 
> Julian Barbour (born 1937) is a British physicist with research 
> interests in loop quantum gravity. He is the author of The End of 
> Time, The Discovery of Dynamics and Absolute or Relative Motion?. 
He 
> has also co-authored books with Vladimir Pavlovich Vizgin and with 
> Herbert Pfister.
> 
> He holds the controversial view that time does not exist, and that 
> most of physics' problems arise from assuming that it does exist. 
He 
> argues that we have no evidence of the past other than our memory 
of 
> it, and no evidence of the future other than our belief in it. It 
is 
> all an illusion: there is no motion and no change. He argues that 
the 
> illusion of time is what we interpret through what he calls "time 
> capsules," which are "any fixed pattern that creates or encodes 
the 
> appearance of motion, change or history."
> 
> Barbour lives in Oxford, England. Since receiving his Ph. D. on 
the 
> foundations of Einstein's general theory of relativity at the 
> University of Cologne in 1968, he has supported himself and his 
> family without a job in academia, working part time as a 
translator 
> to leave him ample time to think about the nature of time.
>

[FairfieldLife] Come back Sparaig//Good Night

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"
>  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  
wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, gang, it's been a lovely day. I have to skip about 40
> > > recent posts and go to bed. I hope we can resolve all this 
stuff.
> > > I really don't like to control anything. The few times I've 
ridden
> > > horses, they wander into the bushes. I would rather continue 
to let
> > > FFL run itself, as I have been doing. But it seems that a 
little
> > > restraint and control might improve things. So I'm going to 
> > > experiment with it. Please make my job easy. Thanks.
> > 
> > Yesterday evening, I gave up trying to follow this humongous meta
> > discussion, and I'll tell you right up front that I am highly 
biased
> > and not in any position to be an impartial dictator of 
discussions
> > around here. E.g., I'm glad Lawson unsubscribed; I found his
> > OCD-driven posting habits annoying. And, willytex? I set up my 
email
> > client to dump his posts directly into the trash folder; his 
posts are
> > incoherent gibberish and a complete waste of time.
> 
> I for one find his writing style rather funny. I'd really
> like to know whether he's ever serious or not. I guess I'll
> never find out for sure... :)>>

I find Sparaig funny and insightful, and at least he does not use 
the disgusting attacks of some people here, and people should have 
given him credit for that, and I hope he comes back and continues 
with his poignant comments. The people that don't like him are just 
haters who hate anything they don't agree with. 

Come back Sparaig.

OffWorld

 
> 
> > 
> > Rick, I'm perfectly willing to handle subscriptions, check to 
make
> > sure uploaded files are appropriate, deal with spammers, etc., 
but
> > topic cop is not something I'm willing to do. I'm not impartial, 
and
> > I'm not even willing to read most of what gets posted here. Feel 
free
> > to revoke my moderator status if I no longer meet the job 
requirements.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Willytex calls TurkeyB a poofter !

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> off_world_beings wrote:
> > Thats a bit much Willtex.
> > 
> My name is NOT "Willtex" - I already told you that. This is a 
personal
> attack and I am requesting you to not do that in future - my name 
is
> Richard J. Williams - my email address is [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Please show some respect, Sir.
>

Willtex, W_i_l_l_t_e_x, Willtex, Willtex, Willtex, W.i.l.l.t.e.x,  
 W 
 i   
l   
l   
 t 
 e  
 x   
  
WilltexWilltexWilltexWilltexWilltexWilltexWilltexWilltexWilltexWillte
xWilltexWilltexWilltex

Willtex


BW HA HA HA AH HA HA HA HA HA ! ! !

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Dalai Lama Quote: balance of hearing, thinking, meditating.

2007-03-19 Thread quantum packet

Note: forwarded message attached.

-
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.--- Begin Message ---
Title: Snow Lion Publications Newsletter

Dalai Lama Quote of the Week
...particularly in Buddhism while we practice we must use the brain as well as the heart. On the ethical side, we must practice the quality of a good and warm heart; also, since Buddhism is very much involved in reasoning and logic--the wisdom side--intelligence is important. Thus, a combination of mind and heart is needed. Without knowledge, without fully utilized intelligence, you cannot reach the depths of the Buddhist doctrine; it is difficult to achieve concrete or fully qualified wisdom. There may be exceptions, but this is the general rule.
It is necessary to have a combination of hearing, thinking, and meditating. The Kadampa teacher Dromton ('brom ston pa, 1004-1064) said, "When I engage in hearing, I also make effort at thinking and meditating. When I engage in thinking, I also search out more hearing and engage in meditation. And when I meditate, I don't give up hearing and don't give up thinking." He said, "I am a balanced Kadampa," meaning that he maintained a balance of hearing, thinking, and meditating.

--from Kindness, Clarity, and Insight 25th Anniversary Edition by the Fourteenth Dalai Lama His Holiness Tenzin Gyatso, edited and translated by Jeffrey Hopkins, co-edited by Elizabeth Napper, published by Snow Lion Publications

SNOW LION PUBLICATIONS is dedicated
to the preservation of Tibetan Buddhism and culture by
publishing books about this great tradition. Tibetan culture is seriously endangered in its homeland and is striving to continue outside of Tibet. To support this effort, in addition to publishing and distributing books, Snow Lion offers a wide range of dharma items, purchased primarily from Tibetans in exile. These include visual art and ritual objects,
statues and thangkas, videos, traditional music, and many gift
items offered through our webstore and "Snow Lion Buddhist News & Catalog" (Newsletter)--over 2000
items--the largest selection anywhere. To browse the complete
list go to www.snowlionpub.com and select any of the
categories in left-hand margin.
When you choose to purchase from Snow Lion you
are directly supporting the large effort to publish more
Buddhist texts and help the Tibetan people. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
SUPPORT.

You are receiving this announcement from Snow Lion Publications because you have previously subscribed on our website. To continue receiving messages, we recommend that you add [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] to your address book. If you'd like to change or cancel your subscription, please visit our subscription pages at www.snowlionpub.com/pages/lists.php, www.snowlionpub.com/pages/unsubscribe.php, or email us at [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Please note that these announcements are also available in plain text, if you are having trouble receiving them.

KINDNESS, CLARITY, AND INSIGHT25th Anniversary Editionby the Fourteenth Dalai LamaHis Holiness Tenzin Gyatso,edited and translated by Jeffrey Hopkins,co-edited by Elizabeth Nappermore...

N. America: (800) 950-0313

Worldwide: (607) 273-8519

By Mail: PO Box 6483, Ithaca, NY 14851 USA

By Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

On the Web: www.snowlionpub.com

New Items Available
Online:

New Books

New Dharma Items

On Sale!

Gifts

2007 Calendars

General Catalog: www.snowlionpub.com

Sign Up:
Receive Snow Lion's Weekly Quotes, Announcements, or Quarterly
"Snow Lion Buddhist News & Catalog" at the
List Management Center.
Snow Lion Publications is happy to send you a weekly
quote from various Tibetan Buddhist teachers.
Visit our website for these related items:

20% OFF all Snow Lion Titles in our Library of
Tibetan Buddhism & Culture

Read the Latest Ed

[FairfieldLife] intentionality in Buddhist practice

2007-03-19 Thread quantum packet

Note: forwarded message attached.

-
Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast
with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut.--- Begin Message ---
Title: Snow Lion Publications Newsletter

Dharma Quote of the Week

Setting a Specific Intention for Our Practice

We should think about how we can make the best use of our practice so that we get the most out of it in the short time we have in this life. We do not have the leisure of wasting our time here by delaying the benefits of our practice. We have to use these situations as effectively as we can.

Before you begin any practice, first think very carefully about your motivation. When we are engaged in the threefold process of study, contemplation and meditation, we should be very specific, very clear about why we are doing it. We should remind ourselves, "I am doing this to transcend my negative emotions and my ego-clinging." This is a general example of a specific intention. However, to be more precise, we need to consider the unique make-up of our own individual kleshas [intense states of suffering, and ignorance]. Once we have identified our strongest emotion, then we can focus on the practices that will alleviate it. We begin with whichever emotion is strongest for us and then we move on to the next strongest, followed by the next, and so on.

It is important for us to prioritize our practice in this way. We have to keep our intention very clear in all three phases--in our study, in our contemplation and in our meditation. During shamatha or other practices, when thoughts come up, we recall that our purpose is to overcome our disturbing emotions and kleshas. We have to have a sense of willpower or determination in our minds. In order for the remedy to work, we must tell ourselves, "Yes, I am going to transcend this anger. I am going to work with it." Otherwise, if we do not have a clear idea, if we simply sit there with an indefinite or vague intention, then the effect also will be vague. We may have sat for one hour and although that time will not have been wasted, because it was not directed in an intentional way, the experience will not be so sharp, to the point or effective.

--from Mind Beyond Death by Dzogchen Ponlop, published by Snow Lion Publications

SNOW LION PUBLICATIONS is dedicated
to the preservation of Tibetan Buddhism and culture by
publishing books about this great tradition. Tibetan culture is seriously endangered in its homeland and is striving to continue outside of Tibet. To support this effort, in addition to publishing and distributing books, Snow Lion offers a wide range of dharma items, purchased primarily from Tibetans in exile. These include visual art and ritual objects,
statues and thangkas, videos, traditional music, and many gift
items offered through our webstore and newsletter--over 2000
items--the largest selection anywhere. To browse the complete
list go to www.snowlionpub.com and select any of the
categories in left-hand margin.
When you choose to purchase from Snow Lion you
are directly supporting the large effort to publish more
Buddhist texts and help the Tibetan people. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
SUPPORT.

MIND BEYOND DEATHby Dzogchen Ponlop
more...

N. America: (800) 950-0313

Worldwide: (607) 273-8519

By Mail: PO Box 6483, Ithaca, NY 14851 USA

By Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

On the Web: www.snowlionpub.com

New Items Available
Online:

New Books

New Dharma Items

[FairfieldLife] time does not exist

2007-03-19 Thread coshlnx

i.e. not from a neo-Advaitin point of view since nothing exists from 
that point of  view.  From a strictly relative point of view, Barbour 
argues that time doesn't exist.  As a physicist, he has to support 
this by a mathematical proof or an abundance of circumstantial 
evidence.
>From wiki:

Julian Barbour (born 1937) is a British physicist with research 
interests in loop quantum gravity. He is the author of The End of 
Time, The Discovery of Dynamics and Absolute or Relative Motion?. He 
has also co-authored books with Vladimir Pavlovich Vizgin and with 
Herbert Pfister.

He holds the controversial view that time does not exist, and that 
most of physics' problems arise from assuming that it does exist. He 
argues that we have no evidence of the past other than our memory of 
it, and no evidence of the future other than our belief in it. It is 
all an illusion: there is no motion and no change. He argues that the 
illusion of time is what we interpret through what he calls "time 
capsules," which are "any fixed pattern that creates or encodes the 
appearance of motion, change or history."

Barbour lives in Oxford, England. Since receiving his Ph. D. on the 
foundations of Einstein's general theory of relativity at the 
University of Cologne in 1968, he has supported himself and his 
family without a job in academia, working part time as a translator 
to leave him ample time to think about the nature of time.

