[FairfieldLife] Tough Question

[John]

Was John Paul II Euthanized? By JEFF ISRAELY/ROME 
Fri Sep 21, 12:25 PM ET
 


In a provocative article, an Italian medical professor argues that 
Pope John Paul II didn't just simply slip away as his weakness and 
illness overtook him in April 2005. Intensive care specialist Dr. 
Lina Pavanelli has concluded that the ailing Pope's April 2 death was 
caused by what the Catholic Church itself would consider euthanasia. 
She bases this conclusion on her medical expertise and her own 
observations of the ailing pontiff on television, as well as press 
reports and a subsequent book by John Paul's personal physician. The 
failure to insert a feeding tube into the patient until just a few 
days before he died accelerated John Paul's death, Pavanelli 
concludes. Moreover, Pavanelli says she believes that the Pope's 
doctors dutifully explained the situation to him, and thus she 
surmises that it was the pontiff himself who likely refused the 
feeding tube after he'd been twice rushed to the hospital in February 
and March. Catholics are enjoined to pursue all means to prolong 
life. 

ADVERTISEMENT
 
The article, entitled "The Sweet Death of Karol Wojtyla" (using the 
Pope's birth name) appears in the latest edition of Micromega, a 
highbrow Italian bi-monthly that has frequently criticized the 
Vatican's stance on bioethics. The author, who heads the 
anesthesiology and intensive care therapy school at the University of 
Ferrara, says she decided to revisit the events around John Paul's 
death after the Vatican took a hard line in a controversy last year 
in Italy over euthanasia. Indeed her accusations are grave, 
questioning the Catholic Church's strictly traditional stances on 
medical ethics, including the dictum from John Paul's own 1995 
encyclical Evangelium Vitae to use all modern means possible to avoid 
death. 


Recalling the Vatican's medical reports during John Paul's last days, 
Pavanelli writes: "I'm surprised that I myself failed to critically 
examine the information. I let my perceptions conform to the hope of 
recovery and the official version, without confronting the clinical 
signs that I was seeing." While the Vatican had expressed most of its 
concern about breathing difficulty, which was alleviated with a 
tracheotomy, Pavanelli says a readily apparent loss of weight, and an 
apparent difficulty to swallow, was not being addressed. "The patient 
had died for reasons that were clearly not mentioned. Of all the 
problems of the complicated clinical picture of the patient, the 
acute respiratory insufficiency was not the principal threat to the 
life of the patient. The Pope was dying from another consequence of 
the effects on the [throat] muscles from his Parkinson's Disease... 
not treated: the incapacity to swallow." 


The Vatican quickly fired back this week. John Paul's longtime doctor 
Renato Buzzonetti, who now monitors Pope Benedict XVI, said that 
doctors and John Paul himself all acted to stave off death. "His 
treatment was never interrupted," Buzzonetti told the Rome daily La 
Repubblica. "Anyone who says otherwise is mistaken." He added that a 
permanent nasal feeding tube was inserted three days before the 
Pope's death when he could no longer sufficiently ingest food or 
liquids. Buzzonetti did not specifically respond to Pavanelli's claim 
that John Paul needed a tube weeks, not days, before he eventually 
died. 


The polemics come just as the Vatican again weighed in on euthanasia. 
The Church's doctrinal office released a one-page document, approved 
by Benedict, that denounced the cutting off of food and water to 
patients in a vegetative state even if they would never regain 
consciousness. This reaffirmed John Paul's stance in 2004 during the 
battle over ending artificial feeding for the severely brain-damaged 
Terri Schiavo, who was later taken off her feeding tube and died. 


"The administration of food and water even by artificial means is, in 
principle, an ordinary means of preserving life," said the Vatican 
ruling, which came in response to questions from the U.S. Catholic 
Bishops Conference about what constitutes ordinary and extraordinary 
life support. 


The issue of euthanasia and the Church heated up in Italy last year 
after a man named Piergiorgio Welby, who'd been on life support for 
nine years from the effects of muscular dystrophy, asked for the 
right to die. Eventually, the life support was suspended and he died. 
But when his wife, a practicing Catholic, asked for a funeral in 
Church, the Vatican refused. Pavanelli says that this episode 
prompted her to revisit John Paul's death. 


The medical aspects of the Pope's final days are clearly difficult to 
verify from afar, and the Vatican is convinced that the actions of 
the both its doctors and its Pope were in absolute good faith. Of 
course, medical opinions can often vary. So too can those on 
bioethics. 

[FairfieldLife] How many times a day do you...?

[cardemaister]

One who eats once a day is a yogi. One who eats twice a day is a 
bhogi. One who eats thrice a day becomes a rogi. One who eats more 
than that is "carried away".

http://www.speaksanskrit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?
p=853&sid=b8703f3627df9cd830e1a7242f310101

[FairfieldLife] Re: How many times a day do you...?

[lurkernomore20002000]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
One who eats once a day is a yogi. One who eats twice a day is a 
> bhogi. One who eats thrice a day becomes a rogi. One who eats more 
> than that is "carried away".

I've always tried to live by the dictum, "Once a King, always a King, 
and once a Queen, always a Queen, but ONCE A KNIGHT is enough"

lurk

>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Challenge -- say something true

[Vaj]

On Sep 21, 2007, at 8:10 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:



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.


I think you're confusing Patanjali with Shankara, who set out to  
restore what he felt was the original, more unified POV of the  
Upanishads and the Veda, and so set himself to travelling over India  
and attempting to defeat more dualistic schools in debate (e.g. yoga- 
darshana, samkhya, etc.). This was largely in reaction to the  
Buddhist realizer Nagarjuna and the increasing popularity of Buddhism  
in India, another system of awakening with a very unified and  
"competing" POV.




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,
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."


The TM model/map of the seven states of consciousness really springs  
from Shankara's commentary of the Badarayana sutra, aka, the Brahma  
sutras and that traditions slant on the many other (non-Advaita- 
vedantic) commentaries on the same sutras. The important thing to  
realize with this map is that it views progress thru the higher  
states from the POV of advaita-vedanta even when it is largely  
dealing with yoga-darshana. And thus it ignores the POV of  
realization in most other darshanas or ways-of-seeing.


Thus is is slanted towards the advaita View (drsti) and tends to  
ignore the POV of the "lower" vehices and Views, as it believes it's  
view is superior.


Because of this somewhat elitist POV, numerous schools and numerous  
realizers did view Shankara as a fanatic of demon. The dvaita master  
Madhava called Shankara "a deceitful demon who had perverted the  
teachings of the Brahma-sutra to lead souls astray."

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true

[Vaj]

On Sep 22, 2007, at 5:25 PM, authfriend wrote:


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."



But, it's important to point out, that the translation Tom is using  
is extremely misleading. What the verse he quoted is referring to is  
known technically in the yoga-darshana of Patanjali as "viveka- 
khyati". While viveka-khyati IS an important stage (bhumi) on the  
Path of realization a la Patanjali, it is emphatically not final  
realization in that system.


He has perpetuated this falsehood numerous times on this list,  
despite this fact being brought to his attention.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true

[Vaj]

On Sep 22, 2007, at 6:29 PM, emptybill wrote:


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.


Well, I think if we accept the Mahesh Varma map of awakening and  
stories we were told, and rely on that alone, we'd find it easy to  
accept Judy's post, at least in part. However, being familiar with  
the Patanjali system, as applied in the Shankaracharya tradition, I  
could not agree with a number of falsehoods.


I've already commented on a couple of these in other posts.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Sep 22, 2007, at 6:29 PM, emptybill wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Well, I think if we accept the Mahesh Varma map of awakening and  
> stories we were told, and rely on that alone, we'd find it easy 
to  
> accept Judy's post, at least in part. However, being familiar 
with  
> the Patanjali system, as applied in the Shankaracharya tradition, 
I  
> could not agree with a number of falsehoods.
> 
> I've already commented on a couple of these in other posts.
>
"the Mahesh Varma map of awakening"? What map? When you are awake, 
you are awake, and when you are asleep you are asleep. Mahesh or 
whatever we call him has never said any differently. There is no 
map, per se.:-)

[FairfieldLife] Dr. John!

[cardemaister]

Please watch Doctor John Hagelin speak on Maharishi Channel
right now! He's seems to be glowing of happiness and bliss!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> On Sep 22, 2007, at 5:25 PM, authfriend wrote:
> 
> > 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."
> 
> But, it's important to point out, that the translation Tom
> is using is extremely misleading. What the verse he quoted
> is referring to is known technically in the yoga-darshana of 
> Patanjali as "viveka-khyati". While viveka-khyati IS an
> important stage (bhumi) on the Path of realization a la
> Patanjali, it is emphatically not final realization in that
> system.

Hm, I don't recall Tom saying anything in this
instance about its being "final realization." He
was making a different point.

In any case, you appear to be mistaken, given
that the term used in the sutra Tom was quoting
is "kaivalya," final liberation.

> He has perpetuated this falsehood numerous times on this list,  
> despite this fact being brought to his attention.

Perhaps he simply didn't bother to point out
your error.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sep 22, 2007, at 6:29 PM, emptybill wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Well, I think if we accept the Mahesh Varma map of awakening and  
> stories we were told, and rely on that alone, we'd find it easy to  
> accept Judy's post, at least in part.

Perhaps you should actually read the post you're
commenting on. As it happens, it had nothing to do
with MMY's "map of awakening," nor did it depend
on any TM "stories."

 However, being familiar with  
> the Patanjali system, as applied in the Shankaracharya tradition,
> I could not agree with a number of falsehoods.
> 
> I've already commented on a couple of these in other posts.

You pointed out one "falsehood," about which it
appears you were mistaken.

Please take the time now to point out all the other
"falsehoods" in my post with which you could not agree,
so we can determine whether these are errors as well.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true

[Vaj]

On Sep 23, 2007, at 1:15 PM, authfriend wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sep 22, 2007, at 5:25 PM, authfriend wrote:
>
> > 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."
>
> But, it's important to point out, that the translation Tom
> is using is extremely misleading. What the verse he quoted
> is referring to is known technically in the yoga-darshana of
> Patanjali as "viveka-khyati". While viveka-khyati IS an
> important stage (bhumi) on the Path of realization a la
> Patanjali, it is emphatically not final realization in that
> system.

