[FairfieldLife] Re: Prissy Blissy vs Hard-Corp John Wayne Spiritualism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] Again shooting the messenger for delivering the message you apparently so fear to hear. Do you think we all so wrong Jim: Curtis, Hugo, Do.Flex, Vaj, Sal, myself, and others? You are obviously not wrong from the angle of your obscure, bitter little worlds. You are pissed because here comes a fellow along and says Maharishi opened the door and I just walked right through it. In other words a success story from Maharishi and a soul that took his knowledge seriously. Ofcourse you are pissed when someone reports sucess when you yourself are a failure, when someone does something that you most certainly aspired for when you learnt TM but because of your lack of deserving ability, stayingpower and dedication, not to mention the addiction to your lower self, could not possibly achieve. Fellows like yourself want things for free. Even freedom. It's laughable, if not tragic. A pathetic little fool almost on the level of the self- proclaimed expert Vaj I'm not surprised about the negativity towards anyone reporting progress like Jim has done. Perhaps it is natural that the bitterness needs a focus, at least for some people. I have seen Maharishis heartly laughter when someone has taken his unstressing out on him, and I doubt Jim takes you very seriously either. What surprises me is that the critisism is not more intense here on FFL. That's a good sign. We'll se how long it last.
[FairfieldLife] Re: And now for the rest of the story...
I finally realized what all these Rajas at the Coronation Ceremony table look like: They look like a bunch of Hell's Angels who were forced, at gunpoint, to become Born Again Christians, showered and scrubbed clean by 12-year-old virgins betrothed to the prophet of a compound of polygamists in rural Utah, and then been given a make-over by a contingent of Gay Hairdressers from Middle Earth. I think they look like new-age Klansmen. Ha ha, you guys are totally projecting your own consciousness. They actaully just look like a bunch of mad old eccentric, crazy but harmless, Victorians with their penchent for exuberant folly. It's a first: I agree with Off. :-) It's a bunch of old men who don't like the present era they are living in, and who have chosen to play dress-up in imagined garb of the past to pander to an even older man's fantasies of what that imagined era might have been like. What it reminded me of was a Christian Evan- gelical Church I used to see on TV when I lived in the L.A. area. I don't remember the name of the preacher or the church, but it was a *trip*, man. The entire interior of the church had been painted and designed to look like a Republican's idea of Heaven, and about 100 of the faithful were dressed in costumes *from* that imagined Heaven. You had angel costumes, and archangel costumes, and costumes that I don't really know *what* they were sup- posed to represent, but they were extravagant and fancy and covered with glitter and the whole thing was marvelously entertaining. This show was my second favorite TV evangelist show after Dr. Gene Scott. But it's not as if I took it seriously, even if the people playing dress-up did. The dress- up gave them something meaningful to do on a Sunday. I'm sure, even though I don't know any of the people personally, that it was con- sidered a great *honor* for them to be chosen to dress up like angels on a Sunday morning. I'm sure that, being human, they occasionally lorded their privileged status over the other members of the congregation who had to sit in the cheap seats wearing street clothes, just as I'm sure that a few of the Rajas lord their supposed high status over others and wave it around like it's some kind of ultimate badge of honor. Hell, for all I know the women who got to dress up like angels were making it with the TV preacher, and everyone in the congre- gation knew it. It was just a *trip*, man. But it's not as if many people took it seriously. I'm pretty sure that the TV audience watching contained a few people who were wowed by what they saw, and thought to themselves, Wow...that's what *I* want to do with my life...dress up like the Archangel Gabriel on local TV. But most of them just sat there drop-jawed like me, saying over and over, I never cease to be amazed by the silly things that people do in the name of God and religion. The Christians playing dress-up were indulging in a fantasy. The Rajas playing dress-up are indul- ging in a fantasy. And Maharishi, trying to present his vision of an imaginary Vedic Golden Age in which everything was perfect, is indulging in a fantasy. May these fantasies may them happy. Me, I'm more attracted to reality.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Me: This is a difference we have had in the past. You seen unable to distinguish a person's attack on an idea with a personal attack. I have not made any statement about what I think of you as a person if you decide you want to embrace the idea that looking at your turds is harmful. I am saying that this belief is misguided, wrong, nonsense,like much information from pre-scientific societies. snip Your characterization of my belief as howling and barking, the vocalizations of dogs, is personally insulting in every culture I know. So your characterization of Jim's belief as misguided, wrong, and nonsense isn't an attack on Jim; but Jim's characterization of your belief as howling and barking *is* an attack on you. How does that work, exactly? I sure don't know how I would make that distinction. I suspect that your last sentence is what we in the writing business call stating the obvious. You *don't* know how to make that distinction. Neither does Jim. *Both* of you reacted to my silly Aphorisms as if I had attacked the *belief systems*, when what they were really were a set of snarks about the common actions of the *believers*. Yet you claimed: The more spiritual aphorisms you come up with in an attempt to discredit spiritual paths, the angrier you are about your own inability to find one of your own. And Jim claimed: Those that contnuously claim there is nowhere to go, go nowhere. I don't think that *either* of those claims is borne out by the post being replied to. I think that what both of your replies represent is a common cult technique called Whenever the actions or beliefs of the followers of a cult are called into question, try to characterize the questioner as attacking the cult (or religion or belief system) itself. I think that both of you do this on a fairly regular basis. All I was doing was having fun with some of the characteristics I've seen around me in *many* spirit- ual trips. I sat down and tripped for about fifteen minutes on some of the sillinesses I'd seen around me in the TM trip, in the Rama trip, in many other spiritual trips over the years, and in myself. I was poking fun at some of the silly behavior and beliefs of the *followers* of these different belief systems, not at the belief systems themselves. That's my reaction to *your* attempt to portray it as an attempt to discredit spiritual paths. As for Jim's comment, I don't think that anything said in my fun little rap had *anything whatsoever* to do with claiming there is nowhere to go. Jim *projected* that there. I don't think it *is* there, because I certainly don't beliee it's true (except in the sense that there isn't anywhere to go to realize enlight- enment; it is always already present at all times). So. You've got one more post left this week. Will you use it trying once again to portray my role on this group as trying to discredit spiritual paths, or do you still have enough basic honesty in you to admit that what I was doing was poking a little fun at some of the silliness of people who do stupid shit while following their chosen spiritual paths and what *you* were doing was trying to portray that as an attack on the spiritual paths themselves? Will you take the high road (admitting that the fol- lowers and their occasionally-silly actions are fair game for poking fun at), or will you cling to the cult classic and reassert that what I was really doing was poking fun at or trying to discredit the paths themselves? (Not that there is anything wrong with that.) Curious minds want to know, even though I suspect that almost everyone here already knows which path you'll choose. Oh, and buh-bye for the week, Judy. After this angry reply we'll look forward to you rejoining the group on Saturday with more cult classics.
[FairfieldLife] Kung-fu vs. Yoga
Hilarious: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrYlNNy929Y
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: *Both* of you reacted to my silly Aphorisms as if I had attacked the *belief systems*, when what they were really were a set of snarks about the common actions of the *believers*. snip And Jim claimed: Those that contnuously claim there is nowhere to go, go nowhere. I don't think that *either* of those claims is borne out by the post being replied to. And I don't know where you got the idea I was somehow reacting to what you had written as an attack. I was having fun too, ferchristssake! I actually agreed with most of your aphorisms and thought they were pretty good. I liked mine too, as it had a double meaning, one could be critical and the other neutral. You apparently read it as critical. If that's true, I humbly apologize. My remarks about Judy's response stand.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Wholesale mung dahl - organic
Hopefully you sent this to Jeff and not just FFL, which Jeff isn’t monitoring. Rick Archer SearchSummit 1108 South B Street Fairfield, IA 52556 Phone: (641) 472-9336 Fax: (914) 470-9336 http:HYPERLINK http://searchsummit.com//searchsummit.com HYPERLINK http://[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Hawthorne Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 10:06 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Wholesale mung dahl - organic Dear Jeff: Hi. I would love to buy at least 10 lbs of your organic mung dahl Or, let me know how many lbs are in a bag... i'm located in the Tetra 1 Building across the street from everybody's... hope this works for you. David Hawthorne 508 N. Second St., Fairfield, IA 52556 Tel: 641-472-3799 _ - Original Message - From: HYPERLINK mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Rick Archer To: HYPERLINK mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.comFairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 9:37 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Wholesale mung dahl - organic Dear Friends, In case you don't know, Jeff Mecurio is back in Fairfield, and planning to open a small grocery store and wholesale buying club. He is just getting started, but he currently has 25 bags of organic mung dahl for $1.72 a pound. He is very willing to deliver, because his store is still very much in process. His address is 503 N. 3rd. His email is Jeff Mercurio HYPERLINK mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Unfortunately I just bought a lot of dahl for $2.25 lb. Of course next time I will buy from Jeff. Blessings, Marie No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.23/1114 - Release Date: 11/6/2007 8:05 PM To subscribe, send a message to: HYPERLINK mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] ogroups.com Or go to: HYPERLINK http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links FairfieldLife/ oup/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) oogroups.com HYPERLINK mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:FairfieldLife-full [EMAIL PROTECTED] yahoogroups.com No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.23/1114 - Release Date: 11/6/2007 8:05 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.23/1114 - Release Date: 11/6/2007 8:05 PM
Re: [FairfieldLife] Jim's Perfect, Radiant Intellect -- and the Brahman-like Paradox of his Words
On Nov 7, 2007, at 11:14 AM, new.morning wrote: And who can argue with Reality!!?? Patients in mental hospitals do it all the time.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quiz for Willy -- or anyone else -- but, today, especially for Willy
Shemp, I think Judy roasted you enough. See if you and she can come to an agreement. I don't see you playing fair or logical -- though you have the IQ to do so. You're no fun! If you played fair -- actually responded to questions, I'd write to you about a ton of stuff, but you go to flaming so quickly and have no scholarly intent to delve deeper that I am turned off. How'z'bout you answer the Willy Quiz -- maybe finally I'd get to see you as real. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey, I responded to your posting about that grid...no comments in response to my response? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: Richard, I asked Mdix some questions, and he came back honest and fast with what I considered to be a nice snapshot of him -- for my purposes. I think I got an attitude adjustment thereby, and thus I will not be expecting him to post something and then be disappointed because of my assuming-on-his-ass. (Assuming makes an ass out of you and me.) If I know where a person is coming from, I tend to surrender to their presentation rather than rail against the parts of them that I don't resonate with -- at least that's my theory. Some parts of some folks are too egregious to not rail about though -- sigh. You keep posting stuff that seems to indicate a depth of scholarship that cannot be acquired without a lot of sweat equity invested, and so, having shown this acumen, my interest in your posts has increased. Your emotional tone when posting seems pretty harsh and shocking if I'm reading you correctly, but maybe you're just using words like I do -- fun to see the concepts whizzing like ninja tossed blades -- fun, cuz, well they're only fucking words! I like how you annotate a lot of posts with short blurbifications, but those bon mots I consider to be mostly sniping to pop egoic balloons -- Barry just requires a certain level of constant attacking just to keep him anchored in reality, I'm just sayin'. I know you've had a long posting history on several fronts, and that many here consider you a troll and flamer, but though those labels could be applied, your frequent bursts of strong content belies those tags. I think you really do want to instruct others. But a lot of the time, your posts toss me emotionally and I lose the above take on you. So, I'm working on ya, I'm workin'. So if you can answer the below set of questions, I'd be the better for it. Jes tryin' ta gets a feel fer ya. The questions at the end of the list are the same ones I sent to Mdix. Edg What is your formal educational background? What is your age? Have you had children? Do you have a life companion? How do you earn a living? A bullet point resume would be wonderful. How do you find comfort when looking at the general tone of derision in your postings' jibes, quips and put-downs? Do you mindfully wish to sustain this mask of the curmudgeon? And if so, do you see yourself more as a Bill O'Reilly or a Jack Cafferty or a Lewis Black or a Mort Saul or a Lenny Bruce or ?? Are or were you a TM initiator, governor, siddha? Do you think Vaj has any authenticity or scholarship? He blows me away with his grasp of Buddhism and its many jargon-bits, but I know too little to judge his skill-set. Do you two agree on anything? Do you think Jim speaks correctly about enlightenment? If so, do you think he's the real deal? I tend to cut him a massive break. Do you believe in God? Krishna being an avatar? Reincarnation? Do you, Judy, and I belong in the same club? Do you agree that the Iraq war was about oil and the euro? Do you think waterboarding is okay? Do you think the last two elections were fixed? Do you think 9-11 was a terrorist act or was it instead an inside job? Are you anti-congress just because they're all scum suckers for GlobalBiz, or merely because you think of yourself as a republican? Would you vote for Ron Paul? Kucinich? How would you compare Bill Clinton's do-nothing-let-half-a-million-be-hacked-to-death policy about Dafur compared to Bush's kill anyone in Iraq between me and the oil policy? Are you pro-choice or pro-life? Would you allow stem cell research? Is Global Warming caused by man-made pollutants?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: You see folks, this is the kind of person who currently takes prominence in Maharishi's TMO. Maybe so; I am not one of them however :-) He even hints that he's 'enlightened'. I categorically and emphatically deny that I am any more 'enlightened' than I am 'ignorant'. Both, and/or neither, or you're taking the Name in vain. There is no need to wonder why people of integrity and decency have left in droves. And this Rory seems to take delight in the scene as he mocks those who DO have values and standards. I *do* take delight in the scene; you're absolutely right. And I am mocking you; you're right about that too. And yes, it's because you apparently think you're going to get 'enlightened' by pursuing and trying to identify with values and standards. But you are right, I have nothing of value to offer you, unless you are willing to admit that after 40 years of study you know absolutely nothing of value, and are no closer to your goal than when you began. Waste of time. Bye... EXACTLY! Bye...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Prissy Blissy vs Hard-Corp John Wayne Spiritualism
