[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [I wrote:] > > "Beggars" to describe these people was an unfortunate > > choice of words. I winced a bit at it at first myself, > > but then I realized what she was trying to get across > > was the feeling of inadequacy on the part of the beggee-- > > her own feeling--to give them all what they needed > > I think that's it. You can imagine the state of mind of > someone who comes up to you in a restaurant almost literally > begging for a cosmic insight. Not very self-sufficient. Just to clarify, what I was suggesting was that she was describing her *own* feelings. For some years when I was living in NYC, there were beggars on practically every corner in my neighborhood. (Much less so these days.) You couldn't make it to the supermarket and back without encountering a dozen obviously destitute people with their hands out. At the time, I was really hard up myself, and I was constantly feeling guilty that I couldn't help all of them. I had to prioritize my handouts to those I felt needed them the most, or I would have run out of funds to buy food for myself. I went round and round with myself as to whether I should keep a bunch of nickels in my pocket and just dole one out to every panhandler, rather than deciding which of them was more "deserving" of my paltry bounty and giving a few of them something a little more substantial. That would have made me feel better, but it seemed even more selfish to be more concerned with my own feelings than with their needs. I had to learn to "maintain a distance," as this woman says, and just walk past those I hadn't given anything to that day without really looking at them. That didn't feel very good either, but it was less immediately painful. I sense the same kind of dilemma in her post. Unless you're the Bill Gates of enlightnment, you have to make choices, I would imagine, to keep from being overwhelmed by the needs of others.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What makes a Guru attractive
" As I said before, I'd vastly rather deal with a > straightforward male chauvinist pig than a fake, > hypocritical male "feminist." Now don't you worry your pretty little head about this man talk. You will just get overwrought trying to keep up with the conversation and it'll give ya the vapors! Or even worse, hysteria! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_hysteria Female hysteria was a once-common medical diagnosis, made exclusively in women, which is no longer recognized by modern medical authorities. It was a popular diagnosis in Western nations, during the Victorian era, for women who exhibited a wide array of symptoms including faintness, nervousness, insomnia, fluid retention, heaviness in abdomen, muscle spasm, shortness of breath, irritability, loss of appetite for food or sex, and a "tendency to cause trouble".[1] Patients diagnosed with female hysteria would sometimes undergo "pelvic massage" manual stimulation of the woman's genitals by the doctor to "hysterical paroxysm", which is now recognized as orgasm.[1] You might want to make special note of this symptom Judy: "tendency to cause trouble". To make sure no one mistakes my craven motives for defending women as a form of virtue... I am forming a group dedicated to promoting Hysterical Paroxysms for all women. I am still doing research in this important field. So while the men folk go about important business why don't you fillies run along and mix up a big ol' batch O biscuits and gravy. Men-talk makes us mighty hungry, and all those hystericals aren't gunna paroxysm themselves! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > > > > And Judy's and Bronte's comments DO deserve a harder look, but > > > I have a hard time keeping up the good-fight when I see such > > > denial on their parts. I don't have the word-power to break > > > through their deluding fog -- the denying of the chauvinistic > > > milieu women everywhere must deal with -- deal with so often, > > > so deeply, so regularly, that, most women do as they have > > > done -- capitulate to "certain realities in a man's world" and > > > not make waves about sexism cuz it's an old topic and > > > they'd just be spinning their wheels trying to change the > > > man-abuse-momentum in today's cultures. I think they're just > > > hiding feelings that perhaps they long ago stopped giving > > > attention too because the good-fight is so tiring, and men are > > > so stupidly lust-dense chakra fascists. > > > > So it is for their own good even though they don't know it? So > > women are in such denial that they don't even know their own > > issues, but you see them more clearly? Here is another idea, > > maybe you don't know jack about women because you are too busy > > discounting what they are telling you directly because you know > > their problems better than they know their own. In your own mind > > that is, no one else is fooled by this blatant put down of the > > very gender you claim to be protecting. > > > > With heroes like you, women don't need enemies. > > Thank you. I couldn't have said it better myself. > > And what makes it even worse is that he expects us > to capitulate to *his* reality, and if we don't, he > proceeds to viciously attack us, aiming for the very > "vulnerability" he claims to be protecting. > > As I said before, I'd vastly rather deal with a > straightforward male chauvinist pig than a fake, > hypocritical male "feminist." >
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 11:24 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge --- In HYPERLINK "mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com"FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [I wrote:] > > "Beggars" to describe these people was an unfortunate > > choice of words. I winced a bit at it at first myself, > > but then I realized what she was trying to get across > > was the feeling of inadequacy on the part of the beggee-- > > her own feeling--to give them all what they needed > > I think that's it. You can imagine the state of mind of > someone who comes up to you in a restaurant almost literally > begging for a cosmic insight. Not very self-sufficient. Just to clarify, what I was suggesting was that she was describing her *own* feelings. I understand. And it would be easy for such a person to move into a guru role if they wanted to, as Andy Rymer did. All you have to do is make yourself available and the situation snowballs. If you don’t want that, you have to ignore people or fend them off somehow, because in this town at least, some of them will approach you if the word gets out that there’s something special going on with you. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.9/1067 - Release Date: 10/12/2007 6:02 PM
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What we know
On Oct 13, 2007, at 10:28 AM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Oct 12, 2007, at 12:34 AM, Rick Archer wrote: > > Are there examples in your tradition of masters > > who knew all things large and small, near and far, > > simultaneously… whose knowledge of the manifest > > universe equaled that which God is understood to have? > > Actually, it is a known phenomenon, although probably > different from what most might imagine. In Tibetan there > are actually five forms of this god-like wisdom which > occurs before the exhaustion of all phenomenon. And we know these masters knew all things large and small, near and far, simultaneously, whose knowledge of the manifest universe equaled that which God is understood to have, how? Primarily through their teachings, both written, unwritten and concealed (and re-revealed). I should explain this last part. In some cases one of the manifest aspects of omniscience are that masters tap into different strata of time, which really, for them, time is open-dimension/non-sequntial as easy as it is sequential (to us). For example let's say hundreds of years ago a master sees that in the future a disease called cancer will ravage humankind. S/he spontaneously conceives medication and spiritual practices thru his/her omniscience to alleviate these illnesses that haven't even arisen yet in historical time. So they "conceal" them, to be re-revealed when the time is appropriate, by a yogin or yogini who possesses the needed state of consciousness and correct accompanying factors. If they fail to do this, and reveal them at the wrong time, circumstance(s) can (and often will) arise to destroy, pervert or render ineffective the original compassionate intent. Such mind treasures do exist and have been known to exist for thousands of years, often with the name of the person who will re- reveal it and the time and place. So this is one example but I don't think it's necessary (or even desirable) to attribute this to a God but it is one of the practical (and real) implications of yogic omniscience. Seems to me the only entity who could confirm this phenomenon is God Him/Her/Itself.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Imagine
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But just for a moment, try to imagine what it > *feels* like to have someone just *explode* with > his own simmering hatred of self, and aim it at > you, and put it into the most carefully-crafted > attempts to *hurt* he possibly can. Gosh, I don't have to imagine it, Barry. I've been dealing with it from you for a very long time. > That's what it's been like for me to post to > the Internet FOR THIRTEEN YEARS. > > Thirteen years ago, on another forum, someone > else developed the same kind of twisted fixation > on me, confusing me with all the things she hates > in herself but cannot accept or recognize in > herself. The projection in this remark is just astounding. If he actually believes it, it's frightening. > She has stalked me from forum to forum ever since, No, she has done no such thing. That isn't a delusion, it's a quite deliberate untruth. > with rarely even a one-week break in the invective > and criticism she aims at me. Richard Williams, > the troll from Texas, picked up the same mindset > from her and has been doing the same thing, for > almost as long. A couple of other people here > seem to have also "logged on" to this particular > notion of fun, and consider me their personal > punching bag. Barry indeed has many critics. But for the record, and from my perspective, the only unfair criticism of Barry I've ever seen, on both alt.m.t and FFL, has been the recent spate of rants from Edg concerning his fantasies about Barry's behavior in his private life. (Well, with the exception of some of Willytex's posts, but "fairness" doesn't really apply in his case.) Edg's posts were so outlandishly unfair that even I had to jump in to defend Barry. >From the early days on alt.m.t right down to the present, Barry has spent *most* of his time putting down other people, without the slightest regard for fairness or accuracy or intellectual honesty. That's why he's come in for so much criticism. > The more that these people rag on me and spew > their bile at me, the more I try to "channel" > that hatred and use it to inspire me to write > more, and to write well. If I can read one of > their hate-filled posts and, immediately after- > wards, sit down and write about something that > inspires me and makes me happy, and might also > inspire someone else, then I have practiced the > dharma of Living well is the best revenge. > > And I have managed to do so without being sucked > into a head-to-head confrontation with them, and > giving them what they want, which is my attention. Oh, yes, we've noticed how assiduously Barry has avoided head-to-head confrontation. When he's feeling particularly self-righteous, he actually *does* manage to avoid it for a while, instead putting his vicious insults and dishonest characterizations in posts purportedly addressed to the group, like this one, utterly oblivious to the gross hypocrisy involved. Sorry, but writing a few happy-happy posts doesn't make up for the rest; and the rest call into serious question just how genuine the happy ones are.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge
On Oct 13, 2007, at 12:36 PM, Rick Archer wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 11:24 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [I wrote:] > > "Beggars" to describe these people was an unfortunate > > choice of words. I winced a bit at it at first myself, > > but then I realized what she was trying to get across > > was the feeling of inadequacy on the part of the beggee-- > > her own feeling--to give them all what they needed > > I think that's it. You can imagine the state of mind of > someone who comes up to you in a restaurant almost literally > begging for a cosmic insight. Not very self-sufficient. Just to clarify, what I was suggesting was that she was describing her *own* feelings. I understand. And it would be easy for such a person to move into a guru role if they wanted to, as Andy Rymer did. All you have to do is make yourself available and the situation snowballs. If you don’t want that, you have to ignore people or fend them off somehow, because in this town at least, some of them will approach you if the word gets out that there’s something special going on with you. The mechanics you are describing (of people with minor siddhis) is exactly why (IMO) siddhis are considered to be concentrated forms of suffering. Imagine, if you can, the type of karma, of accumulated actions, one would build-up across time because of this. Yuck.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What makes a Guru attractive
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > " As I said before, I'd vastly rather deal with a > > straightforward male chauvinist pig than a fake, > > hypocritical male "feminist." > > Now don't you worry your pretty little head about this man talk. > You will just get overwrought trying to keep up with the > conversation and it'll give ya the vapors! Or even worse, > hysteria! > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_hysteria > > Female hysteria was a once-common medical diagnosis, made > exclusively in women The very term "hysteria" is derived from the Greek word for "uterus." , which is no longer recognized by modern medical authorities. > It was a popular diagnosis in Western nations, during the Victorian > era, for women who exhibited a wide array of symptoms including > faintness, nervousness, insomnia, fluid retention, heaviness in > abdomen, muscle spasm, shortness of breath, irritability, loss of > appetite for food or sex, and a "tendency to cause trouble".[1] > > Patients diagnosed with female hysteria would sometimes undergo > "pelvic massage" manual stimulation of the woman's genitals by the > doctor to "hysterical paroxysm", which is now recognized as orgasm. [1] > > > > You might want to make special note of this symptom Judy: "tendency to > cause trouble". > > To make sure no one mistakes my craven motives for defending women as > a form of virtue... I am forming a group dedicated to promoting > Hysterical Paroxysms for all women. I am still doing research in this > important field. > > So while the men folk go about important business why don't you > fillies run along and mix up a big ol' batch O biscuits and gravy. > Men-talk makes us mighty hungry, and all those hystericals aren't > gunna paroxysm themselves!
[FairfieldLife] Re: What we know
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Oct 13, 2007, at 10:28 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 12, 2007, at 12:34 AM, Rick Archer wrote: > > > > > > Are there examples in your tradition of masters > > > > who knew all things large and small, near and far, > > > > simultaneously whose knowledge of the manifest > > > > universe equaled that which God is understood to have? > > > > > > Actually, it is a known phenomenon, although probably > > > different from what most might imagine. In Tibetan there > > > are actually five forms of this god-like wisdom which > > > occurs before the exhaustion of all phenomenon. > > > > And we know these masters knew all things large and > > small, near and far, simultaneously, whose knowledge > > of the manifest universe equaled that which God is > > understood to have, how? > > Primarily through their teachings, both written, unwritten and > concealed (and re-revealed). > I should explain this last part. No need. The explanation is interesting, but unfortunately it doesn't fill the bill.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge
I thought it was nice of her to share her experiences here and since she is Rick's friend it seems weird to dissect her experience here. Bronte gave her more of a dressing down than I am comfortable with, but some of her sentiments ring true to me. The experiences were of the underwhelming nature that I used to use to evaluate my own heightened abilities. They feel compelling to oneself but to others come off as pretty normal. Let me stand next to her daughter and watch the kids go by. I'll do the same thing, because I am an adult and can read people to the point of impressing a child, which is after all who stood in for all of us in this experience. It had to rise above the bar held by a child who decided that the descriptions were accurate. It seems charming that people are going around feeling really special about themselves and collecting these sweet anecdotes that support a belief in their special state. I can relate to this. I have this thing where I think of some information I need from a book and when I open it randomly I often come right to the exact page I needed. It used to happen so often that I came to believe that it was through my refined sense of touch. It made me feel special. These days I consider that I am a total book fiend and do this activity so often that the laws of statistics are in my favor. Plus I am often looking in books I have already read and they are naturally creased to my favorite sections. Throw in the natural influence of "shaping" where I tend to remember only the times it happened and completely forget when it doesn't happen and you have a full blown miracle in my hands! So I am satisfied with her description that she is feeling special about herself but don't see a need to revise my view of enlightenment states. They seem to be of a personally compelling nature but don't yet live up to the brochure. I trust Rick's take that she is a nice person who relates to people well, although like Bronte I had a bit of a cringe over her self-created prison of specialness. If it serves her well it sure is none of my business. For me the lack of such a separation from people was my enlightenment. Different strokes. Thanks for Rick and his friend for giving us some details of her experience. It would make a fascinating book to collect many such stories from the modern "enlightened". It might end up confirming my opinion that this is a subjective shift that seems meaningful only to the person inside but is not really something which can manifest anything impressive to others who are not inclined to be impressed by a mother's ability to "read" a bunch of kids for her daughter. Or it might really blow some minds that valuable new states of mind are being reached. I'm still posting here with the question: Does your internal state allow you to do anything that ordinary states cannot? It is a fair and important question. I'll know it when I see it, just like porn. (which I would never look at because it degrades women...I mean I only look at it fro hours in order to express outrage at the exploitation of women...I mean I am looking at porn on a split screen right now... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of authfriend > Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 11:24 AM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge > > > > --- In HYPERLINK > "mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com"FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick > Archer" wrote: > > > [I wrote:] > > > "Beggars" to describe these people was an unfortunate > > > choice of words. I winced a bit at it at first myself, > > > but then I realized what she was trying to get across > > > was the feeling of inadequacy on the part of the beggee-- > > > her own feeling--to give them all what they needed > > > > I think that's it. You can imagine the state of mind of > > someone who comes up to you in a restaurant almost literally > > begging for a cosmic insight. Not very self-sufficient. > > Just to clarify, what I was suggesting was that > she was describing her *own* feelings. > > I understand. And it would be easy for such a person to move into a guru > role if they wanted to, as Andy Rymer did. All you have to do is make > yourself available and the situation snowballs. If you don't want that, you > have to ignore people or fend them off somehow, because in this town at > least, some of them will approach you if the word gets out that there's > something special going on with you. > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.9/1067 - Release Date: 10/12/2007 > 6:02 PM >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I like the Maniprabha's comment on this sutra: Gosh, I wonder why? > " siddhis [that is] the Vividness of the subtle senses > and the like in the case of one devoted to samadhi, (the fruit > of which is final bliss), are obstacles, [that is,] impediments. > Accordingly he who desires liberation overlooks them. For his > task is not accomplished, even if he have ten thousand > perfections, unless he have a complete enlightenment of self." I've pointed out before that instead of seeing this sutra as a "warning" against siddhis, as most commentators do, it's possible to understand it as a technical description of the technique of samyama. Anyone who has taken the TM-Sidhis should be able to see how this is the case. The big problem with the "warning" interpretation is that it's hard to understand why, having warned against the use of the siddhis sutras, Patanjali would spend so much time detailing them and their expected results. It's a little like telling a child never to play with fire, then going on to explain how to light a match, which substances are the easiest to set alight, and how to fan the flames to make them bigger.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge
On Oct 13, 2007, at 1:05 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: I can relate to this. I have this thing where I think of some information I need from a book and when I open it randomly I often come right to the exact page I needed. It used to happen so often that I came to believe that it was through my refined sense of touch. It made me feel special. These days I consider that I am a total book fiend and do this activity so often that the laws of statistics are in my favor. Plus I am often looking in books I have already read and they are naturally creased to my favorite sections. Throw in the natural influence of "shaping" where I tend to remember only the times it happened and completely forget when it doesn't happen and you have a full blown miracle in my hands! Selective memory certainly is a common component in this type of activity; nice observation Curtis. It's also worth pointing out that this mechanism of selecting one thing and deselecting another is essentially a function of the ego. How "spiritual" is that really and honestly? Should that be considered expanded consciousness or a form of self-delusion?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge
" Selective memory certainly is a common component in this type of > activity; nice observation Curtis. It's also worth pointing out that > this mechanism of selecting one thing and deselecting another is > essentially a function of the ego. How "spiritual" is that really and > honestly? Should that be considered expanded consciousness or a form > of self-delusion?" My source for this information is Gilovich's How We Know What Isn't So, the fallibility of human reason in everyday life, who studies human cognitive errors at Cornell. Statistics are completely counterintuitive for us and we have a number of mental habits that keep us from getting at the truth. The good news is that once we know where are natural reasoning leaks are found we can reduce their compelling pull on our perspective. We have to get beyond "truthiness" to find the truth! >From the Amazon Books descriptions: Editorial Reviews >From Publishers Weekly Sports fans who think that basketball players shoot in "hot streaks," and maternity nurses who maintain that more babies are born when the moon is full adhere to erroneous beliefs, according to Gilovich, associate professor of psychology at Cornell. With examples ranging from the spread of AIDS to the weight of Scholastic Aptitude Test scores, he skewers popular but mistaken assumptions. Faulty reasoning from incomplete or ambiguous data, a tendency to seek out "hypothesis-confirming evidence" and the habit of self-serving belief are among the factors Gilovich pinpoints in his sophisticated anaylsis. However, in the book's second half, his debunking of holistic medicine, ESP and paranormal phenomena is superficial and one-sided, marred by some of the very tendencies he effectively exposes in the "true believers." Copyright 1991 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title. >From Kirkus Reviews The subtexts of this first-class critique of human (non)reason are that we all tell ourselves lies (at least some of the time)...that if you want to believe it's true, it is (faith healing, ESP)...that humans can't help seeing patterns where none exist (in clouds, in disastrous events, in gamblers' streaks). Furthermore, if you would like to learn more about how not to deceive yourself, you might take a course in one of the ``soft'' probabilistic sciences like psychology. This might be construed as self-serving, since Gilovich happens to teach psychology at Cornell. However, the point is well taken because such courses should expose students to a minimum of statistics--such as the law of regression, which says that when two variables are partially related, extremes in one variable are matched, on average, by less extreme variables in the other. (Children of tall parents are tall, but not as tall as their parents.) Gilovich attributes the general lack of appreciation of the law to ``the compelling nature of judgment by representation''--by which the predicted outcome should be as close to the data as possible: the son of a 6'5'' dad should be close to 6'5''. Gilovich also points to other pitfalls in reasoning, such as failure to record negative outcomes (how many times do you dream of an old friend and not bump into him the next day?). And he discusses deeper motives--e.g., fear of dying, prospects of power or immortality, and similar self-aggrandizing traits that fortify superstitions and the will to believe. Altogether, a satisfying splash of skepticism and reason in a world where the Lake Wobegon phenomenon--``the women are strong, the men are good-looking and all the children are above average''- -prevails. -- Copyright ©1991, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Oct 13, 2007, at 1:05 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > > > I can relate to this. I have this thing where I think of some > > information I need from a book and when I open it randomly I often > > come right to the exact page I needed. It used to happen so often > > that I came to believe that it was through my refined sense of touch. > > It made me feel special. These days I consider that I am a total > > book fiend and do this activity so often that the laws of statistics > > are in my favor. Plus I am often looking in books I have already read > > and they are naturally creased to my favorite sections. Throw in the > > natural influence of "shaping" where I tend to remember only the times > > it happened and completely forget when it doesn't happen and you have > > a full blown miracle in my hands! > > > Selective memory certainly is a common component in this type of > activity; nice observation Curtis. It's also worth pointing out that > this mechanism of selecting one thing and deselecting another is > essentially a function of the ego. How "spiritual" is that really and > honestly?