Hm, I don't recall Tom saying anything in this
instance about its being "final realization." He
was making a different point.


Final realization in the context of yoga-darshana in TM-jargon is  
"CC" and the style of "final enlightenment" of yoga-darshana. Viveka- 
khyati is not that, nor is it "enlightenment", it's a bhumi (a  
stage). This is also why sutras such as the YS requires a lineal  
realizer to explain it. This also is why it is not unusual to see   
TMer's express false views.




In any case, you appear to be mistaken, given
that the term used in the sutra Tom was quoting
is "kaivalya," final liberation.

> He has perpetuated this falsehood numerous times on this list,
> despite this fact being brought to his attention.

Perhaps he simply didn't bother to point out
your error.


He's always welcome to try. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Sep 23, 2007, at 1:15 PM, authfriend wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sep 22, 2007, at 5:25 PM, authfriend wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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."
> > >
> > > But, it's important to point out, that the translation Tom
> > > is using is extremely misleading. What the verse he quoted
> > > is referring to is known technically in the yoga-darshana of
> > > Patanjali as "viveka-khyati". While viveka-khyati IS an
> > > important stage (bhumi) on the Path of realization a la
> > > Patanjali, it is emphatically not final realization in that
> > > system.
> >
> > Hm, I don't recall Tom saying anything in this
> > instance about its being "final realization." He
> > was making a different point.
> 
> Final realization in the context of yoga-darshana in TM-jargon is  
> "CC" and the style of "final enlightenment" of yoga-darshana. 
> Viveka-khyati is not that, nor is it "enlightenment", it's a bhumi 
> (a stage). This is also why sutras such as the YS requires a 
> lineal realizer to explain it. This also is why it is not unusual
> to see TMer's express false views.

This is just a string of non sequiturs, Vaj.
Tom didn't say anything about "viveka-khyati"
either.

Nothing you've said has any relevance to what
Tom said or what I said. It's just your usual
attempt at misdirection to get in another slam
at MMY.

Plus which, I rather doubt you're a "lineal
realizer," so by your own criterion, you aren't
in a position to explain the Yoga Sutras.

> > In any case, you appear to be mistaken, given
> > that the term used in the sutra Tom was quoting
> > is "kaivalya," final liberation.
> >
> > > He has perpetuated this falsehood numerous times on this list,
> > > despite this fact being brought to his attention.
> >
> > Perhaps he simply didn't bother to point out
> > your error.
> 
> He's always welcome to try.

Translation: Ooops!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Sep 23, 2007, at 1:15 PM, authfriend wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sep 22, 2007, at 5:25 PM, authfriend wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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."
> > >
> > > But, it's important to point out, that the translation Tom
> > > is using is extremely misleading. What the verse he quoted
> > > is referring to is known technically in the yoga-darshana of
> > > Patanjali as "viveka-khyati". While viveka-khyati IS an
> > > important stage (bhumi) on the Path of realization a la
> > > Patanjali, it is emphatically not final realization in that
> > > system.
> >
> > Hm, I don't recall Tom saying anything in this
> > instance about its being "final realization." He
> > was making a different point.
> 
> Final realization in the context of yoga-darshana in TM-jargon is  
> "CC" and the style of "final enlightenment" of yoga-darshana. 
Viveka- 
> khyati is not that, nor is it "enlightenment", it's a bhumi (a  
> stage). This is also why sutras such as the YS requires a lineal  
> realizer to explain it. This also is why it is not unusual to 
see   
> TMer's express false views.
> 
Brahman is the end result, or the beginning of actual Self 
Realization, nor have I heard any differently from Maharishi. You 
have misinterpreted the TM message. I have heard TMers consistently 
correct about this. You appear to be trolling here, Vaj.:-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >
> > On Sep 22, 2007, at 6:29 PM, emptybill wrote:
> > 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Well, I think if we accept the Mahesh Varma map of awakening 
and  
> > stories we were told, and rely on that alone, we'd find it easy 
to  
> > accept Judy's post, at least in part.
> 
> Perhaps you should actually read the post you're
> commenting on. As it happens, it had nothing to do
> with MMY's "map of awakening," nor did it depend
> on any TM "stories."
> 
>  However, being familiar with  
> > the Patanjali system, as applied in the Shankaracharya tradition,
> > I could not agree with a number of falsehoods.
> > 
> > I've already commented on a couple of these in other posts.
> 
> You pointed out one "falsehood," about which it
> appears you were mistaken.
> 
> Please take the time now to point out all the other
> "falsehoods" in my post with which you could not agree,
> so we can determine whether these are errors as well.
>
It took me a minute, but Vaj has slipped into his troll guise 
again.:-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true

[Vaj]

On Sep 23, 2007, at 1:40 PM, authfriend wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 23, 2007, at 1:15 PM, authfriend wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sep 22, 2007, at 5:25 PM, authfriend wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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."
> > >
> > > But, it's important to point out, that the translation Tom
> > > is using is extremely misleading. What the verse he quoted
> > > is referring to is known technically in the yoga-darshana of
> > > Patanjali as "viveka-khyati". While viveka-khyati IS an
> > > important stage (bhumi) on the Path of realization a la
> > > Patanjali, it is emphatically not final realization in that
> > > system.
> >
> > Hm, I don't recall Tom saying anything in this
> > instance about its being "final realization." He
> > was making a different point.
>
> Final realization in the context of yoga-darshana in TM-jargon is
> "CC" and the style of "final enlightenment" of yoga-darshana.
> Viveka-khyati is not that, nor is it "enlightenment", it's a bhumi
> (a stage). This is also why sutras such as the YS requires a
> lineal realizer to explain it. This also is why it is not unusual
> to see TMer's express false views.

This is just a string of non sequiturs, Vaj.
Tom didn't say anything about "viveka-khyati"
either.


Actually not. The verse Tom quoted refers to viveka-khyati my dear.



Nothing you've said has any relevance to what
Tom said or what I said. It's just your usual
attempt at misdirection to get in another slam
at MMY.


No my dear, it's an attempt to clarify from an extremely misleading  
statement.


Sorry, I guess you missed that.



Plus which, I rather doubt you're a "lineal
realizer," so by your own criterion, you aren't
in a position to explain the Yoga Sutras.


Well it does help to be trained correctly. ;-)



> > In any case, you appear to be mistaken, given
> > that the term used in the sutra Tom was quoting
> > is "kaivalya," final liberation.
> >
> > > He has perpetuated this falsehood numerous times on this list,
> > > despite this fact being brought to his attention.
> >
> > Perhaps he simply didn't bother to point out
> > your error.
>
> He's always welcome to try.

Translation: Ooops!


Actual translation: "bring it on Tom!"

[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Sep 23, 2007, at 1:40 PM, authfriend wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sep 23, 2007, at 1:15 PM, authfriend wrote:
> > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sep 22, 2007, at 5:25 PM, authfriend wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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."
> > > > >
> > > > > But, it's important to point out, that the translation Tom
> > > > > is using is extremely misleading. What the verse he quoted
> > > > > is referring to is known technically in the yoga-darshana of
> > > > > Patanjali as "viveka-khyati". While viveka-khyati IS an
> > > > > important stage (bhumi) on the Path of realization a la
> > > > > Patanjali, it is emphatically not final realization in that
> > > > > system.
> > > >
> > > > Hm, I don't recall Tom saying anything in this
> > > > instance about its being "final realization." He
> > > > was making a different point.
> > >
> > > Final realization in the context of yoga-darshana in TM-jargon 
is
> > > "CC" and the style of "final enlightenment" of yoga-darshana.
> > > Viveka-khyati is not that, nor is it "enlightenment", it's a 
bhumi
> > > (a stage). This is also why sutras such as the YS requires a
> > > lineal realizer to explain it. This also is why it is not 
unusual
> > > to see TMer's express false views.
> >
> > This is just a string of non sequiturs, Vaj.
> > Tom didn't say anything about "viveka-khyati"
> > either.
> 
> Actually not. The verse Tom quoted refers to viveka-khyati my dear.

Please review my previous posts, poopsie. The
sutra Tom quoted refers to "kaivalya," final
liberation.

> > Nothing you've said has any relevance to what
> > Tom said or what I said. It's just your usual
> > attempt at misdirection to get in another slam
> > at MMY.
> 
> No my dear, it's an attempt to clarify from an extremely 
> misleading statement.

No, Vaj.  No, it's not. Everything you've said in
this thread has been an attempt to obfuscate.

[FairfieldLife] Re: What if you spent one year following every rule in the Bible?

[new . morning]

And there is the cafeteria of all religions and traditions.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> 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 gratefulness—instead
> of the parts about hatred and intolerance."
> 
> What's not to love?
> 
> Marek
> 
> **
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
>  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!
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true

[Vaj]

On Sep 23, 2007, at 2:20 PM, authfriend wrote:


> Actually not. The verse Tom quoted refers to viveka-khyati my dear.

Please review my previous posts, poopsie. The
sutra Tom quoted refers to "kaivalya," final
liberation.


Ah, I see where you are confused! Yes it does use that word Judy...in  
regards to pada 3. The YS has 4 padas though Judy. You must've missed  
the context. Oops!


Don't they still teach editors about context or I am just old-fashioned?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Sep 23, 2007, at 2:20 PM, authfriend wrote:
> 
> > > Actually not. The verse Tom quoted refers to viveka-khyati my dear.
> >
> > Please review my previous posts, poopsie. The
> > sutra Tom quoted refers to "kaivalya," final
> > liberation.
> 
> Ah, I see where you are confused! Yes it does use that word Judy...in  
> regards to pada 3. The YS has 4 padas though Judy. You must've missed  
> the context. Oops!

Uh, no, no confusion here, Vaj.

Ain't it awful? You work so hard trying to
confuse me, and you're never successful.

> Don't they still teach editors about context or I am just old-
fashioned?

(Actually, you don't have to be an editor
to know about the importance of context.)

An understanding of context is particularly
helpful when someone is engaging in
obfuscation by invoking irrelevant context.

