[FairfieldLife] Re: I saw my first Gestapo van this morning/Giving in to the Flame
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: lurkernomore20002000 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: I see you got a weekend pass from Austin State Hospital. :) Bhairitu, This is how the downward spiral begins. And once it starts the momemtum keeps it going. Why don't you try to make your point without a personal insult. Resist the temptation. It was a joke, lurk. Gawd, does TM kill people sense of humor? And, even though it was clearly a joke, it also accurately describes Willy's behavior. Men may be from Mars and women from Venus, but honestly...sometimes Willy just reacts as if he's from Saturn. No *concept* of what is being discussed, no desire to ever *have* a concept of what is being discussed, only an attempt to poke at someone to see if he can get them to react. It's yer classic Internet Troll behavior.
[FairfieldLife] Vyaasa's comment on II 30
YS II 30: ahiMsaasatyaasteyabrahmacharyaaparigrahaa yamaaH (ahimsaa-satya-asteya-brahmacarya-aparigrahaaH; yamaaH) Vyaasa's comment on brahmacarya (from a DN text): brahmacaryaM guptendiyasyopasthasya saMyamaH. (There is apparently one typo in guptendiya. It should prolly read guptendriya which would be sandhi for gupta + indriya, cf. karmendriya karma + indriya; thus, without sandhi that would be: brahmacaryam; gupta + indriyasya + upasthasya saMyamaH). I think some of you guys have a translation of Vyaasa's commentary. I'd like to know how the above passage is translated in it. Bhojadeva's comment is much more laconic: brahmacaryam upasthasaMyamaH.
[FairfieldLife] Re: FLAME ALERT FLAME ALERT
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu Sep 20 21:14:33 PDT 2007, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams willytex@ 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! Richard, we're refraining from personal insults. Put in context. If you were at a party, consider how insulting it would be to call someone call someone an idiot to his face. Therefore, please don't do it here. How about rumourmonging ? Or is spreading rumours and accusing others ok for moderators ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sri Sri Ravi Shankar on Feelings
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, martyboi martyboi@ wrote: Taking Responsibility For Your Feelings Often people think caring, being compassionate, means catering to the emotional needs of another person. They think they need to say, Oh, how are you feeling? You are sad today? You are depressed? Oh, just tell me what is it. They sit, listen and console the person; they support and in fact encourage the other person's feelings of negativity and misery. Pampering a person in this way just leads to a bigger mess. Just realize how often you ask people how they feel. See, today you feel good. Tomorrow you don't feel good. Who cares? There is no guarantee you will feel good after doing anything. You may feel miserable. You may suffer. You don't need to care for people's emotions at all. This may look very cruel, but I tell you it is okay, because it makes you strong. A wise person does not care for emotions because emotions are ever changing. And everyone has to work out their own karma. If you are feeling bad, you must have done something terrible in your past. Otherwise, why would you feel bad? Nature is never unjust. Nature always does justice. If you are unhappy, it's because of your own karma. If you are suffering, it's because of your karma. Suffer. Finish it off. Suffer and finish. Nature brings joy to one who has done good and brings suffering to those who have down wrong acts. It is not necessary to care for anybody's feelings at all. Absolutely not. You needn't complain at all. The question is, are you doing your job? Do your job. That's it. That makes people really strong. And no one complains. Nothing to complain about. Once a very educated gentleman went to visit an enlightened master. A third person spoke with them, and then left the room, and in half and hour, that person met with an accident on the road and died. When the news came, the master just kept silent for a minute or two and then started doing his usual business. The gentleman said, There's no compassion here. I cannot understand this. For a Master, for an enlightened person, death and life is nothing. It's like going from one room to another room. A big deal! Time, infinity, dead and gone. So what? The person who is knowledge neither cries for the living nor cries for the dead. Do you see what I am saying? It's not lack of compassion. But compassion we often misunderstand as pampering, telling nice words, giving attention - all those things. There is no way you can demand that kind of attention in the company of a true master. If you demand attention - get out! Straight. When you complain, you will be asked to just get out. Do your job and be happy. That's it. That strength of discipline helps people to go beyond their feelings and emotions. I think that is good because then you are busy doing something. You are not sitting and thinking, brooding over, expecting someone to console you or to uphold you. Isn't it? Simply working, simply busy and achieving your goal. Your mind is focused on that. Then that brings so much strength in you. Certainly I don't want you to whine and complain. No way. I don't care how you feel. I care for you and I don't care how you are feeling. You feel up and you feel down - it's so much moodiness. So much wasting of time happens in this. Take responsibility for your own feelings. In the world, often people throw their responsibility of their feelings on others and on situations, circumstances. Somebody else is responsible for my feeling down. Because you said this thing to me, I am feeling low. You didn't look at me, so I am feeling low. You know, no one is responsible for the way you feel. YOU are totally responsible if you are feeling happy or unhappy. Take that responsibility. When you take responsibility, you gain power. Then you become happy. JAI GURU DEV January 2000 Bad Antogast, Germany See the job, do the job, stay out of misery. - Maharishi
[FairfieldLife] The Collapse of evangelical Christian rule in America
The fall of the Godmongers Praise Jesus, it's the collapse of evangelical Christian rule in America. Rejoice! By Mark Morford San Francisco Chronicle, September 21, 2007 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/a/2007/09/21/notes092107.DTLtype=printable Oh yes, by all means please take a moment to look around, ye who might be feeling a bit hopeful and optimistic right now. Because indeed, you've got your wonderful and ever-accelerating green movement, your lovely mixed-blessing organic food movement and your rejuvenated attention to solar power and sustainable buildings and organic cotton and fair-trade coffee and clean energy and CFLs and urban recycling and sleek gorgeous modern vibrator design to make hip women of the world swoon. We've got urban smoking bans and Smart cars and women finally rising to the most powerful positions in the land. We've even got an increasing awareness (BushCo, the Middle East, and China gruesomely excepted) of industrial pollution and global warming, all maybe indicating a subtle but still profound shift away from traditional modes of waste and war and our everlasting thirst for death and all possibly pointing to a happy delicious karmic sea change toward light and health and love for all beings everywhere for all time, as the butterflies and bunnies and birds all hum and smile and sing. Mmm, utopian. But wait, why stop there? While we're wearing these swell rose-colored glasses of momentary progressive bliss, let us go one big step further. Because right now, there is perhaps no greater item we as a struggling human ant farm can be grateful for, no single social emetic we can look to for inspiration or hope or a happy tingly sensation in our collective groinal region indicating a possible move away from our long-standing Dick-Cheney-in-hell attitude of shrill bleakness, alarmism and religious righteousness than the simply wonderful implosion of the evangelical Christian right that's happening right now in America. Do you know this clenched and panicky group? Of course you do. They're the throngs of megachurch lemmings Karl Rove masterfully manipulated and rallied and whored to Bush's very narrow advantage in two elections. They're the ones who've made all the headlines and influenced all sorts of laws and national policy changes lo, this past half-decade concerning everything from stem cell research to gay marriage to evolution, sanitized school textbooks to failed abstinence programs to RU-486 restrictions to silly anti-science rhetoric, the ones who gasped in horror at a woman's bare nipple and made a disgusting mockery of Terri Schiavo and actually applauded when John Ashcroft spent $8,000 of taxpayer money to throw some heavy drapery over the shamefully exposed breasts of the bronze (female) Spirit of Justice statue in the Hall of Justice. And so on. They are, in short, responsible for a great many of the most notable social and intellectual embarrassments in America since the new millennium took hold, and rest assured, we and the rest of the civilized world shall recall their bleak accomplishments for much of our natural born lives, and shudder. Now then, your evidence of a new hope? Your reason for rejoicing? Right here: It seems the remaining core of politicized evangelicals, far from realizing its diminished influence and far from realizing the GOP has largely imploded and far from sensing, therefore, that it might perhaps be time to dial down some of its more unpopular, virulent agenda items, this group is actually aiming to step up its dogmatic demands from various GOP candidates this next election. That's right. They want more. Or rather, less. Apparently, Bush's GOP has let them down. They have not been content with BushCo's anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-sex, pro-abstinence, anti-women, anti-science, pro-war, God-hates-Islam stance, nor have they been content with having their trembling hands around the throat of the preceding Republican Congress for half a decade and clearly they have been insufficiently humiliated by the happy slew of right-wing preachers and politicians who've been revealed as meth-loving, restroom-lurking, boy-fetishizing gay hypocrites. According to the new plan, any current GOP candidate who now wants the valuable evangelical vote will have to prove himself not merely guided by conformist religious zealotry in all things (Hi, Mitt!), but will have to prove his unflappable support for the GOP stance in key issues across the evangelical board, primarily regarding the Big Duo: abortion rights and gay rights. Or, more specifically, the total annihilation of both. Do you see? This is exactly why we can now rejoice. Because this is the delightful thing about the fundamentalist worldview (and, for that matter just about any strict religious worldview you can name), the thing that absolutely and forever guarantees its frequent and eventual downfall: It can never be sated. It's true. No matter how clamped down we as a
[FairfieldLife] Re: FLAME ALERT FLAME ALERT
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Samadhi Is Much Closer Than You Think -- Really! -- It's A No-Brainer. Who'd've Thunk It? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: to have matrilineal and patriarchal concurrent within a society, though matrilineal precedes patriarchal in judaism as well as other cultures. yea, well try saying red leather, yellow leather five times real quick lurk
[FairfieldLife] Re: I saw my first Gestapo van this morning/Giving in to the Flame
Kid the Willy? Is that the same as Play with the Willy? I'm just asking. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: lurkernomore20002000 wrote: Lurk: Bhairitu, This is how the downward spiral begins. And once it starts the momemtum keeps it going. Why don't you try to make your point without a personal insult. Resist the temptation. Bhairitu: It was a joke, lurk. Gawd, does TM kill people sense of humor? Dude, hate to break the news to you. It's a flame, Flame, FLAME, f l a m e. lurk No, it's a joke, joke, joke, JOKE, J O K E! We kid the Willy around here. Get it?