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of curtisdeltablues Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 12:05 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge Thanks for Rick and his friend for giving us some details of her experience. It would make a fascinating book to collect many such stories from the modern "enlightened". It might end up confirming my opinion that this is a subjective shift that seems meaningful only to the person inside but is not really something which can manifest anything impressive to others who are not inclined to be impressed by a mother's ability to "read" a bunch of kids for her daughter. Or it might really blow some minds that valuable new states of mind are being reached. I think she’s writing one. I’ll let you know if and when it gets published. A guy in the satsang who’s experiences seem to be “more advanced” than hers is also writing one – or co-writing one with a published author. You’ll know about that one too. AFAIK, neither of these people are trying to position themselves to be a pubic guru of any sort. I think their motivation is as you said: “it might really blow some minds that valuable new states of mind are being reached.” And not only to blow minds, but I think that reading such accounts and discussing them with these people helps to enliven these states in one’s own experience. I'm still posting here with the question: Does your internal state allow you to do anything that ordinary states cannot? It is a fair and important question. I think she thinks so, in terms of these experiences I’ve been posting. But even if it didn’t allow you to “do” anything extraordinary, it seems to me that the fulfillment intrinsic in such a state is its own reward. But being able to help others with ones inner attainment is even better – like gold that has a delightful fragrance. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.9/1067 - Release Date: 10/12/2007 6:02 PM
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
On Oct 13, 2007, at 1:05 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I like the Maniprabha's comment on this sutra: Gosh, I wonder why? > " siddhis [that is] the Vividness of the subtle senses > and the like in the case of one devoted to samadhi, (the fruit > of which is final bliss), are obstacles, [that is,] impediments. > Accordingly he who desires liberation overlooks them. For his > task is not accomplished, even if he have ten thousand > perfections, unless he have a complete enlightenment of self." I've pointed out before that instead of seeing this sutra as a "warning" against siddhis, as most commentators do, it's possible to understand it as a technical description of the technique of samyama. Anyone who has taken the TM-Sidhis should be able to see how this is the case. Anyone attached to the idea of practicing samyama would be natuarally predisposed towards making that the case. Whether that represents the yogic "truth" of the matter is another thing altogether. The big problem with the "warning" interpretation is that it's hard to understand why, having warned against the use of the siddhis sutras, Patanjali would spend so much time detailing them and their expected results. Oh that's an easy one. The reason why is because Patanjali's YS is synopsis of yogic practice, not really all of it is meant to represent a prescribed practice. Many traditional forms of yogic magical practice do embrace such practices (as magical powers) on their own, without any intent towards liberation. Those traditions, typically dualistic traditions, often dispute the fourth pada (or chapter) as being legitimate. Not all yogis are interested in liberation, but instead in power and siddhis. India is filled with such black magicians. So the YS includes this kind of practice both to be inclusive of the scope of yoga-darshana but also to show what the extent of observations into possible obstacles are--what the "snares" are. It's a little like telling a child never to play with fire, then going on to explain how to light a match, which substances are the easiest to set alight, and how to fan the flames to make them bigger. No, according to the tradition it would be like explaining to a child, as they are doing a certain activity, when certain negative/ counterproductive/dangerous events occur 1) here's what they are and 2) why to avoid them. There are also certain technical reasons as well, e.g. certain practices will often produce various siddhis and explaining this helps people not get wrapped up in them but just understand them as by-products. But I have to admit, you certainly have your rationalizations down good! :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I thought it was nice of her to share her experiences here and since > she is Rick's friend it seems weird to dissect her experience here. > > Bronte gave her more of a dressing down than I am comfortable with, > but some of her sentiments ring true to me. > > The experiences were of the underwhelming nature that I used to use to > evaluate my own heightened abilities. They feel compelling to oneself > but to others come off as pretty normal. Let me stand next to her > daughter and watch the kids go by. I'll do the same thing, because I > am an adult and can read people to the point of impressing a child, > which is after all who stood in for all of us in this experience. It > had to rise above the bar held by a child who decided that the > descriptions were accurate. > > It seems charming that people are going around feeling really special > about themselves and collecting these sweet anecdotes that support a > belief in their special state. > > I can relate to this. I have this thing where I think of some > information I need from a book and when I open it randomly I often > come right to the exact page I needed. It used to happen so often > that I came to believe that it was through my refined sense of touch. > It made me feel special. These days I consider that I am a total > book fiend and do this activity so often that the laws of statistics > are in my favor. Plus I am often looking in books I have already read > and they are naturally creased to my favorite sections. Throw in the > natural influence of "shaping" where I tend to remember only the times > it happened and completely forget when it doesn't happen and you have > a full blown miracle in my hands! > > So I am satisfied with her description that she is feeling special > about herself but don't see a need to revise my view of enlightenment > states. They seem to be of a personally compelling nature but don't > yet live up to the brochure. I trust Rick's take that she is a nice > person who relates to people well, although like Bronte I had a bit of > a cringe over her self-created prison of specialness. If it serves > her well it sure is none of my business. For me the lack of such a > separation from people was my enlightenment. Different strokes. > > Thanks for Rick and his friend for giving us some details of her > experience. It would make a fascinating book to collect many such > stories from the modern "enlightened". It might end up confirming my > opinion that this is a subjective shift that seems meaningful only to > the person inside but is not really something which can manifest > anything impressive to others who are not inclined to be impressed by > a mother's ability to "read" a bunch of kids for her daughter. Or it > might really blow some minds that valuable new states of mind are > being reached. > > I'm still posting here with the question: Does your internal state > allow you to do anything that ordinary states cannot? It is a fair > and important question. I'll know it when I see it, just like porn. > (which I would never look at because it degrades women...I mean I only > look at it fro hours in order to express outrage at the exploitation > of women...I mean I am looking at porn on a split screen right now... > If you try hard enough and really work at it, you can explain away anything, by first building a comfortable conceptual model in your mind, and then dismissing it. I used to do it all the time. However, if you take the time to read what this person has written about their experience, for example, 'reading' the woman who lived in cramped quarters, it is truly an ability outside of normal experience. But, if your conception of what this woman's abilities are, overshadows the plain reading of her explanation, then you will be able to easily dismiss all of it as not meeting your particular standard.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge
On Oct 13, 2007, at 1:18 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: " Selective memory certainly is a common component in this type of > activity; nice observation Curtis. It's also worth pointing out that > this mechanism of selecting one thing and deselecting another is > essentially a function of the ego. How "spiritual" is that really and > honestly? Should that be considered expanded consciousness or a form > of self-delusion?" My source for this information is Gilovich's How We Know What Isn't So, the fallibility of human reason in everyday life, who studies human cognitive errors at Cornell. Statistics are completely counterintuitive for us and we have a number of mental habits that keep us from getting at the truth. The good news is that once we know where are natural reasoning leaks are found we can reduce their compelling pull on our perspective. We have to get beyond "truthiness" to find the truth! It's fascinating to me that research like this is going on, thanks for the book suggestion. An important--no essential--part of yogic practice is to learn, understand and experience this selection process so one is no longer a victim of it. Barring that, we're all slaves to our own preferences. As one of the Zen Patriarch's I believe said 'the Way is easy for those with no preferences.' Woe to him or her that doesn't realize they're still swayed by them! :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Oct 13, 2007, at 1:05 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > > > I can relate to this. I have this thing where I think of some > > information I need from a book and when I open it randomly I often > > come right to the exact page I needed. It used to happen so often > > that I came to believe that it was through my refined sense of touch. > > It made me feel special. These days I consider that I am a total > > book fiend and do this activity so often that the laws of statistics > > are in my favor. Plus I am often looking in books I have already read > > and they are naturally creased to my favorite sections. Throw in the > > natural influence of "shaping" where I tend to remember only the times > > it happened and completely forget when it doesn't happen and you have > > a full blown miracle in my hands! > > > Selective memory certainly is a common component in this type of > activity; nice observation Curtis. It's also worth pointing out that > this mechanism of selecting one thing and deselecting another is > essentially a function of the ego. How "spiritual" is that really and > honestly? Should that be considered expanded consciousness or a form > of self-delusion? > Once again, I see you, Curtis, and NM doing backflips to maintain the place of enlightenment as something special and remote and not to be reached by all us ordinary niggahs. Just ain't so, boys.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Oct 13, 2007, at 1:05 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > I like the Maniprabha's comment on this sutra: > > > > Gosh, I wonder why? > > > > > " siddhis [that is] the Vividness of the subtle senses > > > and the like in the case of one devoted to samadhi, (the fruit > > > of which is final bliss), are obstacles, [that is,] impediments. > > > Accordingly he who desires liberation overlooks them. For his > > > task is not accomplished, even if he have ten thousand > > > perfections, unless he have a complete enlightenment of self." > > > > I've pointed out before that instead of seeing > > this sutra as a "warning" against siddhis, as > > most commentators do, it's possible to understand > > it as a technical description of the technique of > > samyama. Anyone who has taken the TM-Sidhis should > > be able to see how this is the case. > > Anyone attached to the idea of practicing samyama would be > natuarally predisposed towards making that the case. Whether > that represents the yogic "truth" of the matter is another > thing altogether. Which is why I said "It's possible to understand..." rather than anything more definitive, you see. > > The big problem with the "warning" interpretation > > is that it's hard to understand why, having warned > > against the use of the siddhis sutras, Patanjali > > would spend so much time detailing them and their > > expected results. > > Oh that's an easy one. Just not very convincing. The reason why is because Patanjali's YS is > synopsis of yogic practice, not really all of it is meant to > represent a prescribed practice. Many traditional forms of yogic > magical practice do embrace such practices (as magical powers) on > their own, without any intent towards liberation. Those > traditions, typically dualistic traditions, often dispute the > fourth pada (or chapter) as being legitimate. The third chapter being the one that contains the siddhis sutras and explains how and why their practice leads to liberation. > Not all yogis are interested in > liberation, but instead in power and siddhis. India is filled with > such black magicians. > > So the YS includes this kind of practice both to be inclusive of > the scope of yoga-darshana but also to show what the extent of > observations into possible obstacles are--what the "snares" are. But if you don't know what the practices are (the siddhis sutras), you wouldn't be ensnared by them. > > It's a little like telling a child never to play > > with fire, then going on to explain how to light a > > match, which substances are the easiest to set > > alight, and how to fan the flames to make them bigger. > > No, according to the tradition it would be like explaining to a > child, as they are doing a certain activity, when certain negative/ > counterproductive/dangerous events occur 1) here's what they are > and 2) why to avoid them. The siddhis sutras are *practices*, not "events." If the kid doesn't know where the matches are and how to light them, he's not likely to start fires with them. There are also certain technical reasons > as well, e.g. certain practices will often produce various siddhis > and explaining this helps people not get wrapped up in them but > just understand them as by-products. Yes, that's how MMY views siddhis that occur as a result of practicing the TM-Sidhis program--as byproducts that one is not to get wrapped up in. > But I have to admit, you certainly have your rationalizations > down good! :-) Sorry, but I find your rationalizations quite unconvincing. There may well be a good explanation, but I haven't come across it, and your attempt sure ain't it.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 10:45 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge "And where does it leave the new visitors, often people disillusioned or questioning TM, looking for a safe place to talk about and share experiences? They can't do it at Fairfield Life, unless they want to be fried and eaten for breakfast." Which may be why the woman Bronte has just fried and eaten for breakfast chooses not to join us here to share her experiences. Isn’t it always that when we try to reform others’ behavior, we’re really concerned about those same tendencies within ourselves? I’ve been flagrantly guilty of this at times during my life, and still am on occasion. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.9/1067 - Release Date: 10/12/2007 6:02 PM
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge
On Oct 13, 2007, at 1:39 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Oct 13, 2007, at 1:05 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > > > I can relate to this. I have this thing where I think of some > > information I need from a book and when I open it randomly I often > > come right to the exact page I needed. It used to happen so often > > that I came to believe that it was through my refined sense of touch. > > It made me feel special. These days I consider that I am a total > > book fiend and do this activity so often that the laws of statistics > > are in my favor. Plus I am often looking in books I have already read > > and they are naturally creased to my favorite sections. Throw in the > > natural influence of "shaping" where I tend to remember only the times > > it happened and completely forget when it doesn't happen and you have > > a full blown miracle in my hands! > > > Selective memory certainly is a common component in this type of > activity; nice observation Curtis. It's also worth pointing out that > this mechanism of selecting one thing and deselecting another is > essentially a function of the ego. How "spiritual" is that really and > honestly? Should that be considered expanded consciousness or a form > of self-delusion? > Once again, I see you, Curtis, and NM doing backflips to maintain the place of enlightenment as something special and remote and not to be reached by all us ordinary niggahs. Just ain't so, boys. Actually that's not what I was talking about. What I (and I assume Curtis as well) was talking about was the experience of selective memory and it's role in self-delusion. 'The Way [beyond delusion] is easy for those with no preferences.' And it's pretty easy to tell, even in email(!), those who hold certain preferences and even what those preferences are.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What makes a Guru attractive
On Oct 13, 2007, at 11:52 AM, authfriend wrote: The very term "hysteria" is derived from the Greek word for "uterus." Yeah, which is why when it's taken out, it's still called a "hysterectomy." They really should come up with another word. Uterectomy, anyone? Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge
"> If you try hard enough and really work at it, you can explain away > anything, by first building a comfortable conceptual model in your > mind, and then dismissing it. I used to do it all the time. You just did it again to my explanation for my experience. My conceptual model just doesn't match yours here. I am no more "comfortable" in my conceptual model than you are in your own. > > However, if you take the time to read what this person has written > about their experience, for example, 'reading' the woman who lived > in cramped quarters, it is truly an ability outside of normal > experience. But, if your conception of what this woman's abilities > are, overshadows the plain reading of her explanation, then you will > be able to easily dismiss all of it as not meeting your particular > standard." How low does the bar of "amazing" have to be here? Find one of those psychic shows on TV, one that is obviously phony and watch how the interaction between the people with a few cold reading questions develops the "miracle" of talking with the dead or "knowing things". This process starts with rapport and doesn't even have to be consciously applied. I think this person is sincere that she believes it was a special experience, but we would need some outside description to understand what went on. Self reporting often omits some critical points. Lets take the miracle of a magician "never touching" a deck of cards and then when you spell your name, the last card was the card you picked. On closer questioning we find that the magician may have touched the deck "before the trick started" but that "doesn't count". The difference between the ordinary and the extraordinary is often one small detail. There was nothing more in this experience than ones I have had many times in my life. I am good at reading people too and can often guess details of their lives because I know something about people's patterns. But if we are taking the term "enlightenment" to represent a higher state of functioning then it is not too much to ask that it raisesabove the bar of what goes on with tele-psychics from LA, or an ordinarily perceptive person. Sincere people in this field understand the need to eliminate the obvious reasons for something before we conclude we have a new state of mind to consider. Right? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > I thought it was nice of her to share her experiences here and > since > > she is Rick's friend it seems weird to dissect her experience here. > > > > Bronte gave her more of a dressing down than I am comfortable with, > > but some of her sentiments ring true to me. > > > > The experiences were of the underwhelming nature that I used to > use to > > evaluate my own heightened abilities. They feel compelling to > oneself > > but to others come off as pretty normal. Let me stand next to her > > daughter and watch the kids go by. I'll do the same thing, because > I > > am an adult and can read people to the point of impressing a child, > > which is after all who stood in for all of us in this experience. > It > > had to rise above the bar held by a child who decided that the > > descriptions were accurate. > > > > It seems charming that people are going around feeling really > special > > about themselves and collecting these sweet anecdotes that support > a > > belief in their special state. > > > > I can relate to this. I have this thing where I think of some > > information I need from a book and when I open it randomly I often > > come right to the exact page I needed. It used to happen so often > > that I came to believe that it was through my refined sense of > touch. > > It made me feel special. These days I consider that I am a total > > book fiend and do this activity so often that the laws of > statistics > > are in my favor. Plus I am often looking in books I have already > read > > and they are naturally creased to my favorite sections. Throw in > the > > natural influence of "shaping" where I tend to remember only the > times > > it happened and completely forget when it doesn't happen and you > have > > a full blown miracle in my hands! > > > > So I am satisfied with her description that she is feeling special > > about herself but don't see a need to revise my view of > enlightenment > > states. They seem to be of a personally compelling nature but > don't > > yet live up to the brochure. I trust Rick's take that she is a > nice > > person who relates to people well, although like Bronte I had a > bit of > > a cringe over her self-created prison of specialness. If it serves > > her well it sure is none of my business. For me the lack of such a > > separation from people was my enlightenment. Different strokes. > > > > Thanks for Rick and his friend for giving us some details of her > > e
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge
On Oct 13, 2007, at 1:20 PM, Rick Archer wrote: I think she’s writing one. I’ll let you know if and when it gets published. A guy in the satsang who’s experiences seem to be “more advanced” than hers is also writing one – or co-writing one with a published author. You’ll know about that one too. AFAIK, neither of these people are trying to position themselves to be a pubic guru of any sort. I think their motivation is as you said: “it might really blow some minds that valuable new states of mind are being reached.” And not only to blow minds, but I think that reading such accounts and discussing them with these people helps to enliven these states in one’s own experience. Now let me get this right Rick: she doesn't think it's special, BUT SHE'S WRITING A BOOK ON IT? So that means she's writing a book because it's not special? I hope you realize that's kind hard to swallow buddy. Lemme guess, she's doing it for the benefit of other sentient beings, those of us wallowing in ignorance...yeah that's the ticket! ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: What makes a Guru attractive
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Oct 13, 2007, at 11:52 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > The very term "hysteria" is derived from the Greek > > word for "uterus." > > Yeah, which is why when it's taken out, it's still called a > "hysterectomy." > > They really should come up with another word. Uterectomy, anyone? > > Sal "Uterectomy, anyone?" Will it make me look slimmer in jeans? >
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vaj Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 12:59 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge On Oct 13, 2007, at 1:20 PM, Rick Archer wrote: I think she’s writing one. I’ll let you know if and when it gets published. A guy in the satsang who’s experiences seem to be “more advanced” than hers is also writing one – or co-writing one with a published author. You’ll know about that one too. AFAIK, neither of these people are trying to position themselves to be a pubic guru of any sort. I think their motivation is as you said: “it might really blow some minds that valuable new states of mind are being reached.” And not only to blow minds, but I think that reading such accounts and discussing them with these people helps to enliven these states in one’s own experience. Now let me get this right Rick: she doesn't think it's special, BUT SHE'S WRITING A BOOK ON IT? So that means she's writing a book because it's not special? I hope you realize that's kind hard to swallow buddy. Lemme guess, she's doing it for the benefit of other sentient beings, those of us wallowing in ignorance...yeah that's the ticket! ;-) She’s been writing reams because it helps her clarify her experience. I don’t know if she’s ever shared any of it with anybody, but she might turn it into a book someday. I, for one, would probably find it beneficial to read, as I do many spiritual books. I don’t think her attitude is condescending, as you imply. In your world, is everyone who writes a book about their experience an egomaniac? No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.9/1067 - Release Date: 10/12/2007 6:02 PM
[FairfieldLife] Fwd: Re: [wednesdaynightsatsang] Challenging Assumptions
Note: forwarded message attached. - Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, and more!--- Begin Message --- Dear Bronte Baxter, Thanks for posting that passionate piece challenging basic assumptions on the nature and value of enlightenment. More on that below. Meanwhile, I agree that knowledge is knowledge whether we call it just plain knowing, or psychic, or intuitive, or whole, or cosmic, or whatever. Any difference between them is a difference in degree, not in kind. I also agree that someone who knows at the high degree that the giver of dharshan to beggars claims for herself and then says, Im not special, is being somewhat disingenuous, if not downright fulsome. So you can certainly be forgiven for puking in public. On the other hand, Ricks friend is dead right about not being special. We all have the kind of knowledge she claims for herself, if only in embryonic form. Im sure weve all had the experience of not being able to raise the name of someone we know quite well. That person is fully present in our awareness, we are certain about who it is we have in mind, yet we cant drag the name into the realm of manifest language as a thought-form (madhyama) or as an expressed set of sounds (vaikhari). Similarly, we all have the experience of not being able to spit out a word we want during a senior moment. We know exactly which word it is; we know it with perfect faith and absolute certainty, yet it is just about wholly unmanifest (so much for Derridas notion that there aint no such thing as a transcendental signified). This is stunning knowledge when it comes right down to it, and the only reason were not electrified by it is the fact that the experience is so very common and that we generally dont really think about anything so common. Well, if we can know a person whose name we cant raise or a word that wont come into the bounded spotlight of manifestation, and know it with such absolute certainty, then knowing The Word in it's infinite divinity is not really a stretch. I could argue that such knowledge is bigger than the knowledge of some lady living in cramped quarters (a telling example), but it is bigger only from a point of view that doesnt apprehend the Word in all its fullness. From that point of view, an ants knowledge is no smaller than mine. Thats me speaking through The Word for a moment in that last sentence. Now about your very intelligent and compassionate challenge of basic assumptions: I (speaking as an ant this time), I, too, find it telling that here in Fairfield were interested only in our own groovy experiences, our own evolution, and our own enlightenment for its own sake, rather than for the sake of all that lives, while, on the other side of the world, Burmese monks by the thousands are risking death, and, worse, torture, to free (other) people from oppressive government. We can certainly argue about which community is more enlightened, theirs or ours. You raise issues worthy of discussion, and I hope the group doesnt shut you down as they did me when I challenged those assumptions upon first joining the group. My challenge of these basic assumptions was in the context of the values we espouse in the meditating community being essentially those of Hitlers Germany, though wrapped in different color paper. a Bronte Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Note: forwarded message attached. - Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos. To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com From: TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 05:50:23 - Subject: [FairfieldLife] Challenging Assumptions [ Interestingly, I wrote this Friday afternoon, several hours before Ron's reply to my email to him, on a similar subject. I'm posting it this morning in lieu of a direct reply to his post. ] "The healthy mind challenges its own assumptions." ~ The I Ching That's what it says on the main page of Fairfield Life. And that's what a number of the folks who chat here do, on a fairly regular basis. That's why I like the place. But I've noticed that there are a few assumptions that no one (or almost no one) ever challenges. These assump- tions have *been* assumptions for so many of us, and for so long, that they are just given a "free ride," and almost everyone accepts them as a given. No one even *thinks* about challenging them. The one I'm going to challenge tonight, just for the fun of it, is a Big One, possibly the biggest, never-challenged assumption in the whole enlightenment game. Briefly stated, it is: "Enlightenment is a worthy thing to spend one's life pursuing; in fact, it is the *most* worthy thing you could spend your life pursuing." You fin
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [I wrote, quoting Bronte:] > > "And where does it leave the new visitors, often people > > disillusioned or questioning TM, looking for a safe place > > to talk about and share experiences? They can't do it at > > Fairfield Life, unless they want to be fried and eaten for > > breakfast." > > > > Which may be why the woman Bronte has just fried > > and eaten for breakfast chooses not to join us here > > to share her experiences. > > Isn't it always that when we try to reform others' behavior, > we're really concerned about those same tendencies within > ourselves? "Always" is too easy, IMHO. We should be alert to the *possibility*, because it certainly can happen. Some are more prone to it than others, depending on their degree of self-knowledge. And it's also too easy to use the premise as a way of dismissing criticism. Whether it's what's going on in a particular instance needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, I think. But this one does seem pretty clear-cut. > I've been flagrantly > guilty of this at times during my life, and still am on occasion. We probably all do it at one time or another. But not *always*. It isn't some kind of universal rule.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
On Oct 13, 2007, at 1:48 PM, authfriend wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 13, 2007, at 1:05 PM, authfriend wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
> > >
> > > I like the Maniprabha's comment on this sutra:
> >
> > Gosh, I wonder why?
> >
> > > " siddhis [that is] the Vividness of the subtle senses
> > > and the like in the case of one devoted to samadhi, (the fruit
> > > of which is final bliss), are obstacles, [that is,] impediments.
> > > Accordingly he who desires liberation overlooks them. For his
> > > task is not accomplished, even if he have ten thousand
> > > perfections, unless he have a complete enlightenment of self."
> >
> > I've pointed out before that instead of seeing
> > this sutra as a "warning" against siddhis, as
> > most commentators do, it's possible to understand
> > it as a technical description of the technique of
> > samyama. Anyone who has taken the TM-Sidhis should
> > be able to see how this is the case.
>
> Anyone attached to the idea of practicing samyama would be
> natuarally predisposed towards making that the case. Whether
> that represents the yogic "truth" of the matter is another
> thing altogether.
Which is why I said "It's possible to understand..."
rather than anything more definitive, you see.
> > The big problem with the "warning" interpretation
> > is that it's hard to understand why, having warned
> > against the use of the siddhis sutras, Patanjali
> > would spend so much time detailing them and their
> > expected results.
>
> Oh that's an easy one.
Just not very convincing.
The reason why is because Patanjali's YS is
> synopsis of yogic practice, not really all of it is meant to
> represent a prescribed practice. Many traditional forms of yogic
> magical practice do embrace such practices (as magical powers) on
> their own, without any intent towards liberation. Those
> traditions, typically dualistic traditions, often dispute the
> fourth pada (or chapter) as being legitimate.
The third chapter being the one that contains the
siddhis sutras and explains how and why their
practice leads to liberation.
No chap. 3 ends with what is known as viveka-khyati Judy, which is
not "liberation" my dear. In the Shankaracharya tradition teaching,
all the siddhis are skipped and then the techniques start with the
mention of viveka-khyati.
> Not all yogis are interested in
> liberation, but instead in power and siddhis. India is filled with
> such black magicians.
>
> So the YS includes this kind of practice both to be inclusive of
> the scope of yoga-darshana but also to show what the extent of
> observations into possible obstacles are--what the "snares" are.
But if you don't know what the practices are (the
siddhis sutras), you wouldn't be ensnared by them.
The practices behind the sutras are different than just repeating the
sutra mentally Judy. There are very specific practices these refer
to. For example, the sun, moon and polestar have to do with
techniques involving the central channel. You're confusing the sutras
for the practices behind them (which are not specified in the sutras
themselves).
> > It's a little like telling a child never to play
> > with fire, then going on to explain how to light a
> > match, which substances are the easiest to set
> > alight, and how to fan the flames to make them bigger.
>
> No, according to the tradition it would be like explaining to a
> child, as they are doing a certain activity, when certain negative/
> counterproductive/dangerous events occur 1) here's what they are
> and 2) why to avoid them.
The siddhis sutras are *practices*, not "events."
If the kid doesn't know where the matches are and
how to light them, he's not likely to start fires
with them.
The "siddhis" are events that occur to yogis Judy. The traditional
instruction for siddhis (when they manifest spontaneously) is to
handle these events no differently from any other casual ("non-
special") event in our lives. In other words, if during the fruition
of your practice you experienced a particular siddhi, that should be
no different than say the casualness of noticing an unusual bird fly
by, and then just going on to your activities with out perseverating
over that event (the bird flying by). The problem with siddhis but
especially the cultivation of siddhis is that it's extremely
difficult to treat them in sameness (with other phenomenon). And
therefore a form of attachment forms which creates obscurations as
pure awareness is obscured thru attachment (and non-evenness) to
"special" events.
There are also certain technical reasons
> as well, e.g. certain practices will often produce various siddhis
> and explaining this helps people not get wrapped up in them but
> just understand them as by-products.
Yes, that's how MMY views siddhis that occur as a
result of practicing the TM-Sidhis program--as
byproducts that one is no
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge
On Oct 13, 2007, at 2:08 PM, Rick Archer wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Vaj Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 12:59 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge On Oct 13, 2007, at 1:20 PM, Rick Archer wrote: I think she’s writing one. I’ll let you know if and when it gets published. A guy in the satsang who’s experiences seem to be “more advanced” than hers is also writing one – or co-writing one with a published author. You’ll know about that one too. AFAIK, neither of these people are trying to position themselves to be a pubic guru of any sort. I think their motivation is as you said: “it might really blow some minds that valuable new states of mind are being reached.” And not only to blow minds, but I think that reading such accounts and discussing them with these people helps to enliven these states in one’s own experience. Now let me get this right Rick: she doesn't think it's special, BUT SHE'S WRITING A BOOK ON IT? So that means she's writing a book because it's not special? I hope you realize that's kind hard to swallow buddy. Lemme guess, she's doing it for the benefit of other sentient beings, those of us wallowing in ignorance...yeah that's the ticket! ;-) She’s been writing reams because it helps her clarify her experience. I don’t know if she’s ever shared any of it with anybody, but she might turn it into a book someday. I, for one, would probably find it beneficial to read, as I do many spiritual books. I don’t think her attitude is condescending, as you imply. In your world, is everyone who writes a book about their experience an egomaniac? I was not implying that she was condescending Rick, I was making a joke about how obvious it is that she sees this as special. I gathered from her descriptions that she was NOT condescending one bit. I think it's important to realize that the style we're referring to does not necessarily imply some overt vanity, condescension or arrogance whatsoever. This process of selection is quiet and inferred from the preferences people convey. As I just pointed out to Judy, if there is some preference from these events (she describes) from any other event, then there is some selection going on. This selection is mediated by an ego, with a sense of "I" which bears preferences. If there is some uneven preference going on, this is a sign of ego involvement (but not necessarily egocentricity).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Oct 13, 2007, at 1:20 PM, Rick Archer wrote: > > published author. You'll know about that one too. AFAIK, > > neither of these people are trying to position themselves > > to be a pubic guru You mean, a guru like you've been claiming Maharishi is? ;-) > > of any sort. I think their motivation is as you said: "it might > > really blow some minds that valuable new states of mind are > > being reached." And not only to blow minds, but I think that > > reading such accounts and discussing them with these people > > helps to enliven these states in one's own experience. > > Now let me get this right Rick: she doesn't think it's special, > BUT SHE'S WRITING A BOOK ON IT? She said *she* wasn't anything special, Vaj, not that her experiences weren't special. I would assume that means she believes anyone is capable of these kinds of experiences. Perhaps that's why she's writing the book (if she is). So that means she's writing a book > because it's not special? I hope you realize that's kind hard to > swallow buddy. Lemme guess, she's doing it for the benefit of other > sentient beings, those of us wallowing in ignorance...yeah that's the > ticket! ;-) >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 13, 2007, at 1:48 PM, authfriend wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Oct 13, 2007, at 1:05 PM, authfriend wrote:
> > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I like the Maniprabha's comment on this sutra:
> > > >
> > > > Gosh, I wonder why?