We all know that certain objects of consciousness trigger uncomfortable emotional and conceptual responses. Consciousness itself is unsullied by any emotion or concept just as a movie screen is unharmed by images of fire. But the personality is affected, and cautions about what one mentally indulges in abound -- rightfully so too. I mean, as long as one is associated with a personality, one would like to at least try to skew what it normally is found doing. This is the same kind of thing as choosing a DVD to watch. For someone to feel that awareness is constricted by any object is an illusion that needs piercing. No-thing can move the Self, but the ego is a balloon that obeys the slightest wind's command. If an object of consciousness can so attract a mind that all other objects step into the background, then this is a matter of an identification's allure, not a case of consciousness being restricted or attenuated. The full consciousness is always THERE, and if it is merely entertaining one object -- momentarily -- the description of it being an experience of restriction is true only as long as other concepts/objects are unable to step into the same spotlight of attention, but note that awareness itself is unfettered. Every object has a vibe or sound quality. If a very subtle person looks at shit, it is the introduction of a vibe into the mind that he may not need at the moment -- like a very funny joke spoken aloud at a funeral -- there's a place for everything. Some sounds are grating or blaring or fill-in-the-blank-whatever, but the point is that when praying we do not want fire-engines blasting by in a great hurry. Not that shit or fire-engines cannot be properly entertained by someone who is subtle, but that pastels and whispers are more profitably attended compared to harboring garish sore thumbs throbbing. When it comes to evolving or maintaining a POV's refining of itself, blasting is seldom needed for such mining. It would be wrong to say that gazing at shit constricts awareness but very true to say that gazing at shit can stink up the mind with emotions and concepts of corruption, garbage, rejection, etc. Poetically speaking, this is like watching CSI on an Ipod while listening to a church sermon -- there's dissonance. And individuals get to decide how much of this they will entertain. When Jim talks about his clarity, I think he's talking about color to blind folks. Either you know what he's talking about or not, and there's not much room for gray concepts. If he says that he's subtle enough to see that a shit vibe is like a fire engine going by, then, hey, makes sense. Similarly if he's that subtle then, guess what?, the Laws of Manu make more sense to him too. It's a sin to step over a rope that's tied to a calf's neck, and there's a cleansing routine for undoing that sin. Goofy to us blind folks, right? Do you think a blind person can be easily taught how to talk about the differences between mauve and violet? Why expect Jim to be able to instruct us then? If one has the sight, the ancients assure us that the smallest matter can be the biggest concern. In my blindness, hey, I'll step over a rope, but Jim may end up looking like a sissy to me if he refuses to do so. Yay on Jimmy if he stands his ground, eh? The outright rejection of scriptural laws is a very simple decision to those who cannot see, but a subtle law may be as hard to ignore as a large spider in a small outhouse to the enlightened. The folks who will not bend a knee to propriety will be forever having others talk about puke when they're eating and ruining their gustatory pleasures, cuz, no rules means anyone can do anything, right?, so one cannot complain if someone is being boorish, loud, obstructive, etc. But those who try to see and follow the subtle laws will eventually acquire that skill, and these folks will tend the gardens of their minds much more successfully. To them, stepping over a rope may be like stepping off a cliff in terms of what forces are set afoot in consciousness. Naysayers will insist that a life that's lived with the sensitivities of the Princess and her twenty mattresses and the pea is not worth living. Too much of a burden to be PC about subtle matters. Too impossible not to fuck up constantly -- to0 restricting, a set of moral hand cuffs. But Jim's telling us that true freedom is following dharma's exactitudes to the letter and especially to the spirit of the laws, and that violating them is like taking out the center block in a Roman arch. For the want of a nail a horseshoe was lost, for loss of a shoe, a horse was lost, etcto war lost. Just so, do I tend to see my UGH response when seeing the Raja's in their costumes as a sign that I could be a whole lot subtler. If the rajas are faking it, they'll get their due, but if they're not, then maybe just maybe they can see something precious and quiet that my loud singing drowns out. Maybe I should look a bit
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
Geez What has all of this flaming have to do with Pets? I was enjoying that Pet topic until it got hijacked by this other topic. I find this forum to be the most aggressive one I've ever been on and 90% of the time, I can't comprehend what the hell is being argued anyways so I just leave and then try to read in a few days which in itself is frustrating. Despite the bickering, I have to admit that this forum has opened my eyes to a more realistic perception of the TMO, TB, personal experiences, etc, but I'm glad to be the outsider looking in given the hostilities. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: And now a lame comedian. R: Sure, if you like. An arrogant, assholey, condescending, ignorant, masturbatory, lame comedian. Got any more? :-) Do.: Keep going. I don't doubt you can increase your ugliness. R: Arrogant, assholey, condescending, ignorant, masturbatory, supremely UGLY lame comedian. Got any more? We can keep this up forever if you like, or until we run out of posts at any rate :-) *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quiz for Willy -- or anyone else -- but, today, especially for Willy
Hey, I responded to your posting about that grid...no comments in response to my response? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Richard, I asked Mdix some questions, and he came back honest and fast with what I considered to be a nice snapshot of him -- for my purposes. I think I got an attitude adjustment thereby, and thus I will not be expecting him to post something and then be disappointed because of my assuming-on-his-ass. (Assuming makes an ass out of you and me.) If I know where a person is coming from, I tend to surrender to their presentation rather than rail against the parts of them that I don't resonate with -- at least that's my theory. Some parts of some folks are too egregious to not rail about though -- sigh. You keep posting stuff that seems to indicate a depth of scholarship that cannot be acquired without a lot of sweat equity invested, and so, having shown this acumen, my interest in your posts has increased. Your emotional tone when posting seems pretty harsh and shocking if I'm reading you correctly, but maybe you're just using words like I do -- fun to see the concepts whizzing like ninja tossed blades -- fun, cuz, well they're only fucking words! I like how you annotate a lot of posts with short blurbifications, but those bon mots I consider to be mostly sniping to pop egoic balloons -- Barry just requires a certain level of constant attacking just to keep him anchored in reality, I'm just sayin'. I know you've had a long posting history on several fronts, and that many here consider you a troll and flamer, but though those labels could be applied, your frequent bursts of strong content belies those tags. I think you really do want to instruct others. But a lot of the time, your posts toss me emotionally and I lose the above take on you. So, I'm working on ya, I'm workin'. So if you can answer the below set of questions, I'd be the better for it. Jes tryin' ta gets a feel fer ya. The questions at the end of the list are the same ones I sent to Mdix. Edg What is your formal educational background? What is your age? Have you had children? Do you have a life companion? How do you earn a living? A bullet point resume would be wonderful. How do you find comfort when looking at the general tone of derision in your postings' jibes, quips and put-downs? Do you mindfully wish to sustain this mask of the curmudgeon? And if so, do you see yourself more as a Bill O'Reilly or a Jack Cafferty or a Lewis Black or a Mort Saul or a Lenny Bruce or ?? Are or were you a TM initiator, governor, siddha? Do you think Vaj has any authenticity or scholarship? He blows me away with his grasp of Buddhism and its many jargon-bits, but I know too little to judge his skill-set. Do you two agree on anything? Do you think Jim speaks correctly about enlightenment? If so, do you think he's the real deal? I tend to cut him a massive break. Do you believe in God? Krishna being an avatar? Reincarnation? Do you, Judy, and I belong in the same club? Do you agree that the Iraq war was about oil and the euro? Do you think waterboarding is okay? Do you think the last two elections were fixed? Do you think 9-11 was a terrorist act or was it instead an inside job? Are you anti-congress just because they're all scum suckers for GlobalBiz, or merely because you think of yourself as a republican? Would you vote for Ron Paul? Kucinich? How would you compare Bill Clinton's do-nothing-let-half-a-million-be-hacked-to-death policy about Dafur compared to Bush's kill anyone in Iraq between me and the oil policy? Are you pro-choice or pro-life? Would you allow stem cell research? Is Global Warming caused by man-made pollutants?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And now a lame comedian. R: Sure, if you like. An arrogant, assholey, condescending, ignorant, masturbatory, lame comedian. Got any more? :-) Do.: Keep going. I don't doubt you can increase your ugliness. R: Arrogant, assholey, condescending, ignorant, masturbatory, supremely UGLY lame comedian. Got any more? We can keep this up forever if you like, or until we run out of posts at any rate :-) *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: Raja Coronation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.beingandseeing.com/coronation/ My responses: Jesus, are we all getting old! Where are all the white women? Poodles looks great! Love the cell phone next to the puja set! __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Thanks for the peek show. This band of gaudily-atired elites, sheperded by disheveled, unkempt, hunched-over acolytes reveals the degree to which the TMO is crack-cocaine addicted to million-dollar donations. Sure, MMY is responsible for encouraging the elites to strive for exclusivity by selling to them every possible program imaginable in exchange for big donations, but the elites themselves are also responsible. Concurrent with every step of the TMO's march toward obscurity is the widening chasm between the haves and have-nots. Millions, no, billions, on the planet are less and less likely to be able to improve the quality of their life through TM. When will the tide turn? -Mainstream
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: In my view, in spite of the claims you make about yourselves, you and Jim certainly do not. You both come off as flippant smart asses, particularly it seems when you're criticized. The only time you criticize me is when I cannot resolve a paradox for you. For example MMY ccontinues Guru Dev's consciousness, but not in an intellectually comprehensible way. Then you grow so incredibly frustrated and rigid that there is nothing I or anyone one else can do about it. So then you get angry and accuse me of all sorts of things, when it is Reality itself that deserves your criticism. I suspect the dynamic with Rory is the same. Your invented defensive explanation of my views is noted for what it is, horse shit and obfuscation. Your arrogance and condescension is also apparent. It's no wonder you have the many detractors you do. The amorality and indifference to ethical standards that characterize the rhetoric in your posts and your failure to note the recent typical weak, sycophantic personal attacks by Mr. Nablussos are also noted. You even agreed with him! From everything I've learned and experienced in my almost 40 years with TM and as a TM teacher and my learning from Maharishi, what you express by your words as your Brahman Consciousness is nothing more than Cosmic Consciousness with 'some' perceptions of Divine realms [finer states of relativity]. That, to me, would account for you're still being quite a bit... less... than... According to Maharishi, Cosmic Consciousness is 'the' grand primary milestone on it's own. But it's only the beginning. As for me, I'm enjoying the arrogance of the man who thinks he can tell another's state of consciousness without even knowing his own :-) It's not difficult to spot an asshole. Please pass the popcorn! Like I said, arrogant condescension. Lovely. Yes, and? I cheerfully accept all the ass-holiness, arrogant condescension, ignorance, and any other traits you wish to ascribe to me. So now what? Please pass the poison, it's delicious! *L*L*L* An asshole who masturbates. Nice. *lol* Now *that*s a pretty picture! Author, author! :-) You see folks, this is the kind of person who currently takes prominence in Maharishi's TMO. He even hints that he's 'enlightened'. There is no need to wonder why people of integrity and decency have left in droves. And this Rory seems to take delight in the scene as he mocks those who DO have values and standards.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
R: There seem to be two kinds of searchers; those who seek to make their ego something other than it is, i.e., holy, happy, unselfish (as though you could make a fish unfish), and those who understand that all such attempts are just gesticulation and play-acting, that there is only one thing that can be done, which is to disidentify themselves with the ego, by realizing its unreality, and by becoming aware of their eternal identity with pure being. -- We Wu Wei --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is this exercise supposed to be some kind of justification for self-proclaimed 'enlightened' guys to be arrogant condescending assholes and not be called on it? Maybe you should ask Wei Wu Wei or Jed McKenna, since I am not a self- proclaimed 'enlightened' guy, just an arrogant condescending asshole :-) *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: In my view, in spite of the claims you make about yourselves, you and Jim certainly do not. You both come off as flippant smart asses, particularly it seems when you're criticized. The only time you criticize me is when I cannot resolve a paradox for you. For example MMY ccontinues Guru Dev's consciousness, but not in an intellectually comprehensible way. Then you grow so incredibly frustrated and rigid that there is nothing I or anyone one else can do about it. So then you get angry and accuse me of all sorts of things, when it is Reality itself that deserves your criticism. I suspect the dynamic with Rory is the same. Your invented defensive explanation of my views is noted for what it is, horse shit and obfuscation. Your arrogance and condescension is also apparent. It's no wonder you have the many detractors you do. The amorality and indifference to ethical standards that characterize the rhetoric in your posts and your failure to note the recent typical weak, sycophantic personal attacks by Mr. Nablussos are also noted. You even agreed with him! From everything I've learned and experienced in my almost 40 years with TM and as a TM teacher and my learning from Maharishi, what you express by your words as your Brahman Consciousness is nothing more than Cosmic Consciousness with 'some' perceptions of Divine realms [finer states of relativity]. That, to me, would account for you're still being quite a bit... less... than... According to Maharishi, Cosmic Consciousness is 'the' grand primary milestone on it's own. But it's only the beginning. As for me, I'm enjoying the arrogance of the man who thinks he can tell another's state of consciousness without even knowing his own :-) It's not difficult to spot an asshole. Please pass the popcorn! Like I said, arrogant condescension. Lovely. Yes, and? I cheerfully accept all the ass-holiness, arrogant condescension, ignorance, and any other traits you wish to ascribe to me. So now what? Please pass the poison, it's delicious! *L*L*L* An asshole who masturbates. Nice.