[FairfieldLife] New Sam Harris article, L.A. Times

2007-03-19 Thread coshlnx

it's at

http://www.tinyurl.com/2z3dum

The "dum" in the URL must mean something.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Good Night

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

(Re: Willytex)

> I for one find his writing style rather funny. I'd really
>like to know whether he's ever serious or not. I guess I'll
> never find out for sure... :)

Yea, me too.  But if this is not tongue in cheek, it sort of 
diminishes the humor.  Like.totally.

lurk
> 
> 

>

[FairfieldLife] 4 Post Notice (was Re: ++Attack++)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Since I don't really have much to say today, I 
> thought I'd be generous and use the second of
> my five allotted posts to remind Judy that 
> she's used up four of her five already.
>
Man, I feel great!  FFL Reclaimed!

lurk

[FairfieldLife] new Pandit update from Raja Wynne

2007-03-19 Thread george_deforest

Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007
From: Raja Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Vedic Pandit Update #3

  [Global Country of World Peace]
Dear Supporters of Permanent Invincibility for America,

I wanted to let you know that 133 more Vedic Pandits from India will be
arriving next week and settling into their new campus in Maharishi Vedic
City. That will make a total of 505 Vedic Pandits here contributing to
creating an invincible America through their Yogic Flying and Vedic
routine.

According to the plan I have mentioned before, another 500 Pandits will
be arriving over the next few months, bringing the total here to 1,000.
This number of Pandits will assure that there will always be more than
the Super Radiance number of 1732 Yogic Flyers necessary to maintain
permanent invincibility for America.

The new Pandit campus in Maharishi Vedic City is now ready to take this
next group of 133, and homes for another 100 Pandits will be ready for
occupancy in April. Now that the weather is improving, we should be able
to accommodate the remaining 400 new Pandits shortly after that.

Below are photos of the recently completed dining room and program hall
on the new campus, and a photo of a typical Pandit bedroom.
  [Photo1]   New Pandit dining room   [Photo2]   Flying hall on
new Pandit campus[Photo2]   Typical Pandit bedroom
In order to complete the housing for the remaining 400 Pandits we
continue to need your assistance. Once they are here, their monthly
expenses are covered, like for all Invincible America Assembly grant
participants, with a $600 per month grant from the Howard and Alice
Settle Foundation for an Invincible America. But the cost of
constructing housing for the Pandits, and other costs like airfare and
visa costs, are not covered by the grant. We currently have a matching
grant from a donor for $100,000, so now is a doubly good time to make a
contribution for the Pandit housing. Please go to either Global Country
of World Peace 
 or Maharishi
Vedic City
  to make
a secure online contribution, or send a check to Global Country of World
Peace 2000 Capital Boulevard, Maharishi Vedic City, IA 52556, or City
Hall, 1973 Grand Drive, Maharishi Vedic City, IA 52556. If you have any
questions or would like an update, please call 800 373 9664.

Thank you very much for helping to secure a peaceful and prosperous
America for yourself, your family, and the nation.

Jai Guru Dev.

Raja Wynne
Mayor of Maharishi Vedic City and
Raja of Maharishi Vedic America

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Two Paradigms

If the stupid can give jolting shaktipat then so can the evil. 

-Original Message-
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of matrixmonitor
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 3:58 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Two Paradigms

--Thanks again, Jim; I just got a jolt of your "Shakti"very 
Blissful. (my hairs stood on end).

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Two Paradigms

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "matrixmonitor" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --Thanks again, Jim; I just got a jolt of your "Shakti"very 
> Blissful. (my hairs stood on end).

Glad you enjoyed it- I was studying colors recently, in preparation 
for a thorough repainting of my house, and it occurred to me 
naturally that my aura is frequently a bright yellow, and has been 
for this life. (I won't be in a yellow house though, thank goodness- 
too active...).

>  Due to lack of time I haven't had time to present some 
interesting 
> parallels between monist non-dualism and mathematical physics 
> principles; (the arrows of time will have to wait...; except to 
> mention that there about 8 of them); some explained rather 
> resourcefully over the years; but some are still conundrums.  Just 
> off the top of my head, some linear arrows of time are:

Fascinating stuff! I like the correlation between the wave and 
particle and the way we 'see' enlightenment. Thanks for your 
thoughts!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Good Night

2007-03-19 Thread geezerfreak

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Alex Stanley wrote:
> > willytex? I set up my email client to dump his 
> > posts directly into the trash folder; his posts are
> > incoherent gibberish and a complete waste of time.
> > 
> Alex - This is an insult - some moderator you turned out to be. Thanks
> for all you help.

You made your own bed Tex.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Two Paradigms

2007-03-19 Thread matrixmonitor

--Thanks again, Jim; I just got a jolt of your "Shakti"very 
Blissful. (my hairs stood on end). 
 Due to lack of time I haven't had time to present some interesting 
parallels between monist non-dualism and mathematical physics 
principles; (the arrows of time will have to wait...; except to 
mention that there about 8 of them); some explained rather 
resourcefully over the years; but some are still conundrums.  Just 
off the top of my head, some linear arrows of time are:
 1. probably the most important and the one which the neo-Advaitins 
will quibble with: the psychological arrow of time; 2. various 
biological arrows of time; 3. time "itself" (refer to a book by 
physicist Julian Barbour in which he claims time "in itself" is non-
existent; but this is apart from the obvious monist position.  At any 
rate, Barbour argues that what people call time is simply a complex 
of images, categorized according to an artificial construction; and 
that in themselves, the images are simply: images, having no 
particular significance than images associated with what people call 
the past and present.
 However, he could be wrong.
  I'll come back to the arrows of time later. For now, a brief 
discussion on a metaphorical analogue to the question at hand: a. the 
neo-Advaitin (everybody's enlightened) view compared to b. No, 
somebody needs to acquire something in linear time.
 These two complementary viewpoints present a paradox, not unlike the 
Complementary principle enunciated by Neils Bohr and the other 
quantum pioneers: Schroedinger, DeBroglie, and Heisenberg.  In a 
nutshell, quantum particles can be viewed EITHER as particles, OR as 
waves, depending upon the experimental setup but not both, 
simultaneously. Going back several centuries, various geniuses such 
as Newton, Goethe, and others, reflected upon the nature of Light. 
Some felt Light was a bunch of waves, others quanta.
 Finally, during the 20's the Quantum pioneers solved the apparent 
contradiction: Light exhibits the Complementary Principle:  depending 
upon your viewpoint (i.e. the type of experimental setup): light can 
exhibit either, but not both at the same time.
 In other words, if one is "zeroing in" on information, say this "T"; 
we are losing sight of the whole picture.  
 So-called "complex conjugates" of quantum particles come in pairs. 
If we gain precision in say the location of a Quantum particle, we 
LOSE knowledge of the momentum.  The product of the two conjugate 
variables is a constant, (in Heisenberg's Uncertainty relationship).
  Example...and that's it for now.  ENERGY and TIME are two conjugate 
variables.  If you want to teleport through a wall, this would 
require a huge amount of energy.  Increasing the energy component 
reduces the TIME component proportionally, so "chances" are, that if 
one could acquire this Sidhi, your powers might give out half way 
through the way.   (there's an Edgar Allan Poe story with this theme).
That's it for now.!...  



- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt"  wrote:
> >
> > --Many thanks for your excellent first hand account, 
> > most "enlightening"; but be careful of claims as to relative 
> > knowledge; otherwise you would be able to pick winning stocks 
with 
> > 100% accuracy (you previously said that one of your stocks went 
in 
> > the right direction while the other one lost $.) That's only 50%.
> 
> Glad you enjoyed it! I should clarify that I continue to use my 
mind 
> for analysis too (lol). And the stocks were just purchased about 
> three months ago- They are both on the way up now! Good point 
> though, as I do recall many years ago being lured by the sense that 
> I could "magically" deduce knowledge. I am working on it, though it 
> is a more complex learning process than I at first believed.
> 
> >   Also, on the two approaches or viewpoints to E (neo-Advaitin vs 
> > progressive); a simple clarification in the definition will clear 
> up 
> > any potential controversey in advance.  For example, if we are 
> > using "wiki", this source uses the term "acquisition" and if 
> that's 
> > part of the accepted definition, then E must be progressive to be 
> > consistent with acquiring something in the context of relative 
> space 
> > and time.  Also, your outstanding exposition is (in itself) 
> > progressive.. High school - seeker; beginning Tm;...etc.  
> That's 
> > all linear.  Linearity is a useful property of existence that 
> allows 
> > for more clear human understanding; since the mind has several 
> arrows 
> > of time.  Thanks again!.
> > 
> Cheers! I'd be interested in hearing more about your remark 
> that "the mind has several arrows of time" if there are specifics 
> you had in mind.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Two Paradigms

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --Many thanks for your excellent first hand account, 
> most "enlightening"; but be careful of claims as to relative 
> knowledge; otherwise you would be able to pick winning stocks with 
> 100% accuracy (you previously said that one of your stocks went in 
> the right direction while the other one lost $.) That's only 50%.

Glad you enjoyed it! I should clarify that I continue to use my mind 
for analysis too (lol). And the stocks were just purchased about 
three months ago- They are both on the way up now! Good point 
though, as I do recall many years ago being lured by the sense that 
I could "magically" deduce knowledge. I am working on it, though it 
is a more complex learning process than I at first believed.

>   Also, on the two approaches or viewpoints to E (neo-Advaitin vs 
> progressive); a simple clarification in the definition will clear 
up 
> any potential controversey in advance.  For example, if we are 
> using "wiki", this source uses the term "acquisition" and if 
that's 
> part of the accepted definition, then E must be progressive to be 
> consistent with acquiring something in the context of relative 
space 
> and time.  Also, your outstanding exposition is (in itself) 
> progressive.. High school - seeker; beginning Tm;...etc.  
That's 
> all linear.  Linearity is a useful property of existence that 
allows 
> for more clear human understanding; since the mind has several 
arrows 
> of time.  Thanks again!.
> 
Cheers! I'd be interested in hearing more about your remark 
that "the mind has several arrows of time" if there are specifics 
you had in mind.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Two Paradigms

2007-03-19 Thread qntmpkt

--Many thanks for your excellent first hand account, 
most "enlightening"; but be careful of claims as to relative 
knowledge; otherwise you would be able to pick winning stocks with 
100% accuracy (you previously said that one of your stocks went in 
the right direction while the other one lost $.) That's only 50%.
  Also, on the two approaches or viewpoints to E (neo-Advaitin vs 
progressive); a simple clarification in the definition will clear up 
any potential controversey in advance.  For example, if we are 
using "wiki", this source uses the term "acquisition" and if that's 
part of the accepted definition, then E must be progressive to be 
consistent with acquiring something in the context of relative space 
and time.  Also, your outstanding exposition is (in itself) 
progressive.. High school - seeker; beginning Tm;...etc.  That's 
all linear.  Linearity is a useful property of existence that allows 
for more clear human understanding; since the mind has several arrows 
of time.  Thanks again!.