[FairfieldLife] Trivial pursuit question?
What is the most abundant element in the Earth's crust?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Collapse of evangelical Christian rule in America
There is very little as satisfying in life as Mark Morford on a real new-asshole-ripper of a rant. This was one. Thanks for posting it.
[FairfieldLife] Amazing young Koran-singer
Incredible little kid reading from the Koran: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjamfcjoLFA Put aside any Islamophobia you may have and just listen to the extraordinary beauty of his voice.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Trivial pursuit question?
cardemaister: What is the most abundant element in the Earth's crust? Edg: Dictionary: crust - the trait of being rude and impertinent; inclined to take liberties. I'd say that impertinence is the major element. Rude...well a child can be innocently rude -- not knowing the rules of society, but, commonly, impertinence is done on purpose. Wait, did I misunderstand the question? Oh, okay, I'd say wheat flour is the major element in the earth's crust. I can imagine God kneading the dough, popping the ball into hellfires, getting it golden brown. As an aside, this is why poverty is holy -- needing the dough is sacred. Once the butter arrives, wez agunna get et. Wait. Oxygen? Earth's crust is 46% gas? Gaia has gas? So next question, does Mommy Earth need Gas-X or Beano? I'm thinkin' Beano. Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: I saw my first Gestapo van this morning
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/20/07 10:58:19 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Starbucks says it pays premium prices in order to make sure that farmers can support their families: _http://www.starbuckhttp://www.stahttp://www._ (http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/origins.asp) As I said earlier, it's not the farmer that is poor, it's his hired labor. Most of that coffee is grown on coffee plantations, not some little farmers 5 - 10 plots. Not so. Coffee prices are so low these days that not even plantation owners can make much money, and a great deal of coffee is grown on small farms. Typically Fair Trade coffee is obtained from cooperatives of these small farmers. In any case, it's not a matter of wealthy plantation owners paying their workers a pittance. Growing coffee just isn't very profitable for anybody, and the small farmers are seriously impoverished. Most farmers are able to sell only a small percentage of their coffee at Fair Trade prices anyway, because of the lack of demand. The percentage of Fair Trade coffee Starbucks sells is also quite low, really only a token. Bhairitu is likely not drinking Fair Trade coffee at Starbucks because they don't usually brew it; they only sell it by the pound. They don't promote it and usually put it on the lower shelves where it's not as easily seen, so they don't even sell all that much of the beans. See GlobalExchange.org for more details on its campaign to get Starbucks to use more Fair Trade coffee: http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/fairtrade/coffee/starbucks .html http://tinyurl.com/26lbly Starbucks has made a gesture in the right direction, but it could do *much* more.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer
Thanks for this. The sweetness matches anything Charlotte Church put out. Like flowers in the wilderness -- kids -- so much innocence everywhere sprouting in boulder strewn fields of dogma. Anyone see Kid Nation the other night? For all the flaws, and despite Satan being introduced at the end, I cried many times seeing their romantic attachment to so many core values. It's touching to see and poignant to know how the world will forge them into otherwise. It remains to be seen if love of gold will begin that forging. I have a couple toddlers chewing my ankles, and they can take my breath away without breaking a sweat. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Incredible little kid reading from the Koran: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjamfcjoLFA Put aside any Islamophobia you may have and just listen to the extraordinary beauty of his voice.
[FairfieldLife] Is Ego an I or a Me?
So what is the ego, an I or a Me? Me is something that things are done to. I is a doer. People who perceive the ego as something that must dissolve for enlightenment see it as a Me a something that reacts to the world. The haven or goal for these perceivers is a place out of world out of space and time, the source of pain. For them, dissolving the ego seems desirable. It is a release from the let-downs and limitations of life. People, on the other hand, who perceive the ego as something precious and sacred that should never be dissolved they see it as an I, an instrument of God expressing in the world. Their goal or haven is perfection of the world space and time transformed to reflect the original joyous divine intention. They perceive that divine intention to be, to date, unrealized. For them, dissolving the ego seems like a cop-out, an abandonment of God's purpose for life. The Me/ego philosophers see the I/ego philosophers as afraid. Afraid of letting go of their object-identification, their limited self- identity. But the I/ego philosophers see the Me/ego philosophers as afraid. Afraid of the responsibility of remaking the world. So what is the ego, an I or a Me? It can be both. In its state of victimization, when it has lost its conscious connectedness to the Infinite, the ego is a Me. A target for suffering, an experiencer of failure, disappointment and lack. In its state of realization, when it is one with the Infinite, the ego is an I. A creative agent expressing divine mind in new and original ways. The I/ego acts in alignment with the will of the Divine. It intuitively knows that divine will made the world as a playground on which to express joy through the medium of diversity. To claim that the ego is only a Me is to perceive only its limited expression. Such limited expression certainly needs dissolving for cosmic bliss to occur. But the Me only needs to dissolve into the I. It was never intended by the Infinite that the I should dissolve into non-existence. Since the ego is empowered by the divine, though, it has the capability of self-annihilation. The Infinite permits this, because God would never keep its children existent against their free will. The Divine allows spiritual suicide. It enfolds its disenchanted children deep in the arms of unbounded bliss and love. The ego dies, they find nirvanic bliss. But they lose the capacity to fulfill the purpose for which they were created, the spiritualization of matter. They lose their ability to be conscious co-creators with God. The Infinite also permits its other children, the ones who cherish their individuality, to experience cosmic bliss. They, too, are enfolded in the same infinite love when they bring their attention back to its Source. This causes their Me to dissolve into I, and they become powerful doers, their actions aligned with Infinite mind but directed by personal desire and original thought. For them there is no gap between their mind and Mind, no detachment between I and desire. Their fresh thoughts are imbued with Infinity, their heartfelt desires are buttressed with cosmic support. These are the people who speak the message of The Secret. The successful, spiritual, world-loving enlightened. Eastern thought has virtually no room for I/ego philosophers. Maharishi is the closest to one that I've known India to produce. The I/ego group seems to have been born of Western Transcendentalism, their flowering occurring with the New Thought movement of the early 1900s. Goddard Neville, Joseph Murphy and Ernest Holmes were among the first teachers of the philosophy. Perhaps it appears other places in history, I'm not sure. According to the The Secret DVD, the knowledge has been in many cultures and active but hidden throughout time. Today, Unity Church and the teachings of Ramtha reflect the I/ego philosophy. Maybe Wayne Dyer, but I haven't studied him enough to know. Others, too, I'm sure, but these are the ones that come to mind at the moment. Since I left the TMO and moved west, I've made friends with many people who espouse I/ego ideals. Most of these folks live them, demonstrating high levels of enlightenment. Some have had teachers or studied books. Some studied Ramtha, Christian Science or TM. Others have had no teacher but their inner deep reflection. If you ask, they will tell you that Silence is the backdrop of their thoughts most of the time for some of these people, all of the time. They demonstrate flexibility in situations, but firmly hold to their goals. They usually get what they want, often by almost miraculous means. If they don't get a desire fulfilled, they find a new way to go after it. Their dreams and goals are I not Me in nature: harmonious and generous, not narrow and selfish. These people tend to be buoyant, full of what you would call Shakti. Some are less charismatic humble, thoughtful, quiet the kind of people
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Ego an I or a Me?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, brontebaxter8 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip To claim that the ego is only a Me is to perceive only its limited expression. Such limited expression certainly needs dissolving for cosmic bliss to occur. But the Me only needs to dissolve into the I. It was never intended by the Infinite that the I should dissolve into non-existence. I really think this all boils down to a matter of semantics. I've never understood that in enlightenment the I dissolves into nonexistence; rather, what dissolves into nonsexistence (because it was an illusion to start with) is *identification* with the I. The I is still there, doing its thing, not in any way inhibited by the lack of identification with it. Peter has been doing some excellent posts on this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: FLAME ALERT FLAME ALERT
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Duveyoung wrote: I was tipping my hat to the fact that despite not knowing about mitochondria, the Jews came up with a system that recognizes the mother's role in owning offspring. It's cool that they intuited it, and came up with a rule about it. Great, but there's still no Jewish mitochondria. Judaism is a social religion, not a separate race of humans. That was my point. It isn't a race, but it is a tribe. It's social in the sense that it can incorporate new members, but the genetic component is very important; the descendants of converts are considered genetically Jewish. Plus which, matrilineal descendants of Jews never *stop* being Jewish, halakhically speaking, even if they convert to another religion. On the other hand, The womb can't lie (or It's a wise child that knows its own father) is more than sufficient explanation for the matrilineal descent system; there's no reason to suspect intuition, however inchoate, of mitochondria was involved. It's really just simple observation. If you want to be absolutely certain og the genetic inheritance, you have to go by motherhood.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer
Judy, big thanks for the little Koran kid; pure stuff. It was funny that right after the clip finished and the next two suggested or related clips rolled up on the screen, one of them was Edg's latest Beatles Trikke clip. Not a big deal but a nice semi-synchronicity. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Incredible little kid reading from the Koran: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjamfcjoLFA Put aside any Islamophobia you may have and just listen to the extraordinary beauty of his voice.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Ego an I or a Me?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, brontebaxter8 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So what is the ego, an I or a Me? Me is something that things are done to. I is a doer. snip Yes, Vedic philosophy seems so unlimited. It speaks eloquently of the Unlimited. But it teaches you that to live the Infinite, you have to give up your personhood. I have found out from experience that simply is not true. In order to understand the ego it is first useful to understand what the soul is, as the ego usurps it's identity from the soul much like Duryodana usurped the kingdom (awareness of spirit) from the Pandavas in the Bhagavad Gita thru a rigged game of dice (symbolizing the illusion of material existence it's not real it's a 'game'). The soul is a pure reflection of God called the Jivatma, when in the beginning when it was tempted by Lucifer (maya/avidya) in the Garden of Eden (pure innocence) it was warned not to eat of the tree of knowledge of Good and evil or surely it would die (be subject to the wheel of samasara/reincarnation). Because it disobeyed and identified itself with material creation (i.e. the flesh) it became trapped due to attachment, the product of this identification is the 'ego' or the pseudo-soul. Evolution is the process of shedding this identification with illusory matter (maya/avidya) and reestablishing the reign of soul (pure spirit) or put another way enabling the Pandavas to regain there lost kingdom from the wicked Kurus (sense tendencies resulting in attachment identification). Ref. MMY Flower analogy.