[FairfieldLife] Invincible America: Urgent message from Dr. John Hagelin

[Dick Mays]

Please Read Immediately

OPEN LETTER FROM DR. JOHN HAGELIN
TO AMERICA'S YOGIC FLYERS

September 23, 2007

Dear Fellow Governors and Sidhas:

I had the great honor of announcing in July to Maharishi and the 
world press the results of the first year of our Invincible America 
Assembly.


The news was excellent-and exactly what we had predicted one year 
earlier: a record-breaking stock market and a surprisingly robust 
economy; mounting bipartisan support for a peaceful resolution of the 
Iraq conflict; improved relations with North Korea, including an 
unexpected treaty; and fewer natural disasters (in fact, no 
hurricanes hit the US mainland in over a year-defying the predictions 
of every respected meteorologist in the country!).


The cause of such extraordinarily good news is an established 
scientific fact: nearly 1800 Yogic Flyers assembled together in 
groups in Maharishi University of Management and Maharishi Vedic 
City-enough to create a high degree of coherent national 
consciousness-the basis for a healthy, peaceful, prosperous, 
invincible nation.


But now, two months later, it's a different story. The market has 
turned volatile, peace efforts in Iraq have stalled, and US-Iran 
relations are flaring up again.


Why? There are now up to 200 fewer Yogic Flyers in the flying halls.

I write to every Yogic Flyer in America to give a gentle but urgent 
call: Please come here and fly together in a large group! We must 
immediately bring our numbers up again above the super radiance 
threshold of 1730. And ideally, we must increase those numbers to 
2000 and beyond!


Yes, it is true that more Vedic Pandits are on their way from India 
and should be here in a few months. And their arrival will certainly 
raise our numbers.


But the Vedic Pandits should come here to "crown the nation with 
invincibility"-not to lay the groundwork. Creating national coherence 
is the responsibility of all American Yogic Flyers-including all of 
us who are blessed to be living in this sublime community.


Please come. You will hasten the rise of your own supreme 
enlightenment and enjoy life in a state of perpetual bliss 
consciousness. And you will radiate your bliss to America and the 
world.


Thank you so much.

Jai Guru Dev

John

Click here to unsubscribe

[FairfieldLife] Latin American countries approach invincibility

[michael florescu]

http://globalgoodnews.com/education-news-a.html?art=1190237504319491
   
  Latin American countries approach invincibility
by Global Good News staff writer

Global Good NewsTranslate This Article
23 September 2007

Dr Jose Luis Alvarez, Raja (Administrator) of Latin America for the Global 
Country of World Peace, recently gave an overview of the countries in his 
domain that will soon have the number of Yogic Flyers to achieve invincibility. 

With 43 million people, Colombia is the third most populated Latin American 
country. It needs 660 Yogic Flyers to reach invincibility and ease the tension 
it has been suffering for many years. Dr Alvarez reported, 'Yesterday and the 
day before, Luz Marino la Scagno, the National Leader of Colombia for the 
Global Country of World Peace, was graduating 150 new Yogic Flyers', for a 
total of 270 graduates in the last few weeks; and that 600 more are in the 
process of learning the TM-Sidhi Programme, which includes Yogic Flying, in the 
next weeks. 

In Chile, about 400—the number needed for its invincibility—have now learned 
Transcendental Meditation in schools; and they will be ready to learn the 
TM-Sidhi Programme after this week of holidays. 'Then Rafael de la Puente, the 
country's National Leader and Founder of Invincibility for the Global Country 
of World Peace will have his country invincible. This will also be a great joy 
for everyone,' Dr Alvarez points out, as Chile is 'such an important country in 
Latin America with a population of 16 million people'. 

The largest country in Latin America, with almost 200 million people, is 
Brazil, which will rise to invincibility sometime between September and 
November. A similar situation is also taking shape in Mexico, where two 
universities and one school are offering Consciousness-Based Education (through 
which, in addition to their regular curriculum, students have the opportunity 
to learn Transcendental Meditation and Yogic Flying). Dr Alvarez estimates that 
Mexico will gain invincibility in the next 8 weeks. 

In Central America, Panama, and El Salvador are also qualifying for achieving 
invincibility around the auspicious Vedic Calendar day of Victory Day in 
October, or the first week of November. Trinidad will be starting a programme 
not only for the invincibility of Trinidad, but also for the invincibility of 
the whole Caribbean, with 400-500 Yogic Flyers in the next three months. 

Dr Alvarez pointed out that Bolivia already has achieved Invincibility; but 
Peru will also attain that goal in the next few weeks as it completes a course 
now in progress to teach the TM-Sidhi Programme to practitioners of Maharishi's 
Transcendental Meditation Technique. Then Peru will have 'more than the 
necessary number, so both are heading in the direction of quite a lot more 
Yogic Flyers, and they aspire together to have more than the necessary number 
for the whole domain'. 

Copyright © 2007 Global Good News(sm) Service 


   

   
-
Jetzt Mails schnell in einem Vorschaufenster überfliegen. Dies und viel mehr 
bietet das  neue Yahoo! Mail. 

[FairfieldLife] Video: India on America

[Bhairitu]

Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnlMnf7t4t4

[FairfieldLife] Re: Video: India on America

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Enjoy!
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnlMnf7t4t4

Too bad she can't danceI wonder, how much better would the world
be without America? I guess everybody would be happier and war would
just disappearmaybe someday we'll find out, and soon too!

[FairfieldLife] I don't care what you call it...

[TurquoiseB]

...and I'm sorry, given whatever Hindu or Newage
stuff you wish to project upon it, there is nothing
quite like meeting someone *far* too young and *far*
too beautiful for you in a bar -- in this case, the
"Corner Bar" in Sitges...pool tables in the bar, good,
cheap, single-malt Scotches at the bar itself -- and 
who speaks as little English as you speak Spanish or 
Catalan, and hitting it off *anyway*, no matter
how inept your Spanish was.

Suffice it to say that if you hear the name Sonia
around here in the future, my "seeing" on this evening
will have been correct. If you don't, well, so it goes.
The world is full of wonderful women...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ain't it awful? You work so hard trying to
> confuse me, and you're never successful.

For the record, the very *definition* of
paranoia.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization

[tertonzeno]

--Thanks, Bronte, I like your comments!.
The statement, "There's only the One" is a true statement, but it's 
incomplete, since a certain Guru with a name is saying that. The Guru 
doesn't "have" a bodyhe is a body/mind as an individual as 
opposed to other individuals, in the relative sense.  
 A more complete statement would be "There's only One, which 
expresses Itself as many, without losing the nonduality".


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

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true

[billy jim]

  OK Vaj, I'm going to enter the fray here. 
   
  The way this conversation is preceding you’re going to get tired soon from 
the suffocating squeeze of the pythoness. (I actually mean this as a complement 
to Judy.) Then the conversation will attenuate into a final pair of mutual - 
“the pox on your house, dear”. This is not only boring - it is unilluminating. 
And, being a fool’s fool, I only exist for the dazzling radiance that others of 
real worth, like you and Judy, can shine on my miserable bug-like existence. 
   
  Help me out here, Vaj - illuminate me. I’ve heard this argument from you 
before and I never could decide which sutra-s of Patanjali you are directing 
our attention toward - above all because I’m overwhelmed by your ocean-like 
compassion to save us from our slavish adulation of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. (And 
who is this Mr. Varma who you keep talking about?)
   
  So … let me try to restate your referenced argument in simplified form – one 
that even a fecal larvae like me can understand: 
   
  TM practitioners, particularly brain-washed TM teachers, falsely identify 
their direct, unmediated experiences of utter difference between 
pure-consciousness (purusha) and the intellect (buddhi-sattva) as kaivalya 
(aloneness of pure consciousness).
   
  However, kaivalya is described by Patanjali (Pada II.25) as the disappearance 
of ignorance (avidya) and the consequent ceasing of the correlation (samyoga) 
between the seer and the seen.
   
  The experiences of TM’er are NOT kaivalya but rather are transient flashes of 
viveka-khyati, or the “vision-of-discernment” between purusha and prakriti. 
   
  So, Vaj, is this an accurate description of your argument against TM claims 
vis-à-vis Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras? 
   
  If so then please help me out by pointing which of Patanjali’s sutras you are 
referencing as positive proof that TM’ers misidentify the “vision of 
discernment” with the “Aloneness of seeing” (Kaivalya). 
   
  If not, then also help me out by restating your argument so you can correct 
my misunderstanding. Please do so in a form that likewise tags your references 
to each of the relevant Sutra-s of my good friend, Maharishi Patanjali … and 
please don’t call him Mr. Naga. 
   
   
  The shit-eating worm
  Emptybill
   
  
 whatever whatever


   
-
Don't let your dream ride pass you by.Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true

[sinhlnx]

--- Thanks, billy jim!  During my first 6 weeks in the Army long ago 
they used to call us "maggots".
 Let me get this straight: are you saying that Vaj is saying that 
MMY's TM can only facilitate people getting into CC, and not Unity? 
Is that a concise summary?


In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, billy jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
>   OK Vaj, I'm going to enter the fray here. 
>
>   The way this conversation is preceding you're going to get tired 
soon from the suffocating squeeze of the pythoness. (I actually mean 
this as a complement to Judy.) Then the conversation will attenuate 
into a final pair of mutual - "the pox on your house, dear". This is 
not only boring - it is unilluminating. And, being a fool's fool, I 
only exist for the dazzling radiance that others of real worth, like 
you and Judy, can shine on my miserable bug-like existence. 
>
>   Help me out here, Vaj - illuminate me. I've heard this argument 
from you before and I never could decide which sutra-s of Patanjali 
you are directing our attention toward - above all because I'm 
overwhelmed by your ocean-like compassion to save us from our slavish 
adulation of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. (And who is this Mr. Varma who 
you keep talking about?)
>
>   So … let me try to restate your referenced argument in simplified 
form – one that even a fecal larvae like me can understand: 
>
>   TM practitioners, particularly brain-washed TM teachers, falsely 
identify their direct, unmediated experiences of utter difference 
between pure-consciousness (purusha) and the intellect (buddhi-
sattva) as kaivalya (aloneness of pure consciousness).
>
>   However, kaivalya is described by Patanjali (Pada II.25) as the 
disappearance of ignorance (avidya) and the consequent ceasing of the 
correlation (samyoga) between the seer and the seen.
>
>   The experiences of TM'er are NOT kaivalya but rather are 
transient flashes of viveka-khyati, or the "vision-of-discernment" 
between purusha and prakriti. 
>
>   So, Vaj, is this an accurate description of your argument against 
TM claims vis-à-vis Patanjali's Yoga Sutras? 
>
>   If so then please help me out by pointing which of Patanjali's 
sutras you are referencing as positive proof that TM'ers misidentify 
the "vision of discernment" with the "Aloneness of seeing" 
(Kaivalya). 
>
>   If not, then also help me out by restating your argument so you 
can correct my misunderstanding. Please do so in a form that likewise 
tags your references to each of the relevant Sutra-s of my good 
friend, Maharishi Patanjali … and please don't call him Mr. Naga. 
>
>
>   The shit-eating worm
>   Emptybill
>
>   
>  whatever whatever
> 
> 
>
> -
> Don't let your dream ride pass you by.Make it a reality with 
Yahoo! Autos.
>

[FairfieldLife] Auspicious Days for the Month of October 2007

[jiva jivazz]

Note: forwarded message attached.