[FairfieldLife] Quiz for Willy -- or anyone else -- but, today, especially for Willy
Richard, I asked Mdix some questions, and he came back honest and fast with what I considered to be a nice snapshot of him -- for my purposes. I think I got an attitude adjustment thereby, and thus I will not be expecting him to post something and then be disappointed because of my assuming-on-his-ass. (Assuming makes an ass out of you and me.) If I know where a person is coming from, I tend to surrender to their presentation rather than rail against the parts of them that I don't resonate with -- at least that's my theory. Some parts of some folks are too egregious to not rail about though -- sigh. You keep posting stuff that seems to indicate a depth of scholarship that cannot be acquired without a lot of sweat equity invested, and so, having shown this acumen, my interest in your posts has increased. Your emotional tone when posting seems pretty harsh and shocking if I'm reading you correctly, but maybe you're just using words like I do -- fun to see the concepts whizzing like ninja tossed blades -- fun, cuz, well they're only fucking words! I like how you annotate a lot of posts with short blurbifications, but those bon mots I consider to be mostly sniping to pop egoic balloons -- Barry just requires a certain level of constant attacking just to keep him anchored in reality, I'm just sayin'. I know you've had a long posting history on several fronts, and that many here consider you a troll and flamer, but though those labels could be applied, your frequent bursts of strong content belies those tags. I think you really do want to instruct others. But a lot of the time, your posts toss me emotionally and I lose the above take on you. So, I'm working on ya, I'm workin'. So if you can answer the below set of questions, I'd be the better for it. Jes tryin' ta gets a feel fer ya. The questions at the end of the list are the same ones I sent to Mdix. Edg What is your formal educational background? What is your age? Have you had children? Do you have a life companion? How do you earn a living? A bullet point resume would be wonderful. How do you find comfort when looking at the general tone of derision in your postings' jibes, quips and put-downs? Do you mindfully wish to sustain this mask of the curmudgeon? And if so, do you see yourself more as a Bill O'Reilly or a Jack Cafferty or a Lewis Black or a Mort Saul or a Lenny Bruce or ?? Are or were you a TM initiator, governor, siddha? Do you think Vaj has any authenticity or scholarship? He blows me away with his grasp of Buddhism and its many jargon-bits, but I know too little to judge his skill-set. Do you two agree on anything? Do you think Jim speaks correctly about enlightenment? If so, do you think he's the real deal? I tend to cut him a massive break. Do you believe in God? Krishna being an avatar? Reincarnation? Do you, Judy, and I belong in the same club? Do you agree that the Iraq war was about oil and the euro? Do you think waterboarding is okay? Do you think the last two elections were fixed? Do you think 9-11 was a terrorist act or was it instead an inside job? Are you anti-congress just because they're all scum suckers for GlobalBiz, or merely because you think of yourself as a republican? Would you vote for Ron Paul? Kucinich? How would you compare Bill Clinton's do-nothing-let-half-a-million-be-hacked-to-death policy about Dafur compared to Bush's kill anyone in Iraq between me and the oil policy? Are you pro-choice or pro-life? Would you allow stem cell research? Is Global Warming caused by man-made pollutants?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: In my view, in spite of the claims you make about yourselves, you and Jim certainly do not. You both come off as flippant smart asses, particularly it seems when you're criticized. The only time you criticize me is when I cannot resolve a paradox for you. For example MMY ccontinues Guru Dev's consciousness, but not in an intellectually comprehensible way. Then you grow so incredibly frustrated and rigid that there is nothing I or anyone one else can do about it. So then you get angry and accuse me of all sorts of things, when it is Reality itself that deserves your criticism. I suspect the dynamic with Rory is the same. Your invented defensive explanation of my views is noted for what it is, horse shit and obfuscation. Your arrogance and condescension is also apparent. It's no wonder you have the many detractors you do. The amorality and indifference to ethical standards that characterize the rhetoric in your posts and your failure to note the recent typical weak, sycophantic personal attacks by Mr. Nablussos are also noted. You even agreed with him! From everything I've learned and experienced in my almost 40 years with TM and as a TM teacher and my learning from Maharishi, what you express by your words as your Brahman Consciousness is nothing more than Cosmic Consciousness with 'some' perceptions of Divine realms [finer states of relativity]. That, to me, would account for you're still being quite a bit... less... than... According to Maharishi, Cosmic Consciousness is 'the' grand primary milestone on it's own. But it's only the beginning. As for me, I'm enjoying the arrogance of the man who thinks he can tell another's state of consciousness without even knowing his own :-) Please pass the popcorn!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (worth repeating, with minor course corrections) do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: In my view, in spite of the claims you make about yourselves, you and Jim certainly do not. You both come off as flippant smart asses, particularly it seems when you're criticized. Jim: The only time you criticize me is when I cannot resolve a paradox for you. For example MMY continues Guru Dev's consciousness, but not in an intellectually comprehensible way. Then you grow so incredibly frustrated and rigid that there is nothing I or anyone one else can do about it. So then you get angry and accuse me of all sorts of things, when it is Reality itself that deserves your criticism. I suspect the dynamic with Rory is the same. R: Yes, and I have no issue with pursuing a role model if one allows oneself actually *catch* the role model: to do it wholeheartedly and with total surrender HERE and NOW, as you have done/are doing, Jim. It is the use of one's pursuit of virtues to studiously avoid the void while persuading oneself one is actually getting nearer to enlightenment that strikes *me* as unspeakably paradoxical! Here's a fun quote I ran across after posting yesterday: There seem to be two kinds of searchers; those who seek to make their ego something other than it is, i.e., holy, happy, unselfish (as though you could make a fish unfish), and those who understand that all such attempts are just gesticulation and play-acting, that there is only one thing that can be done, which is to disidentify themselves with the ego, by realizing its unreality, and by becoming aware of their eternal identity with pure being. -- We Wu Wei Is this exercise supposed to be some kind of justification for self-proclaimed 'enlightened' guys to be arrogant condescending assholes and not be called on it? (Spiritual Warfare, by Jed McKenna, p. 190) *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: In my view, in spite of the claims you make about yourselves, you and Jim certainly do not. You both come off as flippant smart asses, particularly it seems when you're criticized. The only time you criticize me is when I cannot resolve a paradox for you. For example MMY ccontinues Guru Dev's consciousness, but not in an intellectually comprehensible way. Then you grow so incredibly frustrated and rigid that there is nothing I or anyone one else can do about it. So then you get angry and accuse me of all sorts of things, when it is Reality itself that deserves your criticism. I suspect the dynamic with Rory is the same. Your invented defensive explanation of my views is noted for what it is, horse shit and obfuscation. Your arrogance and condescension is also apparent. It's no wonder you have the many detractors you do. The amorality and indifference to ethical standards that characterize the rhetoric in your posts and your failure to note the recent typical weak, sycophantic personal attacks by Mr. Nablussos are also noted. You even agreed with him! From everything I've learned and experienced in my almost 40 years with TM and as a TM teacher and my learning from Maharishi, what you express by your words as your Brahman Consciousness is nothing more than Cosmic Consciousness with 'some' perceptions of Divine realms [finer states of relativity]. That, to me, would account for you're still being quite a bit... less... than... According to Maharishi, Cosmic Consciousness is 'the' grand primary milestone on it's own. But it's only the beginning.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: In my view, in spite of the claims you make about yourselves, you and Jim certainly do not. You both come off as flippant smart asses, particularly it seems when you're criticized. The only time you criticize me is when I cannot resolve a paradox for you. For example MMY ccontinues Guru Dev's consciousness, but not in an intellectually comprehensible way. Then you grow so incredibly frustrated and rigid that there is nothing I or anyone one else can do about it. So then you get angry and accuse me of all sorts of things, when it is Reality itself that deserves your criticism. I suspect the dynamic with Rory is the same. Your invented defensive explanation of my views is noted for what it is, horse shit and obfuscation. Your arrogance and condescension is also apparent. It's no wonder you have the many detractors you do. The amorality and indifference to ethical standards that characterize the rhetoric in your posts and your failure to note the recent typical weak, sycophantic personal attacks by Mr. Nablussos are also noted. You even agreed with him! From everything I've learned and experienced in my almost 40 years with TM and as a TM teacher and my learning from Maharishi, what you express by your words as your Brahman Consciousness is nothing more than Cosmic Consciousness with 'some' perceptions of Divine realms [finer states of relativity]. That, to me, would account for you're still being quite a bit... less... than... According to Maharishi, Cosmic Consciousness is 'the' grand primary milestone on it's own. But it's only the beginning. As for me, I'm enjoying the arrogance of the man who thinks he can tell another's state of consciousness without even knowing his own :-) It's not difficult to spot an asshole. Please pass the popcorn! Like I said, arrogant condescension. Lovely.