[FairfieldLife] Invincible America: Welcome back to the Golden Dome
The Maharishi Patanjali Golden Dome of Pure Knowledge is once again a beautiful Golden Dome New roof - A newly insulated foam roof finished with a deep rich gold now crowns the men's dome. Upgraded entryway - Has been upgraded with new ceramic floor tiles and new paint and woodwork. The coatroom has 40% more coat hooks. Renovated bathrooms - New ceramic floor tiles, new paint and woodwork, and all new fixtures, including new sinks and mirrors, and a new, more powerful ventilation system. Deep-cleaned interior - Has been scrubbed and vacuumed, including the entire ceiling. Clean duct work - A professional outfit has been hired to clean all the ventilation and duct work throughout the Dome, ensuring pure air. New curtains - Will surround the interior perimeter, and two broken windows have been replaced. New foam - Is being shipped in from Europe and will replace the existing foam in about a month. New fire bags have been ordered for all the new foam. New parking - We also plan this fall to add additional parking on the south side of the Dome. Overflow space - For anyone wanting to stretch out a bit, over-flow flying halls for the men will include either Utopia Hall or frat Lobbies 106 and 150. Let's fill it! Let's resolve to fill our beautifully remodeled Golden Domes of Pure Knowledge twice each day with blissfully rested Yogic Flyers. Let's remember why Maharishi inspired these incredible structures to be built with such devotion almost 30 years ago - and let's finally fulfill Maharishi's vision and reach and maintain our goal of 2,500 Yogic Flyers and make our nation invincible, give peace to our world family, and gain Unity Consciousness ourselves. By the end of the year 500 more Vedic Pandits will be here - but let's not wait, let's start now, every day is so precious. Grand Re-Entry on Friday September 28 !! All men Yogic Flyers should plan to be back in the Maharishi Patanjali Golden Dome of Pure Knowledge for afternoon program on Friday, September 28. We will have a grand celebration to inaugurate our beautified Dome - and the beginning of our rapid rise to our national Super Radiance threshold. Jai Guru Dev http://invincibleamerica.org/unsubscribe/Click here to unsubscribe
[FairfieldLife] Re: New Cropcircles
Judy, I finally got through your suggested exchange on the skeptic board. That very interesting and brought out many important points about testing, objectivity and bias. This is a great topic for self-discovery. Most people are skewed by financial gain, but not always. I spent a fair amount of my mortgage banking career counseling people NOT to buy a home at that particular time, which went against my own financial interest. But in many cases as a mortgage professional, I was the only person in the transaction willing to be objective about it. The home buyers were on home-ownership drugs, and the Realtors wanted their commissions. But my years of seeing people getting financially demolished by buying a home too soon put me in the best position to help home buyers understand what the reality would be after I got them a loan. This ethical code helped me sleep at night but the loan meltdown we see today is evidence that my style was in the extreme minority in the industry. In my life I am trying to find my own balance of enjoying the benifits of age and having been around the block a bit. I don't have the same anything is possible stars in my eyes of my youth, but I have also lived long enough to have experienced amazing and unexpected things in life. It is a tricky balance to set one's own BS meter isn't it? Regarding the crop circles: I found that my ability to assess the claims of unusual findings at some sites is severely limited. Although I am skeptical of claims that people know what any of this means (i.e. UFOs), I understand my limits in evaluating their reporting truthfulness, or accuracy, and what any of it may mean. I am willing to move the whole topic of unusual findings at circle sites into the I don't have a clue bin rather than some attempt to judge it with zero tools or training, or even an ability to assess the sincerity of the reporters. But someone's financial interest in something doesn't exclude their information right away outside of serious scientific studies. For this kind of topic those people may be the only ones really paying full attention to the question. It is an interesting question blending what we know about using the scientific method combined with the half-assed application we end up with in our personal lives when evaluating claims. I appreciate the thought you have given the topic and your directing me to the discussion. It was helpful, and for a philosophy hack like myself, a lot of fun to read. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Ego an I or a Me?
Bill wrote: The soul is a pure reflection of God called the Jivatma, when in the beginning when it was tempted by Lucifer (maya/avidya) in the Garden of Eden (pure innocence) it was warned not to eat of the tree of knowledge of Good and evil or surely it would die (be subject to the wheel of samasara/reincarnat ion). Because it disobeyed and identified itself with material creation (i.e. the flesh) it became trapped due to attachment, the product of this identification is the 'ego' or the pseudo-soul. Bronte writes: I would say the creation went awry NOT when the soul identified with material creation (which it was supposed to do) but when it forgot that it was the Infinite. We can involve ourselves in matter all we like as long as we maintain our cosmic connection. Enlightenment means remembering that connection. But if you add to the meaning of enlightenment that you have to disidentify with your soul, you have subverted the purpose of creation. Because being so disidentified, you will never be a dynamic creator, only a passive observer. You'll watch your body/mind or meat robot rather than BE your brilliant individuality. - Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos more.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Ego an I or a Me?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill wrote: The soul is a pure reflection of God called the Jivatma, when in the beginning when it was tempted by Lucifer (maya/avidya) in the Garden of Eden (pure innocence) it was warned not to eat of the tree of knowledge of Good and evil or surely it would die (be subject to the wheel of samasara/reincarnat ion). Because it disobeyed and identified itself with material creation (i.e. the flesh) it became trapped due to attachment, the product of this identification is the 'ego' or the pseudo-soul. Bronte writes: I would say the creation went awry NOT when the soul identified with material creation (which it was supposed to do) but when it forgot that it was the Infinite. We can involve ourselves in matter all we like as long as we maintain our cosmic connection. Same difference really, I've heard it called the 'mistake of the intellect'. It 'forgot' it was the infinite *because* it identified with something 'other' than the infinite/Self, hence the 'fall of man'. Enlightenment means remembering that connection. But if you add to the meaning of enlightenment that you have to disidentify with your soul, you have subverted the purpose of creation. You don't disidentify with the soul you disidentify with avidya or the individual illusion of identification of matter and circumstances, the product of which is the me and I. Whenever you use the terms me and I you draw a circle creating a boundary, that's not infinite, you are that, *tat tvam asi* (Upanishads-That Thou Art). Because being so disidentified, you will never be a dynamic creator, only a passive observer. You'll watch your body/mind or meat robot rather than BE your brilliant individuality. Yes and NO, it is the gunas the that are the true actors in creation not the ego or I, as such when nature carries out the brilliance of creation it stands next to none in creativity and beauty. You could call it being a passive observer but...there's only room for ONE God in creation, sorry! :-( It all belongs to God, this is his creation and we are all reflections of HIM, realizing that is true wisdom.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Trivial pursuit question?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the most abundant element in the Earth's crust? silicon
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Ego an I or a Me?