> > > >
> > > > > " siddhis [that is] the Vividness of the subtle senses
> > > > > and the like in the case of one devoted to samadhi, (the fruit
> > > > > of which is final bliss), are obstacles, [that is,] impediments.
> > > > > Accordingly he who desires liberation overlooks them. For his
> > > > > task is not accomplished, even if he have ten thousand
> > > > > perfections, unless he have a complete enlightenment of self."
> > > >
> > > > I've pointed out before that instead of seeing
> > > > this sutra as a "warning" against siddhis, as
> > > > most commentators do, it's possible to understand
> > > > it as a technical description of the technique of
> > > > samyama. Anyone who has taken the TM-Sidhis should
> > > > be able to see how this is the case.
> > >
> > > Anyone attached to the idea of practicing samyama would be
> > > natuarally predisposed towards making that the case. Whether
> > > that represents the yogic "truth" of the matter is another
> > > thing altogether.
> >
> > Which is why I said "It's possible to understand..."
> > rather than anything more definitive, you see.
> >
> > > > The big problem with the "warning" interpretation
> > > > is that it's hard to understand why, having warned
> > > > against the use of the siddhis sutras, Patanjali
> > > > would spend so much time detailing them and their
> > > > expected results.
> > >
> > > Oh that's an easy one.
> >
> > Just not very convincing.
> >
> > The reason why is because Patanjali's YS is
> > > synopsis of yogic practice, not really all of it is meant to
> > > represent a prescribed practice. Many traditional forms of yogic
> > > magical practice do embrace such practices (as magical powers) on
> > > their own, without any intent towards liberation. Those
> > > traditions, typically dualistic traditions, often dispute the
> > > fourth pada (or chapter) as being legitimate.
> >
> > The third chapter being the one that contains the
> > siddhis sutras and explains how and why their
> > practice leads to liberation.
>
> No chap. 3 ends with what is known as viveka-khyati Judy, which is
> not "liberation" my dear. In the Shankaracharya tradition teaching,
> all the siddhis are skipped and then the techniques start with the
> mention of viveka-khyati.
>
> >
> > > Not all yogis are interested in
> > > liberation, but instead in power and siddhis. India is filled with
> > > such black magicians.
> > >
> > > So the YS includes this kind of practice both to be inclusive of
> > > the scope of yoga-darshana but also to show what the extent of
> > > observations into possible obstacles are--what the "snares" are.
> >
> > But if you don't know what the practices are (the
> > siddhis sutras), you wouldn't be ensnared by them.
>
> The practices behind the sutras are different than just repeating the
> sutra mentally Judy. There are very specific practices these refer
> to. For example, the sun, moon and polestar have to do with
> techniques involving the central channel. You're confusing the sutras
> for the practices behind them (which are not specified in the sutras
> themselves).
>
> >
> > > > It's a little like telling a child never to play
> > > > with fire, then going on to explain how to light a
> > > > match, which substances are the easiest to set
> > > > alight, and how to fan the flames to make them bigger.
> > >
> > > No, according to the tradition it would be like explaining to a
> > > child, as they are doing a certain activity, when certain negative/
> > > counterproductive/dangerous events occur 1) here's what they are
> > > and 2) why to avoid them.
> >
> > The siddhis sutras are *practices*, not "events."
> > If the kid doesn't know where the matches are and
> > how to light them, he's not likely to start fires
> > with them.
>
> The "siddhis" are events that occur to yogis Judy. The traditional
> instruction for siddhis (when they manifest spontaneously) is to
> handle these events no differently from any other casual ("non-
> special") event in our lives. In other words, if during the fruition
> of your practice you experienced a particular siddhi, that should be
> no different than say the casualness of noticing an unusual bird fly
> by, and then just going on to your activities with out perseverating
> over that event (the bird flying by). The problem with siddhis but
> especially the cultivation of siddhis is that it's extremely
> difficult to treat them in sameness (with other phenomenon). And
> therefore a form of attachment forms which creates obscurations as
> pure awarenes
[FairfieldLife] Re: Creationism, Evangelicals, and SCI
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yifuxero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Scientific Creationism and the Science of Creative Intelligence > Robert M. Price "But the beneficial changes attributed to TM are > not universally accepted by scientists. Some researchers have been > unable to replicate certain findings, while others argue over the > interpretation of results" (Montgomery, p. 64). Note that the writer's main source for questioning the TM scientific research is an article in "Fate" magazine: > Montgomery, Randal. June 1980. "TM & Science: Friends or Foes?" > Fate. pp. 63-68 In particular, the > studies were flawed by the possibility of self-fulfilling prophecy-- > or the placebo effect. Not really a flaw if so, but that's another whole discussion. Neurophysiologist Peter Fenwick warns: "All > these studies need to be looked upon with reservations. Few > include adequate control groups, and none that I am aware of > have yet used a blind control procedure where neither subject > nor observer is aware of the treatment given or the aims of > the experiment" (Fenwick as quoted in Haddon, p. 7). Such > "blind control procedures" were especially unlikely since > many or most of these experiments were conducted by the TM > organization or by meditators. The writer cites Fenwick--who should know better--making the same "mistake" Vaj made in a post recently concerning double-blind studies. Of course, even if the studies had been conducted by independent researchers, they'd have had the same problem: TM has to be taught by TM teachers, and no legitimate TM teacher would consent to teach it without identifying it; nor would a legimatate teacher consent to participate in a study in which "fake" TM was taught to controls. > We are no less suspicious of some of the scientific documentation > offered by creationists. The evidence will be naturally of a > different kind, creation not being a repeatable process. Hmm, yes, that's right, it *is* of a different kind, isn't it? Funny you should notice. Of course, that inconvenient fact completely screws up his theme of parallelism with TM, but he doesn't seem to realize it, because he forges straight ahead. Or maybe he just hopes his readers won't realize it if he pretends otherwise. > In the case of the science of creative intelligence, the ploy did > not finally succeed. When fundamentalists protested what amounted > to the teaching of Hinduism in the public schools, the court > examined TM's claims not to be religious and found them wanting. > While this could mean intentional subterfuge on the part of the > Maharishi's organization, the New Jersey Supreme Court found no > need to make such an implication. But it did claim to know better > than the meditators themselves whether or not their practice was > in fact religious. Opsie. No, the court claimed no such thing. No court, of course, is qualified to make such a determination. What the court claimed was that it knew better than the meditators themselves whether TM fits the definition of a religious teaching **as established by the courts for purposes of deciding First Amendment cases**. That is a significantly narrower ruling, and one the court is qualified to make, even in its ignorance of TM's real nature. > The relevance of the precedent thus established is obvious. No > matter how strenuously and sincerely scientific creationists > maintain the nonreligious character of their "model," the facts > speak for themselves. And, on the analogy with Judge Meanor's > decision, it is the facts and not their subjective evaluation by > the creationists themselves that must finally decide the issue. My comments above notwithstanding, I have always fully supported the Malnak decision *exactly for this reason*--not because I think the TM teaching is religious in nature, but because it's *close enough* to set a precedent that could allow teachings that *really were* religious to squeak by and into the public schools. Protecting the First Amendment, IMHO, takes priority, even if TM suffers unfairly as a consequence. It's worth keeping TM out of the public schools to keep the fundies out of the public schools. And you can't help but love the irony of the fundies being bitten in the end by their own bigoted objections to TM.
[FairfieldLife] Stirring the pot
>From my friend, who has been lurking: Hi there, Glad that I stirred the pot. What I wrote is my truth. Others you and I both know have this same truth. You asked me to elaborate to you and I gladly did, with the truth. It is a private thing outside of the group that I would never otherwise share with anyone but my closest friends and relatives. I was asked to expand on my truth, and I did. I would never post to FFL anything like this because of the inability of some to see the validity of the truth as expressed by one. It is new to me and I'm sure there will be more clarity and more pot stirring. And yes, I am not claiming to be special, how could I possibly be when I am living the truth of the universe, experienced through the senses of this body? If my truth doesn't sit well with someone, that's fine with me. I respect those opinions. My opinion of a beggar is not what one may have surmised. I also respect beggars deeply and with compassion. I view them as humble, and so amazingly strong for waiting for someone to notice them and help them out. They are not the scourge, they are not lowly, they are not looked down upon. Their humility, patience, and modesty is gracious. Their right to truth of the universe is the same as anyone's. The definition of what beggars are by others is just only their opinion. There is no pedestal in the universe. And if there were, there would be no one fighting or arguing as to who would be on it, on "top". In the universe there is no top, there is no bottom. Perhaps one might identify rather a state of symbiosis in the universe. And here I remain in my truth, perfectly content. My hope is that others who are still seeking will recognize their own truth. Your reflection is what you are seeing. Clean your mirror if you don't like what you see. The truth is in there. (Permission to forward) No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.9/1067 - Release Date: 10/12/2007 6:02 PM 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 <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 1:34 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge --- In HYPERLINK "mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com"FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Oct 13, 2007, at 1:20 PM, Rick Archer wrote: > > published author. You'll know about that one too. AFAIK, > > neither of these people are trying to position themselves > > to be a pubic guru You mean, a guru like you've been claiming Maharishi is? ;-) Right. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being a guru, if you’re qualified, (and I’m not saying she is), but not all qualified people want to be gurus. And certainly unqualified people who have sense enough to know they’re unqualified don’t want to be. I would assume that means she believes anyone is capable of these kinds of experiences. Perhaps that's why she's writing the book (if she is). I think that would be her motivation, if she does publish one. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.9/1067 - Release Date: 10/12/2007 6:02 PM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Oct 13, 2007, at 1:20 PM, Rick Archer wrote: > > > > published author. You'll know about that one too. AFAIK, > > > neither of these people are trying to position themselves > > > to be a pubic guru > > You mean, a guru like you've been claiming > Maharishi is? ;-) > > Right. I don't think there's anything wrong with being a guru Look again at the last line of the quote from your post above...
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 2:12 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge --- In HYPERLINK "mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com"FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Oct 13, 2007, at 1:20 PM, Rick Archer wrote: > > > > published author. You'll know about that one too. AFAIK, > > > neither of these people are trying to position themselves > > > to be a pubic guru > > You mean, a guru like you've been claiming > Maharishi is? ;-) > > Right. I don't think there's anything wrong with being a guru Look again at the last line of the quote from your post above... I’m not implying disapproval in that line. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.9/1067 - Release Date: 10/12/2007 6:02 PM
[FairfieldLife] Sidhis and Kundalini
0 Namaste - Siddhis come as a matter of course - but development of Siddhis is not what the path is about - it is about entering the Best of the Siddhis which is Realization where all conditioned knowledge is at an end. Siddhis are signposts along the way. Maha Shanti OM (Reply) the best siddhi combined with grace - is samadhi :) 0 Om Namo Narayan - the best siddhi is Realization - go beyond lower samadhi's. Maha Shanti OM 0 New Post Questioner: I've never had any negative experiences with meditation and kundalini, yours sounds far more like migraine, epilepsy or a brain tumour although you did recover. You do read of others but your negative parts do seem to be more than most. The kriyas are more to be expected, but I do wonder what positive experiences and abilities you've had since your guru fixed you up as you haven't mentioned them and would be the true signs of a kundalini awakening. Response Siddhananda: Your comments display extreme ignorance about kundalini and a true spiritual awakening. My Guru did not 'fix me up' as you say, but offered a light so that this one could find the way to freedom. and now because of the Guru's compassion and grace, realization has been entered. This one has absolutely no abilities that can speak of or care about, so am certain you will not be impressed. So, what positive experiences can be spoken of? The suffering me mentality, the sense of separateness, the internal drama, the illness, the depression, the anxiety, the kriyas, the lights, phenomena have settled down and died, and what remains is emptiness, deep peace, stillness and vast beauty - the eternal, unchanging, constant God Consciousness that wouldn't trade for any abilities. So, here it is - the end of the story and beginning of pure life. Come find that which you have always been not two, not two Blessings, Siddhananda
[FairfieldLife] Re: What we know
Comment below: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: **snip** > I AM interested in people who exhibit an abundance of esteemed human > virtures. If your or anyone's def or experience of E yields an > overflowing of those, I am all ears. If not, if someones definition > and labeling of E includes angry, defensive, obsfucatious, cognitive > error prone, logically challenged, and naive behahvior and thinking, > well "good luck, but no thanks". > **end** New.Morning, bingo on my card!
RE: [FairfieldLife] Stirring the pot
An addendum: Also, a very salient point left out that I always stress to the group and others is that it is not the experience that we are looking for, it is what it brings to us in the form of knowledge that matters. Focus on the knowledge not the experience. When one finds him/herself connected to everything in the universe as him/herself, then that is worth poking at. The experience that brought about the knowledge is inconsequential. One can reach the goal by walking, crawling, or in a Rolls Royce. How one got there is not the issue, it is getting there that is paramount. Focus on that. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.9/1067 - Release Date: 10/12/2007 6:02 PM 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 <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Related to recent discussions
To see reality is as simple as to see one's face in a mirror. Only the mirror must be clear and true. A quiet mind, undistorted by desires and fears, free from ideas and opinions, clear on all the levels, is needed to reflect the reality. Be clear and quiet, alert and detached, all else will happen by itself. HYPERLINK "http://www.nonduality.com/nisarga.htm"Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.9/1067 - Release Date: 10/12/2007 6:02 PM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Related to recent discussions
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > To see reality is as simple as to see one's face in a mirror. Only the > mirror must be clear and true. A quiet mind, undistorted by desires and fears, free from ideas and opinions, clear on all the levels, is needed to reflect the reality. >> Thanks ! It is true, and that is very kind of you to say that about me. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge
Bronte wrote some weeks back:"And where does it leave the new visitors, often people disillusioned or questioning TM, looking for a safe place to talk about and share experiences? They can't do it at Fairfield Life, unless they want to be fried and eaten for breakfast." Judy wrote today: Which may be why the woman Bronte has just fried and eaten for breakfast chooses not to join us here to share her experiences. Rick wrote: Isnt it always that when we try to reform others behavior, were really concerned about those same tendencies within ourselves? Ive been flagrantly guilty of this at times during my life, and still am on occasion. Bronte writes: Okay, you two. Judy first. How can I fry and eat the wholeness of the universe for breakfast? This is what the woman in question claims to be. If such is the case, she's beyond the ken of my criticisms. If, on the other hand, she is a self-aggrandizer who hides behind the illusion of spiritual superiority, such people should be publicly defrocked. In either case, this is not a questioning person "looking for a safe place to discuss and share experiences." This is a guru in the worst (if not the literal) sense of the word. I have experience with this woman from the Wednesday night satsangs. She is condescending. That I can abide, as everyone has their faults. But when she posts an email here, that insults intuitives everywhere (I'll get to that later) and that brags about how sought-after she is by the local consciousness-beggars -- it's time for me to speak up. I can't stand consciousness bullies any more than I like bullies in general, and the consciousness bullies who work subtly are the most insidious. It's quite blatant to say "I'm a great realized swami - bow down to my feet." It's just as self-aggrandizing to not say it but act in a way that attracts it. Now, for Rick: One of the easiest ways to discount criticism is to tell yourself "always when we try to reform others' behavior, we're concerned about the same tendencies within ourselves." This is another dogma-crutch you've picked up, Archer, which you use in place of reasoning. To write off a post as the writer's ego problem is a convenient way of ignoring someone's thoughts that challenge your own assumptions. Then you don't have to go deeper, and think about what they said. Is it true that every outraged criticism written by man or woman had its source in the writer's being the very thing they criticized? Let's examine that assumption. It would mean that all persons who, in the early part of the 20th Century, wrote outraged rebukes of Hitler, were -- themselves -- fascists! Well, is that true, Rick? It is, using your statement as a measuring stick. I am outraged at anyone who sets themselves up above others as greater in consciousness. Why don't I get upset with Flanigan, who says he experiences higher states consistently, if I'm going to take Queenie to task? Because, Flanigan doesn't place himself above the rest of us, talking down to people as inferiors. He doesn't "avoid the beggars" or preach. He simply states his experience. That's very different from her majesty, whose very tone of voice in the Wednesday night meetings lets you know that SHE speaks from experience of how the universe works, and anything you say that may contradict her comes from your pitiful ignorance. This woman makes clear to all that she and other "special" people in the satsang have attained higher vision which the rest who attend don't have. She came right out and said (in the post) that she attends the satsang discussions out of "generosity" (translation: to dispense her grace). Her self-sequestering and quiet manner add to her mystery, making this woman more sought-after by insecure people who think the answers lie outside themselves, in the "realized ones." Then their pursuing her adds still further to her belief in her specialness. I'm asking myself why I feel so passionate about this. For one thing, I remember very strongly that in a lifetime not far in the past, I was an arrogant teacher of esoteric knowledge. I guilded my throne with the adulation of other people. In this lifetime, I have gone from wanting to be spiritually superior (in my youth) to being able to feel the pain of everyone around me, and that sensitizing has changed me into a person who truly wants EQUAL happiness for all. I recognize now that setting myself up above others by presenting myself as "one who has the knowledge" is a violent thing to do. It is also untruthful. Everyone has the knowledge, just as every fish swims in the water. To make yourself different and better because your attention is on the water while the attention of some fellow fish is on the seaweed or sand, creates hierarchy. It divides the fishes. Of course, it makes people chase after you and see you as important
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of authfriend > Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 2:12 PM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge > > > > --- In HYPERLINK > "mailto:FairfieldLife% 40yahoogroups.com"FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick > Archer" wrote: > > > On Oct 13, 2007, at 1:20 PM, Rick Archer wrote: > > > > > > to be a pubic guru > > > > You mean, a guru like you've been claiming > > Maharishi is? ;-) > > > > Right. I don't think there's anything wrong with being a guru > > Look again at the last line of the quote from > your post above... > > I'm not implying disapproval in that line. Didn't say you were. Look at it again...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Stirring the pot
Queenie wrote: What I wrote is my truth. It is a private thing outside of the group that I would never otherwise share with anyone but my closest friends and relatives. I was asked to expand on my truth, and I did. I would never post to FFL anything like this because of the inability of some to see the validity of the truth as expressed by one. Bronte writes: Or because we would give you a run for your money. Queenie: I am not claiming to be special, how could I possibly be when I am living the truth of the universe, experienced through the senses of this body? Bronte: Lady, what do you think the rest of the world is doing, if not also living the truth of the universe? You have exalted your ego to the level of the universe. Look at what you just wrote. Queenie: My opinion of a beggar is not what one may have surmised. I also respect beggars deeply and with compassion. I view them as humble, and so amazingly strong for waiting for someone to notice them and help them out. They are not the scourge, they are not lowly, they are not looked down upon. Their humility, patience, and modesty is gracious. Their right to truth of the universe is the same as anyone's. Bronte: "Humble and waiting for someone to notice them and help them out." This is your description of beggars, and the people who "follow you" in the stores to get your attention you compared to beggars, didn't you. So I get that you're saying, the people in Fairfield who don't have your sublime experiences need to be "noticed" by your kind and "helped out." I'm almost feeling sorry for you, lady. Your attitude is so remarkable that I'm without word power to address it. Do you think the same way about blacks and minorities: "humble, patient and modest" -- ? Excuse the poor and humble while we do a little shuffle for you, massa, and show you the whites of our eyes. Queenie: There is no pedestal in the universe. Bronte: Then why are you standing on one? Queenie: And if there were, there would be no one fighting or arguing as to who would be on it, on "top". In the universe there is no top, there is no bottom. Bronte: Who are you trying to convince? Queenie: Your reflection is what you are seeing. Clean your mirror if you don't like what you see. The truth is in there. Bronte: Sorry, it's all me. Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From my friend, who has been lurking: Hi there, Glad that I stirred the pot. What I wrote is my truth. Others you and I both know have this same truth. You asked me to elaborate to you and I gladly did, with the truth. It is a private thing outside of the group that I would never otherwise share with anyone but my closest friends and relatives. I was asked to expand on my truth, and I did. I would never post to FFL anything like this because of the inability of some to see the validity of the truth as expressed by one. It is new to me and I'm sure there will be more clarity and more pot stirring. And yes, I am not claiming to be special, how could I possibly be when I am living the truth of the universe, experienced through the senses of this body? If my truth doesn't sit well with someone, that's fine with me. I respect those opinions. My opinion of a beggar is not what one may have surmised. I also respect beggars deeply and with compassion. I view them as humble, and so amazingly strong for waiting for someone to notice them and help them out. They are not the scourge, they are not lowly, they are not looked down upon. Their humility, patience, and modesty is gracious. Their right to truth of the universe is the same as anyone's. The definition of what beggars are by others is just only their opinion. There is no pedestal in the universe. And if there were, there would be no one fighting or arguing as to who would be on it, on "top". In the universe there is no top, there is no bottom. Perhaps one might identify rather a state of symbiosis in the universe. And here I remain in my truth, perfectly content. My hope is that others who are still seeking will recognize their own truth. Your reflection is what you are seeing. Clean your mirror if you don't like what you see. The truth is in there. (Permission to forward) No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.9/1067 - Release Date: 10/12/2007 6:02 PM 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 - Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, and more!