"


- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
> wrote:
> >
> > So, over coffee on this bright new morning in FFL
> > history, after reading all the posts from last
> > night, and bearing in mind the Reward vs. Punish-
> > ment post I made yesterday, I don't feel like 
> > responding to any of them. Instead I'll rap for
> > a little while on a favorite theme -- the two
> > most prevalent approaches to Self Realization.
> > 
> > Although there are more than two, of course, I 
> > think that one can safely sort them into two piles.
> > The first pile has a label that says, "Believes in
> > the concept of non-enlightenment, and the existence
> > of things that can prevent enlightenment." The
> > second label says, "Believes in the ever-present
> > existence of enlightenment, that one is always
> > already enlightened, that the only thing necessary
> > to be enlightened is to *realize* that you already
> > are enlightened, and that no obstacles to that
> > realization can or do exist." 
> > 
> > It seems to me that TM and many other forms of 
> > spiritual development fall into the first box,
> > whereas some forms of Advaita or Neo-Advaita or
> > Zen or Taoism fall into the latter. *Both* of
> > these approaches and "ways of seeing" are valid,
> > in my opinion, in that they describe reality from
> > a particular state of attention. One's *predilection*
> > for one description or the other is all that matters.
> > 
> > In the "I believe in non-enlightenment" box, there
> > seems to me to be a fascination with BLAME. "I'm
> > not enlightened because of my stress/my samskaras/
> > my sins/the state of the world/other people fucking
> > with me/all of the above. If these things weren't
> > present, I'd have an easier pathway to enlightenment."
> > 
> > In the "I'm always already enlightened" box, there
> > seems to be no such fixation on BLAME. It's a path
> > that is more concerned with CHOICE. "At every moment
> > of every day, I have the choice to realize and live
> > my ever-present enlightenment. My ability to *make*
> > that choice is not affected by anything."
> > 
> > I kinda prefer the latter path, but I understand those
> > who prefer the former. It's a safer path, full of 
> > prescriptions for the things one must do to avoid the
> > obstacles and "become" enlightened, and equally full
> > of proscriptions against doing any of the things that
> > "prevent" enlightenment.
> > 
> > The "I'm already enlightened, if I just choose to 
> > realize that" approach doesn't tend to have that many
> > do's and don'ts. What would be the point, if neither
> > the do's nor the don'ts have any effect on one's
> > always-already-present enlightenment?
> > 
> > Anyway, I'm just throwing this out as a potential 
> > topic for discussion. If anyone is interested in the
> > subject, pile on. If not, carry on and use your five
> > posts as you choose.
> >
> Interesting thought about the two paradigms. Reflecting about it 
for 
> a bit, I've identified four distinct approaches that have taken me: 
> 
> First, it was a matter of discovering what enlightenment was; how 
it 
> was different from anything else, what it meant-- lasting from the 
> time I was in high school until I learned TM. This was a time where 
> I was searching several different paths, trying them on like 
> clothing and seeing how long I ended up wearing the garment. It was 
> not a time characterized by striving for enlightenment, but rather 
> finding the right vehicle in which to begin my journey.
> 
> The second mindset I found myself in was after I had begun TM, a 
> practice which had a lot of knowledge to offer, from reading the 
> Gita cover to cover, to taking the SCI course, to the myriad taped 
> lectures of Maharishi, to the experiences of sustained rounding. 
> During this time I was interested in absorbing the totality of the 
> knowledge available

[FairfieldLife] Re: Good Night

2007-03-19 Thread cardemaister

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > Well, gang, it's been a lovely day. I have to skip about 40
> > recent posts and go to bed. I hope we can resolve all this stuff.
> > I really don't like to control anything. The few times I've ridden
> > horses, they wander into the bushes. I would rather continue to let
> > FFL run itself, as I have been doing. But it seems that a little
> > restraint and control might improve things. So I'm going to 
> > experiment with it. Please make my job easy. Thanks.
> 
> Yesterday evening, I gave up trying to follow this humongous meta
> discussion, and I'll tell you right up front that I am highly biased
> and not in any position to be an impartial dictator of discussions
> around here. E.g., I'm glad Lawson unsubscribed; I found his
> OCD-driven posting habits annoying. And, willytex? I set up my email
> client to dump his posts directly into the trash folder; his posts are
> incoherent gibberish and a complete waste of time.

I for one find his writing style rather funny. I'd really
like to know whether he's ever serious or not. I guess I'll
never find out for sure... :)


> 
> Rick, I'm perfectly willing to handle subscriptions, check to make
> sure uploaded files are appropriate, deal with spammers, etc., but
> topic cop is not something I'm willing to do. I'm not impartial, and
> I'm not even willing to read most of what gets posted here. Feel free
> to revoke my moderator status if I no longer meet the job requirements.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: ++Attack++

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > Rick Archer wrote:
> > > I think at this point blatant offensive personal attacks 
> > > would warrant  moderation.
> > >
> > Mr. Archer - This was a blatant and unwarranted personal attack 
on 
> me by Mr. Stanley. My 
> > name is not "willytex" - I already told him that. My name is 
> Richard J. Williams. 
> > 
> > What kind of moderator is it that sets up rules to prevent 
personal 
> attacks and then turns 
> > around and attacks the person who is notifying him of a personal 
> attack? 
> > 
> > My post entitled ++Attack++ was not "incoherent gibberish". 
> > 
> > This is pathetic - a moderator who doesn't even read a message 
that 
> notifies him of a 
> > personal attack and then has the nerve to denigrate the 
complainer,
> > 
> > Mr. Stanley should be unsubscribed to this forum for posting a 
> personal attack - I am 
> > offended. In my opinion, Mr. Stanley owes me an apology and you, 
> Sir, owe me an 
> > explanation. Otherwise, I must assume that you and Mr. Stanley 
are 
> not worthy of further 
> > dialog.
> 
> 
> This is rather funny. We somehow finally limit a few fools to 5 
posts 
> a day. Then what happens ? This place is swarmed by even greater 
> argumentative fools. Whats wrong with having a 1 post limit pr 
day ?
> 
> As I have said before; FFL is and will continue to be a Fools 
> Paradise.
> 
> (I liked Jims article on his personal journey though. Good timing 
> Jim !)
>
Glad you liked it! I am enjoying it as well-- I am enjoying this 
policy of five posts a day, too.

[FairfieldLife] Re: ++Attack++

2007-03-19 Thread nablusoss1008

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Rick Archer wrote:
> > I think at this point blatant offensive personal attacks 
> > would warrant  moderation.
> >
> Mr. Archer - This was a blatant and unwarranted personal attack on 
me by Mr. Stanley. My 
> name is not "willytex" - I already told him that. My name is 
Richard J. Williams. 
> 
> What kind of moderator is it that sets up rules to prevent personal 
attacks and then turns 
> around and attacks the person who is notifying him of a personal 
attack? 
> 
> My post entitled ++Attack++ was not "incoherent gibberish". 
> 
> This is pathetic - a moderator who doesn't even read a message that 
notifies him of a 
> personal attack and then has the nerve to denigrate the complainer,
> 
> Mr. Stanley should be unsubscribed to this forum for posting a 
personal attack - I am 
> offended. In my opinion, Mr. Stanley owes me an apology and you, 
Sir, owe me an 
> explanation. Otherwise, I must assume that you and Mr. Stanley are 
not worthy of further 
> dialog.


This is rather funny. We somehow finally limit a few fools to 5 posts 
a day. Then what happens ? This place is swarmed by even greater 
argumentative fools. Whats wrong with having a 1 post limit pr day ?

As I have said before; FFL is and will continue to be a Fools 
Paradise.

(I liked Jims article on his personal journey though. Good timing 
Jim !)

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Good Night

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Richard J. Williams
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 1:27 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Good Night

Rick Archer wrote:
> Moderators are human beings with personal preferences. Alex's preference
not
> to read your posts doesn't interfere with his duties as moderator, which
do
> not involve being "content cop."
>
Mr. Stanley called me a "willytex" and that is offensive. My name is Richard
J. Williams and I 
am not from Texas. My email address is <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 >. This was a blatant 
personal attack by Mr. Stanley. My post was not "incoherent gibberish" - it
was plain as 
day that I was complaining of personal attacks against me. He broke the
rules - he should 
be put on moderated status as per our agreement.

Until this interchange, I thought "willytex" was a handle you had chosen
yourself.

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Good Night

Consider yourself hugely insulted then, and that insult confirmed and
raised. 

-Original Message-
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Richard J. Williams
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 12:28 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Good Night

Alex Stanley wrote:
> willytex? I set up my email client to dump his 
> posts directly into the trash folder; his posts are
> incoherent gibberish and a complete waste of time.
> 
Alex - This is an insult - some moderator you turned out to be. Thanks
for all you help.

Rick Archer wrote:
> Personal attacks of any kind by anyone should 
> result and restriction or termination of one's 
> posting rights.
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/135597




To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

Re: [FairfieldLife] The Two Paradigms

2007-03-19 Thread Bhairitu

TurquoiseB wrote:
> So, over coffee on this bright new morning in FFL
> history, after reading all the posts from last
> night, and bearing in mind the Reward vs. Punish-
> ment post I made yesterday, I don't feel like 
> responding to any of them. Instead I'll rap for
> a little while on a favorite theme -- the two
> most prevalent approaches to Self Realization.
>
> Although there are more than two, of course, I 
> think that one can safely sort them into two piles.
> The first pile has a label that says, "Believes in
> the concept of non-enlightenment, and the existence
> of things that can prevent enlightenment." The
> second label says, "Believes in the ever-present
> existence of enlightenment, that one is always
> already enlightened, that the only thing necessary
> to be enlightened is to *realize* that you already
> are enlightened, and that no obstacles to that
> realization can or do exist." 
>
> It seems to me that TM and many other forms of 
> spiritual development fall into the first box,
> whereas some forms of Advaita or Neo-Advaita or
> Zen or Taoism fall into the latter. *Both* of
> these approaches and "ways of seeing" are valid,
> in my opinion, in that they describe reality from
> a particular state of attention. One's *predilection*
> for one description or the other is all that matters.
>
> In the "I believe in non-enlightenment" box, there
> seems to me to be a fascination with BLAME. "I'm
> not enlightened because of my stress/my samskaras/
> my sins/the state of the world/other people fucking
> with me/all of the above. If these things weren't
> present, I'd have an easier pathway to enlightenment."
>
> In the "I'm always already enlightened" box, there
> seems to be no such fixation on BLAME. It's a path
> that is more concerned with CHOICE. "At every moment
> of every day, I have the choice to realize and live
> my ever-present enlightenment. My ability to *make*
> that choice is not affected by anything."
>
> I kinda prefer the latter path, but I understand those
> who prefer the former. It's a safer path, full of 
> prescriptions for the things one must do to avoid the
> obstacles and "become" enlightened, and equally full
> of proscriptions against doing any of the things that
> "prevent" enlightenment.
>
> The "I'm already enlightened, if I just choose to 
> realize that" approach doesn't tend to have that many
> do's and don'ts. What would be the point, if neither
> the do's nor the don'ts have any effect on one's
> always-already-present enlightenment?
>
> Anyway, I'm just throwing this out as a potential 
> topic for discussion. If anyone is interested in the
> subject, pile on. If not, carry on and use your five
> posts as you choose.
Actually it's more about the right and left hand approach.  TM is 
definitely a right-hand approach with all it's tapas.   And yes as an 
example if a guru becomes enlightened and has promoted himself as a 
celibate and sees that is no longer necessary because he's "arrived" 
then celibacy only becomes "window dressing."

