date:20070523

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 This discussion is fascinating to me.  Both Rick's and Turq's
 experiences.  What makes it more riveting for me is that both 
 of you have maintained a spiritual perspective, but not one 
 that conforms to a specific version or dogma.  

I think that's a fair statement, at least for 
myself. I am still drawn to Things Spiritual,
but reserve the right to pick and choose
amongst the dogma and the information given
out by any tradition I investigate, and to
value only the parts of it that seem to strike
a resonance with me. 

 I can easily see that a Purusha guy would dismiss my position 
 that the transcendent or the so-called higher states of MMY 
 are not all that.  But seeing Purusha's reaction to Rick 
 is even more interesting. 

I agree. There is a great deal to be learned
from this interaction. 

In it, Rick's position, as I see it, epitomizes
the spirit of the spiritual seeker -- always
willing to question, always willing to learn
more, and always open to reevaluating things,
even if the reevaluation reveals that he might
have made some shaky decisions in the past.
The Purusha guy is committed to *justifying*
his past decisions and putting down any chal-
lenges to them. He's settled. He is NO 
LONGER SEEKING; he believes that he's 
found. 

 I think they are missing the point as I understand Rick's 
 position. They are focusing on the details of MMY's personal 
 weirdness or failings and missing what I think is your larger 
 point, that MMY does not have a corner on the spiritual market 
 and that people are well advised to have some broader experiences 
 with other teachers if they want to pursue this path through life.

And, coincidentally, that is *exactly* what
Maharishi has *taught* them to believe. :-)

He has always presented TM and his teachings
as the highest path. He has consistently
belittled the teachings of any other teacher
or any other technique as lesser than his.
He (Maharishi) has always plumped up the
egos of his followers by telling them how
special they are, and how lucky they are to
have found the true path, the one that *he*
teaches. They're so special that at this 
point in TM movement history, ONLY THEY
can save the world, by bouncing on their
butts and giving him as much money as they
can possibly afford.

To some extent I disagree with your thesis 
that the Purusha guy (and people who think
like him) are reacting as they do out of a 
sense of protecting Maharishi, Curtis. They
are reacting as they do because they're stuck
in protecting the exalted ideas of *themselves*
that they have been fed by Maharishi.

It's more like, Maharishi is the BEST teacher,
and the ONLY rishi to have ever cognized the
Vedas in our era, and all that...BECAUSE I
HANG WITH HIM. *I* would never be caught
hanging with a teacher who was ordinary. I 
hang with Maharishi because he is SPECIAL.
And because *he* is special, *I* am special.

That's what I really think is going on. People
who think like this guy cannot accept, even for
a minute, that Maharishi is an ordinary guy,
with good sides and less good sides to him,
because that would suggest that, as his followers,
THEY are ordinary, too.

Can't have that. Gotta be special. :-)

 The sense of protectiveness (I could be wrong about what
 Rick believes) 

Interestingly, Curtis, what spurred me to write
more on this subject this morning was your use
of of four magic words above. You said, I
could be wrong. THAT is the phrase that my former
friend could not bring herself to utter in our recent 
discussion in Paris. She could not get those words out 
of her mouth. To her, even to mouth the words politely
would have opened the *possibility* that she could
be wrong, and she could not deal with that possibility.

You have no problem dealing with that possibility.
Rick has no problem dealing with that possibility.
Many folks here -- some of them still in the TM camp,
some of them not -- have no problem with that pos-
sibility.

And then there are the others, the ones whom none
of us on this forum have EVER heard utter the phrase
I could be wrong, except possibly about some minor
point of fact, like, Oh, you're right, I mistyped
those figures, and it's 18, not 108. When it comes
to matters of belief and dogma, they seem to be 
*incapable* of saying, This is what I believe,
but I could be wrong.

I think that such people are MISSING OUT on a
very liberating concept. WHO IS IT that would 
be right if they are right? The small s self,
that's who. By refusing to even admit the possibility
that the small s self could be wrong, they are stuck
in the rut of *reinforcing* it. Whereas those who
are willing to admit that it (the small s self)
has fucked up and gotten things wrong in the past
and is likely to do so in the present and in the
future are *less attached* to the self.

It seems to me that those who cling to what the
small s self believes is true -- right here, right
now --

[FairfieldLife] Re: American Culture vs. Vedic Culture

2007-05-23 Thread John

Richard,

 The Srimad Bhagwatam has almost nothing to do with Vedic culture.
 The Vedic people lived before 1500 B.C. but the Bhagwatam wasn't 
 even composed until after 800 A.D., long after the Vedic culture 
 had turned into Hinduism. Many of the notions expressed in the
 Bhagwatam are the result of Buddhist ideas, circa 200 B.C.:
 
 Ahimsa
 Monasticism
 Sutra composition
 Yogic introspection
 Asceticism
 Temple worship
 Puja activities
 Worship of devatas
 
 None of which are mentioned in the Vedas. 
 
 The Vedics practiced the sacrifice of burnt offerings to the 
 forces of nature - they did not live in cities or worship 
 any devatas such as Rama, Balarama, Vasudeva, Krishna or Durga
 in temples made of stone or wood - the ancient Vedics worshipped 
 outdoors. They enjoyed all kinds of inebriants and loved to have 
 bar-b-ques down by the river.

From what I've read, the ancient peoples of India depended on oral 
tradition to pass down knowledge.  It is conceivable to me that the 
writer (possibly Vyasa, who also wrote the Gita and the Mahabharata) 
of Srimad Bhagavatam penned down the stories that were handed down to 
him from his ancestors.  So, the tradition from the vedic times are 
contained in one way or the other in these books.

Also, MMY has been documented to say that soma is a chemical 
derivative that can be found in the stomachs of advanced meditators.  
MMY considers this chemical to be the ingredient that supports 
bliss.  This same ingredient is the amrita that the vedic demigods 
had been looking for in the mythological past.

Further, MMY stated that the vedas cannot be understood in its 
literal meaning.  They can only be understood from the sounds that 
have been handed down from generations.  As you have indicated in 
your past emails, the message of the vedas is to trascend the gunas 
in order to reach the higher level of consciousness.

It is possible that modern researchers have misinterpreted the 
meaning and sources of soma.

Regards,

John R.

[FairfieldLife] Re: holland shows the way

2007-05-23 Thread claudiouk

You are probably right in terms of strictly scientific studies. 
However (a) I think economists for instance use regression analysis 
to investigate the impact of a change in policy such as a tax or 
interest rate on a host of measures. If 52 social indices move in 
the predicted direction, contrary to expected trends, and this ME 
is repeated in another country, that would be more convincing 
supportive evidence for the ME than any study so far performed 
regarding Government policy changes or proposals. And (b) when MMY 
talks of creating the effect now I think he expects the effect to 
be more dramatic than any study could prove - not only very 
substantial changes in society but also more favourable receptivity 
to his ideas. So far the latter is not much in evidence yet - not 
even in Holland, at least not in any dramatic way.

But going back to your scientific considerations, what would 
constitute an ideal study in your view?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 On the surface it sounds goodbut so much depends
 upon the design of the study. Simply gathering a group
 of sidhas, having them do program and then measuring
 these data points across time does not make a valid
 study. What you indicate, in terms of legit research,
 is meaningless. The TMO essentially never designs
 these ME studies properly.
 
 --- claudiouk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Just listening to Global Family Chat report from
  Holland - very 
  impressive developments since the establishment of a
  permanent group of 
  400 flyers in April 2006. On 52 statistical
  indicators the trends since 
  then have moved unexpectedly (in a conventional
  sense)in more 
  positive direction. For instance more trains 
  passengers, more trains 
  on time, 60% less crime on railways etc. Crime rates
  in the two largest 
  cities falling by around 50%. Holland featuring well
  in international 
  tables such as best treatment of the elderly,
  happiness, best place for 
  childhood, huge increase in innovation 
  competetiveness etc etc.. If 
  this pattern can be repeated in the USA after a
  2,000 group is 
  established, it would be incredible!
  
  
  
  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]
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
__
__
 Now that's room service!  Choose from over 150,000 hotels
 in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
 http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit versions of suutras?

2007-05-23 Thread george_deforest

 cardemaister wrote:
 
 Anyone know, where one could find the Sanskrit
 versions of the TM-Sidhi suutras?

This site discusses each of Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, 
using sanskrit and english (with its own interpretations,
which aren't necessarily MMY, but seem decent).

The TM-sidhi program derives from the Sanyama section:
http://www.swamij.com/yoga-sutras-31737.htm#3.24

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  On Behalf Of off_world_beings
  
  Lol, the guy is right Rick. You are already set in your 
  conclusions, and have fundamentalist beliefs based on 
  heresay and gossip. Your letter to him shows a complete 
  stagnancy of thinking on the topic. 

I could not agree less. I don't think I've ever
encountered someone as open to entertaining many
different possibilities about Maharishi and TM
and trying to find some way to juggle them *all*
as Rick Archer. 

  That does not mean the other side is not the same. It could be. 
  But your problem is this Rick. Research published in peer-
  reviewed cientific journals, decade after decade, wins hands 
  down over gossip and ill-supported conspiracy theories. Good 
  luck wit' that bud.
 
 What's with this journal obsession? I have no problem with the 
 research. It shows TM is effective and many ways. I don't dispute 
 that. What I do is take ALL available information, throw it in 
 the pot, and try to make a palatable stew of it. The more 
 controversial things I have come to believe, based on evidence 
 I find credible, do not negate the many positive things about TM,
 MMY, etc. For me, reconciling them just presents an interesting 
 challenge.

Well said. 

Whether you've ever thought of it that way or not, Rick,
that's the Tantric approach. Life is *full* of contra-
dictions -- black juxtaposed against white, sattva
against tamas, ethics against the lack of them -- and
yet on some level all of them not only coexist peace-
fully, they're all composed of That. Go figure, eh?

I've encountered the same complaints from former Rama
students that you're getting here, Rick. And for the
same reasons. I don't buy the Party Line about Rama
(Frederick Lenz) and who or what he was. I just collected
as much data as I could find and threw it all into the
olde mental blender and turned it on and now I sit there
watching the whole frog-in-a-blender mess as kind of a 
Work In Progress. 

I don't have any fixed ideas about the dude. I am fully
aware of many of the good things about him, and I am
just as aware of many of the bad things about him. And
for me, neither one outweighs the other, making him
either good or bad. He was a mix, his *own* frog-in-
a-blender dance of samadhi and samskara. I *get off*
on juggling the seemingly opposite aspects of his 
nature, keeping all of the balls in the air at the
same time. 

I think you feel the same way about Maharishi. For the
record, because you sometimes take heat here, my take
on you is that you have one of the most *balanced*
views of Maharishi of anyone here. 

I don't perceive you as being terribly attached to either
his enlightenment or non-enlightenment, to his saint-
liness or his sinnerhood. Instead, you take these seem-
ingly opposite views of the man and juggle them. I've
never felt anything but love and respect for Maharishi
in your cyber voice here. Concern, sometimes, yes.
Antipathy, never. Love, always. 

A lot of people on this forum are, in my estimation,
a bit...uh...judgemental about sin. There are actions
that someone could perform that would make him or her
a sinner, and thus no longer worthy of their respect.
If they found that someone they'd placed upon a pedestal
had been guilty of one of these actions that they
consider a sin, then they would HAVE to tumble the
person from his or her pedestal. If the person has
committed this terrible sin, they don't DESERVE to
be on the pedestal. For them, being pedestal worthy 
can not *coexist* with being capable of performing the
sinful action.

That's what I think is going on with the people who
cannot *conceive* of Maharishi boinking some girls 
along the Way. For them, if they believed it, that
would make him non pedestal-worthy. Therefore the
stories *about* him boinking young girls *must* be
a lie, mere gossip. 

You obviously don't think like that, Rick, and I for
one think it's a good thing to see and to learn from.
For you, the impression I get is that Maharishi's sex
life is just a point of data. His invention of TM is
another point of data. His lack of followthrough on
the projects he creates and then abandons is another
point of data. You throw all of the data into the
blender and then watch WITHOUT JUDGEMENT and see
what sense you can make of it all. I think you're
on the right track.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit versions of suutras?

2007-05-23 Thread cardemaister

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, george_deforest 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  cardemaister wrote:
  
  Anyone know, where one could find the Sanskrit
  versions of the TM-Sidhi suutras?
 
 This site discusses each of Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, 
 using sanskrit and english (with its own interpretations,
 which aren't necessarily MMY, but seem decent).
 
 The TM-sidhi program derives from the Sanyama section:
 http://www.swamij.com/yoga-sutras-31737.htm#3.24


Thanks, but I meant specifically the TM-versions of
the suutras. I seem to recall for instance TM-YF -suutra
containing the word tantu, which doesn't appear in
the original Paatañjala-suutra, but is amongst the words
of e.g. Vyaasa's commentary:

[...] tatastuurNanaabhitantumaatre vihRtya...

Without sandhi:

tataH; tu; uurNa-naabhi-tantu-maatre; vihRtya...
 
Attempt at translation (never seen one before, except
my own):

... but (tu) going [having gone/been able to go??](vihRtya) [on] 
mere (maatre) on [a] spider's web (uurNa-naabhi*-tantu)...

*) uurNa-naabhi = ?wool-navel(-ed: spider)

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about the movement

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 I said:
 
 I thought a lot about this and kind of felt my way into it during
 meditation, and here's what I think (and feel). I love you, Bobby, 
Paul
 Morehead, Craig Pearson, my old Purusha buddies, and the many good 
souls in
 the movement. Most of the people I just mentioned love what they're 
doing
 and seem to be thriving doing it. 


Yes Rick, Good People doing bad things, continuing to support such an 
organization as it has become.

-Doug in FF




Bobby (to whom I'm Cc-ing this note)
 absolutely glows with love, energy, and enthusiasm. I consider him 
a genuine
 saint, (although, being a genuine saint, he wouldn't admit or even 
know that
 he is). So many of the people I just mentioned are brilliant at 
what they
 do. I couldn't hold a candle to them. 


My heart recoils at the thought of
 engaging them in a conversation in which I would be obligated to 
bring out
 things that might dampen their enthusiasm and devotion. If it ever 
becomes
 more evolutionary for some of these people to leave the movement 
than to
 stay in it, then probably that's what they'll do. Most of those who 
stay in
 the movement will see them as having fallen or become deluded, 
because
 seeing their course of action as perfectly acceptable might shake 
the
 foundations of their own motivation. But those who leave can live 
with that.
 
  
 
 The conditions you've set up for our discussion are not equitable. 
You
 clearly imply that you possess the truth and that I am mired 
in negative
 judgments from which you might extricate me. I don't regard you or 
anyone
 as having a monopoly on the truth. If some of my own judgments are 
overly
 negative, I'd certainly like to revise them. Others may be 
insightful or
 well-informed, but for you to see them that way would be to start a 
crack in
 the cosmic egg, and as I said above, I don't want to do that. I 
don't mean
 to sound condescending, but chicks have to peck their way out. 
Helping them
 from the outside can be injurious.
 
  
 
 My guiding principles are pretty well expressed by the quotes on 
the home
 page of FairfieldLife:
 
  
 
 What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find 
out, which
 is the exact opposite. ~ Bertrand Russell
 
  
 
 The healthy mind challenges its own assumptions. ~ The I Ching
 
  
 
 Whatever you think, it's more than that ~ Incredible String Band
 
  
 
 Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not 
believe what
 your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But
 whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind,
 conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings -- 
that
 doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide. ~ Dharma-
pada,
 Buddha Shakyamuni
 
  
 
 Take what you need and leave the rest. ~ The Band
 
  
 
 I do not claim to know the truth. I hope my judgments, if I am 
making any,
 remain open to revision as new information presents itself. And I 
try never
 dismiss any information out of hand. Pretty much any topic is fair 
game.
 (Another line from the FFL description.) We don't live in a black 
and white
 universe and a fundamentalist, holier-than-thou attitude, whoever 
expresses
 it, is a reflection of individual ego, not of the true nature of 
things. It
 reveals a failure to appreciate God's infinite, all-embracing, 
compassionate
 nature.
 
  
 
 So I hope we always remain friends, and can spend some fun time 
together, as
 I often do with the Moreheads, without friction over our different
 orientations. Perhaps a few years from now we'll each see things 
from
 different perspectives, and long discussions will be appropriate and
 fruitful.
 
  
 
 Your pal,
 
  
 
 Rick
 
  
 
 P.S. The Vikings say they're coming for you next.