[FairfieldLife] RE: Rick's Friend's Addendum
She wrote: An addendum: Also, a very salient point left out that I always stress to the group and others is that it is not the experience that we are looking for, it is what it brings to us in the form of knowledge that matters. Focus on the knowledge not the experience. When one finds him/herself connected to everything in the universe as him/herself, then that is worth poking at. The experience that brought about the knowledge is inconsequential. One can reach the goal by walking, crawling, or in a Rolls Royce. How one got there is not the issue, it is getting there that is paramount. Focus on that. Bronte writes: So now you're presuming to lecture to us, telling us what to do and focus on. That attitude works at your satsang, but it isn't how we speak to each other on Fairfield Life. No one sets themself up as a teacher to the others here. This is a leveled playing field. I invite you to join in the ball game, but do it as our equal. Talk pompous shit, and expect to get creamed. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.9/1067 - Release Date: 10/12/2007 6:02 PM 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 - Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Oct 13, 2007, at 1:20 PM, Rick Archer wrote: > > > I think she's writing one. I'll let you know if and when it gets > > published. A guy in the satsang who's experiences seem to be "more > > advanced" than hers is also writing one or co-writing one with a > > published author. You'll know about that one too. AFAIK, neither of > > these people are trying to position themselves to be a pubic guru > > of any sort. I think their motivation is as you said: "it might > > really blow some minds that valuable new states of mind are being > > reached." And not only to blow minds, but I think that reading such > > accounts and discussing them with these people helps to enliven > > these states in one's own experience. > > > Now let me get this right Rick: she doesn't think it's special, BUT > SHE'S WRITING A BOOK ON IT? So that means she's writing a book > because it's not special? I hope you realize that's kind hard to > swallow buddy. Lemme guess, she's doing it for the benefit of other > sentient beings, those of us wallowing in ignorance...yeah that's the > ticket! ;-) > uppity niggahs, ain't they, Vaj?
[FairfieldLife] Forwarded: Angela from the Satsang
Angela wrote: My two cents worth is that I like this discussion and so I'm with you, Bronte. It's a real discussion. I don't much care for belonging to a petting zoo. Bronte writes: Angela baby, come on over to Fairfield Life. You'll like it. It's the Wild West of ideas. Very different from the hierarchical Wednesday night meetings. Frees the mind. Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: My two cents worth is that I like this discussion and so I'm with you, Bronte. It's a real discussion. I don't much care for belonging to a petting zoo. a Bronte Baxter wrote: Bronte wrote some weeks back: "And where does it leave the new visitors, often people disillusioned or questioning TM, looking for a safe place to talk about and share experiences? They can't do it at Fairfield Life, unless they want to be fried and eaten for breakfast." Judy wrote today: Which may be why the woman Bronte has just fried and eaten for breakfast chooses not to join us here to share her experiences. Rick wrote: Isnt it always that when we try to reform others behavior, were really concerned about those same tendencies within ourselves? Ive been flagrantly guilty of this at times during my life, and still am on occasion. Bronte writes: Okay, you two. Judy first. How can I fry and eat the wholeness of the universe for breakfast? This is what the woman in question claims to be. If such is the case, she's beyond the ken of my criticisms. If, on the other hand, she is a self-aggrandizer who hides behind the illusion of spiritual superiority, such people should be publicly defrocked. In either case, this is not a questioning person "looking for a safe place to discuss and share experiences. " This is a guru in the worst (if not the literal) sense of the word. I have experience with this woman from the Wednesday night satsangs. She is condescending. That I can abide, as everyone has their faults. But when she posts an email here, that insults intuitives everywhere (I'll get to that later) and that brags about how sought-after she is by the local consciousness- beggars -- it's time for me to speak up. I can't stand consciousness bullies any more than I like bullies in general, and the consciousness bullies who work subtly are the most insidious. It's quite blatant to say "I'm a great realized swami - bow down to my feet." It's just as self-aggrandizing to not say it but act in a way that attracts it. Now, for Rick: One of the easiest ways to discount criticism is to tell yourself "always when we try to reform others' behavior, we're concerned about the same tendencies within ourselves." This is another dogma-crutch you've picked up, Archer, which you use in place of reasoning. To write off a post as the writer's ego problem is a convenient way of ignoring someone's thoughts that challenge your own assumptions. Then you don't have to go deeper, and think about what they said. Is it true that every outraged criticism written by man or woman had its source in the writer's being the very thing they criticized? Let's examine that assumption. It would mean that all persons who, in the early part of the 20th Century, wrote outraged rebukes of Hitler, were -- themselves -- fascists! Well, is that true, Rick? It is, using your statement as a measuring stick. I am outraged at anyone who sets themselves up above others as greater in consciousness. Why don't I get upset with Flanigan, who says he experiences higher states consistently, if I'm going to take Queenie to task? Because, Flanigan doesn't place himself above the rest of us, talking down to people as inferiors. He doesn't "avoid the beggars" or preach. He simply states his experience. That's very different from her majesty, whose very tone of voice in the Wednesday night meetings lets you know that SHE speaks from experience of how the universe works, and anything you say that may contradict her comes from your pitiful ignorance. This woman makes clear to all that she and other "special" people in the satsang have attained higher vision which the rest who attend don't have. She came right out and said (in the post) that she attends the satsang discussions out of "generosity" (translation: to dispense her grace). Her self-sequestering and quiet manner add to her mystery, making this woman more sought-after by insecure people who think the answers lie outside themselves, in the "realized ones." Then their pursuing her adds still further to her belief in her specialness. I'm asking myself why I feel so passionate about this. For one thing, I remember very strongly that in a lifetime not far in the past, I was an arrogant teacher of esoteric knowledge. I guilded my throne with the adulation of other people. In this lifetime, I have gone from wanting to be spiritually superior (in my yout
[FairfieldLife] Re: What we know
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of jim_flanegin > Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 10:34 AM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What we know > > > > It seems like you and new morning are the ones who keep making it > more "special" than it is, wanting to attach all sorts of conditions > and caveats, and tests to it. It is fully integrated with my > everyday life; no special smiles, or handshakes, or anything else. I > don't mention it to my friends, co workers, or family. I don't talk > about it, except here, and only when I want to. > > That's true of most of the other people I'm referring to. I keep arguing > that there are many genuinely awakened people around these days. Vaj seems > to feel that they could only be experiencing baby enlightenment compared > with his Tibetan guys, and New Morning seems to feel the same, compared with > famous saints. They may both be right; I don't know. Or maybe the > saintliness thing is just a special quality, like a sidhi, overlaid on the > same fundamental awareness. Whatever the case, I don't have a problem > believing that you and others are experiencing something real and genuine, > and are not trying to get ego strokes. > Its funny actually to think that the motivation for something like this, expressing Self realization, could be *ego strokes*. What is an ego stroke going to do for someone living enlightenment? Nothing really, or more precisely, it blends into the background of every other wonderful thing going on. I think the only kind of ego stroke or personal satisfaction I feel regarding enlightenment is that the goal has been reached, and there is endless personal satisfaction and encouragement to go ever further on the basis of that initial accomplishment, that permanent establishment of unshakable silence. But that comes from me, a private congratulatory pat on the back, if I think about it at all. My purpose for mentioning it here on FFL is probably a similar motivation to the others who are enlightened-- to let folks know that it is achievable by regular folks, plain ordinary people like me, and that one doesn't have to be born a thousand years ago, or study in the East, or be of any particular gender, race, religion or background, or any of that superficial stuff, that permanent enlightenment is real, for us, right now. Booting it out of the ashram, the temple, the cave, the established religion. Do I feel *better* or *more special* than anyone else as a result? Of course I do not-- that would be pretty twisted thinking in my opinion. For two reasons-- first, it doesn't accomplish anything to feel trhat way in my daily life. I am successful in my business and personal endeavors because of the way I treat people inclusively, not by excluding them. Second, the whole paradigm of enlightenment is about growing towards a more and more comprehensive unity and compassion towards everyone. Acting all high and mighty telegraphs the reverse message to me, that there is a weakness that is being compensated for.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Bronte wrote some weeks back: > "And where does it leave the new visitors, often people > disillusioned or questioning TM, looking for a safe place > to talk about and share experiences? They can't do it at > Fairfield Life, unless they want to be fried and eaten > for breakfast." > > Judy wrote today: > Which may be why the woman Bronte has just fried > and eaten for breakfast chooses not to join us here > to share her experiences. > > How can I fry and eat the wholeness of the universe for breakfast? This is what the woman in question claims to be. If such is the case, she's beyond the ken of my criticisms. If, on the other hand, she is a self-aggrandizer who hides behind the illusion of spiritual superiority, such people should be publicly defrocked. Bronte, that's a disingenuous response. Even if you're 100 percent right about this woman's personality flaws in all particulars, how do you think lurkers are going to feel about the risk of posting their own experiences here after having read your assault on her? *That* was your purported concern when you made the post I quoted above. It was the post that triggered the whole movement here to stop the personal attacks, what you just referred to as "public defrockings," so that lurkers wouldn't be afraid to join the conversation. You wrote: "To let ourselves turn into despairing, hating monsters on account of our abused past is a mistake. It hurts us personally, and our get- even attitude gets taken out on our undeserving fellow victims. In just the sort of attacks people make on each other sometimes here "If people can't self-regulate in a moment of rage, a rule-enforcing moderator provides a safety valve to stop a damaging post from going through. If it saves the feeling level of the group, and helps promote a higher level of discussion, isn't it worth the small pinch of rule-enforcement?" And here's something you said even earlier, back in August: "Some of you guys speak so mean to each other sometimes in this forum. That is not divine, and all of us are divine in essence If the highest consciousness is all about knowing we are one, what does it say when we call each other lying curs and use the foulest words on a public forum to denounce each other? The consciousness of a person who writes in such hatred must be in some very intense pain. But what good comes of dumping it on one's fellows? Better to say 'I hurt like hell -- what you said sounds totally deluded makes me feel even worse' than to practically damn another person." >From all these noble sentiments, one might have expected you to refrain from indulging in the very behavior you were criticizing, but that sure has proved not to be the case. Few of us would have any problems justifying the substance of our "public defrockings." But whether they're justified isn't the issue; the issue is whether we should be doing them at all. I don't have a big objection to public defrockings. I do have an objection to people who preach one thing and do something entirely different. It's called hypocrisy.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge
On Oct 13, 2007, at 2:34 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Oct 13, 2007, at 1:20 PM, Rick Archer wrote: > > published author. You'll know about that one too. AFAIK, > > neither of these people are trying to position themselves > > to be a pubic guru You mean, a guru like you've been claiming Maharishi is? ;-) > > of any sort. I think their motivation is as you said: "it might > > really blow some minds that valuable new states of mind are > > being reached." And not only to blow minds, but I think that > > reading such accounts and discussing them with these people > > helps to enliven these states in one's own experience. > > Now let me get this right Rick: she doesn't think it's special, > BUT SHE'S WRITING A BOOK ON IT? She said *she* wasn't anything special, Vaj, not that her experiences weren't special. It was not so much how she felt about her experiences instead that they would be singled out preferentially from any other experience. Personally I feel a kind, thoughtful, caring person coming from the posts--very similar to other empaths I know.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stirring the pot
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From my friend, who has been lurking: > > Hi there, > > Glad that I stirred the pot. > > What I wrote is my truth. Others you and I both know have this same > truth. You asked me to elaborate to you and I gladly did, with the > truth. It is a private thing outside of the group that I would never > otherwise share with anyone but my closest friends and relatives. I > was asked to expand on my truth, and I did. I would never post to FFL > anything like this because of the inability of some to see the > validity of the truth as expressed by one. > > It is new to me and I'm sure there will be more clarity and more pot > stirring. And yes, I am not claiming to be special, how could I > possibly be when I am living the truth of the universe, experienced > through the senses of this body? If my truth doesn't sit well with > someone, that's fine with me. I respect those opinions. My opinion of > a beggar is not what one may have surmised. I also respect beggars > deeply and with compassion. I view them as humble, and so amazingly > strong for waiting for someone to notice them and help them out. They > are not the scourge, they are not lowly, they are not looked down > upon. Their humility, patience, and modesty is gracious. Their right > to truth of the universe is the same as anyone's. The definition of > what beggars are by others is just only their opinion. > > There is no pedestal in the universe. And if there were, there would > be no one fighting or arguing as to who would be on it, on "top". In > the universe there is no top, there is no bottom. Perhaps one might > identify rather a state of symbiosis in the universe. > > And here I remain in my truth, perfectly content. > > My hope is that others who are still seeking will recognize their own > truth. > > Your reflection is what you are seeing. Clean your mirror if you > don't like what you see. The truth is in there. > > (Permission to forward) > Thanks for posting this. It is always a pleasure to read clear thinking here; very soothing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The 18 vows of Hsuan Hua
