[FairfieldLife] Re: tumeric helps prevent brain plaque
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 My coffee substitute, sort of, is The New Swedish O'boy cocoa with inuline(sp?), to which (cocoa) I add some turmeric, cinnamon and cardamom. Kicks ass!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Citta manas?
On Sep 19, 2007, at 8:17 AM, cardemaister wrote: Anyone know what's the difference, if any, between citta and manas Citta and manas are container and contents respectively. Citta is the entire mind-field (antah-karana) which include the manas, the buddhi, ahamkara.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization
Comment below: --- 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. Of course this is done! It's mere convention. But your name and the personal pronoun, I don't experientially refer to anything. The question then becomes, what is the nature of this (b) I...; is it/he/she simply saying something that has no reality? No. Actually, yes. When you say I in Realization you aren't refering to anything at all within your own experience. There is no phenomenological or experiential I to refer to. When you try to do this there absolutely nothing. 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. I don't know what your experience is with this, but you seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it too, as it were. Since in Realization there is no I that is experienced you can't speak of it being non-substantial or not having an in-itself reality. All this makes no sense because there is absolutely nothing there to refer too. There is only consciousness which is completely unlocalized. What are you talking about? 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. Of course, but this is not you any longer. It just occurs, like the weather. 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. How can an I exist in a wold of non-duality that by definition is non-dual? 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 is a lingusitic notion in Realization that has no phenomenological reality in Realization. It's a relative body/mind! Absolutely incorrect. Thus, to answer your question, an I exists after Enlightenment, No it doesn't. 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 capacity to interact socially, to perform actions with the mind,etc., are relative components as you say, but in Realization these certainly do continue, but there is no identification with them as you or me or I. They just occur on their own as they did before Realization. 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. Agree with this. 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. No, Ron's guru is correct. 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. You are creating a conceptual distinction that makes no difference. How can there be a ...holgraphic 'I' nondifferent from the Absolute continuum.? If it was nondifferent there is no distinction and it is therefore the same. You seem to be trying to intellectually resolve the problem of individuality in Realization because you are confounding consciousness with the phenomenological/experiential I of waking state. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, qntmpkt
[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- 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. Of course this is done! It's mere convention. But your name and the personal pronoun, I don't experientially refer to anything. The question then becomes, what is the nature of this (b) I...; is it/he/she simply saying something that has no reality? No. Actually, yes. When you say I in Realization you aren't refering to anything at all within your own experience. There is no phenomenological or experiential I to refer to. When you try to do this there absolutely nothing. 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. I don't know what your experience is with this, but you seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it too, as it were. Since in Realization there is no I that is experienced you can't speak of it being non-substantial or not having an in-itself reality. All this makes no sense because there is absolutely nothing there to refer too. There is only consciousness which is completely unlocalized. What are you talking about? And why? :-) I've been staying out of this whole discussion because I honestly think it falls into the category of discussion that the Tao Te Ching nailed so well: Those who know don't say; those who say don't know. As an exercise in trying to express the inex- pressible, I guess it's fun for some people. But *all* of the descriptions are wrong. The map is not the territory. So I really don't get off much these days on discussing maps and trying to decide which of them is more accurate or less accurate. To me they are *all* inaccurate, every last one of them, even those drawn by the supposedly-enlightened. *Especially* those drawn by the supposedly- enlightened, who should have known better. For me, the attributes of enlightenment are best demonstrated, not talked about. Those here who have worked with teachers who can shift you *into* the states of consciousness they're pointing to, even if only temporarily, can then have somewhat meaningful discussions with their students. In that case, it's like, Ok, now that we're all here, look around. Notice that this thing (or concept) doesn't look the way (or seem the way) it did before. From this state of consciousness I might call that thing (or concept) X. You might call it Y. But right here, right now, isn't the thing (or concept) kinda neat? Transmission (or empowerment) kinda cuts through the crap of language and its inability to express the inexpressible. It also cuts through the crap of the intellect, in that one doesn't have to try to imagine what is being discussed; it is here and now, part of one's experience. In a way, it's the thing that Ron keeps harping on, but never seems to understand. Is this person speaking from Being, or about it? That is not the real question in these matters IMO, because even if the person speaking is speaking from the level of Being or enlightenment, they are attempting the impossible -- to describe infinity in finite terms. Whatever their state of consciousness may be, whatever they say will *still* be wrong. The question IMO is more about Are you listening/ experiencing from Being, or only listening to some- one talk about it? If the latter, you're in some- what of a permanent pickle. You may convince your- self that you've understood, but you haven't. It can't be understood, only experienced.
[FairfieldLife] Most science studies appear to be tainted by sloppy analysis
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118972683557627104.html?mod=blog Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Citta manas?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 19, 2007, at 8:17 AM, cardemaister wrote: Anyone know what's the difference, if any, between citta and manas Citta and manas are container and contents respectively. Citta is the entire mind-field (antah-karana) which include the manas, the buddhi, ahamkara. Correct, and to embellish... When the 'chitta' becomes, like a lamp which does not flicker in a windless place MMY Gita 6vs19, it reveals the 'undistorted' beauty of its' surroundings, i.e. pure consciousness. Chitta signifies that aspect of the mind which is a quiet and silent collection of impressions, or seeds of desires. Chitta is like water without ripples, it is called 'manas' or mind when ripples arise. MMY Gita 6vs19 When the chitta is agitated by latent desires (subconscious) it cannot reveal the beauty of its surrounding, much like a flickering candle only poorly reveals its surroundings. Chitta, vritti, nirodaPatanjali. Still (niroda) the whirlpools (vrittis) in the chitta (mind/feeling) or as Christ put it, Be still and know that I am God.