[FairfieldLife] Actual entries from hospital patient charts

Since some have ranted recently about MDs and the level
of health care they provide, I thought I'd balance things
with a little something to make you feel better about your 
next hospital visit, and the trained professionals who 
will be treating you  :-)

1. The patient refused autopsy.

2. The patient has no previous history of suicides.

3. Patient has left white blood cells at another hospital.

4. She has no rigors or shaking chills, but her husband states 
she was very hot in bed last night.

5. Patient has chest pain if she lies on her left side for over 
a year.

6. On the second day the knee was better and on the third day 
it disappeared.

7. The patient is tearful and crying constantly. She also 
appears to be depressed.

8. The patient has been depressed since she began seeing me 
in 1993.

9. Discharge status: Alive but without permission.

10. Healthy appearing decrepit 69-year old male, mentally 
alert but forgetful.

11. Patient had waffles for breakfast and anorexia for lunch.

12. She is numb from her toes down.

13. While in ER, she was examined, x-rated and sent home.

14. The skin was moist and dry.

15. Occasional, constant infrequent headaches.

16. Patient was alert and unresponsive.

17. Rectal examination revealed a normal size thyroid.

18. She stated that she had been constipated for most of her 
life, until she got a divorce.

19. I saw your patient today, who is still under our car 
for physical therapy.

20. Both breasts are equal and reactive to light and 
accommodation.

21. Examination of genitalia reveals that he is circus sized.

22. The lab test indicated abnormal lover function.

23. Skin: somewhat pale but present.

24. The pelvic exam will be done later on the floor.

25. Patient has two teenage children, but no other 
abnormalities.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about the movement

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/139637 
 
 I said:

 I love you, Bobby, Paul
 Morehead, Craig Pearson, my old Purusha buddies, and the many good 
souls in
 the movement.
So many of the people I just mentioned are brilliant at what they
 do. I couldn't hold a candle to them. 

 My heart recoils at the thought of
 engaging them in a conversation in which I would be obligated to 
bring out
 things that might dampen their enthusiasm and devotion.

'Ricky', there is this book, the Bagavad Gita, that you might like to 
read.  The part about, Shake off this faint-heartedness.  Same 
deal, frineds, family, loved ones.  Good people doing bad things.  
Rick, you are just a vehicle to help them account for it.  They may 
be saints in their minds for what they are doing, you just might be 
God's hand in this too.

Jai Guru Dev,

-Doug in FF



 
 I thought a lot about this and kind of felt my way into it during
 meditation, and here's what I think (and feel). I love you, Bobby, 
Paul
 Morehead, Craig Pearson, my old Purusha buddies, and the many good 
souls in
 the movement. Most of the people I just mentioned love what they're 
doing
 and seem to be thriving doing it. Bobby (to whom I'm Cc-ing this 
note)
 absolutely glows with love, energy, and enthusiasm. I consider him 
a genuine
 saint, (although, being a genuine saint, he wouldn't admit or even 
know that
 he is). So many of the people I just mentioned are brilliant at 
what they
 do. I couldn't hold a candle to them. My heart recoils at the 
thought of
 engaging them in a conversation in which I would be obligated to 
bring out
 things that might dampen their enthusiasm and devotion. If it ever 
becomes
 more evolutionary for some of these people to leave the movement 
than to
 stay in it, then probably that's what they'll do. Most of those who 
stay in
 the movement will see them as having fallen or become deluded, 
because
 seeing their course of action as perfectly acceptable might shake 
the
 foundations of their own motivation. But those who leave can live 
with that.
 
  
 
 The conditions you've set up for our discussion are not equitable. 
You
 clearly imply that you possess the truth and that I am mired 
in negative
 judgments from which you might extricate me. I don't regard you or 
anyone
 as having a monopoly on the truth. If some of my own judgments are 
overly
 negative, I'd certainly like to revise them. Others may be 
insightful or
 well-informed, but for you to see them that way would be to start a 
crack in
 the cosmic egg, and as I said above, I don't want to do that. I 
don't mean
 to sound condescending, but chicks have to peck their way out. 
Helping them
 from the outside can be injurious.
 
  
 
 My guiding principles are pretty well expressed by the quotes on 
the home
 page of FairfieldLife:
 
  
 
 What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find 
out, which
 is the exact opposite. ~ Bertrand Russell
 
  
 
 The healthy mind challenges its own assumptions. ~ The I Ching
 
  
 
 Whatever you think, it's more than that ~ Incredible String Band
 
  
 
 Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not 
believe what
 your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But
 whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind,
 conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings -- 
that
 doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide. ~ Dharma-
pada,
 Buddha Shakyamuni
 
  
 
 Take what you need and leave the rest. ~ The Band
 
  
 
 I do not claim to know the truth. I hope my judgments, if I am 
making any,
 remain open to revision as new information presents itself. And I 
try never
 dismiss any information out of hand. Pretty much any topic is fair 
game.
 (Another line from the FFL description.) We don't live in a black 
and white
 universe and a fundamentalist, holier-than-thou attitude, whoever 
expresses
 it, is a reflection of individual ego, not of the true nature of 
things. It
 reveals a failure to appreciate God's infinite, all-embracing, 
compassionate
 nature.
 
  
 
 So I hope we always remain friends, and can spend some fun time 
together, as
 I often do with the Moreheads, without friction over our different
 orientations. Perhaps a few years from now we'll each see things 
from
 different perspectives, and long discussions will be appropriate and
 fruitful.
 
  
 
 Your pal,
 
  
 
 Rick
 
  
 
 P.S. The Vikings say they're coming for you next.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  It takes so little personal maturity to accept that everyone 
  does not agree with everything you value.  That is not too 
  much to ask is it? 
 
 No comment. I just thought these lines were 
 worth repeating, is all.



Om, Turq, what is it about this spineless kind of sentiment in the 
conversation that struck your mind?  No good or better in this 
discussion, everyone is right and we are all one, in the One?  
Please, speak sweet truths and non-negativity, moralilty is relative 
and amorality in method minimizes, controversey; is the only reality 
and everything else is immaturity.

Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti, Loka Somastha ...

-Doug in FF

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote:
 
  I said:
  
  I thought a lot about this and kind of felt my way into it 
  during meditation, and here's what I think (and feel). I love 
  you, Bobby, Paul Morehead, Craig Pearson, my old Purusha 
  buddies, and the many good souls in the movement. Most of the 
  people I just mentioned love what they're doing
  and seem to be thriving doing it. 
 
 Yes Rick, Good People doing bad things, continuing to support 
 such an organization as it has become.

And yet, is it our business to somehow convince 
them that this is what they're doing?

I ask because one poster on this forum suggested
as much yesterday. The implication (possibly unin-
tended) of the post was that if she encountered a
friend who had come to believe something that she
considered untrue or even insulting to certain
minorities, she'd *have* to say something to set
the person right and change his or her mind, to 
make (not stated, but definitely implied) some
kind of stand for the truth.

If one feels that, doesn't that imply that they
feel that they KNOW the truth?

I can't speak for you, Doug, but I DON'T know the
truth. About *anything*. All I have is opinions,
which as far as I can tell based on past perform-
ance (no scientific tests so far...sorry, Off),
are sometimes accurate, and sometimes not.

Therefore, for example, when I encountered recently
an old friend from the Rama trip whose ideas about
him and who and what he was differed from mine,
did I feel a compulsion to set her straight and
convince her that my view was right and hers was
not? I did not. I tried my best to steer the conver-
sation to more pleasant neutral ground.

She wouldn't be steered that way. She WAS convinced
that she knew the truth, and the fact that I didn't
AGREE with her truth was perceived as a failing on
my part, one that it was her duty to correct.

Doug, I'm not sayin' that on some days I don't agree
with your assessment of the Yes-men who perpetuate
some of the frauds and ethical travesties of the TM
movement. But these days, I'm trying to be a bit more
tolerant of such people and their beliefs. It's a 
compassion thang.

In some cases, all that these people HAVE in life is
the conviction that their beliefs equate to truth.
They have given up or given away pretty much every-
thing else -- money, career, personal dreams, family,
whatever -- to support the dreams of the TM movement
and Maharishi. And, as Rick says above, this seems to 
have made some of them happy, and they seem to be 
thriving on it.

Therefore, why should I rain on their parade and try
to convince them that my truth is somehow better
than their truth? They can believe what they believe
all day, every day for the rest of their lives and it
doesn't affect me and what I believe in any way. If
they started gettin' active in guvmint and passing laws
that tried to *make* me believe the things that they
believe, I might have some reason to speak up. But as
long as they're just believing what they want to believe
and not trying to force me to believe it too, I have no
problem with them and their belief system. More power
to 'em.

I think that the issue that came up, at least for me,
in Rick's recent sharing of the discussion he had with
his Purusha friend is a classic example of this laissez-
faire approach to conflicting belief systems. As I read
what was posted, it seemed to me that Rick was NOT going
out of his way to demonize his Purusha friend for believing
what he believed. But the Purusha guy WAS doing that. His
position was that Rick was WRONG. And he felt that it was
his DUTY, as a friend, to try to help Rick come to his
senses and come back to his belief in the right things.

All I'm suggesting is that your quip above is pushing the
envelope of the same phenomenon. WE may feel that these
folks are perpetuating what the TMO has become, but is
there anything we can do about it? Nothing. Nada. Nichevo.
Rien. Bupkus.

We could convince every Purusha guy in the world that we
were right and the TMO would continue its lemming run
undisturbed. The TM movement's direction is set by MMY,
and nothing we can do or say is ever going to change it.

I guess that all I'm suggesting here is: Why *bother* to
try to change it? If what they believe makes them happy,
let them believe it, as long as it doesn't cross the
boundary into something illegal. If it does, report that
illegality to the proper authorities and let them deal
with it in the legal system. 

But I think that you know (and, like me, have probably
seen it happen) that even if the legal system found some-
thing dreadfully illegal about the TMO's activities, or
about Marharishi's activies, there are people who would
*refuse* to believe a word of it. Their trust in their
existing beliefs is stronger than their trust in the
legal system.

So, again, why even *bother* to try to sway those beliefs?
We

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
   It takes so little personal maturity to accept that everyone 
   does not agree with everything you value.  That is not too 
   much to ask is it? 
  
  No comment. I just thought these lines were 
  worth repeating, is all.
 
 Om, Turq, what is it about this spineless kind of sentiment in the 
 conversation that struck your mind?  No good or better in this 
 discussion, everyone is right and we are all one, in the One?  
 Please, speak sweet truths and non-negativity, moralilty is relative 
 and amorality in method minimizes, controversey; is the only reality 
 and everything else is immaturity.
 
 Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti, Loka Somastha ...

LOL. Literally.

As it turned out, Doug, I've already answered your
question above, and posted it, even before I read
this post. I could feel that this was the direction
your rants were taking you in this morning, and so
I replied to an earlier, lesser rant with the sort
of explanations you're asking for above. :-)

It's isnt' spineless to allow someone the freedom
of their beliefs. It's a matter of respect.

What, to me, indicates a *lack* of respect is going
out of your way to convince that someone that their
beliefs are wrong and that your beliefs are right.
I don't care WHO is doing it -- TM supporter or TM
critic -- it's the same phenomenon. In my opinion
morality IS relative, and trying to convince someone
that your beliefs are better than theirs IS 
immaturity. 

Your mileage may vary. And that's Ok. Believe what
you want to believe.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about the movement

2007-05-23 Thread lurkernomore20002000

Lurk
Oh yea, he totally demolished Rick.  I mean, really, I felt like I 
 was 
  listening to Adi Shankaracharya and that blazing 
  intellect.NOT!
  
 Rory:
What? We were talking about MMY, not the Purusha guy...at least I was! 
 Can't speak for Jim-ji, of course :-)

Listen, when I have a phrase I want to use, I'm gonna insert it any 
place I choose, whether it makes sense or not.  GOT IT?

lurk

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th

2007-05-23 Thread lurkernomore20002000

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

you don't FEEL
  comfortable seeing Maharishi as ... the
  only Rishi in history  who has cognized all the vedas, 
 
 When did this become part of the TMO story, belief, knowledge,
 dogma, catechism?

This is going to come, right before MMY discovered penicillin.

lurk

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th

2007-05-23 Thread Vaj



On May 23, 2007, at 8:02 AM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
wrote:


you don't FEEL
  comfortable seeing Maharishi as ... the
  only Rishi in history who has cognized all the vedas,

 When did this become part of the TMO story, belief, knowledge,
 dogma, catechism?

This is going to come, right before MMY discovered penicillin.



Hey Lurk, get it right: Mahesh COGNIZED penicillin and then travelled  
back in time to place it's discovery at the correct place in the  
unfoldment of natural law. This was after he cognised 1/3 a  
commentary of the gita and then cognized all the vedas.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Advice Sought

2007-05-23 Thread pratap Mahapatra

Hi John!
  Knowledge is vast. You can spend your life time learning and still there will 
be more unlerarned.
  TM has been developped be someone with great knowledge in this field. It is 
not very wise to question everything it uses like mantra which is nothing but a 
life supporting sound.
  Another thing you say is a God of some other culture. This to me a little 
narrow minded. Forgive me for using this word. Be phylosophical and think, God 
does not belong to any culture or religion. You believe or not it is the 
reality and same to all. It has to do with a faith system. 
  Concerning the insomnia, I will try to send some more articles that will help 
you. However, I would like you to respond to my private email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Regards,
  Pratap

John Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Hi,

I'm new to this list, so I hope the following post is appropriate. It is 
also somewhat lengthy, for which I apologise - conciseness was never my 
strong point. But I am in search of a spot of advice, and wondered if anyone 
here could help...

I learned TM about nine months or so (I know, a newbie!). It appealed to me 
since whislt I consider myself in a sense spiritual, I am not religious, and 
TM seemed to offer a non-faith based approach to meditation. And it has not 
been entirely without benefit. But since then I have suffered increasingly 
from insomnia. Not to a dreadful degree, but I'm lucky if I get three hours 
sleep a night. Growing unhappy with my instructor's standard 'part of the 
process' response, I took a look online and found this wasn't entirely 
uncommon, and nor was it necessarily temporary. But, in addition, I also 
came upon the translations of the mantras. And here lies my real problem.

I am not overly bothered by the deception involved when I was told, on 
learning, that they are without meaning, since, for me at least, they were. 
But not any more. Now it seems to me that any universal truth has, by 
definition, to transcend cultures, or it is not universal. The laws of 
gravity, for example, might have been discovered in the west, but gravity 
works everywhere at all times no matter what it is called or how it is 
defined (well, a few claims to the contrary aside!). The processes of 
nature, the existence of the bundle of emotions and feelings we define as 
love, the existence of bad television shows...the list goes on, in all 
disciplines of life. And if meditation has value, then similarly, the same 
should be the case, must be the case.

So. There seem to me to be two possibilities. One, that the actual mantra 
used is irrrelvant, meaningless. Just a word to return to during meditation 
as a way of letting go of thought. But if this is so, why the insistence, in 
TM and indeed other traditions, on the use of particular mantras? Or two, 
that the mantra used is important, and does have meaning. But if this is so, 
then the technique is not universal but rooted in a particular culture. 
Moreover, when meditating I am in effect praying to a god not of my culture, 
and of whom I have no knowledge, which leaves me deeply uncomfortable.

There are, of course, non-mantra based meditations. But those that I have 
encountered seem based around the breath. And although this would indeed 
seem universal, what quiet I do find through TM comes when thought of breath 
has fallen away (as a woodwind musician, I am rarely unaware of, if not 
actively controlling, my breath).

Hmm. I'm not sure there is a question in the above, so much as a seeking of 
thoughts and opinion. Is the mantra used of importance? If so, why? If not, 
why?! Do there by any chance exist other non mantra-based, non-religious, 
'aimless' meditations? Are my thought processes described above flawed? If 
so, why and how?

Anyways, thanks for reading this far, and any advice would be greatfully 
received.

John



 

   
-
You snooze, you lose. Get messages ASAP with AutoCheck
 in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th

2007-05-23 Thread lurkernomore20002000

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Hey Lurk, get it right: Mahesh COGNIZED penicillin and then 
travelled  
 back in time to place it's discovery at the correct place in the  
 unfoldment of natural law. This was after he cognised 1/3 a  
 commentary of the gita and then cognized all the vedas.

Perfect!

lurk

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 But I think that you know (and, like me, have probably
 seen it happen) that even if the legal system found some-
 thing dreadfully illegal about the TMO's activities, or
 about Marharishi's activies, there are people who would
 *refuse* to believe a word of it. Their trust in their
 existing beliefs is stronger than their trust in the
 legal system.
 
 So, again, why even *bother* to try to sway those beliefs?
 We can talk about the things we believe here, and they 
 can talk about the things they believe in the groups they
 hang with. No harm, no foul, no need for either side
 to try to convince the other that it's right. To do
 so just seems like an awful waste of time and energy
 to me.


Yes, that is fine Turq on one level, except that practically, you 
live in France and we live here, with a 300lbs gorrilla on the loose 
in the neighborhood.  

People here judge the situation personally, all the time.  That is 
also in a reality of practical things of the living of the thing.  Is 
part of the fun and also is what makes the whole story the 
interesting human material that it is.

Have a nice day,

-Doug in FF

[FairfieldLife] Re: Great day for Ducks and Selanne!