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: snip > Gotta go. A sweet young thing is walking by my window, and I want to get my drool on. > Lurk: I've been away for a few days, but Edg, thanks for making me laugh. FTR, I related to your views on Off's comments. I found his comment very insensitive. I presume that anyone married would not make such a comment. That was the thought that popped into my head. > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "tertonzeno" wrote: > > > > > > The Eighteen Great Vows of > > the Venerable Master Hsuan Hua > > In Memory of the Venerable Master Hsuan Hua, Volume One. > > Burlingame, CA: Buddhist Text Translation Society, 1995. > > > > - - > > -- > > > > 1. I vow that as long as there is a single Bodhisattva in the three > > periods of time throughout the ten directions of the Dharma Realm, to > > the very end of empty space, who has not accomplished Buddhahood, I > > too will not attain the right enlightenment. > > > > 2. I vow that as long as there is a single Pratyekabuddha in the > > three periods of time throughout the ten directions of the Dharma > > Realm, to the very end of empty space, who has not accomplished > > Buddhahood, I too will not attain the right enlightenment. > > > > 3. I vow that as long as there is a single Shravaka in the three > > periods of time throughout the ten directions of the Dharma Realm, to > > the very end of empty space, who has not accomplished Buddhahood, I > > too will not attain the right enlightenment. > > > > 4. I vow that as long as there is a single god in the Triple Realm > > who has not accomplished Buddhahood, I too will not attain the right > > enlightenment. > > > > 5. I vow that as long as there is a single human being in the worlds > > of the ten directions who has not accomplished Buddhahood, I too will > > not attain the right enlightenment. > > > > 6. I vow that as long as there is a single asura who has not > > accomplished Buddhahood, I too will not attain the right > > enlightenment. > > > > 7. I vow that as long as there is a single animal who has not > > accomplished Buddhahood, I too will not attain the right > > enlightenment. > > > > 8. I vow that as long as there is a single hungry ghost who has not > > accomplished Buddhahood, I too will not attain the right > > enlightenment. > > > > 9. I vow that as long as there is a single hell-dweller who has not > > accomplished Buddhahood, I too will not attain the right > > enlightenment. > > > > 10. I vow that as long as there is a single god, immortal, human, > > asura, air-bound or water-bound creature, animate or inanimate > > object, or a single dragon, beast, ghost, spirit, or the like of the > > spiritual realm that has taken refuge with me and has not > > accomplished Buddhahood, I too will not attain the right > > enlightenment. > > > > 11. I vow to fully dedicate all blessings and bliss which I myself > > ought to receive and enjoy to all living beings of the Dharma Realm. > > > > 12. I vow to fully take upon myself all sufferings and hardships of > > all living beings in the Dharma Realm. > > > > 13. I vow to manifest innumerable bodies as a means to gain access > > into the minds of living beings throughout the universe who do not > > believe in the Buddha-dharma, causing them to correct their faults > > and tend toward wholesomeness, repent of their errors and start anew, > > take refuge in the Triple Jewel, and ultimately accomplish > > Buddhahood. > > > > 14. I vow that all living beings who see my face or even hear my name > > will fix their thoughts on Bodhi and quickly accomplish the Buddha > > Way. > > > > 15. I vow to respectfully observe the Buddha's instructions and > > cultivate the practice of eating only one meal per day. > > > > 16. I vow to enlighten all sentient beings, universally responding to > > the multitude of differing potentials. > > > > 17. I vow to obtain the five eyes, six spiritual powers, and the > > freedom of being able to fly in this very life. > > > > 18. I vow that all of my vows will certainly be fulfilled. > > > > Also: > > > > I vow to save the innumerable living beings. > > > > I vow to eradicate the inexhaustible afflictions. > > > > I vow to study the illimitable Dharma-doors. > > > > I vow to accomplish the unsurpassed Buddha Way. > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
On Oct 13, 2007, at 2:57 PM, BillyG. wrote: > It's actually what my teachers from this tradition have taught me and > of course it has a textually and lineal basis as well. I may or may not be of some help here, but, perhaps the warning is there to remind one that the siddhis should only be practiced under the competent supervision of an enlightened Master or Guru! There are actually many similar warning about siddhis and none that I've read, nor have I heard anything different from any teacher in the Hindu yogic traditions. One of the most insistent warnng is from the Holy Shankaracharya tradition on CC. It warns at least half dozen times, quoting different sources. It specifically warns against yogic flying (interestingly)! Without which the meditator could get lost on subtle (astral) levels of experience...that is the value of a true Guru (sat-guru), he can guide the chela on the subtle levels of creation by his radiant form. It's primarily about promoting obscurations for one thing, the other common reason is that they make one more vyutthana or "outward" and thus they tend to block the introverted samadhis (vyutthana is the Sanskrit word for "outward stroke"). Another very important thing is what it does to the subtle pysiology. People will have experiences, since siddhis occur in the dalas or petals of the sahasara, but they will become less and less likely to culminate in full enlightenment, since this style of cultivation tends to lead shakti up a non- completing path. Another common side effect is for one to develop various sensitivities, emotional and in terms of allergies, etc.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Oct 13, 2007, at 2:57 PM, BillyG. wrote: > > > > It's actually what my teachers from this tradition have taught me > > and > > > of course it has a textually and lineal basis as well. > > > > I may or may not be of some help here, but, perhaps the warning is > > there to remind one that the siddhis should only be practiced under > > the competent supervision of an enlightened Master or Guru! > > There are actually many similar warning about siddhis and none that > I've read, nor have I heard anything different from any teacher in > the Hindu yogic traditions. One of the most insistent warnng is from > the Holy Shankaracharya tradition on CC. It warns at least half dozen > times, quoting different sources. It specifically warns against yogic > flying (interestingly)! > > > > > Without which the meditator could get lost on subtle (astral) levels > > of experience...that is the value of a true Guru (sat-guru), he can > > guide the chela on the subtle levels of creation by his radiant form. > > It's primarily about promoting obscurations for one thing, the other > common reason is that they make one more vyutthana or "outward" and > thus they tend to block the introverted samadhis (vyutthana is the > Sanskrit word for "outward stroke"). Another very important thing is > what it does to the subtle pysiology. People will have experiences, > since siddhis occur in the dalas or petals of the sahasara, but they > will become less and less likely to culminate in full enlightenment, > since this style of cultivation tends to lead shakti up a non- > completing path. Another common side effect is for one to develop > various sensitivities, emotional and in terms of allergies, etc. > Don't do this, be careful about this, watch how this and that goes, warning against this...Absent common sense, why be so concerned about this practice and that? Such thinking reeks of dogma to me. I found my way in most endeavors of my life independently, often times defying conventional wisdom. If someone is completely clueless about what they are doing and how it is affecting them, then yes, be very careful, because crossing the street is probably a challenge also. Other than that, do whatever you want, explore life, try out new stuff constsntly, experiment, be mindful, do a new practice. Be an artist and a scientist or just do whatever you like and see what happens. You are constantly warning people about this practice or that, this guru or that, this illusion or that. I make the assumption that we are all adults here, and respect each and every one of us to be making the right choices for ourselves, whatever it is. Listen to Maharishi, do the sidhis, do TM, do anything else, or not. I don't think our lives are well served in the least by listening to anyone say much of anything that they don't back up with personal experience, in my opinion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Oct 13, 2007, at 1:48 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Oct 13, 2007, at 1:05 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I like the Maniprabha's comment on this sutra: > > > > > > > > Gosh, I wonder why? > > > > > > > > > " siddhis [that is] the Vividness of the subtle > > > > > senses and the like in the case of one devoted to samadhi, > > > > > (the fruit of which is final bliss), are obstacles, [that > > > > > is,] impediments. Accordingly he who desires liberation > > > > > overlooks them. For his task is not accomplished, even if > > > > > he have ten thousand perfections, unless he have a complete > > > > > enlightenment of self." > > > > > > > > I've pointed out before that instead of seeing > > > > this sutra as a "warning" against siddhis, as > > > > most commentators do, it's possible to understand > > > > it as a technical description of the technique of > > > > samyama. Anyone who has taken the TM-Sidhis should > > > > be able to see how this is the case. > > > > > > Anyone attached to the idea of practicing samyama would be > > > natuarally predisposed towards making that the case. Whether > > > that represents the yogic "truth" of the matter is another > > > thing altogether. > > > > Which is why I said "It's possible to understand..." > > rather than anything more definitive, you see. > > > > > > The big problem with the "warning" interpretation > > > > is that it's hard to understand why, having warned > > > > against the use of the siddhis sutras, Patanjali > > > > would spend so much time detailing them and their > > > > expected results. > > > > > > Oh that's an easy one. > > > > Just not very convincing. > > > > The reason why is because Patanjali's YS is > > > synopsis of yogic practice, not really all of it is meant to > > > represent a prescribed practice. Many traditional forms of yogic > > > magical practice do embrace such practices (as magical powers) on > > > their own, without any intent towards liberation. Those > > > traditions, typically dualistic traditions, often dispute the > > > fourth pada (or chapter) as being legitimate. > > > > The third chapter being the one that contains the > > siddhis sutras and explains how and why their > > practice leads to liberation. > > No chap. 3 ends with what is known as viveka-khyati Judy, which > is not "liberation" my dear. 3:56: sattva purusayoh suddhi samye kaivalyam iti Perfect freedom occurs when pure consciousness and the purity of soul become equal. > > But if you don't know what the practices are (the > > siddhis sutras), you wouldn't be ensnared by them. > > The practices behind the sutras are different than just > repeating the sutra mentally Judy. Non sequitur. > > There are also certain technical reasons > > > as well, e.g. certain practices will often produce various > > > siddhis and explaining this helps people not get wrapped up > > > in them but just understand them as by-products. > > > > Yes, that's how MMY views siddhis that occur as a > > result of practicing the TM-Sidhis program--as > > byproducts that one is not to get wrapped up in. > > Unfortunately cultivation of siddhis, esp, via samyama is the > opposite of that, according to the Shankaracharya tradition and > numerous others. But not necessarily according to Patanjali.
[FairfieldLife] Diksha Initiation vs. regular Initiation.
In Diksha Initiation a Sat-Guru (true god-man) gives you some of his God Consciousness, in regular Initiation any human teacher can give you a meditation technique. The difference is in Diksha Initiation the initiate must *qualify* for the experience by his past spiritual sadhana (practice), and be able to sustain the tremendous spiritual power brought on by the Guru, obviously only a true realized Master can do this and an advanced disciple. In ordinary Initiation any human teacher (even a book) can instruct one in techniques to empower the sincere seeker! I would submit TM is such a technique, perhaps one of the more effective techniques available but still not a diksha Initiation. It may however, lead to Diksha Initiation based on merit like any reputable meditation technique. Sources: Swami Yoganada, The Second Coming. "The disciple,in turn, must be advanced and deserving in order to be able to receive such a 'baptism' in Omniscience (diksha) by his advanced guru who is one with CC." Kirpal Singh, The Crown of Life. "But when the student..succeeds in rising above physical consciousness, he finds the Radiant Form of his Master waiting unsought to receive him. Indeed, it is at this point that the real Guru-disciple or teacher-student relationship is established. Up to this stage, the Guru had been little more than a human teacher"
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
On Oct 13, 2007, at 7:37 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: Don't do this, be careful about this, watch how this and that goes, warning against this...Absent common sense, why be so concerned about this practice and that? Such thinking reeks of dogma to me. LOL, no it's not "dogma" Jim, it's the collected wisdom of sages across the ages--and my own personal experience as well. You are constantly warning people about this practice or that, this guru or that, this illusion or that. Really? Could you quote an example? I make the assumption that we are all adults here, and respect each and every one of us to be making the right choices for ourselves, whatever it is. Listen to Maharishi, do the sidhis, do TM, do anything else, or not. I don't think our lives are well served in the least by listening to anyone say much of anything that they don't back up with personal experience, in my opinion. As per the above, I'd agree. I'm so sensitive to it, I can tell a deflected rising in a TM sidha and some others if I'm around them long enough, but I can also sometimes get it from their voice.
[FairfieldLife] To Judy
Jude darlin', if you want to see me as a hypocrite, that's your right. I stand on what I wrote. If you can't see the difference between telling a person they are dog's offel that has been eaten and regurgitated (what I was referring to in those quoted statements, among similar things) and what I wrote to the anonymous princess, that is your issue. I don't really care much how you see me. I do deeply care about speaking out when I see something I perceive as wrong. I will continue to do it, and you can continue to be my critic if you like to be. - Bronte authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Bronte wrote some weeks back: > "And where does it leave the new visitors, often people > disillusioned or questioning TM, looking for a safe place > to talk about and share experiences? They can't do it at > Fairfield Life, unless they want to be fried and eaten > for breakfast." > > Judy wrote today: > Which may be why the woman Bronte has just fried > and eaten for breakfast chooses not to join us here > to share her experiences. > > How can I fry and eat the wholeness of the universe for breakfast? This is what the woman in question claims to be. If such is the case, she's beyond the ken of my criticisms. If, on the other hand, she is a self-aggrandizer who hides behind the illusion of spiritual superiority, such people should be publicly defrocked. Bronte, that's a disingenuous response. Even if you're 100 percent right about this woman's personality flaws in all particulars, how do you think lurkers are going to feel about the risk of posting their own experiences here after having read your assault on her? *That* was your purported concern when you made the post I quoted above. It was the post that triggered the whole movement here to stop the personal attacks, what you just referred to as "public defrockings," so that lurkers wouldn't be afraid to join the conversation. You wrote: "To let ourselves turn into despairing, hating monsters on account of our abused past is a mistake. It hurts us personally, and our get- even attitude gets taken out on our undeserving fellow victims. In just the sort of attacks people make on each other sometimes here "If people can't self-regulate in a moment of rage, a rule-enforcing moderator provides a safety valve to stop a damaging post from going through. If it saves the feeling level of the group, and helps promote a higher level of discussion, isn't it worth the small pinch of rule-enforcement?" And here's something you said even earlier, back in August: "Some of you guys speak so mean to each other sometimes in this forum. That is not divine, and all of us are divine in essence If the highest consciousness is all about knowing we are one, what does it say when we call each other lying curs and use the foulest words on a public forum to denounce each other? The consciousness of a person who writes in such hatred must be in some very intense pain. But what good comes of dumping it on one's fellows? Better to say 'I hurt like hell -- what you said sounds totally deluded makes me feel even worse' than to practically damn another person." >From all these noble sentiments, one might have expected you to refrain from indulging in the very behavior you were criticizing, but that sure has proved not to be the case. Few of us would have any problems justifying the substance of our "public defrockings." But whether they're justified isn't the issue; the issue is whether we should be doing them at all. I don't have a big objection to public defrockings. I do have an objection to people who preach one thing and do something entirely different. It's called hypocrisy. - Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
[FairfieldLife] Re: To Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jude darlin', if you want to see me as a hypocrite, that's your right. I stand on what I wrote. If you can't see the difference between telling a person they are dog's offel that has been eaten and regurgitated (what I was referring to in those quoted statements, among similar things) I believe there were a few references to reguritation in your post to this woman, actually. > and what I wrote to the anonymous princess, that is your issue. Although vulgar language was what triggered your second post, I hadn't thought your concerns were so trivial, frankly, as to focus on such language as the sole means of trampling on the "feeling level" of the group. There are more ways of frying and eating someone for breakfast, it seems to me, than indulging in vulgar language. But now that I know that was the only means of doing so that concerned you, I have a much better idea of the level of your sensibilities and how seriously I should take them. > I don't really care much how you see me. I do deeply care about speaking out when I see something I perceive as wrong. I will continue to do it, and you can continue to be my critic if you like to be. Gee, thanks for the permission. I will most likely continue to criticize whatever I think needs it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Diksha Initiation vs. regular Initiation.