  

Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.  Join Yahoo!'s user panel 
and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 
--- Begin Message ---

You appear to be using an email application that won't properly display
the graphical (or HTML) version of our Yagya newsletter. Please visit
the following web page where it has been posted for your enjoyment:

http://yagya.org/2007_10_days.html
http://yagya.org/2007_10_days.html";>AOL User Link--- End Message ---

[FairfieldLife] September Yagya News

[jiva jivazz]

Note: forwarded message attached.



  

Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on 
Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/ 
--- Begin Message ---


September 2007

Yagya Newsletter


Quick Links

PujaNet 
[http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=zg78lecab.0.jzk8p6bab.ldjlkxbab.264&ts=S0279&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.puja.net%2F]
Yagya Photos 
[http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=zg78lecab.0.xheioxbab.ldjlkxbab.264&ts=S0279&p=http%3A%2F%2Fyagyanotes.blogspot.com%2F]


Greetings!
My apologies to those of you for whom this is a repeat email message.  Our email
 company reported an errror and over half of the email list received no notice, 
but they couldn't tell me which addresses, so I am sending the September 
announcement
again.
Thanks for your understanding.
Ben Collins


111 Priest Shiva/parvati yagya
Varanasi
yagya 
[http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=zg78lecab.0.jzk8p6bab.ldjlkxbab.264&ts=S0279&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.puja.net%2F]
This yagya series gives both the deep silence of Shiva as well as the active and
 gentle power of Parvati.  It is intended to help develop both inner 
enlightenment
and to support growing success in daily life.
There are lots of ways to participate and the big day on the full moon is only 
$51.


Ancestor Yagyas
Varanasi
vasodhara 
[http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=zg78lecab.0.jzk8p6bab.ldjlkxbab.264&ts=S0279&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.puja.net%2F]Varanasi
is famous as the place where one can perform special yagyas for previous family 
generations.  We have access to uniquely qualified priests who will perform this
 special yagya.
A single subscription includes all family members.  When you sign up, please 
email
me a list of the family members you wish to have  mentioned in the yagya.



Three Day Goddess Yagya
Varanasi
vasodhara 
[http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=zg78lecab.0.jzk8p6bab.ldjlkxbab.264&ts=S0279&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.puja.net%2F]We
are offering a 3 day yagya series for Parvati (power and success) Lakshmi 
(prosperity),
and Saraswati (knowledge and wisdom) because Varanasi is a powerful place for 
the
goddesses.
The final day will be a Ganga Yagya which is effective for overall happiness, 
inner
calm, and joyfulness.


Annadanam Food Yagya
Varanasi
vasodhara 
[http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=zg78lecab.0.jzk8p6bab.ldjlkxbab.264&ts=S0279&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.puja.net%2F]
In the Vedic tradition, providing food to others who are focused on the path to 
enlightenment is considered to be a powerful yagya in itself.
On the first day of this yagya we will serve a special meal to 200 young 
Brahmins
who are studying to become pundits and on the second day we will feed a special 
group of sanyasi.



Forward email
http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?m=1101367977067&[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]&a=1101805777113


This email was sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Update Profile/Email Address
http://visitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?p=oo&m=1101367977067&se=264&t=1101805777113&lang=en&reason=T

Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe(TM)
http://visitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?p=un&m=1101367977067&se=264&t=1101805777113&lang=en&reason=T

Privacy Policy:
http://ui.constantcontact.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp


Email Marketing by
Constant Contact(R)
www.constantcontact.com


puja.net | 5727 Canoga Ave | #333 | Woodland Hills | CA | 91367--- End Message ---

[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > Ain't it awful? You work so hard trying to
> > confuse me, and you're never successful.
> 
> For the record, the very *definition* of
> paranoia.

Hard to get more off-target than that, Barry.
Have some coffee, see if it clears your mind
a bit.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true

[authfriend]

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

>   So … let me try to restate your referenced argument in simplified 
form – one that even a fecal larvae like me can understand:

FWIW, Vaj's argument is with Tom and with 
Shearer's translation of the Yoga Sutras, not
with anything in my original post (the one you
liked); Vaj completely missed the *context* of
Tom's post (which I had quoted in my post). His
slam at the "many falsehoods" that were 
supposedly in my post was pure obfuscation, as
was his subsequent argument.

(The sutra in question is the last one in
chapter 3 of the Yoga Sutras.)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > Ain't it awful? You work so hard trying to
> > confuse me, and you're never successful.
> 
> For the record, the very *definition* of
> paranoia.
>
Spaeking of paranoia, I read one of my best jokes ever on Friday: 
"I was walking home yesterday when this guy hammering on his roof 
called me a paranoid little freak. In morse code.":-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sri Sri Ravi Shankar on Feelings

[authfriend]

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

> I worked with a teacher for many years who per-
> sonified the "I can't tell you the 'truth' about
> enlightenment because there IS no 'truth' about
> enlightenment that can be put into words" philos-
> ophy I have been rappin' about recently.
 
> And so what happened, with all the care that he
> took to make this point -- over and over and over
> and over and over, for almost two decades? Many 
> of his former students regularly do *exactly*
> what he told them not to. They glom onto some
> quote, delivered in a particular context, to a 
> particular audience, from and about a particular
> state of consciousness, and they try to turn it
> into some cosmic "rule" or "guideline" or piece
> of incontrovertible dogma. Go figure.

You mean, a quote like: "I can't tell you the
'truth' about enlightenment because there IS
no 'truth' about enlightenment that can be put
into words"?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sri Sri Ravi Shankar on Feelings

[qntmpkt]

--In other words, most descriptions of E. are fraught with a degree 
of error; and/or are incomplete, and may include contradictions.
Nevertheless, it's amusing and sometimes informative to try!

 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> 
> > I worked with a teacher for many years who per-
> > sonified the "I can't tell you the 'truth' about
> > enlightenment because there IS no 'truth' about
> > enlightenment that can be put into words" philos-
> > ophy I have been rappin' about recently.
>  
> > And so what happened, with all the care that he
> > took to make this point -- over and over and over
> > and over and over, for almost two decades? Many 
> > of his former students regularly do *exactly*
> > what he told them not to. They glom onto some
> > quote, delivered in a particular context, to a 
> > particular audience, from and about a particular
> > state of consciousness, and they try to turn it
> > into some cosmic "rule" or "guideline" or piece
> > of incontrovertible dogma. Go figure.
> 
> You mean, a quote like: "I can't tell you the
> 'truth' about enlightenment because there IS
> no 'truth' about enlightenment that can be put
> into words"?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: I don't care what you call it...

[off_world_beings]

Yes folks, its sad but predictable.

OffWorld

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> ...and I'm sorry, given whatever Hindu or Newage
> stuff you wish to project upon it, there is nothing
> quite like meeting someone *far* too young and *far*
> too beautiful for you in a bar -- in this case, the
> "Corner Bar" in Sitges...pool tables in the bar, good,
> cheap, single-malt Scotches at the bar itself -- and 
> who speaks as little English as you speak Spanish or 
> Catalan, and hitting it off *anyway*, no matter
> how inept your Spanish was.
> 
> Suffice it to say that if you hear the name Sonia
> around here in the future, my "seeing" on this evening
> will have been correct. If you don't, well, so it goes.
> The world is full of wonderful women...
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: I don't care what you call it...

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> ...and I'm sorry, given whatever Hindu or Newage
> stuff you wish to project upon it, there is nothing
> quite like meeting someone *far* too young and *far*
> too beautiful for you in a bar -- in this case, the
> "Corner Bar" in Sitges...pool tables in the bar, good,
> cheap, single-malt Scotches at the bar itself -- and 
> who speaks as little English as you speak Spanish or 
> Catalan, and hitting it off *anyway*, no matter
> how inept your Spanish was.
> 
> Suffice it to say that if you hear the name Sonia
> around here in the future, my "seeing" on this evening
> will have been correct. If you don't, well, so it goes.
> The world is full of wonderful women...

Oh God...more shallow waters from abroad! Do you think you might get
your 'jollies'? or, is this going to be a serious passionate
relationship, based on the size of her mellons?!

"Is that all there is, if that's all there is my friend, then..."
la,la Peggy Lee.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true

[billy jim]

I'm not sure that I should reply to you. You must be a devil since Sin is the 
better part of your name - and don't tell me its Sine. I think it's a sign. 
   
  As far as Vaj is concerned, I wouldn't want to speak for him since he is the 
author of his own arguments. I'm actually waiting for this clarification 
myself. 
   
  And by the way - I take great pride in my lowly origins, even lower than the 
ordinary maggot you reference in your comment. As a former shit-eating larvae, 
I do in fact claim a super-rapid ascent through the evolutionary strata of 
complex organisms. I have done extensive past-life research into my odious 
prior incarnations and have found the startling truth.
   
  Starting from my introduction into the earth realm as a fecal larvae, I 
transformed into an extremely large and irritating fly, able to viciously bite 
large sweat-emitting mammals. This lead to my rather rapid demise from a 
vigorous fly-swat. Next incarnation - grain-devouring rodent, soon dispelled by 
suffocating poison, terribly painful but quickly liberating. After that I 
launched deeper into the mammalian realm as a boar, enabling me to recognize 
and somehow choose to identify as a predator rather than helpless prey.
   