Both of you are making good points. We don't see any major difference between your ideas. I would just like to add something to the discussion about the point relating to the 'mistake of the intellect'. This mistake can be the contributing factor of those who are agnostics or atheists. I believe they have created a human set of values into which the Divine is supposed to fulfill before they will accept Its existence. However, the Divine is beyond these set of values. Hence, they fail to see the message. But I doubt if one can convince them otherwise. I believe this issue is depicted in the story of the war between the good and bad angels. Similarly, the same message is made in the vedic story of the demigods and demons battling for the pot of amrita created by their churning of the ocean of milk. In the end, one can only say, to each his own. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter brontebaxter8@ wrote: Bill wrote: The soul is a pure reflection of God called the Jivatma, when in the beginning when it was tempted by Lucifer (maya/avidya) in the Garden of Eden (pure innocence) it was warned not to eat of the tree of knowledge of Good and evil or surely it would die (be subject to the wheel of samasara/reincarnat ion). Because it disobeyed and identified itself with material creation (i.e. the flesh) it became trapped due to attachment, the product of this identification is the 'ego' or the pseudo-soul. Bronte writes: I would say the creation went awry NOT when the soul identified with material creation (which it was supposed to do) but when it forgot that it was the Infinite. We can involve ourselves in matter all we like as long as we maintain our cosmic connection. Same difference really, I've heard it called the 'mistake of the intellect'. It 'forgot' it was the infinite *because* it identified with something 'other' than the infinite/Self, hence the 'fall of man'. Enlightenment means remembering that connection. But if you add to the meaning of enlightenment that you have to disidentify with your soul, you have subverted the purpose of creation. You don't disidentify with the soul you disidentify with avidya or the individual illusion of identification of matter and circumstances, the product of which is the me and I. Whenever you use the terms me and I you draw a circle creating a boundary, that's not infinite, you are that, *tat tvam asi* (Upanishads-That Thou Art). Because being so disidentified, you will never be a dynamic creator, only a passive observer. You'll watch your body/mind or meat robot rather than BE your brilliant individuality. Yes and NO, it is the gunas the that are the true actors in creation not the ego or I, as such when nature carries out the brilliance of creation it stands next to none in creativity and beauty. You could call it being a passive observer but...there's only room for ONE God in creation, sorry! :-( It all belongs to God, this is his creation and we are all reflections of HIM, realizing that is true wisdom.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, big thanks for the little Koran kid; pure stuff. Almost converted me to Islam on the spot. You'd think it would take decades to learn to do that wonderful ornamentation so cleanly and gorgeously, but the kid just *owns* it. It was funny that right after the clip finished and the next two suggested or related clips rolled up on the screen, one of them was Edg's latest Beatles Trikke clip. Not a big deal but a nice semi-synchronicity. No kidding! And when I watched it again just now, not only Edg's Trikke clip came up, but also an old clip of Eddie Harris and Les McCann doing Compared to What? Great lyrics. Couple verses (written in the late '60s): The president, he's got his war. Folks don't know just what it's for Nobody gives us rhyme or reason Have one doubt, they call it treason We're chicken-feathers, all without one gut (God damn it!) Tryin' to make it real--compared to what?? Church on Sunday, sleep and nod Tryin' to duck the wrath of God Preacher's fillin' us with fright Tryin' to teach us what he thinks is right He really got to be some kind of nut (I can't use it!) Tryin' to make it real--compared to what?? Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OawoYrv9OUYNR=1 Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkDmSGU37l8 YouTube gettin' spiritual on us, it seems, to associate these clips.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Trivial pursuit question?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, suziezuzie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: What is the most abundant element in the Earth's crust? silicon http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/elabund.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: New Cropcircles
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, I finally got through your suggested exchange on the skeptic board. Oh, man, that should get you some kind of medal. That very interesting and brought out many important points about testing, objectivity and bias. It was fun to be able to hash it out in that kind of detail. This is a great topic for self-discovery. Most people are skewed by financial gain, but not always. I spent a fair amount of my mortgage banking career counseling people NOT to buy a home at that particular time, which went against my own financial interest. But in many cases as a mortgage professional, I was the only person in the transaction willing to be objective about it. The home buyers were on home-ownership drugs, and the Realtors wanted their commissions. But my years of seeing people getting financially demolished by buying a home too soon put me in the best position to help home buyers understand what the reality would be after I got them a loan. This ethical code helped me sleep at night but the loan meltdown we see today is evidence that my style was in the extreme minority in the industry. Boy, I'll say. But you made a decent living anyway, right? You ought to think about writing an op-ed piece on your experiences. In my life I am trying to find my own balance of enjoying the benifits of age and having been around the block a bit. I don't have the same anything is possible stars in my eyes of my youth, but I have also lived long enough to have experienced amazing and unexpected things in life. It is a tricky balance to set one's own BS meter isn't it? It is indeed. Also frustrating because so many people seem to have theirs skewed toward one end of the spectrum or the other. Regarding the crop circles: I found that my ability to assess the claims of unusual findings at some sites is severely limited. Although I am skeptical of claims that people know what any of this means (i.e. UFOs), I understand my limits in evaluating their reporting truthfulness, or accuracy, and what any of it may mean. I am willing to move the whole topic of unusual findings at circle sites into the I don't have a clue bin That's *precisely* where it belongs, IMHO. Anything else is either skeptopathic or credulous. rather than some attempt to judge it with zero tools or training, or even an ability to assess the sincerity of the reporters. But someone's financial interest in something doesn't exclude their information right away outside of serious scientific studies. For this kind of topic those people may be the only ones really paying full attention to the question. Yes, that's a hard point to get across. And it may not even be *financial* interest, the TM researchers being a good example. They may have an interest in making money for the TMO, but it's also their belief system at stake. It is an interesting question blending what we know about using the scientific method combined with the half-assed application we end up with in our personal lives when evaluating claims. grin Yes, indeed. Too many of us don't even try. Kudos to you for making the attempt. I appreciate the thought you have given the topic and your directing me to the discussion. It was helpful, and for a philosophy hack like myself, a lot of fun to read. You're more than welcome. Glad you enjoyed it, and many thanks for the feedback. BTW, I realized I have a copy of the book that one guy published on crop circles, Vital Signs. It has really stunning photos, aerial and closeup, and a lot of good discussion of the ins and outs of the whole thing. It's in paperback, $15, if you're interested; Amazon has it: http://tinyurl.com/32tkbt
[FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer
For me Islam is a great and exquisite take on life when seen through the eyes of Rumi (or at least, the Coleman Barks versions, and also Robert Bly's quasi-translations, too). This young boy's voice and expression dovetails with the feeling I get when I'm reading Rumi. Thanks again. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: Judy, big thanks for the little Koran kid; pure stuff. Almost converted me to Islam on the spot. You'd think it would take decades to learn to do that wonderful ornamentation so cleanly and gorgeously, but the kid just *owns* it. It was funny that right after the clip finished and the next two suggested or related clips rolled up on the screen, one of them was Edg's latest Beatles Trikke clip. Not a big deal but a nice semi-synchronicity. No kidding! And when I watched it again just now, not only Edg's Trikke clip came up, but also an old clip of Eddie Harris and Les McCann doing Compared to What? Great lyrics. Couple verses (written in the late '60s): The president, he's got his war. Folks don't know just what it's for Nobody gives us rhyme or reason Have one doubt, they call it treason We're chicken-feathers, all without one gut (God damn it!) Tryin' to make it real--compared to what?? Church on Sunday, sleep and nod Tryin' to duck the wrath of God Preacher's fillin' us with fright Tryin' to teach us what he thinks is right He really got to be some kind of nut (I can't use it!) Tryin' to make it real--compared to what?? Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OawoYrv9OUYNR=1 Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkDmSGU37l8 YouTube gettin' spiritual on us, it seems, to associate these clips.
[FairfieldLife] Re: New Cropcircles
It is indeed. Also frustrating because so many people seem to have theirs skewed toward one end of the spectrum or the other. My skew is obvious, but posting here reminds me of my bias and that helps me stay conscious of it. I went from desiring unbounded awareness to just staying conscious of my cognitive limits! That said I also react to people who claim to know things certainly beyond just asserting their beliefs and reasons. As a natural advocate of my beliefs I have to keep an eye on myself as well! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Judy, I finally got through your suggested exchange on the skeptic board. Oh, man, that should get you some kind of medal. That very interesting and brought out many important points about testing, objectivity and bias. It was fun to be able to hash it out in that kind of detail. This is a great topic for self-discovery. Most people are skewed by financial gain, but not always. I spent a fair amount of my mortgage banking career counseling people NOT to buy a home at that particular time, which went against my own financial interest. But in many cases as a mortgage professional, I was the only person in the transaction willing to be objective about it. The home buyers were on home-ownership drugs, and the Realtors wanted their commissions. But my years of seeing people getting financially demolished by buying a home too soon put me in the best position to help home buyers understand what the reality would be after I got them a loan. This ethical code helped me sleep at night but the loan meltdown we see today is evidence that my style was in the extreme minority in the industry. Boy, I'll say. But you made a decent living anyway, right? You ought to think about writing an op-ed piece on your experiences. In my life I am trying to find my own balance of enjoying the benifits of age and having been around the block a bit. I don't have the same anything is possible stars in my eyes of my youth, but I have also lived long enough to have experienced amazing and unexpected things in life. It is a tricky balance to set one's own BS meter isn't it? It is indeed. Also frustrating because so many people seem to have theirs skewed toward one end of the spectrum or the other. Regarding the crop circles: I found that my ability to assess the claims of unusual findings at some sites is severely limited. Although I am skeptical of claims that people know what any of this means (i.e. UFOs), I understand my limits in evaluating their reporting truthfulness, or accuracy, and what any of it may mean. I am willing to move the whole topic of unusual findings at circle sites into the I don't have a clue bin That's *precisely* where it belongs, IMHO. Anything else is either skeptopathic or credulous. rather than some attempt to judge it with zero tools or training, or even an ability to assess the sincerity of the reporters. But someone's financial interest in something doesn't exclude their information right away outside of serious scientific studies. For this kind of topic those people may be the only ones really paying full attention to the question. Yes, that's a hard point to get across. And it may not even be *financial* interest, the TM researchers being a good example. They may have an interest in making money for the TMO, but it's also their belief system at stake. It is an interesting question blending what we know about using the scientific method combined with the half-assed application we end up with in our personal lives when evaluating claims. grin Yes, indeed. Too many of us don't even try. Kudos to you for making the attempt. I appreciate the thought you have given the topic and your directing me to the discussion. It was helpful, and for a philosophy hack like myself, a lot of fun to read. You're more than welcome. Glad you enjoyed it, and many thanks for the feedback. BTW, I realized I have a copy of the book that one guy published on crop circles, Vital Signs. It has really stunning photos, aerial and closeup, and a lot of good discussion of the ins and outs of the whole thing. It's in paperback, $15, if you're interested; Amazon has it: http://tinyurl.com/32tkbt
[FairfieldLife] Re: I'm a shuudra!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: curtisdeltablues wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: According to this little lagna-program, I'm a shuudra. http://www.freedownloadmanager.org/downloads/arudha_lagna_software/ That explains a lot! :D I think the news is even worse. If you weren't born in India you are an outcaste. Sudras outrank us! However many Indians consider anyone who is intellectually inclined a Brahmin regardless of how you were born. They don't believe you can't rise above your caste. When I was in india some years ago, I bought a lot of great books -- and had them shipped to the states. One of the staff at the hotel, a lovely young woman, asked what is all that. I explained. She said Oh. You are a brahman and smiled.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I'm a shuudra!
