[FairfieldLife] From the newest enlightened One- the is no*one*
Namaste Sajani and Holly, When one comes upon That which IS, all else - every little experience (vision, dream, sounds, Samadhi, etc) that ever happened is absolutely burned to dust. Visions, experiences, dreams, insights are all wonderful in that they can help to keep one motivated to continue forward and also may show where one is at within the layers of conciousness, but are limited because they ARE experiences. An "experience" exists becase an "experiencer" exists... one should strive for no experience at all! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!! If they come, wonderful - say "hello and goodbye" to them in the same instant. If they don't, keep walking until there is no*one* walking or experiencing a thing! OM Shanti, Sarojini - A name with no experience
[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization
This is way too complicated for me, but I ask the usual- is the one writting this speaking from Being or about it? Start with that. We have 3 enlightened one's in our group and though there is not a coaching, they have the same basic thing to say because it is coming from that One essence. Their message is it is never a me that gets enlightened, it is the death of the "Me" that is the life or all life --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "tanhlnx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --Below, you ask if "I" is the individual. Depends upon how you > define it: a. the illusory I that is the core of misidentification, > or b. the "individual" who remains after the ignorance of > misidentification is gone, and who STILL may refer to herself as "I" > in ordinary exchanges of conversation with people. The question then > becomes, what is the nature of this (b) "I"...; is it/he/she simply > saying something that has no "reality"? No. > The I who remains has no "substantial", i.e. "in-itself" reality > separate from Brahman; but the ongoing error of Neo-Advaita is that > there's no significance to the remaining I. > As pointed out by several contributors, the I that/who remains also > has several major components when misidentification vanishes. One of > these components can be called the social I, and includes all manner > of habitual behaviors in the due course of social interactions. > There are several other categories of this I: (b), the bodily/mind > I; in essence, this body/mind that remains (even though "non- > substantial") is a new I that exists in the world of nonduality. > Say you lived on a planet where everybody was born enlightened. > Would people go around saying nobody has an "I". No. First, not > having tasted the ignorance of misidentification, they would have no > conception of what it is, none whatsoever. > In the course of social intercourse, the notational "I" would be > required, because on that planet, visitors may knock on your door > asking if you are so and so. Naturally, you would reply "Yes, I am". > More specifically and directly, exactly what is this new "I", apart > from being a mere notation? > It's a relative body/mind! > Thus, to answer your question, an "I" exists after Enlightenment, > yes, but it's not the same I as before which is based on the delusion > of separateness. > The new I is a holographic "me", wholly inseparable from the > Absolute continuum of pure Consciousness; but still composed of > various relative components such as the capacity to interact > socially, to perform actions with the mind, senses, and organs; and > to engage in new types of perceptions, especially relating to the > entire universe of existence that forms the holographic identity. > The holographic aspect to the new I is important since holograms > enfold the totality but each hologram differs from the others in > having priorities of viewpoints. The things being seen have no inner > core of an "I' as a false identity, but they (the objects) are > simply "being seen". By what? The body and its senses. > Thus, your Guru is misguided if he has fallen into the Neo-Advaita > trap which claims that all types of an "I" vanish at Enlightenment. > The Enlightenment "I" is a holographic "I", nondifferent from the > Absolute continuum but partaking of normal interactions by virtue of > ongoing bodily impulses and the capacity to engage in entirely new, > creative, and original enterprises. > > > > > - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" wrote: > > > > > > --The statement, "...then there only IS" is an incomplete > description > > > of existence. > > > > Of course, any statement will never replace the reality of the > situation > > > > A more complete statement would be "IsAS: > > > modifications of pure Conscious such as trees, the sky, the body; > > > etc; and all of the components that STILL make up an individual, > > > minus the false illusory "I". > > > > The I is the individual, isn't it? > > > > Therefore, should the IRC come > > > knocking on your door (after getting Enlightened), don't > say, "Sorry, > > > can't pay since there's no "Me". > > > > > I have posted comments from the enlightened here so it helps to see > how their day to day > > life is, and that this story book idea of special and superhuman > belongs more to ego than > > Reaization > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: tumeric helps prevent brain plaque
hot dogs are not healthy food, increasing your risk of leukemia amoung other things --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "matrixmonitor" > wrote: > > > > http://www.tinyurl.com/2vnc4m > > > > > > All you hot dog eaters have been eating health food all this time -- > good ole yellow mustard contains turmeric: > > http://www.drgourmet.com/ingredients/mustard.shtml >
[FairfieldLife] Re: JFK and GWB -- Evolution? Rising World Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning > > wrote: > > > > > > I just saw a clip of JFK giving "ask not.." speech. Pure magic, > > IMO. > > > Regardless, what you may think of his politics -- I personally liked > > > many -- not all of his ideas and visions. He was a great speaker, > > > clear inspiring, articulate and visionary. I know from personal > > > experience, that he inspired many, 4 years or more older than me, to > > > join the Peace Corp after high school. Or college. > > > > > > And his bother Bobby. i don't really care about their sex lives. He > > > was incredibly inspiring, and motivational. I never heard him speak > > > (other than pissing next to him in a tough at a ski resort, and > > talkng > > > to him on a bus, across from him, both sitting on edge aisles, at > > > same resort), but I am still inspired by hippie/ UCB student/great > > > guy, and friend, Dave, (Tina Kessler a friend of his, and mine, if > > you > > > know her -- anthropology phd at UCB -- or fantastic, sweet and > > > charming, blonde, hippie chid incanrnate of 60's, sister Leala) > > > probably dead, or maybe netcom billionaire), student at UCB (UC > > > Bekeley -- the hub of the universe -- or "the Revolution") of > > Bobby's > > > speeches at UCB. > > > > > > Compare him (RFK or JKF0 to GWB: "um uh, WTF am I supposed to say > > here > > > karl" > > > > > > Rising world consciosness since MMY startd teachng in US in early > > > 60's!!! > > > > > > Just a thought. Seems to me we may have regressed, backtracked since > > > the early 60's. Puts all this "rising World Consocuiosnss" to doubt. > > > (Well, thats my non-dogmatic view-- in the moment. Maybe Nab will > > show > > > me the light, the error of my thinking, perceiving. As will Jim.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, JFK was another dangerous son-of-a-rich-man like Dumbya, > > full of entitlement overwhelming whatever brains they have. JFK > > nearly prompted a nuke war over Russian missiles in Cuba, a supreme > > piece of hypocrisy given American missiles stationed in Turkey. He > > had to go, and that $20 rifle shot enjoyed the support of nature in > > removing his arrogant ass from office. Fortunately, Dumbya's term > > will expire in several hundred days, and that should be the last of > > Middle East adventurism we'll see for a while. > > > > What would have been the non-hypocritical response of JFK to the Soviet attempt to place > nuclear-tipped missiles on Cuban soil? Allow the Soviet Nuclear Missile installation in > Cuba ? Wouldn't that have been charitable. NOT. > > JFK wasn't even elected during the period of development and implementation of the > Turkey weapons placement. Seehttp://tinyurl.com/27oc2f > > I think weapons proliferation is horrible, but have you considered that to this date that the > U.S. is the only country with nuclear weapons placed on foreign soil? Had JFK acquiesed > to the Soviet placement of nuclear weapons in Cuba in 1962, precedent would have been > set for other countries to place nuclear weapons all over the world. Yeah, the U.S. is > hypocritical, but the threat of nuclear war would be greater if everyone had nukes placed > all over the world. > * JFK agreed to withdraw the missiles from Turkey in a quid pro quo with the Soviets, although he could not admit to doing so publicly because technically the deployment of missiles was a NATO decision, not a U.S. decision. http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/question_jfk1.htm If JFK had anything on the ball, he would not have brought the world to the brink of nuclear confrontation, but would have first approached the Soviets quietly and diplomatically with the deal that he eventually made: you take the missiles out of Cuba, we'll take the missiles out of Turkey (a country which borders the Soviet Union).