  Next came a wonderfully deceptive incarnation as a jackal - the key 
incarnation that caused me to become human. As I remember it, I was tearing out 
the entrails of a large mammal we had felled. The animal wasn't dead yet and 
when it looked up in shock, horror and agony at me eating it while still alive, 
I looked into its eyes and saw "myself" - not literally but rather another 
desperately entombed intelligence, just like "myself", the jackal. This caused 
me to suddenly generate the genuine idea "oh, its just like me", and this in 
spite of the fact that the other animal looked nothing like me. 
   
  That was it - birth of an idea unbound by particularity and able to 
appreciate something authentically generalized and universal. In other words, I 
recognized a "universal" - the defining characteristic of human nature 
according to Socrates of Athens.
   
  After this pivotal event, I took a quick series of human incarnations, lowly 
and serf-like at first but later more confident and assertive. From plebeian to 
patrician was just a couple of incarnations and then wham, I was reborn into 
20th century Europe and then here into the new world.
   
  Now my jyotish chart shows that I'll be reborn into the deva realm after 
death, obviously because I still can't tell the difference between purusha and 
the three guna-s. However, I don't feel bad because I figure I'll see everybody 
else here on FFL in that land of bliss, except Vaj, since we've all been 
deceived by Mahesh except him.
   
  So aren't you really impressed at my rapid evolution? Maybe I should try and 
get promoted to a local, divinized logos like the Mormons claim (they say it is 
the next step). Maybe it would even beat twenty dark-eyed virgins. Hmm
   
  Emptybill's a goin' higher
   
  heh,heh  
   
   
  sinhlnx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  Recent Activity

  3
  New Members
  
  1
  New Files

Visit Your Group 
  Ads on Yahoo!
  Learn more now.
  Reach customers
  searching for you.

Special K Challenge
  on Yahoo! Groups
  Find shape-up
  tips and tools.

HDTV Support
  The official Samsung
  Y! Group for HDTVs
  and devices.



  .

 Thanks, billy jim! During my first 6 weeks in the Army long ago 
they used to call us "maggots".

 

   
-
 Check out  the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true

[qntmpkt]

--Maybe you were a "Conqueror Worm", a genuine evolutionary hero.

But see, amid the mimic rout
A crawling shape intrude!
A blood-red thing that writhes from out
The scenic solitude!
It writhes!–it writhes!–with mortal pangs
The mimes become its food,
And seraphs sob at vermin fangs
In human gore imbued.
Out–out are the lights–out all!
And, over each quivering form,
The curtain, a funeral pall,
Comes down with the rush of a storm,
While the angels, all pallid and wan,
Uprising, unveiling, affirm
That the play is the tragedy, "Man,"
And its hero the Conqueror Worm.

r 




- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, billy jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure that I should reply to you. You must be a devil since 
Sin is the better part of your name - and don't tell me its Sine. I 
think it's a sign. 
>
>   As far as Vaj is concerned, I wouldn't want to speak for him 
since he is the author of his own arguments. I'm actually waiting for 
this clarification myself. 
>
>   And by the way - I take great pride in my lowly origins, even 
lower than the ordinary maggot you reference in your comment. As a 
former shit-eating larvae, I do in fact claim a super-rapid ascent 
through the evolutionary strata of complex organisms. I have done 
extensive past-life research into my odious prior incarnations and 
have found the startling truth.
>
>   Starting from my introduction into the earth realm as a fecal 
larvae, I transformed into an extremely large and irritating fly, 
able to viciously bite large sweat-emitting mammals. This lead to my 
rather rapid demise from a vigorous fly-swat. Next incarnation - 
grain-devouring rodent, soon dispelled by suffocating poison, 
terribly painful but quickly liberating. After that I launched deeper 
into the mammalian realm as a boar, enabling me to recognize and 
somehow choose to identify as a predator rather than helpless prey.
>
>   Next came a wonderfully deceptive incarnation as a jackal - the 
key incarnation that caused me to become human. As I remember it, I 
was tearing out the entrails of a large mammal we had felled. The 
animal wasn't dead yet and when it looked up in shock, horror and 
agony at me eating it while still alive, I looked into its eyes and 
saw "myself" - not literally but rather another desperately entombed 
intelligence, just like "myself", the jackal. This caused me to 
suddenly generate the genuine idea "oh, its just like me", and this 
in spite of the fact that the other animal looked nothing like me. 
>
>   That was it - birth of an idea unbound by particularity and able 
to appreciate something authentically generalized and universal. In 
other words, I recognized a "universal" - the defining characteristic 
of human nature according to Socrates of Athens.
>
>   After this pivotal event, I took a quick series of human 
incarnations, lowly and serf-like at first but later more confident 
and assertive. From plebeian to patrician was just a couple of 
incarnations and then wham, I was reborn into 20th century Europe and 
then here into the new world.
>
>   Now my jyotish chart shows that I'll be reborn into the deva 
realm after death, obviously because I still can't tell the 
difference between purusha and the three guna-s. However, I don't 
feel bad because I figure I'll see everybody else here on FFL in that 
land of bliss, except Vaj, since we've all been deceived by Mahesh 
except him.
>
>   So aren't you really impressed at my rapid evolution? Maybe I 
should try and get promoted to a local, divinized logos like the 
Mormons claim (they say it is the next step). Maybe it would even 
beat twenty dark-eyed virgins. Hmm
>
>   Emptybill's a goin' higher
>
>   heh,heh  
>
>
>   sinhlnx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   Recent Activity
> 
>   3
>   New Members
>   
>   1
>   New Files
> 
> Visit Your Group 
>   Ads on Yahoo!
>   Learn more now.
>   Reach customers
>   searching for you.
> 
> Special K Challenge
>   on Yahoo! Groups
>   Find shape-up
>   tips and tools.
> 
> HDTV Support
>   The official Samsung
>   Y! Group for HDTVs
>   and devices.
> 
> 
> 
>   .
> 
>  Thanks, billy jim! During my first 6 weeks in the Army long ago 
> they used to call us "maggots".
> 
>  
> 
>
> -
>  Check out  the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true

[billy jim]

Hmm. the "r" at the end must be for rishi. What else could explain such 
insights?
   
  I have to admit I'm hoping life in deva-land beats moping around feeling bad 
for humans. 
   
  Angels ... mere sexless, boring slaves of yhvh - who needs them?
  The Houri-s sound so much better.
   
  
qntmpkt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  --Maybe you were a "Conqueror Worm", a genuine evolutionary hero.

But see, amid the mimic rout
A crawling shape intrude!
A blood-red thing that writhes from out
The scenic solitude!
It writhes!–it writhes!–with mortal pangs
The mimes become its food,
And seraphs sob at vermin fangs
In human gore imbued.
Out–out are the lights–out all!
And, over each quivering form,
The curtain, a funeral pall,
Comes down with the rush of a storm,
While the angels, all pallid and wan,
Uprising, unveiling, affirm
That the play is the tragedy, "Man,"
And its hero the Conqueror Worm.

r 

- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, billy jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure that I should reply to you. You must be a devil since 
Sin is the better part of your name - and don't tell me its Sine. I 
think it's a sign. 
> 
> As far as Vaj is concerned, I wouldn't want to speak for him 
since he is the author of his own arguments. I'm actually waiting for 
this clarification myself. 
> 
> And by the way - I take great pride in my lowly origins, even 
lower than the ordinary maggot you reference in your comment. As a 
former shit-eating larvae, I do in fact claim a super-rapid ascent 
through the evolutionary strata of complex organisms. I have done 
extensive past-life research into my odious prior incarnations and 
have found the startling truth.
> 
> Starting from my introduction into the earth realm as a fecal 
larvae, I transformed into an extremely large and irritating fly, 
able to viciously bite large sweat-emitting mammals. This lead to my 
rather rapid demise from a vigorous fly-swat. Next incarnation - 
grain-devouring rodent, soon dispelled by suffocating poison, 
terribly painful but quickly liberating. After that I launched deeper 
into the mammalian realm as a boar, enabling me to recognize and 
somehow choose to identify as a predator rather than helpless prey.
> 
> Next came a wonderfully deceptive incarnation as a jackal - the 
key incarnation that caused me to become human. As I remember it, I 
was tearing out the entrails of a large mammal we had felled. The 
animal wasn't dead yet and when it looked up in shock, horror and 
agony at me eating it while still alive, I looked into its eyes and 
saw "myself" - not literally but rather another desperately entombed 
intelligence, just like "myself", the jackal. This caused me to 
suddenly generate the genuine idea "oh, its just like me", and this 
in spite of the fact that the other animal looked nothing like me. 
> 
> That was it - birth of an idea unbound by particularity and able 
to appreciate something authentically generalized and universal. In 
other words, I recognized a "universal" - the defining characteristic 
of human nature according to Socrates of Athens.
> 
> After this pivotal event, I took a quick series of human 
incarnations, lowly and serf-like at first but later more confident 
and assertive. From plebeian to patrician was just a couple of 
incarnations and then wham, I was reborn into 20th century Europe and 
then here into the new world.
> 
> Now my jyotish chart shows that I'll be reborn into the deva 
realm after death, obviously because I still can't tell the 
difference between purusha and the three guna-s. However, I don't 
feel bad because I figure I'll see everybody else here on FFL in that 
land of bliss, except Vaj, since we've all been deceived by Mahesh 
except him.
> 
> So aren't you really impressed at my rapid evolution? Maybe I 
should try and get promoted to a local, divinized logos like the 
Mormons claim (they say it is the next step). Maybe it would even 
beat twenty dark-eyed virgins. Hmm
> 
> Emptybill's a goin' higher
> 
> heh,heh 
> 
> 
> sinhlnx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Recent Activity
> 
> 3
> New Members
> 
> 1
> New Files
> 
> Visit Your Group 
> Ads on Yahoo!
> Learn more now.
> Reach customers
> searching for you.
> 
> Special K Challenge
> on Yahoo! Groups
> Find shape-up
> tips and tools.
> 
> HDTV Support
> The official Samsung
> Y! Group for HDTVs
> and devices.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Thanks, billy jim! During my first 6 weeks in the Army long ago 
> they used to call us "maggots".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.
>



 

   
-
 Check out  the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization

[Ron]

I suppose the paradox is there- maybe in thinking of the snake and string it 
clears it up-

The significant thing is a process of ilimination for what is transcient and 
what is eternal. 
All that which is transcient has a reality to it but short lived and therefore 
no reality so a 
paradox

Last week, we had a gathering so one of the newly enlightened was there. She 
was saying 
the wonder of it all- for you can never get it but yet It is there

It again points to the headline of this post- as I said earlier, you will see 
these comments 
from Guru's speaking from this level of Being such as Ramana Maharishi- I don't 
think you 
will  find this from TM's Maharihsi because it is not know to him

There is a good purpose in poiinting out if a Master is enlightened or not. For 
those open 
to this, examination can show why this possibility exists one way or the other- 
then it 
explains why one is confused, or why one has not heard or understood these 
things which 
Ramana talks about, or very significant is that the disciple is not going to go 
further than 
the Guru.