[FairfieldLife] Spanish Mind, Beginner's Mind
In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's there are few. - Shunryo Suzuki-Roshi There are few things more beneficial in terms of both the development of humility and the development of a sense of humor than being a beginner. You walk into a classroom and leave all of who you are and what you have convinced yourself along the Way that you know at the door. Once inside the room, you learn very quickly that you are a beginner. Again. And I don't know about you guys, but for me that's really a delightful experience. I am taking a Spanish class. A beginner's Spanish class. Even though I lived close to the Mexican border for many years, my interest in and mastery of the Spanish language was pretty much limited to asking for a cervesa or for the servicios. Fortunately those two terms kinda go together, so I got by all these years without having to know more. But now I find myself living in Spain, and having to come up to speed on Spanish fairly quickly, in order to do ordinary things like get a phone line and ADSL installed, buy food, and basically just live. So I signed up for a short, intensive course here in Sitges during the mornings, and it's just been a wonderful experience in Beginner's Mind. There are only six people in the class -- myself and my best friend (American), three young Germans (two au pairs and a fellow who does tech support for H-P), and an English woman who has lived here for two years and is just now getting around to learning Spanish. It's been a non-stop laugh fest. We all make such *stupid* mistakes -- ALL of us -- that there is simply no room in the classroom for ego, only laughter. And the laughter can be over the silliest things. The other day we were having a discussion about what kinds of peliculas we like to watch. The broken Spanish was flying around the table, but I noticed that my friend Laurel was sitting there with a puzzled expression on her face, not contributing. Well, it turns out that she hadn't caught the definition of the word peliculas (movies), and was trying to map it to the only cognate word she could think of from French, pelicule. And that means dandruff. So she was sitting there the whole time we were talking, thinking that we were having a lively and animated discussion about which kinds of dandruff we like to watch. Then there was the morning we discussed food, and the topic segued from types of meats (carnes) to types of vegetables (verduras). Nicole, the cute German au pair, missed the segue, so when the word alcachofas came up, she got the same puzzled expression on her face. A few people in the room didn't know what the term meant (artichokes), so the teacher was trying to describe them in beginner's Spanish. Nicole was sitting there looking more and more puzzled, because (as it turns out) she was trying to imagine what kind of animal was the source of a foodstuff that was green and had all sorts of spiky things all over it and that you ate by pulling off pieces of it with your fingers. She was imagining galloping herds of alcachofas, probably tended by alcachofaboys riding horses and wearing gaucho hats. The merriment just doesn't stop, and that makes the learning process easy. It's almost as if the first step *to* learning easily is to realize that you are an absolute beginner, and that thus it is permissible to make mistakes, to allow others to laugh at you when you make those mistakes, and to join in the laughter and laugh at yourself when you make the mistakes. Oh, that we all had more of that same Beginner's Mind more of the time in other discussions...
[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realiza
Barry writes snipped: Transmission (or empowerment) kinda cuts through the crap of language and its inability to express the inexpressible. It also cuts through the crap of the intellect, in that one doesn't have to try to imagine what is being discussed; it is here and now, part of one's experience. Tom T: Patanjali last verse of chapter 3. When the translucent intellect is as clear as the Self, There is Enlightenment. Doesn't seem like a crappy intellect to me. My experience is the intellect is the finest level of discrimination. That is the job of the intellect. The only way one can know the here and now is the finest discriminating aspect of the intellect. It is also my experience that the process of talking about IT brings IT into the relative so others can notice IT. The words become 100% IT and are the process for others to notice and become at home with IT. Tom
[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realiza
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Barry writes snipped: Transmission (or empowerment) kinda cuts through the crap of language and its inability to express the inexpressible. It also cuts through the crap of the intellect, in that one doesn't have to try to imagine what is being discussed; it is here and now, part of one's experience. Tom T: Patanjali last verse of chapter 3. When the translucent intellect is as clear as the Self, There is Enlightenment. Doesn't seem like a crappy intellect to me. My experience is the intellect is the finest level of discrimination. That is the job of the intellect. The only way one can know the here and now is the finest discriminating aspect of the intellect. It is also my experience that the process of talking about IT brings IT into the relative so others can notice IT. The words become 100% IT and are the process for others to notice and become at home with IT. Tom While you are free to have this opinion, I do not share it. I do not believe that there is ever a point at which the words become 100% IT. Only IT is IT. IT cannot be captured in words. What *can* happen is that the words become a kind of finger pointing at the moon. The magic (the IT) is the moon, *not* the words trying to describe it. But someone can *intuit* the real moon through the words, get a kind of hit on it. *That* IMO is what becomes lively. It isn't the words that create the liveliness or that really describe accurately the IT being talked about. It's more like the *process* of IT being talked about is what creates the liveliness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Citta manas?
Awesome post, Call me simple, but this post clarified some recent experiences in a major way. Thanks Billy! Correct, and to embellish... When the 'chitta' becomes, like a lamp which does not flicker in a windless place MMY Gita 6vs19, it reveals the 'undistorted' beauty of its' surroundings, i.e. pure consciousness. Chitta signifies that aspect of the mind which is a quiet and silent collection of impressions, or seeds of desires. Chitta is like water without ripples, it is called 'manas' or mind when ripples arise. MMY Gita 6vs19 When the chitta is agitated by latent desires (subconscious) it cannot reveal the beauty of its surrounding, much like a flickering candle only poorly reveals its surroundings. Chitta, vritti, nirodaPatanjali. Still (niroda) the whirlpools (vrittis) in the chitta (mind/feeling) or as Christ put it, Be still and know that I am God.
[FairfieldLife] The Guru Looked Good
Hilarious yet saddening blog of a former SYDA/Gurumayi insider. http://the-guru-looked-good.blogspot.com/ Here's chapter One (it's up to chapter 45 now): http://the-guru-looked-good.blogspot.com/2007/04/in-backseat.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization
For Now, I am having my fun. I have told my Guru what I am up to. I am speaking from my own experiences as well which I have the opinion have an effect to move one faster in the path, and the reason I attirbute is because of working directly with the living guru- one to one. By comparison, those on their own, which are many, appear to think they are accessing deeper levels than what is actually the case. They will not hear one word of it if it comes to letting them know that what they think they are accessing is not there yet because there is still a me in place. This is the casualty of taking techniques and running with them, the the guru handing them out and dissappearing. There is more than one Sat guru that will to work with students- although wouldn't be surprised if that offer today is withdrawn tomorrow- and the guru is not willing to accept new students, such as what appears to possibly happen in my path. The reason is stemming from that bible quote about casting the pearl of great price before swine or however that goes With regard to some of Barry's comments, the words, pointings, discussions are not for the enlightened, it is for those who dont know, and yes written by those who also dont know such as myself. So it is understandable if one wants to ignore it, but there also may be other reasons for ignoring it as well --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: --- tanhlnx tanhlnx@ 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. Of course this is done! It's mere convention. But your name and the personal pronoun, I don't experientially refer to anything. The question then becomes, what is the nature of this (b) I...; is it/he/she simply saying something that has no reality? No. Actually, yes. When you say I in Realization you aren't refering to anything at all within your own experience. There is no phenomenological or experiential I to refer to. When you try to do this there absolutely nothing. 