[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization
--Below, you ask if "I" is the individual. Depends upon how you define it: a. the illusory I that is the core of misidentification, or b. the "individual" who remains after the ignorance of misidentification is gone, and who STILL may refer to herself as "I" in ordinary exchanges of conversation with people. The question then becomes, what is the nature of this (b) "I"...; is it/he/she simply saying something that has no "reality"? No. The I who remains has no "substantial", i.e. "in-itself" reality separate from Brahman; but the ongoing error of Neo-Advaita is that there's no significance to the remaining I. As pointed out by several contributors, the I that/who remains also has several major components when misidentification vanishes. One of these components can be called the social I, and includes all manner of habitual behaviors in the due course of social interactions. There are several other categories of this I: (b), the bodily/mind I; in essence, this body/mind that remains (even though "non- substantial") is a new I that exists in the world of nonduality. Say you lived on a planet where everybody was born enlightened. Would people go around saying nobody has an "I". No. First, not having tasted the ignorance of misidentification, they would have no conception of what it is, none whatsoever. In the course of social intercourse, the notational "I" would be required, because on that planet, visitors may knock on your door asking if you are so and so. Naturally, you would reply "Yes, I am". More specifically and directly, exactly what is this new "I", apart from being a mere notation? It's a relative body/mind! Thus, to answer your question, an "I" exists after Enlightenment, yes, but it's not the same I as before which is based on the delusion of separateness. The new I is a holographic "me", wholly inseparable from the Absolute continuum of pure Consciousness; but still composed of various relative components such as the capacity to interact socially, to perform actions with the mind, senses, and organs; and to engage in new types of perceptions, especially relating to the entire universe of existence that forms the holographic identity. The holographic aspect to the new I is important since holograms enfold the totality but each hologram differs from the others in having priorities of viewpoints. The things being seen have no inner core of an "I' as a false identity, but they (the objects) are simply "being seen". By what? The body and its senses. Thus, your Guru is misguided if he has fallen into the Neo-Advaita trap which claims that all types of an "I" vanish at Enlightenment. The Enlightenment "I" is a holographic "I", nondifferent from the Absolute continuum but partaking of normal interactions by virtue of ongoing bodily impulses and the capacity to engage in entirely new, creative, and original enterprises. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" wrote: > > > > --The statement, "...then there only IS" is an incomplete description > > of existence. > > Of course, any statement will never replace the reality of the situation > > A more complete statement would be "IsAS: > > modifications of pure Conscious such as trees, the sky, the body; > > etc; and all of the components that STILL make up an individual, > > minus the false illusory "I". > > The I is the individual, isn't it? > > Therefore, should the IRC come > > knocking on your door (after getting Enlightened), don't say, "Sorry, > > can't pay since there's no "Me". > > > I have posted comments from the enlightened here so it helps to see how their day to day > life is, and that this story book idea of special and superhuman belongs more to ego than > Reaization >
[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --The statement, "...then there only IS" is an incomplete description > of existence. Of course, any statement will never replace the reality of the situation A more complete statement would be "IsAS: > modifications of pure Conscious such as trees, the sky, the body; > etc; and all of the components that STILL make up an individual, > minus the false illusory "I". The I is the individual, isn't it? Therefore, should the IRC come > knocking on your door (after getting Enlightened), don't say, "Sorry, > can't pay since there's no "Me". > I have posted comments from the enlightened here so it helps to see how their day to day life is, and that this story book idea of special and superhuman belongs more to ego than Reaization
[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --The statement, "...then there only IS" is an incomplete description > of existence. Of course, any statement will never replace the reality of the situation A more complete statement would be "IsAS: > modifications of pure Conscious such as trees, the sky, the body; > etc; and all of the components that STILL make up an individual, > minus the false illusory "I". The I is the individual, isn't it? Therefore, should the IRC come > knocking on your door (after getting Enlightened), don't say, "Sorry, > can't pay since there's no "Me". > I have posted comments from the enlightened here so it helps to see how their day to day life is, and that this story book idea of special and superhuman belongs more to ego than Reaization
[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization
I just read this to swami G and she said yea, that's what happens > It might be quite complicated , but it does/can lead > the mind towards transcending itself. I agree that > enlightenment is simple, but it can come as quite a > shock when the mind attempts to reference itself, to > "feel" itself as a subjective "I" and absolutely > nothing is there. This nothingness takes some getting > used to from the minds perspective. Until the > experience actually occurs, the profundity of this > experience can not be comprehended by the mind. There > is a foundational shift in identity from a unique, > psychological "I" to absolutely nothing. Thoughts, > feelings, actions, desires all continue as before but > there is no identification of these phenomena with an > "I".
[FairfieldLife] Re: JFK and GWB -- Evolution? Rising World Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning > wrote: > > > > I just saw a clip of JFK giving "ask not.." speech. Pure magic, > IMO. > > Regardless, what you may think of his politics -- I personally liked > > many -- not all of his ideas and visions. He was a great speaker, > > clear inspiring, articulate and visionary. I know from personal > > experience, that he inspired many, 4 years or more older than me, to > > join the Peace Corp after high school. Or college. > > > > And his bother Bobby. i don't really care about their sex lives. He > > was incredibly inspiring, and motivational. I never heard him speak > > (other than pissing next to him in a tough at a ski resort, and > talkng > > to him on a bus, across from him, both sitting on edge aisles, at > > same resort), but I am still inspired by hippie/ UCB student/great > > guy, and friend, Dave, (Tina Kessler a friend of his, and mine, if > you > > know her -- anthropology phd at UCB -- or fantastic, sweet and > > charming, blonde, hippie chid incanrnate of 60's, sister Leala) > > probably dead, or maybe netcom billionaire), student at UCB (UC > > Bekeley -- the hub of the universe -- or "the Revolution") of > Bobby's > > speeches at UCB. > > > > Compare him (RFK or JKF0 to GWB: "um uh, WTF am I supposed to say > here > > karl" > > > > Rising world consciosness since MMY startd teachng in US in early > > 60's!!! > > > > Just a thought. Seems to me we may have regressed, backtracked since > > the early 60's. Puts all this "rising World Consocuiosnss" to doubt. > > (Well, thats my non-dogmatic view-- in the moment. Maybe Nab will > show > > me the light, the error of my thinking, perceiving. As will Jim.) > > > > > > > Actually, JFK was another dangerous son-of-a-rich-man like Dumbya, > full of entitlement overwhelming whatever brains they have. JFK > nearly prompted a nuke war over Russian missiles in Cuba, a supreme > piece of hypocrisy given American missiles stationed in Turkey. He > had to go, and that $20 rifle shot enjoyed the support of nature in > removing his arrogant ass from office. Fortunately, Dumbya's term > will expire in several hundred days, and that should be the last of > Middle East adventurism we'll see for a while. > What would have been the non-hypocritical response of JFK to the Soviet attempt to place nuclear-tipped missiles on Cuban soil? Allow the Soviet Nuclear Missile installation in Cuba ? Wouldn't that have been charitable. NOT. JFK wasn't even elected during the period of development and implementation of the Turkey weapons placement. Seehttp://tinyurl.com/27oc2f I think weapons proliferation is horrible, but have you considered that to this date that the U.S. is the only country with nuclear weapons placed on foreign soil? Had JFK acquiesed to the Soviet placement of nuclear weapons in Cuba in 1962, precedent would have been set for other countries to place nuclear weapons all over the world. Yeah, the U.S. is hypocritical, but the threat of nuclear war would be greater if everyone had nukes placed all over the world.