There are two newly enlightened one's in my path this year. By comparrison, 
Nityananda, 
the guru of Muktananda left his body early and stated there is not one that 
came seeking 
eternal Liberation, but rather seeking out guidance for a better "Me"

Bottom line is enlightenment is really a possibility this life time but the 
master has to be 
enlightened, sat Guru, and then from the opinion of my Guru, it is essencial to 
be working 
one to one. The Guru is the light, the disciple is in darkness which is ego ( 
identification of 
mind and body as being the self, or the small self is the existence)

If one is using the inner Guru, visions, revelatiuons, form of inner Guru of 
some Guru, it is 
fiultered through this ego. Ego will fight tooth and nail to keep it 's throne, 
Outter Guru is 
the light that has already traversed the path to enlightenment and has the know 
how to 
guide one in this darkness- out of it

The formula for enlightenment is surrender to this Guru which is consciousness, 
not mind 
and body- 0r put it this way, one is surrendering to consciosness. Faith is 
involved. If one 
is intent on argueing, intent that they will use their own inner guru, intent 
that they will do 
their own navigating- then this process is obviously not for them.

in such a case, all that is said from this camp here is good luck with your 
journey, may it 
bring all that you are looking for


Hridaya Puri


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "tertonzeno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --Thanks, Bronte, I like your comments!.
> The statement, "There's only the One" is a true statement, but it's 
> incomplete, since a certain Guru with a name is saying that. The Guru 
> doesn't "have" a bodyhe is a body/mind as an individual as 
> opposed to other individuals, in the relative sense.  
>  A more complete statement would be "There's only One, which 
> expresses Itself as many, without losing the nonduality".
> 
> 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true

[authfriend]

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

>   The Houri-s sound so much better.

OK, I can't stand it any longer.

With plural nouns, why do you put a hyphen between the
word and the "s"?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization

[Peter]

Ron, unfortuanately you're wasting your breath on
these mala covered samsarins who insist on
individuality and can not recognize the function of
the ego in this belief that somehow realization of
That includes individuality. Poor deluded bhogis. By
the way, I'm not saying this, so there.





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

> I suppose the paradox is there- maybe in thinking of
> the snake and string it clears it up-
> 
> The significant thing is a process of ilimination
> for what is transcient and what is eternal. 
> All that which is transcient has a reality to it but
> short lived and therefore no reality so a 
> paradox
> 
> Last week, we had a gathering so one of the newly
> enlightened was there. She was saying 
> the wonder of it all- for you can never get it but
> yet It is there
> 
> It again points to the headline of this post- as I
> said earlier, you will see these comments 
> from Guru's speaking from this level of Being such
> as Ramana Maharishi- I don't think you 
> will  find this from TM's Maharihsi because it is
> not know to him
> 
> There is a good purpose in poiinting out if a Master
> is enlightened or not. For those open 
> to this, examination can show why this possibility
> exists one way or the other- then it 
> explains why one is confused, or why one has not
> heard or understood these things which 
> Ramana talks about, or very significant is that the
> disciple is not going to go further than 
> the Guru.
> 
> There are two newly enlightened one's in my path
> this year. By comparrison, Nityananda, 
> the guru of Muktananda left his body early and
> stated there is not one that came seeking 
> eternal Liberation, but rather seeking out guidance
> for a better "Me"
> 
> Bottom line is enlightenment is really a possibility
> this life time but the master has to be 
> enlightened, sat Guru, and then from the opinion of
> my Guru, it is essencial to be working 
> one to one. The Guru is the light, the disciple is
> in darkness which is ego ( identification of 
> mind and body as being the self, or the small self
> is the existence)
> 
> If one is using the inner Guru, visions,
> revelatiuons, form of inner Guru of some Guru, it is
> 
> fiultered through this ego. Ego will fight tooth and
> nail to keep it 's throne, Outter Guru is 
> the light that has already traversed the path to
> enlightenment and has the know how to 
> guide one in this darkness- out of it
> 
> The formula for enlightenment is surrender to this
> Guru which is consciousness, not mind 
> and body- 0r put it this way, one is surrendering to
> consciosness. Faith is involved. If one 
> is intent on argueing, intent that they will use
> their own inner guru, intent that they will do 
> their own navigating- then this process is obviously
> not for them.
> 
> in such a case, all that is said from this camp here
> is good luck with your journey, may it 
> bring all that you are looking for
> 
> 
> Hridaya Puri
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "tertonzeno"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > --Thanks, Bronte, I like your comments!.
> > The statement, "There's only the One" is a true
> statement, but it's 
> > incomplete, since a certain Guru with a name is
> saying that. The Guru 
> > doesn't "have" a bodyhe is a body/mind as an
> individual as 
> > opposed to other individuals, in the relative
> sense.  
> >  A more complete statement would be "There's only
> One, which 
> > expresses Itself as many, without losing the
> nonduality".
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To subscribe, send a message to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Or go to: 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> and click 'Join This Group!' 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 



  

Luggage? GPS? Comic books? 
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz

Re: [FairfieldLife] The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization

[Samadhi Is Much Closer Than You Think -- Really! -- It's A No-Brainer. Who'd've Thunk It?]

It doesn't take a genius nor a saint to witness the load of himsa in the
edited and/or pseudo dialog.

 *I want every person to be complete in themselves.  **Your himsa has no
place in my mission.*

*"I will help all beings in every way I can promptly." *
* *
*"I will not inflict pain or misfortune on anyone through my thoughts, words
or deeds." *


On 9/17/07, Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Namaste Guru G and all
>
>
> G:Having things stripped bare is not an attractive offer. hahahahahah
> people want to have *thier* lives but to have them Enhanced. And
> Surrender doesn't equate with the idea that *I* can get *Realization* .
>
> N: Being striped isn't attractive ether all the slobber and bed head. Ha
> ha ha ha.
> A famous Guy once said "those who lose their lives have life more
> abundantly". He he
>
> G:The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization. The ME may have
> may insights aka realizations, but Realization only takes place when
> the ME is no more and has dissolved or imploded into simply Absolute.
>
> N: Yes, this me is so enlightened you should all buy my ME SO SOUP.
> $500.99 plus tax no
> Guru necessary we have a digital automated one. Soup cores requires you
> read the work
> book The Grate Me and the Guru Within written by Dorkdananda.
>
> N: The oddest things are observed. One could hardly call this deep
> Witnessing, but have
> been observing ego stuff as it mixes with mind it's like all thoughts are
> lies and crafted in
> a way that no one notices, the UN reality of thought which arises seem to
> be made up as
> one goes along. Ego is just a belief system and when that system is
> challenging the me
> freaks. But there is no me just a bunch of thought patterns that made one
> think im this or
> that.
> It has been very different unpleasant, some times crazy seeing the world
> like this, there is
> no descriptions or thoughts that could be accurate at all because they are
> made up
> according to the ego pattern. It all seems to be a big game. And every one
> seems to count
> on that game and getting the bigger better game. So this me is nuts,
> what's left of it. It's a
> challenge to talk or remember things, mantra spontaneous in the middle of
> the night and
> just seeing through the eyes is different. And yes, practice breath
> surrender and grace. Oh
> and more surrender.
>
> Like to kick the guy's butt who invented the me along with the guy who
> invented the high
> heel. Ha ha ha ha haaa rrrar.
>
> G:i do not offer enhancements - but rather lopping off heads. hahahahaha
>
> N: What! No pet a cure?
>
> Love Nyingje
>
> Maha Shanti
>
>
>
>
>
> 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: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization

[qntmpkt]

---You're confusing "unreal" with "non-existent". Relative existence 
(i.e. things in the sense of being apart from Consciousness), are 
unreal, but the relative things, people, etc; are not "non-
existent".  They exist, but not as agreed upon by those ignorant of 
the Self.
 Your Guru still exists, does he not?...as a person, an individual, 
apart from other Gurus?
 Cf. Flanagan's interesting ideas on why a relative universe exists 
at all.  Actually his line of questioning parallels similar themes 
current in physics: "Why the universe"? Nobody knows for sure but 
from a statistical point of view, the probability that something 
exists (something relative) is more probable (in fact, infinitely 
more probable), then nothing existing.
 Ramana never said he didn't exist, relatively speaking. In his 
context, the new "I" is the Self; but the "I" may ALSO refer to the 
individual, Ramana Maharshi. 
(1) 
In the first context, explaining what occurred when he Realized the 
Self on 7-17-1879: "Absorption in the Self continued unbroken from 
that time on. Other thoughts might come and go like the various notes 
of music, but the "I" continued like the fundamental sruti note that 
underlies and blends with all the other notes.  Whether the body was 
engated in talking, reading or anything else, I was still centere4d 
on "I".
(2)
 Then, after this experience, we find statements like this: "I used 
to go alone and stand motionless for a long time before an image of 
Siva or Meenakshi or Nataraja and the 63 Saints, and as I stood there 
waves of emotion overwhelmed me".