Re: [FairfieldLife] The Indian TMorg family business, MMY's nephew

2007-03-19 Thread Bhairitu

Looks like something straight out of a Bollywood gangster movie.   And a 
tilak is illegal in the dome?  Just more evidence of how lame the TMO 
has become.

Doug Hamilton wrote:
> It is said that a good picture is worth a thousand words.  Don't you love 
> this picture of Maharishi's nephew for all that it says?  
>
>   With Best Regards, -Doug in FF
>
>  
> -
> We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
> (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
>   
>
> 
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Good Night

Rick Archer wrote:
> Moderators are human beings with personal preferences. Alex's preference not
> to read your posts doesn't interfere with his duties as moderator, which do
> not involve being "content cop."
>
Mr. Stanley called me a "willytex" and that is offensive. My name is Richard J. 
Williams and I 
am not from Texas. My email address is <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. This was a blatant 
personal attack by Mr. Stanley. My post was not "incoherent gibberish" - it was 
plain as 
day that I was complaining of personal attacks against me. He broke the rules - 
he should 
be put on moderated status as per our agreement.

> Alex Stanley wrote:
> > willytex? I set up my email client to dump his 
> > posts directly into the trash folder; his posts are
> > incoherent gibberish and a complete waste of time.
> >
> >

[FairfieldLife] Re: ++Attack++

Rick Archer wrote:
> I think at this point blatant offensive personal attacks 
> would warrant  moderation.
>
Mr. Archer - This was a blatant and unwarranted personal attack on me by Mr. 
Stanley. My 
name is not "willytex" - I already told him that. My name is Richard J. 
Williams. 

What kind of moderator is it that sets up rules to prevent personal attacks and 
then turns 
around and attacks the person who is notifying him of a personal attack? 

My post entitled ++Attack++ was not "incoherent gibberish". 

This is pathetic - a moderator who doesn't even read a message that notifies 
him of a 
personal attack and then has the nerve to denigrate the complainer,

Mr. Stanley should be unsubscribed to this forum for posting a personal attack 
- I am 
offended. In my opinion, Mr. Stanley owes me an apology and you, Sir, owe me an 
explanation. Otherwise, I must assume that you and Mr. Stanley are not worthy 
of further 
dialog.

Alex Stanley wrote:
> willytex? I set up my email client to dump his
> posts directly into the trash folder; his posts are
> incoherent gibberish and a complete waste of time.
>

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Good Night

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Richard J. Williams
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 12:28 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Good Night

Alex Stanley wrote:
> willytex? I set up my email client to dump his 
> posts directly into the trash folder; his posts are
> incoherent gibberish and a complete waste of time.
> 
Alex - This is an insult - some moderator you turned out to be. Thanks
for all you help.

Moderators are human beings with personal preferences. Alex's preference not
to read your posts doesn't interfere with his duties as moderator, which do
not involve being "content cop."

[FairfieldLife] Re: Good Night

Alex Stanley wrote:
> willytex? I set up my email client to dump his 
> posts directly into the trash folder; his posts are
> incoherent gibberish and a complete waste of time.
> 
Alex - This is an insult - some moderator you turned out to be. Thanks
for all you help.

Rick Archer wrote:
> Personal attacks of any kind by anyone should 
> result and restriction or termination of one's 
> posting rights.
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/135597

[FairfieldLife] Re: Good Night

2007-03-19 Thread Alex Stanley

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well, gang, it's been a lovely day. I have to skip about 40
> recent posts and go to bed. I hope we can resolve all this stuff.
> I really don't like to control anything. The few times I've ridden
> horses, they wander into the bushes. I would rather continue to let
> FFL run itself, as I have been doing. But it seems that a little
> restraint and control might improve things. So I'm going to 
> experiment with it. Please make my job easy. Thanks.

Yesterday evening, I gave up trying to follow this humongous meta
discussion, and I'll tell you right up front that I am highly biased
and not in any position to be an impartial dictator of discussions
around here. E.g., I'm glad Lawson unsubscribed; I found his
OCD-driven posting habits annoying. And, willytex? I set up my email
client to dump his posts directly into the trash folder; his posts are
incoherent gibberish and a complete waste of time.

Rick, I'm perfectly willing to handle subscriptions, check to make
sure uploaded files are appropriate, deal with spammers, etc., but
topic cop is not something I'm willing to do. I'm not impartial, and
I'm not even willing to read most of what gets posted here. Feel free
to revoke my moderator status if I no longer meet the job requirements.

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Good Night

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Alex Stanley
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 11:48 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Good Night

Rick, I'm perfectly willing to handle subscriptions, check to make
sure uploaded files are appropriate, deal with spammers, etc., but
topic cop is not something I'm willing to do. I'm not impartial, and
I'm not even willing to read most of what gets posted here. Feel free
to revoke my moderator status if I no longer meet the job requirements.

Would never do that. Your contribution is invaluable. If I were to demote
you for not wanting to be topic cop, I'd have to demote myself as well.

RE: [FairfieldLife] 4 Post Notice (was Re: ++Attack++)

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of authfriend
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 11:13 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] 4 Post Notice (was Re: ++Attack++)

Questions about the new regulations, however, until
someone draws up and posts a detailed description,
ought to be public so everyone else can benefit by
the responses. It will also save the moderators
having to answer similar questions over and over in
individual private emails, as well as reducing the
number of posts they have to scan of those put on
moderation because they didn't understand what would
cause them to be put on moderation.

 I agree.

[FairfieldLife] 4 Post Notice (was Re: ++Attack++)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of authfriend
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 10:46 AM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] 4 Post Notice (was Re: ++Attack++)
> 
> > Good points. Let's compromise and say that today only, a few 
> clarification
> > posts will not be counted against one's total, but after today, 
> they will.
> 
> How about posts simply reporting an attack, do they count?
> You or gullible fool--can't remember which--earlier said
> they wouldn't be.
> 
> Maybe they should, in light of Richard Williams earlier post.

Well, make a definite ruling here.

Others have suggested that such reports be emailed
privately to the moderators, and I concur.  What
do you think?

I just wanted to add to my earlier comments
about how important it is for the rules to be
made clear:

The greatest enemy of successful moderation is
*ambiguity*, because nobody can be sure that
moderation is being conducted even-handedly if
there's too much wiggle room.  Obviously the
moderator needs to be able to use some discretion
in administering the rules, but those areas of
discretion should be identified.

In my experience, nothing destroys a moderated
group faster than uncertainty as to whether the
rules are being applied fairly and objectively.

I'm not in favor of moderation here in the first
place, but if we have to have it, we all need to
know what's involved in as much detail is possible.

RE: [FairfieldLife] 4 Post Notice (was Re: ++Attack++)

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of authfriend
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 10:46 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] 4 Post Notice (was Re: ++Attack++)

> 
> Good points. Let's compromise and say that today only, a few 
clarification
> posts will not be counted against one's total, but after today, 
they will.

How about posts simply reporting an attack, do they count?
You or gullible fool--can't remember which--earlier said
they wouldn't be.

Maybe they should, in light of Richard Williams earlier post.

Re: [FairfieldLife] The Indian TMorg family business, MMY's nephew

2007-03-19 Thread MDixon6569

 
In a message dated 3/19/07 6:19:53 A.M. Central Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

It is said that a good picture is worth a thousand  words.  Don't you love 
this picture of Maharishi's  nephew for all that it says?  
 
With Best Regards, -Doug in FF



I think it would look better with a .45 caliber pistol sitting on the desk  
in front of him.



** AOL now offers free email to everyone. 
 Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.

[FairfieldLife] 4 Post Notice (was Re: ++Attack++)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Nonsense Rick, you're being too nice and too permissive.
> If they have a personal question about these limits, have
> them send it to you directly.  If they feel they have to
> go to the 'whole list', count it agin them.  They are
> playing you off with this 'attack' crap.  It is just more
> of the same.

Actually, the reporting of an attack in a public
post was the method suggested by Rick himself:

I often can't read
> all the posts, especially during the work week, so if
> anyone indulges in personal attacks, point it out to
> Alex and me, perhaps by posting something with "attack"
> in the subject, such as "Barry attacked me, boo hoo."

I think it does make more sense to send such reports
by private email to the moderators.

Questions about the new regulations, however, until
someone draws up and posts a detailed description,
ought to be public so everyone else can benefit by
the responses.  It will also save the moderators
having to answer similar questions over and over in
individual private emails, as well as reducing the
number of posts they have to scan of those put on
moderation because they didn't understand what would
cause them to be put on moderation.

Moderation, in other words, whether by numbers of
posts or by content or both, can't possibly work well--
for either users or moderators--unless everyone is
perfectly clear what the parameters and the
consequences of infraction are and how they will be
administered.

Hopefully, by the end of the day, this will all have
been hashed out, a formal post by one of the moderators
will have been made describing the new rules, everyone
will know what's expected of them, and we can start
fresh tomorrow without any more "process" posts.

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: ++Attack++

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of authfriend
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 10:46 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: ++Attack++

 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
  
[mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 ]
> On Behalf Of authfriend
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 8:56 AM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 

> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: ++Attack++
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, wait, I see. It's *just* Barry and me who
> are subject to moderation. It's still perfectly
> OK for Vaj to attack Lawson.
> 
> No it's not. I just didn't regard Vaj calling Lawson "defensive" as an
> attack. It could get trick judging this stuff.

Just to be clear, the threat of being put on moderation
for whatever are to be considered "personal attacks"
*is* now in effect, then? Because gullible fool seemed
to think it wasn't.