2007-05-23 Thread Alex Stanley

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

 
 http://www.anaheimducks.com/
 
 (Couldn't care less? :)  )

I think Trump should buy the team just so he can rename it the Donald
Ducks.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th

2007-05-23 Thread Alex Stanley

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote:
 
 you don't FEEL
   comfortable seeing Maharishi as ... the
   only Rishi in history  who has cognized all the vedas, 
  
  When did this become part of the TMO story, belief, knowledge,
  dogma, catechism?
 
 This is going to come, right before MMY discovered penicillin.

Yeah, sounds like there's some *serious* hagiography going on.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000
 steve.sundur@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote:
  
...you don't FEEL
comfortable seeing Maharishi as ... the
only Rishi in history  who has cognized all the vedas, 
   
   When did this become part of the TMO story, belief, knowledge,
   dogma, catechism?
  
  This is going to come, right before MMY discovered penicillin.
 
 Yeah, sounds like there's some *serious* hagiography going on.

It's all part of avoid the problem before it
arises. Most spiritual sects have to wait until
the teacher they venerate dies before they rewrite
all of the history surrounding them. This sounds to
me as if they're just trying to get a start on the 
process early. 

:-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 And yet, is it our business to somehow convince 
 them that this is what they're doing?


 
 I ask because one poster on this forum suggested
 as much yesterday. The implication (possibly unin-
 tended) of the post was that if she encountered a
 friend who had come to believe something that she
 considered untrue or even insulting to certain
 minorities, she'd *have* to say something to set
 the person right and change his or her mind, to 
 make (not stated, but definitely implied) some
 kind of stand for the truth.
 
 If one feels that, doesn't that imply that they
 feel that they KNOW the truth?
 
 I can't speak for you, Doug, but I DON'T know the
 truth. About *anything*. All I have is opinions,
 which as far as I can tell based on past perform-
 ance (no scientific tests so far...sorry, Off),
 are sometimes accurate, and sometimes not.

Not arguing, just some points your post triggered.

Sometimes we seem to be trying to convince others of our POV -- but it
is in the context of friendly debate -- taking our opinions out for a
drive and see if they hold up at 90mph as well as they do parked in
the garage. Whether the person changes their mind is immaterial.

A second, separate point, I liked Judy's post yesterday, it was a good
counter that made me think a bit. The gist -- parapharsing racism IS
bad and I will speak up against it and try to uplift weak and/or
irrational views. 

Your counter -- there is no TRUTH -- with the implication possibly
(perhaps not intended) being to not speak up against things like
racism and not  bothering to try to uplift weak or irrational views
becasue they may be right. Paraphrasing Who Knowns!? Thats somethig
to gnaw on. It raises the issue uncomfortable question Is racism a
good thing in some contexts?. Perhaps it is in some very strange and
hypothetical contexts. But in the context of life in 2007 it is
(almost always) a bad thing. Qualifying a truth claim to specific
context significanly helps focus the discussion and reduces
hypothetical exceptions to the claim.

In addition to context, taking a probabalistic view is a wonderful
thing. Statistics is the backbone of  science. No peer-reviewed
article, even a series of 100 of them, establishes TRUTH in an
absolute sense. All scientific claims are in the form of We are 95%
confident that the event occurs within a range +- 2% of X (95% and 2%
being just plug in examples.) 

It is from this framework that I qualified the above truth claim,
it is (almost always) a bad thing. Almost always in this case
might mean that, in 'this' context, we are 99.99% confident that
racism leads to negative outcomes. This is in contrast to the Who
Knowns!? view which can and has been used sometimes to imply or argue
that all views are equally valid that is they all have a 50/50 chance
of being true. In the framework of the above truth claim, it would
translate into in 'this' context, we are 50% confident that racism
leads to negative outcomes . Hopefully no one has such a limited view.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip 
In contrast, those who cling so strongly to what
 they believe now, to the point of being incapable
 of stating even the *possibility* that these beliefs
 might be less than perfect, have made a commitment
 to STAYING THE SAME. They are actively *resisting*
 change, and thus resisting the very enlightenment
 they profess to seek.

But you could be wrong. :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5
 dhamiltony2k5@ wrote:
snip
  Yes Rick, Good People doing bad things, continuing to support 
  such an organization as it has become.
 
 And yet, is it our business to somehow convince 
 them that this is what they're doing?
 
 I ask because one poster on this forum

(Note that again Barry finds himself unable to
utter my name.  Perhaps that's because a little
while back he vowed he was never going to read
any of my posts ever again.)

 suggested
 as much yesterday. The implication (possibly unin-
 tended) of the post was that if she encountered a
 friend who had come to believe something that she
 considered untrue or even insulting to certain
 minorities, she'd *have* to say something to set
 the person right and change his or her mind, to 
 make (not stated, but definitely implied) some
 kind of stand for the truth.

Actually, of course, I was posing a question.  Let's
have another look at what I wrote:

The question is, what do you *do* (or not-do)
[when you encounter disagreement with what you
value]? Suppose you're chatting with a kid, say,
and she starts coming out with all kinds of
bigoted remarks about black people. Do you just
accept that she doesn't agree with your values?
What if a good friend surprises you with a tirade
against gay people?

It's not quite so simple as saying, as 'some
people' here do, Well, that's your opinion. I
have a different opinion. No one opinion is
'better' than any other.

 If one feels that, doesn't that imply that they
 feel that they KNOW the truth?
 
 I can't speak for you, Doug, but I DON'T know the
 truth. About *anything*. All I have is opinions,
 which as far as I can tell based on past perform-
 ance (no scientific tests so far...sorry, Off),
 are sometimes accurate, and sometimes not.

Obviously, Barry's answer to my question is that
you should *not* challenge anybody's opinions,
because *you could be wrong*.

For Barry, nothing is more terrifying than the
possibility of being wrong. He avoids that danger
by never taking a stand, never committing to a
point of view.

It's one thing to be able to recognize that your
values don't necessarily represent The Truth.
That's a step toward maturity.

But there's a further step, which is to have
the cojones to stand up for what you believe 
*even though you could be wrong*.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about the movement

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 
 steve.sundur@ wrote:
 
   In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ 
   wrote:
  Put another way, He kicks some serious ass! Jai Guru Dev. :-)
  
  Oh yea, he totally demolished Rick.  I mean, really, I felt like I 
 was 
  listening to Adi Shankaracharya and that blazing 
  intellect.NOT!
  
 What? We were talking about MMY, not the Purusha guy...at least I 
was! 
 Can't speak for Jim-ji, of course :-)

Yo yo, Rory-ji, my Homey! :-)

[FairfieldLife] Telling Our (TMO) Stories

The below article is very interesting (to me) given that many of us
came here, or have used FFL at times, to rethink, reconcile, place in
a broader context, retell (sometime over and over from different
angles), our experiences in the TMO and with TM. Our TMO stories. 



May 22, 2007
This Is Your Life (and How You Tell It)
By BENEDICT CAREY

For more than a century, researchers have been trying to work out the
raw ingredients that account for personality, the sweetness and
neuroses that make Anna Anna, the sluggishness and sensitivity that
make Andrew Andrew. They have largely ignored the first-person
explanation  the life story that people themselves tell about who
they are, and why.

Stories are stories, after all. The attractive stranger at the airport
bar hears one version, the parole officer another, and the P.T.A.
board gets something entirely different. Moreover, the tone, the
lessons, even the facts in a life story can all shift in the changing
light of a person's mood, its major notes turning minor, its depths
appearing shallow.

Yet in the past decade or so a handful of psychologists have argued
that the quicksilver elements of personal narrative belong in any
three-dimensional picture of personality. And a burst of new findings
are now helping them make the case. Generous, civic-minded adults from
diverse backgrounds tell life stories with very similar and telling
features, studies find; so likewise do people who have overcome mental
distress through psychotherapy.

Every American may be working on a screenplay, but we are also
continually updating a treatment of our own life  and the way in
which we visualize each scene not only shapes how we think about
ourselves, but how we behave, new studies find. By better
understanding how life stories are built, this work suggests, people
may be able to alter their own narrative, in small ways and perhaps
large ones.

When we first started studying life stories, people thought it was
just idle curiosity  stories, isn't that cool? said Dan P. McAdams,
a professor of psychology at Northwestern and author of the 2006 book,
The Redemptive Self. Well, we find that these narratives guide
behavior in every moment, and frame not only how we see the past but
how we see ourselves in the future.

Researchers have found that the human brain has a natural affinity for
narrative construction. People tend to remember facts more accurately
if they encounter them in a story rather than in a list, studies find;
and they rate legal arguments as more convincing when built into
narrative tales rather than on legal precedent.

YouTube routines notwithstanding, most people do not begin to see
themselves in the midst of a tale with a beginning, middle and
eventual end until they are teenagers. Younger kids see themselves in
terms of broad, stable traits: `I like baseball but not soccer,' 
said Kate McLean, a psychologist at the University of Toronto in
Mississauga. This meaning-making capability  to talk about growth,
to explain what something says about who I am  develops across
adolescence.

Psychologists know what life stories look like when they are fully
hatched, at least for some Americans. Over the years, Dr. McAdams and
others have interviewed hundreds of men and women, most in their 30s
and older.

During a standard life-story interview, people describe phases of
their lives as if they were outlining chapters, from the sandlot years
through adolescence and middle age. They also describe several crucial
scenes in detail, including high points (the graduation speech,
complete with verbal drum roll); low points (the college nervous
breakdown, complete with the list of witnesses); and turning points.
The entire two-hour session is recorded and transcribed.

In analyzing the texts, the researchers found strong correlations
between the content of people's current lives and the stories they
tell. Those with mood problems have many good memories, but these
scenes are usually tainted by some dark detail. The pride of college
graduation is spoiled when a friend makes a cutting remark. The
wedding party was wonderful until the best man collapsed from drink. A
note of disappointment seems to close each narrative phrase.

By contrast, so-called generative adults  those who score highly on
tests measuring civic-mindedness, and who are likely to be energetic
and involved  tend to see many of the events in their life in the
reverse order, as linked by themes of redemption. They flunked sixth
grade but met a wonderful counselor and made honor roll in seventh.
They were laid low by divorce, only to meet a wonderful new partner.
Often, too, they say they felt singled out from very early in life 
protected, even as others nearby suffered.

In broad outline, the researchers report, such tales express
distinctly American cultural narratives, of emancipation or atonement,
of Horatio Alger advancement, of epiphany and second chances.
Depending

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 
 
  And yet, is it our business to somehow convince 
  them that this is what they're doing?
  . . .
  I ask because one poster on this forum suggested
  as much yesterday. The implication (possibly unin-
  tended) of the post was that if she encountered a
  friend who had come to believe something that she
  considered untrue or even insulting to certain
  minorities, she'd *have* to say something to set
  the person right and change his or her mind, to 
  make (not stated, but definitely implied) some
  kind of stand for the truth.
  
  If one feels that, doesn't that imply that they
  feel that they KNOW the truth?
  
  I can't speak for you, Doug, but I DON'T know the
  truth. About *anything*. All I have is opinions,
  which as far as I can tell based on past perform-
  ance (no scientific tests so far...sorry, Off),
  are sometimes accurate, and sometimes not.
 
 Not arguing, just some points your post triggered.
 
 Sometimes we seem to be trying to convince others of our POV -- 
 but it is in the context of friendly debate -- taking our 
 opinions out for a drive and see if they hold up at 90mph as 
 well as they do parked in the garage. Whether the person 
 changes their mind is immaterial.

I have no issue with this kind of discussion, although
I might call it a discussion rather than a debate. It's
when one party of the discussion obviously has a heavy
emotional investment *in* changing the other person's
mind or in proving themselves right and the other 
person wrong I had in mind. Like the recent attempt 
by Rick's friend to do just that.

 A second, separate point, I liked Judy's post yesterday, it 
 was a good counter that made me think a bit. The gist -- 
 parapharsing racism IS bad and I will speak up against it 
 and try to uplift weak and/or irrational views. 

I would suggest that this is a rather superficial 
example of the phenomenon, designed to support the
case that we *should* try to change other people's
minds. The example given is racism. Yeah, sure...
everybody likes to think they're against racism, 
and that they'd speak up if someone said some racist
remarks in their presence.

But that's not what we're talking about. What we're
talking about (as far as I can tell) is the attempt
by one person, unsolicited, to convince another 
person that his beliefs about a spiritual teacher
are wrong. U...do you really think that relates
to hearing some racist remarks and speaking up 
about them? 

Well, no, it isn't related at all. It was an attempt 
to distract attention from the actual situation.

 Your counter -- there is no TRUTH 

I never said that. There might be. I don't know.
All I know is that I have never been privy to 
the TRUTH, and expect never TO be. Therefore I
don't delude myself into thinking I know it. :-)

 -- with the implication possibly
 (perhaps not intended) being to not speak up against things like
 racism and not bothering to try to uplift weak or irrational views
 becasue they may be right. 

You're making the leap you were intended to make
here, dude, thinking racism when you should be
thinking trying to convert someone else of the
unquestionable correctness of your spiritual beliefs.
It's EASY to justify impassioned debate if you can 
pretend you're fighting racism. But it's not quite 
as easy to do so when what you're defending is an 
active attempt to impose one own spiritual beliefs 
on another person.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 snip 
  In contrast, those who cling so strongly to what
  they believe now, to the point of being incapable
  of stating even the *possibility* that these beliefs
  might be less than perfect, have made a commitment
  to STAYING THE SAME. They are actively *resisting*
  change, and thus resisting the very enlightenment
  they profess to seek.
 
 But you could be wrong. :-)

Indeed I could.

Could you?

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Mother Meera site

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

 On May 22, 2007, at 7:08 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:
 
  Bringing people together in silence.
 
  (oh yes. Silence, deep silence.  Nothin betta)
 
 Doesn't anyone else get, you know, kind of bored with all the 
silence?  

Yes, sometimes I find silence is boring; sometimes activity seems 
boring. Sometimes the boredom appears to be a sign that it is time to 
be doing or Being or appreciating something else, in this moment. If 
circumstances don't appear to allow a change, then I often find that my 
boredom is a clue that I'm not looking closely enough at the movie -- 
am filtering it through a belief-structure that says, Been There, Done 
That; Show's over folks; there's nothing more to see here. On closer 
look, I generally find there's always something new and rich about this 
moment, whether it be something new to appreciate in silence or in 
activity. 

Sometimes -- often -- my boredom is a mask for some as-yet 
unacknowledged particular pain that is crying out for attention, 
somewhere in the body-mind. Numbness is a natural response to continual 
pain, something we just weren't able to cope with at the time we were 
wounded. As our Heart expands further and further into the past, we 
encounter these slick-spots of boredom where particular members of us 
have fallen asleep. As they begin to awaken, they often feel pain, 
somewhat like a leg or an arm that has fallen asleep from disuse and 
feels pins and needles on awakening. In both cases -- psychic and 
physical reawakening -- I find silence, relaxation, stillness, 
breathing, easy attending, to be helpful.

 Or am I just unevolved?

On the one hand we're as perfect as we're ever going to Be; on the 
other, there's always more, verdad?

:-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
  
  Not arguing, just some points your post triggered.
  
 
  A second, separate point, I liked Judy's post yesterday, it 
  was a good counter that made me think a bit. The gist -- 
  parapharsing racism IS bad and I will speak up against it 
  and try to uplift weak and/or irrational views. 
 
 I would suggest that this is a rather superficial 
 example of the phenomenon, designed to support the
 case that we *should* try to change other people's
 minds. The example given is racism. Yeah, sure...
 everybody likes to think they're against racism, 
 and that they'd speak up if someone said some racist
 remarks in their presence.
 
 But that's not what we're talking about. 

Well, its what I was thinking about. I was thinking in broader terms
than just the current discussion.  As I said, Not arguing, just some
points your post triggered. And thoughts Judy's post triggered. If my
net etiquitte is off key, and if I should have started another thread
so that all discussion on this thread remain strictly on-message, then
OK. But I think the thoughts in my are relevant to this discussion as
well as in a broader context. (Useful is another criteria altogether.
:) ) 


 
  Your counter -- there is no TRUTH 
 
 I never said that. There might be. I don't know.
 All I know is that I have never been privy to 
 the TRUTH, and expect never TO be. Therefore I
 don't delude myself into thinking I know it. :-)

OK. Thank you for the clarification. I was roughly paraphrasing my
take on your position, and I now see your distinctions clearer.

 
  -- with the implication possibly
  (perhaps not intended) being to not speak up against things like
  racism and not bothering to try to uplift weak or irrational views
  becasue they may be right. 
 
 You're making the leap you were intended to make
 here, dude, thinking racism when you should be
 thinking trying to convert someone else of the
 unquestionable correctness of your spiritual beliefs.

I SHOULD be thinking. You are telling me how I should think?

 It's EASY to justify impassioned debate if you can 
 pretend you're fighting racism. 