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. I don't know what your experience is with this, but you seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it too, as it were. Since in Realization there is no I that is experienced you can't speak of it being non-substantial or not having an in-itself reality. All this makes no sense because there is absolutely nothing there to refer too. There is only consciousness which is completely unlocalized. What are you talking about? And why? :-) I've been staying out of this whole discussion because I honestly think it falls into the category of discussion that the Tao Te Ching nailed so well: Those who know don't say; those who say don't know. As an exercise in trying to express the inex- pressible, I guess it's fun for some people. But *all* of the descriptions are wrong. The map is not the territory. So I really don't get off much these days on discussing maps and trying to decide which of them is more accurate or less accurate. To me they are *all* inaccurate, every last one of them, even those drawn by the supposedly-enlightened. *Especially* those drawn by the supposedly- enlightened, who should have known better. For me, the attributes of enlightenment are best demonstrated, not talked about. Those here who have worked with teachers who can shift you *into* the states of consciousness they're pointing to, even if only temporarily, can then have somewhat meaningful discussions with their students. In that case, it's like, Ok, now that we're all here, look around. Notice that this thing (or concept) doesn't look the way (or seem the way) it did before. From this state of consciousness I might call that thing (or concept) X. You might call it Y. But right here, right now, isn't the thing (or concept) kinda neat? Transmission (or empowerment) kinda cuts through the crap of language and its inability to express the inexpressible. It also cuts through the crap of the intellect, in that one doesn't have to try to imagine what is being discussed; it is here and now, part of one's experience. In a way, it's the thing that Ron keeps harping on, but never seems to understand. Is this person speaking from Being, or about it? That is not the real question in these matters IMO, because even if the person speaking is speaking from the level of Being or enlightenment, they are
[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realiza
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Barry writes snipped: Transmission (or empowerment) kinda cuts through the crap of language and its inability to express the inexpressible. It also cuts through the crap of the intellect, in that one doesn't have to try to imagine what is being discussed; it is here and now, part of one's experience. Tom T: Patanjali last verse of chapter 3. When the translucent intellect is as clear as the Self, There is Enlightenment. Doesn't seem like a crappy intellect to me. My experience is the intellect is the finest level of discrimination. That is the job of the intellect. The only way one can know the here and now is the finest discriminating aspect of the intellect. It is also my experience that the process of talking about IT brings IT into the relative so others can notice IT. The words become 100% IT and are the process for others to notice and become at home with IT. Tom I Agree. There is doubtless some frustration that comes from trying to understand descriptions of Self Realization when the experience is not yet permanent, yet I have found the descriptions very valuable on both sides of my experience. And by definition, such descriptions do bring the experience of Self Realization into the relative, straight from the source. To Barry's point, I have also become frustrated at descriptions of Self Realization, in lieu of experience, before the experience became permanent, and at those times felt as he does, that the words were just dry and not bringing with them any satisfaction at all. During those times I found it helpful to just respond to the dharma of the seeker, set all talk of Reality aside, and gain some 'street cred', do something active for awhile, and evaluate all of the descriptions of Self Realization again, later, once I had some fresh experience. Just as all experience and no intellectual understanding won't aid the process, such is also the case with too much theory and not enough practice.:-)
[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. [snip] We must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient that we are only 6 percent of the world's population; that we cannot impose our will upon the other 94 percent of mankind; that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity; and therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem. ~~ President John F Kennedy - from his speech delivered at the University of Washington in Seattle, November 16th, 1961 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=8448
[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization
Well Peter , your comments look quite correct here, and those in my path, even the ones in the midst of the journey, would recognize this, I think It has it's own characteristics, sometimes people speak of truth in a complicated way but it is the same truth regardless- so then maybe those who have an affinity with complicated expressions will have an appeal to it expressed that way but it doesn't matter While in the journey, it certainly doesnt have to be dull. Actually, just having taken sanyas, there were times while gathered together that I was laughing so hard, I thought I would drop the body. Interesting comment about laughter from the Gurus here is that there is no me in the midst of it, was told to laugh as hard as i like. After hearing this, I did notice this here in LA at a trafic light while with a fellow sadaka and also new sanyasi Many of the jokes you have written- i am not sure what it means, what the attempt is in writting them, etc but if it makes you happy , go ahead. My fellow sadakas know that insights into the reality is not it, for IT alone IS, but also One speaking from this IS will not miss the mark. Kundalini is not spoken much about from Guru's - I passed the most recent Kundalini commets that surfaced to some of the gurus here- I can say that MMY's comments do not match my experience- and give the opinion that his pointings are not correct or usefull. I am getting the same opinions from the Guru's here but will let the forum know when more come up. And peter, when your Kundalini comment was responded to , then you responded with what I think was unclear non sense, well, if the writtings in the post here are from this level of One, then hope this continues in all the responses. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Comment below: --- 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. Of course this is done! It's mere convention. But your name and the personal pronoun, I don't experientially refer to anything. The question then becomes, what is the nature of this (b) I...; is it/he/she simply saying something that has no reality? No. Actually, yes. When you say I in Realization you aren't refering to anything at all within your own experience. There is no phenomenological or experiential I to refer to. When you try to do this there absolutely nothing. 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. I don't know what your experience is with this, but you seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it too, as it were. Since in Realization there is no I that is experienced you can't speak of it being non-substantial or not having an in-itself reality. All this makes no sense because there is absolutely nothing there to refer too. There is only consciousness which is completely unlocalized. What are you talking about? 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. Of course, but this is not you any longer. It just occurs, like the weather. 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. How can an I exist in a wold of non-duality that by definition is non-dual? 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 is a lingusitic notion in Realization that has no phenomenological reality in Realization. It's a relative body/mind! Absolutely incorrect. Thus, to answer your question, an I exists after Enlightenment, No it doesn't. 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Perfect House
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, suziezuzie msilver1951@ wrote: If you could afford the perfect house, price being no obsticle, in a perfect location, that looked fantastic on the outside and like, 'wow' on the inside, built with the best materials, with the most expensive upgrades, with a killer view to the ocean or mountains or deserts, or anywhere you liked, but had a south entrance, would you buy it? OF COURSE!:-) Of course too! To much silly voodo in all this vastu crap. Plus the average greenfield built MSV house in ffld is made with toxic materials and very cheaply - lots of problems pop up soon. But fflders pay a huge premium because it's supposedly vastu.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mantras, meditation and deities
bill wrote: When someone tells us such meditation is hindu worship then they are simply misinformed, ignorant or ideologues. For clarity, here is a definition of mantra, according to Swami Ageananda Bharati: A mantra is a quasi-morpheme or a series of quasi-morphemes, or a series of mixed genuine and quasi-morphemes arranged in conventional patterns, based on codified esoteric traditions, and passed on from one preceptor to one disciple in the course of a prescribed initiation ritual. According to Swami Ageananda, this definition does not include any reference to the purpose or purposes of mantra, for the statement of purpose is a material statement, which must be excluded from a definition, which is a set of formal propositions of exception less validity. If there is a single exception to a statement, then that statement forfeits its claim to being a definition. As there is a conceivable exception with regard to the purpose of mantra, purpose could not be included. Work Cited: 'The Tantric Tradition' Swami Ageananda Bharati Rider, 1965