I think at this point blatant offensive personal attacks would warrant
moderation.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Two Paradigms

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> So, over coffee on this bright new morning in FFL
> history, after reading all the posts from last
> night, and bearing in mind the Reward vs. Punish-
> ment post I made yesterday, I don't feel like 
> responding to any of them. Instead I'll rap for
> a little while on a favorite theme -- the two
> most prevalent approaches to Self Realization.
> 
> Although there are more than two, of course, I 
> think that one can safely sort them into two piles.
> The first pile has a label that says, "Believes in
> the concept of non-enlightenment, and the existence
> of things that can prevent enlightenment." The
> second label says, "Believes in the ever-present
> existence of enlightenment, that one is always
> already enlightened, that the only thing necessary
> to be enlightened is to *realize* that you already
> are enlightened, and that no obstacles to that
> realization can or do exist." 
> 
> It seems to me that TM and many other forms of 
> spiritual development fall into the first box,
> whereas some forms of Advaita or Neo-Advaita or
> Zen or Taoism fall into the latter. *Both* of
> these approaches and "ways of seeing" are valid,
> in my opinion, in that they describe reality from
> a particular state of attention. One's *predilection*
> for one description or the other is all that matters.
> 
> In the "I believe in non-enlightenment" box, there
> seems to me to be a fascination with BLAME. "I'm
> not enlightened because of my stress/my samskaras/
> my sins/the state of the world/other people fucking
> with me/all of the above. If these things weren't
> present, I'd have an easier pathway to enlightenment."
> 
> In the "I'm always already enlightened" box, there
> seems to be no such fixation on BLAME. It's a path
> that is more concerned with CHOICE. "At every moment
> of every day, I have the choice to realize and live
> my ever-present enlightenment. My ability to *make*
> that choice is not affected by anything."
> 
> I kinda prefer the latter path, but I understand those
> who prefer the former. It's a safer path, full of 
> prescriptions for the things one must do to avoid the
> obstacles and "become" enlightened, and equally full
> of proscriptions against doing any of the things that
> "prevent" enlightenment.
> 
> The "I'm already enlightened, if I just choose to 
> realize that" approach doesn't tend to have that many
> do's and don'ts. What would be the point, if neither
> the do's nor the don'ts have any effect on one's
> always-already-present enlightenment?
> 
> Anyway, I'm just throwing this out as a potential 
> topic for discussion. If anyone is interested in the
> subject, pile on. If not, carry on and use your five
> posts as you choose.
>
Interesting thought about the two paradigms. Reflecting about it for 
a bit, I've identified four distinct approaches that have taken me: 

First, it was a matter of discovering what enlightenment was; how it 
was different from anything else, what it meant-- lasting from the 
time I was in high school until I learned TM. This was a time where 
I was searching several different paths, trying them on like 
clothing and seeing how long I ended up wearing the garment. It was 
not a time characterized by striving for enlightenment, but rather 
finding the right vehicle in which to begin my journey.

The second mindset I found myself in was after I had begun TM, a 
practice which had a lot of knowledge to offer, from reading the 
Gita cover to cover, to taking the SCI course, to the myriad taped 
lectures of Maharishi, to the experiences of sustained rounding. 
During this time I was interested in absorbing the totality of the 
knowledge available to me, and had some brief experiences which 
caused me to step off the future/past train and enjoy life in the 
Now. But such experiences were fleeting. I also learned about the 
seven states of consciousness and very much wanted to achieve the 
higher states, which I associated with those fleeting moments of 
Now. I also felt that the whole world should begin TM including  
everyone I knew, and gosh, what a dark world it was outside of "TM 
knowledge thinking". Looking back I can say that I was a rigid and 
judgmental person. Maybe this was necessary in order that I see the 
process all the way through. Or perhaps it was just the way a new 
seeker sees the world, as a darkness in contrast to his newly found 
light.

After having absorbed the TM knowledge as fully as I could, and 
after having learned the TM-Siddhis program, the third phase of my 
journey was characterized by rapid expansion of my awareness, while 
still feeling pinched inside. I had wonderful experiences of 
extrasensory sight which persist to this day. I felt my mind expand 
to be able to know everything. My heart could experience overflowing 
love and darkest hatred within the span of a couple of seconds. 
Every boundary was crumbling, but the knowledge I had lear

[FairfieldLife] 4 Post Notice (was Re: ++Attack++)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: On Behalf Of authfriend
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] 4 Post Notice (was Re: ++Attack++)
> 
> > Rick? gullible fool? Alex? Could you clarify,
> > please? Do "process" posts concerning the new rules
> > count toward the five-posts-a-day total?
> 
> Let's say they don't but please don't overdo it.
> 
> > Perhaps one of you could make a formal post
> > explaining the whole thing in detail so as to
> > eliminate any confusion.
> 
> No time today. And I'm flying by the seat of my pants 
> with this.

In my fourth post of the day, whatever you 
decide :-), I'm still a proponent of keeping
the five-posts-a-day rule fairly rigid, and
moving someone to moderated status the minute
they go over that rigid limit. I explained my
reasons for this in my previous ( third :-)
post of the day.

Here's a suggestion -- why do the "ATTACK"
posts have to be posts? Couldn't they just as
easily be emails to the moderators? Same with
requests for clarification. Emailing the mod-
erators is an easy option from the FFL Web
viewer, and could easily be learned by those
who are reading the list in email.

Why I'm suggesting this is that the "ATTACK"
posts (if they remain *posts* and not emails)
are JUST ANOTHER ATTACK. They'll pollute
Fairfield Life with more and more claims that 
"Bobby threw sand on me" or whatever. If such
things are handled in email, the moderators
can easily deal with the complaint and take 
action against the offender (if such action is
deemed necessary), and the possibility of using 
the "ATTACK" posts as a forum in which TO attack
has been removed.

You've been concerned about the "overhead" of
instituting this policy, Rick, and trying to
balance it against what you're trying to accom-
plish. I think that taking an Occam's Razor
approach may be your best bet. Five posts per
member per day, no exceptions. All complaints
of having been "attacked" or asking for clari-
fication on the rules to be handled in email.
It sounds simple to me, but you and Alex and
gullible_fool are the ones who have to do the
work, so it's your decision. I leave you to it.

By the way, I think that this is a *marvelous*
idea, and am going to do my utmost to abide by
not only the rules themselves but the intent
behind them. Fairfield Life used to be a lovely
place, and I have done my share to make it less
of one. I will try not to repeat those mistakes
in the future.

[FairfieldLife] 4 Post Notice (was Re: ++Attack++)

2007-03-19 Thread dhamiltony2k5

Nonsense Rick, you're being too nice and too permissive.  If they 
have a personal question about these limits, have them send it to you 
directly.  If they feel they have to go to the 'whole list', count it 
agin them.  They are playing you off with this 'attack' crap.  It is 
just more of the same.

-Doug

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of TurquoiseB
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 9:58 AM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] 4 Post Notice (was Re: ++Attack++)
> 
> Bottom line is that if the limit is set at a fixed
> five posts per day, EVERYONE will have to stop and
> *think* before they press Send. They'll have to say
> to themselves, "Self, do I *really* want to waste
> one of my five posts a day on this crap?" If one
> allows all sorts of "exceptions" to the rule, the
> answer they come up with is all too often going to
> be, "Why YES, I *do* want to make this petty post,
> because it doesn't "count" against my limit." If
> the policy allows NO exceptions, the answer is 
> more likely to be, "NO, I don't want to waste one
> of my five posts on this issue. I will save my
> energies (and my posts) for something more 
> substantive." And isn't that exactly what the
> new policy is supposed to be all about?
> 
> Good points. Let's compromise and say that today only, a few 
clarification
> posts will not be counted against one's total, but after today, 
they will.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: ++Attack++

On Mar 19, 2007, at 11:31 AM, Rick Archer wrote:

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com  
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of authfriend

Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 8:56 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: ++Attack++

Oh, wait, I see. It's *just* Barry and me who
are subject to moderation. It's still perfectly
OK for Vaj to attack Lawson.

No it’s not. I just didn’t regard Vaj calling Lawson “defensive” as  
an attack. It could get trick judging this stuff.

Of course it wasn't an attack--but it does demonstrate a long- 
standing problem with this poster: false accusations.

Are false accusations a type of attack? When they're a constant  
issue, affecting many posters, I believe they could be seen that way.

Sorry to bother you with such silliness. It never ceases to amaze me  
the things some people will say.

[FairfieldLife] 4 Post Notice (was Re: ++Attack++)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of TurquoiseB
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 9:58 AM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] 4 Post Notice (was Re: ++Attack++)
> 
> Bottom line is that if the limit is set at a fixed
> five posts per day, EVERYONE will have to stop and
> *think* before they press Send. They'll have to say
> to themselves, "Self, do I *really* want to waste
> one of my five posts a day on this crap?" If one
> allows all sorts of "exceptions" to the rule, the
> answer they come up with is all too often going to
> be, "Why YES, I *do* want to make this petty post,
> because it doesn't "count" against my limit." If
> the policy allows NO exceptions, the answer is 
> more likely to be, "NO, I don't want to waste one
> of my five posts on this issue. I will save my
> energies (and my posts) for something more 
> substantive." And isn't that exactly what the
> new policy is supposed to be all about?
> 
> Good points. Let's compromise and say that today only, a few 
clarification
> posts will not be counted against one's total, but after today, 
they will.

How about posts simply reporting an attack, do they count?
You or gullible fool--can't remember which--earlier said
they wouldn't be.

[FairfieldLife] Re: ++Attack++

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of authfriend
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 8:56 AM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: ++Attack++
> 
>  
> 
> Oh, wait, I see. It's *just* Barry and me who
> are subject to moderation. It's still perfectly
> OK for Vaj to attack Lawson.
> 
> No it's not. I just didn't regard Vaj calling Lawson "defensive" as an
> attack. It could get trick judging this stuff.

Just to be clear, the threat of being put on moderation
for whatever are to be considered "personal attacks"
*is* now in effect, then?  Because gullible fool seemed
to think it wasn't.

[FairfieldLife] ATTACK (was Lawson's Adieu (was Re: Breaking News)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of authfriend
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 8:21 AM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] *ATTACK* (was Lawson's Adieu (was Re: 
Breaking
> News)
> 
>  
> 
> In this new regime, if someone has unsubscribed
> from the group, are personal attacks on them
> permitted because they're no longer around to
> read and respond to them?
> 
> Probably they should be, but do you regard this as a personal
> attack? If someone told me I was being defensive, I wouldn't
> feel attacked. If they called me dirty or insulting names, I
> would be.

Ah, OK.  Well, this gives us the beginning of an
idea of what's to be permitted and what isn't.
Certainly, eliminating all the posts that call
people dirty and insulting names will make a huge
difference in the atmosphere here.



> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , Vaj  wrote:
> >
> > LOL, I guess he never realized that people were simply being 
> > *realistic*.
> > 
> > Probably best he left if he felt so defensive he could not get 
that.
> > 
> > 
> > On Mar 19, 2007, at 8:29 AM, authfriend wrote:
> > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "llundrub"  
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> How did that happen.
> > >
> > > I found this in my inbox this morning from Lawson:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hey Judy,
> > >
> > > Yeah, I felt kinda singled out about the number-of-postings 
> issue. I
> > > sent a "fairwell, it's been fun" message, and then quit the 
group
> > > before my message percolated through the Yahoo mail system 
(Yahoo
> > > group messages sent via the online interface apparently send 
> emails
> > > to the Yahoo group server) so it was rejected because I was not 
a
> > > member of FFL and couldn't post messages.
> > >
> > > I think everyone on the "anti" side is rather distressed right 
> now,
> > > due to the increased publicity on TM, and the ongoing Invicible
> > > America project, not to mention that pundits are finally 
arriving.
> > > Aside from MMY allegedly not keeping his dick in his dhoti, 
they 
> have
> > > little to bash the TMO about these days, so they take it out on 
TM
> > > supporters that dare show their faces.
> > >
> > > Ah well, even so, Paul Mason found FFL too pro-TM so he high-
> tailed
> > > it back to the TMFree blog, so I guess one man's excessively-
> biased-
> > > in-one-direction forum can be perceived as excessively biased 
in 
> the
> > > other, depending where you fall on the scale of bias.
> > >
> > > Enjoy FFL and whatnot. Say hi and bye to everyone and explain 
what
> > > happened. I didn't leave without warning. You can even post this
> > > message to the group if you like.
> > >
> > > Later,
> > >
> > > Lawson
> >
>

RE: [FairfieldLife] 4 Post Notice (was Re: ++Attack++)

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of TurquoiseB
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 9:58 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] 4 Post Notice (was Re: ++Attack++)

Bottom line is that if the limit is set at a fixed
five posts per day, EVERYONE will have to stop and
*think* before they press Send. They'll have to say
to themselves, "Self, do I *really* want to waste
one of my five posts a day on this crap?" If one
allows all sorts of "exceptions" to the rule, the
answer they come up with is all too often going to
be, "Why YES, I *do* want to make this petty post,
because it doesn't "count" against my limit." If
the policy allows NO exceptions, the answer is 
more likely to be, "NO, I don't want to waste one
of my five posts on this issue. I will save my
energies (and my posts) for something more 
substantive." And isn't that exactly what the
new policy is supposed to be all about?