Racism was an example Judy brought up. I find, as I assume she does,
that when one generalizes about a specific set of situations (e.g.,
trying to convert others unquestionable correctness of your spiritual
beliefs, its useful to look at that generalized observation in a
broader context to see if it still flies. Racism was an example to do
that. I was not trying to take the discussion off topic (nor was she,
I beleive); my post ended back on topic. You may not find the above
process of testing hypotheses in a wider context useful to you. I am
not trying to convince you otherwise.

 But it's not quite 
 as easy to do so when what you're defending is an 
 active attempt to impose one own spiritual beliefs 
 on another person.

I am not arguing for the above. But do you feel that an active
attempt to impose one own spiritual beliefs on another person is
always wrong in all contexts?

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about the movement

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Lurk
 Oh yea, he totally demolished Rick.  I mean, really, I felt like I 
  was 
   listening to Adi Shankaracharya and that blazing 
   intellect.NOT!
   
  Rory:
 What? We were talking about MMY, not the Purusha guy...at least I 
was! 
  Can't speak for Jim-ji, of course :-)
 
 Listen, when I have a phrase I want to use, I'm gonna insert it any 
 place I choose, whether it makes sense or not.  GOT IT?

HA! Good one! Got it! 

:-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Telling Our (TMO) Stories

They find that one important factor
is the perspective people take when they revisit the scene  whether
in the first person, or in the third person, as if they were watching
themselves in a movie.

My take on the above snip from the article is that the third person
perspective is not that the person telling the story and says he did
this and that when refering to their actions. Rather the perspective
is of seeing another do the action (outside the skin of-- though
privy to that persons (older version of the personality)thoughts and
feelings. This is in contrast to a first person's perpective of
reliving the experience inside the skin of one's former self. 

Do others have a different take on the article's meaning of third
person perspective?

I see most events and my role in my stories in the same way that I
view older cars that I have owned. They are mine, or were mine,
but  are out there.  I traded the old model in on a new one. And I
will trade this one in on a newer one. 

This view may contrasts a bit with a popular theme in pyschology, or
at least pop psychology, of owning  ones responses, behavior,
actions etc. Or  maybe not. I can own up to having owned that older
car, as I can own-up to having once been that older version of this
limited personality. But that ownership does not preclude seeing that
older car or personality as an object out there. 

(Dr. Pete writing furiously, hmmm, strong disassociation AND multiple
personality disorder, hmm very interesting)

And the article can be seen from a deeper level, IT being distinct
from all limited personalities, past and present. 




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 The below article is very interesting (to me) given that many of us
 came here, or have used FFL at times, to rethink, reconcile, place in
 a broader context, retell (sometime over and over from different
 angles), our experiences in the TMO and with TM. Our TMO stories.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 
  But it's not quite 
  as easy to do so when what you're defending is an 
  active attempt to impose one's own spiritual beliefs 
  on another person.
 
 I am not arguing for the above. But do you feel that an active
 attempt to impose one's own spiritual beliefs on another person 
 is always wrong in all contexts?

While I can *theoretically* admit the possibility
that in some time and place it might actually be
appropriate to attempt to impose your spiritual
beliefs on another, I'm not pragmatically convinced
that such a time and place have ever occurred in 
the history of the human race.  :-)

Can you give me a theoretical example of such an
action being appropriate? One that does not involve
the person who is doing it assuming that he/she is
right and knows the truth? And that does not 
involve the deus ex machina of you saying, But...
but...in such and such a case they *did* know the
truth. That's an artificial situation that has
never really existed.

On the other hand, every spiritual tyrant in history 
has claimed that they were right and that they knew 
the truth, from the Inquisition to the Spanish and 
Portuguese priests who tried to convert the Japanese 
to Christianity by force, and who did not shirk from 
killing a few villages of resistant converts to make 
their point. 

ALL fanatics believe that they're right and that
they know the truth. But that doesn't make them
right, or their beliefs the truth. 

I guess the short answer to your question, now that
I've rapped out a longer one, is No, I don't see
how it could ever be appropriate to attempt to 
impose one's spiritual beliefs on another person.
The Japanese who were trying to deal with the 
Catholic priests who were trying to convert them
(in a time and place in which one *never* tried to 
impose one's religion on another person) had a term 
that they applied to that sad period of history. 
They called it the invasion of the barbarians. I
guess that term kinda captures my feelings about
those who believe that they have the right to 
impose their spiritual beliefs on others.

But I could be wrong.  :-)  :-)  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Zen Cat

2007-05-23 Thread Vaj

inline: zencatshirt.jpg

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of TurquoiseB
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 3:33 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we
engage in a discussion about th

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

  On Behalf Of off_world_beings

  Lol, the guy is right Rick. You are already set in your 
  conclusions, and have fundamentalist beliefs based on 
  heresay and gossip. Your letter to him shows a complete 
  stagnancy of thinking on the topic. 

I could not agree less. I don't think I've ever
encountered someone as open to entertaining many
different possibilities about Maharishi and TM
and trying to find some way to juggle them *all*
as Rick Archer. 

Thanks. I think you understand and share my perspective well.

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of new.morning
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:52 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we
engage in a discussion about th

 you don't FEEL
 comfortable seeing Maharishi as ... the
 only Rishi in history who has cognized all the vedas, 

When did this become part of the TMO story, belief, knowledge,
dogma, catechism?

My friend's deification machine seems to be running on overdrive.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote:
snip
  A second, separate point, I liked Judy's post yesterday, it 
  was a good counter that made me think a bit. The gist -- 
  parapharsing racism IS bad and I will speak up against it 
  and try to uplift weak and/or irrational views. 
 
 I would suggest that this is a rather superficial 
 example of the phenomenon, designed to support the
 case that we *should* try to change other people's
 minds. The example given is racism. Yeah, sure...
 everybody likes to think they're against racism, 
 and that they'd speak up if someone said some racist
 remarks in their presence.
 
 But that's not what we're talking about. What we're
 talking about (as far as I can tell) is the attempt
 by one person, unsolicited, to convince another 
 person that his beliefs about a spiritual teacher
 are wrong. U...do you really think that relates
 to hearing some racist remarks and speaking up 
 about them? 
 
 Well, no, it isn't related at all. It was an attempt 
 to distract attention from the actual situation.

This is hilarious. Barry's forgotten that just
a couple hours ago, *he cited my post* as an 
example of what he was talking about. Or could
he now be admitting that *he* was attempting to
distract attention from the actual situation?

Here was his comment on my post:

And yet, is it our business to somehow convince
them [TM supporters] that this [good people doing
bad things] is what they're doing?

I ask because one poster on this forum suggested
as much yesterday. The implication (possibly unin-
tended) of the post was that if she encountered a
friend who had come to believe something that she
considered untrue or even insulting to certain
minorities, she'd *have* to say something to set
the person right and change his or her mind, to
make (not stated, but definitely implied) some
kind of stand for the truth.

If one feels that, doesn't that imply that they
feel that they KNOW the truth?

I can't speak for you, Doug, but I DON'T know the
truth. About *anything*. All I have is opinions,
which as far as I can tell based on past perform-
ance (no scientific tests so far...sorry, Off),
are sometimes accurate, and sometimes not.

Barry, in other words, used his disagreement with
my post to make his point, so obviously he thought
it was relevant to the discussion about Rick's
friend.

Now, all of a sudden, the post he cited to support
his take on Rick's friend was attempting to
distract attention from the actual situation.

The jaw just drops at the blatant intellectual
dishonesty.

In any case, of course I was using racism as a
kind of reductio ad absurdam, exactly because
nobody wants to think they wouldn't speak out
against it.

As I went on to say:

It's not quite so simple as saying, as some people
here do, Well, that's your opinion. I have a different
opinion. No one opinion is better than any other.

In other words, where do you draw the line? What
do you challenge, and what don't you challenge, and
why? How do you make the distinction between what
you will and won't challenge? Is it black and white,
or are there shades of gray about which reasonable
people could disagree?

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
snip
  You're making the leap you were intended to make
  here, dude, thinking racism when you should be
  thinking trying to convert someone else of the
  unquestionable correctness of your spiritual beliefs.
 
 I SHOULD be thinking. You are telling me how I should think?
 
  It's EASY to justify impassioned debate if you can 
  pretend you're fighting racism. 
 
 Racism was an example Judy brought up. I find, as I assume
 she does, that when one generalizes about a specific set of 
 situations (e.g., trying to convert others unquestionable 
 correctness of your spiritual beliefs, its useful to look
 at that generalized observation in a broader context to see
 if it still flies. Racism was an example to do that. I was
 not trying to take the discussion off topic (nor was she,
 I beleive); my post ended back on topic.

Precisely.  And Barry understood what I was saying
too, in his earlier post, when it served his purposes.
Now it serves his purposes to claim my post was an
attempt to distract from the discussion.

Well, everyone has the right to change his mind.
Would Barry be willing to say he was wrong in his
earlier post to consider my post relevant to the
discussion?

Probably not a good idea to hold one's breath waiting
for his answer...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit versions of suutras?

2007-05-23 Thread Richard J. Williams

cardemaister wrote: 
 Thanks, but I meant specifically the TM-versions 
 of the suutras. 

So, Erik, when are you going to order the book from MUM? 

Maybe you should have taken notes when you got the 
initiation instructions for the upasana from Marshy. 

It's obvious you're not going to get any help from the 
sadhaks here, since obviously none are Sanskrit readers, 
despite their numerous M.B.A.s, Ph.D.s, their TMO status
and despite having lived in Fairfield for decades. Slow 
learners, I guess. 

Go figure.

Maybe the mayor of Vedic City could help you out - he would 
know about this since Sanskrit is the offical language in 
the Global Country of Word Peace. Write him a letter.

Apparently Tony Nader can read Sanskrit and he can speak it 
like it was his mother tongue. Send him an email - I'm sure 
he will respond right away, since he's the director of the 
Open University.

Or, ring up Dr. Katz at Oxford - he may know a thing or 
two about some suutras, since he translated the entire 
Bhagavad Gita into English. Ask for Vernon.

Or why not just contact the Marshy in person - apparently 
he's got a few telephones, FAX machines, and Blackberrys
at his disposal (maybe even a two-way wrist radio). 

Let me know what kind of response you get.

P.S. It might help to get some Sanskrit flash cards and 
learn the Sanskrit alphabet with the vowels and the 
consonants too.

Available from MUM Press: 

'Yoga Sutras of Patanjali'
Sanskrit and Devangiri
http://mumpress.com/p_d07.html

Other titles of interest:

'Learn Sanskrit In 30 Days'
By Vidavisarada

21st Century Books
108 W. Broadway, Suite 100
Fairfield, Iowa 52556 U.S.A.
http://www.21stbooks.com/

 Anyone know, where one could find the Sanskrit
 versions of the TM-Sidhi suutras?

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
wrote:
  
   But it's not quite 
   as easy to do so when what you're defending is an 
   active attempt to impose one's own spiritual beliefs 
   on another person.
  
  I am not arguing for the above. But do you feel that an active
  attempt to impose one's own spiritual beliefs on another person 
  is always wrong in all contexts?
 
 While I can *theoretically* admit the possibility
 that in some time and place it might actually be
 appropriate to attempt to impose your spiritual
 beliefs on another, I'm not pragmatically convinced
 that such a time and place have ever occurred in 
 the history of the human race.  :-)

I think the term impose introduces a red herring
into the discussion. I seriously doubt Rick's friend
would claim it was appropriate or that this was what
he intended doing.

Imposing one's beliefs is the extreme end of a
spectrum (whether the issue is racism or beliefs
about one's spiritual teacher).

A less extreme action is to *attempt to convince*,
which is, I suspect, what Rick's friend had in mind.

Still less extreme is simply to state one's beliefs
forcefully, not in an attempt to convince but to
make it clear that there is strong disagreement.

Less extreme than that is Well, I disgree; here's
what I believe, but I could be wrong.

Then at the opposite end of the spectrum from
impose is to change the subject and avoid
disagreement altogether.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 snip 
 In contrast, those who cling so strongly to what
  they believe now, to the point of being incapable
  of stating even the *possibility* that these beliefs
  might be less than perfect, have made a commitment
  to STAYING THE SAME. They are actively *resisting*
  change, and thus resisting the very enlightenment
  they profess to seek.
 
 But you could be wrong. :-)

Yes, this is the interesting thing -- for the most part we can only see 
what we BE, or have been. Getting back to M. Scott Peck's model for a 
moment, on closer look it all appears to be simple, alternating 
currents or strata or layers of particle-identification and field-
identification. 

Thus his POV-1 (Chaos) is the emergence of small-I particle-
identification, the unruly child. 

Then his POV-2 (Fundamentalism) is the first emergence of field-
identification, subservience of the chaotic evil-I to a larger whole -
- one of rules, society, tribal consciousness (one could argue that 
this is actually its second appearance, after the prenatal mother-child 
we-ness). 

Next his POV-3 (Eclecticism) is the re-emergence of small-I particle 
identification, now with broadly expanded freedoms. One now sees the 
limiting or relative nature of the belief-systems of one's previous 
fundamentalism.

Next his POV-4 (Love) is a new spiral of field-identification, Being 
the Perfection of what IS, and so on. Beginning to see the relative 
nature of *all* of our stories, even the one giving the subtitles in 
this moment. Beginning to see *we have a choice* in how we gather and 
interpret data -- and that it's the finest feeling level we choose 
which determines our mental interpretrations and sense-gathering. 
Another great relief, yet more freedom, etc. 

Next we could posit a POV-5 (Bliss) wherein we BE this great field now 
*collapsing* its totality into particular point(s) of awareness, 
embodying phsyical, literal, bliss. Now we see that the small I and the 
large I are the same.

And so on, and so on -- constantly alternating strata of fluid and 
particle, in ever-rising harmonics. 

When one is speaking a particular or a field truth, from whatever 
level, one will tend to be heard, resonated with, by those identifying 
primarily with some harmonic of that given stratum. Thus one expressing 
the particular truth of I-as-bliss will resonate with the Eclectics 
*and* the Chaotics, both of whom are Doing Their Own Thing. One 
expressing the field truth of Only One will resonate with the Lovers 
and the Fundamentalists, both of whom are experiencing profound 
devotion and mergence with the One.

We could see these alternating layers of particle- and field-
identification as themselves the alternating denser-and-rarer strata of 
cosmic speech

*L*L*L*

[FairfieldLife] For Turq

http://www.lewrockwell.com/bonner/bonner331.html

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th

2007-05-23 Thread curtisdeltablues

Judy's question yesterday got me thinking.  I am not a moral
relativist so I do have beliefs that I think are right.  I also hold
values that I consider better than some I encounter.  How this all
plays out in my discussions with people is another story...

I live in an immigrant community and actively seek out contact with
other cultures, so I am very often exposed to various degrees of
prejudice or bigotry of one race or culture towards another. Even when
I was in the movement my GF from Denmark expressed an attitude about
Germans that I thought was overgeneralized.  But I thought to myself,
I guess if you have grown up living close to Germany for the last
century you might develop some strong opinions.  I remember talking
with a Korean chick who was sounding like a Southern redneck about
black people.  Her family had come to the US and started a dry cleaner
shop in a bad part of DC.  Her views were overgeneralized for my
experience of black people but not her own.  Dating a black person
exposed me to the racism in the black community towards the shade of
color of skin.  I never met a white racist that would put black people
to the paper bag test but this not an uncommon racist view in black
culture.  Asians hate each other so much that I think the term Asian
is useless.  Could I explain to survivors of Nanking in China that all
Japanese are not murderous torturers?   Should I?  The South Americans
I live with despise the Central American immigrants I live with. 
Central Americans are often poorer when they come here and many of
their countries were too war torn to continue a complex culture, they
are often just trying to survive.  I dig my El Salvadorian neighbors
but right now MS13 members are hacking people up with machetes so
people who have lived with that terror probably hate them all.  What
point could I make to my Vietnamese GF whose boat was attacked by Thai
pirates 7 times on her way over to Australia about my love for Thai
culture?  She hated them all and couldn't give a rat's ass about my
Kumbaya vibe.  Is she overgeneralized about a culture, sure, was it
hard earned?  Yes.  My African neighbors hate American blacks.  Since
I am so white I am almost transparent, I don't get involved with
changing their views.  They are oil and water and don't mix.  I don't
come across gay bashers very often, but I guess I just assume they
either don't actually know any gay people so they think of them as
cartoons, or that they are gay themselves in a gay-unfriendly culture
so they have to repress it.  If you hang out with gay people you hear
too many queen jokes to get all huffy when a straight person makes one.