[FairfieldLife] Re: JFK and GWB -- Evolution? Rising World Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning > wrote: > > > > I just saw a clip of JFK giving "ask not.." speech. Pure magic, > IMO. > > Regardless, what you may think of his politics -- I personally liked > > many -- not all of his ideas and visions. He was a great speaker, > > clear inspiring, articulate and visionary. I know from personal > > experience, that he inspired many, 4 years or more older than me, to > > join the Peace Corp after high school. Or college. > > > > And his bother Bobby. i don't really care about their sex lives. He > > was incredibly inspiring, and motivational. I never heard him speak > > (other than pissing next to him in a tough at a ski resort, and > talkng > > to him on a bus, across from him, both sitting on edge aisles, at > > same resort), but I am still inspired by hippie/ UCB student/great > > guy, and friend, Dave, (Tina Kessler a friend of his, and mine, if > you > > know her -- anthropology phd at UCB -- or fantastic, sweet and > > charming, blonde, hippie chid incanrnate of 60's, sister Leala) > > probably dead, or maybe netcom billionaire), student at UCB (UC > > Bekeley -- the hub of the universe -- or "the Revolution") of > Bobby's > > speeches at UCB. > > > > Compare him (RFK or JKF0 to GWB: "um uh, WTF am I supposed to say > here > > karl" > > > > Rising world consciosness since MMY startd teachng in US in early > > 60's!!! > > > > Just a thought. Seems to me we may have regressed, backtracked since > > the early 60's. Puts all this "rising World Consocuiosnss" to doubt. > > (Well, thats my non-dogmatic view-- in the moment. Maybe Nab will > show > > me the light, the error of my thinking, perceiving. As will Jim.) > > > > > > > Actually, JFK was another dangerous son-of-a-rich-man like Dumbya, > full of entitlement overwhelming whatever brains they have. JFK > nearly prompted a nuke war over Russian missiles in Cuba, a supreme > piece of hypocrisy given American missiles stationed in Turkey. He > had to go, and that $20 rifle shot enjoyed the support of nature in > removing his arrogant ass from office. Fortunately, Dumbya's term > will expire in several hundred days, and that should be the last of > Middle East adventurism we'll see for a while. > What would have been the non-hypocritical response of JFK to the Soviet attempt to place nuclear-tipped missiles on Cuban soil? Allow the Soviet Nuclear Missile installation in Cuba ? Wouldn't that have been charitable. NOT. JFK wasn't even elected during the period of development and implementation of the Turkey weapons placement. See tinyurl.com/27oc2f I think weapons proliferation is horrible, but have you considered that to this date that the U.S. is the only country with nuclear weapons placed on foreign soil? Had JFK acquiesed to the Soviet placement of nuclear weapons in Cuba in 1962, precedent would have been set for other countries to place nuclear weapons all over the world. Yeah, the U.S. is hypocritical, but the threat of nuclear war would be greater if everyone had nukes placed all over the world.
[FairfieldLife] Re: tumeric helps prevent brain plaque
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "matrixmonitor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://www.tinyurl.com/2vnc4m > All you hot dog eaters have been eating health food all this time -- good ole yellow mustard contains turmeric: http://www.drgourmet.com/ingredients/mustard.shtml
[FairfieldLife] tumeric helps prevent brain plaque
http://www.tinyurl.com/2vnc4m
[FairfieldLife] Re: JFK and GWB -- Evolution? Rising World Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning > wrote: > > > > I just saw a clip of JFK giving "ask not.." speech. Pure magic, > IMO. > > Regardless, what you may think of his politics -- I personally liked > > many -- not all of his ideas and visions. He was a great speaker, > > clear inspiring, articulate and visionary. I know from personal > > experience, that he inspired many, 4 years or more older than me, to > > join the Peace Corp after high school. Or college. > > > > And his bother Bobby. i don't really care about their sex lives. He > > was incredibly inspiring, and motivational. I never heard him speak > > (other than pissing next to him in a tough at a ski resort, and > talkng > > to him on a bus, across from him, both sitting on edge aisles, at > > same resort), but I am still inspired by hippie/ UCB student/great > > guy, and friend, Dave, (Tina Kessler a friend of his, and mine, if > you > > know her -- anthropology phd at UCB -- or fantastic, sweet and > > charming, blonde, hippie chid incanrnate of 60's, sister Leala) > > probably dead, or maybe netcom billionaire), student at UCB (UC > > Bekeley -- the hub of the universe -- or "the Revolution") of > Bobby's > > speeches at UCB. > > > > Compare him (RFK or JKF0 to GWB: "um uh, WTF am I supposed to say > here > > karl" > > > > Rising world consciosness since MMY startd teachng in US in early > > 60's!!! > > > > Just a thought. Seems to me we may have regressed, backtracked since > > the early 60's. Puts all this "rising World Consocuiosnss" to doubt. > > (Well, thats my non-dogmatic view-- in the moment. Maybe Nab will > show > > me the light, the error of my thinking, perceiving. As will Jim.) > > > > > > > Actually, JFK was another dangerous son-of-a-rich-man like Dumbya, > full of entitlement overwhelming whatever brains they have. JFK > nearly prompted a nuke war over Russian missiles in Cuba, a supreme > piece of hypocrisy given American missiles stationed in Turkey. He > had to go, and that $20 rifle shot enjoyed the support of nature in > removing his arrogant ass from office. Fortunately, Dumbya's term > will expire in several hundred days, and that should be the last of > Middle East adventurism we'll see for a while. > The similar backgrounds of privilage, and perhaps arrogance (I don't agree that JFK was arrogant, but I think that W is the epitome of arrogance) and the Presidential role each played are wholly insufficient reasons for comparing the two leaders. If degree of arrogance was the determinant to justify elimination, on a comparative basis, JFK would be enjoying post-Presidential retirement, and Cheney would have become President in 2001.
[FairfieldLife] Re: JFK and GWB -- Evolution? Rising World Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I just saw a clip of JFK giving "ask not.." speech. Pure magic, IMO. > Regardless, what you may think of his politics -- I personally liked > many -- not all of his ideas and visions. He was a great speaker, > clear inspiring, articulate and visionary. I know from personal > experience, that he inspired many, 4 years or more older than me, to > join the Peace Corp after high school. Or college. > > And his bother Bobby. i don't really care about their sex lives. He > was incredibly inspiring, and motivational. I never heard him speak > (other than pissing next to him in a tough at a ski resort, and talkng > to him on a bus, across from him, both sitting on edge aisles, at > same resort), but I am still inspired by hippie/ UCB student/great > guy, and friend, Dave, (Tina Kessler a friend of his, and mine, if you > know her -- anthropology phd at UCB -- or fantastic, sweet and > charming, blonde, hippie chid incanrnate of 60's, sister Leala) > probably dead, or maybe netcom billionaire), student at UCB (UC > Bekeley -- the hub of the universe -- or "the Revolution") of Bobby's > speeches at UCB. > > Compare him (RFK or JKF0 to GWB: "um uh, WTF am I supposed to say here > karl" > > Rising world consciosness since MMY startd teachng in US in early > 60's!!! > > Just a thought. Seems to me we may have regressed, backtracked since > the early 60's. Puts all this "rising World Consocuiosnss" to doubt. > (Well, thats my non-dogmatic view-- in the moment. Maybe Nab will show > me the light, the error of my thinking, perceiving. As will Jim.) > Actually, JFK was another dangerous son-of-a-rich-man like Dumbya, full of entitlement overwhelming whatever brains they have. JFK nearly prompted a nuke war over Russian missiles in Cuba, a supreme piece of hypocrisy given American missiles stationed in Turkey. He had to go, and that $20 rifle shot enjoyed the support of nature in removing his arrogant ass from office. Fortunately, Dumbya's term will expire in several hundred days, and that should be the last of Middle East adventurism we'll see for a while.
[FairfieldLife] Re: heyaM duHkham anaagatam?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
> Not visible but attainable and hidden by a thin piece of cloth only.
> Who knows, she was just bragging probably - the finns... ;-)
>
Bragging? Was she referring to her own "yawn-ee", then?? :0
yoni mf. [...] sometimes also %{yonI [yawnee]} ; [...] the womb ,
uterus , vulva , vagina , female organs of generation RV. &c. &c.