When I was in india some years ago, I bought a lot of great books -- and had them shipped to the states. One of the staff at the hotel, a lovely young woman, asked what is all that. I explained. She said Oh. You are a brahman and smiled. That's why they call it the hospitality business! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: curtisdeltablues wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: According to this little lagna-program, I'm a shuudra. http://www.freedownloadmanager.org/downloads/arudha_lagna_software/ That explains a lot! :D I think the news is even worse. If you weren't born in India you are an outcaste. Sudras outrank us! However many Indians consider anyone who is intellectually inclined a Brahmin regardless of how you were born. They don't believe you can't rise above your caste. When I was in india some years ago, I bought a lot of great books -- and had them shipped to the states. One of the staff at the hotel, a lovely young woman, asked what is all that. I explained. She said Oh. You are a brahman and smiled.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: FLAME ALERT FLAME ALERT
2007-09-22
Thread
Samadhi Is Much Closer Than You Think -- Really! -- It's A No-Brainer. Who'd've Thunk It?
I can't think of a reasonable way of comprehending what you're saying, whether literally, intellectually, emotionally, morally or logically. Please clarify. On 9/22/07, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Samadhi Is Much Closer Than You Think -- Really! -- It's A No-Brainer. Who'd've Thunk It? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: to have matrilineal and patriarchal concurrent within a society, though matrilineal precedes patriarchal in judaism as well as other cultures. yea, well try saying red leather, yellow leather five times real quick lurk 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 -- Flourishingly, Dharma Mitra Helping you Say It With Panache! Because, how you say it can be, and often is, as important as what you want to convey, and what you have to say is very important to you. http://PROUT-Ananlysis-Synthesis.latest-info.com Copywriting - Editing - Publishing - Publicity I want every person to be complete in themselves. Your himsa has no place in my mission. Of all that anyone leading or teaching has to convey, the most valuable thing to cultivate and convey to others is a moral conscience. Only such persons deserve to lead others, in any capacity. Anything less is a menace to society.
[FairfieldLife] Re: FLAME ALERT FLAME ALERT
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Samadhi Is Much Closer Than You Think -- Really! -- It's A No-Brainer. Who'd've Thunk It? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't think of a reasonable way of comprehending what you're saying, whether literally, intellectually, emotionally, morally or logically. Please clarify. You forgot funnily (I was just thinking about how much you like words, and then I glanced up at your handle.) BTW, were you talking to me, or the other stuff below. Flourishingly, Dharma Mitra Helping you Say It With Panache! Because, how you say it can be, and often is, as important as what you want to convey, and what you have to say is very important to you. http://PROUT-Ananlysis-Synthesis.latest-info.com Copywriting - Editing - Publishing - Publicity I want every person to be complete in themselves. Your himsa has no place in my mission. Of all that anyone leading or teaching has to convey, the most valuable thing to cultivate and convey to others is a moral conscience. Only such persons deserve to lead others, in any capacity. Anything less is a menace to society.
[FairfieldLife] Re: FLAME ALERT FLAME ALERT
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Samadhi Is Much Closer Than You Think -- Really! -- It's A No-Brainer. Who'd've Thunk It? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't think of a reasonable way of comprehending what you're saying, whether literally, intellectually, emotionally, morally or logically. Please clarify. What SIMCTYT-R-IANB said. I thought it was just me, and that I was missing out on some in-joke or in-knowledge that everyone else was down with. :-) On 9/22/07, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Samadhi Is Much Closer Than You Think -- Really! -- It's A No-Brainer. Who'd've Thunk It? DharmaMitra1@ wrote: to have matrilineal and patriarchal concurrent within a society, though matrilineal precedes patriarchal in judaism as well as other cultures. yea, well try saying red leather, yellow leather five times real quick lurk
[FairfieldLife] Re: FLAME ALERT FLAME ALERT
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Samadhi Is Much Closer Than You Think -- Really! -- It's A No-Brainer. Who'd've Thunk It? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't think of a reasonable way of comprehending what you're saying, whether literally, intellectually, emotionally, morally or logically. Please clarify. What SIMCTYT-R-IANB said. I thought it was just me, and that I was missing out on some in-joke or in-knowledge that everyone else was down with. :-) On 9/22/07, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Samadhi Is Much Closer Than You Think -- Really! -- It's A No-Brainer. Who'd've Thunk It? DharmaMitra1@ wrote: to have matrilineal and patriarchal concurrent within a society, though matrilineal precedes patriarchal in judaism as well as other cultures. yea, well try saying red leather, yellow leather five times real quick lurk
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I think that what may be going on is that a number of people who paid their dues in the TM movement don't realize how heavily they have been influenced by Patanjali and his hangups. He may have *been* enlightened. But he was also a Class A religious fanatic. Given the politics of his day, he lobbied heavily to prove Hinduism superior to any other competing religions, and also to prove his particular sect of it superior to all others. He traveled around challenging others to verbal duels to prove such things. Uh, no. You mean Shankara, of course, not Patanjali. In any case, a penchant for debate about the validity of Advaita Vedanta hardly justifies labeling Shankara as a religious fanatic. Such a label is a function of modern Western culture in which the nature and role of religion are very different from what they were in Shankara's culture: essentially, religion *was* the culture, not a subset of it. There was no such thing as not being religious. Moreover, there was no clear distinction between religion and philosophy, or metaphysics. Furthermore, debate of the kind in which Shankara engaged was a *tradition* in that culture, much as debate is a tradition in Buddhism and Judaism, among many others. To call Shankara a religious fanatic because he engaged in debate about the superiority of Advaita Vedanta is like calling candidates for office in the West political fanatics because they engage in debates about the superiority of their policies. In my opinion, that is one of the major reasons that TMers tend to believe that the descriptions they have been given of higher states of consciousness are accurate, or that such descriptions *can* be accurate. TM springs very much from the Patanjali tradition, TM springs from (i.e., MMY's teaching is based on) both Patanjali and Shankara, the former in terms of practice and experiences of consciousness, the latter in terms of metaphysics. with its hangups about being best, and about having every word that the teacher utters be believed as gospel, and as if it represents truth. Naah. Shankara couldn't have engaged in debate, obviously, without *opponents* from other metaphysical traditions who were trying to prove *their* tradition represented truth, and whose followers believed every word their teachers spoke was gospel. That's what adherents of most philosophies or metaphysical systems or religions *do*. TM's insistence on the correctness of its metaphysics could have come from any one of the systems whose validity Shankara challenged, and many others besides. Bottom line: There's no unique linkage between TM's tendency toward dogmatism and Shankara's penchant for debate. I honestly believe that NO words attempting to describe enlightenment are true. The most that they can *ever* be is someone trying to give a rough approximation of an impression of what it's all about. The map is *not* the territory. The words used to describe enlightenment are *not* enlight- enment. I don't believe anyone here suggested they were. That's a pretty, uh, elementary principle, after all (and, incidentally, a principle Shankara was very insistent on). Tom didn't say enlightenment became words, he said words became enlightenment through the discrimination of the intellect, when the translucent intellect is as clear as the Self. That's a quote from Patanjali, of course, not Shankara. However, Shankara's most famous work (at least in the West) is titled The Crest Jewel of Discrimination.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip I think that what may be going on is that a number of people who paid their dues in the TM movement don't realize how heavily they have been influenced by Patanjali and his hangups. He may have *been* enlightened. But he was also a Class A religious fanatic. Given the politics of his day, he lobbied heavily to prove Hinduism superior to any other competing religions, and also to prove his particular sect of it superior to all others. He traveled around challenging others to verbal duels to prove such things. Uh, no. You mean Shankara, of course, not Patanjali. Indeed I did. Thank you for the correction. In any case, a penchant for debate about the validity of Advaita Vedanta hardly justifies labeling Shankara as a religious fanatic. You say tomato, I say tomato...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip I think that what may be going on is that a number of people who paid their dues in the TM movement don't realize how heavily they have been influenced by Patanjali and his hangups. He may have *been* enlightened. But he was also a Class A religious fanatic. Given the politics of his day, he lobbied heavily to prove Hinduism superior to any other competing religions, and also to prove his particular sect of it superior to all others. He traveled around challenging others to verbal duels to prove such things. Uh, no. You mean Shankara, of course, not Patanjali. Indeed I did. Thank you for the correction. In any case, a penchant for debate about the validity of Advaita Vedanta hardly justifies labeling Shankara as a religious fanatic. You say tomato, I say tomato... You say tomato, I say kiwi fruit. As I pointed out, given the culture of Shankara's day, it's like calling candidates for public office in the West political fanatics because they're constantly debating about policy. Makes no sense, in other words.