Good points. Let's compromise and say that today only, a few clarification
posts will not be counted against one's total, but after today, they will.

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: ++Attack++

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of authfriend
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 8:56 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: ++Attack++

Oh, wait, I see. It's *just* Barry and me who
are subject to moderation. It's still perfectly
OK for Vaj to attack Lawson.

No it's not. I just didn't regard Vaj calling Lawson "defensive" as an
attack. It could get trick judging this stuff.

RE: [FairfieldLife] 4 Post Notice (was Re: ++Attack++)

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of authfriend
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 9:26 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] 4 Post Notice (was Re: ++Attack++)

Rick? gullible fool? Alex? Could you clarify,
please? Do "process" posts concerning the new rules
count toward the five-posts-a-day total?

Let's say they don't but please don't overdo it.

Perhaps one of you could make a formal post
explaining the whole thing in detail so as to
eliminate any confusion.

No time today. And I'm flying by the seat of my pants with this.

RE: [FairfieldLife] ATTACK (was Lawson's Adieu (was Re: Breaking News)

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of authfriend
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 8:21 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] *ATTACK* (was Lawson's Adieu (was Re: Breaking
News)

 

In this new regime, if someone has unsubscribed
from the group, are personal attacks on them
permitted because they're no longer around to
read and respond to them?

Probably they should be, but do you regard this as a personal attack? If
someone told me I was being defensive, I wouldn't feel attacked. If they
called me dirty or insulting names, I would be.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> LOL, I guess he never realized that people were simply being 
> *realistic*.
> 
> Probably best he left if he felt so defensive he could not get that.
> 
> 
> On Mar 19, 2007, at 8:29 AM, authfriend wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "llundrub"  
wrote:
> >>
> >> How did that happen.
> >
> > I found this in my inbox this morning from Lawson:
> >
> >
> > Hey Judy,
> >
> > Yeah, I felt kinda singled out about the number-of-postings 
issue. I
> > sent a "fairwell, it's been fun" message, and then quit the group
> > before my message percolated through the Yahoo mail system (Yahoo
> > group messages sent via the online interface apparently send 
emails
> > to the Yahoo group server) so it was rejected because I was not a
> > member of FFL and couldn't post messages.
> >
> > I think everyone on the "anti" side is rather distressed right 
now,
> > due to the increased publicity on TM, and the ongoing Invicible
> > America project, not to mention that pundits are finally arriving.
> > Aside from MMY allegedly not keeping his dick in his dhoti, they 
have
> > little to bash the TMO about these days, so they take it out on TM
> > supporters that dare show their faces.
> >
> > Ah well, even so, Paul Mason found FFL too pro-TM so he high-
tailed
> > it back to the TMFree blog, so I guess one man's excessively-
biased-
> > in-one-direction forum can be perceived as excessively biased in 
the
> > other, depending where you fall on the scale of bias.
> >
> > Enjoy FFL and whatnot. Say hi and bye to everyone and explain what
> > happened. I didn't leave without warning. You can even post this
> > message to the group if you like.
> >
> > Later,
> >
> > Lawson
>

RE: [FairfieldLife] The Indian TMorg family business, MMY's nephew

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of gullible fool
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 8:22 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] The Indian TMorg family business, MMY's nephew

Why does one of the Purusha guys have a red smear on
his forehead? Westerners have been kicked out of the
dome for doing that type of thing.

The photo was taken in India, and he had probably attended a yagya.

[FairfieldLife] 4 Post Notice (was Re: ++Attack++)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool  
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard and Judy, Rick said he wanted to try out
> > > > limiting the quantity of posts first and maybe move on
> > > > to doing something about the quality of posts later.
> > > > The hope is that it won't be necessary to moderate for
> > > > quality because members will use their five posts
> > > > carefully.
> > > 
> > > Oh, hm, I guess I must have misinterpreted this
> > > from Rick (message #135736 from last night):
> > > 
> > > Me:
> > > Try requiring Barry to stop and see what happens.
> > > 
> > > Rick:
> > > It's probably a time zone thing, but at this point, he has 
> > > stopped and you haven't. Tomorrow the ax falls. 
> > > 
> > > And this (message #135730):
> > > 
> > > So starting tomorrow if either of them [i.e., Barry or Judy] 
> > > mentions the other in an offensive or defensive tone, they'll 
> > > be switched to moderated status. In other words, their posts 
> > > will require moderator approval before showing up on the list.
> > > 
> > > Oh, wait, I see.  It's *just* Barry and me who
> > > are subject to moderation.  It's still perfectly
> > > OK for Vaj to attack Lawson.
> > > 
> > > Thanks for clarifying.
> > 
> > Since I don't really have much to say today, I 
> > thought I'd be generous and use the second of
> > my five allotted posts to remind Judy that 
> > she's used up four of her five already.
> 
> Posts reporting attacks aren't supposed to count,
> actually.  I should think posts requesting 
> clarification of the new regime wouldn't count
> either, since obviously we can't be sure we're
> observing the new rules if we're not clear how
> they apply.
> 
> Rick?  gullible fool?  Alex?  Could you clarify,
> please? Do "process" posts concerning the new rules
> count toward the five-posts-a-day total?
> 
> Perhaps one of you could make a formal post
> explaining the whole thing in detail so as to
> eliminate any confusion.

Although the request for confirmation is a
good one, for the record, I'm a proponent of 
the five-posts-per-day limit meaning *five* 
posts, period. 

This is my third of the day, and I'll keep my 
total below five, whatever "clarification" is
posted by the moderators. My *reasons* for taking 
this stand are: 

1) It seems to me that a person who claims that 
someone has "attacked" them is VERY MUCH making 
a statement, and that statement should count as 
one of their five posts of the day. This inter-
pretation will make people who *tend* to make
such claims more reluctant to do so, which if I
am not mistaken is part of what these new rules
were intended to accomplish.

2) It should be obvious that those who want to
"fudge" the five-post-a-day limit could do so
ad infinitum by making "clarification" posts to
the moderators, *in which* they imbed other slams
against one or more posters or moderators here. 
This has already happened, on just the first day
of the new plan. In my opinion, taking a "hard line" 
with the five-post-a-day limit would (again) work 
better to accomplish the stated goals of this new 
policy, that of cutting down the overall traffic, 
and cutting down on the number of negative "slam" 
posts.

Bottom line is that if the limit is set at a fixed
five posts per day, EVERYONE will have to stop and
*think* before they press Send. They'll have to say
to themselves, "Self, do I *really* want to waste
one of my five posts a day on this crap?" If one
allows all sorts of "exceptions" to the rule, the
answer they come up with is all too often going to
be, "Why YES, I *do* want to make this petty post,
because it doesn't "count" against my limit." If
the policy allows NO exceptions, the answer is 
more likely to be, "NO, I don't want to waste one
of my five posts on this issue. I will save my
energies (and my posts) for something more 
substantive." And isn't that exactly what the
new policy is supposed to be all about?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Breaking News

2007-03-19 Thread curtisdeltablues

Rick,

Since this is a fluid project, trying something new is fine with me. 
My suspicion is that the people complaining are not going to fill the
space with fascinating stuff, but I guess we'll see.  Since I read on
the Web I don't have the problems email users seem to.  I just read
what I want and ignore the rest.  I like having more to sort through
rather than less because you never know when something interesting
will pop up.

The major reason for you to do nothing would be that you don't seem to
enjoy this aspect of maintaining this forum.  I would not let duty
trump enjoyment on a project like this.  Any version of
pain-in-your-ass should be avoided just for that reason alone.  If
this was the cancer cure forum I would take it more seriously.

As it is, this is an interesting group because of posts that are
interesting.  Trying to manage content, like trying to get kids in the
back seat from fighting, sounds like a futile task.  There is a Sunni
/ Shia thing going on that will only morph if attempts are made to
stop it IMO.  But who knows.

This morning the most interesting posts for me to read was between
Judy and Turq on "The Two Paradigms", so as long as the new rules
don't stop that kind of exchange, I am happy.

I appreciate your asking my opinion.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of curtisdeltablues
> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 9:51 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Breaking News
> 
>  
> 
> Taking the risk of being seriously out of sync here, I am a fan of the
> Turq - Judy debates. Two writers sparing real time and sometimes
> about philosophy? It doesn't replace Bill Maher, but there has been
> some really entertaining stuff and some good writing. Personally I
> prefer when Judy is more tongue-in-cheek and less easily offended and
> I prefer Turq's cultural reference weave to his serious Judy tweaking.
> But none of that is my business. I don't care what drives it, I am a
> fan. And at any time I can drop in on either side and get a few well
> written responses that get me thinking or laughing or both.
> 
> So sorry to lay down such a heavy Kumbaya vibe on yo bitch asses, but
> lets have more writing on any topic on FFL. That is what I am here for.
> 
> So Curtis, I respect you and your opinion. Do I need to intervene in any
> way, as I have threatened to? Most people seem to want me to, and
want the
> Barry/Judy show to end or move elsewhere. Many have unsubscribed
because of
> it. What would you do in my shoes.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] The Indian TMorg family business, MMY's nephew

2007-03-19 Thread Sal Sunshine


On Mar 19, 2007, at 8:18 AM, gullible fool wrote:


Why does one of the Purusha guys have a red smear on
his forehead? Westerners have been kicked out of the
dome for doing that type of thing.