(together with the %{liGga} , a typical symbol of the divine
procreative energy RTL. 224) ;
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization
--- Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is a very complicated post - my opinion is it > serves to get the mind engaged- where > as enlightenment is very simple- the me falls away, > then there only IS It might be quite complicated , but it does/can lead the mind towards transcending itself. I agree that enlightenment is simple, but it can come as quite a shock when the mind attempts to reference itself, to "feel" itself as a subjective "I" and absolutely nothing is there. This nothingness takes some getting used to from the minds perspective. Until the experience actually occurs, the profundity of this experience can not be comprehended by the mind. There is a foundational shift in identity from a unique, psychological "I" to absolutely nothing. Thoughts, feelings, actions, desires all continue as before but there is no identification of these phenomena with an "I". > They say that then it was known that there never was > a "me", it was Maya- ego is the > maya- so no cosmic ego's in my path Hmmm... Maya is more a concept for Unity consciousness where time and space phenomena, which still exist "outside" Self in the initial Realization of Self are seen as "inside" of Self. They don't really exist outside of Self. They aren't "real." Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > God is omnipresent -- what else needs to be said? > > Edg > Been thinking about this one, in the context of "why bother?", and trying to figure out why God, or *does* bother. Or appears to. In other words, if the flowers have already bloomed once, or the thought that they have bloomed already exists, why bother seeing them again? First I thought about love as a justification, and love, though a wonderful, sublime emotion, doesn't always carry a lot of ooomph with it. Maybe bliss, because of its more pervasive, objective and intense nature is a better choice than love. Then I jotted something down on a scrap of paper awhile back about curiosity and that seemed closer to the mark. With Self Realization, though as you have deduced, nothing happens, and we are all already enlightened on a particle level. BUT we are not all aware that we are, and it is that subjective journey from there to here that is so compelling on a universal level; that the universe apparently enjoys so much. A family reunion of sorts; first, differentiation, moving towards perfection, ultimately suceeding in reunification. The glorious WTF moment! So it appears that the laws and structure of this magnificent illusion exist purely so that we can ultimately sync up with it, and enjoy it fully, not as a warped manifestation of our intepretation of it, but rather for what it truly IS (which is still an illusion, but not one as we think we would like it to be, but rather springing full blown from God or ).:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: heyaM duHkham anaagatam?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 > wrote: > > > >> > > > > FWIW, "vittu" is probably the most common curse word hereabouts, > > > roughly corresponding to "fvck (you)". The expression "mukava > vittu" > > > would be a bit idiosyncratic, IMO. It might well have > been "mukavaa, > > > vittu", a sarcastic comment on something, like "nice, fvck you!" > > > > I prefer your explanation of a couple of days back :-) > > > > No big deal, but that explanation seems to require someone's > pvssy was rather visible at that moment...or, then again, > perhaps not... ;) Not visible but attainable and hidden by a thin piece of cloth only. Who knows, she was just bragging probably - the finns... ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Aushcwitz employee picnic pics
Just some thoughts, mostly rambling. My mother's last surviving sibling, my Aunt Zosia, lives in Oswiciem (Aushcwitz is in Poland and that's the non-German name of the town). After reading the NYTimes article Bob posted (below) I went to the US Holocaust Museum site and began to look at the photos from the other Aushcwitz album showing all the Jewish men lined up on the ramp beside the cattle train that brought them to that place; looking at their faces and trying to divine their thoughts, though I guess you could say that it's not too difficult to speculate about what they might have been. Nearly every day I look at men and women in custody, in manacles and shackles; chained together in short lines of indignity and despair; herded through one locked door after another and on through another, and another, eventually ending up in some concrete and cinderblock stall. Told where to sit, when to sit, when to stand; watched while they shower and while they shit; subjected to countless intrusions and casual derision every waking moment. The people I work with and work for, of course, are accused of criminal offenses; but whether their alleged crimes are petty or capital, they're all treated (generally, but certainly not universally) like this is what they deserve -- concrete and steel, disinfectant and degradation -- and they seem to believe it, too; most accept it as just their fate. I'm not going anywhere with this; I'm just touching on something that moves/moved me and compelled me to talk about it. Maybe I'll figure this out more a little bit later on. Marek --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/arts/design/19photo.html >
[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization
--The statement, "...then there only IS" is an incomplete description of existence. A more complete statement would be "IsAS: modifications of pure Conscious such as trees, the sky, the body; etc; and all of the components that STILL make up an individual, minus the false illusory "I". Therefore, should the IRC come knocking on your door (after getting Enlightened), don't say, "Sorry, can't pay since there's no "Me". - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is a very complicated post - my opinion is it serves to get the mind engaged- where > as enlightenment is very simple- the me falls away, then there only IS > > They say that then it was known that there never was a "me", it was Maya- ego is the > maya- so no cosmic ego's in my path > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > > > > "qntmpkt" wrote: "Thanks, this is quite obvious if one defines the > > "me" = "I"; the notion of a delusional self associated with the mind > > as an identity separate from Pure Consciousness. This is the snake > > that actually is a rope. The snake doesn't exist "in itself", > > therefore the "I" or me in this sense can't get Enlightened. But > > nobody on this forum is saying that the "Me" CAN gain Realization . . ." > > > > Edg: This word "gain" is problematic, eh? Let me take a hack at > > hitting the same target. > > > > If we step back from the concept that "all is illusion/dream," and we > > talk as if objects of consciousness were separate entities instead of > > "undifferentiated light," then immediately we can begin to speak of > > "gains." A film can show an actor "gaining a hat," but it is only > > actor-blotches-of-light being associated in time, space, memory with > > hat-blotches. There is no real ownership of the hat on the level of > > unity -- no causal connections, no laws. If hat or actor "are" seen > > again, the blotches will be entirely new, different and not in the > > least causally connected to the previous set of blotches that were > > designated "hat" and "actor." > > > > Just so do ego-blotches sometimes seem to gain enlightenment- blotches. > > There can be no denying that the enlightenment-blotches are an > > all-time reality -- always being seen with the ego-blotches, but it is > > not a law, because, well, enlightenment-blotches accompany ALL > > blotches of every ilk all the time. > > > > When the ego gets it that it is not sentient, it is said that it dies, > > or that the mind is killed, or that me-ness evaporates, but in terms > > of functionality, enlightened folks can easily keep track of their > > bodies and thoughts. It is not the case that after enlightenment that > > a person will be confused; there's no concern that > > not-identifying-with-the-meat-robot will cause personal physical > > safety concerns, or that insanity will emerge without a "central > > controller function." These things don't happen. The enlightened can > > in every way function "as if not enlightened" in order to harmonize > > with the not-admitting-yet-that-they're-enlightened folks. This > > "illusion of having an ego," can then go about its day pretending to > > gain things -- including its "enlightenment blotches." It will be no > > larger a mistake than any other "this is" assertion of entity- hood. > > Like noise that comes with the train, goes with the train, is of no > > use to the train, but the train can't go without it, ego is just > > another squeak in the robot's clockworks. > > > > Ramana Maharishi and every other guru ever can hold a conversation, > > use the word "me," make decisions, eat, etc. The only difference is > > that their egos will not make the mistake of thinking that the > > sentience that is "aware of the robot" is the robot's ego- functions, > > nor that, because this robot-ego-function is observed, it is an > > observer of any sort whatsoever. Instead, the ONE PRESENCE is the > > observer of all blotchiness. The ego doesn't actually die, because it > > was never alive, never existed as a separate entity except that the > > mind mistakenly insists "it is." > > > > The mind that once was supposed-into-existence is no longer required > > to "make a place in which observation can take place," since it is > > recognized that observation is an all-time reality for every speck of > > creation. > > > > The most distant planet, the tiniest dust mote, the unseeable quarks, > > the 3,578,298,657th orbit of electron number > > 657,536,420,543,098,708,345,456,988 of hydrogen atom number > > 468,394,503,476,503,542,343,243,768,001 of water molecule number > > 654,543,324,489,593,549,987 of the tear drop number 37 running down > > your cheek is duly noted -- no ego need be in attendance for absolute > > appreciation of any imposed definition on any arbitrarily hacked out > > patch o'blotches. > > > > Matthew 10:30 "But the very hairs of your head are all
[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization
This is a very complicated post - my opinion is it serves to get the mind engaged- where as enlightenment is very simple- the me falls away, then there only IS They say that then it was known that there never was a "me", it was Maya- ego is the maya- so no cosmic ego's in my path --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "qntmpkt" wrote: "Thanks, this is quite obvious if one defines the > "me" = "I"; the notion of a delusional self associated with the mind > as an identity separate from Pure Consciousness. This is the snake > that actually is a rope. The snake doesn't exist "in itself", > therefore the "I" or me in this sense can't get Enlightened. But > nobody on this forum is saying that the "Me" CAN gain Realization . . ." > > Edg: This word "gain" is problematic, eh? Let me take a hack at > hitting the same target. > > If we step back from the concept that "all is illusion/dream," and we > talk as if objects of consciousness were separate entities instead of > "undifferentiated light," then immediately we can begin to speak of > "gains." A film can show an actor "gaining a hat," but it is only > actor-blotches-of-light being associated in time, space, memory with > hat-blotches. There is no real ownership of the hat on the level of > unity -- no causal connections, no laws. If hat or actor "are" seen > again, the blotches will be entirely new, different and not in the > least causally connected to the previous set of blotches that were > designated "hat" and "actor." > > Just so do ego-blotches sometimes seem to gain enlightenment-blotches. > There can be no denying that the enlightenment-blotches are an > all-time reality -- always being seen with the ego-blotches, but it is > not a law, because, well, enlightenment-blotches accompany ALL > blotches of every ilk all the time. > > When the ego gets it that it is not sentient, it is said that it dies, > or that the mind is killed, or that me-ness evaporates, but in terms > of functionality, enlightened folks can easily keep track of their > bodies and thoughts. It is not the case that after enlightenment that > a person will be confused; there's no concern that > not-identifying-with-the-meat-robot will cause personal physical > safety concerns, or that insanity will emerge without a "central > controller function." These things don't happen. The enlightened can > in every way function "as if not enlightened" in order to harmonize > with the not-admitting-yet-that-they're-enlightened folks. This > "illusion of having an ego," can then go about its day pretending to > gain things -- including its "enlightenment blotches." It will be no > larger a mistake than any other "this is" assertion of entity-hood. > Like noise that comes with the train, goes with the train, is of no > use to the train, but the train can't go without it, ego is just > another squeak in the robot's clockworks. > > Ramana Maharishi and every other guru ever can hold a conversation, > use the word "me," make decisions, eat, etc. The only difference is > that their egos will not make the mistake of thinking that the > sentience that is "aware of the robot" is the robot's ego-functions, > nor that, because this robot-ego-function is observed, it is an > observer of any sort whatsoever. Instead, the ONE PRESENCE is the > observer of all blotchiness. The ego doesn't actually die, because it > was never alive, never existed as a separate entity except that the > mind mistakenly insists "it is." > > The mind that once was supposed-into-existence is no longer required > to "make a place in which observation can take place," since it is > recognized that observation is an all-time reality for every speck of > creation. > > The most distant planet, the tiniest dust mote, the unseeable quarks, > the 3,578,298,657th orbit of electron number > 657,536,420,543,098,708,345,456,988 of hydrogen atom number > 468,394,503,476,503,542,343,243,768,001 of water molecule number > 654,543,324,489,593,549,987 of the tear drop number 37 running down > your cheek is duly noted -- no ego need be in attendance for absolute > appreciation of any imposed definition on any arbitrarily hacked out > patch o'blotches. > > Matthew 10:30 "But the very hairs of your head are all numbered." > > God is omnipresent -- what else needs to be said? > > Edg >
[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization
Well said (written), Edg. Particularly valuable to me was the "noise that comes with (and can't be separated from) the train" metaphor/analogy; that is very fine. Thanks. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "qntmpkt" wrote: "Thanks, this is quite obvious if one defines the > "me" = "I"; the notion of a delusional self associated with the mind > as an identity separate from Pure Consciousness. This is the snake > that actually is a rope. The snake doesn't exist "in itself", > therefore the "I" or me in this sense can't get Enlightened. But > nobody on this forum is saying that the "Me" CAN gain Realization . . ." > > Edg: This word "gain" is problematic, eh? Let me take a hack at > hitting the same target. > > If we step back from the concept that "all is illusion/dream," and we > talk as if objects of consciousness were separate entities instead of > "undifferentiated light," then immediately we can begin to speak of > "gains." A film can show an actor "gaining a hat," but it is only > actor-blotches-of-light being associated in time, space, memory with > hat-blotches. There is no real ownership of the hat on the level of > unity -- no causal connections, no laws. If hat or actor "are" seen > again, the blotches will be entirely new, different and not in the > least causally connected to the previous set of blotches that were > designated "hat" and "actor." > > Just so do ego-blotches sometimes seem to gain enlightenment- blotches. > There can be no denying that the enlightenment-blotches are an > all-time reality -- always being seen with the ego-blotches, but it is > not a law, because, well, enlightenment-blotches accompany ALL > blotches of every ilk all the time. > > When the ego gets it that it is not sentient, it is said that it dies, > or that the mind is killed, or that me-ness evaporates, but in terms > of functionality, enlightened folks can easily keep track of their > bodies and thoughts. It is not the case that after enlightenment that > a person will be confused; there's no concern that > not-identifying-with-the-meat-robot will cause personal physical > safety concerns, or that insanity will emerge without a "central > controller function." These things don't happen. The enlightened can > in every way function "as if not enlightened" in order to harmonize > with the not-admitting-yet-that-they're-enlightened folks. This > "illusion of having an ego," can then go about its day pretending to > gain things -- including its "enlightenment blotches." It will be no > larger a mistake than any other "this is" assertion of entity-hood. > Like noise that comes with the train, goes with the train, is of no > use to the train, but the train can't go without it, ego is just > another squeak in the robot's clockworks. > > Ramana Maharishi and every other guru ever can hold a conversation, > use the word "me," make decisions, eat, etc. The only difference is > that their egos will not make the mistake of thinking that the > sentience that is "aware of the robot" is the robot's ego-functions, > nor that, because this robot-ego-function is observed, it is an > observer of any sort whatsoever. Instead, the ONE PRESENCE is the > observer of all blotchiness. The ego doesn't actually die, because it > was never alive, never existed as a separate entity except that the > mind mistakenly insists "it is." > > The mind that once was supposed-into-existence is no longer required > to "make a place in which observation can take place," since it is > recognized that observation is an all-time reality for every speck of > creation. > > The most distant planet, the tiniest dust mote, the unseeable quarks, > the 3,578,298,657th orbit of electron number > 657,536,420,543,098,708,345,456,988 of hydrogen atom number > 468,394,503,476,503,542,343,243,768,001 of water molecule number > 654,543,324,489,593,549,987 of the tear drop number 37 running down > your cheek is duly noted -- no ego need be in attendance for absolute > appreciation of any imposed definition on any arbitrarily hacked out > patch o'blotches. > > Matthew 10:30 "But the very hairs of your head are all numbered." > > God is omnipresent -- what else needs to be said? > > Edg >
[FairfieldLife] Re: heyaM duHkham anaagatam?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > > FWIW, "vittu" is probably the most common curse word hereabouts, > > roughly corresponding to "fvck (you)". The expression "mukava vittu" > > would be a bit idiosyncratic, IMO. It might well have been "mukavaa, > > vittu", a sarcastic comment on something, like "nice, fvck you!" > > I prefer your explanation of a couple of days back :-) > No big deal, but that explanation seems to require someone's pvssy was rather visible at that moment...or, then again, perhaps not... ;)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization
"qntmpkt" wrote: "Thanks, this is quite obvious if one defines the "me" = "I"; the notion of a delusional self associated with the mind as an identity separate from Pure Consciousness. This is the snake that actually is a rope. The snake doesn't exist "in itself", therefore the "I" or me in this sense can't get Enlightened. But nobody on this forum is saying that the "Me" CAN gain Realization . . ." Edg: This word "gain" is problematic, eh? Let me take a hack at hitting the same target. If we step back from the concept that "all is illusion/dream," and we talk as if objects of consciousness were separate entities instead of "undifferentiated light," then immediately we can begin to speak of "gains." A film can show an actor "gaining a hat," but it is only actor-blotches-of-light being associated in time, space, memory with hat-blotches. There is no real ownership of the hat on the level of unity -- no causal connections, no laws. If hat or actor "are" seen again, the blotches will be entirely new, different and not in the least causally connected to the previous set of blotches that were designated "hat" and "actor." Just so do ego-blotches sometimes seem to gain enlightenment-blotches. There can be no denying that the enlightenment-blotches are an all-time reality -- always being seen with the ego-blotches, but it is not a law, because, well, enlightenment-blotches accompany ALL blotches of every ilk all the time. When the ego gets it that it is not sentient, it is said that it dies, or that the mind is killed, or that me-ness evaporates, but in terms of functionality, enlightened folks can easily keep track of their bodies and thoughts. It is not the case that after enlightenment that a person will be confused; there's no concern that not-identifying-with-the-meat-robot will cause personal physical safety concerns, or that insanity will emerge without a "central controller function." These things don't happen. The enlightened can in every way function "as if not enlightened" in order to harmonize with the not-admitting-yet-that-they're-enlightened folks. This "illusion of having an ego," can then go about its day pretending to gain things -- including its "enlightenment blotches." It will be no larger a mistake than any other "this is" assertion of entity-hood. Like noise that comes with the train, goes with the train, is of no use to the train, but the train can't go without it, ego is just another squeak in the robot's clockworks. Ramana Maharishi and every other guru ever can hold a conversation, use the word "me," make decisions, eat, etc. The only difference is that their egos will not make the mistake of thinking that the sentience that is "aware of the robot" is the robot's ego-functions, nor that, because this robot-ego-function is observed, it is an observer of any sort whatsoever. Instead, the ONE PRESENCE is the observer of all blotchiness. The ego doesn't actually die, because it was never alive, never existed as a separate entity except that the mind mistakenly insists "it is." The mind that once was supposed-into-existence is no longer required to "make a place in which observation can take place," since it is recognized that observation is an all-time reality for every speck of creation. The most distant planet, the tiniest dust mote, the unseeable quarks, the 3,578,298,657th orbit of electron number 657,536,420,543,098,708,345,456,988 of hydrogen atom number 468,394,503,476,503,542,343,243,768,001 of water molecule number 654,543,324,489,593,549,987 of the tear drop number 37 running down your cheek is duly noted -- no ego need be in attendance for absolute appreciation of any imposed definition on any arbitrarily hacked out patch o'blotches. Matthew 10:30 "But the very hairs of your head are all numbered." God is omnipresent -- what else needs to be said? Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: New Cropcircles