[FairfieldLife] The Laws that old Rajas make
In Britain, the Royalty ( a word that comes directly from Sanskrit 'Raja' - through the Gaelic Celts who migrated from the near far east), have created these laws over the centuries which are still in place today. Most ridiculous British law: 1. It is illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament (27 percent) 2. It is an act of treason to place a postage stamp bearing the British monarch upside-down (seven percent) 3. In Liverpool, it is illegal for a woman to be topless except as a clerk in a tropical fish store (six percent) 4. Mince pies cannot be eaten on Christmas Day (five percent) 5. In Scotland, if someone knocks on your door and requires the use of your toilet, you must let them enter (four percent) 6. A pregnant woman can legally relieve herself anywhere she wants, including in a policeman's helmet (four percent) 7. The head of any dead whale found on the British coast automatically becomes the property of the king, and the tail of the queen (3.5 percent) 8. It is illegal to avoid telling the tax man anything you do not want him to know, but legal not to tell him information you do not mind him knowing (three percent) 9. It is illegal to enter the Houses of Parliament in a suit of armour (three percent) 10. In the city of York it is legal to murder a Scotsman within the ancient city walls, but only if he is carrying a bow and arrow (two percent)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim's Perfect, Radiant Intellect -- and the Brahman-like Paradox of his Words
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: In my view, in spite of the claims you make about yourselves, you and Jim certainly do not. You both come off as flippant smart asses, particularly it seems when you're criticized. The only time you criticize me is when I cannot resolve a paradox for you. You continue to not resolve, continue to hide from, the paradox that you claim to have Perfect Crystal-Like, Radiant Intellect, but you continue to exhibit weak reasoning, cognitive errors, platitudes given as wisdom, immature and uninformed political analysis, projective personality analysis of others, and other such contradictions of having a Perfect Intellect This from a guy that the last time we went through this exercise couldn't even keep the issue straight. Remember? You stated that I was insisting that everything I said was to be swallowed whole by those that read it. I said that wasn't the case (and have been consistent on this). You hadn't read my reply, assumed that I was denying something else, and proceeded to get all bent out of shape about it. Remember? I do. As to your other assessments of my thinking, I'll take them with a (HUGE) grain of salt, given your judgment demonstrated above, and continue to enjoy and express my perfected intellect. If you don't like it, don't read it-- you may be infinitisimally happier as a result.
[FairfieldLife] Re: And now for the rest of the story...
TurquoiseB wrote: It's a bunch of old men who don't like the present era they are living in, and who have chosen to play dress-up in imagined garb of the past to pander to an even older man's fantasies of what that imagined era might have been like. What it reminded me of was a Christian Evan- gelical Church I used to see on TV when I lived in the L.A. area. I don't remember the name of the preacher or the church, but it was a *trip*, man. The entire interior of the church had been painted and designed to look like a Republican's idea of Heaven, and about 100 of the faithful were dressed in costumes *from* that imagined Heaven. You had angel costumes, and archangel costumes, and costumes that I don't really know *what* they were sup- posed to represent, but they were extravagant and fancy and covered with glitter and the whole thing was marvelously entertaining. This show was my second favorite TV evangelist show after Dr. Gene Scott. But it's not as if I took it seriously, even if the people playing dress-up did. The dress- up gave them something meaningful to do on a Sunday. I'm sure, even though I don't know any of the people personally, that it was con- sidered a great *honor* for them to be chosen to dress up like angels on a Sunday morning. I'm sure that, being human, they occasionally lorded their privileged status over the other members of the congregation who had to sit in the cheap seats wearing street clothes, just as I'm sure that a few of the Rajas lord their supposed high status over others and wave it around like it's some kind of ultimate badge of honor. Hell, for all I know the women who got to dress up like angels were making it with the TV preacher, and everyone in the congre- gation knew it. It was just a *trip*, man. But it's not as if many people took it seriously. I'm pretty sure that the TV audience watching contained a few people who were wowed by what they saw, and thought to themselves, Wow...that's what *I* want to do with my life...dress up like the Archangel Gabriel on local TV. But most of them just sat there drop-jawed like me, saying over and over, I never cease to be amazed by the silly things that people do in the name of God and religion. The Christians playing dress-up were indulging in a fantasy. The Rajas playing dress-up are indul- ging in a fantasy. And Maharishi, trying to present his vision of an imaginary Vedic Golden Age in which everything was perfect, is indulging in a fantasy. May these fantasies may them happy. Me, I'm more attracted to reality. So, that's your fantasy and that makes you happy: watching Christian TV shows and posting comments about them to a news forum forty years later. ROTFLMAO!!!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Me: This is a difference we have had in the past. You seen unable to distinguish a person's attack on an idea with a personal attack. I have not made any statement about what I think of you as a person if you decide you want to embrace the idea that looking at your turds is harmful. I am saying that this belief is misguided, wrong, nonsense,like much information from pre-scientific societies. snip Your characterization of my belief as howling and barking, the vocalizations of dogs, is personally insulting in every culture I know. So your characterization of Jim's belief as misguided, wrong, and nonsense isn't an attack on Jim; but Jim's characterization of your belief as howling and barking *is* an attack on you. How does that work, exactly? I sure don't know how I would make that distinction. I suspect that your last sentence is what we in the writing business call stating the obvious. You *don't* know how to make that distinction. Neither does Jim. Oops, you should have read Curtis's response. As he recognized, I was commenting on his phrasing, and he agreed that it didn't make the distinction he had been aiming for. *Both* of you reacted to my silly Aphorisms as if I had attacked the *belief systems*, when what they were really were a set of snarks about the common actions of the *believers*. Yet you claimed: The more spiritual aphorisms you come up with in an attempt to discredit spiritual paths, the angrier you are about your own inability to find one of your own. A path is whatever one is following, of course, even if one has made it up oneself. Your tortured attempt to squeeze out a distinction is hilariously bogus. And Jim claimed: Those that contnuously claim there is nowhere to go, go nowhere. I don't think that *either* of those claims is borne out by the post being replied to. I think that what both of your replies represent is a common cult technique called Whenever the actions or beliefs of the followers of a cult are called into question, try to characterize the questioner as attacking the cult (or religion or belief system) itself. Naah. Your claim here is *your* common technique when you're made fun of for trashing other people's beliefs: blame it on the cult you fantasize the critics belong to, as if there could be no other motivation for mocking your compulsive putdowns. But oddly enough, just a few posts back you were claiming: In my experience, I think I learned more from and benefited more from those moments in which I was able to laugh at my own assholiness than I ever did from all that talk about holiness. Now, *that's* funny!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
TurquoiseB wrote: I think that what both of your replies represent is a common cult technique called Whenever the actions or beliefs of the followers of a cult are called into question, try to characterize the questioner as attacking the cult (or religion or belief system) itself. But Barry, you are the true believer that has been in and out of cults most of your adult life. You're the guy that said that TM was the best and highest path, promising enlightenment in 5-7 years. Now you're attacking your critics because they called your cult into question, trying to characterize Jim as attacking your cult. And you are the guy that wanted us to post something positive; yet your aphorisms are almost all negative. You seem really mixed up these days. Oh, and buh-bye for the week, Judy. So, it's really all about Judy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Being overweight may give longer life expectancy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --A lot depends on what type of fats people are eating, regardless of weight; i.e. transfats, and/or highly processed oils as consumed widely in India and used as cooking oils. Bad news for their health! I don't recall all the exact figures, but in the ghee-loving north of India, they eat 17 times more animal fat than they do in the south, yet the south of India has several times the rate of cardio-vascular disease. As I understand it, they tend to cook with cheap refined polyunsaturated seed oils in the south. Personally, I'm convinced that a lot of the current dietary dogmas are completely bass ackward. The notion that chemically reactive, easily damaged, highly peroxidizable, polyunsaturated fats are heart healthy makes no sense at all to me. And, a blood screening a few weeks ago at HyVee leads me to believe I'm right. The last time I was tested was a little over three years ago, less than a year after I'd stopped eating so many carbs, lost weight, and started weight training. My total cholesterol was 208 (a little high), but the HDL was excellent and the LDL was only a little higher than desirable. Triglycerides were 55. In the years since that last test, I've almost completely purged my diet of polyunsaturated vegetable oil. Most of the fat in my diet is from meat, butter, virgin coconut oil, and a little olive oil. As I've put on muscle over those years, my meat intake has gone up, including red meat. So, according to current dietary dogmas, my meaty diet and all that saturated fat should translate into a terrible lipid profile. The numbers: Total cholesterol: 169 HDL: 40 (desired is above 35) LDL: lower than the portable device could measure Triglycerides: less than 50 My diet is basically paleo plus dairy with minimal amounts of grain, beans, and potatoes. Recently, I stopped eating wheat. I eat three completely satiating meals a day with carbohydrate content low enough to not cause an insulin spike and blood sugar crash. If I need a snack, I nibble on raw nuts. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: ...there were more than 100,000 fewer deaths among the overweight in 2004, the most recent year for which data were available, than would have expected if those people had been of normal weight. The researchers also confirmed that obese people and people whose weights are below normal have higher death rates than people of normal weight. But, when they asked why, they found that the reasons were different for the different weight categories. ... If we use the criteria of mortality, then the term `overweight' is a misnomer, said Daniel McGee, professor of statistics at Florida State University. I believe the data, said Dr. Elizabeth Barrett-Connor, a professor of family and preventive medicine at the University of California, San Diego. A body mass index of 25 to 30, the so-called overweight range, may be optimal, she said. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/health/07fat.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Prissy Blissy vs Hard-Corp John Wayne Spiritualism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ Again shooting the messenger for delivering the message you apparently so fear to hear. Do you think we all so wrong Jim: Curtis, Hugo, Do.Flex, Vaj, Sal, myself, and others? You are obviously not wrong from the angle of your obscure, bitter little worlds. You are pissed because here comes a fellow along and says Maharishi opened the door and I just walked right through it. In other words a success story from Maharishi and a soul that took his knowledge seriously. Ofcourse you are pissed when someone reports sucess when you yourself are a failure, when someone does something that you most certainly aspired for when you learnt TM but because of your lack of deserving ability, stayingpower and dedication, not to mention the addiction to your lower self, could not possibly achieve. Fellows like yourself want things for free. Even freedom. It's laughable, if not tragic. A pathetic little fool almost on the level of the self- proclaimed expert Vaj I'm not surprised about the negativity towards anyone reporting progress like Jim has done. Perhaps it is natural that the bitterness needs a focus, at least for some people. I have seen Maharishis heartly laughter when someone has taken his unstressing out on him, and I doubt Jim takes you very seriously either. What surprises me is that the critisism is not more intense here on FFL. That's a good sign. We'll se how long it last. I couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *Both* of you reacted to my silly Aphorisms as if I had attacked the *belief systems*, when what they were really were a set of snarks about the common actions of the *believers*. snip And Jim claimed: Those that contnuously claim there is nowhere to go, go nowhere. I don't think that *either* of those claims is borne out by the post being replied to. And I don't know where you got the idea I was somehow reacting to what you had written as an attack. I was having fun too, ferchristssake! I actually agreed with most of your aphorisms and thought they were pretty good. I liked mine too, as it had a double meaning, one could be critical and the other neutral. You apparently read it as critical.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim's Perfect, Radiant Intellect -- and the Brahman-like Paradox of his Words
--- There's no evidence of a perfected intellect; or has their been any evidence of such, anywhere, anytime. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: In my view, in spite of the claims you make about yourselves, you and Jim certainly do not. You both come off as flippant smart asses, particularly it seems when you're criticized. The only time you criticize me is when I cannot resolve a paradox for you. You continue to not resolve, continue to hide from, the paradox that you claim to have Perfect Crystal-Like, Radiant Intellect, but you continue to exhibit weak reasoning, cognitive errors, platitudes given as wisdom, immature and uninformed political analysis, projective personality analysis of others, and other such contradictions of having a Perfect Intellect This from a guy that the last time we went through this exercise couldn't even keep the issue straight. Remember? You stated that I was insisting that everything I said was to be swallowed whole by those that read it. I said that wasn't the case (and have been consistent on this). You hadn't read my reply, assumed that I was denying something else, and proceeded to get all bent out of shape about it. Remember? I do. As to your other assessments of my thinking, I'll take them with a (HUGE) grain of salt, given your judgment demonstrated above, and continue to enjoy and express my perfected intellect. If you don't like it, don't read it-- you may be infinitisimally happier as a result.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (worth repeating, with minor course corrections) do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: In my view, in spite of the claims you make about yourselves, you and Jim certainly do not. You both come off as flippant smart asses, particularly it seems when you're criticized. Jim: The only time you criticize me is when I cannot resolve a paradox for you. For example MMY continues Guru Dev's consciousness, but not in an intellectually comprehensible way. Then you grow so incredibly frustrated and rigid that there is nothing I or anyone one else can do about it. So then you get angry and accuse me of all sorts of things, when it is Reality itself that deserves your criticism. I suspect the dynamic with Rory is the same. R: Yes, and I have no issue with pursuing a role model if one allows oneself actually *catch* the role model: to do it wholeheartedly and with total surrender HERE and NOW, as you have done/are doing, Jim. It is the use of one's pursuit of virtues to studiously avoid the void while persuading oneself one is actually getting nearer to enlightenment that strikes *me* as unspeakably paradoxical! pretty funny too! Sort of like twisting oneself in knots to untie the rope...worthless, in this life. Here's a fun quote I ran across after posting yesterday: There seem to be two kinds of searchers; those who seek to make their ego something other than it is, i.e., holy, happy, unselfish (as though you could make a fish unfish), and those who understand that all such attempts are just gesticulation and play-acting, that there is only one thing that can be done, which is to disidentify themselves with the ego, by realizing its unreality, and by becoming aware of their eternal identity with pure being. -- We Wu Wei (Spiritual Warfare, by Jed McKenna, p. 190) *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I cheerfully accept all the ass-holiness, arrogant condescension, ignorance, and any other traits you wish to ascribe to me. Rory is a gimp-legged necrophiliac haberdasher with a bookshelf full of leather-bound volumes of Proust, Goethe, and Kant, none of which he's actually read!