I grew up in a prosperous time in an era of growing social awareness
with a lot of privileges, and this has shaped my perspective that
there is good and bad in all cultures and people.  In particular I
have the privileged white person's  liberal view about the good in
people from all cultures.  I think this  is a  better way to live
and feel right about it.  But I am not confused about how my views
got shaped by my experiences just as prejudiced people's did.  I
worked at experiencing other cultures enough to see them in the
positive light I do, but this was the luxury of not fighting them in
war.  Having fought through the Pacific in WWII my dad will never view
Japanese people with the same ease I do.  Should he?  So I don't know
if I hold the value that Judy proposed that it takes cojones to
speak out against the prejudices I encounter.  I will usually say
something like my experience is different since I have friends who
are  fill in the blank.  But I am really only standing up for my
friends not their whole race or culture.  I am not changing any views
or doing any good either.  I am not spreading my Kumbaya hippie values
because they were gained though experiences that were too different
from the people I am talking with.  So I try to understand the history
of how they got these values.  I learn about the distinction in slave
life between the light skinned house slaves and the darker skinned
field hands.  If black people are sometimes still influenced by this
aspect of their history it is really none of my business.  I can
achieve understanding in this life, but I have had very little luck
persuading people out of their prejudices.  It is hard enough to keep
 these weeds out of my own garden because for all my Kumbaya values, I
know that I can be just as much of an ass myself in how I
overgeneralize people from my own limited experiences.

















--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5
  dhamiltony2k5@ wrote:
 snip
   Yes Rick, Good People doing bad things, continuing to support 
   such an organization as it has become.
  
  And yet, is it our business to somehow convince 
  them that this is what they're doing?
  
  I ask

Re: [FairfieldLife] Advice Sought

2007-05-23 Thread John Davis

Hi,

Many thanks for all your comments, thoughts, and advice. If I'm not replying
to every individual email, it is to avoid cluttering up your list! But I
have read and considered all of them.

The concept/fact of the TM mantras being older than the Hindu religion, and
so also older than the gods named after them, which might then be seen as
personalisations of a pre-existing sound, makes a good deal of sense to me.
In which case, as someone pointed out, using a mantra in TM is not actually
an act of prayer or worship at all. (Though, as an aside to OffWorld, I
think you can pray to something you do not exist in - how many kids spout
the Lord's Prayer every day at school without a shred of thought or
belief?! -  which lack of belief is what to me makes the act disingenuous,
and not something I would want to do.)

I'll also investigate some of the other forms of meditation mentioned.

As for insomnia, someone asked whether I feel tired during the day. And,
oddly, not much. A little wearier, but certainly not as tired as I should
have expected on only a few hours sleep. Further, on contemplation, it
occurs to me that the hours awake lying in bed pass remarkably quickly. So
perhaps what I'm thinking of then as being awake, whilst certainly not
unconscious asleep as such, is not complete wakefulness. Still, I'll be
looking into the various and varied pieces of advice offered.

Thanks once again for all your help,

John


 John Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Hi,

 I'm new to this list, so I hope the following post is appropriate. It is
 also somewhat lengthy, for which I apologise - conciseness was never my
 strong point. But I am in search of a spot of advice, and wondered if
 anyone
 here could help...

 I learned TM about nine months or so (I know, a newbie!). It appealed to
 me
 since whislt I consider myself in a sense spiritual, I am not religious,
 and
 TM seemed to offer a non-faith based approach to meditation. And it has
 not
 been entirely without benefit. But since then I have suffered increasingly
 from insomnia. Not to a dreadful degree, but I'm lucky if I get three
 hours
 sleep a night. Growing unhappy with my instructor's standard 'part of the
 process' response, I took a look online and found this wasn't entirely
 uncommon, and nor was it necessarily temporary. But, in addition, I also
 came upon the translations of the mantras. And here lies my real problem.

 I am not overly bothered by the deception involved when I was told, on
 learning, that they are without meaning, since, for me at least, they
 were.
 But not any more. Now it seems to me that any universal truth has, by
 definition, to transcend cultures, or it is not universal. The laws of
 gravity, for example, might have been discovered in the west, but gravity
 works everywhere at all times no matter what it is called or how it is
 defined (well, a few claims to the contrary aside!). The processes of
 nature, the existence of the bundle of emotions and feelings we define as
 love, the existence of bad television shows...the list goes on, in all
 disciplines of life. And if meditation has value, then similarly, the same
 should be the case, must be the case.

 So. There seem to me to be two possibilities. One, that the actual mantra
 used is irrrelvant, meaningless. Just a word to return to during
 meditation
 as a way of letting go of thought. But if this is so, why the insistence,
 in
 TM and indeed other traditions, on the use of particular mantras? Or two,
 that the mantra used is important, and does have meaning. But if this is
 so,
 then the technique is not universal but rooted in a particular culture.
 Moreover, when meditating I am in effect praying to a god not of my
 culture,
 and of whom I have no knowledge, which leaves me deeply uncomfortable.

 There are, of course, non-mantra based meditations. But those that I have
 encountered seem based around the breath. And although this would indeed
 seem universal, what quiet I do find through TM comes when thought of
 breath
 has fallen away (as a woodwind musician, I am rarely unaware of, if not
 actively controlling, my breath).

 Hmm. I'm not sure there is a question in the above, so much as a seeking
 of
 thoughts and opinion. Is the mantra used of importance? If so, why? If
 not,
 why?! Do there by any chance exist other non mantra-based, non-religious,
 'aimless' meditations? Are my thought processes described above flawed? If
 so, why and how?

 Anyways, thanks for reading this far, and any advice would be greatfully
 received.

 John






 -
 You snooze, you lose. Get messages ASAP with AutoCheck
 in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 On Behalf Of TurquoiseB
 Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 3:33 AM
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion 
that we
 engage in a discussion about th

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer rick@ 
wrote:

   On Behalf Of off_world_beings

   Lol, the guy is right Rick. You are already set in your 
   conclusions, and have fundamentalist beliefs based on 
   heresay and gossip. Your letter to him shows a complete 
   stagnancy of thinking on the topic. 

 I could not agree less. I don't think I've ever
 encountered someone as open to entertaining many
 different possibilities about Maharishi and TM
 and trying to find some way to juggle them *all*
 as Rick Archer. 

 Thanks. I think you understand and share my perspective well.

You are kidding yourself Rick, and Turq also is fooling himself.

In the 21st century people will only listen to research published 
peer-reviewed scientific journals, not heresay, conspiracy theories, 
and the meandering monologues posted here. This is a fact of life. 
There is no getting away from that. It is the Rationalists Victory 
over fundamentalism and tribalism. It is not totally perfect yet of 
course, but in the next 20 - 50 years, it will become more and more 
apparent what is efficacious and what is effluence. This is the 
modern world.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Advice Sought

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

snip

 As for insomnia, someone asked whether I feel tired during the day. 
And,
 oddly, not much. A little wearier, but certainly not as tired as I 
should
 have expected on only a few hours sleep. Further, on contemplation, it
 occurs to me that the hours awake lying in bed pass remarkably 
quickly. So
 perhaps what I'm thinking of then as being awake, whilst certainly not
 unconscious asleep as such, is not complete wakefulness. snip


Well put -- this sounds a lot like a form of sleep-witnessing, when 
the Self, pure consciousness, the Witness, begins to shine forth so 
strongly that we feel as if we're always awake, even while the body is 
actually sleeping. It's generally considered to be a Good Thing, one of 
the signposts of growing Enlightenment -- even if it does take a little 
getting used to! :-) 

*L*L*L*

[FairfieldLife] Re: Advice Sought

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 Hi,
 
 Many thanks for all your comments, thoughts, and advice. If I'm 
not replying
 to every individual email, it is to avoid cluttering up your list! 
But I
 have read and considered all of them.
 
 The concept/fact of the TM mantras being older than the Hindu 
religion, and
 so also older than the gods named after them, which might then be 
seen as
 personalisations of a pre-existing sound, makes a good deal of 
sense to me.
 In which case, as someone pointed out, using a mantra in TM is not 
actually
 an act of prayer or worship at all. (Though, as an aside to 
OffWorld, I
 think you can pray to something you do not exist in - how many 
kids spout
 the Lord's Prayer every day at school without a shred of thought or
 belief?! 

Then it is not a prayer, but a bunch of meaningless sounds...the 
difference is, they have no strong mantric effect and/or are 
practiced in the wrong way. There is no such thing as prayer to the 
Enlightened Atheist.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Judy's question yesterday got me thinking.  I am not a moral
 relativist so I do have beliefs that I think are right.  I
 also hold values that I consider better than some I encounter.
 How this all plays out in my discussions with people is another
 story...

I just made another post pointing out that there's
a *spectrum* involved in this discussion, and I
identified several of the points on it.

You've identified another point, which is not to
argue about your beliefs with those who disagree
(at least regarding bigotry), but at the same time
to be willing to acknowledge, in a neutral context,
that you do have a commitment to those beliefs.
You aren't afraid to state them, even though you
realize you could be wrong.

This is a step up on the spectrum, cojones-wise,
from declining to make any kind of commitment to
a belief, even in a neutral context--even, perhaps,
in one's own mind.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th

2007-05-23 Thread Richard J. Williams

You have just taken a moral relativist position. You took 
courses in philosophy at MUM, right?

FYI: Moral relativism is a philosophy in which the person 
makes claims to socially relative positions, not universal 
moral values. Moral relativists deny that there are any 
universal standards by which to assess ethical truth.

Curtis wrote:
 Dating a black person exposed me to the racism in the 
 black community towards the shade of color of skin.

[FairfieldLife] maharishi honey ad

2007-05-23 Thread boo_lives

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q7ffGdfbqs

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of off_world_beings
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 10:55 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we
engage in a discussion about th

You are kidding yourself Rick, and Turq also is fooling himself.

In the 21st century people will only listen to research published 
peer-reviewed scientific journals, not heresay, conspiracy theories, 
and the meandering monologues posted here. This is a fact of life. 
There is no getting away from that. It is the Rationalists Victory 
over fundamentalism and tribalism. It is not totally perfect yet of 
course, but in the next 20 - 50 years, it will become more and more 
apparent what is efficacious and what is effluence. This is the 
modern world.

OffWorld

Maybe, but it seems to me that there's a spiritual renaissance going on and
more and more people are waking up, in the spiritual sense, and putting a
lot more stock in their personal, subjective experience than in some
scientist's evaluation of it. If someone has genuinely woken up to the Self,
they're not going to run down to the local EEG lab to have their experience
corroborated.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Advice Sought

2007-05-23 Thread Vaj



On May 23, 2007, at 11:49 AM, John Davis wrote:

The concept/fact of the TM mantras being older than the Hindu  
religion, and
so also older than the gods named after them, which might then be  
seen as
personalisations of a pre-existing sound, makes a good deal of  
sense to me.



Unfortunately, it is untrue. The mantras all come from ancient  
tantric traditions and are related to the gods they are associated  
with up to this day. TM mantras are not vedic, they are tantric. Be  
rather leery of anyone who tells you otherwise. There's a common myth  
in the TMO that TM mantras are Vedic (or I've even heard people  
claim they were from the Rig Veda!). It's simply untrue.


Good luck!

[FairfieldLife] Re: American Culture vs. Vedic Culture

2007-05-23 Thread Richard J. Williams

John wrote:
 MMY has been documented to say that soma is a chemical 
 derivative that can be found in the stomachs of advanced
 meditators. MMY considers this chemical to be the 
 ingredient that supports bliss.  This same ingredient 
 is the amrita that the vedic demigods had been looking 
 for in the mythological past.
 
Maybe so, but the Rig Veda Manadala IX and X says nothing 
about a psychedelic substance secreted in the gut. In fact, 
the Rig Veda describes Soma as a decoction prepared from 
plants and a fungus. However, it has been established by 
Robert Keith Wallace at MUM that the primary ingredient 
produced by TM practice is Seratonin, which is secreted 
in the brain, not in the gut. Are you thinking that 
you're producing Soma in your gut AND Seratonin in your 
brain?

 It is possible that modern researchers have 
 misinterpreted the meaning and sources of soma.
 
No, I'd say that the traditional mystics in India have 
no idea what Soma mentioned in the Rig Veda was. 
Obviously, Soma is the magic mushroom of immortality, 
a fungus that grows all over the Caucasus mountains of 
Central Asia. This lore was forgotten due to the long 
lapse of time after the Aryan Sansrit speakers migrated 
into South Asia around 1500 B.C.

Source:

'Food of the Gods: The Search for the Original Tree of Knowledge'
A Radical History of Plants, Drugs, and Human Evolution 
by Terence McKenna
Bantam, 1993

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage i...

 
In a message dated 5/23/2007 12:39:17 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
From: FairfieldLife@ FairfieldLi FairfieldLife@WBRyahoogr FairfieldLife@ 
FairOn Behalf Of  off_world_beings
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 10:55  AM
To: FairfieldLife@ FairfieldLi Fa
Subject:  [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we 
engage in a  discussion about th

 
 
 

You are kidding yourself Rick, and Turq also is fooling  himself.

In the 21st century people will only listen to research  published 
peer-reviewed scientific journals, not heresay, conspiracy  theories, 
and the meandering monologues posted here. This is a fact of  life. 
There is no getting away from that. It is the Rationalists Victory  
over fundamentalism and tribalism. It is not totally perfect yet of  
course, but in the next 20 - 50 years, it will become more and more  
apparent what is efficacious and what is effluence. This is the 
modern  world.

OffWorld 
Maybe, but it seems to me  that there’s a spiritual renaissance going on and 
more and more people are  waking up, in the spiritual sense, and putting a lot 
more stock in their  personal, subjective experience than in some scientist’s 
evaluation of it. If  someone has genuinely woken up to the Self, they’re not 
going to run down to  the local EEG lab to have their experience 
corroborated. 
 I agree with Rick. MMY  has spent millions of dollars on scientific 
research and he still has a  problem getting people to purchase his ideas on 
ME. It 
was wonderful being  with Mother Meera for the first time in NY this past 
weekend. People sitting  in silence for three hours without any need to sell 
meditation. The  intellectual male spiritual leaders have come to a dead end 
street 
in regards  to scientific and intellectual superiority. It is time to just 
experience the  simplicity of reality rather than intellectually dissect it 
until 
reality is  left with nothing but a theoretical answer with very little 
interest to pursue  love and joy even when it is obviously proven 
scientifically. 
We have  enough people meditating to create world peace. More time should be 
spent on  finding a place for all meditators to practice in large groups around 
the  world. Love and Light. Lsoma.





 


 



** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: New Mother Meera site

 
In a message dated 5/22/2007 8:16:16 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
 Sounds like someone is bored out of their head. MMY will pass over in  July 
or August of 2007 and I don't need to give or take six months on either  side 
of the date. It is obvious from your response that you don't care about  
world peace. Grow up. Lsoma.

 
 
 
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) 
,  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I just got back form seeing Mother Meera for the  first time in 
New York... Finally, there is a teacher that can have at  least 
400 people at a time sitting in silence for up to three hours. I  
have been told by St. Anthony that she is a seventh dimensional  
teacher.

(Applause. We've been waiting for this score. We can  finally 
breathe)

Very rare.

(Not VSOP)

MMY is from  the third level of the fifth dimension.

(Yes, thanks for this  perspective/(Yes, thanks

I will be posting on my website some  information in my summer 
newsletter 

(oh goody)

around the  June 7th the specific dates that I feel MMY will pass 
over in July or  August

(be sure not to say which year)(why not add give or take six  months)

The times are changing and I believe that Mother Meera along  with 
other teachers are providing the opportunity of changing with the  
present times. 

(wow, this IS profound)

Enough of MMY and  what he did or didn't do. 

(ENOUGH I SAY, ENOUGH)

It is time to  gather in groups that are working with the present 
calling. 

(Lou,  will you put it in your newsletter, when we should all gather  
together)

Bringing people together in silence.

(oh yes.  Silence, deep silence. Nothin betta)

If you haven't seen Mother Meera  yet and experienced her darshan 
along with the group darshan of silence I  highly recommend it. 

(we're hanging on your every word  Louie)

Without a work spoken she delivers the message of  wisdom.
 
(how original)

(lurk)
 
 
  

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
        WBR*
_http://www.aol.http_ (http://www.aol.com./) 



 


 



** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th

2007-05-23 Thread curtisdeltablues

I am not a moral relativist.  I can understand why a culture believes
as they do without agreeing with them.  I believe that not being
prejudiced is a higher moral value and should be pursued and protected
when possible by law.  This does not mean that in every conversation
my goal is to do more than understand the context of the person's
beliefs.  I think that some areas of cultures and societies have
acquired better values than others.  



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 You have just taken a moral relativist position. You took 
 courses in philosophy at MUM, right?
 
 FYI: Moral relativism is a philosophy in which the person 
 makes claims to socially relative positions, not universal 
 moral values. Moral relativists deny that there are any 
 universal standards by which to assess ethical truth.
 