So what is the referent to this (2) "I". Obviously, it's a body/mind 
that was standing motionless for a long time, is it not?  One could 
say that this body of Ramana's was "unreal" but it definitely 
existed, otherwise he wouldn't have talked about it along with the 
pronoun "I".  So who or what is the "me" that Ramana mentioned, and 
how can you say there's no "me" when Ramana says there is?  Again, 
the "me" is the body/mind and the capacity to emote. 
  Then, in his farewell letter to Nagaswami, Sri Bhagavan's brother, 
he writes [translated]: "In search of my Father I have, in  obedience 
to his command, started from here".  So what is the referent here?  
Again, Ramana referst to himself, as a body  traveling from his home 
at that time to Arunachala.  The "Father" in this context is 
Arunachala-Shiva.
 Thus, the "I"/me still exists, but true, such entities are 
not "real" in the sense of being separate from the Self.  However, 
they are not "non-existent".
 If everything relative were non-existent, then only Consciousness 
would exist with no BODIES capable of evolving from the maggot state 
through the boar stage, through the Bush stage, etc...only to 
realized that the whole contraption was "unreal".  Nevertheless, the 
maggots, boars, Bushes, etc, still exist.
 There are two possible ultimate scenarios: a universe of ONLY 
Consciousness, with nothing relative. OR: A universe that is 
Consciousness, with relative manifestations inseparable from the Self.
 #2 is the scenario we have, rather than #1. Get used to it. If your 
Guru wants NOT to be an individual, let his body just die to be eaten 
by Conquerer Worms, and no more relative existence. 
 An alternative for Buddhas is to use various transformation bodies 
to continue uplifting various creatures in their evolutionary journal 
from the maggot stage, the boar stage, etc.
 If your Guru simply wants "no existence", so be it.  Ramana never 
said he didn't exist! His use of the "I" word and the "me" word is in 
the context of the body as referent.
 Of course, the "Me" can't gain realization but that's another topic, 
closely related. 


 
In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I suppose the paradox is there- maybe in thinking of the snake and 
string it clears it up-
> 
> The significant thing is a process of ilimination for what is 
transcient and what is eternal. 
> All that which is transcient has a reality to it but short lived 
and therefore no reality so a 
> paradox
> 
> Last week, we had a gathering so one of the newly enlightened was 
there. She was saying 
> the wonder of it all- for you can never get it but yet It is there
> 
> It again points to the headline of this post- as I said earlier, 
you will see these comments 
> from Guru's speaking from this level of Being such as Ramana 
Maharishi- I don't think you 
> will  find this from TM's Maharihsi because it is not know to him
> 
> There is a good purpose in poiinting out if a Master is enlightened 
or not. For those open 
> to this, examination can show why this possibility exists one way 
or the other- then it 
> explains why one is confused, or why one has not heard or 
understood these things which 
> Ramana talks about, or very significant is that the disciple is not 
going to go further than 
> the Guru.
> 
> There are two newly enlightened one's in my path this year. By 
comparrison, Nity

[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization

[qntmpkt]

---Excuse me: Ramana's Enlightenment day was 7-17-1896.

 In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ---You're confusing "unreal" with "non-existent". Relative 
existence 
> (i.e. things in the sense of being apart from Consciousness), are 
> unreal, but the relative things, people, etc; are not "non-
> existent".  They exist, but not as agreed upon by those ignorant of 
> the Self.
>  Your Guru still exists, does he not?...as a person, an individual, 
> apart from other Gurus?
>  Cf. Flanagan's interesting ideas on why a relative universe exists 
> at all.  Actually his line of questioning parallels similar themes 
> current in physics: "Why the universe"? Nobody knows for sure but 
> from a statistical point of view, the probability that something 
> exists (something relative) is more probable (in fact, infinitely 
> more probable), then nothing existing.
>  Ramana never said he didn't exist, relatively speaking. In his 
> context, the new "I" is the Self; but the "I" may ALSO refer to the 
> individual, Ramana Maharshi. 
> (1) 
> In the first context, explaining what occurred when he Realized the 
> Self on 7-17-1879: "Absorption in the Self continued unbroken from 
> that time on. Other thoughts might come and go like the various 
notes 
> of music, but the "I" continued like the fundamental sruti note 
that 
> underlies and blends with all the other notes.  Whether the body 
was 
> engated in talking, reading or anything else, I was still centere4d 
> on "I".
> (2)
>  Then, after this experience, we find statements like this: "I used 
> to go alone and stand motionless for a long time before an image of 
> Siva or Meenakshi or Nataraja and the 63 Saints, and as I stood 
there 
> waves of emotion overwhelmed me".
> 
> So what is the referent to this (2) "I". Obviously, it's a 
body/mind 
> that was standing motionless for a long time, is it not?  One could 
> say that this body of Ramana's was "unreal" but it definitely 
> existed, otherwise he wouldn't have talked about it along with the 
> pronoun "I".  So who or what is the "me" that Ramana mentioned, and 
> how can you say there's no "me" when Ramana says there is?  Again, 
> the "me" is the body/mind and the capacity to emote. 
>   Then, in his farewell letter to Nagaswami, Sri Bhagavan's 
brother, 
> he writes [translated]: "In search of my Father I have, in  
obedience 
> to his command, started from here".  So what is the referent here?  
> Again, Ramana referst to himself, as a body  traveling from his 
home 
> at that time to Arunachala.  The "Father" in this context is 
> Arunachala-Shiva.
>  Thus, the "I"/me still exists, but true, such entities are 
> not "real" in the sense of being separate from the Self.  However, 
> they are not "non-existent".
>  If everything relative were non-existent, then only Consciousness 
> would exist with no BODIES capable of evolving from the maggot 
state 
> through the boar stage, through the Bush stage, etc...only to 
> realized that the whole contraption was "unreal".  Nevertheless, 
the 
> maggots, boars, Bushes, etc, still exist.
>  There are two possible ultimate scenarios: a universe of ONLY 
> Consciousness, with nothing relative. OR: A universe that is 
> Consciousness, with relative manifestations inseparable from the 
Self.
>  #2 is the scenario we have, rather than #1. Get used to it. If 
your 
> Guru wants NOT to be an individual, let his body just die to be 
eaten 
> by Conquerer Worms, and no more relative existence. 
>  An alternative for Buddhas is to use various transformation bodies 
> to continue uplifting various creatures in their evolutionary 
journal 
> from the maggot stage, the boar stage, etc.
>  If your Guru simply wants "no existence", so be it.  Ramana never 
> said he didn't exist! His use of the "I" word and the "me" word is 
in 
> the context of the body as referent.
>  Of course, the "Me" can't gain realization but that's another 
topic, 
> closely related. 
> 
> 
>  
> In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron"  wrote:
> >
> > I suppose the paradox is there- maybe in thinking of the snake 
and 
> string it clears it up-
> > 
> > The significant thing is a process of ilimination for what is 
> transcient and what is eternal. 
> > All that which is transcient has a reality to it but short lived 
> and therefore no reality so a 
> > paradox
> > 
> > Last week, we had a gathering so one of the newly enlightened was 
> there. She was saying 
> > the wonder of it all- for you can never get it but yet It is there
> > 
> > It again points to the headline of this post- as I said earlier, 
> you will see these comments 
> > from Guru's speaking from this level of Being such as Ramana 
> Maharishi- I don't think you 
> > will  find this from TM's Maharihsi because it is not know to him
> > 
> > There is a good purpose in poiinting out if a Master is 
enlightened 
> or not. For those open 
> > to this, examination can show why this possibility exists one 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization

[Ron]

Well again, the honesty of it for me is that there is still further to go, and 
therefore the 
parts not known by direct experience are accepted in faith, with the 
confirmation of my 
intuition

That being the case, what I have heard is it is inevitable that all come to 
this Being- 
enlightenment unfolds for all, then what was read, or what has been told will 
now be 
actualized and known from direct experiece. Opportunities come along- it is 
something 
like when a sincere seeker is there, the open door is walked through. There 
will be plenty 
of choices offered from the Universe, and the time frame is favorable- eternity.

Again, intuition says that the following statement from my Guru is correct- "it 
is never 
what one thought it was"

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ron, unfortuanately you're wasting your breath on
> these mala covered samsarins who insist on
> individuality and can not recognize the function of
> the ego in this belief that somehow realization of
> That includes individuality. Poor deluded bhogis. By
> the way, I'm not saying this, so there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > I suppose the paradox is there- maybe in thinking of
> > the snake and string it clears it up-
> > 
> > The significant thing is a process of ilimination
> > for what is transcient and what is eternal. 
> > All that which is transcient has a reality to it but
> > short lived and therefore no reality so a 
> > paradox
> > 
> > Last week, we had a gathering so one of the newly
> > enlightened was there. She was saying 
> > the wonder of it all- for you can never get it but
> > yet It is there
> > 
> > It again points to the headline of this post- as I
> > said earlier, you will see these comments 
> > from Guru's speaking from this level of Being such
> > as Ramana Maharishi- I don't think you 
> > will  find this from TM's Maharihsi because it is
> > not know to him
> > 
> > There is a good purpose in poiinting out if a Master
> > is enlightened or not. For those open 
> > to this, examination can show why this possibility
> > exists one way or the other- then it 
> > explains why one is confused, or why one has not
> > heard or understood these things which 
> > Ramana talks about, or very significant is that the
> > disciple is not going to go further than 
> > the Guru.
> > 
> > There are two newly enlightened one's in my path
> > this year. By comparrison, Nityananda, 
> > the guru of Muktananda left his body early and
> > stated there is not one that came seeking 
> > eternal Liberation, but rather seeking out guidance
> > for a better "Me"
> > 
> > Bottom line is enlightenment is really a possibility
> > this life time but the master has to be 
> > enlightened, sat Guru, and then from the opinion of
> > my Guru, it is essencial to be working 
> > one to one. The Guru is the light, the disciple is
> > in darkness which is ego ( identification of 
> > mind and body as being the self, or the small self
> > is the existence)
> > 
> > If one is using the inner Guru, visions,
> > revelatiuons, form of inner Guru of some Guru, it is
> > 
> > fiultered through this ego. Ego will fight tooth and
> > nail to keep it 's throne, Outter Guru is 
> > the light that has already traversed the path to
> > enlightenment and has the know how to 
> > guide one in this darkness- out of it
> > 
> > The formula for enlightenment is surrender to this
> > Guru which is consciousness, not mind 
> > and body- 0r put it this way, one is surrendering to
> > consciosness. Faith is involved. If one 
> > is intent on argueing, intent that they will use
> > their own inner guru, intent that they will do 
> > their own navigating- then this process is obviously
> > not for them.
> > 
> > in such a case, all that is said from this camp here
> > is good luck with your journey, may it 
> > bring all that you are looking for
> > 
> > 
> > Hridaya Puri
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "tertonzeno"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > --Thanks, Bronte, I like your comments!.
> > > The statement, "There's only the One" is a true
> > statement, but it's 
> > > incomplete, since a certain Guru with a name is
> > saying that. The Guru 
> > > doesn't "have" a bodyhe is a body/mind as an
> > individual as 
> > > opposed to other individuals, in the relative
> > sense.  
> > >  A more complete statement would be "There's only
> > One, which 
> > > expresses Itself as many, without losing the
> > nonduality".
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > To subscribe, send a message to:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > Or go to: 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> > and click 'Join This Group!' 
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > 
> > 
> > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>   