[FairfieldLife] PBS Frontline Story on Ayurveda
This report aired last night on my local channel. Check your local listing for time and channel. The story was very interesting. I have also visited a similar facility in southern India. http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/india701/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Deer Season
Here's my theory of deer when it comes to the side of the road and wants to cross it and sees a car coming. I assume that the deer wants to go straight across the road to avoid being on it any longer than necessary. If a deer sees a car charging, at him, as if it were a cougar, the deer has four options. 1. Run in the same direction as the car and stay ahead of it. 2. Turn around and run in the opposite direction that the deer was originally heading.not crossing the road. 3. Run across the road. 4. Run towards the car. There's only one direction that makes sense to the deer.and me too#3. If the deer runs in the same direction as the car, it has to get up to speed, and during that time, the car is closing the gap between them. If it turns around and runs back, it has to waste all that time in the turning around process, and during that time, the gap between the deer and the car decreases. Obviously the deer is not going to run towards the car in most circumstances. Now, #3 has a big advantage in that the car (or cougar in the deer's imagination,) will have to change his vector as he cuts across and slants along an ever changing hypotenuse towards the deer. This vector changing decelerates the predator as he carves. He has to slow down his speed in one direction and increase his speed in another. This gives the deer a huge advantage if the deer just runs forward -- across the road. Now, just when does the deer decide that the car coming is a danger? The answer is that it often decides at the very last second, because it's hypnotized by the car lights. Then, it panics finally and bolts straight ahead.expecting the car to try to turn to follow him.but not suspecting the car's faster than a cougar or any deer's speed. And the rest is history. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is deer mating season in Nov and Dec. Car/deer accidents are at their highest. Drive extra carefully at night. Instead of bedding down like they usually do, deer can and will move all at hours of the night. Suggestion: on new #34, instead of doing 70 mph in the 65 zone, do 55-60 mph at night for the next 7 weeks. DOT tried a Don't Veer for a Deer campaign. They found that there are more injuries and fatalities to humans who swerve and go into ditches, poles, or other cars in a natural attempt to avoid hitting the deer. Although near impossible to avoid such a response, try to program your brain to hit brakes and swerve minimally not radically. Pass this on to your friends ... No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.23/1114 - Release Date: 11/6/2007 8:05 PM
Re: [FairfieldLife] Wholesale mung dahl - organic
Dear Jeff: Hi. I would love to buy at least 10 lbs of your organic mung dahl Or, let me know how many lbs are in a bag... i'm located in the Tetra 1 Building across the street from everybody's... hope this works for you. David Hawthorne 508 N. Second St., Fairfield, IA 52556 Tel: 641-472-3799 - Original Message - From: Rick Archer To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 9:37 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Wholesale mung dahl - organic Dear Friends, In case you don't know, Jeff Mecurio is back in Fairfield, and planning to open a small grocery store and wholesale buying club. He is just getting started, but he currently has 25 bags of organic mung dahl for $1.72 a pound. He is very willing to deliver, because his store is still very much in process. His address is 503 N. 3rd. His email is Jeff Mercurio [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unfortunately I just bought a lot of dahl for $2.25 lb. Of course next time I will buy from Jeff. Blessings, Marie No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.23/1114 - Release Date: 11/6/2007 8:05 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: You see folks, this is the kind of person who currently takes prominence in Maharishi's TMO. Maybe so; I am not one of them however :-) He even hints that he's 'enlightened'. I categorically and emphatically deny that I am any more 'enlightened' than I am 'ignorant'. Both, and/or neither, or you're taking the Name in vain. There is no need to wonder why people of integrity and decency have left in droves. And this Rory seems to take delight in the scene as he mocks those who DO have values and standards. I *do* take delight in the scene; you're absolutely right. And I am mocking you; you're right about that too. And yes, it's because you apparently think you're going to get 'enlightened' by pursuing and trying to identify with values and standards. But you are right, I have nothing of value to offer you, unless you are willing to admit that after 40 years of study you know absolutely nothing of value, and are no closer to your goal than when you began. Waste of time. Bye...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: R: There seem to be two kinds of searchers; those who seek to make their ego something other than it is, i.e., holy, happy, unselfish (as though you could make a fish unfish), and those who understand that all such attempts are just gesticulation and play- acting, that there is only one thing that can be done, which is to disidentify themselves with the ego, by realizing its unreality, and by becoming aware of their eternal identity with pure being. -- We Wu Wei --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: Is this exercise supposed to be some kind of justification for self-proclaimed 'enlightened' guys to be arrogant condescending assholes and not be called on it? Maybe you should ask Wei Wu Wei or Jed McKenna, since I am not a self- proclaimed 'enlightened' guy, just an arrogant condescending asshole :-) *L*L*L* And now a lame comedian. Sure, if you like. An arrogant, assholey, condescending, ignorant, masturbatory, lame comedian. Got any more? :-) Keep going. I don't doubt you can increase your ugliness.
[FairfieldLife] Quote of the week
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ As for me, I'm enjoying the arrogance of the man who thinks he can tell another's state of consciousness without even knowing his own :-) Lovely ! :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
See, Alex? I knew you had it in you to creatively flame. Now, practice this, but also balance this process with positive blurbs too -- keeps the two brainsides happy. Try this: positively blurbify Bush. I'll take a go at it. George Bush is certainly better than Hitler. Okay, cheap shot. How about: George Bush has certainly taught America about its 231 year old promise to itself -- how hungry we all are now for the American Way -- which was always a myth due to elitist smoke filled rooms but now is almost a living reality for the nation. Thank God for George Bush teaching us this -- imagine if He'd let, say, George Wallace get elected way back when. Shudder, right? That wasn't too bad, eh? I feel positively libra-ish. I have an essay about this nothing is good or evil except thinking makes it so concept -- maybe I'll post it -- if someone begs me in a very humble manner. ;-) Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: I cheerfully accept all the ass-holiness, arrogant condescension, ignorance, and any other traits you wish to ascribe to me. Rory is a gimp-legged necrophiliac haberdasher with a bookshelf full of leather-bound volumes of Proust, Goethe, and Kant, none of which he's actually read!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Newfound Planet Could Support Life As We Know It
Uh-oh...MDixon gonna get you! ;-) --- Samadhi Is Much Closer Than You Think -- Really! -- It's A No-Brainer. Who'd've Thunk It? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You bet, Peter. Republicans probably have 1st dibs on this and similar planets, their Haven/Heaven on a New Earth where their predation can continue to run amock as if it's god's will, after they've lifted themselves from Earth in a pseudo-rapture after pillaging the planet and leaving humans behind to wallow in the consequences of their toxic waste, they having been more chosen than real humans, but only by god, of course. *Of all that anyone leading or teaching has to convey, * *the most valuable thing to cultivate and convey to others is * *a moral conscience. Only such persons deserve to lead others, * *in any capacity. Anything less is a menace to society.* On 11/6/07, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeehaa! Let's go there and f*ck it up! --- Samadhi Is Much Closer Than You Think -- Really! -- It's A No-Brainer. Who'd've Thunk It? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ** *Newfound Planet Could Support Life As We Know It* NASA / JPL-Caltech This artist's conception shows four of the five planets that orbit 55 Cancri, a star much like our own. The most recently discovered planet looms large in the foreground. The colors of the planets were chosen to resemble those of our own solar system. Astronomers do not know what the planets actually look like. -- Planet-hunters say they have detected a giant world that is nestled among four others in a planetary system 41 light-years from Earth. This newfound world is in the Goldilocks zone - a place that's not too hot, not too cold, but just right for the existence of liquid water and conceivably life. The fresh discovery, announced today during a NASA teleconference, focuses on a star and planetary system called 55 Cancri, in the constellation Cancer. The system is already well-known to astronomers who search for the telltale signs of planets beyond our own solar system - but the newly detected planet has taken the search to a new level. We're announcing the discovery of the first quintuple-planet system, Debra Fischer, an astronomer at San Francisco State University and lead author of a paper due to appear in the Astrophysical Journal, told reporters. Geoff Marcy, a pioneer planet-hunter from the University of California at Berkeley who contributed to the paper, said the planetary system is a souped-up version of our own. Like our own solar system, these planets make nearly circular orbits around the parent star - but they're super-sized. The innermost planet is about the size of Neptune and whips around the parent star in less than three days, at a distance of about 3.5 million miles. The farthest-out planet is four times as massive as Jupiter and takes 14 Earth years to orbit, at a distance of about 539 million miles - or just a little farther out than our solar system's Jupiter. NASA / JPL-Caltech This diagram shows the 55 Cancri system at top and our own solar system at bottom. In each view, the habitable zone is marked as a green band. -- MORE HERE: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/06/451256.aspx __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Deer Season
It is deer mating season in Nov and Dec. Car/deer accidents are at their highest. Drive extra carefully at night. Instead of bedding down like they usually do, deer can and will move all at hours of the night. Suggestion: on new #34, instead of doing 70 mph in the 65 zone, do 55-60 mph at night for the next 7 weeks. DOT tried a “Don’t Veer for a Deer” campaign. They found that there are more injuries and fatalities to humans who swerve and go into ditches, poles, or other cars in a natural attempt to avoid hitting the deer. Although near impossible to avoid such a response, try to program your brain to hit brakes and swerve minimally not radically. Pass this on to your friends ... No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.23/1114 - Release Date: 11/6/2007 8:05 PM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: R: There seem to be two kinds of searchers; those who seek to make their ego something other than it is, i.e., holy, happy, unselfish (as though you could make a fish unfish), and those who understand that all such attempts are just gesticulation and play- acting, that there is only one thing that can be done, which is to disidentify themselves with the ego, by realizing its unreality, and by becoming aware of their eternal identity with pure being. -- We Wu Wei --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: Is this exercise supposed to be some kind of justification for self-proclaimed 'enlightened' guys to be arrogant condescending assholes and not be called on it? Maybe you should ask Wei Wu Wei or Jed McKenna, since I am not a self- proclaimed 'enlightened' guy, just an arrogant condescending asshole :-) *L*L*L* And now a lame comedian. Sure, if you like. An arrogant, assholey, condescending, ignorant, masturbatory, lame comedian. Got any more? :-) *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: In my view, in spite of the claims you make about yourselves, you and Jim certainly do not. You both come off as flippant smart asses, particularly it seems when you're criticized. The only time you criticize me is when I cannot resolve a paradox for you. For example MMY ccontinues Guru Dev's consciousness, but not in an intellectually comprehensible way. Then you grow so incredibly frustrated and rigid that there is nothing I or anyone one else can do about it. So then you get angry and accuse me of all sorts of things, when it is Reality itself that deserves your criticism. I suspect the dynamic with Rory is the same. Your invented defensive explanation of my views is noted for what it is, horse shit and obfuscation. Your arrogance and condescension is also apparent. It's no wonder you have the many detractors you do. The amorality and indifference to ethical standards that characterize the rhetoric in your posts and your failure to note the recent typical weak, sycophantic personal attacks by Mr. Nablussos are also noted. You even agreed with him! From everything I've learned and experienced in my almost 40 years with TM and as a TM teacher and my learning from Maharishi, what you express by your words as your Brahman Consciousness is nothing more than Cosmic Consciousness with 'some' perceptions of Divine realms [finer states of relativity]. That, to me, would account for you're still being quite a bit... less... than... According to Maharishi, Cosmic Consciousness is 'the' grand primary milestone on it's own. But it's only the beginning. As for me, I'm enjoying the arrogance of the man who thinks he can tell another's state of consciousness without even knowing his own :-) It's not difficult to spot an asshole. Please pass the popcorn! Like I said, arrogant condescension. Lovely. Yes, and? I cheerfully accept all the ass-holiness, arrogant condescension, ignorance, and any other traits you wish to ascribe to me. So now what? Please pass the poison, it's delicious! *L*L*L* An asshole who masturbates. Nice. *lol* Now *that*s a pretty picture! Author, author! :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: *Both* of you reacted to my silly Aphorisms as if I had attacked the *belief systems*, when what they were really were a set of snarks about the common actions of the *believers*. snip And Jim claimed: Those that contnuously claim there is nowhere to go, go nowhere. I don't think that *either* of those claims is borne out by the post being replied to. And I don't know where you got the idea I was somehow reacting to what you had written as an attack. I was having fun too, ferchristssake! I actually agreed with most of your aphorisms and thought they were pretty good. I liked mine too, as it had a double meaning, one could be critical and the other neutral. You apparently read it as critical. If that's true, I humbly apologize. My remarks about Judy's response stand. not a problem-- context is difficult to judge at best with only written words to go by.