[FairfieldLife] Fuegos artificiales
It's fiesta time in Sitges. Actually, given that this is a tourist town and that the Spanish are really big into fiestas anyway, it *often* seems to be fiesta time in Sitges. This one, like most of the others, is for some saint or another...who can keep track? But so far one of the good things about living in Sitges and thus in perpetual Fiesta time is the fireworks. This year's show was designed by a fellow named Isidre Panyella, who is considered in Spain not just a technician at what he does, but an artist. After having watched his sky paintings tonight, I now understand why. He made me stand there by the sea among thousands of Spanish locals and tourists and gasp and applaud and cheer and say -- over and over -- a hearty inner Thank You, Thank You to the weirdass Chinese artist, all those centuries ago, who first thought up the idea of using the night sky as his canvas, and painting with fire. I mean, *think* about that guy. Now *he* had creative intelligence. Fireworks are the ultimate ephemeral artform. They whip past us even faster than Tibetan sand mandalas and Buddhas carved from yak butter melting in the noonday sun. 5-10 seconds, max, and each skyrocket has...uh...shot its wad. But combine each one with a platoon of other sky swimmers, and the final effect is stunning. Me, I -- who really gives a shit, eh? Who *cares* whether it's me having a good time or I having a good time. When the sky is full of light and so am I/me, I/me don't/ doesn't know about you guys but I'm/he's really into the moment and having a good time with it, not pondering which pronoun is having the better time.
[FairfieldLife] What if you spent one year following every rule in the Bible?
A. J. Jacobs did exactly that. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20910659/site/newsweek/ I've been a fan of this guy since his last project. This is great!
[FairfieldLife] Am I an I or a Me?
I'm always amazed at the things people say so unconsciously ... The Ego ,The Divine. In post-20th Century spiritual language it has become common to speak this way - putting an article before the word. I believe it started with the Freudians using this type of language to fortify their claims about the persistence of trace psychological structures in common language. However, it now has become commonplace in new-age and spiritual talk. To overstate the obvious: Ego is the Latin word for I. To place an article such as the word the in front of the word ego objectifies it and turns this common referent into an object of observation. Who then is left to observe the I or ego. Another I other than the I called me? Two Is then? One objective and the other subjective? Bullshit! This is all a form of speech which has become a mode for obscuring how we know objects and how we know ourselves. Object and selves? Yes, just like that, object there, subject here. This simple phenomenological structure is the root of all philosophical inquiry and of all psychological integrity (ie. simple sanity). Sound dualistic? I hope so! Because only western, hypnotized, pseudo-advaitins and their Buddhist co-bullshitters could possibly believe that they are not indulging in grossly fantasized conceptuality by using this type of language. Is it final? NO. Is it necessary? YES. So what about The Divine? This religious-speak is an word-absurdity painted upon a demythologized Zeus-Paeter, the warmly feared God the father. The Divine is a mode of speech designed to shelter us from our frightful picture of a horrible, wrathful God. However is also shelters us from having to confront the Being at the heart of the most powerful experiences of deity found in the western tradition - all-consuming fire, overwhelming light, extinguishing presence, drowning dissolution. The Ego. The Divine. The Self-Delusion. The Self-Indulgence. John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Both of you are making good points. We don't see any major difference between your ideas. I would just like to add something to the discussion about the point relating to the 'mistake of the intellect'. This mistake can be the contributing factor of those who are agnostics or atheists. I believe they have created a human set of values into which the Divine is supposed to fulfill before they will accept Its existence. However, the Divine is beyond these set of values. Hence, they fail to see the message. But I doubt if one can convince them otherwise. I believe this issue is depicted in the story of the war between the good and bad angels. Similarly, the same message is made in the vedic story of the demigods and demons battling for the pot of amrita created by their churning of the ocean of milk. In the end, one can only say, to each his own. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter brontebaxter8@ wrote: Bill wrote: The soul is a pure reflection of God called the Jivatma, when in the beginning when it was tempted by Lucifer (maya/avidya) in the Garden of Eden (pure innocence) it was warned not to eat of the tree of knowledge of Good and evil or surely it would die (be subject to the wheel of samasara/reincarnat ion). Because it disobeyed and identified itself with material creation (i.e. the flesh) it became trapped due to attachment, the product of this identification is the 'ego' or the pseudo-soul. Bronte writes: I would say the creation went awry NOT when the soul identified with material creation (which it was supposed to do) but when it forgot that it was the Infinite. We can involve ourselves in matter all we like as long as we maintain our cosmic connection. Same difference really, I've heard it called the 'mistake of the intellect'. It 'forgot' it was the infinite *because* it identified with something 'other' than the infinite/Self, hence the 'fall of man'. Enlightenment means remembering that connection. But if you add to the meaning of enlightenment that you have to disidentify with your soul, you have subverted the purpose of creation. You don't disidentify with the soul you disidentify with avidya or the individual illusion of identification of matter and circumstances, the product of which is the me and I. Whenever you use the terms me and I you draw a circle creating a boundary, that's not infinite, you are that, *tat tvam asi* (Upanishads-That Thou Art). Because being so disidentified, you will never be a dynamic creator, only a passive observer. You'll watch your body/mind or meat robot rather than BE your brilliant individuality. Yes and NO, it is the gunas the that are the true actors in creation not the ego or I, as such when nature carries out the brilliance of creation it stands next to none in
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
Hey Judy, Very accurate description of just how the culture of Vedanta was in Shankara's day. Quite dispassionate reporting too. Congradulations to you. We rarely see these kinds of simple, unleaved observations here of FFL. I find it refreshing. Even Vaj should be able to agree - and I'm not sure if I've seen that yet. Good job. Hope more folks around here can pick up on it. Emptybill --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Uh, no. You mean Shankara, of course, not Patanjali. In any case, a penchant for debate about the validity of Advaita Vedanta hardly justifies labeling Shankara as a religious fanatic. Such a label is a function of modern Western culture in which the nature and role of religion are very different from what they were in Shankara's culture: essentially, religion *was* the culture, not a subset of it. There was no such thing as not being religious. Moreover, there was no clear distinction between religion and philosophy, or metaphysics. Furthermore, debate of the kind in which Shankara engaged was a *tradition* in that culture, much as debate is a tradition in Buddhism and Judaism, among many others. To call Shankara a religious fanatic because he engaged in debate about the superiority of Advaita Vedanta is like calling candidates for office in the West political fanatics because they engage in debates about the superiority of their policies. TM springs from (i.e., MMY's teaching is based on) both Patanjali and Shankara, the former in terms of practice and experiences of consciousness, the latter in terms of metaphysics. Naah. Shankara couldn't have engaged in debate, obviously, without *opponents* from other metaphysical traditions who were trying to prove *their* tradition represented truth, and whose followers believed every word their teachers spoke was gospel. That's what adherents of most philosophies or metaphysical systems or religions *do*. TM's insistence on the correctness of its metaphysics could have come from any one of the systems whose validity Shankara challenged, and many others besides. Bottom line: There's no unique linkage between TM's tendency toward dogmatism and Shankara's penchant for debate. I don't believe anyone here suggested they were. That's a pretty, uh, elementary principle, after all (and, incidentally, a principle Shankara was very insistent on). Tom didn't say enlightenment became words, he said words became enlightenment through the discrimination of the intellect, when the translucent intellect is as clear as the Self. That's a quote from Patanjali, of course, not Shankara. However, Shankara's most famous work (at least in the West) is titled The Crest Jewel of Discrimination.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What if you spent one year following every rule in the Bible?