 Curtis wrote:
  Dating a black person exposed me to the racism in the 
  black community towards the shade of color of skin.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Advice Sought

2007-05-23 Thread tertonzeno

---The key ingredient is the power of the mantra, irrespective of the 
purported superficial meaning. For example, the mantra OM Namah 
Shivaya clearly alludes to Shiva, so there can be no argument as to 
whether a God is involved.  The big question is the amount of 
Shakti connected to the mantra.  If there were a negligent amount of 
Shakti, then just get your mantras from a library book.  
  No way with TM!! Personal initiation is required.
However, SOME Shakti can be conveyed through audio-visual 
transmissions such as DVD's, CD's.

 In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Hi,
 
 Many thanks for all your comments, thoughts, and advice. If I'm not 
replying
 to every individual email, it is to avoid cluttering up your list! 
But I
 have read and considered all of them.
 
 The concept/fact of the TM mantras being older than the Hindu 
religion, and
 so also older than the gods named after them, which might then be 
seen as
 personalisations of a pre-existing sound, makes a good deal of 
sense to me.
 In which case, as someone pointed out, using a mantra in TM is not 
actually
 an act of prayer or worship at all. (Though, as an aside to 
OffWorld, I
 think you can pray to something you do not exist in - how many kids 
spout
 the Lord's Prayer every day at school without a shred of thought or
 belief?! -  which lack of belief is what to me makes the act 
disingenuous,
 and not something I would want to do.)
 
 I'll also investigate some of the other forms of meditation 
mentioned.
 
 As for insomnia, someone asked whether I feel tired during the day. 
And,
 oddly, not much. A little wearier, but certainly not as tired as I 
should
 have expected on only a few hours sleep. Further, on contemplation, 
it
 occurs to me that the hours awake lying in bed pass remarkably 
quickly. So
 perhaps what I'm thinking of then as being awake, whilst certainly 
not
 unconscious asleep as such, is not complete wakefulness. Still, 
I'll be
 looking into the various and varied pieces of advice offered.
 
 Thanks once again for all your help,
 
 John
 
 
  John Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   Hi,
 
  I'm new to this list, so I hope the following post is 
appropriate. It is
  also somewhat lengthy, for which I apologise - conciseness was 
never my
  strong point. But I am in search of a spot of advice, and 
wondered if
  anyone
  here could help...
 
  I learned TM about nine months or so (I know, a newbie!). It 
appealed to
  me
  since whislt I consider myself in a sense spiritual, I am not 
religious,
  and
  TM seemed to offer a non-faith based approach to meditation. And 
it has
  not
  been entirely without benefit. But since then I have suffered 
increasingly
  from insomnia. Not to a dreadful degree, but I'm lucky if I get 
three
  hours
  sleep a night. Growing unhappy with my instructor's 
standard 'part of the
  process' response, I took a look online and found this wasn't 
entirely
  uncommon, and nor was it necessarily temporary. But, in addition, 
I also
  came upon the translations of the mantras. And here lies my real 
problem.
 
  I am not overly bothered by the deception involved when I was 
told, on
  learning, that they are without meaning, since, for me at least, 
they
  were.
  But not any more. Now it seems to me that any universal truth 
has, by
  definition, to transcend cultures, or it is not universal. The 
laws of
  gravity, for example, might have been discovered in the west, but 
gravity
  works everywhere at all times no matter what it is called or how 
it is
  defined (well, a few claims to the contrary aside!). The 
processes of
  nature, the existence of the bundle of emotions and feelings we 
define as
  love, the existence of bad television shows...the list goes on, 
in all
  disciplines of life. And if meditation has value, then similarly, 
the same
  should be the case, must be the case.
 
  So. There seem to me to be two possibilities. One, that the 
actual mantra
  used is irrrelvant, meaningless. Just a word to return to during
  meditation
  as a way of letting go of thought. But if this is so, why the 
insistence,
  in
  TM and indeed other traditions, on the use of particular mantras? 
Or two,
  that the mantra used is important, and does have meaning. But if 
this is
  so,
  then the technique is not universal but rooted in a particular 
culture.
  Moreover, when meditating I am in effect praying to a god not of 
my
  culture,
  and of whom I have no knowledge, which leaves me deeply 
uncomfortable.
 
  There are, of course, non-mantra based meditations. But those 
that I have
  encountered seem based around the breath. And although this would 
indeed
  seem universal, what quiet I do find through TM comes when 
thought of
  breath
  has fallen away (as a woodwind musician, I am rarely unaware of, 
if not
  actively controlling, my breath).
 
  Hmm. I'm not sure there is a question in the above, so much as a 
seeking
  of
  thoughts and

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th


On May 23, 2007, at 10:08 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:


The Japanese who were trying to deal with the
Catholic priests who were trying to convert them
(in a time and place in which one *never* tried to
impose one's religion on another person) had a term
that they applied to that sad period of history.
They called it the invasion of the barbarians.


Barry, this wouldn't be the same Japanese culture responsible for the 
deaths of possibly hundreds of thousands of civilians in Nanking, would 
it?  Maybe the slaughter was carried out very politely.


Sal

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th


On May 23, 2007, at 10:43 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:


I never met a white racist that would put black people
to the paper bag test but this not an uncommon racist view in black
culture.  Asians hate each other so much that I think the term Asian
is useless.


Oh, the white folks hate the black folks,
 And the black folks hate the white folks.
 To hate all but the right folks
 Is an old established rule.

 But during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week,
 Lena Horne and Sheriff Clarke are dancing cheek to cheek.
 It's fun to eulogize
 The people you despise,
 As long as you don't let 'em in your school.

 Oh, the poor folks hate the rich folks,
 And the rich folks hate the poor folks.
 All of my folks hate all of your folks,
 It's American as apple pie.

 But during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week,
 New Yorkers love the Puerto Ricans 'cause it's very chic.
 Step up and shake the hand
 Of someone you can't stand.
 You can tolerate him if you try.

 Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics,
 And the Catholics hate the Protestants,
 And the Hindus hate the Moslems,
 And everybody hates the Jews.

Tom Lehrer
That Was the Year That Was

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Advice Sought

In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com ,
John Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 As for insomnia, someone asked whether I feel tired during the day. 
And,
 oddly, not much. A little wearier, but certainly not as tired as I 
should
 have expected on only a few hours sleep. Further, on contemplation, 
it
 occurs to me that the hours awake lying in bed pass remarkably 
quickly. So
 perhaps what I'm thinking of then as being awake, whilst certainly 
not
 unconscious asleep as such, is not complete wakefulness. Still, 
I'll be
 looking into the various and varied pieces of advice offered.
 
 Thanks once again for all your help,
 
 John
 
John, I haven't followed this discussion closely, but has anyone discussed
sleep witnessing? That's when inner awareness is lively yet the body is
asleep. Sometimes that can be mistaken for insomnia.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Advice Sought

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 On May 23, 2007, at 11:49 AM, John Davis wrote:
 
  The concept/fact of the TM mantras being older than the Hindu
  religion, and so also older than the gods named after them,
  which might then be seen as personalisations of a pre-existing
  sound, makes a good deal of sense to me.
 
 Unfortunately, it is untrue. The mantras all come from ancient  
 tantric traditions and are related to the gods they are associated  
 with up to this day. TM mantras are not vedic, they are tantric.

Of course, as Vaj knows, nobody here told John
that the mantras were Vedic.

As Vaj is also aware, nobody knows exactly when or
how the bija mantras originated, or whether they
were associated with deities from the very beginning.
He has, in other words, absolutely *zero* basis for
claiming it's untrue--except to suggest, knowingly
falsely, that TMers are liars.

[FairfieldLife] Re: maharishi honey ad

2007-05-23 Thread curtisdeltablues

If I were 3 years old, and my Telatubbie DVD had gotten some Play-Doh
on it, and I had ingested mommy's special brownies for her hippie
friend's party...I would totally go for this marketing approach.  (oh
yeah, and I might need a lobotomy as well)

The movement continues to be its own worst PR enemy. This was the
result of thousands of people practicing meditation for decades
claiming to increase creativity, awareness and intelligence?  I'm
guessing this was Mother Divine's work, was that Emily Levin? 

That was so embarrassing that I'll bet even King Tony saw it and went
WTF!  (in Sanskrit of course, perhaps Card can give us the translation)






--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q7ffGdfbqs

[FairfieldLife] Re: Advice Sought

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tertonzeno [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 ---The key ingredient is the power of the mantra, irrespective of 
 the purported superficial meaning. For example, the mantra OM 
 Namah Shivaya clearly alludes to Shiva, so there can be no
 argument as to whether a God is involved.

Except, of course, that we were talking about
the TM bija mantras.




  The big question is the amount of 
 Shakti connected to the mantra.  If there were a negligent amount 
of 
 Shakti, then just get your mantras from a library book.  
   No way with TM!! Personal initiation is required.
 However, SOME Shakti can be conveyed through audio-visual 
 transmissions such as DVD's, CD's.

[FairfieldLife] For our reident insomniac

http://www.slate.com/id/2166758?nav=tap3

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: New Mother Meera site


On May 23, 2007, at 12:06 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Sounds like someone is bored out of their head. MMY will pass over in 
July or August of 2007 and I don't need to give or take six months on 
either side of the date. It is obvious from your response that you 
don't care about world peace. Grow up. Lsoma.


Oh come on, Lou, where's your sense of humor?  Lurk's parody was funny. 
Sure seems like a breath of fresh air to me at least in the midst of  
the holier-than-thou crap that often passes for 'spiritual' discussion 
here.


Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: maharishi honey ad

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 If I were 3 years old, and my Telatubbie DVD had gotten some Play-
Doh
 on it, and I had ingested mommy's special brownies for her hippie
 friend's party...I would totally go for this marketing approach.  
(oh
 yeah, and I might need a lobotomy as well)
 
 The movement continues to be its own worst PR enemy. This was the
 result of thousands of people practicing meditation for decades
 claiming to increase creativity, awareness and intelligence?  I'm
 guessing this was Mother Divine's work, was that Emily Levin? 
 
 That was so embarrassing that I'll bet even King Tony saw it and 
went
 WTF!  (in Sanskrit of course, perhaps Card can give us the 
translation)




What I'm waiting for is Nablus' defense of the ad.






 
 
 
 
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives boo_lives@ 
wrote:
 
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q7ffGdfbqs

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: New Mother Meera site

 
In a message dated 5/23/2007 2:28:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

On May 23, 2007, at 12:06 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Sounds  like someone is bored out of their head. MMY will pass over in 
 July  or August of 2007 and I don't need to give or take six months on 
  either side of the date. It is obvious from your response that you 
  don't care about world peace. Grow up. Lsoma.

Oh come on, Lou, where's  your sense of humor?  Lurk's parody was funny. 
Sure seems like a  breath of fresh air to me at least in the midst of  
the  holier-than-thou crap that often passes for 'spiritual' discussion  
here.

Sal


 OK.  I will lighten up. Googie, Googie. Lsoma.  











** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

[FairfieldLife] Re: maharishi honey ad

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q7ffGdfbqs



And they said that the original version of Once upon a time in 
America was too long.

Well, this 4 minute 41 second commercial is about 4 minutes and 26 
seconds too long.  Virtually everything they wanted to say could have 
been said in 15 seconds. But, like Fidel Castro, who is known to give 8 
hour speeches to the masses, the TMO just loves to pile an alleged good 
thing on.

What I find myself doing as I watch this stuff is wonder what process 
was responsible for creating it: the dictum from Maharishi; which 
cult sector got the assignment (my guess is Mother Divine); the back 
and forth with Maharishi (No, change this...I like that part but 
please remember to put in that it will bring world peace...how about 
putting the honey spoon in the bee's mouth, won't THAT work?); how the 
entire amateurish look to the whole thing got approved (Maharishi says 
he LIKES it!); the wrap party (We did it!  We've created the best ad 
for the best honey ever produced in the history of mankind!); etc.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 On Behalf Of off_world_beings
 Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 10:55 AM
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion 
that we
 engage in a discussion about th

 You are kidding yourself Rick, and Turq also is fooling himself.

 In the 21st century people will only listen to research published 
 peer-reviewed scientific journals, not heresay, conspiracy 
theories, 
 and the meandering monologues posted here. This is a fact of life. 
 There is no getting away from that. It is the Rationalists Victory 
 over fundamentalism and tribalism. It is not totally perfect yet 
of 
 course, but in the next 20 - 50 years, it will become more and 
more 
 apparent what is efficacious and what is effluence. This is the 
 modern world.

 OffWorld

 Maybe, but it seems to me that there's a spiritual renaissance 
going on and
 more and more people are waking up, in the spiritual sense, and 
putting a
 lot more stock in their personal, subjective experience than in 
some
 scientist's evaluation of it. If someone has genuinely woken up to 
the Self,
 they're not going to run down to the local EEG lab to have their 
experience
 corroborated.

Naw man, you're imagining things.   
There is less awakening now than 20 years ago. A lot of very fat 
people instead.

And by your logic a born-again christian justifying bombing  the 
shit out of other countries, or a muslim suicide bomber, are 
examples of people who believe their personal experience is of any 
importance. 

 There will never come a time when Science will be superceded by New 
Age self-agrandizing dribble.  This is the reality of life. This is 
the modern world. You need to accept this new realization to be 
liberated .

OffWorld

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage i...

 
In a message dated 5/23/2007 2:54:31 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 
 
 
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) 
,  Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
(mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com)   
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
(mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) ]
  On Behalf Of off_world_beings
 Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 10:55  AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) 
  Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion 
that  we
 engage in a discussion about th
 
 
 You are  kidding yourself Rick, and Turq also is fooling himself.
 
 In  the 21st century people will only listen to research published 
  peer-reviewed scientific journals, not heresay, conspiracy 
theories,  
 and the meandering monologues posted here. This is a fact of life.  
 There is no getting away from that. It is the Rationalists Victory  
 over fundamentalism and tribalism. It is not totally perfect yet  
of 
 course, but in the next 20 - 50 years, it will become more and  
more 
 apparent what is efficacious and what is effluence. This is  the 
 modern world.
 
 OffWorld
 
 Maybe,  but it seems to me that there's a spiritual renaissance 
going on  and
 more and more people are waking up, in the spiritual sense, and  
putting a
 lot more stock in their personal, subjective experience  than in 
some
 scientist's evaluation of it. If someone has  genuinely woken up to 
the Self,
 they're not going to run down to  the local EEG lab to have their 
experience
  corroborated.

Naw man, you're imagining things. 
There  is less awakening now than 20 years ago. A lot of very fat 
people  instead.

And by your logic a born-again christian justifying bombing  the 
shit out of other countries, or a muslim suicide bomber, are  
examples of people who believe their personal experience is of any  
importance. 

There will never come a time when Science will be  superceded by New 
Age self-agrandizing dribble. This is the reality of  life. This is 
the modern world. You need to accept this new realization to  be 
liberated . 
 The way science is going it will blow up the whole world before anyone  can 
have a chance to prove their position as being valid. I believe America  has 
thousands of  Nuclear bombs. So much for the saving grace of Science.  Lsoma.

OffWorld


 


 



** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: maharishi honey ad


On May 23, 2007, at 1:06 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote:


That was so embarrassing that I'll bet even King Tony saw it and went
WTF!  (in Sanskrit of course, perhaps Card can give us the 
translation)




I was wondering as I was listening if Maharishi Vedic Honey, produced 
on Maharishi Vedic Farms, added Maharishi Vedic Calories to everyone's 
daily count.  Not that I'm concerned or anything, of course...I'm 
wondering for a friend.


Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: maharishi honey ad

2007-05-23 Thread Alex Stanley

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  If I were 3 years old, and my Telatubbie DVD had gotten some Play-
 Doh
  on it, and I had ingested mommy's special brownies for her hippie
  friend's party...I would totally go for this marketing approach.  
 (oh
  yeah, and I might need a lobotomy as well)
  
  The movement continues to be its own worst PR enemy. This was the
  result of thousands of people practicing meditation for decades
  claiming to increase creativity, awareness and intelligence?  I'm
  guessing this was Mother Divine's work, was that Emily Levin? 
  
  That was so embarrassing that I'll bet even King Tony saw it and 
 went
  WTF!  (in Sanskrit of course, perhaps Card can give us the 
 translation)
 
 
 
 
 What I'm waiting for is Nablus' defense of the ad.

I'd like to see a defense of charging $50 for a 250g jar of honey when
you can get, for example, a one pound jar of Really Raw Honey for $10.

[FairfieldLife] Re: maharishi honey ad

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

 On May 23, 2007, at 1:06 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
 
  That was so embarrassing that I'll bet even King Tony saw it and 
went
  WTF!  (in Sanskrit of course, perhaps Card can give us the 
  translation)
 
 
 I was wondering as I was listening if Maharishi Vedic Honey, produced 
 on Maharishi Vedic Farms, added Maharishi Vedic Calories to 
everyone's 
 daily count.  Not that I'm concerned or anything, of course...I'm 
 wondering for a friend.
 
 Sal


You can always weigh yourself on a Maharishi Vedic Scale and if you're 
too heavy you can always start a regime of Maharishi Vedic Jogging.