[FairfieldLife] Buddhist View on Pets
It's interesting how eastern lamas have found the act of westerners taking animals into their homes and treating them like family is touching and an admirable trait. http://www.namdrolingmt.org/satsahouse/beginning/beginning.html http://www.namdrolingmt.org/satsahouse/index.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Many States Seen Facing Water Shortages -- Demonstrat...
In a message dated 11/6/07 10:01:11 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well close, You are only off by a factor of 10. Still, water is going to be a huge issue in the next 10-50 years. New water supplies in Nevada are selling for $80,000 per acre foot. Its wild. Without vast improved water policy, technology and conservation/improved water the west could dry up and blow away. See second article -- its long -- but eye opening. Maybe we could shut down the invincibility program for a year and get some hurricanes to come in and replenish the drought stricken areas! ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In my view, in spite of the claims you make about yourselves, you and Jim certainly do not. You both come off as flippant smart asses, particularly it seems when you're criticized. The only time you criticize me is when I cannot resolve a paradox for you. For example MMY ccontinues Guru Dev's consciousness, but not in an intellectually comprehensible way. Then you grow so incredibly frustrated and rigid that there is nothing I or anyone one else can do about it. So then you get angry and accuse me of all sorts of things, when it is Reality itself that deserves your criticism. I suspect the dynamic with Rory is the same.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You see folks, this is the kind of person who currently takes prominence in Maharishi's TMO. Maybe so; I am not one of them however :-) He even hints that he's 'enlightened'. I categorically and emphatically deny that I am any more 'enlightened' than I am 'ignorant'. Both, and/or neither, or you're taking the Name in vain. There is no need to wonder why people of integrity and decency have left in droves. And this Rory seems to take delight in the scene as he mocks those who DO have values and standards. I *do* take delight in the scene; you're absolutely right. And I am mocking you; you're right about that too. And yes, it's because you apparently think you're going to get 'enlightened' by pursuing and trying to identify with values and standards. But you are right, I have nothing of value to offer you, unless you are willing to admit that after 40 years of study you know absolutely nothing of value, and are no closer to your goal than when you began. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: In my view, in spite of the claims you make about yourselves, you and Jim certainly do not. You both come off as flippant smart asses, particularly it seems when you're criticized. The only time you criticize me is when I cannot resolve a paradox for you. For example MMY ccontinues Guru Dev's consciousness, but not in an intellectually comprehensible way. Then you grow so incredibly frustrated and rigid that there is nothing I or anyone one else can do about it. So then you get angry and accuse me of all sorts of things, when it is Reality itself that deserves your criticism. I suspect the dynamic with Rory is the same. Your invented defensive explanation of my views is noted for what it is, horse shit and obfuscation. Your arrogance and condescension is also apparent. It's no wonder you have the many detractors you do. The amorality and indifference to ethical standards that characterize the rhetoric in your posts and your failure to note the recent typical weak, sycophantic personal attacks by Mr. Nablussos are also noted. You even agreed with him! From everything I've learned and experienced in my almost 40 years with TM and as a TM teacher and my learning from Maharishi, what you express by your words as your Brahman Consciousness is nothing more than Cosmic Consciousness with 'some' perceptions of Divine realms [finer states of relativity]. That, to me, would account for you're still being quite a bit... less... than... According to Maharishi, Cosmic Consciousness is 'the' grand primary milestone on it's own. But it's only the beginning. As for me, I'm enjoying the arrogance of the man who thinks he can tell another's state of consciousness without even knowing his own :-) It's not difficult to spot an asshole. Please pass the popcorn! Like I said, arrogant condescension. Lovely. Yes, and? I cheerfully accept all the ass-holiness, arrogant condescension, ignorance, and any other traits you wish to ascribe to me. So now what? Please pass the poison, it's delicious! *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Jim's Perfect, Radiant Intellect -- and the Brahman-like Paradox of his Words
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: In my view, in spite of the claims you make about yourselves, you and Jim certainly do not. You both come off as flippant smart asses, particularly it seems when you're criticized. The only time you criticize me is when I cannot resolve a paradox for you. You continue to not resolve, continue to hide from, the paradox that you claim to have Perfect Crystal-Like, Radiant Intellect, but you continue to exhibit weak reasoning, cognitive errors, platitudes given as wisdom, immature and uninformed political analysis, projective personality analysis of others, and other such contradictions of having a Perfect Intellect Perhaps you are of the school that believes all paradoxes are good, they are Brahman, and thus saying saying silly paradoxes is a sign of great enlightenment. I don't know. If you do, then add it to the list above. At a minimum, you continue to hide from addressing the massive paradox above. And as you have done with Do.Flex, you attempt, in silly fashion, to turn the question into some flaw in him. All of my posts to you in recent days, have been attempts to have you address this paradox (as stated in first paragraph). Your refusal to do so, your skirting of the issue, your blaming others for, apparently, even asking the question, tells volume about your integrity and the attractiveness of what ever altered state you are in. And its interesting that you take such comments personally, acting out, getting angry (per a number of posts yesterday), etc. Perhaps if your repeat the following, the mood will return for a while and all will be Perfect. 1) Everything is Perfect just as it is. 2) I Love what IS 3) All is Brahman 4) All is Love 5) Anger is born or Rajo-guna and is all destructive. 6) I DO have Perfect Intelligence, I DO, I DO, I REALLY DO, GD IT! 7) I have mastered the siddhis, like Compassion. Repeat it 20 times. If all seems blissy, then you can continue your activity, But when the confusion, anger and urge to paradox arises again, close the eyes, and repeat the above again 20 times. Until the mood resumes. So then you get angry and accuse me of all sorts of things, I don't see Do.Flex or anyone else getting angry Jim. Except you. Perhaps some become incredulous at times at your refusal to address the only question posed to you, the paradox in first paragraph. And your continued behavior -- a wide chasm apart from your proclaimed attainments of Perfect Intellect. That you project your anger on to others - well add that to the list above. when it is Reality itself that deserves your criticism. Oh, this is precious. I think we should frame it. Its apparently not Jim who is skirting the issue, refusing and avoiding to address the huge Perfect Intellect paradox, its REALITY. And who can argue with Reality!!?? Actually Jim, if you had a ounce of integrity, and perhaps any semblance of balls, you would simply say something along the lines of, Hey, you know when I made that statement about Perfect Intellect -- well, it was a bit of an exaggeration. I just felt so good and clear at that moment, thats what it felt like to me. So I said it. In retrospect, hey, it was a silly thing to do. I have reread my posts, and reflected on my statements here and in life, and Jeeez, what was I thinking!!? Perfect Intellect??! Wow. More like perfect fool for that moment. So thanks guys for busting my chops a bit, taking their out of my puffery. I, as you well can see, do not have a Perfect, Radiant Intellect. But, let me guess, thats not going to happen. Ah what a wonderful paradox of Reality.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
Uncle Tantra wrote: In my experience, I think I learned more from and benefited more from those moments in which I was able to laugh at my own assholiness than I ever did from all that talk about holiness. Judy Stein wrote: Now, *that's* funny! Speaking of assholiness: From: Uncle Tantra Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: Thurs, Dec 15 2005 10:35 am Subject: Re: TM and sexual Tantra http://tinyurl.com/yu56fx Actually, the question that is more relevant is whether it is considered better at the Purusha and Mother Divine orgies to use official MAV Ayurvedic sesame oil or K-Y for lubricant. I have no personal information on this, but I'm betting on the sesame oil because the TMO makes a profit on it and not on K-Y. At least not yet.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: In my view, in spite of the claims you make about yourselves, you and Jim certainly do not. You both come off as flippant smart asses, particularly it seems when you're criticized. The only time you criticize me is when I cannot resolve a paradox for you. For example MMY continues Guru Dev's consciousness, but not in an intellectually comprehensible way. Then you grow so incredibly frustrated and rigid that there is nothing I or anyone one else can do about it. So then you get angry and accuse me of all sorts of things, when it is Reality itself that deserves your criticism. I suspect the dynamic with Rory is the same. Yes, and I have no issue with pursuing a role model if one allows oneself to do it wholeheartedly and with total surrender HERE and NOW, as you have done/are doing, Jim. It is the use of one's pursuit of virtues to studiously avoid the void while persuading oneself one is actually getting nearer to enlightenment that strikes *me* as unspeakably paradoxical! Here's a fun quote I ran across after posting yesterday: There seem to be two kinds of searchers; those who seek to make their ego something other than it is, i.e., holy, happy, unselfish (as though you could maker a fish unfish), and those who understand that all such attempts are just gesticulation and play-acting, that there is only one thing that can be done, which is to disidentify themselves with the ego, by realizing its unreality, and by becoming aware of their eternal identity with pure being. -- We Wu Wei (Spiritual Warfare, by Jed McKenna, p. 190) *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: Many States Seen Facing Water Shortages -- Demonstrating A Global Problem
Ha ha ha, not in Vermont. Let the rednecks go dry. It must be an act of god for them taking jesus's name, and desecrating on it with their born-again haggardesque repugnant religion (stay out of vermont Bush) OffWorld In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Samadhi Is Much Closer Than You Think -- Really! -- It's A No-Brainer. Who'd've Thunk It? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *Many States Seen Facing Water Shortages -- Demonstrating A Global Problem* By BRIAN SKOLOFF, Associated Press Writer WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - An epic drought in Georgia threatens the water supply for millions. Florida doesn't have nearly enough water for its expected population boom. The Great Lakes are shrinking. Upstate New York's reservoirs have dropped to record lows. And in the West, the Sierra Nevada snowpack is melting faster each year. Across America, the picture is critically clear the nation's freshwater supplies can no longer quench its thirst. The government projects that at least 36 states will face water shortages within five years because of a combination of rising temperatures, drought, population growth, urban sprawl, waste and excess. Is it a crisis? If we don't do some decent water planning, it could be, said Jack Hoffbuhr, executive director of the Denver-based American Water Works Association. Water managers will need to take bold steps to keep taps flowing, including conservation, recycling, desalination and stricter controls on development. We've hit a remarkable moment, said Barry Nelson, a senior policy analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council. The last century was the century of water engineering. The next century is going to have to be the century of water efficiency. The price tag for ensuring a reliable water supply could be staggering. Experts estimate that just upgrading pipes to handle new supplies could cost the nation $300 billion over 30 years. Unfortunately, there's just not going to be any more cheap water, said Randy Brown, Pompano Beach's utilities director. It's not just America's problem it's global. Australia is in the midst of a 30-year dry spell, and population growth in urban centers of sub-Saharan Africa is straining resources. Asia has 60 percent of the world's population, but only about 30 percent of its freshwater. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations network of scientists, said this year that by 2050 up to 2 billion people worldwide could be facing major water shortages. The U.S. used more than 148 trillion gallons of water in 2000, the latest figures available from the U.S. Geological Survey. That includes residential, commercial, agriculture, manufacturing and every other use almost 500,000 gallons per person. Coastal states like Florida and California face a water crisis not only from increased demand, but also from rising temperatures that are causing glaciers to melt and sea levels to rise. Higher temperatures mean more water lost to evaporation. And rising seas could push saltwater into underground sources of freshwater. Florida represents perhaps the nation's greatest water irony. A hundred years ago, the state's biggest problem was it had too much water. But decades of dikes, dams and water diversions have turned swamps into cities. Little land is left to store water during wet seasons, and so much of the landscape has been paved over that water can no longer penetrate the ground in some places to recharge aquifers. As a result, the state is forced to flush millions of gallons of excess into the ocean to prevent flooding. Also, the state dumps hundreds of billions of gallons a year of treated wastewater into the Atlantic through pipes water that could otherwise be used for irrigation. Florida's environmental chief, Michael Sole, is seeking legislative action to get municipalities to reuse the wastewater. As these communities grow, instead of developing new water with new treatment systems, why not better manage the commodity they already have and produce an environmental benefit at the same time? Sole said. Florida leads the nation in water reuse by reclaiming some 240 billion gallons annually, but it is not nearly enough, Sole said. Floridians use about 2.4 trillion gallons of water a year. The state projects that by 2025, the population will have increased 34 percent from about 18 million to more than 24 million people, pushing annual demand for water to nearly 3.3 trillion gallons. More than half of the state's expected population boom is projected in a three-county area that includes Miami, Fort Lauderdale and Palm Beach, where water use is already about 1.5 trillion gallons a year. We just passed a crossroads. The chief water sources are basically gone, said John Mulliken, director of water supply for the South Florida Water Management District. We really are at a critical moment in Florida