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Perfect House
In a message dated 9/20/07 11:18:44 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Plus the average greenfield built MSV house in ffld is made with toxic materials and very cheaply - lots of problems pop up soon. But fflders pay a huge premium because it's supposedly vastu. As are the Peace Palaces. ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
[FairfieldLife] Women -- the first terrorists
Women rule. And they'll continue to rule forever, and it's been that way from the beginningest beginning. There's a female presence -- ancient, devious, powerful, spell casting -- with a fort, an outpost, in every speck of you. Yes, ancient and creepy -- hoary comes to mind -- but with a different spelling. Proof: mitochondria. It's time to lay the cards on the table. Time for males-in-jails everywhere to rise up and confront the tyranny of their female ovum-lords. The Jews had it figured. If yer mommy's not a Jew, you're not a Jew. All my mitochrondria, all of them, one or more of them in each cell of my body, are from my mother. And all of hers were from her mother. All of yours from your mother. Every cell in your brain has a mommy thingy that don't take no guff from the cell's DNA -- the barcalounging master of the castle. Dads are drones. What are mitochondria? Here's the tell: mitochondria hold the purse strings of cell metabolism -- they create most of the cell's money, ATP, which the cells use to do work. Mitochondria have their own DNA -- nothing from Dad. What mitochondria do is their business, Dad's genes are as sterile as Levi jeans, and they don't have any say-so when it comes to what happens inside mitochondria. Mitochondria are ancient and everywhere, almost -- very few cells on planet earth are lacking mitochondria. Mitochondria are theorized to once have been bacteria that invaded cells, and the cells made a deal with the devil, surrendered to endosymbiosis, put up with them because of the ATP dowry that mitochondria brought to the wedding. With mitochondria the cells could have about 10 times more energy produced/available from the same food sources. What do the mitochondria get out of the deal? That's the question. Whatever a female wants from a male, that's what mitochondria get from the cells. Think about it; get back to me when you're as appalled by this truth as I am. What does the mitochondria get out of the deal? A very long list presents itself -- I mean, what would you charge any business person if you could increase their profits ten-fold? Would you ask for an arm and a leg? Yep. Mitochondria ask for that and more. They get the whole body; every cell of you is on its knees waiting for the next paycheck of ATP molecules. Men of earth -- you're all mommy's boys. Fathers of earth -- you never had any children. Eve had Adam at A. (TP was the other three legs of the table.) Hey, it's Maharishi's lecture on Aaaah again! Given how subtle the workings of nature are, given how information dense DNA can be, given how there's no such thing as a free lunch, given how the tune of the piper is a paid performance, the stealth mama's pig in a poke may be having its marching orders muffled by the mitochondrion's outer membrane, but the cell hears them very well. Do what mommy says, or die. I think every woman on earth resonates with endosymbiosis. The motto: Have male(s) build home/nest/cell, enter home, arrange the furniture any way I want. All the new age talk about alien implants. Well, news flash, it happened 200,000 years ago when Ms Mitochondria, Eve the Implant, moved in. Since then, every human being has had a copy of her independent brain in every cell. Hers!!! Not your Dad's, hers, hardly changed at all by evolution, hers handed to your mom's mom's mom's mom's etc. and down the line until your mom injected her mom into every bit of you. Why did Bush invade Iraq? He's not telling. Same deal when Eve held a shotgun to a male brain and said, Wanna get married? Pandora's box is a corruption of this concept. In actuality, males opened their boxes and let Pandora and all HER STUFF INSIDE! Freud is spinning in his grave. What are these femmys up to? I don't trust them. Talk about an invasion of privacy. I feel icky, creepified, grossed out. I'm now know what Ellen Ripley felt like at the end of the film Alien 3. I've got cooties, my cellphone calls are being spied upon by Eve the Stith Cheney-Vadar. Big Momma will never leave the building. All mitochondria are shes and hers and mams and mums. She agendas, her orders, mam's wants, mum's needs. I think I'm going to cough out a swear word. She, she, she, she. Sheesh! Edg
[FairfieldLife] Trick or Treat?
The other day there was some religious dude handing out fliers about how evil Halloween is and how Satan is taking over the world, blah, blah, blah. I heard the spiel as I walked pass that he gave someone else and figured if he tried to lay that trip on me I was going to tell him to look around, look at the sky, look at me and look at himself. All that he can see and that he can't see is God. Satan is the ego trying to keep him from seeing it. Jesus? Well he was just many of the teachers who taught this very thing. It's that simple. But all he did was hand me his propaganda and didn't engage in any talk.
[FairfieldLife] I saw my first Gestapo van this morning
Yup, just as I was leaving downtown from my stop at Starbucks here comes a Homeland Security van. It is the first one I've seen around here and I thought, here's the Gestapo. The bun hoppers must not be doing too well as fascism still seems to be on the rise with thugs turned cops tasering people, etc. People don't seem to care as long as they can keep driving their big pickup trucks and SUVs and watch American Idol and football. Pathetic sheep.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I saw my first Gestapo van this morning
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yup, just as I was leaving downtown from my stop at Starbucks here comes a Homeland Security van. It is the first one I've seen around here and I thought, here's the Gestapo. The bun hoppers must not be doing too well as fascism still seems to be on the rise with thugs turned cops tasering people, etc. People don't seem to care as long as they can keep driving their big pickup trucks and SUVs and watch American Idol and football. Pathetic sheep. Hey ! Back off of football. ;) Have you noticed the latest O. J. incident's effect on the media? There's such excitement in the air, with top of the hour reports chronicaling O. J.'s every move, as though he were still carrying a football and trying to escape justice in the same move. Once he stopped carrying a football, he disappeared from my radar. The media are excited because they smell another long, ratings bonanza as they sniff his shorts in pursuit. How boring. Pathetic, you bet.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mantras, meditation and deities
Herr Leo Fischer, the Austrian Sanskritist, was one of a handful of European academics to throw aside his scholastic robes and assume the robes of a Dashanami Swami. It was rather remarkable for his day but now, unfortunately, any California Hausfrau can do the same The text you quoted below was the first serious study of mantra by an Orientalist. However, his qualifications were strictly academic - not spiritual nor a mix of both. He was, after all, the person who grandly declared Ramana Maharshi to be nothing but a crashing bore. Agehananda put on Ochre robes because it gave him access in India to many people who wouldn't usually talk to a Westerner about tantric traditions. In this way he broke new ground. However, after all these years, his works are no longer a main resource in defining mantra, although his works are still widely cited. One thing to note is that his definition of mantra, as given below, is now just one academic opinion among others. Among those other opinions are claims that mantras can only be evaluated by their purpose for use. Thus, even if mantra syllables have no meaning as such, they can still be defined by how they are used in ritual speech acts or meditative practice. empty Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: bill wrote: When someone tells us such meditation is hindu worship then they are simply misinformed, ignorant or ideologues. For clarity, here is a definition of mantra, according to Swami Ageananda Bharati: A mantra is a quasi-morpheme or a series of quasi-morphemes, or a series of mixed genuine and quasi-morphemes arranged in conventional patterns, based on codified esoteric traditions, and passed on from one preceptor to one disciple in the course of a prescribed initiation ritual. According to Swami Ageananda, this definition does not include any reference to the purpose or purposes of mantra, for the statement of purpose is a material statement, which must be excluded from a definition, which is a set of formal propositions of exception less validity. If there is a single exception to a statement, then that statement forfeits its claim to being a definition. As there is a conceivable exception with regard to the purpose of mantra, purpose could not be included. Work Cited: 'The Tantric Tradition' Swami Ageananda Bharati Rider, 1965 - Don't let your dream ride pass you by.Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Trick or Treat?