[FairfieldLife] Re: maharishi honey ad

2007-05-23 Thread boo_lives

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 If I were 3 years old, and my Telatubbie DVD had gotten some Play-Doh
 on it, and I had ingested mommy's special brownies for her hippie
 friend's party...I would totally go for this marketing approach.  (oh
 yeah, and I might need a lobotomy as well)
 
 The movement continues to be its own worst PR enemy. This was the
 result of thousands of people practicing meditation for decades
 claiming to increase creativity, awareness and intelligence?  I'm
 guessing this was Mother Divine's work, was that Emily Levin? 
 
 That was so embarrassing that I'll bet even King Tony saw it and went
 WTF!  (in Sanskrit of course, perhaps Card can give us the
translation)
 
I think it's supposed to be a secret but the honey operation is run by
mother divine as is pretty obvious in the video.  I counted the word
maharishi used 20 times in the commercial - why is he the main
element in selling honey??

[FairfieldLife] Re: maharishi honey ad

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
   If I were 3 years old, and my Telatubbie DVD had gotten some 
Play-
  Doh
   on it, and I had ingested mommy's special brownies for her 
hippie
   friend's party...I would totally go for this marketing 
approach.  
  (oh
   yeah, and I might need a lobotomy as well)
   
   The movement continues to be its own worst PR enemy. This was 
the
   result of thousands of people practicing meditation for decades
   claiming to increase creativity, awareness and intelligence?  
I'm
   guessing this was Mother Divine's work, was that Emily Levin? 
   
   That was so embarrassing that I'll bet even King Tony saw it 
and 
  went
   WTF!  (in Sanskrit of course, perhaps Card can give us the 
  translation)
  
  
  
  
  What I'm waiting for is Nablus' defense of the ad.
 
 I'd like to see a defense of charging $50 for a 250g jar of honey 
when
 you can get, for example, a one pound jar of Really Raw Honey for 
$10.



Gives new meaning to the song Honey Sucker Rose.

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: maharishi honey ad

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of boo_lives
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 2:14 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: maharishi honey ad

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 If I were 3 years old, and my Telatubbie DVD had gotten some Play-Doh
 on it, and I had ingested mommy's special brownies for her hippie
 friend's party...I would totally go for this marketing approach. (oh
 yeah, and I might need a lobotomy as well)

 The movement continues to be its own worst PR enemy. This was the
 result of thousands of people practicing meditation for decades
 claiming to increase creativity, awareness and intelligence? I'm
 guessing this was Mother Divine's work, was that Emily Levin? 

 That was so embarrassing that I'll bet even King Tony saw it and went
 WTF! (in Sanskrit of course, perhaps Card can give us the
translation)

I think it's supposed to be a secret but the honey operation is run by
mother divine as is pretty obvious in the video. I counted the word
maharishi used 20 times in the commercial - why is he the main
element in selling honey??

You think the actual hives are managed my Mother Divine?

[FairfieldLife] Re: maharishi honey ad

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 On Behalf Of boo_lives
 Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 2:14 PM
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: maharishi honey ad

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , curtisdeltablues
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:

  If I were 3 years old, and my Telatubbie DVD had gotten some Play-
Doh
  on it, and I had ingested mommy's special brownies for her 
hippie
  friend's party...I would totally go for this marketing approach. 
(oh
  yeah, and I might need a lobotomy as well)

  The movement continues to be its own worst PR enemy. This was the
  result of thousands of people practicing meditation for decades
  claiming to increase creativity, awareness and intelligence? I'm
  guessing this was Mother Divine's work, was that Emily Levin? 

  That was so embarrassing that I'll bet even King Tony saw it and 
went
  WTF! (in Sanskrit of course, perhaps Card can give us the
 translation)

 I think it's supposed to be a secret but the honey operation is run 
by
 mother divine as is pretty obvious in the video. I counted the word
 maharishi used 20 times in the commercial - why is he the main
 element in selling honey??

 You think the actual hives are managed my Mother Divine?

Yes.

As I understand it, maximal honey bee production is maintained at 
98.5 degrees farenheit.  So, while they're meditating, each MD Lady 
sits on a hive.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Advice Sought

2007-05-23 Thread qntmpkt

---an intellectual discourse on the origins of Vedic vs non-Vedic; 
etc, is lower on my list of priorities than the fact that TM works!.  
What does your guru have to offer, the Dance of the Vajra?

 In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 On May 23, 2007, at 11:49 AM, John Davis wrote:
 
  The concept/fact of the TM mantras being older than the Hindu  
  religion, and
  so also older than the gods named after them, which might then 
be  
  seen as
  personalisations of a pre-existing sound, makes a good deal of  
  sense to me.
 
 
 Unfortunately, it is untrue. The mantras all come from ancient  
 tantric traditions and are related to the gods they are associated  
 with up to this day. TM mantras are not vedic, they are tantric. 
Be  
 rather leery of anyone who tells you otherwise. There's a common 
myth  
 in the TMO that TM mantras are Vedic (or I've even heard people  
 claim they were from the Rig Veda!). It's simply untrue.
 
 Good luck!

[FairfieldLife] Re: maharishi honey ad

2007-05-23 Thread george_deforest

 Sal Sunshine wrote:
 
 I was wondering as I was listening if Maharishi Vedic Honey,
 produced on Maharishi Vedic Farms, added Maharishi Vedic Calories
 to everyone's daily count.  Not that I'm concerned or anything,
 of course...I'm wondering for a friend.

Not to worry, Sal! Just tell your friend how Vedic Calories have 
this unique transcendent property ... they remain in the Unmanifest!

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: maharishi honey ad


On May 23, 2007, at 3:34 PM, george_deforest wrote:


Sal Sunshine wrote:

I was wondering as I was listening if Maharishi Vedic Honey,
produced on Maharishi Vedic Farms, added Maharishi Vedic Calories
to everyone's daily count.  Not that I'm concerned or anything,
of course...I'm wondering for a friend.


Not to worry, Sal! Just tell your friend how Vedic Calories have
this unique transcendent property ... they remain in the Unmanifest!


Thanks, george!  I'm a believer already--oh, if only.

Sal

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: maharishi honey ad

2007-05-23 Thread Peter


--- shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q7ffGdfbqs
 
 
 
 And they said that the original version of Once
 upon a time in 
 America was too long.
 
 Well, this 4 minute 41 second commercial is about
 4 minutes and 26 
 seconds too long.  Virtually everything they wanted
 to say could have 
 been said in 15 seconds. But, like Fidel Castro, who
 is known to give 8 
 hour speeches to the masses, the TMO just loves to
 pile an alleged good 
 thing on.
 
 What I find myself doing as I watch this stuff is
 wonder what process 
 was responsible for creating it: the dictum from
 Maharishi; which 
 cult sector got the assignment (my guess is Mother
 Divine); the back 
 and forth with Maharishi (No, change this...I like
 that part but 
 please remember to put in that it will bring world
 peace...how about 
 putting the honey spoon in the bee's mouth, won't
 THAT work?); how the 
 entire amateurish look to the whole thing got
 approved (Maharishi says 
 he LIKES it!); the wrap party (We did it!  We've
 created the best ad 
 for the best honey ever produced in the history of
 mankind!); etc.

Back in the day I worked with people from
International putting together some video productions
for the TMO. They always wanted to do things that we,
the professionals, who did this day in and day out
knew would look terrible. We'd do it their way just so
they could see how ridiculous or bad the effect or
color scheme would look and they usually went with our
choices. This ad is a great example of very inspired
but hopelessly media clueless people producing a spot.
I find it quite fascinating in a Monty Python sort of
way.  





 
 
 
 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]
 
 
 



   
Yahoo!
 oneSearch: Finally, mobile search 
that gives answers, not web links. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

[FairfieldLife] Lynch weekend at MUM

2007-05-23 Thread bob_brigante

David Lynch weekend to explore meditation, more 

By: Lacey Jacobs, Fairfield Ledger staff writer05/23/2007

With roughly 800 people expected for the second David Lynch weekend 
at Maharishi University of Management, the event is sold out.
  The event, which will explore meditation, consciousness and 
creativity with filmmaker David Lynch, quantum physicist Dr. John 
Hagelin and 1960s performing artist Donovan, kicks off Friday evening 
and continues through Sunday.
  Those who missed the opportunity to register still have the 
option of catching some of the events live via Internet broadcast. 
Bob Roth, vice president of the David Lynch Foundation for 
Consciousness-Based Education and World Peace, said portions of 
Saturday and Sunday, including Saturday evening's concert, will be 
broadcast on lynchweekend.org.
  This year, Roth said Lynch wanted to hold a more intimate 
event, so the location was moved from the recreation center, where 
the event was held last year, to the Maharishi School of the Age of 
Enlightenment auditorium. The high demand, however, has necessitated 
the preparation of additional rooms for spill-over, he said.
  People are expected from all across the United States and 
Canada and as far away as Latin America. Roth said almost 100 of the 
registrants are interested in becoming students at M.U.M., as opposed 
to about 20 last year.
  Everyone is very excited to welcome people who are interested 
in the unique approach to education that Maharishi University of 
Management offers, he said. Everybody's really happy to show off 
Fairfield and all its rich history. 
  The weekend will include a variety of workshops and 
presentations.
  Lynch and Donovan will discuss the creative process and the 
role of Transcendental Meditation in enriching originality and 
creativity, Roth said. They also will give advice to filmmakers and 
musicians on how to make it big without losing their integrity, he 
said.
  Hagelin will review TM programs that have been part of 
successful wellness programs at schools throughout the U.S. and 
world, he added.
  The weekend also will feature speakers Maharishi Mahesh Yogi 
via live satellite, Dr. Fred Travis and Dr. Alarik Arenander on brain 
research and Dr. Bevan Morris, president of the university. Organic 
lunches and dinners made with locally grown produce will be served to 
those in attendance.  

 
For the complete article, see the Wednesday, May 23, 2007, Fairfield 
Ledger. 

**

MUM Review:

2. Lynch Weekend to Explore Plan to Teach One Million Students

By Patricia Boland

In an astounding step to end school violence, the David Lynch 
Foundation
(www.davidlynchfoundation.org) plans to teach one million students 
around
the world the Transcendental Meditation® technique. The anti-violence 
plan,
announced May 1st, will be explored in detail during this Memorial Day
weekend¹s second annual David Lynch event, ³Exploring the Frontiers of
Brain, Consciousness, and Creativity.²

³There is no reason to wait. There is no reason to roll this out over 
years
or decades. We want the million students to learn to meditate now,² 
said the
iconic and award-winning filmmaker David Lynch.

According to Mr. Lynch, there are 50 years of research and experience 
with
the Transcendental Meditation technique and students and, based on 
that
success, and the foundation¹s success over the past year of providing 
funds
for 6,000 students to meditate, the foundation is launching this new
campaign to fund the teaching of one million students around the 
world to
create global peace.

This second annual David Lynch Weekend will include a live-by-
satellite talk
by University Founder Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and will be hosted in 
person by
Mr. Lynch, faculty member and renowned quantum physicist Dr. John 
Hagelin,
and celebrated singer/songwriter Donovan Leitch.

The event is now sold out. Members of the community can register for 
$20 and
take advantage of overflow seating, which will entail a live video 
feed on a
large screen at a campus location with comfortable seating. David 
Lynch,
John Hagelin, and Donovan will periodically visit the overflow 
location
during the weekend to speak and take questions. Overflow registration
includes the Friday night dessert reception for all guests, as well as
campus tours and selected events.

Additionally, a free event for the weekend attendees and all members 
of the
Fairfield community is being organized for Sunday evening, May 27, in 
the
Maharishi Patanjali Golden Dome. The event will include a live QA 
with
David Lynch and John Hagelin, and concert with Donovan.

Those in the community interested in overflow registration can find 
more
information and register at http://lynchweekend.org/register.html.

Students from around the nation are expected at the weekend. They 
will enjoy
presentations from the celebrity hosts, along with live performances 
and
workshops with Donovan and friends,

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: maharishi honey ad


On May 23, 2007, at 3:34 PM, george_deforest wrote:


Sal Sunshine wrote:

I was wondering as I was listening if Maharishi Vedic Honey,
produced on Maharishi Vedic Farms, added Maharishi Vedic Calories
to everyone's daily count.  Not that I'm concerned or anything,
of course...I'm wondering for a friend.


Not to worry, Sal! Just tell your friend how Vedic Calories have
this unique transcendent property ... they remain in the Unmanifest!


Actually I was thinking, since truth usually isn't a big factor in many 
of these ad campaigns--to say the least--that could be a useful 
marketing tool.


Sal

[FairfieldLife] The Donald (was Re: American Culture vs. Vedic Culture)

2007-05-23 Thread Robert Gimbel

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Robert,
 
   Sometimes it can be fun to see who was who in a past life...
  I've had several readings with people who claimed to be able to 
  percieve these kinds of things, and here are some examples:
  The Kennedy brothers were two disciples of Christ.
  Mick Jagger was Salome (the one who asked for John Baptist's 
head).
  Maharishi was Socrates.
  John Lennon was John the Baptist.
  Robert Novak was King Herod.
  Don Imus was Thomas Jefferson.
  Whether these things are true or not, it's still interesting to 
  compare archetypes and the soul's journey, through lifetimes.
 
 I can see Imus being Thomas Jefferson.  Is that the reason why he 
got 
 in trouble with those lady basketball players?
 
 I can't imagine Salome singing I Can't Get No Satisfaction.  But 
then 
 again...


Jefferson had relations with his slaves, and had children with one.
Salome's claim to fame, at that time, was the dance, the hypnotic 
dance.

[FairfieldLife] The Anti-TM Fundies' Dilemma

Below is the Anti-TM Fundies' Dilemma that drives them crazy, so they 
ignore it and go off making crappy jokes to each other, or changing 
the subject to Cajun Cooking Tips or some other nonsense:

There will never come a time when Science (research published in peer-
reviewed scientific journals) will be superceded by New
Age self-agrandizing dribble. This is the reality of life. This is
the modern world. You need to accept this new realization to become 
liberated .

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage i...

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

  
 In a message dated 5/23/2007 2:54:31 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
  
  
  
 --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
(mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) 
 ,  Rick Archer rick@ wrote:
 
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 (mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com)   
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 (mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) ]
   On Behalf Of off_world_beings
  Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 10:55  AM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
(mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) 
   Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's 
suggestion 
 that  we
  engage in a discussion about th
  
  
  You are  kidding yourself Rick, and Turq also is fooling himself.
  
  In  the 21st century people will only listen to research 
published 
   peer-reviewed scientific journals, not heresay, conspiracy 
 theories,  
  and the meandering monologues posted here. This is a fact of 
life.  
  There is no getting away from that. It is the Rationalists 
Victory  
  over fundamentalism and tribalism. It is not totally perfect 
yet  
 of 
  course, but in the next 20 - 50 years, it will become more and  
 more 
  apparent what is efficacious and what is effluence. This is  the 
  modern world.
  
  OffWorld
  
  Maybe,  but it seems to me that there's a spiritual renaissance 
 going on  and
  more and more people are waking up, in the spiritual sense, and  
 putting a
  lot more stock in their personal, subjective experience  than in 
 some
  scientist's evaluation of it. If someone has  genuinely woken up 
to 
 the Self,
  they're not going to run down to  the local EEG lab to have 
their 
 experience
   corroborated.
 
 Naw man, you're imagining things. 
 There  is less awakening now than 20 years ago. A lot of very fat 
 people  instead.
 
 And by your logic a born-again christian justifying bombing  the 
 shit out of other countries, or a muslim suicide bomber, are  
 examples of people who believe their personal experience is of 
any  
 importance. 
 
 There will never come a time when Science will be  superceded by 
New 
 Age self-agrandizing dribble. This is the reality of  life. This 
is 
 the modern world. You need to accept this new realization to  be 
 liberated . 
  The way science is going it will blow up the whole world before 
anyone  can 
 have a chance to prove their position as being valid. I believe 
America  has 
 thousands of  Nuclear bombs. So much for the saving grace of 
Science.  Lsoma.

Science (Logic) is the only truth. Dangerous technology is caused by 
the ignorant use of the power of science, not by science itself. 
Ignorance causes danger. Science reveals truth. You need to make 
clearer distinctions, otherwise you sound like a silly hippie, which 
I am sure you are not.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
wrote:
  snip 
  In contrast, those who cling so strongly to what
   they believe now, to the point of being incapable
   of stating even the *possibility* that these beliefs
   might be less than perfect, have made a commitment
   to STAYING THE SAME. They are actively *resisting*
   change, and thus resisting the very enlightenment
   they profess to seek.
  
  But you could be wrong. :-)
 
 Yes, this is the interesting thing -- for the most part we can 
only see 
 what we BE, or have been. Getting back to M. Scott Peck's model 
for a 
 moment, on closer look it all appears to be simple, alternating 
 currents or strata or layers of particle-identification and field-
 identification. 
 
 Thus his POV-1 (Chaos) is the emergence of small-I particle-
 identification, the unruly child. 
 