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, pranamoocher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Geez What has all of this flaming have to do with Pets? I was enjoying that Pet topic until it got hijacked by this other topic. And I think you raised some interesting topics for conversation, I was going to reply but got sidetracked myself thinking about mountain bikes, lets see if we can re-ignite the pet part of this thread. If I remember your question correctly; I'm positive animals have an emotional life, they have measurable stress reactions so it would be unreasonable to doubt they have other emotions. I think that the animals closest to us on the evolutionary tree have broadly similar emotions, their brains are very similar and we share such a common genetic heritage that it would be strange if they were just unthinking meat puppets. But it's not so easy to prove, I think it more likely to be true than not because our human brains have an almost identical deep structure to every vertebrate from pre-dinosaur reptiles to birds, cats and dogs. Humans and whales just have a more convoluted cerebral cortex used for advanced thining, the deeper emotional stuff is managed by the more primitive systems shared by us all. You can even do brain scans of dinosaurs and their brains are set out in exactly the same way as all other animals. We come from the same place genetically in a broadly radiating tree, even though we seem a long way from pelycosaurs we aren't really. I can't see something as useful as a subjective emotional or any inner life only evolving in us as it would be obviopusly useful to anything, the machinery is there and identical to ours I'm sure it gets used like ours. Another clue to animal emotion is the fact that mammals and birds need to train their offspring and emotions and facial expression plays an important part in this. Dogs are pack animals and need to know their place, as they stay in packs they need to keep the ability to react, unlike a lot of wild animals that only get together at certain times of the year, to mate, and consequently have a limited hormone controlled tolerance to their own kind. But then dogs were the first animal to be domesticated by man so we have had the time to get used to each other, me and my terrier can communicate by facial expression alone, she knows what I'm thinking and vice versa, cats remain inscrutable. BTW did you know all domestic dogs are descended from wolves?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
(worth repeating, with minor course corrections) do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: In my view, in spite of the claims you make about yourselves, you and Jim certainly do not. You both come off as flippant smart asses, particularly it seems when you're criticized. Jim: The only time you criticize me is when I cannot resolve a paradox for you. For example MMY continues Guru Dev's consciousness, but not in an intellectually comprehensible way. Then you grow so incredibly frustrated and rigid that there is nothing I or anyone one else can do about it. So then you get angry and accuse me of all sorts of things, when it is Reality itself that deserves your criticism. I suspect the dynamic with Rory is the same. R: Yes, and I have no issue with pursuing a role model if one allows oneself actually *catch* the role model: to do it wholeheartedly and with total surrender HERE and NOW, as you have done/are doing, Jim. It is the use of one's pursuit of virtues to studiously avoid the void while persuading oneself one is actually getting nearer to enlightenment that strikes *me* as unspeakably paradoxical! Here's a fun quote I ran across after posting yesterday: There seem to be two kinds of searchers; those who seek to make their ego something other than it is, i.e., holy, happy, unselfish (as though you could make a fish unfish), and those who understand that all such attempts are just gesticulation and play-acting, that there is only one thing that can be done, which is to disidentify themselves with the ego, by realizing its unreality, and by becoming aware of their eternal identity with pure being. -- We Wu Wei (Spiritual Warfare, by Jed McKenna, p. 190) *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: R: There seem to be two kinds of searchers; those who seek to make their ego something other than it is, i.e., holy, happy, unselfish (as though you could make a fish unfish), and those who understand that all such attempts are just gesticulation and play-acting, that there is only one thing that can be done, which is to disidentify themselves with the ego, by realizing its unreality, and by becoming aware of their eternal identity with pure being. -- We Wu Wei --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: Is this exercise supposed to be some kind of justification for self-proclaimed 'enlightened' guys to be arrogant condescending assholes and not be called on it? Maybe you should ask Wei Wu Wei or Jed McKenna, since I am not a self- proclaimed 'enlightened' guy, just an arrogant condescending asshole :-) *L*L*L* And now a lame comedian.
[FairfieldLife] Wholesale mung dahl - organic
Dear Friends, In case you don't know, Jeff Mecurio is back in Fairfield, and planning to open a small grocery store and wholesale buying club. He is just getting started, but he currently has 25 bags of organic mung dahl for $1.72 a pound. He is very willing to deliver, because his store is still very much in process. His address is 503 N. 3rd. His email is Jeff Mercurio [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unfortunately I just bought a lot of dahl for $2.25 lb. Of course next time I will buy from Jeff. Blessings, Marie No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.23/1114 - Release Date: 11/6/2007 8:05 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] Re: Quiz for Willy -- or anyone else -- but, today, especially for Willy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shemp, I think Judy roasted you enough. ...but I was acceding to YOUR request, not Judy's. You asked me to do something, I did it, and you don't give me the courtesy of a response. Okay. I just won't bother in the future. See if you and she can come to an agreement. I don't see you playing fair or logical -- though you have the IQ to do so. You're no fun! If you played fair -- actually responded to questions, I'd write to you about a ton of stuff, but you go to flaming so quickly and have no scholarly intent to delve deeper that I am turned off. How'z'bout you answer the Willy Quiz -- maybe finally I'd get to see you as real. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Hey, I responded to your posting about that grid...no comments in response to my response? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: Richard, I asked Mdix some questions, and he came back honest and fast with what I considered to be a nice snapshot of him -- for my purposes. I think I got an attitude adjustment thereby, and thus I will not be expecting him to post something and then be disappointed because of my assuming-on-his-ass. (Assuming makes an ass out of you and me.) If I know where a person is coming from, I tend to surrender to their presentation rather than rail against the parts of them that I don't resonate with -- at least that's my theory. Some parts of some folks are too egregious to not rail about though -- sigh. You keep posting stuff that seems to indicate a depth of scholarship that cannot be acquired without a lot of sweat equity invested, and so, having shown this acumen, my interest in your posts has increased. Your emotional tone when posting seems pretty harsh and shocking if I'm reading you correctly, but maybe you're just using words like I do -- fun to see the concepts whizzing like ninja tossed blades -- fun, cuz, well they're only fucking words! I like how you annotate a lot of posts with short blurbifications, but those bon mots I consider to be mostly sniping to pop egoic balloons -- Barry just requires a certain level of constant attacking just to keep him anchored in reality, I'm just sayin'. I know you've had a long posting history on several fronts, and that many here consider you a troll and flamer, but though those labels could be applied, your frequent bursts of strong content belies those tags. I think you really do want to instruct others. But a lot of the time, your posts toss me emotionally and I lose the above take on you. So, I'm working on ya, I'm workin'. So if you can answer the below set of questions, I'd be the better for it. Jes tryin' ta gets a feel fer ya. The questions at the end of the list are the same ones I sent to Mdix. Edg What is your formal educational background? What is your age? Have you had children? Do you have a life companion? How do you earn a living? A bullet point resume would be wonderful. How do you find comfort when looking at the general tone of derision in your postings' jibes, quips and put-downs? Do you mindfully wish to sustain this mask of the curmudgeon? And if so, do you see yourself more as a Bill O'Reilly or a Jack Cafferty or a Lewis Black or a Mort Saul or a Lenny Bruce or ?? Are or were you a TM initiator, governor, siddha? Do you think Vaj has any authenticity or scholarship? He blows me away with his grasp of Buddhism and its many jargon-bits, but I know too little to judge his skill-set. Do you two agree on anything? Do you think Jim speaks correctly about enlightenment? If so, do you think he's the real deal? I tend to cut him a massive break. Do you believe in God? Krishna being an avatar? Reincarnation? Do you, Judy, and I belong in the same club? Do you agree that the Iraq war was about oil and the euro? Do you think waterboarding is okay? Do you think the last two elections were fixed? Do you think 9-11 was a terrorist act or was it instead an inside job? Are you anti-congress just because they're all scum suckers for GlobalBiz, or merely because you think of yourself as a republican? Would you vote for Ron Paul? Kucinich? How would you compare Bill Clinton's do-nothing-let-half-a-million-be-hacked-to-death policy about Dafur compared to Bush's kill anyone in Iraq between me and the oil policy? Are you pro-choice or pro-life? Would you allow stem cell research? Is Global Warming caused by man-made pollutants?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: See, Alex? I knew you had it in you to creatively flame. Now, practice this, but also balance this process with positive blurbs too -- keeps the two brainsides happy. I worship at Rory's lotus feet, which accomplishes the same thing. Try this: positively blurbify Bush. He supplies CO2, which supports verdant plant life.
[FairfieldLife] Three Days of Special Live Puja Broadcasts (Dhanvantari, Hanuman, Mahalakshmi)
Three Days of Special Live Puja Broadcasts: Wednesday through Friday In honor of three very auspicious days in the Vedic Calendar there will be special Pujas with Vedic Pandits broadcast live on the Maharishi Channel by satellite and on the Internet. Dhanvantari Day, Wednesday, Nov 7th 2007. Time: 12:30 PM Central European and 05:30 AM US Central Time. Dhanvantari is the embodiment of Ayurveda, the eternal science of life. On this Day of Dhanvantari the tradition of the complete knowledge of Ayurveda is revived and enlivened in human awareness. On this day the Laws of Nature that support perfect health and immortality are especially lively. Hanuman Jayanti, Thursday, Nov 8th 2007. Time: 12:30 PM Central European Time and 05:30 US Central Time. On this day the Hanuman quality of Natural Law is most lively, helping to maintain the flow of evolution in an uninterrupted way. Mahalakshmi, Dipavali, the Festival of Lights, Friday, Nov 9th 2007. Time: 1:30 PM Central European Time and 06:30 US Central Time. The Day of Mahalakshmi is one of the most important days of the year in the Vedic calendar. Mahalakshmi is that impulse of Creative Intelligence in Nature that is responsible for prosperity, growth, and affluence. On this day that element in Nature whose Creative Intelligence represents all possibilities, prosperity, and fulfillment is most lively. We will replay each days celebration later in the same day. For replay times please check our homepage at: http://www.mou.org To view the celebrations on the Internet visit: http://www.mou.org or http://maharishichannel.org Jai Guru Dev - Heute schon einen Blick in die Zukunft von E-Mails wagen? Versuchen Sie´s mit dem neuen Yahoo! Mail.