> Luggage? GPS? Comic books? 
> Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search
> http://search

[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization

[Ron]

My interpretaion of the writting here is it is sincere, respectfull but it is 
all about that 
paradox where yes it is real even though it is relative but it is not real as 
well

Great that you are reading from Ramana- My Guru would say you can never go 
wrong with 
Ramana, but no one is going to get there through reading, eating, living in a 
correct vastu, 
etc

It is a living Guru that will get you there because they have been through it 
all and are 
capable of navigating. If the guru is enlightened and the disciple is 
surrendered, then if a 
question is asked of the Guru, it would not be unusual for the guru to ask the 
disciple to 
answer it based on his own experience. This is because a real progress unfolds 
where 
there answers become known though direct experience, and this is why as one 
further on 
the path, while there may have been many questions in the begining, they all 
fall away as 
the progress takes place.

So sorting out this topic in an intellectual way will be quite a limited 
endeaver in my path- 
it get sorted out to a point this way, then one will be directed to go within 
to a stilled mind 
and know the answers that way

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ---Excuse me: Ramana's Enlightenment day was 7-17-1896.
> 
>  In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt"  wrote:
> >
> > ---You're confusing "unreal" with "non-existent". Relative 
> existence 
> > (i.e. things in the sense of being apart from Consciousness), are 
> > unreal, but the relative things, people, etc; are not "non-
> > existent".  They exist, but not as agreed upon by those ignorant of 
> > the Self.
> >  Your Guru still exists, does he not?...as a person, an individual, 
> > apart from other Gurus?
> >  Cf. Flanagan's interesting ideas on why a relative universe exists 
> > at all.  Actually his line of questioning parallels similar themes 
> > current in physics: "Why the universe"? Nobody knows for sure but 
> > from a statistical point of view, the probability that something 
> > exists (something relative) is more probable (in fact, infinitely 
> > more probable), then nothing existing.
> >  Ramana never said he didn't exist, relatively speaking. In his 
> > context, the new "I" is the Self; but the "I" may ALSO refer to the 
> > individual, Ramana Maharshi. 
> > (1) 
> > In the first context, explaining what occurred when he Realized the 
> > Self on 7-17-1879: "Absorption in the Self continued unbroken from 
> > that time on. Other thoughts might come and go like the various 
> notes 
> > of music, but the "I" continued like the fundamental sruti note 
> that 
> > underlies and blends with all the other notes.  Whether the body 
> was 
> > engated in talking, reading or anything else, I was still centere4d 
> > on "I".
> > (2)
> >  Then, after this experience, we find statements like this: "I used 
> > to go alone and stand motionless for a long time before an image of 
> > Siva or Meenakshi or Nataraja and the 63 Saints, and as I stood 
> there 
> > waves of emotion overwhelmed me".
> > 
> > So what is the referent to this (2) "I". Obviously, it's a 
> body/mind 
> > that was standing motionless for a long time, is it not?  One could 
> > say that this body of Ramana's was "unreal" but it definitely 
> > existed, otherwise he wouldn't have talked about it along with the 
> > pronoun "I".  So who or what is the "me" that Ramana mentioned, and 
> > how can you say there's no "me" when Ramana says there is?  Again, 
> > the "me" is the body/mind and the capacity to emote. 
> >   Then, in his farewell letter to Nagaswami, Sri Bhagavan's 
> brother, 
> > he writes [translated]: "In search of my Father I have, in  
> obedience 
> > to his command, started from here".  So what is the referent here?  
> > Again, Ramana referst to himself, as a body  traveling from his 
> home 
> > at that time to Arunachala.  The "Father" in this context is 
> > Arunachala-Shiva.
> >  Thus, the "I"/me still exists, but true, such entities are 
> > not "real" in the sense of being separate from the Self.  However, 
> > they are not "non-existent".
> >  If everything relative were non-existent, then only Consciousness 
> > would exist with no BODIES capable of evolving from the maggot 
> state 
> > through the boar stage, through the Bush stage, etc...only to 
> > realized that the whole contraption was "unreal".  Nevertheless, 
> the 
> > maggots, boars, Bushes, etc, still exist.
> >  There are two possible ultimate scenarios: a universe of ONLY 
> > Consciousness, with nothing relative. OR: A universe that is 
> > Consciousness, with relative manifestations inseparable from the 
> Self.
> >  #2 is the scenario we have, rather than #1. Get used to it. If 
> your 
> > Guru wants NOT to be an individual, let his body just die to be 
> eaten 
> > by Conquerer Worms, and no more relative existence. 
> >  An alternative for Buddhas is to use various transformation bodies 
> > to continue uplif

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sri Sri Ravi Shankar on Feelings

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --In other words, most descriptions of E. are fraught with a degree 
> of error; and/or are incomplete, and may include contradictions.
> Nevertheless, it's amusing and sometimes informative to try!

Sure.

What I was pointing out, though, was that Barry
has this problem with his little lectures falling
into infinite regresses.

>  FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
wrote:
> > 
> > > I worked with a teacher for many years who per-
> > > sonified the "I can't tell you the 'truth' about
> > > enlightenment because there IS no 'truth' about
> > > enlightenment that can be put into words" philos-
> > > ophy I have been rappin' about recently.
> >  
> > > And so what happened, with all the care that he
> > > took to make this point -- over and over and over
> > > and over and over, for almost two decades? Many 
> > > of his former students regularly do *exactly*
> > > what he told them not to. They glom onto some
> > > quote, delivered in a particular context, to a 
> > > particular audience, from and about a particular
> > > state of consciousness, and they try to turn it
> > > into some cosmic "rule" or "guideline" or piece
> > > of incontrovertible dogma. Go figure.
> > 
> > You mean, a quote like: "I can't tell you the
> > 'truth' about enlightenment because there IS
> > no 'truth' about enlightenment that can be put
> > into words"?

[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization

[new . morning]

The discussion has been on "no me". My experience, and interpretation
of it, my take,  is  that there is no "volitional I". There is
apparatus that does stuff, here, now, but it all happens as innocently
as thoughts come. 

The discussion has not dwelt (as far as I can see—an I have not read
all the posts) on the natural extension of  "no I". That is, where
there is no volitional "I" here, that means, and becomes an experience
that there is no volitional "you" over there. Or any volitional "that"
in that tree. Or that star. Its all happening, here and there, as
effortlessly as thoughts arise.

Hollow and empty is how one person describes it, and that is apt  in
my view. Though sometimes I mistype and say hallow and empty, which is
also a reasonable metaphor.  Though I would add the word "reflective."
 Hollow, hallow, empty and reflective. 

FWIW, this ties to, for me, Tom and Jim' discussion of is it
"everything in side of Me, or splattering ME over the canvas of the
universe". 

My observation is that many people, from, and often in, childhood
experience a commonality of all people or things. It's a common thing
I think. It may grow sharper, or more expansive over ones life. It may
come and go or grow to be always there. And/or one interprets the
experience in a more elegant way. But at least dome glimpse of that is
common, IMO  And these are not imaginations, fantasies,
intellectualizations, or speculations. They are an experience, though,
more abstract than perception through the senses. 

For example, from a common Joe, not some high faluting yogi with lots
of attainments, states, levels, labels or lineage, another description
of the experience, -- or perhaps its an alterntive experience -- is
that the commonality is experienced like a well, that feeds every
person, rock, plant and star. Its, metaphorically, both a well of  a
most refined liquid and light.

And in being hollow and empty – and reflective, all these "hallows and
empties" everywhere, in everything, reflect the light.   The well can
be bubbling, glowing in the background, or with attention, it can
further reflectively, "light up" further "inside" locally, and in
everything.  

Like a child paying and fascinated by a dimmer light switch, slowly
making it brighter of softer – though in this case by attention. Its
not light in a visual sense, but light is a passable metaphor of my
interpretation of it.

And "ME" has always seemed a strained description or metaphor. More
apt would be "we", but that still implies many and doesn't feel like
that. The well is one. To equate this Oneness Well with this localized
apparatus -- which in common language is called "me", doesn't fit my
experience (and that is not the possessive form of "me", its the
elsewhere form of me). But this experience may be different from others. 

I am quite open that this is a misinterpretation of the experience,
some cognitive mis-filtering, or a delusion, but it is the experience. 

(And I am sure there is a drug than can subdue these apparent
hallucinations).

[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well again, the honesty of it for me is that there is still 
further to go, and therefore the 
> parts not known by direct experience are accepted in faith, with 
the confirmation of my 
> intuition
> 
> That being the case, what I have heard is it is inevitable that 
all come to this Being- 
> enlightenment unfolds for all, then what was read, or what has 
been told will now be 
> actualized and known from direct experiece. Opportunities come 
along- it is something 
> like when a sincere seeker is there, the open door is walked 
through. There will be plenty 
> of choices offered from the Universe, and the time frame is 
favorable- eternity.
> 
> Again, intuition says that the following statement from my Guru is 
correct- "it is never 
> what one thought it was"
> 
your guru is right, because you change, or more precisely, your 
frame of reference changes, and so even though you will read the 
same words about enlightenment, your reference to them has changed 
for good, and so they will not create the same concepts, images, 
stories and relationships for you. If they were written by an 
enlightened one to begin with, then you will see enlightenment in 
them. :-)