The world is your mirror. MMY --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The other day there was some religious dude handing out fliers about how evil Halloween is and how Satan is taking over the world, blah, blah, blah. I heard the spiel as I walked pass that he gave someone else and figured if he tried to lay that trip on me I was going to tell him to look around, look at the sky, look at me and look at himself. All that he can see and that he can't see is God. Satan is the ego trying to keep him from seeing it. Jesus? Well he was just many of the teachers who taught this very thing. It's that simple. But all he did was hand me his propaganda and didn't engage in any talk.
[FairfieldLife]
For the first time, last weekend I went to a Jesuit-run Catholic retreat at a Jesuit retreat house. It was in a beautiful pastoral setting and the weather was gorgeous, too. It was attended by about 45 other men, most of whom have attended annual weekend retreats there for many of the 50 years the facility has existed. Silence was the feature of the retreat, including mealtime, but there were occasions of group discussion. The key realization of the retreat for me was how my TM practice over the past 33 years cultured an appropriate condition that prepares one for emergence of a personal relationship with .. you know who, and also his Son. I am delighted at the emerging, personal relationship. For the first time, I have personal dialogue during prayer. I consider this to be very significant, and am thankful for the guidance of the Jesuit's, and the
[FairfieldLife]
For the first time, last weekend I went to a Jesuit-run Catholic retreat at a Jesuit retreat house. It was in a beautiful pastoral setting and the weather was gorgeous, too. It was attended by about 45 other men, most of whom have attended annual weekend retreats there for many of the 50 years the facility has existed. Silence was the feature of the retreat, including mealtime, but there were occasions of group discussion. The key realization of the retreat for me was how my TM practice over the past 33 years cultured an appropriate condition that prepares one for emergence of a personal relationship with .. you know who, and also his Son. I am delighted at the emerging, personal relationship. For the first time, I have personal dialogue during prayer. I consider this to be very significant, and am thankful for the guidance of the Jesuit's, and the
[FairfieldLife] My first real night living in Sitges
Sun down, work over the dogs and I walk barepaw on the beach and watch the half moon rise And from somewhere out at sea we hear the sound of cosmic chillout music carried on the wind Rhythm section provided by pounding surf and the white noise drone of waves caressing the shore Over which sirens are singing softly Odysseus unbound I listen to their song and walk home to write this for Penelope I think I'm going to like living in Sitges. Yeah, I have technically been here for some time, but I really haven't had the ability until tonight to really Be Here. I've had to balance the moving to a new country and a new lifestyle and...well...a new life with 60-70 hour workweeks. I'm still living out of suitcases and boxes. Suffice it to say that this is not my usual way of moving to a new place. I'm an occultist -- whenever I move to a new place, and a new life, I usually have my new house impeccable, in a Castandean sense, within a week or so. But nooo. Not here. Work intervened. So here I sit tonight in a lovely apartment with a lovely garden, chilling out as the sirens urged me to do, but within an apartment decorated in a style once described aptly by Architectural Digest as Early Cardboard Box. But tonight my long, grueling tech writing project is put to bed, and (so far) sleeping peacefully. I can relax. And so, I am. I took a long, ambling walk with my friend's dogs down the beach. And with each step my smile widened, and my step lightened, and more of my inner slumbering selves woke up. It's a nice place, here. If you can Be Here, and Now, that is. I think I'm going to like living in Sitges.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Women -- the first terrorists
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Women rule. And? And they'll continue to rule forever, and it's been that way from the beginningest beginning. And? There's a female presence -- ancient, devious, powerful, spell casting -- with a fort, an outpost, in every speck of you. Yes, ancient and creepy -- hoary comes to mind -- but with a different spelling. Proof: mitochondria. It's time to lay the cards on the table. Time for males-in-jails everywhere to rise up and confront the tyranny of their female ovum-lords. This may be one of those meat robot things that I simply can't grok, man. Males in jails? No WAY, dude. I thank whatever I thank for every one of the moments in which some woman sucked my attention down the rabbit hole. I always came out the other end with a new per- spective, and a new set of great stories to tell. What is not to like about that?
[FairfieldLife] Catholic Retreat Houses, and other related topics...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For the first time, last weekend I went to a Jesuit-run Catholic retreat at a Jesuit retreat house. It was in a beautiful pastoral setting and the weather was gorgeous, too. It was attended by about 45 other men, most of whom have attended annual weekend retreats there for many of the 50 years the facility has existed. Silence was the feature of the retreat, including mealtime, but there were occasions of group discussion. The key realization of the retreat for me was how my TM practice over the past 33 years cultured an appropriate condition that prepares one for emergence of a personal relationship with .. you know who, and also his Son. I am delighted at the emerging, personal relationship. For the first time, I have personal dialogue during prayer. I consider this to be very significant, and am thankful for the guidance of the Jesuit's, and the Whoever... Nice story. Back when I was being a State Coordinator for the TMO up in Washington and Oregon, I got to teach a few TM residence at a Catholic Retreat House in (I think) Oregon. I've forgotten the name of the place now, but it was just *wonderful*. I'm not sure which Catholic order ran the place, but silence was the rule there, too. Wonderful. We TMers didn't seem to intrude on their lives; we didn't seem to intrude on theirs. The place had a library designed by a famous (again, it's many years ago, so 'I think') Finnish architect, one of his few buildings in America. It's famous in architect- ural circles because (given the daily schedule of the monks who use it) it has no artificial lighting. And the level of light is measurably brighter *inside* the building than outside. Like Le Corbusier, this guy was famous for designing windows that reflected and ampli- fied the natural light such that the end product was actually brighter than the light from outside that had created it. Neat place. I didn't feel a personal relationship with Jesus (or even Maharishi) when I taught there. I felt a personal relationship with space, and light, and the effective use of both.