ater all these years of doing tm and if regular and sincere with it, I would submit there is a good chance that one would move rapidly by taking diksha under the terms specified below. my experience dictates that it is different to have the initiation by the diciple compared with the sat guru. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In Diksha Initiation a Sat-Guru (true god-man) gives you some of his > God Consciousness, in regular Initiation any human teacher can give > you a meditation technique. > > The difference is in Diksha Initiation the initiate must *qualify* for > the experience by his past spiritual sadhana (practice), and be able > to sustain the tremendous spiritual power brought on by the Guru, > obviously only a true realized Master can do this and an advanced > disciple. > > In ordinary Initiation any human teacher (even a book) can instruct > one in techniques to empower the sincere seeker! I would submit TM is > such a technique, perhaps one of the more effective techniques > available but still not a diksha Initiation. It may however, lead to > Diksha Initiation based on merit like any reputable meditation technique. > > Sources: > > Swami Yoganada, The Second Coming. "The disciple,in turn, must be > advanced and deserving in order to be able to receive such a 'baptism' > in Omniscience (diksha) by his advanced guru who is one with CC." > > Kirpal Singh, The Crown of Life. "But when the student..succeeds in > rising above physical consciousness, he finds the Radiant Form of his > Master waiting unsought to receive him. Indeed, it is at this point > that the real Guru-disciple or teacher-student relationship is > established. Up to this stage, the Guru had been little more than a > human teacher" >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Oct 13, 2007, at 7:37 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: > > > Don't do this, be careful about this, watch how this and that goes, > > warning against this...Absent common sense, why be so concerned > > about this practice and that? Such thinking reeks of dogma to me. > > LOL, no it's not "dogma" Jim, it's the collected wisdom of sages > across the ages--and my own personal experience as well. I'd like to hear more about your personal experience, then, because you are always quoting others or mentioning the experiences of others, but not correlating such experiences with your own. I don't recall you ever speaking about your experiences in this way here on FFL. As for the wisdom of sages, its like that expression about lying with statistics-- some quotation can be found in the long history of spirtual literature to back up anything. Means very little when warning about siddhis for example. And as I have said, why bother to warn people about siddhis, repeatedly? Either they work or they don't, and if properly taught, no problem, in my opinion. > > You are constantly warning people about this practice or that, this > > guru or that, this illusion or that. > Really? Could you quote an example? from your past posting. Reads like a warning to me: "One of the most insistent warnng is from the Holy Shankaracharya tradition on CC. It warns at least half dozen times, quoting different sources. It specifically warns against yogic flying (interestingly)! Without which the meditator could get lost on subtle (astral) levels of experience...that is the value of a true Guru (sat-guru), he can guide the chela on the subtle levels of creation by his radiant form. It's primarily about promoting obscurations for one thing, the other common reason is that they make one more vyutthana or "outward" and thus they tend to block the introverted samadhis (vyutthana is the Sanskrit word for "outward stroke"). Another very important thing is what it does to the subtle pysiology. People will have experiences, since siddhis occur in the dalas or petals of the sahasara, but they will become less and less likely to culminate in full enlightenment, since this style of cultivation tends to lead shakti up a non- completing path. Another common side effect is for one to develop various sensitivities, emotional and in terms of allergies, etc." You have replied that this is backed up by your personal experience, but it just reads like dogma to me. meant to frighten the reader about the siddhis if not done properly, i.e. according to the guidance of a teacher you approve of. Pure dogma, Vaj. > > I make the assumption that we > > are all adults here, and respect each and every one of us to be > > making the right choices for ourselves, whatever it is. Listen to > > Maharishi, do the sidhis, do TM, do anything else, or not. > > > > I don't think our lives are well served in the least by listening to > > anyone say much of anything that they don't back up with personal > > experience, in my opinion. > > As per the above, I'd agree. I'm so sensitive to it, I can tell a > deflected rising in a TM sidha and some others if I'm around them > long enough, but I can also sometimes get it from their voice. > I don't know what a 'deflected rising' is. In any case, I'd like to hear more about you and your experiences, and less about books you've read or teachers you are quoting.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
On Oct 13, 2007, at 8:41 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Oct 13, 2007, at 7:37 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: > > > Don't do this, be careful about this, watch how this and that goes, > > warning against this...Absent common sense, why be so concerned > > about this practice and that? Such thinking reeks of dogma to me. > > LOL, no it's not "dogma" Jim, it's the collected wisdom of sages > across the ages--and my own personal experience as well. I'd like to hear more about your personal experience, then, because you are always quoting others or mentioning the experiences of others, but not correlating such experiences with your own. I don't recall you ever speaking about your experiences in this way here on FFL. No, I don't typically talk about my own experiences. As for the wisdom of sages, its like that expression about lying with statistics-- some quotation can be found in the long history of spirtual literature to back up anything. Means very little when warning about siddhis for example. And as I have said, why bother to warn people about siddhis, repeatedly? Either they work or they don't, and if properly taught, no problem, in my opinion. But just you opinion. > > You are constantly warning people about this practice or that, this > > guru or that, this illusion or that. > Really? Could you quote an example? from your past posting. Reads like a warning to me: "One of the most insistent warnng is from the Holy Shankaracharya tradition on CC. It warns at least half dozen times, quoting different sources. It specifically warns against yogic flying (interestingly)! Without which the meditator could get lost on subtle (astral) levels of experience...that is the value of a true Guru (sat-guru), he can guide the chela on the subtle levels of creation by his radiant form. Note: I didn't write this last part. It's primarily about promoting obscurations for one thing, the other common reason is that they make one more vyutthana or "outward" and thus they tend to block the introverted samadhis (vyutthana is the Sanskrit word for "outward stroke"). Another very important thing is what it does to the subtle pysiology. People will have experiences, since siddhis occur in the dalas or petals of the sahasara, but they will become less and less likely to culminate in full enlightenment, since this style of cultivation tends to lead shakti up a non- completing path. Another common side effect is for one to develop various sensitivities, emotional and in terms of allergies, etc." You have replied that this is backed up by your personal experience, but it just reads like dogma to me. meant to frighten the reader about the siddhis if not done properly, i.e. according to the guidance of a teacher you approve of. Pure dogma, Vaj. LOL. As I've mentioned recently, there are exceptions. So of course that means it's not a dogma then. You haven't seen listening closely methinks! > > I make the assumption that we > > are all adults here, and respect each and every one of us to be > > making the right choices for ourselves, whatever it is. Listen to > > Maharishi, do the sidhis, do TM, do anything else, or not. > > > > I don't think our lives are well served in the least by listening to > > anyone say much of anything that they don't back up with personal > > experience, in my opinion. > > As per the above, I'd agree. I'm so sensitive to it, I can tell a > deflected rising in a TM sidha and some others if I'm around them > long enough, but I can also sometimes get it from their voice. > I don't know what a 'deflected rising' is. In any case, I'd like to hear more about you and your experiences, and less about books you've read or teachers you are quoting. Not my style really. If it's appropriate, I may, but otherwise 'why bother' I say.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Diksha Initiation vs. regular Initiation.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > after all these years of doing tm and if regular and sincere with it, >I would submit there is a > good chance that one would move rapidly by taking diksha under the >terms specified > below. Yes, as you correctly surmised, one must first be *qualified*, are you able to rise above body consciousness? > my experience dictates that it is different to have the initiation by >the disciple compared > with the sat guru. Only a true sat-guru can give diksha and only a qualified (advanced) student can receive it
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Judy
Judy, I never suggested we take all the vinegar and passion out of FFL. Nor do I have an issue with superficial vulgarity. When it gets really deep, I find that offensive, but that was not the criteria I suggested we judge flaming by. Just something I find personally distasteful. One poster said another poster IS regurgitated offel. There is quite a difference between that and saying "excuse me while I vomit" in response to a post. You know, Jude, I don't mind you calling me on my stuff. I like your critical abilities -- it's one of the cool things about you. But I hope you will go for my genuine failings and lapses, and that we don't get into the pissing matches I see happen sometimes here. I have no desire to one-up you. We both can be strong, opiniated individuals who see many things differently and enjoy growing and learning from those differences. I would find it boring talking to people who think just like me. This will be my last post on this subject, as I don't want to use up my 35 emails on this kind of stuff. If you want to discuss it further, I'll answer you by personal email. - Bronte authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jude darlin', if you want to see me as a hypocrite, that's your right. I stand on what I wrote. If you can't see the difference between telling a person they are dog's offel that has been eaten and regurgitated (what I was referring to in those quoted statements, among similar things) I believe there were a few references to reguritation in your post to this woman, actually. > and what I wrote to the anonymous princess, that is your issue. Although vulgar language was what triggered your second post, I hadn't thought your concerns were so trivial, frankly, as to focus on such language as the sole means of trampling on the "feeling level" of the group. There are more ways of frying and eating someone for breakfast, it seems to me, than indulging in vulgar language. But now that I know that was the only means of doing so that concerned you, I have a much better idea of the level of your sensibilities and how seriously I should take them. > I don't really care much how you see me. I do deeply care about speaking out when I see something I perceive as wrong. I will continue to do it, and you can continue to be my critic if you like to be. Gee, thanks for the permission. I will most likely continue to criticize whatever I think needs it. - Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, and more!
[FairfieldLife] Angela's take on the pompous shit
>From Angela of the Wednesday night satsang again: Note: forwarded message attached. - Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. --- Begin Message --- Bronte, baby, when I first got shut down for a) suggesting that there were certain parallels between what I saw in this town and Hitler's Germany and, b) that Fairfield was not the most enlightened community in the world, I was told that I might be happier at the lower levels of Fairfield Life---lower with respect to this group, obviously. I should have listened. All is lost (enlightenment included) in a community in which you are not allowed to cream someone for spouting pompous shit. Though I have seen some wisdom in this group, I have also seen too much pompous shit, and with that, I am outa here. a Bronte Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Note: forwarded message attached. - Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com From: Bronte Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 15:11:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Rick's Friend's Addendum She wrote: An addendum: Also, a very salient point left out that I always stress to the group and others is that it is not the experience that we are looking for, it is what it brings to us in the form of knowledge that matters. Focus on the knowledge not the experience. When one finds him/herself connected to everything in the universe as him/herself, then that is worth poking at. The experience that brought about the knowledge is inconsequential. One can reach the goal by walking, crawling, or in a Rolls Royce. How one got there is not the issue, it is getting there that is paramount. Focus on that. Bronte writes: So now you're presuming to lecture to us, telling us what to do and focus on. That attitude works at your satsang, but it isn't how we speak to each other on Fairfield Life. No one sets themself up as a teacher to the others here. This is a leveled playing field. I invite you to join in the ball game, but do it as our equal. Talk pompous shit, and expect to get creamed. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.9/1067 - Release Date: 10/12/2007 6:02 PM 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 - Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com --- End Message ---
[FairfieldLife] Re: To Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Judy, I never suggested we take all the vinegar and passion out of FFL. Nor do I have an issue with superficial vulgarity. When it gets really deep, I find that offensive, but that was not the criteria I suggested we judge flaming by. Just something I find personally distasteful. So what the hell *were* you objecting to? I've been watching you beat people up right and left ever since you made your pious declarations about flaming; your extended attacks on this woman were just the latest and perhaps the most egregious, which finally moved me to point out that your behavior has not been in accord with your initial preaching. > You know, Jude, I don't mind you calling me on my stuff. I like your critical abilities -- it's one of the cool things about you. But I hope you will go for my genuine failings and lapses Yeah, well, I consider hypocrisy one of the worst possible failings. YMMV. > This will be my last post on this subject, as I don't want to use up my 35 emails on this kind of stuff. If you want to discuss it further, I'll answer you by personal email. I'm not interested in email discussion.
[FairfieldLife] RIP Sri Chinmoy
Died Thursday at the age of 72 of a heart attack. Piece in the New York Times about devotees gathering in Briarwood, Queens, to pay their respects, and about the devotee community there: http://tinyurl.com/2us9hr Excerpt: Followers several hundred of them have built a utopian existence in the middle of a bustling New York City neighborhood. Guided by devotion and strict adherence to their guru's teachings, they trumpet his message on T-shirts and store signs and go by flowery, peace- oriented Bengali names he bestowed upon them. Mr. Chinmoy kept himself in meticulously good health, so his death was unexpected and has thrown his followers into upheaval. As followers embarked upon a weeklong vigil of meditation, song and poetry, grief was mixed with a feeling of distress. Many disciples are wondering what the future will hold. It is as if the group has suddenly become a family of orphans.
[FairfieldLife] Re: RIP Sri Chinmoy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Died Thursday at the age of 72 of a heart attack. > > Piece in the New York Times about devotees > gathering in Briarwood, Queens, to pay their > respects, and about the devotee community > there: > > http://tinyurl.com/2us9hr > > Excerpt: > > Followers several hundred of them have built a utopian existence > in the middle of a bustling New York City neighborhood. Guided by > devotion and strict adherence to their guru's teachings, they trumpet > his message on T-shirts and store signs and go by flowery, peace- > oriented Bengali names he bestowed upon them. > > Mr. Chinmoy kept himself in meticulously good health, so his death > was unexpected and has thrown his followers into upheaval. As > followers embarked upon a weeklong vigil of meditation, song and > poetry, grief was mixed with a feeling of distress. Many disciples > are wondering what the future will hold. It is as if the group has > suddenly become a family of orphans. I remember seeing this guy in the 80's I guess, I left distinctly feeling he was a fraud! He plays instruments like a child with non-nonsensical melodies. I don't know what all the commotion was about surrounding him, at least his music is a joke! See for yourself http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmAgD2VVo3A http://www.srichinmoy.tv/tv/70/view
[FairfieldLife] Re: RIP Sri Chinmoy
"his music is a joke!" We are s lucky MMY didn't torture us with this crap! Thank you for posting this. The Sitar or Bean instrument was my favorite. I'm not sure which it was but he was such a douche for making people listen to him play that badly. I can't believe musical geniuses like Santana and John McLaughlin followed this guy. This guy had an ego problem. I had no idea he was that young! I hate hearing about people dying at this age. No one should be allowed to die before their mid 80's. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > Died Thursday at the age of 72 of a heart attack. > > > > Piece in the New York Times about devotees > > gathering in Briarwood, Queens, to pay their > > respects, and about the devotee community > > there: > > > > http://tinyurl.com/2us9hr > > > > Excerpt: > > > > Followers several hundred of them have built a utopian existence > > in the middle of a bustling New York City neighborhood. Guided by > > devotion and strict adherence to their guru's teachings, they trumpet > > his message on T-shirts and store signs and go by flowery, peace- > > oriented Bengali names he bestowed upon them. > > > > Mr. Chinmoy kept himself in meticulously good health, so his death > > was unexpected and has thrown his followers into upheaval. As > > followers embarked upon a weeklong vigil of meditation, song and > > poetry, grief was mixed with a feeling of distress. Many disciples > > are wondering what the future will hold. It is as if the group has > > suddenly become a family of orphans. > > I remember seeing this guy in the 80's I guess, I left distinctly > feeling he was a fraud! He plays instruments like a child with > non-nonsensical melodies. I don't know what all the commotion was > about surrounding him, at least his music is a joke! See for yourself > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmAgD2VVo3A > > http://www.srichinmoy.tv/tv/70/view >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick's lady friend's cosmic knowledge
> curtis delta blues wrote: > > My source for this information is > Gilovich's How We Know What Isn't So, > the fallibility of human reason in everyday life, > who studies human cognitive errors at Cornell. > > From the Amazon Books descriptions: > From Publishers Weekly [review] ... > From Kirkus Reviews [review] ... fyi, an even better overview: www.bloomingthorn.com/articles/book_review_of_how_we_know_what_isnt_so.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stirring the pot
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > An addendum: > > Also, a very salient point left out that I always stress to the group and > others is that it is not the experience that we are looking for, it is what > it brings to us in the form of knowledge that matters. Focus on the > knowledge not the experience. When one finds him/herself connected to > everything in the universe as him/herself, then that is worth poking at. The > experience that brought about the knowledge is inconsequential. One can > reach the goal by walking, crawling, or in a Rolls Royce. How one got there > is not the issue, it is getting there that is paramount. Focus on that. I kinda wish she hadn't added this. I liked her better in the other post. There she comes off as a sensitive person who views her life experiences through the filter that she is in a special state. She collects all odd experiences that we all have, and interprets them as having been caused by her specialness. There is no co-incidence in her life. She never just runs into people after she had been thinking about them, these normal experiences are filtered as evidence for her state. I an pretty familiar with this POV. I lived for years with people sharing this consensus reality framework and it works best with people who are already on board. Here she comes off preachy in the most fey version of MMY's rap, telling strangers what to "focus on". The language is so stilted it makes me think she is not a native speaker of English. If she was born here then there is some serious affect in her expressions. Some people dig this, I am not a fan. "When one finds him/herself connected to > everything in the universe as him/herself, then that is worth poking at." Poking at? Does she know that posters here are familiar with the concepts of enlightenment? One can > reach the goal by walking, crawling, or in a Rolls Royce. How one got there> is not the issue, it is getting there that is paramount. Focus on that. Rolls Royce huh. Paramount? Spent a bit of time with the Mahesh man did we? I would like to write about 10 jokes riffing off of this but I wont for two reasons. 1. It would be too much of a dickish thing to do. 2. I seriously threw up on my mouth after reading that last line about what to focus on.