Maybe it's lipstick.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] 4 Post Notice (was Re: ++Attack++)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > Richard and Judy, Rick said he wanted to try out
> > > limiting the quantity of posts first and maybe move on
> > > to doing something about the quality of posts later.
> > > The hope is that it won't be necessary to moderate for
> > > quality because members will use their five posts
> > > carefully.
> > 
> > Oh, hm, I guess I must have misinterpreted this
> > from Rick (message #135736 from last night):
> > 
> > Me:
> > Try requiring Barry to stop and see what happens.
> > 
> > Rick:
> > It's probably a time zone thing, but at this point, he has 
> > stopped and you haven't. Tomorrow the ax falls. 
> > 
> > And this (message #135730):
> > 
> > So starting tomorrow if either of them [i.e., Barry or Judy] 
> > mentions the other in an offensive or defensive tone, they'll 
> > be switched to moderated status. In other words, their posts 
> > will require moderator approval before showing up on the list.
> > 
> > Oh, wait, I see.  It's *just* Barry and me who
> > are subject to moderation.  It's still perfectly
> > OK for Vaj to attack Lawson.
> > 
> > Thanks for clarifying.
> 
> 
> Since I don't really have much to say today, I 
> thought I'd be generous and use the second of
> my five allotted posts to remind Judy that 
> she's used up four of her five already.

Posts reporting attacks aren't supposed to count,
actually.  I should think posts requesting 
clarification of the new regime wouldn't count
either, since obviously we can't be sure we're
observing the new rules if we're not clear how
they apply.

Rick?  gullible fool?  Alex?  Could you clarify,
please? Do "process" posts concerning the new rules
count toward the five-posts-a-day total?

Perhaps one of you could make a formal post
explaining the whole thing in detail so as to
eliminate any confusion.

[FairfieldLife] 4 Post Notice (was Re: ++Attack++)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool  
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Richard and Judy, Rick said he wanted to try out
> > limiting the quantity of posts first and maybe move on
> > to doing something about the quality of posts later.
> > The hope is that it won't be necessary to moderate for
> > quality because members will use their five posts
> > carefully.
> 
> Oh, hm, I guess I must have misinterpreted this
> from Rick (message #135736 from last night):
> 
> Me:
> Try requiring Barry to stop and see what happens.
> 
> Rick:
> It's probably a time zone thing, but at this point, he has 
> stopped and you haven't. Tomorrow the ax falls. 
> 
> And this (message #135730):
> 
> So starting tomorrow if either of them [i.e., Barry or Judy] 
> mentions the other in an offensive or defensive tone, they'll 
> be switched to moderated status. In other words, their posts 
> will require moderator approval before showing up on the list.
> 
> Oh, wait, I see.  It's *just* Barry and me who
> are subject to moderation.  It's still perfectly
> OK for Vaj to attack Lawson.
> 
> Thanks for clarifying.


Since I don't really have much to say today, I 
thought I'd be generous and use the second of
my five allotted posts to remind Judy that 
she's used up four of her five already.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Breaking News



On Mar 19, 2007, at 8:13 AM, llundrub wrote:

Kick them both right the fuck off never to return. I like Barry. I  
feel nothing for Judy. But neither has ever been anything less that  
selfish newsgroup hogs and they deserve to be stuck into the  
internet filing cabinet wherever that is.



If you find it, please let us know!

RE: [FairfieldLife] Lawson's Adieu (was Re: Breaking News)

I had Spraig in the junk mail since day one. He never bothered me ;0

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Vaj
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 7:57 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Lawson's Adieu (was Re: Breaking News)

LOL, I guess he never realized that people were simply being *realistic*.

Probably best he left if he felt so defensive he could not get that.

On Mar 19, 2007, at 8:29 AM, authfriend wrote:

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "llundrub" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

How did that happen.

I found this in my inbox this morning from Lawson:

Hey Judy,

Yeah, I felt kinda singled out about the number-of-postings issue. I 

sent a "fairwell, it's been fun" message, and then quit the group 

before my message percolated through the Yahoo mail system (Yahoo 

group messages sent via the online interface apparently send emails 

to the Yahoo group server) so it was rejected because I was not a 

member of FFL and couldn't post messages.

I think everyone on the "anti" side is rather distressed right now, 

due to the increased publicity on TM, and the ongoing Invicible 

America project, not to mention that pundits are finally arriving. 

Aside from MMY allegedly not keeping his dick in his dhoti, they have 

little to bash the TMO about these days, so they take it out on TM 

supporters that dare show their faces.

Ah well, even so, Paul Mason found FFL too pro-TM so he high-tailed 

it back to the TMFree blog, so I guess one man's excessively-biased-

in-one-direction forum  can be perceived as excessively biased in the 

other, depending where you fall on the scale of bias.

Enjoy FFL and whatnot. Say hi and bye to everyone and explain what 

happened. I didn't leave without warning. You can even post this 

message to the group if you like.

Later,

Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: ++Attack++

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> 
> Richard and Judy, Rick said he wanted to try out
> limiting the quantity of posts first and maybe move on
> to doing something about the quality of posts later.
> The hope is that it won't be necessary to moderate for
> quality because members will use their five posts
> carefully.

Oh, hm, I guess I must have misinterpreted this
from Rick (message #135736 from last night):

Me:
Try requiring Barry to stop and see what happens.

Rick:
It's probably a time zone thing, but at this point, he has stopped 
and you haven't. Tomorrow the ax falls. 

And this (message #135730):

So starting tomorrow if either of them [i.e., Barry or Judy] mentions 
the other in an offensive or defensive tone, they'll be switched to 
moderated status. In other words, their posts will require moderator 
approval before showing up on the list.

Oh, wait, I see.  It's *just* Barry and me who
are subject to moderation.  It's still perfectly
OK for Vaj to attack Lawson.

Thanks for clarifying.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Disgust?

2007-03-19 Thread cardemaister

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
"tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Shauca (purity) is one of the niyamas (YS II 32).
> According to II 40
> 
> shaucaat svaanga-jugupsaa...
> 
> Taimni's translation:
> 
> From physical purity (arises) disgust for one's
> own body...
> 
> How do you experience that (possible) disgust?
> 
> Alistair Shearer translation: II 40
> Simplicity destroys identification with the body, and brings freedom
> from contact with other bodies.

> Tom
>

That translation seems quite euphemistic, to say the least.
In the light of Vyaasa's commentary, someone might say
that it's downright misleading or dishonest.

Re: [FairfieldLife] ++Attack++

2007-03-19 Thread gullible fool

Richard and Judy, Rick said he wanted to try out
limiting the quantity of posts first and maybe move on
to doing something about the quality of posts later.
The hope is that it won't be necessary to moderate for
quality because members will use their five posts
carefully.   

I think it looks better with the arrows: <++Attack++>
:)

--- "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Moderators: I am hereby requesting that the
> following annonymous
> persons be moderated - they have personally attacked
> me and I am
> offended. I demand an apology and request that they
> must attach their
> real name to each and every message they submit in
> future. Further, I
> demand that they be restricted to a single post per
> twenty-four hours
> and limited to five lines of plain text. In addition
> I am highly
> offended at the personal attacks made against my
> teacher, His Holiness
> Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, insinuating that he sexually
> assaulted
> students, which in any case, has not been
> established. 
> 
> Thank you for your attention to this matter. -
> Richard J. Williams
> 
> peterklutz 
> 
> off world beings
> 
> geezerfreak

Don't get soaked.  Take a quick peek at the forecast
with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Fairfield Life suggestion from a friend

2007-03-19 Thread Peter


--- amarnath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mar 18, 2007, at 4:31 PM, amarnath wrote:
> > 
> > > 1) one per day
> > > 2) always remind yourself,
> > > whatever you do, it's only worthwile,
> > > if you do it with love with the intention of
> > > possible benefit to someone.
> > > Whenever you benefit someone, you benefit
> yourSelf.
> > >
> > > 3)also, it's not necessary to respond to
> everything in words;
> > > take it into the silence and let it resolve
> there
> > 
> > Oy. After just one post of this kind of
> mood-making schmaltz, I'm 
> > almost nostalgic for the Barry and Judy show.
> > 
> > Sal
> > >>
> 
> namaste Sal,
> 
> thank you very much for your comment.
> you're absolutely right.
> my post is absolutely "mood-making."
> 
> but let me ask you:
> Can you name me one thing 
> in this whole vast cosmic maya relative creation
> that is NOT
> "mood-making" ???
> Just one thing? 
> 
> And, not that I'm a fan of MMY anymore, 
> but still some of his early statements have found a
> home
> in my heart:
> 
> "We are born to bless, not to punish."
> I believe, as spiritual seekers, we can use words
> either to bless or to curse each other.
> So, what is the problem with schmaltz ?
> 
> As far as truth /facts are concerned, 
> words, in and of themselves, are very unreliable,
> that's one reason science uses math symbology. 
> 
> God Bless( always ),
> amar

Authenticity is the bedrock of spirituality. Sometimes
authenticity is gentle and sweet, sometimes it is hard
and brutal. 





> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ~--> 
> Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups.  See
> the new email design.
>
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lOt0.A/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
>
~->
> 
> 
> To subscribe, send a message to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Or go to: 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> and click 'Join This Group!' 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 



 

8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time 
with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news

Re: [FairfieldLife] The Indian TMorg family business, MMY's nephew

2007-03-19 Thread gullible fool

Why does one of the Purusha guys have a red smear on
his forehead? Westerners have been kicked out of the
dome for doing that type of thing.

--- Doug Hamilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> It is said that a good picture is worth a thousand
> words.  Don't you love this picture of Maharishi's
> nephew for all that it says?  
>
>   With Best Regards, -Doug in FF
> 
>  
> -
> We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
> (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures
list.

Get your own web address.  
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL

[FairfieldLife] ATTACK (was Lawson's Adieu (was Re: Breaking News)

In this new regime, if someone has unsubscribed
from the group, are personal attacks on them
permitted because they're no longer around to
read and respond to them?


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> LOL, I guess he never realized that people were simply being  
> *realistic*.
> 
> Probably best he left if he felt so defensive he could not get that.
> 
> 
> On Mar 19, 2007, at 8:29 AM, authfriend wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "llundrub"  
wrote:
> >>
> >> How did that happen.
> >
> > I found this in my inbox this morning from Lawson:
> >
> >
> > Hey Judy,
> >
> > Yeah, I felt kinda singled out about the number-of-postings 
issue. I
> > sent a "fairwell, it's been fun" message, and then quit the group
> > before my message percolated through the Yahoo mail system (Yahoo
> > group messages sent via the online interface apparently send 
emails
> > to the Yahoo group server) so it was rejected because I was not a
> > member of FFL and couldn't post messages.
> >
> > I think everyone on the "anti" side is rather distressed right 
now,
> > due to the increased publicity on TM, and the ongoing Invicible
> > America project, not to mention that pundits are finally arriving.
> > Aside from MMY allegedly not keeping his dick in his dhoti, they 
have
> > little to bash the TMO about these days, so they take it out on TM
> > supporters that dare show their faces.
> >
> > Ah well, even so, Paul Mason found FFL too pro-TM so he high-
tailed
> > it back to the TMFree blog, so I guess one man's excessively-
biased-
> > in-one-direction forum  can be perceived as excessively biased in 
the
> > other, depending where you fall on the scale of bias.
> >
> > Enjoy FFL and whatnot. Say hi and bye to everyone and explain what
> > happened. I didn't leave without warning. You can even post this
> > message to the group if you like.
> >
> > Later,
> >
> > Lawson
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Two Paradigms

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So, over coffee on this bright new morning in FFL
> history, after reading all the posts from last
> night, and bearing in mind the Reward vs. Punish-
> ment post I made yesterday, I don't feel like 
> responding to any of them. Instead I'll rap for
> a little while on a favorite theme -- the two
> most prevalent approaches to Self Realization.
> 
> Although there are more than two, of course, I 
> think that one can safely sort them into two piles.
> The first pile has a label that says, "Believes in
> the concept of non-enlightenment, and the existence
> of things that can prevent enlightenment." The
> second label says, "Believes in the ever-present
> existence of enlightenment, that one is always
> already enlightened, that the only thing necessary
> to be enlightened is to *realize* that you already
> are enlightened, and that no obstacles to that
> realization can or do exist." 
> 
> It seems to me that TM and many other forms of 
> spiritual development fall into the first box,
> whereas some forms of Advaita or Neo-Advaita or
> Zen or Taoism fall into the latter. *Both* of
> these approaches and "ways of seeing" are valid,
> in my opinion, in that they describe reality from
> a particular state of attention. One's *predilection*
> for one description or the other is all that matters.
> 
> In the "I believe in non-enlightenment" box, there
> seems to me to be a fascination with BLAME. "I'm
> not enlightened because of my stress/my samskaras/
> my sins/the state of the world/other people fucking
> with me/all of the above. If these things weren't
> present, I'd have an easier pathway to enlightenment."