Re: [FairfieldLife] I saw my first Gestapo van this morning
In a message dated 9/20/07 2:30:03 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yup, just as I was leaving downtown from my stop at Starbucks here comes a Homeland Security van. It is the first one I've seen around here and I thought, here's the Gestapo. The bun hoppers must not be doing too well as fascism still seems to be on the rise with thugs turned cops tasering people, etc. People don't seem to care as long as they can keep driving their big pickup trucks and SUVs and watch American Idol and football. Pathetic sheep. When you drink your cup of Starbuck's , you're paying for the exploitation of some dirt poor coffee bean picker somewhere. So I guess we are all pathetic sheep in some way or another. ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I saw my first Gestapo van this morning
In a message dated 9/20/07 3:14:51 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Have you noticed the latest O. J. incident's effect on the media? There's such excitement in the air, with top of the hour reports chronicaling O. J.'s every move, as though he were still carrying a football and trying to escape justice in the same move. Once he stopped carrying a football, he disappeared from my radar. The media are excited because they smell another long, ratings bonanza as they sniff his shorts in pursuit. How boring. Pathetic, you bet. Consider it good news. Better they waste their time focusing on that than have a subject matter like the latest mass killings. ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Spanish Mind, Beginner's Mind
TurquoiseB wrote: I am taking a Spanish class. A beginner's Spanish class. Even though I lived close to the Mexican border for many years, my interest in and mastery of the Spanish language was pretty much limited to asking for a cervesa... So, you lived for years near the Mexican border, where your Spanish was limited to asking for a cervesa. Now you've moved all the way to Spain where you are taking a Spanish class, so you can ask for a cervesa? In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's there are few. - Shunryo Suzuki-Roshi There are few things more beneficial in terms of both the development of humility and the development of a sense of humor than being a beginner. You walk into a classroom and leave all of who you are and what you have convinced yourself along the Way that you know at the door. Once inside the room, you learn very quickly that you are a beginner. Again. And I don't know about you guys, but for me that's really a delightful experience. I am taking a Spanish class. A beginner's Spanish class. Even though I lived close to the Mexican border for many years, my interest in and mastery of the Spanish language was pretty much limited to asking for a cervesa or for the servicios. Fortunately those two terms kinda go together, so I got by all these years without having to know more. But now I find myself living in Spain, and having to come up to speed on Spanish fairly quickly, in order to do ordinary things like get a phone line and ADSL installed, buy food, and basically just live. So I signed up for a short, intensive course here in Sitges during the mornings, and it's just been a wonderful experience in Beginner's Mind. There are only six people in the class -- myself and my best friend (American), three young Germans (two au pairs and a fellow who does tech support for H-P), and an English woman who has lived here for two years and is just now getting around to learning Spanish. It's been a non-stop laugh fest. We all make such *stupid* mistakes -- ALL of us -- that there is simply no room in the classroom for ego, only laughter. And the laughter can be over the silliest things. The other day we were having a discussion about what kinds of peliculas we like to watch. The broken Spanish was flying around the table, but I noticed that my friend Laurel was sitting there with a puzzled expression on her face, not contributing. Well, it turns out that she hadn't caught the definition of the word peliculas (movies), and was trying to map it to the only cognate word she could think of from French, pelicule. And that means dandruff. So she was sitting there the whole time we were talking, thinking that we were having a lively and animated discussion about which kinds of dandruff we like to watch. Then there was the morning we discussed food, and the topic segued from types of meats (carnes) to types of vegetables (verduras). Nicole, the cute German au pair, missed the segue, so when the word alcachofas came up, she got the same puzzled expression on her face. A few people in the room didn't know what the term meant (artichokes), so the teacher was trying to describe them in beginner's Spanish. Nicole was sitting there looking more and more puzzled, because (as it turns out) she was trying to imagine what kind of animal was the source of a foodstuff that was green and had all sorts of spiky things all over it and that you ate by pulling off pieces of it with your fingers. She was imagining galloping herds of alcachofas, probably tended by alcachofaboys riding horses and wearing gaucho hats. The merriment just doesn't stop, and that makes the learning process easy. It's almost as if the first step *to* learning easily is to realize that you are an absolute beginner, and that thus it is permissible to make mistakes, to allow others to laugh at you when you make those mistakes, and to join in the laughter and laugh at yourself when you make the mistakes. Oh, that we all had more of that same Beginner's Mind more of the time in other discussions...