[FairfieldLife] Re: RIP Sri Chinmoy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "his music is a joke!" > > We are s lucky MMY didn't torture us with this crap! Ha,hacount your blessings! :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: RIP Sri Chinmoy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Died Thursday at the age of 72 of a heart attack. > . > > my highest respects to a beautiful God-Realized being. I attended a few of his peace concerts and always felt His Deep Peace and Love in my heart a friend of mine, and his wife and daughter, were his disciples and the personal guidance that they received, even while meditating at home, was very impressive. Sri Chinmoy was a wonderful "personal" guru, if one resonated with Him. I read just a few of his books that resonated with me; they were extremely helpful. A unique God-Realized life well lived only to be admired, respected and loved as a beautiful expression of the Self. Om Shanti, anatol
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Stirring the pot
On Oct 13, 2007, at 11:03 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > An addendum: > > Also, a very salient point left out that I always stress to the group and > others is that it is not the experience that we are looking for, it is what > it brings to us in the form of knowledge that matters. Focus on the > knowledge not the experience. When one finds him/herself connected to > everything in the universe as him/herself, then that is worth poking at. The > experience that brought about the knowledge is inconsequential. One can > reach the goal by walking, crawling, or in a Rolls Royce. How one got there > is not the issue, it is getting there that is paramount. Focus on that. I kinda wish she hadn't added this. I liked her better in the other post. There she comes off as a sensitive person who views her life experiences through the filter that she is in a special state. She collects all odd experiences that we all have, and interprets them as having been caused by her specialness. There is no co-incidence in her life. She never just runs into people after she had been thinking about them, these normal experiences are filtered as evidence for her state. I an pretty familiar with this POV. I lived for years with people sharing this consensus reality framework and it works best with people who are already on board. Here she comes off preachy in the most fey version of MMY's rap, telling strangers what to "focus on". The language is so stilted it makes me think she is not a native speaker of English. If she was born here then there is some serious affect in her expressions. Some people dig this, I am not a fan. "When one finds him/herself connected to > everything in the universe as him/herself, then that is worth poking at." Poking at? Does she know that posters here are familiar with the concepts of enlightenment? One can > reach the goal by walking, crawling, or in a Rolls Royce. How one got there> is not the issue, it is getting there that is paramount. Focus on that. Rolls Royce huh. Paramount? Spent a bit of time with the Mahesh man did we? I would like to write about 10 jokes riffing off of this but I wont for two reasons. 1. It would be too much of a dickish thing to do. 2. I seriously threw up on my mouth after reading that last line about what to focus on. You touched on an interesting point here and that is the self reinforcing nature of groups of people with the same model of reality or with slight variations thereon. If you've left that "bubble" and are looking at it from the outside or somewhat from the outside, it's painfully obvious that they are ALL rehashing things we've all heard in the TMO org et al and repackaging it slightly as if it were their own--but they never really leave the bubble (albeit with slight variations). The people in the bubble are delighted to hear this slightly variant rehash and affirm their delight to the experience- sharer, whoever that might be. Interpretation and experience seldom leaves this bubble, although affect and delivery can make it seem not only new, but like verification that the practices we're doing are simply the best, fastest boat and all that. But it just feeds itself. I think it would be very interesting for you to attend a satsang group of TMers and ex-TMers. I've seen the same formula repeated in New England, in Penna. and listening to FF. It's an identical repeating pattern. As pointed out recently, you can't help but notice the overwhelming similarity and the high likelihood of conceptual bias as well as the projection of experience and the skewing of subsequent interpretation in these gathering (or often here).
[FairfieldLife] The Beatles, Quickly
"All The Beatles UK LP releases compressed at 800% into a one-hour MP3": http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2007/10/the-complete-be.html Scroll down for links to MP3s of several of the songs decompressed back to tempo. They're *really* weird.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Beatles, Quickly
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "All The Beatles UK LP releases compressed at 800% > into a one-hour MP3": > > http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2007/10/the-complete-be.html > > Scroll down for links to MP3s of several of the songs > decompressed back to tempo. They're *really* weird. I felt like Satin was talking to me (again). They totally F'ed up the MP3 compression. I don't get it. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Beatles, Quickly
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > "All The Beatles UK LP releases compressed at 800% > > into a one-hour MP3": > > > > http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2007/10/the-complete-be.html > > > > Scroll down for links to MP3s of several of the songs > > decompressed back to tempo. They're *really* weird. > > I felt like Satin was talking to me (again). They totally F'ed up the > MP3 compression. I don't get it. I meant, of course. "Satan". the big guy is a bit touchy when I misspell his name. > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] To Judy and everyone / Trying to Find "Fair"
I may be being inconsistent, Judy. I dont think hypocritical, because that implies conscious adherence to ones inconsistency. Where I am wrong (and I often am), I do want to change. I know something is wrong here, but I dont know what. You are clearly angry at me. I think I get why. You didnt like my suggestions for a new rule on FFL but went along with it like a good sport when it was imposed. Probably you had to hit the backspace key a number of times in order to go along, when youd have felt much better slamming someone you felt deserved it. Then after all your sportsmanship, Bronte, who started the talk that led to the damn new rule, gives herself permission to rip into people. Wheres the justice in the universe, right? Well, I think Id be pretty pissed, too. I think I HAVE been inconsistent. When I wrote the lets play nice emails, what I wrote felt sincerely like the right thing. But when I lay into somebody, that also feels sincerely like the right thing. Probably, Im guessing now, when anyone lays into anybody, it feels that way for them. So what is right, restraint or letting the turkeys have it? Before today I would have said restraint, no argument. After this new experience, I feel No way! Judy, you have a highly discriminating intellect. You catch stuff the rest of us usually miss. I really would like you to shed some light and opinion here. Do you still think, as you did a few weeks ago, that people on a forum should just be able to say any damn thing they please? Or have these weeks of greater civility modified your point of view? Im thinking about Ricks party talk yardstick for what is and isnt acceptable: if you wouldnt say it at a party, dont say it here. That seemed to me like a simple and good yardstick at the time. Tonight, after my experience, it doesnt work for me anymore. Using the party analogy, what if someone you knew to be a child molester walked in the door of the party and started hobnobbing with the young folks? Or a person who you knew had been in jail for fraud came into the party and started talking up business deals to your friends? Would you say, I have to be civil I dont want to spoil the party? Or would you say, Shit! This is horrible! and expose the guy? There are times when it doesnt matter if somethings against the rules. You need to do it anyway. But who is to decide when those instances occur? Edg thought he was experiencing such an instance regarding Turq recently. The rest of the people listened to what he had to say and decided Edg was making too big a deal. They asked him to give it up. Today, I felt something was worth making an issue over, and you felt I was wrong about that. Who is right and who is wrong? Should group consensus dictate what the individual is allowed to do? Or should it be anarchy, with everyone doing and saying whatever they like? Right now Im favoring anarchy. But I remember what it was like when anarchy ruled. People had things said about them that had nothing to do with the issue being argued the conversation turned to calling one another foul names or saying one another was old and ugly. I jumped in because I felt protective of the person being crapped on. On several occasions that was you. It made me mad that Edg said some of the things he did about you and Turquoise. It wasnt playing fair, I thought. But today I said things that you say werent fair. I still think they were entirely fair, but Im of course thinking subjectively. Just as Edg thought he was entirely fair in what he was saying, I suppose. So I am frankly bewildered. I know Im glad I wrote what I did to the three people Ive ripped into on this forum: Rons giggling guru, David Spero and her anonymous holiness. In my case theres a pattern: I want to go after people who claim spiritual superiority and try to maneuver others to follow and admire them. I feel so passionate about that Id happily take a week or two of being kicked off the forum even being permanently kicked off -- if that was price for saying what seemed right. Ill bet Edg and Off-World also felt that way, when they were fiery mad. To people on the outside, it looks like the angry person is out of control. But to the angry person, it feels like they have a mission to accomplish, like its imperative to express their point. You could say its just ego. I thought it was ego when I saw other folks doing it. I found it tiresome. But looking at it from the inside, I dont think its ego at all but an inner compulsion to make manifest something that must be expressed. Maybe were you right after all, that we should all just write what we please, and if others dont care to read it they can skip it? But how do we keep this from turning into a barroom brawl? How do we keep it a sport? - Bronte - Take the Internet to Go:
[FairfieldLife] Re: To Judy and everyone / Trying to Find "Fair"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: snip Bronte, who started the talk that led to the damn new rule, gives herself permission to rip into people. Where's the justice in the universe, right? snip I say no flame ocurred. For the record, I enjoy seeing sacred oxes gored, or at least challenged. It is in-your-face, toe to toe confrontation, and it is awesome. But I say there has been no foul, and no harm. This is sport, not a brawl. Let's keep it this way. This is December 12th, 2012 happening now. PARTY ON! lurk > > > > - > Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Angela's take on the pompous shit
>From Angela of the Wednesday night satsang again: Note: forwarded to Bronte and Posted snip > Though I have seen some wisdom in this group, I have also seen too much pompous shit, and with that, I am outa here. This is like a drive by shooting. Like this lady ever posted, and now she leaving in a huff. Not passing the smell test, IMO. lurk > > > > > > > > - > Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase. > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com >
[FairfieldLife] Re: more meditating school info with my apology to chris
> > > > > This was a request from Chris Busch of the David Lynch > > Foundation > > > > as a > > > > > correction to the piece that I had forwarded you about the > > school > > > > principal > > > > > of the year award: > > > > > "The school principal did not publicly attribute his school's > > > > success, nor > > > > > his achievement of the National Principal of the Year award, to > > TM. > > > > That > > > > > doesn't mean he's not thrilled with the program he is. He > > > > expressed his > > > > > support on the video clip that was included with the email > > even > > > > though the > > > > > school is not identified by name on the video a decision the > > > > school favors > > > > > at this point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's important though that we be accurate. In addition, it is > > > > important that > > > > > we preserve the identity of the new school projects while they > > are > > > > still new > > > > > and a little tender. After a while, when the program is well- > > > > established > > > > > they will be happy to proclaim their implementation of a school- > > > > wide Quiet > > > > > Time period featuring TM practice. For now, it is better not to > > > > stir the > > > > > sleeping elephants. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I appreciate your informing anyone to whom you sent the email > > and > > > > asking > > > > > them to do the same. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We collected some wonderful interviews of faculty and students > > > > reporting on > > > > > their experiences that we wanted to make available while > > > > preserving the > > > > > identity of the school for now until the program is stronger > > and > > > > better > > > > > established. The school isn't identified by name in the video. > > This > > > > is how > > > > > the school and principal wish to proceed as well. They are > > partners > > > > in this > > > > > entire process. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The school projects that are very well-established have had no > > > > problem being > > > > > identified publicly Kingsbury Day School and Ideal Academy in > > DC, > > > > and > > > > > Nataki in Detroit. There are more that will step out before > > long. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > *** The stress-free schools link to the California TM school has been disabled: http://www.stressfreeschools.org/video/california_school.html there is another link which talks about TM in schools, but all private/charter, so it's clear that the TMO is trying to keep the SF public middle school's TM program hush-hush, as Chris, the Lynch foundation spokesman clearly states above: http://www.stressfreeschools.org/video/stressfreeschools.html
[FairfieldLife] Lurk, Miscommunication Re: Angela's take on the pompous shit
>From Angela of the Wednesday night satsang again: Note: forwarded to Bronte and Posted snip > Angela wrote about the Wednesday satsang group, on their forum: "Though I have seen some wisdom in this group, I have also seen too much pompous shit, and with that, I am outa here." Lurk wrote, misunderstanding what "group" Angela was referring to: "This is like a drive by shooting. Like this lady ever posted, and now she leaving in a huff. Not passing the smell test, IMO." Bronte writes: SORRY, ANGELA, LURK AND FFL GROUP! I CAUSED THIS MISUNDERSTANDING! Lurk is thinking the comment Angela made about "the group" was directed at FFL, which it was not! Angela is a person from the Wednesday night satsang. I had forwarded to that website today's FFL discussion about the satsang's anonymous holy woman. Angela was pretty disgusted and wrote that group to say she was sick of the "pompous shit" she often found there, and was going to leave and join FFL instead. She's outa there, into here. Part of her desire to join us was Turq's post on "Challenging Assumptions" which I also had forwarded to the Wed. satsang chatroom, and which she admired. So please, take it easy, Lurk, ole' buddy. You'll like her. She's an independent thinker who very much belongs here. Reread her posts that I've transferred over from the other website, and you'll see what I mean. WELCOME, ANGELA! We're a little rough and tumble here, but you'll find we're very real! Love, Bronte - Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
[FairfieldLife] Re: To Judy and everyone / Trying to Find "Fair"
> > Bronte, who started the talk that led to the damn new > > rule, gives herself permission to rip into people. > > Where's the justice in the universe, right? > > I say no flame ocurred. For the record, I enjoy seeing > sacred oxes gored, or at least challenged. It is in-your- > face, toe to toe confrontation, and it is awesome. But I > say there has been no foul, and no harm. This is sport, > not a brawl. Let's keep it this way. The "damn new rule" was bullshit. And most of us knew it at the time, and just ignored the posturing whiners who climbed on board and used it as a vehicle for *their* flaming of others who didn't "abide by" their idea of how others should live and conduct their onscreen communications. We all saw how long *that* lasted. We saw what happened the moment that one of the prime posturers, who took up the flag of "no flaming" and waved it like it was his right to be "hall monitor" here at FFL got *HIS* buttons pushed. Then it became non-stop-flaming on his part, calling anyone who disagreed with him perverts and predators. We saw the same thing with Bronte. All sweet and nice and offended at the "improper tone" of Fairfield Life, and especially its treat- ment of the few delicate "tender feeling level" women in its midst, until a new woman comes around and starts expressing tender feelings. Then she suddenly has the right to flame away. Bullshit, pure and simple. That's the way it ALWAYS is with Puritan move- ments to "clean up our town" or "clean up our newsgroup." The people who "sign up" for the new cleanup campaign don't have their buttons pushed at the moment, and thus are easily swayed by someone who does -- *by* the issue they're trying to get everyone to rally behind. But then the moment their buttons *do* get pushed, they're first in line to do the very thing they railed against earlier. It's just human nature, and I for one think that people should just lighten up about it. As long as they have egos to *get* offended by something that someone says, egos are going to get offended. And at that point they are going to do whatever they think is required to express their offended- ness and try to infect others with it. It's just what happens. "Rules" aren't going to change this, and posturing crusaders aren't going to change it. And the "rule" *itself* was a joke. If *anyone* should have been banned for a week for flaming, it should have been Saint Edg the Anti-Flamer himself, the posturing pissant who, mere days after pretending he was really interested in cleaning up the environment of FFL, did every- thing he possibly could to drag it down into a gutter of his own making. It's just SILLY, people. Lighten the fuck UP. This is a cyberbar full of people with EGOs. And egos are *always* going to get their buttons pushed, and in that button-pushed state of atten- tion feel that they have the "right" to say the very things that the day before they were denying someone else the right to say. If you want to "clean up" Fairfield Life, monitor your *own* thoughts and words, and leave off try- ing to do it with the thoughts and words of others.
Fwd: [wednesdaynightsatsang] Re: Fwd: [FairfieldLife] Challenging Assumptions
This is an email posted on the wednesday night satsang site in response to Turq's post on Challenging Assumptions, which I forwarded over there. I'll write the poster now and let him know he needs to join FFL if he wants to get into these discussions. It's getting confusing playing mailman! - Bronte Note: forwarded message attached. - Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. --- Begin Message --- Hey, that's awesome that you challenge assumptions. Challenging assumptions is what keeps us from doing things that keep hurting or don't work, as I'm sure you know. I'd like to take a moment to consider what you've said: "Enlightenment is a worthy thing to spend one's > life pursuing; in fact, it is the *most* worthy > thing you could spend your life pursuing." This begs the questions, what is Enlightenment? From my understanding, Enlightenment is understanding what we really are and have always been, leading to constant experience that cannot be overshadowed that: 1. the individual is cosmic and not different from the rest of the universe and 2. this connection IS that which fulfills all of our desires. If that is true that the experience of the Self fully established IS the fulfillment of all desires, then how would Enlightenment NOT be the highest? So you want to help people. Cool. Why? Why is helping people important? Why is preventing the suffering of others important? I do what makes me happy and am not condescending enough to say that others cannot take care of themselves, even if they are suffering. Some people fall upon extremely difficult circumstances and still seem to be doing quite well despite that. Others go through hard or even not so hard circumstances and suffer SO much. This suggests that there is some degree of choice over our suffering (even if it's not easy or clear how to make that choice), and finding the path the enlightenment is the ability to choose non-suffering, even if it's difficult. No matter what. It does make me happy to see other people do well, grow, and/or become happier. But that makes helping others just as selfish as taking care of myself, and I'm not going to get all self righteous about how important it is to help people, because helping others is every ounce as selfish as just going for your own Enlightenment. You seem to think helping others is important to try to ease your own fear, guilt, sense of justice (which does seem a but condescending to me suggesting that people need you or others to come to their rescue but you don't need that), or possibly just to make yourself happy. Either way, it's completely selfish. You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I'm not making a personal attack on you, but it seems that the idea that helping others is important is just another assumption. I would be very interested to discuss that you if feel that is wrong. Either way, I hope that it's okay to make these points as I'm not looking to deeply offend or start a war (I know our beliefs are held to be sacred :) ) but if you're willing to look at this point, I would enjoy continuing to discuss it with you and anyone else who wants to. --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bronte Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Note: forwarded message attached. > > - > Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos. > > [ Interestingly, I wrote this Friday afternoon, > several hours before Ron's reply to my email to > him, on a similar subject. I'm posting it this > morning in lieu of a direct reply to his post. ] > > > "The healthy mind challenges its own assumptions." > ~ The I Ching > > That's what it says on the main page of Fairfield Life. > And that's what a number of the folks who chat here do, > on a fairly regular basis. That's why I like the place. > > But I've noticed that there are a few assumptions that > no one (or almost no one) ever challenges. These assump- > tions have *been* assumptions for so many of us, and for > so long, that they are just given a "free ride," and > almost everyone accepts them as a given. No one even > *thinks* about challenging them. > > The one I'm going to challenge tonight, just for the fun > of it, is a Big One, possibly the biggest, never-challenged > assumption in the whole enlightenment game. Briefly stated, > it is: > > "Enlightenment is a worthy thing to spend one's > life pursuing; in fact, it is the *most* worthy > thing you could spend your life pursuing." > > You find this assumption underlying all but a few traditions > that have a notion of enlightenment, as part of their dogma. > It manifests as respect for (or even reverence for) those > who are "one-pointed" in their desire for enlightenment. It > manifests in the time that seekers spend searching for the > supposedly-enlightened, and then listening to what they have > to say. It manifests in the monks (in TM-ese, Purusha types)