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Judy: "Would you acknowledge the possibility that for > one who has very thoroughly studied crop circles, > what may seem "biased" views to you may in fact > be quite objective? Rereading it, I'm not sure I made this question as clear as it should have been. I *didn't* mean to suggest that someone who has studied crop circles simply *perceives* him/herself to be objective because s/he's done a lot of research. I *did* mean to suggest that it's possible someone who has looked closely at all the data may actually *be* more objective than someone who has not regarding what appear to be extraordinary claims (i.e., that the circles are not all manmade). If that's what you were answering "yes" to, Curtis, good for you. (And note I'm not *asserting* that such a person is objective, simply suggesting that it's a possibility--that the data *may* actually point convincingly to the conclusion that the circles aren't all manmade.) I think there can be a tendency to assume that someone who supports an extraordinary claim is biased in favor of that claim, whereas they may be supporting it on the basis of solid evidence-- that is, objectively. Trying to determine which is the case, from the outside, as it were, is really difficult. > Would you also acknowledge that your own view > is distinctly biased, especially given that you > *haven't* studied the phenomenon?" > > ME: Totally "yes" and "yes". The chances of me having to shift my > perspective from what I had coming in is 100% That's why I am > enjoying the ride. > > Judy: " I don't know that you should even carry that > > particular "theory" around in your head as a > > provisional goal if you're seriously looking > > into this stuff, because it's liable to > > automatically bias you against the phenomenon > > by setting up two alternatives: Either the > > circles are manmade, or they're made by aliens. > > > > Better to look for what can be *ruled out* as > > possible explanations, and then take account > > of what's left. > > > > Final point: There are many layers to the hoax- > > versus-genuine aspect of the crop circle > > phenomenon, in the sense that there's some > > evidence of a highly motivated and determined > > counterhoaxing movement, i.e., spurious claims > > to have made certain circles, dubious claims > > about the number of hoaxers, and so forth. > > This makes it quite difficult to come to any > > solid conclusions, which may be the reason for > > the counterhoaxing efforts. > > > > So use the same degree of skepticism when > > evaluating the purported claims of hoaxing as > > you do when evaluating claims about "genuine" > > crop circles." > > Me: Excellent in every way. I wish I had written it! This > subject is such a perfect mirror for how I approach new fields > of knowledge that I have a bias with. Thanks. Crop circles is a particularly tough field for this kind of endeavor for a lot of reasons having to do with the nature of the phenomenon. I can't think of another "paranormal" area in which there is this kind of competition between researchers and hoaxers, where the hoaxers aren't trying to *get away* with their hoaxes but are making a point of the fact that they're doing them, if you see what I mean. If you have lots of time on your hands, you might be interested in reading a *long*, very detailed, generally theoretical discussion between a skeptic named Brant (posting from sci.skeptic) and me (posting from alt.m.t) about bias (both skeptical and non-) and how it can skew testing of extraordinary claims. We covered a lot of ground pretty thoroughly, and with a relative lack of hostility and emphasis on logic and reason. Several other people contributed as well. It had nothing to do with crop circles, but I thought it brought out some interesting points concerning the epistemology of testing such claims. The exchange is in the thread titled "If he's interested in a scientific test, so am I," and it begins here-- http://tinyurl.com/2jrc88 --about six posts down, with a post of mine dated August 16, 1998. It continues through August 25, after which Brant dropped out and the thread diverged into other topics. I won't be offended if you don't want to read it! Maybe just file away the URL for when you have nothing better to do.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Questions & Answers from Share International
Questions & Answers Q. (1) On 16 July 2007 a 6.8 magnitude earthquake rocked the world's largest nuclear plant at Kashiwazaki, Japan, causing a transformer fire and spills and leaks at the plant. (1) Was the nuclear leak in Japan worse than the government made out? (2) Was there any UFO activity over the area either before or after the damage caused by the recent quake? A. (1) Yes. (2) Yes, both before and after. Q. On Wednesday 1 August 2007 the 40-year-old bridge over the Mississippi river in Minneapolis, USA, collapsed during rush hour. Although there were over 70 people injured, the death toll was extremely low for such a disaster. A school bus full of children made what seemed like a miraculous escape, stopping inches away from the edge of the structure. Was there any intervention by the Masters to save lives in this accident? A. My Master confirms that the Master Jesus protected the school bus and that He and other Masters saved many lives in the incident. Q. What would be the most effective way of tackling climate change; what measures would have the greatest impact? What are Hierarchy's priorities with regard to saving the planet given that it is such a complex issue? A. The cessation of tree-felling in huge areas of primal forest. Oxygen reserves are dangerously depleted by such wanton destruction of trees. Furthermore, trees (and the vegetable kingdom as a whole) are natural and powerful absorbers of carbon dioxide. All efforts to combat climate change must be co-ordinated on an international level. It is indeed a complex issue. Q. In May 2007 wildfires were experienced across America encompassing thousands of acres. Was this the result of karma and, if so, what exactly? A. No, they were the direct result of global warming which the US government finds difficult to accept, and still finds reasons to deny. Q. The US government plans to put a radar defence system in the Czech Republic and a missile system in Poland, claiming that it needs to counter a threat from Iran. Iran's missiles could not reach Europe but the US claims that Iran is attempting to build a "Shahab-4" missile which could give it a possible 1,900 mile range. Iran rejects that suggestion, stating that it would only be to put satellites into orbit. This is creating a crisis between Russia and the US, with Russia threatening to aim its missiles at new targets in Europe or develop a new system to counter the threat posed by the US government. (1) Why is the US expanding its network of radar systems and enhancing its own missile systems with anti-missile missiles? (2) Do they really feel a threat from Iran? (3) Why is Iran building (if they indeed are) a missile with a range of a possible 1,900 miles? A. (1) America is putting pressure on Iran. Iran has no nuclear missiles at the moment and claims not to be planning to make them, but America is trying to force Iran to give up any such ambition and is using all methods, except, so far, the use of force to gain its will. It has fears that North Korea likewise might drop nuclear missiles on the USA (or South Korea or Japan) and is seeking every possible means of ensuring its own security even at the expense of Poland and the Czech Republic. Seventy per cent of the people of these countries have voted and made known their opposition to such plans. (2) No, I don't think they do. They want to deny Iran any nuclear hardware. (3) Iran feels threatened by America and Israel, and feels the right to defend itself against any such threat. Q. Is it beneficial to have gratitude in life and even take time to say `thank you', even if it's to no one in particular, for the little things in life such as having a pleasant trip or a parking space becoming available to you when it is needed, etc? A. Yes, gratitude is one of the more important lubricants of right human relationship. On the whole, we take everything we receive in life for granted, without realizing that it all comes from the same divine source, of which we, ourselves, are a part. Q. How dangerous for our health are UMTS mobile masts? The office where I work is on the fifth and highest floor. The roof of the building is covered with a lot of masts, so my colleagues and I are exposed to this radiation. (1) Is there a reason for us to worry about these masts? (2) Recently all UMTS masts were removed from a primary school in the west of Amsterdam after two children and a co- worker died because of a brain tumour. Is it possible that these brain tumours were caused by the UMTS masts? (3) Are there other diseases which can be caused by this new technology? (4) Is there a risk from exposure to Wi-fi (wireless fidelity) computer internet networks? A. (1) No. (2) Very unlikely. (3) The risk is low. (4) Not really. Very minor, if at all. Q. Benjamin Creme has been touting the coming of Maitreya for over 20 years, since I was at university in 1987, or probably longer. What's tak
[FairfieldLife] UFO sightings