 Then his POV-2 (Fundamentalism) is the first emergence of field-
 identification, subservience of the chaotic evil-I to a larger 
whole -
 - one of rules, society, tribal consciousness (one could argue 
that 
 this is actually its second appearance, after the prenatal mother-
child 
 we-ness). 
 
 Next his POV-3 (Eclecticism) is the re-emergence of small-I 
particle 
 identification, now with broadly expanded freedoms. One now sees 
the 
 limiting or relative nature of the belief-systems of one's 
previous 
 fundamentalism.
 
 Next his POV-4 (Love) is a new spiral of field-identification, 
Being 
 the Perfection of what IS, and so on. Beginning to see the 
relative 
 nature of *all* of our stories, even the one giving the subtitles 
in 
 this moment. Beginning to see *we have a choice* in how we gather 
and 
 interpret data -- and that it's the finest feeling level we 
choose 
 which determines our mental interpretrations and sense-gathering. 
 Another great relief, yet more freedom, etc. 
 
 Next we could posit a POV-5 (Bliss) wherein we BE this great field 
now 
 *collapsing* its totality into particular point(s) of awareness, 
 embodying phsyical, literal, bliss. Now we see that the small I 
and the 
 large I are the same.
 
 And so on, and so on -- constantly alternating strata of fluid and 
 particle, in ever-rising harmonics. 
 
 When one is speaking a particular or a field truth, from whatever 
 level, one will tend to be heard, resonated with, by those 
identifying 
 primarily with some harmonic of that given stratum. Thus one 
expressing 
 the particular truth of I-as-bliss will resonate with the 
Eclectics 
 *and* the Chaotics, both of whom are Doing Their Own Thing. One 
 expressing the field truth of Only One will resonate with the 
Lovers 
 and the Fundamentalists, both of whom are experiencing profound 
 devotion and mergence with the One.
 
 We could see these alternating layers of particle- and field-
 identification as themselves the alternating denser-and-rarer 
strata of 
 cosmic speech
 
 *L*L*L*

Dude-ji! I was just thinking about the whole particle/wave 
perception alternation, though I didn't carry it into group dynamics 
as you have. Yummy stuff! 

On another topic, I've been noticing some interesting things around 
sleep. My first experience about a year ago (?) on getting to sleep 
was to consciously blank my mind of thought, and fatigue would take 
over, I'd slip on the banana peel, and down for the count. After 
several months I became too interested or I could say in Love with 
the active part of my mind, and it didn't seem fair to annihilate it 
willfully just to go to sleep, but I *had* to go to sleep. So I'd 
surf on my mantra for hours dipping into dreamland and back out. But 
this wasn't satisfying because I wasn't really in a clean state of 
mind- kinda meditating and kinda thinking and kinda dreaming and 
kinda sleeping. Not much to be gained from the experience. So, next 
I saw that I could isolate my mind into at least two sections, one 
logical thinkiing piece which would do its own thing, and my 
dinosaur mind, watching autonomous nervous system stuff like 
regulating breath and heart beat, kidney and liver function, blood 
flow, neurotransmitter activity and stuff like that. Once I saw each 
part as a clear entity, it was then just a matter of turning my 
attention to the dinosaur mind, and dropping into sleep. I no longer 
had to negate the active logical mind, just tweaking my attention so 
that it would no longer get drawn in that direction, like any other 
control of the senses, though I am not sure which subtle sense is 
involved, feels like touch and sight combined. Anyway, on with the 
show! :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th

2007-05-23 Thread matrixmonitor

---Thanks, most interesting, as usual!.  After you master out of body 
travel to other planets, here's some questions for you:
Assuming there are intelligent creatures on other planets, do such 
civilizations have the equivalent of
1. NASCAR
2. What types of music: a. Country and Western, b. classical, c. rock 
and roll, d. other.
3. Do they practice TM?
4. How about cuisines?: a. Chinese, b. Mexican, c. Italian, d. other. 

 In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ 
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
 wrote:
   snip 
   In contrast, those who cling so strongly to what
they believe now, to the point of being incapable
of stating even the *possibility* that these beliefs
might be less than perfect, have made a commitment
to STAYING THE SAME. They are actively *resisting*
change, and thus resisting the very enlightenment
they profess to seek.
   
   But you could be wrong. :-)
  
  Yes, this is the interesting thing -- for the most part we can 
 only see 
  what we BE, or have been. Getting back to M. Scott Peck's model 
 for a 
  moment, on closer look it all appears to be simple, alternating 
  currents or strata or layers of particle-identification and field-
  identification. 
  
  Thus his POV-1 (Chaos) is the emergence of small-I particle-
  identification, the unruly child. 
  
  Then his POV-2 (Fundamentalism) is the first emergence of field-
  identification, subservience of the chaotic evil-I to a larger 
 whole -
  - one of rules, society, tribal consciousness (one could argue 
 that 
  this is actually its second appearance, after the prenatal mother-
 child 
  we-ness). 
  
  Next his POV-3 (Eclecticism) is the re-emergence of small-I 
 particle 
  identification, now with broadly expanded freedoms. One now sees 
 the 
  limiting or relative nature of the belief-systems of one's 
 previous 
  fundamentalism.
  
  Next his POV-4 (Love) is a new spiral of field-identification, 
 Being 
  the Perfection of what IS, and so on. Beginning to see the 
 relative 
  nature of *all* of our stories, even the one giving the subtitles 
 in 
  this moment. Beginning to see *we have a choice* in how we gather 
 and 
  interpret data -- and that it's the finest feeling level we 
 choose 
  which determines our mental interpretrations and sense-gathering. 
  Another great relief, yet more freedom, etc. 
  
  Next we could posit a POV-5 (Bliss) wherein we BE this great 
field 
 now 
  *collapsing* its totality into particular point(s) of awareness, 
  embodying phsyical, literal, bliss. Now we see that the small I 
 and the 
  large I are the same.
  
  And so on, and so on -- constantly alternating strata of fluid 
and 
  particle, in ever-rising harmonics. 
  
  When one is speaking a particular or a field truth, from whatever 
  level, one will tend to be heard, resonated with, by those 
 identifying 
  primarily with some harmonic of that given stratum. Thus one 
 expressing 
  the particular truth of I-as-bliss will resonate with the 
 Eclectics 
  *and* the Chaotics, both of whom are Doing Their Own Thing. One 
  expressing the field truth of Only One will resonate with the 
 Lovers 
  and the Fundamentalists, both of whom are experiencing profound 
  devotion and mergence with the One.
  
  We could see these alternating layers of particle- and field-
  identification as themselves the alternating denser-and-rarer 
 strata of 
  cosmic speech
  
  *L*L*L*
 
 Dude-ji! I was just thinking about the whole particle/wave 
 perception alternation, though I didn't carry it into group 
dynamics 
 as you have. Yummy stuff! 
 
 On another topic, I've been noticing some interesting things around 
 sleep. My first experience about a year ago (?) on getting to sleep 
 was to consciously blank my mind of thought, and fatigue would take 
 over, I'd slip on the banana peel, and down for the count. After 
 several months I became too interested or I could say in Love with 
 the active part of my mind, and it didn't seem fair to annihilate 
it 
 willfully just to go to sleep, but I *had* to go to sleep. So I'd 
 surf on my mantra for hours dipping into dreamland and back out. 
But 
 this wasn't satisfying because I wasn't really in a clean state of 
 mind- kinda meditating and kinda thinking and kinda dreaming and 
 kinda sleeping. Not much to be gained from the experience. So, next 
 I saw that I could isolate my mind into at least two sections, one 
 logical thinkiing piece which would do its own thing, and my 
 dinosaur mind, watching autonomous nervous system stuff like 
 regulating breath and heart beat, kidney and liver function, blood 
 flow, neurotransmitter activity and stuff like that. Once I saw 
each 
 part as a clear entity, it was then just a matter of turning my 
 attention

[FairfieldLife] Re: Advice Sought

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 On May 23, 2007, at 11:49 AM, John Davis wrote:
 
  The concept/fact of the TM mantras being older than the Hindu  
  religion, and
  so also older than the gods named after them, which might then 
be  
  seen as
  personalisations of a pre-existing sound, makes a good deal of  
  sense to me.
 
 
 Unfortunately, it is untrue. The mantras all come from ancient  
 tantric traditions and are related to the gods they are 
associated  
 with up to this day. TM mantras are not vedic, they are tantric. 
Be  
 rather leery of anyone who tells you otherwise. There's a common 
myth  
 in the TMO that TM mantras are Vedic (or I've even heard people  
 claim they were from the Rig Veda!). It's simply untrue.
 
 Good luck!

Hi John, The point can be made that vibration brings creation into 
being- certainly works with music! So if a sound is associated with 
a particular God, it follows that the primary characteristics of 
that sound precede as you say the personalization of that sound. The 
personalization of the sound is secondary, being associated with 
the 'discovery' of the God that it creates. 

Whether someone catalogues these sounds and dispenses them from a 
particular tradition, and what that tradition might be is then 
tertiary to the sound's origin, and the creation emanating from it. 

So whether the mantras are vedic or tantric doesn't matter at all- 
just that they work, and as you know they do work. I wish you the 
best of fortune with your ongoing practice of TM. :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 ---Thanks, most interesting, as usual!.  After you master out of 
body 
 travel to other planets, here's some questions for you:
 Assuming there are intelligent creatures on other planets, do such 
 civilizations have the equivalent of
 1. NASCAR
 2. What types of music: a. Country and Western, b. classical, c. 
rock 
 and roll, d. other.
 3. Do they practice TM?
 4. How about cuisines?: a. Chinese, b. Mexican, c. Italian, d. 
other. 
 
wtf mate?!:-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: maharishi honey ad

2007-05-23 Thread mainstream20016

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote:

  From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  On Behalf Of boo_lives
  Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 2:14 PM
  To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: maharishi honey ad

  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
  mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , curtisdeltablues
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:

   If I were 3 years old, and my Telatubbie DVD had gotten some Play-
 Doh
   on it, and I had ingested mommy's special brownies for her 
 hippie
   friend's party...I would totally go for this marketing approach. 
 (oh
   yeah, and I might need a lobotomy as well)

   The movement continues to be its own worst PR enemy. This was the
   result of thousands of people practicing meditation for decades
   claiming to increase creativity, awareness and intelligence? I'm
   guessing this was Mother Divine's work, was that Emily Levin? 

   That was so embarrassing that I'll bet even King Tony saw it and 
 went
   WTF! (in Sanskrit of course, perhaps Card can give us the
  translation)

  I think it's supposed to be a secret but the honey operation is run 
 by
  mother divine as is pretty obvious in the video. I counted the word
  maharishi used 20 times in the commercial - why is he the main
  element in selling honey??

  You think the actual hives are managed my Mother Divine?

 Yes.

 As I understand it, maximal honey bee production is maintained at 
 98.5 degrees farenheit.  So, while they're meditating, each MD Lady 
 sits on a hive.

   To Fuy !  Best laugh of the day.  Thanks, shempmcgurk !

[FairfieldLife] Re: maharishi honey ad

2007-05-23 Thread shukra69

There is some particular kind of Manuka honey from New Zealand that is
 just as expensive in my local health food store and the Maharishi
honey has been proven to have superior properties. 


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
   If I were 3 years old, and my Telatubbie DVD had gotten some Play-
  Doh
   on it, and I had ingested mommy's special brownies for her hippie
   friend's party...I would totally go for this marketing approach.  
  (oh
   yeah, and I might need a lobotomy as well)
   
   The movement continues to be its own worst PR enemy. This was the
   result of thousands of people practicing meditation for decades
   claiming to increase creativity, awareness and intelligence?  I'm
   guessing this was Mother Divine's work, was that Emily Levin? 
   
   That was so embarrassing that I'll bet even King Tony saw it and 
  went
   WTF!  (in Sanskrit of course, perhaps Card can give us the 
  translation)
  
  
  
  
  What I'm waiting for is Nablus' defense of the ad.
 
 I'd like to see a defense of charging $50 for a 250g jar of honey when
 you can get, for example, a one pound jar of Really Raw Honey for $10.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: maharishi honey ad

2007-05-23 Thread Peter

...been proven. What does thAT MEAN?

--- shukra69 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 There is some particular kind of Manuka honey from
 New Zealand that is
  just as expensive in my local health food store and
 the Maharishi
 honey has been proven to have superior properties. 
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
 shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
 curtisdeltablues 
   curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
   
If I were 3 years old, and my Telatubbie DVD
 had gotten some Play-
   Doh
on it, and I had ingested mommy's special
 brownies for her hippie
friend's party...I would totally go for this
 marketing approach.  
   (oh
yeah, and I might need a lobotomy as well)

The movement continues to be its own worst PR
 enemy. This was the
result of thousands of people practicing
 meditation for decades
claiming to increase creativity, awareness and
 intelligence?  I'm
guessing this was Mother Divine's work, was
 that Emily Levin? 

That was so embarrassing that I'll bet even
 King Tony saw it and 
   went
WTF!  (in Sanskrit of course, perhaps Card
 can give us the 
   translation)
   
   
   
   
   What I'm waiting for is Nablus' defense of the
 ad.
  
  I'd like to see a defense of charging $50 for a
 250g jar of honey when
  you can get, for example, a one pound jar of
 Really Raw Honey for $10.
 
 
 
 
 
 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]
 
 
 



   
Need
 a vacation? Get great deals
to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
http://travel.yahoo.com/

[FairfieldLife] Dalai Lama Quote

2007-05-23 Thread quantum packet

I disagree with the DL since he's separating out states of mind from states of
body. IMO, both are important, together due to the feedback between mind and
body. Personally, I would rather not have MS, living in an iron lung; or have a
stroke and live in a vegetative state. I see reason to exclude the body by
saying one can be happy in spite of. True, it's possible, but on the
whole - IMO - it's a package deal.

Note: forwarded message attached.

-
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo!
FareChase.---BeginMessage---
Title: Snow Lion Publications Newsletter

Dalai Lama Quote of the Week
We feel money and power can bring happiness and solve problems, but they are not definite causes of those desired states. If that were so, it would follow that those who have wealth would necessarily have happiness, and those who do not have wealth would always experience suffering. Money and power facilitate, but it is clear that they are not the primary causes of, happiness and solving our problems. It is justified for us to make material and financial development for building our nation and providing shelter, etc. for ourselves; we need to do that. But we also need to seek inner development. As we can see, there are many people who have wealth and power who remain unhappy, due to which their health declines, and they are always taking medicines. On the other hand, we find people who live like beggars but who always remain peaceful and happy.

Therefore, in our daily life a certain way of thinking makes us happy, and a certain way of thinking makes us unhappy. In other words, there are certain states of mind which bring us problems, and they can be removed; we need to make an effort in that direction. Likewise, there are certain states of mind that bring us peace and happiness, and we need to cultivate and enhance them.

--from Generous Wisdom: Commentaries by H.H. the Dalai Lama XIV on the Jatakamala translated by Tenzin Dorjee edited by Dexter Roberts

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 towww.snowlionpub.comand 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.

GENEROUS WISDOM:Commentaries byH.H. the Dalai Lama XIVon the Jatakamalatranslated by Tenzin Dorjeeedited by Dexter Robertsmore...

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

[FairfieldLife] Re: Advice Sought

2007-05-23 Thread hyperbolicgeometry

--
Below - primordial sounds prior to mantras.  (Precisely the point of 
the Sant Mat Gurus!)the so-called Yoga of Light and Sound. 


- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
 
  
  On May 23, 2007, at 11:49 AM, John Davis wrote:
  
   The concept/fact of the TM mantras being older than the Hindu  
   religion, and
   so also older than the gods named after them, which might then 
 be  
   seen as
   personalisations of a pre-existing sound, makes a good deal of  
   sense to me.
  
  
  Unfortunately, it is untrue. The mantras all come from ancient  
  tantric traditions and are related to the gods they are 
 associated  
  with up to this day. TM mantras are not vedic, they are tantric. 
 Be  
  rather leery of anyone who tells you otherwise. There's a common 
 myth  
  in the TMO that TM mantras are Vedic (or I've even heard 
people  
  claim they were from the Rig Veda!). It's simply untrue.
  
  Good luck!
 
 Hi John, The point can be made that vibration brings creation into 
 being- certainly works with music! So if a sound is associated with 
 a particular God, it follows that the primary characteristics of 
 that sound precede as you say the personalization of that sound. 
The 
 personalization of the sound is secondary, being associated with 
 the 'discovery' of the God that it creates. 
 
 Whether someone catalogues these sounds and dispenses them from a 
 particular tradition, and what that tradition might be is then 
 tertiary to the sound's origin, and the creation emanating from it. 
 
 So whether the mantras are vedic or tantric doesn't matter at all- 
 just that they work, and as you know they do work. I wish you the 
 best of fortune with your ongoing practice of TM. :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: My response to a friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about th