Curtis, thanks for the cite and the recommendation; this guy is great in his sincerity and earnestness. I love how he gets off on the whole idea of experimenting with his life; there are more than a few people on this list who can identify with that attitude; maybe it's one of the legacies of our youthful involvement in the movement. Or perhaps karma gypsies are just attracted to this forum. I liked his answer to the interviewer that contained this: One of the lessons of the book is, there is some picking and choosing in following the Bible, and I think that's OK. Some people call that cafeteria religion, which is supposed to be a disparaging term, but I think there's nothing wrong with cafeterias, I've had some delicious meals in cafeterias. I've also had some terrible meals in cafeterias. It's all about picking the right parts. You want to take a heaping serving of the parts about compassion, mercy and gratefulnessinstead of the parts about hatred and intolerance. What's not to love? Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A. J. Jacobs did exactly that. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20910659/site/newsweek/ I've been a fan of this guy since his last project. This is great!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
Good observation. I found Judy's analysis very helpful. Thanks. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Judy, Very accurate description of just how the culture of Vedanta was in Shankara's day. Quite dispassionate reporting too. Congradulations to you. We rarely see these kinds of simple, unleaved observations here of FFL. I find it refreshing. Even Vaj should be able to agree - and I'm not sure if I've seen that yet. Good job. Hope more folks around here can pick up on it. Emptybill --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Uh, no. You mean Shankara, of course, not Patanjali. In any case, a penchant for debate about the validity of Advaita Vedanta hardly justifies labeling Shankara as a religious fanatic. Such a label is a function of modern Western culture in which the nature and role of religion are very different from what they were in Shankara's culture: essentially, religion *was* the culture, not a subset of it. There was no such thing as not being religious. Moreover, there was no clear distinction between religion and philosophy, or metaphysics. Furthermore, debate of the kind in which Shankara engaged was a *tradition* in that culture, much as debate is a tradition in Buddhism and Judaism, among many others. To call Shankara a religious fanatic because he engaged in debate about the superiority of Advaita Vedanta is like calling candidates for office in the West political fanatics because they engage in debates about the superiority of their policies. TM springs from (i.e., MMY's teaching is based on) both Patanjali and Shankara, the former in terms of practice and experiences of consciousness, the latter in terms of metaphysics. Naah. Shankara couldn't have engaged in debate, obviously, without *opponents* from other metaphysical traditions who were trying to prove *their* tradition represented truth, and whose followers believed every word their teachers spoke was gospel. That's what adherents of most philosophies or metaphysical systems or religions *do*. TM's insistence on the correctness of its metaphysics could have come from any one of the systems whose validity Shankara challenged, and many others besides. Bottom line: There's no unique linkage between TM's tendency toward dogmatism and Shankara's penchant for debate. I don't believe anyone here suggested they were. That's a pretty, uh, elementary principle, after all (and, incidentally, a principle Shankara was very insistent on). Tom didn't say enlightenment became words, he said words became enlightenment through the discrimination of the intellect, when the translucent intellect is as clear as the Self. That's a quote from Patanjali, of course, not Shankara. However, Shankara's most famous work (at least in the West) is titled The Crest Jewel of Discrimination.
Fwd: Re: [FairfieldLife] Vyaasa's comment on II 30
Repost of my original email which did not appear on FFL: billy jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:49:17 -0700 (PDT) From: billy jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Vyaasa's comment on II 30 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com T.S. Rukmani's translation of Vyasa's comment on YS II.30 - brahmacaryaM guptendriyasyopasthasya samyamaaH continence is the control of the hidden sense-organ of generation Where she apparently takes gupta = (guha/guhya) secret or hidden indra/indriya = power/sense-power (and its physical organ) Her translation of the vivarana of Shankara on this passage of Vyasa: brahmacaryam ... samyamah, the control of the other organ of generation of purusa which is hidden, with the absence of activity of the mind, words, etc., which has the result of not observing brahmacarya. Rukmani observes: Thus brahmacarya is not just celibacy but extends to even speech and mental activity pertaining to lack of sex control. She also has the following note at the bottom of the page (note 9): * instead of 'gupendriyasyopasthasya ... the vivaranakara has upasthendriyasya * Hope this helps. Quoted from Yogasutrabhasyvivarana of Shankara by T.S. Rukmani Vol. I, (Samadhipada, Sadhanapada) of a two volume set Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2001 emptybill cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: YS II 30: ahiMsaasatyaasteyabrahmacharyaaparigrahaa yamaaH (ahimsaa-satya-asteya-brahmacarya-aparigrahaaH; yamaaH) Vyaasa's comment on brahmacarya (from a DN text): brahmacaryaM guptendiyasyopasthasya saMyamaH. (There is apparently one typo in guptendiya. It should prolly read guptendriya which would be sandhi for gupta + indriya, cf. karmendriya karma + indriya; thus, without sandhi that would be: brahmacaryam; gupta + indriyasya + upasthasya saMyamaH). I think some of you guys have a translation of Vyaasa's commentary. I'd like to know how the above passage is translated in it. Bhojadeva's comment is much more laconic: brahmacaryam upasthasaMyamaH. - Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. - Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Am I an I or a Me?
Bill wrote: The Divine is a mode of speech designed to shelter us from our frightful picture of a horrible, wrathful God. However is also shelters us from having to confront the Being at the heart of the most powerful experiences of deity found in the western tradition - all-consuming fire, overwhelming light, extinguishing presence, drowning dissolution. Bronte writes: The Infinite is beyond word description, so we conjure terms to refer to it as best we can. There is no shielding effort behind the word divine. Not everyone experiences God the way you describe. The fire and light are overwhelming, but only fear makes one perceive the Infinite as extinguishing or drowning dissolution. That would make God a monster, who wants to eat his own children. But God created the world on purpose, not through ignorance as Hinduism would have us believe. To claim creation is the product of divine ignorance is a slap in the face of the creator. God is not that stupid! The world is here for divine entertainment, for -- as MMY used to say -- the expansion of happiness. God got bored just being the Bliss, and wanted something more. Yet ironically, his children think that going back to just being is the ultimate spiritual experience. God begs to differ with us. - Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization
--Nope, you're wrong. There is an I after realization but it's not the delusional I as before. Response: what happens to that I when you die? ( drop the body?)- and what happens to the eternal Being? By process of illimination- whatever is left after everything else is gone- this is not transcient, non relative, and eternal- what reality is there to the transcient in this respect? It is way more popular to promote cosmic ego, get a bigger and better me- reach your full potential, become a God, choose elightenment- look up Sai Ma- all the ingredients for the making of a big mass movement. There is no interest in a movement where ego candy is not handed out and one will be challenged to the core- getting what is needed and not necessarliy what is wanted. In my path, you are not great, you are not this most wonderfull scientist, you are not the devantari of the heaven on earth, you are not a wonderfull savior with great insight to save humanity, you are not a leader to chnage the course of time, you are not a memeber of an organization that has the power to change the world as no other can- what you are is not a you, it is only ONE- Christ said I and the Father are One where is the two in that? where is the I minus the illusionary I in that? and how popular was Christ?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization
Christ said I and the Father are One where is the two in that? They are one but they are also two, as a branch can say I am the tree and still be a branch. You can experience being one with the Infinite yet an individual at the same time. - Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization
I am not enlightened and can not say from direct experience - I can only pass along what 3 people here say in my path- then again, the honesty of the situation is unless it is known from direct experience, then it is a belief system- so you have my beliefs presented. I will let you know when it is from direct experience as it has been amazing to watch what has taken place in the path here with two people this past summer. Fir sure, this is not a popular heading, the comic me, and all that is by far very popular and new age My Guru is ademant and claiming to speak from Being in saying there is no two, no two, it is only ONE, there only IS, then life flows. A quote from my guru in speaking to a person while I was there- : I just tell people the truth, I never existed nor will I ever My Guru also referenced scriptures written by enlightened Ones that say this same thing. The 3 people here, while not in contact with each other for coaching, have the same basic thing to say because they are speaking from that same ONE MY Guru explains that Oneness implies duality as one with something, and no, it only IS --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christ said I and the Father are One where is the two in that? They are one but they are also two, as a branch can say I am the tree and still be a branch. You can experience being one with the Infinite yet an individual at the same time. - Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I'm a shuudra!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When I was in india some years ago, I bought a lot of great books -- and had them shipped to the states. One of the staff at the hotel, a lovely young woman, asked what is all that. I explained. She said Oh. You are a brahmin and smiled. That's why they call it the hospitality business! Yes, she was clearly being nice -- a part of her job. And I didn't go around introducing my self as Brahmin New right after that. But I raised the experience because there was no discordance in her saying it -- within her culture. Simple a data point (and one data point does not describe a trend) that thinking about class in india may not be as rigid as we suppose, in all circumstances. Several othr parallel experience led support to my feeling this way.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Ego an I or a Me?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter brontebaxter8@ wrote: Bill wrote: The soul is a pure reflection of God called the Jivatma, when in the beginning when it was tempted by Lucifer (maya/avidya) in the Garden of Eden (pure innocence) it was warned not to eat of the tree of knowledge of Good and evil or surely it would die (be subject to the wheel of samasara/reincarnat ion). Because it disobeyed and identified itself with material creation (i.e. the flesh) it became trapped due to attachment, the product of this identification is the 'ego' or the pseudo-soul. Bronte writes: I would say the creation went awry NOT when the soul identified with material creation (which it was supposed to do) but when it forgot that it was the Infinite. We can involve ourselves in matter all we like as long as we maintain our cosmic connection. Same difference really, I've heard it called the 'mistake of the intellect'. It 'forgot' it was the infinite *because* it identified with something 'other' than the infinite/Self, hence the 'fall of man'. Sort of like the old V-8 commercial Darn, I could have had infinitty