Benjamin Creme's Master's article `The gathering of the Forces of Light' (Share International March 2007 ) begins: "Important events are taking place in many parts of the world. People everywhere will be astonished by the reports. These will include sightings, in unprecedented numbers, of spacecraft from our neighbouring planets, Mars and Venus in particular. Nothing like this increased activity, over vast areas of the Earth, will have been seen before. Those who have steadfastly refused to take seriously the reality of this phenomenon will find it difficult to deny. More and more accounts of contact with the occupants of the spacecraft will add their testimony to the fact of their existence. Miraculous happenings of all kinds will continue and multiply in number and variety. The minds of men will be baffled and amazed by these wonders, and this will cause them to ponder deeply ." Exactly as predicted, this year has seen an impressive number of reports of UFOs in many parts of the world and an increase in the crop circle phenomena, with ever new and various forms of patterns. UFOs over Ontario, Canada A Canadian man photographed four white oblong shapes in the sky on 29 July 2007. Scott Fraser, a resident of Orillia, Ontario, said the shapes burst like rockets over the western horizon then rose vertically before moving south at high speed. "I really honestly don't know what they were," said Fraser, who was photographing the sunset when one of his friends saw the white shapes appear in the sky. The movements the flying objects made, he said, were too quick and sharp for conventional aircraft. (Source: www.orilliapacket.com) (Benjamin Creme's Master confirms that the flying objects were spaceships from Mars.) UFOs over the UK Dozens of people in the town of Stratford-Upon-Avon, England, saw five UFOs in the sky on 21 July 2007. Crowds gathered to view the objects hovering in formation for about 30 minutes. The lights became visible at about 10.30 pm. Witnesses said the speed of the objects was unlike any known aircraft and that the unusual movement patterns, lack of noise and the length of time in the air discounted the possibility of a man-made phenomenon. One witness said: "We walked outside and there was at that time a growing crowd of about 60 people looking up at something in the sky. I saw a light appear, then three others. They came over our heads in formation but then moved into different positions. Three had formed a triangular shape and one was to the right. Then another one came hurtling towards the rest at what looked like a very fast speed. But as it neared them it suddenly slowed and stopped altogether. "By this time more people had poured out onto the street and drivers slowed their cars. The objects were there for about half an hour. They didn't make any sound and they stayed still before moving slowly beyond the horizon. There were no stars in the sky, just them." (Source: www.dailymail.co.uk) (Benjamin Creme's Master confirms that the flying objects were spaceships from Mars.) UFOs over Wales Several residents of Wrexham, Wales, and the surrounding area saw red lights in the sky in the early hours of 25 July 2007. Lynn Williams of Wrexham saw lights that moved silently and at great speed above her house. "Two of them were flying round each other. They were flying very close together, closer than planes. They were going so fast I couldn't focus on them." "I ran inside and got my camcorder. I thought they could be helicopters but when I zoomed in I was scared to death. They were glowing red in the middle They weren't like anything I have seen before. For the lights to be so low there had to be some noise if they were planes." A police officer from the nearby town of Acton, said he saw the lights while on patrol. "There is no way this was a hoax; I would not have seen them from Acton if they were. They were very high up; there's no way anyone can control anything from that distance. There were several `floating' in the sky in a pack. I thought they were helicopters or similar, however there was no sound whatsoever." (Source: www.eveningleader.co.uk, www.Flintshirestandard.co.uk) (Benjamin Creme's Master confirms that the lights were spaceships from Mars.) Another bumper crop! 2007 has been a great year for crop circle formations in the UK. By mid-August 47 patterns had been reported. While mainstream media has never investigated the phenomenon seriously, websites record the latest news and photographs of patterns. Thousands of people travel each summer to Wiltshire, southern England, to visit the crop circles. So far this year 88 crop circles, of increasing intricacy, have also been reported in other parts of the world: Germany (18); Netherlands (13), Czech Republic (1), Slovenia (3), Norway (2), Poland (2), France (1), Switzerland (6), Croatia (1), USA (6), Italy (22), Belgium (11) and Sweden (2). Benjamin Creme
[FairfieldLife] Re: heyaM duHkham anaagatam?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I have no idea what she meant, thats why I asked you ! The > word she > > > > used, with this strange look in her eyes was "vittu". Should > have > > > > checked it out now that I know the meaning, but there was this > > funny > > > > little american girl... > > > > > > > > > > I guess she was a "lepakko" (bat[woman]), then... ;) > > > Your spelling even "vittu" correctly (let alone "mukava") > > > based on what you once heard seems to suggest your native > > > language is not English, but some other language with > > > a more phonetic spelling. > > > > So you give no credit to 35 years of meditation, eh ? > > Anyway, you are correct :-) > > > > FWIW, "vittu" is probably the most common curse word hereabouts, > roughly corresponding to "fvck (you)". The expression "mukava vittu" > would be a bit idiosyncratic, IMO. It might well have been "mukavaa, > vittu", a sarcastic comment on something, like "nice, fvck you!" I prefer your explanation of a couple of days back :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hi, Lurk
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 2:26 AM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hi, Lurk > > > > Never did. What I said was that not having children is a blessing. > Others will claim that having them is. My observation is only that > brahmacharys are more "awake" than householders. > > Hey, a couple of the most "awake" people I have known were not brahmacharis a friend here in town who has been awake all his life. I know, sleep deprivation is a big problem over here too !
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hi, Lurk
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 2:26 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hi, Lurk Never did. What I said was that not having children is a blessing. Others will claim that having them is. My observation is only that brahmacharys are more "awake" than householders. Hey, a couple of the most “awake” people I have known were not brahmacharis – MMY and a friend here in town who has been awake all his life. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.22/1015 - Release Date: 9/18/2007 11:53 AM
[FairfieldLife] Re: JFK and GWB -- Evolution? Rising World Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I just saw a clip of JFK giving "ask not.." speech. Pure magic, IMO. > Regardless, what you may think of his politics -- I personally liked > many -- not all of his ideas and visions. He was a great speaker, > clear inspiring, articulate and visionary. I know from personal > experience, that he inspired many, 4 years or more older than me, to > join the Peace Corp after high school. Or college. > > And his bother Bobby. i don't really care about their sex lives. He > was incredibly inspiring, and motivational. I never heard him speak > (other than pissing next to him in a tough at a ski resort, and talkng > to him on a bus, across from him, both sitting on edge aisles, at > same resort), but I am still inspired by hippie/ UCB student/great > guy, and friend, Dave, (Tina Kessler a friend of his, and mine, if you > know her -- anthropology phd at UCB -- or fantastic, sweet and > charming, blonde, hippie chid incanrnate of 60's, sister Leala) > probably dead, or maybe netcom billionaire), student at UCB (UC > Bekeley -- the hub of the universe -- or "the Revolution") of Bobby's > speeches at UCB. > > Compare him (RFK or JKF0 to GWB: "um uh, WTF am I supposed to say here > karl" > > Rising world consciosness since MMY startd teachng in US in early > 60's!!! > > Just a thought. Seems to me we may have regressed, backtracked since > the early 60's. Puts all this "rising World Consocuiosnss" to doubt. > (Well, thats my non-dogmatic view-- in the moment. Maybe Nab will show > me the light, the error of my thinking, perceiving. As will Jim.) > And did you hear Bush's speach in Austrailia recently. Seemed like a meltdown in him. We have backtracked some, but don't forget, back in those days, Kennedy was shot, we created Saddam Hussein, the Iranian Ayatollas, and Osama Bin Laden, (high possibility we created AIDS by tinkering with genes in monkeys) as well as made social security part of federal budget reckoning so that it would be less obvious that military spending was more that 50% of the federal budget, an illusion trick which allowed Bush et al to get going in the first place. I decided there I would not accept the theory of rising world consciousness as long as Bush et al are in power. However, I feel some undercurrent of something else. I think there are two flows going in opposite directions, and just like two tectonic plates moving in opposition, it can cause a lot of friction, and tearing apart of our old worldview. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bring it on.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "tertonzeno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -- > Of course!...these were the Anunnaki (the Nephilim or Giants mentioned > in the Bible), who spliced their own DNA onto the uncivilized humanoids > living at that time. The whole account is spelled out in detail in the > works of Secharia Sitchin, beginning with "The Twelfth Planet", 1976. > http://www.halexandria.org/dward185.htm >> Heh, and here's me thinking it was just some new age wacko stuff ;-) OffWorld > - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings > wrote: > > > > Bring it on. > > > > ...OffWorld > > > > http://www.rense.com/general74/d3af.htm > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: heyaM duHkham anaagatam?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 > > wrote: > > > > > > I have no idea what she meant, thats why I asked you ! The word she > > > used, with this strange look in her eyes was "vittu". Should have > > > checked it out now that I know the meaning, but there was this > funny > > > little american girl... > > > > > > > I guess she was a "lepakko" (bat[woman]), then... ;) > > Your spelling even "vittu" correctly (let alone "mukava") > > based on what you once heard seems to suggest your native > > language is not English, but some other language with > > a more phonetic spelling. > > So you give no credit to 35 years of meditation, eh ? > Anyway, you are correct :-) > FWIW, "vittu" is probably the most common curse word hereabouts, roughly corresponding to "fvck (you)". The expression "mukava vittu" would be a bit idiosyncratic, IMO. It might well have been "mukavaa, vittu", a sarcastic comment on something, like "nice, fvck you!"