I can't imagine a more alien concept than that
of "blame" in this connection. It's just never
entered my mind, let alone being "fascinated"
with it.

It's a matter of what works for me.  I have zero
problem with the "always already enlightened"
notion; I'm sure it's entirely valid from the
enlightened perspective.  Is it my experiential
reality?  No.  Do I "blame" myself or anything
else for that?  Of course not.  It's just what
is.

For me, "choice" isn't a useful concept here.  If
I could "choose" to be enlightened like I choose
what to have for dinner, I'd have done so long
since.  If it is a matter of choice, it's a 
different kind of choice that just isn't
available to me experientially as far as I can
tell, and none of the preaching I've encountered
about it gives me any clue as to how to find it.

Indeed, if there's any place the thought of 
"blame" enters into it, it's the sense that
those who espouse the "choice" idea are blaming
those who don't for not simply accessing that
choice. And I find that repellent, frankly.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Lawson's Adieu (was Re: Breaking News)

LOL, I guess he never realized that people were simply being  
*realistic*.


Probably best he left if he felt so defensive he could not get that.


On Mar 19, 2007, at 8:29 AM, authfriend wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "llundrub" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


How did that happen.


I found this in my inbox this morning from Lawson:


Hey Judy,

Yeah, I felt kinda singled out about the number-of-postings issue. I
sent a "fairwell, it's been fun" message, and then quit the group
before my message percolated through the Yahoo mail system (Yahoo
group messages sent via the online interface apparently send emails
to the Yahoo group server) so it was rejected because I was not a
member of FFL and couldn't post messages.

I think everyone on the "anti" side is rather distressed right now,
due to the increased publicity on TM, and the ongoing Invicible
America project, not to mention that pundits are finally arriving.
Aside from MMY allegedly not keeping his dick in his dhoti, they have
little to bash the TMO about these days, so they take it out on TM
supporters that dare show their faces.

Ah well, even so, Paul Mason found FFL too pro-TM so he high-tailed
it back to the TMFree blog, so I guess one man's excessively-biased-
in-one-direction forum  can be perceived as excessively biased in the
other, depending where you fall on the scale of bias.

Enjoy FFL and whatnot. Say hi and bye to everyone and explain what
happened. I didn't leave without warning. You can even post this
message to the group if you like.

Later,

Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Breaking News

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "llundrub" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> How did that happen. 

Do not over question Gargi, lest your head will fall off.

lurk
> 
>  
> 

> 
>  
> 
> This is an automated email message to let you know that sparaig
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> unsubscribed from your FairfieldLife group.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] The Two Paradigms



On Mar 19, 2007, at 5:24 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:


So, over coffee on this bright new morning in FFL
history, after reading all the posts from last
night, and bearing in mind the Reward vs. Punish-
ment post I made yesterday, I don't feel like
responding to any of them. Instead I'll rap for
a little while on a favorite theme -- the two
most prevalent approaches to Self Realization.

Although there are more than two, of course, I
think that one can safely sort them into two piles.
The first pile has a label that says, "Believes in
the concept of non-enlightenment, and the existence
of things that can prevent enlightenment." The
second label says, "Believes in the ever-present
existence of enlightenment, that one is always
already enlightened, that the only thing necessary
to be enlightened is to *realize* that you already
are enlightened, and that no obstacles to that
realization can or do exist."

It seems to me that TM and many other forms of
spiritual development fall into the first box,
whereas some forms of Advaita or Neo-Advaita or
Zen or Taoism fall into the latter. *Both* of
these approaches and "ways of seeing" are valid,
in my opinion, in that they describe reality from
a particular state of attention. One's *predilection*
for one description or the other is all that matters.

In the "I believe in non-enlightenment" box, there
seems to me to be a fascination with BLAME. "I'm
not enlightened because of my stress/my samskaras/
my sins/the state of the world/other people fucking
with me/all of the above. If these things weren't
present, I'd have an easier pathway to enlightenment."

In the "I'm always already enlightened" box, there
seems to be no such fixation on BLAME. It's a path
that is more concerned with CHOICE. "At every moment
of every day, I have the choice to realize and live
my ever-present enlightenment. My ability to *make*
that choice is not affected by anything."

I kinda prefer the latter path, but I understand those
who prefer the former. It's a safer path, full of
prescriptions for the things one must do to avoid the
obstacles and "become" enlightened, and equally full
of proscriptions against doing any of the things that
"prevent" enlightenment.

The "I'm already enlightened, if I just choose to
realize that" approach doesn't tend to have that many
do's and don'ts. What would be the point, if neither
the do's nor the don'ts have any effect on one's
always-already-present enlightenment?

Anyway, I'm just throwing this out as a potential
topic for discussion. If anyone is interested in the
subject, pile on. If not, carry on and use your five
posts as you choose.



The classic distinction between a "gradual" path and a "sudden" path.

It is helpful IMO to have some stability in sitting practice to the  
point where deluded thoughts no longer predominate. If one is  
introduced into pristine, nondual awareness too soon one can get  
stuck in a kind a verbal dogmatism where they need to discuss their  
experience(s) over and over again with others. This is what a lot of  
the Neoadvaita movement is about IMO. Then these same people go on to  
try and point out pristine awareness to others. There are a number of  
problems that arise from this, almost all result from a lack of basic  
meditative stability. We need that basic stability to prevent  
ourselves from falling prey to our own delusions, otherwise we end up  
confusing clarity or the continuity of awareness, etc. with the  
nondual state.


A quote from _Old Man Basking In the Sun_ a text on Unity:

The lived reality of freedom in nonduality is not feasible for those
aspirants on the gradual approaches. A young musk deer springs
sprightly up a cliff, a feat that other animals cannot emulate; the
yogin or yogini walking the sky-like path of nonaction is readily
liberated in the matrix of non-intentional gnosis, an impossibility
for the disciple on a linear goal-oriented path.

With the nonreferential awareness of timeless buddhahood is it
possible to wander in samsara? The little mind that believes in
material reality is freed in space, released in the unsupported
matrix!

The deluded mind, distinguishing between sameness and difference,
is released in unity, released into the matrix of reality!
In the zero-dimensional holistic seed, can there be dualistic
perception? The deluded mind distinguishing between sameness
and difference is instantaneously released in unity, freed in the
reality-matrix!

In self-sprung awareness, causeless, non-conditional, is it possible
that the five poisons can arise? Blocks to total presence, desire in
the material world, are instantaneously released, freed in the
matrix of pristine awareness!

Can spontaneity, impartial and unlimited, be tainted by prejudice?
The unbalanced mind, attached to its biased opinions, is released
through ultimate tolerance, freed in the matrix of spontaneity!
Can indeterminate emptiness without substance or attribute show
itself as appearance? Appearances are released i

[FairfieldLife] Lawson's Adieu (was Re: Breaking News)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "llundrub" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> How did that happen.

I found this in my inbox this morning from Lawson:

Hey Judy,

Yeah, I felt kinda singled out about the number-of-postings issue. I 
sent a "fairwell, it's been fun" message, and then quit the group 
before my message percolated through the Yahoo mail system (Yahoo 
group messages sent via the online interface apparently send emails 
to the Yahoo group server) so it was rejected because I was not a 
member of FFL and couldn't post messages.

I think everyone on the "anti" side is rather distressed right now, 
due to the increased publicity on TM, and the ongoing Invicible 
America project, not to mention that pundits are finally arriving. 
Aside from MMY allegedly not keeping his dick in his dhoti, they have 
little to bash the TMO about these days, so they take it out on TM 
supporters that dare show their faces.

Ah well, even so, Paul Mason found FFL too pro-TM so he high-tailed 
it back to the TMFree blog, so I guess one man's excessively-biased-
in-one-direction forum  can be perceived as excessively biased in the 
other, depending where you fall on the scale of bias.

Enjoy FFL and whatnot. Say hi and bye to everyone and explain what 
happened. I didn't leave without warning. You can even post this 
message to the group if you like.

Later,

Lawson

> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Rick Archer
> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 2:41 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Breaking News
> 
>  
> 
> Hello,
> 
>  
> 
> This is an automated email message to let you know that sparaig
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> unsubscribed from your FairfieldLife group.
>

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Breaking News

Kick them both right the fuck off never to return. I like Barry. I feel
nothing for Judy. But neither has ever been anything less that selfish
newsgroup hogs and they deserve to be stuck into the internet filing cabinet
wherever that is. 

 

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Rick Archer
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 11:30 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Breaking News

 

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of curtisdeltablues
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 9:51 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Breaking News

 

Taking the risk of being seriously out of sync here, I am a fan of the
Turq - Judy debates. Two writers sparing real time and sometimes
about philosophy? It doesn't replace Bill Maher, but there has been
some really entertaining stuff and some good writing. Personally I
prefer when Judy is more tongue-in-cheek and less easily offended and
I prefer Turq's cultural reference weave to his serious Judy tweaking.
But none of that is my business. I don't care what drives it, I am a
fan. And at any time I can drop in on either side and get a few well
written responses that get me thinking or laughing or both.

So sorry to lay down such a heavy Kumbaya vibe on yo bitch asses, but
lets have more writing on any topic on FFL. That is what I am here for.

So Curtis, I respect you and your opinion. Do I need to intervene in any
way, as I have threatened to? Most people seem to want me to, and want the
Barry/Judy show to end or move elsewhere. Many have unsubscribed because of
it. What would you do in my shoes.

RE: [FairfieldLife] Breaking News

How did that happen. 

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Rick Archer
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 2:41 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Breaking News

Hello,

This is an automated email message to let you know that sparaig
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> unsubscribed from your FairfieldLife group.

[FairfieldLife] The Two Paradigms