[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization
--I disagree. The I after the illusory I vanishes and refers to something. It, the pronoun, refers the body/mind that others engage with. The idea that everything vanishes is the Neo-Advaitin trap of delusion. I can't believe anybody would fall for it. Go back to MMY's SBAL: Brahman has two aspects, inseparably nondual: relative and Absolute. The relative aspect remains as a body/mind even even though there's no inner core of delusion remaining. But since the body/mind still exists, this must be the I'; but now meaning something different. The I - the Individual, as opposed to other individuals occupying another set of space-time components. You will agree that MMY is (in the strictly relative sense); an individual separate from SSRS. I've heard MMY say I on many occasions. If he uses that pronoun, it must have a meaning, a referrent. The I is Maharishi Mahesh Yogi: everything that pertains to this person, as opposed to others. The body, mind, robe, hair, etc. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Comment below: --- 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. Of course this is done! It's mere convention. But your name and the personal pronoun, I don't experientially refer to anything. The question then becomes, what is the nature of this (b) I...; is it/he/she simply saying something that has no reality? No. Actually, yes. When you say I in Realization you aren't refering to anything at all within your own experience. There is no phenomenological or experiential I to refer to. When you try to do this there absolutely nothing. 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. I don't know what your experience is with this, but you seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it too, as it were. Since in Realization there is no I that is experienced you can't speak of it being non-substantial or not having an in-itself reality. All this makes no sense because there is absolutely nothing there to refer too. There is only consciousness which is completely unlocalized. What are you talking about? 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. Of course, but this is not you any longer. It just occurs, like the weather. 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. How can an I exist in a wold of non-duality that by definition is non-dual? 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 is a lingusitic notion in Realization that has no phenomenological reality in Realization. It's a relative body/mind! Absolutely incorrect. Thus, to answer your question, an I exists after Enlightenment, No it doesn't. 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 capacity to interact socially, to perform actions with the mind,etc., are relative components as you say, but in Realization these certainly do continue, but there is no identification with them as you or me or I. They just occur on their own as they did before Realization. The holographic aspect to the new I is important since holograms enfold the totality but each hologram differs from
Re: [FairfieldLife] I saw my first Gestapo van this morning
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/20/07 2:30:03 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yup, just as I was leaving downtown from my stop at Starbucks here comes a Homeland Security van. It is the first one I've seen around here and I thought, here's the Gestapo. The bun hoppers must not be doing too well as fascism still seems to be on the rise with thugs turned cops tasering people, etc. People don't seem to care as long as they can keep driving their big pickup trucks and SUVs and watch American Idol and football. Pathetic sheep. When you drink your cup of Starbuck's , you're paying for the exploitation of some dirt poor coffee bean picker somewhere. So I guess we are all pathetic sheep in some way or another. ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com Here's what Starbuck's has to say on that: http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/origins.asp BTW, I go to Starbucks over the locals because the locals don't try to cultivate much in the way of customer report as the folks (kids) at Starbucks do. The locals often lack much ambiance even when they have space to do so. Although I sometimes frequent a couple of locally owned places. I also like Peet's but the nearest one is about 5 miles away. And in my area probably as opposed to Europe to speak to someone at another table will probably either give them a heart attack or make them jump out of their chair. Folks aren't as social as they are at European coffee places which is something Starbucks hasn't been able to import.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Trick or Treat?
Bhairitu wrote: The other day there was some religious dude handing out fliers about how evil Halloween is and how Satan is taking over the world, blah, blah, blah. I heard the spiel as I walked pass that he gave someone else and figured if he tried to lay that trip on me I was going to tell him to look around, look at the sky, look at me and look at himself. But all he did was hand me his propaganda and didn't engage in any talk. So, you weren't going to tell him that you were a religious dude too. Go figure. I wonder what he would have said to you if he knew that you were a religious dude that worships the devil woman Kali Ma and that you often curse people you don't agree with and attempt to cast spells on them with secret hand signs, claiming some pantheistic mumble-jumble of Hindoo propaganda. It's just amazing what you can see walking around downtown Oakland; a left-handed, basket-weaving, religious fanatic selling non-sense syllables laying his trip on everybody!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Women -- the first terrorists
Duveyoung wrote: The Jews had it figured. If yer mommy's not a Jew, you're not a Jew. There's no female Jewish mitochondria, you idiot!
[FairfieldLife] Re: I saw my first Gestapo van this morning
Bhairitu wrote: Yup, just as I was leaving downtown from my stop at Starbucks here comes a Homeland Security van. So, you were walking around downtown Oakland. It is the first one I've seen around here and I thought, here's the Gestapo. So, Osama bin Laden killed 3,000 innocent Americans but the driver of the Homeland Security van is YOUR enemy. You sound really scared, Barry. The bun hoppers must not be doing too well as fascism still seems to be on the rise with thugs turned cops tasering people, etc. But, Barry, you're a bun hopper and play with fire. People don't seem to care as long as they can keep driving their big pickup trucks and SUVs But you drive an imported Saburu, burn Venezuelan oil, and own a $10,000 TV set with Comcast cable. and watch American Idol and football. But, you watch The Batchelor and baseball. Go figure. Pathetic sheep. Yeah, pathetic sheep walking around downtown Oakland drinking Starbucks coffee.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My first real night living in Sitges
TurquoiseB wrote: I took a long, ambling walk with my friend's dogs down the beach. And with each step my smile widened, and my step lightened, and more of my inner slumbering selves woke up. So, you took a long, ambling walk with your friend's dog down the beach, with a silly grin on your face. It's a nice place, here. If you can Be Here, and Now, that is. Sounds like you really want to be back here with us, in the States - you keep sending messages to Judy. Why can't you give her up - she's way out of your league, Bro. Just Be over there and enjoy. Ask for a cervesa at the local bar. May you remain thirsty, My Friend. Sun down, work over the dogs and I walk barepaw on the beach and watch the half moon rise And from somewhere out at sea we hear the sound of cosmic chillout music carried on the wind Rhythm section provided by pounding surf and the white noise drone of waves caressing the shore Over which sirens are singing softly Odysseus unbound I listen to their song and walk home to write this for Penelope I think I'm going to like living in Sitges. Yeah, I have technically been here for some time, but I really haven't had the ability until tonight to really Be Here. I've had to balance the moving to a new country and a new lifestyle and...well...a new life with 60-70 hour workweeks. I'm still living out of suitcases and boxes. Suffice it to say that this is not my usual way of moving to a new place. I'm an occultist -- whenever I move to a new place, and a new life, I usually have my new house impeccable, in a Castandean sense, within a week or so. But nooo. Not here. Work intervened. So here I sit tonight in a lovely apartment with a lovely garden, chilling out as the sirens urged me to do, but within an apartment decorated in a style once described aptly by Architectural Digest as Early Cardboard Box. But tonight my long, grueling tech writing project is put to bed, and (so far) sleeping peacefully. I can relax. And so, I am. I took a long, ambling walk with my friend's dogs down the beach. And with each step my smile widened, and my step lightened, and more of my inner slumbering selves woke up. It's a nice place, here. If you can Be Here, and Now, that is. I think I'm going to like living in Sitges.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization
When the body, mind and conditionings are gone, there is still something left, and this is what is known by the enlightened, and this is not transcient, all the other stuff is. If the enlightened when using the word I are referring to this eternal IS, that is One thing, if one is using I' to refer to something other than than that, and then at the same time declaring elightenment, then this dellusion. No persona ever gets enlightened. It is not a me that is one with something. My Guru just added the last line, she is sitting next to me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tertonzeno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --I disagree. The I after the illusory I vanishes and refers to something. It, the pronoun, refers the body/mind that others engage with. The idea that everything vanishes is the Neo-Advaitin trap of delusion. I can't believe anybody would fall for it. Go back to MMY's SBAL: Brahman has two aspects, inseparably nondual: relative and Absolute. The relative aspect remains as a body/mind even even though there's no inner core of delusion remaining. But since the body/mind still exists, this must be the I'; but now meaning something different. The I - the Individual, as opposed to other individuals occupying another set of space-time components. You will agree that MMY is (in the strictly relative sense); an individual separate from SSRS. I've heard MMY say I on many occasions. If he uses that pronoun, it must have a meaning, a referrent. The I is Maharishi Mahesh Yogi: everything that pertains to this person, as opposed to others. The body, mind, robe, hair, etc. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: Comment below: --- tanhlnx tanhlnx@ 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. Of course this is done! It's mere convention. But your name and the personal pronoun, I don't experientially refer to anything. The question then becomes, what is the nature of this (b) I...; is it/he/she simply saying something that has no reality? No. Actually, yes. When you say I in Realization you aren't refering to anything at all within your own experience. There is no phenomenological or experiential I to refer to. When you try to do this there absolutely nothing. 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. I don't know what your experience is with this, but you seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it too, as it were. Since in Realization there is no I that is experienced you can't speak of it being non-substantial or not having an in-itself reality. All this makes no sense because there is absolutely nothing there to refer too. There is only consciousness which is completely unlocalized. What are you talking about? 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. Of course, but this is not you any longer. It just occurs, like the weather. 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. How can an I exist in a wold of non-duality that by definition is non-dual? 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 is a lingusitic notion in Realization that has no phenomenological reality in Realization. It's a relative body/mind! Absolutely incorrect. Thus, to answer your question, an I exists after Enlightenment, No it doesn't. 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] I saw my first Gestapo van this morning
In a message dated 9/20/07 6:09:23 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here's what Starbuck's has to say on that: _http://www.starbuckhttp://www.stahttp://www._ (http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/origins.asp) I'm sure those coffee farms do quite well. It's the Juan Valdez's that pick the beans for the farmer that get exploited. I really doubt Starbuck's gets involved in foreign labor disputes. ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Trick or Treat?