[FairfieldLife] Citta & manas?
Anyone know what's the difference, if any, between citta and manas?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Aushcwitz employee picnic pics
I think they're meditating. ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bring it on.
Of course! --- tertonzeno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -- > Of course!...these were the Anunnaki (the Nephilim > or Giants mentioned > in the Bible), who spliced their own DNA onto the > uncivilized humanoids > living at that time. The whole account is spelled > out in detail in the > works of Secharia Sitchin, beginning with "The > Twelfth Planet", 1976. > http://www.halexandria.org/dward185.htm > > - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > Bring it on. > > > > ...OffWorld > > > > http://www.rense.com/general74/d3af.htm > > > > > > > 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] > > > Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, and more! http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/3658
[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --Thanks, this is quite obvious if one defines the "me" = "I"; the > notion of a delusional self associated with the mind as an identity > separate from Pure Consciousness. Hridaya puri:I suppose getting the definitions matching is the first thing- small self= Ego which is identity with mind, body, and conditionings. When these things are gone, something is still left, that IS eternal Being. This is why enlightenment has nothing to do with vastu, body, the food you eat, the yagyas one does, the books one reads, the understandings one has. This is the snake that actually is > a rope. The snake doesn't exist "in itself", therefore the "I" or me > in this sense can't get Enlightened. Hridaya puri:This is why ego and enlightenment can not exist at the same time > But nobody on this forum is saying that the "Me" CAN gain > Realization, Hridaya puri:Look closer so what's so special about your Guru? > nothing- that is why there is hardly any disciples- people are attracted to a super human that performs siddhis, bases doership to save the world as it's platform, can't be contacted, speaks in very complicated double speak terms that no one understands and therefore is thought to be great, out to save the world, usually is Indian and wearing robes, with guru chairs in every corner of the world- with millions of disciples, famous, with castles, limos, and promisis a bigger grander you with cosmic ego which is such an important one that without you and all the fellow students, the world would die a quick death. When one has all these concepts which they have read about, then come across one that is none of the above, there is a disconnect. As you see, I have taken sanyas, my new name is Hridaya puri
[FairfieldLife] Mantras, meditation and deities
emptybill wrote: Over the years I have heard an argument professed by some former TM meditators who stopped practicing because they claimed they were deceived about the "meaning" of mantra-s. Empty again: Baba Hari Dass is an impeccable yogin possessed of vairagya and dispossessed of any agenda. He is the "yogin's yogin". My point was to call attention to an alternate authoritative source - someone able to explain the distinction between mantra-dhyana and mantra-japa. The key is to recognize that a mantra can be used in meditation simply for its sound value, without any reference to meaning. While this may seem over-obvious to TM and Sahaj Samadhi meditators, this is what demarcates it from ordinary language. Used in this way, mantric sound is part of the human sensorium but is self-generated in the same way that speech is. This kind of bare sensoria is non-conceptual and does not require analysis to be perceived. Bija mantras are yogic tools for just this type of non-conceptual (nirvikalpa) direct cognition. The fact is that MMY told us the truth about mantras and their proper yogic use in TM. The cultural artifact is that Indians use mantras for Japa to a hindu deity - it is just a datum of the Indian mind set. No self-respecting "Hindu" conducts their life without a least 20-30 mantras on-hand at all times (except the Indian communists). TM/Sahaj Samadhi meditators do not, unless they choose to worship a deva. When someone tells us such meditation is hindu worship then they are simply misinformed, ignorant or ideologues.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hi, Lurk
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Re: Marrying and Having Children: > > Nablus: > If having them does not shift attention away from meditation to > diapers, as it obviously did for the original poster, then why not. > To have them can't ruin your spiritual life if you don't want an > excuse to quit. > > Lurk: > Nab, I want to have another shot at this. I would say that there > comes a point where marrying or having children, or eating certain > food, or engaging in certain behavior just doesn't have the oomf to > throw one off the spiritual path. Agreed. For some it obviously is so timeconsuming and tiering that medtation is out of the question, for others having children is as natural as eating. For some having them provides plenty of excuses for not meditating. Perhaps you hold that only through > meditation and certain types of activity can progress be made. No I don't. There is a force in nature that draws all men upward like in a spiral, towards higher expressions of the Divine, closer and closer to Godhead. But > IMHO it's a pretty tricky thing to make evaluations or judgements > about the path another person is on. Never did. What I said was that not having children is a blessing. Others will claim that having them is. My observation is only that brahmacharys are more "awake" than householders. Perhaps some are weaker and needs to be brahmacharys to gain a momentum in life, or is it the other way around ? I am certainly not out to put any lifestyle higher or lower. My father obviously was a householder and I consider him a saint of some sort. What I sometimes wonder is where he would be if he did not have to deal with me and my sister ;-) Speculations, but it's an interesting one for me at times. Numerous Masters were (are) hoseholders and Maharishi gave this path specifically to householders. Obviously what may unsuitable > for you could be "evolutionary" for another. Definately. > > That's not to say there isn't plenty of risk when you jump off the > prescribed path. There are plenty of traps. But, sometimes you find > a shortcut if the quicksand or crocs don't get you. I've experienced that too after leaving Purusha, it's amazing how possebilities in all sorts of directions present themselves :-) "All is well - all manner of things are well." - Maharishi
[FairfieldLife] JFK and GWB -- Evolution? Rising World Consciousness?
I just saw a clip of JFK giving "ask not.." speech. Pure magic, IMO. Regardless, what you may think of his politics -- I personally liked many -- not all of his ideas and visions. He was a great speaker, clear inspiring, articulate and visionary. I know from personal experience, that he inspired many, 4 years or more older than me, to join the Peace Corp after high school. Or college. And his bother Bobby. i don't really care about their sex lives. He was incredibly inspiring, and motivational. I never heard him speak (other than pissing next to him in a tough at a ski resort, and talkng to him on a bus, across from him, both sitting on edge aisles, at same resort), but I am still inspired by hippie/ UCB student/great guy, and friend, Dave, (Tina Kessler a friend of his, and mine, if you know her -- anthropology phd at UCB -- or fantastic, sweet and charming, blonde, hippie chid incanrnate of 60's, sister Leala) probably dead, or maybe netcom billionaire), student at UCB (UC Bekeley -- the hub of the universe -- or "the Revolution") of Bobby's speeches at UCB. Compare him (RFK or JKF0 to GWB: "um uh, WTF am I supposed to say here karl" Rising world consciosness since MMY startd teachng in US in early 60's!!! Just a thought. Seems to me we may have regressed, backtracked since the early 60's. Puts all this "rising World Consocuiosnss" to doubt. (Well, thats my non-dogmatic view-- in the moment. Maybe Nab will show me the light, the error of my thinking, perceiving. As will Jim.)