[FairfieldLife] Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
1. I had felt caged in all these years from not living in a proper vastu Response from my Guru when I asked is anything had ever caged her in- no 2. cognitions of vedas Response from my Guru- cognitions, discoveries, knowing what needs to be known about anything, sidhis, cognizing all of jyotish, vedic mathmatics, vastu- these things are developed way beffore Realization and are not a part of a realized one- they are all about the transcient 3. Speaking about Kundalini and explaining it is said to be at the base of the spine, Kundalini is for identification of where one is at It is said the more the kundalini is awake, the more enlightened one is, ultimately when kunalini is fully awake, this is enlightenment Response- If one knows what ice cream tastes like- one doesnt say it is said to taste sweet- this is not the words from knowing directly. Kundlaini has been felt all over by some, not only in the spine. Kundalini is a process through consciousness that acts as rotor rooter clearing the pathways for unfolding enlightenment, and the kundalini journey is complete and over in Realization will collect more
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self-Annihilation of Everything Worth Anyth
Tom, thanks for you reply. Thoughts (not arguments) below. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: New Morning et al: writes snipped ___Thus, for example, I understand, directly, that thoughts, and the subset of thoughts called desires, is not from any individualities' effort. Thus, the nuance, that might be sympathetic and understanding of Jim's and Rory's apparent position of: they don't desire the end to suffering in Iraq because they are not in control of such a desire, and such a thought never arose in them. (On of the several things that is odd, IMO, here is that EVEN if the thought to end suffering did not arise in them, at all, through natural observation and interaction with the world, then at least it was introduced to them as a possibility in the on-line discussion. And yet the thought to help the suffering in Iraq never arises in me, thus how can I fulfill that desire is the thought that still arises in them.) TomT: In the past I have shared here an experience at the end of a Byron Katie weekend workshop where she asked three questions of the 100+ folks on the weekend. 1. Who is Happy with their weight? 2. Who is happy with the way they look? 3. WHo is happy with their life?. If you are happy leave your hand down, if you answered No to any of the question then put up your hand. There were only three hands down in a sea of NO's. most folks were unhappy with their lot after a full weekend of focusing on Loving What IS. Its a nice story and demonstrates a good point. And, as in prior discussions, there are a number of things to love in what IS. I choose to love the IS that IS -- AND for which i see has inherent -- deep within itself -- power to constantly and eternally change, and transform itself in to ever new possibilities. The forms of life, superficial or deep, will always change. Pick your flavor perhaps. I sense others, from their words, love a more static IS. Thats their POV and choice. I wish them well. My view, its certainly open for discussion, is that we can also choose to direct that eternal change, in our little domain of things, towards the positive. I know that statement is setting of 5 -alarm sirens in your head because, to you perhaps, that choice implies a should, a bad ,bad word in your vocabulary, I know. But my view doesn't include a SHOULD, its more of a visionary could. In simple terms, what I view as positive, and any skills and resources which I have to enable change towards the positive, I have three choices with regards to deploying such: to use, not use, or do the opposite -- that is, work for what i believe to be negative outcomes. I am not offering up my view of the Good as Truth, or without good alternatives. To me its a Wisdom of the Crowds dynamic which has received a lot of substaniation in recent years. In this application, the the Wisdom of Crowds -- where everyone choosing to make a positive contribution -- may result in may different types of actions, some of them, many perhaps being contradictory. But as a whole, errors tend to cancel out and a greater good is achieved, a smarter decisions is made, than even if the smartest, brightest single person in the universe made it and said this Should Be. That is another aspect or flavor of what is Perfect in the Now and its eternal unfoldment Thus per your example, I AM ecstatically HAPPY with my weight, appearance, and life. These are three things are the current outcomes of a fantastic, miraculous ancient journey through what I view as a result of utterly stunnning )perfect if you will evolutionary dynamics () of matter and soul) (which may include a lot of random factors, I am not talking determinism). What could not be more Perfect that what is currently at that current, yet always changing end-state? At the crest of that wave? But is this Perfect Now going to change? In form, yes, of course, always, eternally. Fasten your set belts its going to be a bumpy ride as the Seer BD cognized. The manifest form of the wave will/ It will always be changing, On the other hand, there is eternal satisfaction and glee of always being on the crest of the wave of Now. That perfection and the surge from riding the eternal Now will Never change. All sorts of possibilities exist for that change. My weight could balloon to 400 lb. Or shrink to 90. if that happened, then the forces behind it would be perfect. But I can also nudge the wave, put a little slight pressure, an indentation towards the left or right. (Not that I am doing or desiring such -- but thats another theme -- where do thoughts really come from and are they mine?) I can nudge towards losing 20 lb or gaining 20 lb. Or more. And that inherent possibility in this Moment, nudge Eternal change, is Very Perfect. It is an inherent part of what IS. The Eternal sameness and the eternal changiness. So I have can not raise my hand to Bk's question, and
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
Thanks, Marek and emptybill, for your kind comments. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good observation. I found Judy's analysis very helpful. Thanks. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@ wrote: Hey Judy, Very accurate description of just how the culture of Vedanta was in Shankara's day. Quite dispassionate reporting too. Congradulations to you. We rarely see these kinds of simple, unleaved observations here of FFL. I find it refreshing. Even Vaj should be able to agree - and I'm not sure if I've seen that yet. Good job. Hope more folks around here can pick up on it. Emptybill --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Uh, no. You mean Shankara, of course, not Patanjali. In any case, a penchant for debate about the validity of Advaita Vedanta hardly justifies labeling Shankara as a religious fanatic. Such a label is a function of modern Western culture in which the nature and role of religion are very different from what they were in Shankara's culture: essentially, religion *was* the culture, not a subset of it. There was no such thing as not being religious. Moreover, there was no clear distinction between religion and philosophy, or metaphysics. Furthermore, debate of the kind in which Shankara engaged was a *tradition* in that culture, much as debate is a tradition in Buddhism and Judaism, among many others. To call Shankara a religious fanatic because he engaged in debate about the superiority of Advaita Vedanta is like calling candidates for office in the West political fanatics because they engage in debates about the superiority of their policies. TM springs from (i.e., MMY's teaching is based on) both Patanjali and Shankara, the former in terms of practice and experiences of consciousness, the latter in terms of metaphysics. Naah. Shankara couldn't have engaged in debate, obviously, without *opponents* from other metaphysical traditions who were trying to prove *their* tradition represented truth, and whose followers believed every word their teachers spoke was gospel. That's what adherents of most philosophies or metaphysical systems or religions *do*. TM's insistence on the correctness of its metaphysics could have come from any one of the systems whose validity Shankara challenged, and many others besides. Bottom line: There's no unique linkage between TM's tendency toward dogmatism and Shankara's penchant for debate. I don't believe anyone here suggested they were. That's a pretty, uh, elementary principle, after all (and, incidentally, a principle Shankara was very insistent on). Tom didn't say enlightenment became words, he said words became enlightenment through the discrimination of the intellect, when the translucent intellect is as clear as the Self. That's a quote from Patanjali, of course, not Shankara. However, Shankara's most famous work (at least in the West) is titled The Crest Jewel of Discrimination.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization
Ron wrote: I am not enlightened and can not say from direct experience - I can only pass along what 3 people here say in my path- then again, the honesty of the situation is unless it is known from direct experience, then it is a belief system- so you have my beliefs presented. Bronte writes: I think that is very humble and honest of you. You seem very determined to know the ultimate truth and to evolve, and that is admirable. Ron: My Guru is ademant and claiming to speak from Being in saying there is no two, no two, it is only ONE, there only IS, then life flows. A quote from my guru in speaking to a person while I was there- : I just tell people the truth, I never existed nor will I ever. Bronte: Yeah, well, gurus say things like that. They were taught it was going to be that way when they got there, so when they got there, that's how they experienced it. It's an assumption handed from guru to disciple who becomes the new guru and tells the same story to the next new seeker. But we don't all experience Being like that, nor enlightenment. Probably expectation colors the experience. What we think, we experience. Ron: The 3 people here, while not in contact with each other for coaching, have the same basic thing to say because they are speaking from that same ONE. Bronte: Or because they've developed the same assumptions culled from the same guru. In my own experience, I also speak from that same One a lot of the time -- I'm not always in it, but much of the time I am. And the way I experience it is a Oneness which I am, but also a strong and healthy individuality, which is an outgrowth of the Oneness, a small part of it, as a limb is a part of its tree. I would never say, from this state, that I never existed nor will I ever. You know the story of the blind men exploring different aspects of the same elephant in front of them? I think it's a case of that here. You can let Being annihilate your personhood if you want it to. It is the fulfiller of all desires. But I think that's a most unfortunate thing to desire. It's like God is this parent who built this neat playground (the world) for his kid (us) to enjoy, and the child comes home (back to Being) from the playground crying because there were bullies on the playground, and he never wants to go out there again. The loving dad won't make the kid go back to the playground. The kid can stay home forever if he wants. But how sad that the child could not enjoy the gift, that the bullies got the better of him. A person can reason this out even before they experience it. We can let Being infuse our personality, directing and inspiring it, and be dynamic people partaking in this wonderful life, making it better through our thoughts all the time, or we can let Being eat our personality, leaving only an outer husk, a body/mind robot, that continues through this world in a zombie-like state until death takes it. You can pick what kind of child of God you prefer to be: the one who comes home crying from the playground and never returns, or the one who goes back and straightens out the game, making it fun again. - Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