In a message dated 9/20/07 6:17:13 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's just amazing what you can see walking around downtown Oakland; a left-handed, basket-weaving, religious fanatic selling non-sense syllables laying his trip on everybody! Are they still worshipping parking barriers as shiva lingums out there? I heard there was a group in San Francisco that were doing that years ago. ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: I saw my first Gestapo van this morning
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/20/07 2:30:03 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yup, just as I was leaving downtown from my stop at Starbucks here comes a Homeland Security van. It is the first one I've seen around here and I thought, here's the Gestapo. The bun hoppers must not be doing too well as fascism still seems to be on the rise with thugs turned cops tasering people, etc. People don't seem to care as long as they can keep driving their big pickup trucks and SUVs and watch American Idol and football. Pathetic sheep. When you drink your cup of Starbuck's , you're paying for the exploitation of some dirt poor coffee bean picker somewhere. So I guess we are all pathetic sheep in some way or another. That's why I drink Green Mountain Coffee from right here in Vermont. Best coffee company in the world. Promotes fair trade, good coffee and much much more http://tinyurl.com/3an4xm OffWorld
Re: [FairfieldLife] I saw my first Gestapo van this morning
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/20/07 6:09:23 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here's what Starbuck's has to say on that: _http://www.starbuckhttp://www.stahttp://www._ (http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/origins.asp) I'm sure those coffee farms do quite well. It's the Juan Valdez's that pick the beans for the farmer that get exploited. I really doubt Starbuck's gets involved in foreign labor disputes. I take it you must not drink coffee at all? You would have that problem with just about any coffee company. Or how about the Chinese made electronics you're using. Hell yes, I want to see everyone on this planet have a good life and not be exploited as I'm sure you do but we're going to have a tough time convincing the king makers that is the way to go as they seem to be further down the evolutionary ladder than us and probably even the exploited peasants. They probably just hatched from the lower astral plane and decided that since no one else was interested in power and greed they would go grab it not knowing the consequences.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Spanish Mind, Beginner's Mind
TurquoiseB wrote: I am taking a Spanish class. A beginner's Spanish class. Even though I lived close to the Mexican border for many years, my interest in and mastery of the Spanish language was pretty much limited to asking for a cervesa or for the servicios. Fortunately those two terms kinda go together, so I got by all these years without having to know more. So what languages do you know already? Just English? Did you learn French? I've been struggling with learning Spanish trying to find a lazy way to do so. I'm not much good with languages including English. :) I had almost four years of French, two in high school and two in college. Not my best subject. I worked with Vyas Houston's Sanskrit course and got a ways along in it and that helped me with Hindi which I got to a point where I needed to more Hindi reading to increase my vocabulary but didn't. I have several Spanish self teaching courses and am trying to get to the point where I've got enough so I can kinda understand what's on Telemundo and Univision. Knowing another romance language helps though. BTW, they say that the news on those stations is more straight forward so Mexicans must have a better idea of what is going on in the world than gringos. :) Around here you sometimes want to drop into Spanish just to get your order right. ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re:Women -- the first terrorists
Thanks for the laugh! aaahahaaa ahhaaa ahaa Genevieve - Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, and more!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Women -- the first terrorists
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Women rule. snip I don't trust them. snip She, she, she, she. Edg, I'll be honest with ya. Anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die I'm not sure I trust that either. just a joke, just a joke. I think about the 40% of me that's feminine everyday, and I think it's my best part! lurk
[FairfieldLife] Re: Trick or Treat?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The other day there was some religious dude handing out fliers about how evil Halloween is and how Satan is taking over the world, blah, blah, blah. Hey, I kinda like the version I picked up somewhere along the way that Halloween is the Celtic tradition commermorating the destruction of Atlantis, and the day after - the solemn rememberence. Makes sense really when you consider the appropiation of the pagan holidays by the Church. lurk
[FairfieldLife] Re: I saw my first Gestapo van this morning
When you drink your cup of Starbuck's , you're paying for the exploitation of some dirt poor coffee bean picker somewhere. So I guess we are all pathetic sheep in some way or another. Starbucks says it pays premium prices in order to make sure that farmers can support their families: http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/origins.asp
[FairfieldLife] (unknown)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 For the first time, I have personal dialogue during prayer. I consider this to be very significant, and am thankful for the guidance of the Jesuit's, and the Ya gotta admit. There are some nice benefits at 50 plus. lurk
[FairfieldLife] Re: Women -- the first terrorists
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Duveyoung wrote: The Jews had it figured. If yer mommy's not a Jew, you're not a Jew. There's no female Jewish mitochondria, you idiot! I guess it's not flaming cause he didn't say fuckin idiot Hey Richard, have you ever hear of a little poetic license. Hey Richard, kinda crackin at thought of a kinder, gentler FFL aren't ya. lurk
[FairfieldLife] FLAME ALERT FLAME ALERT
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Duveyoung wrote: The Jews had it figured. If yer mommy's not a Jew, you're not a Jew. There's no female Jewish mitochondria, you idiot!