[FairfieldLife] What is it?
2007-11-07
Thread
Samadhi Is Much Closer Than You Think -- Really! -- It's A No-Brainer. Who'd've Thunk It?
What is Vishesha yoga about, and why is it done? What are the spiritual progress implications of Vishesa in contrast to the Sahaj yoga of the usual first six lessons we normally practice? What are the social implications of or by those who do Vishesha yoga? If first lesson is so comprehensive, then why should anyone be interested in or do Vishesha yoga? What are the markers identifying preparation to do Vishesha yoga, other than steadiness and comfort in concentration? Anything else about Vishesha you can convey? *As long as this universe continues to exist, I am here to love you. The force that guides the stars guides you too -- here into my loving embrace. * **
[FairfieldLife] Was Rory Martin Bormann?
He claims he was (see his website), or at least he claims that in a past life he was Hitler's second-in-command, who was Bormann. What was it like to be Bormann, Rory?
Re: [FairfieldLife] What is it?
Well, I know its bigger than a breadbox for starters ;-) --- Samadhi Is Much Closer Than You Think -- Really! -- It's A No-Brainer. Who'd've Thunk It? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is Vishesha yoga about, and why is it done? What are the spiritual progress implications of Vishesa in contrast to the Sahaj yoga of the usual first six lessons we normally practice? What are the social implications of or by those who do Vishesha yoga? If first lesson is so comprehensive, then why should anyone be interested in or do Vishesha yoga? What are the markers identifying preparation to do Vishesha yoga, other than steadiness and comfort in concentration? Anything else about Vishesha you can convey? *As long as this universe continues to exist, I am here to love you. The force that guides the stars guides you too -- here into my loving embrace. * ** __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] What is it?
2007-11-07
Thread
Samadhi Is Much Closer Than You Think -- Really! -- It's A No-Brainer. Who'd've Thunk It?
*ROFLMAO* On 11/7/07, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I know its bigger than a breadbox for starters ;-) --- Samadhi Is Much Closer Than You Think -- Really! -- It's A No-Brainer. Who'd've Thunk It? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is Vishesha yoga about, and why is it done? What are the spiritual progress implications of Vishesa in contrast to the Sahaj yoga of the usual first six lessons we normally practice? What are the social implications of or by those who do Vishesha yoga? If first lesson is so comprehensive, then why should anyone be interested in or do Vishesha yoga? What are the markers identifying preparation to do Vishesha yoga, other than steadiness and comfort in concentration? Anything else about Vishesha you can convey? *As long as this universe continues to exist, I am here to love you. The force that guides the stars guides you too -- here into my loving embrace. * **
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
cats remain inscrutable. If you bring up a cat with eye contact they open up. That added to some knowledge of ear and tail positions and you can have just as interactive a relationship with feline intelligence as with canines. They respond well to training as long as you are on the feline groove. Some are food reward dominant and some are more naturally people pleasers, I have one of each. I have never worked with big cats but have talked with a big cat trainer. The added lethal potential makes it critical to get the message right the first time! I'll stick to the little guys! But when I visit a local small zoo I can chuff like a tiger from outside the cage and they will come over. Pretty simple stuff but the results can ber dramatic. Of course they have to be big cats with a developed human relationship for it to work, I'm no Dr. Dolittle. Feline intelligence and communications really fascinates me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, pranamoocher bhrma@ wrote: Geez What has all of this flaming have to do with Pets? I was enjoying that Pet topic until it got hijacked by this other topic. And I think you raised some interesting topics for conversation, I was going to reply but got sidetracked myself thinking about mountain bikes, lets see if we can re-ignite the pet part of this thread. If I remember your question correctly; I'm positive animals have an emotional life, they have measurable stress reactions so it would be unreasonable to doubt they have other emotions. I think that the animals closest to us on the evolutionary tree have broadly similar emotions, their brains are very similar and we share such a common genetic heritage that it would be strange if they were just unthinking meat puppets. But it's not so easy to prove, I think it more likely to be true than not because our human brains have an almost identical deep structure to every vertebrate from pre-dinosaur reptiles to birds, cats and dogs. Humans and whales just have a more convoluted cerebral cortex used for advanced thining, the deeper emotional stuff is managed by the more primitive systems shared by us all. You can even do brain scans of dinosaurs and their brains are set out in exactly the same way as all other animals. We come from the same place genetically in a broadly radiating tree, even though we seem a long way from pelycosaurs we aren't really. I can't see something as useful as a subjective emotional or any inner life only evolving in us as it would be obviopusly useful to anything, the machinery is there and identical to ours I'm sure it gets used like ours. Another clue to animal emotion is the fact that mammals and birds need to train their offspring and emotions and facial expression plays an important part in this. Dogs are pack animals and need to know their place, as they stay in packs they need to keep the ability to react, unlike a lot of wild animals that only get together at certain times of the year, to mate, and consequently have a limited hormone controlled tolerance to their own kind. But then dogs were the first animal to be domesticated by man so we have had the time to get used to each other, me and my terrier can communicate by facial expression alone, she knows what I'm thinking and vice versa, cats remain inscrutable. BTW did you know all domestic dogs are descended from wolves?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
Turq: I suspect that your last sentence is what we in the writing business call stating the obvious. You *don't* know how to make that distinction. Neither does Jim. Judy: Oops, you should have read Curtis's response. As he recognized, I was commenting on his phrasing, and he agreed that it didn't make the distinction he had been aiming for. Me: I did appreciate Judy's point about how to keep the discussion on track and not personal. I think she raised a legitimate point. I have to accept that for some here there is a close identification of themselves with certain ideas if I want the discussion to stay civil. I don't know if I crossed that line with Jim because he has not really weighed in. Although attacking an idea seems fair game, if I denigrate a person for holding it I am inviting trouble and certainly can't claim any higher ground. But to be fair to Turq concerning Jim, my comment was about a belief in a scripture and Jim's response was to equate my opinion with that of a dog's vocalizations. I guess Bob could have taken it personally since he had expressed the belief as being true for him. But Bob has strong enough intellectual boundaries it seems to not give a shit (now that was a clever tie in) about what I believe or disbelieve. Since he obviously equates noticing the effect of such things with refined consciousness and my lack of it as indicative of my lack of development, me speaking against the belief only strengthens his own I suspect. But more to the point, Jim's misapplying MMY's perspective to the wrong scriptures is what interests me. There are clear contradictions in his position and I have attempted to get him to respond to them. I don't really care if he considers my expressions dog like, I am interested to see if he is capable of amending his position given counter evidence. Summing up all the Vedic scriptures as descriptive rather then prescriptive is a radical departure from MMY's teaching. I am curious to see if Jim just used a movement cliche in the wrong context, or if he has thought this through in an interesting way that I can learn from. For anyone who has actually read the Laws of Manu which is what MMY was referring to, his claim is preposterous as Rick and other have pointed out. They are detailed caste level punishments with some of the worst ones being meted out to people banging the Guru's wife. (what a surprise!) Why does this matter? I believe that viewing the Vedic literature as gospel truth is a huge mistake because it reduces a fascinating body of human thought into a thought stopper. Appreciating the many insights into human life that scriptures contain transcends culture and religious beliefs. Pretending that they are all infallible in the right state of consciousness reduces them to the level of the Bible for Christian fundamentalists. Even atheists can find value in all the world's scriptures. But taking them literally or attempting to portray them as descriptive of higher states denies the obvious. That contained in all the world's scriptures are parts that IMO are best labeled as nonsense and others with great value. There is no redeeming quality of promoting racism or misogyny, but these values are found in most world scriptures and in spades in the Vedic literature. I think it is important to point out where we in the modern world have advanced out thinking. Now about Jim personally...I have given him a partial pass on his claims of internal experiences. By that I mean I think it is possible that he is experiencing an internal state very different from the one he had before. But it means nothing to me since I never relate to people according to their internal states, I couldn't care less. What interest me is how does this state express itself in communication. I am really curious to see if Jim can either admit to being wrong on this point or if he can proffer an insight that will make me think beyond my current boundaries. I am waiting... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Me: This is a difference we have had in the past. You seen unable to distinguish a person's attack on an idea with a personal attack. I have not made any statement about what I think of you as a person if you decide you want to embrace the idea that looking at your turds is harmful. I am saying that this belief is misguided, wrong, nonsense,like much information from pre-scientific societies. snip Your characterization of my belief as howling and barking, the vocalizations of dogs, is personally insulting in every culture I know. So your characterization of Jim's belief as misguided, wrong, and nonsense
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Laws that old Rajas make
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: In Britain, the Royalty ( a word that comes directly from Sanskrit 'Raja' - through the Gaelic Celts who migrated from the near far east), have created these laws over the centuries which are still in place today. Most ridiculous British law: 1. It is illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament (27 percent) True, but only in the House of Lords, it would be impossible to tell them apart otherwise. Lol, yes it would seem there are quite a few breaking that law in the House of Lords. OffWorld 2. It is an act of treason to place a postage stamp bearing the British monarch upside-down (seven percent) I should think so too, I shall be examining any Crimbo cards I get very closely and reporting the transgressors to the relevant authority. 3. In Liverpool, it is illegal for a woman to be topless except as a clerk in a tropical fish store (six percent) Are these laws descriptive or prescriptive? 4. Mince pies cannot be eaten on Christmas Day (five percent) Just as well, we're usually sick of them by then anyway. 5. In Scotland, if someone knocks on your door and requires the use of your toilet, you must let them enter (four percent) Doesn't extend to after pub closing in Glasgow, luckily. 6. A pregnant woman can legally relieve herself anywhere she wants, including in a policeman's helmet (four percent) Policemen don't wear helmets anymore, but not because of this (as far as I know, but I'm almost certain it would have made the papers) 7. The head of any dead whale found on the British coast automatically becomes the property of the king, and the tail of the queen (3.5 percent) Has the Queen got a tail! perhaps David Icke was right. 8. It is illegal to avoid telling the tax man anything you do not want him to know, but legal not to tell him information you do not mind him knowing (three percent) But is it illegal to not tell the tax man if you've not told him anything you'd want not him to not know? 9. It is illegal to enter the Houses of Parliament in a suit of armour (three percent) You're making these up aren't you. 10. In the city of York it is legal to murder a Scotsman within the ancient city walls, but only if he is carrying a bow and arrow (two percent) I'm sure you're making them up, but as I've got Scottish ancestry, I'll be careful next time I go pillaging up north.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Past-life memories came floating up of following the highly charismatic Hitler; of being his second-in-command; I don't think I misread this at all; it looks pretty plain. a) I do see a difference between Bormann and Goering, and b) I also said I didn't know if I was Goering, but found the memories useful. I still stand by that. I have no objections to being Goering, or Hitler, or anyone else, you understand -- I am just trying to be clear about the actual experience and its possible ramifications. I have generally found one can access whatever one wishes in the universe, to the degree one needs, by remembering it is all oneself, and by simply being it -- know by being -- which doesn't mean one personally was or is the entity from a transmigratory standpoint. Many if not all so-called past-life or future-life memories are equally viewable as a kind of multisensory movie. In the end it is moot, I suppose, as one can learn from and heal from the experiences whether they are personally one's own or not. That's the great thing about stories -- we make them our own, and derive entertainment and meaning from them. Claiming past-lives as one's own however can have significant egoic/delusional pitfalls, particularly if one is tapping into someone famous, and as a rule I definitely don't recommend any sort of entertainment as an addictive avoidance of one's a priori emptifulness, or one's unattended pain, though perhaps at times that is unavoidable :-) But I like your posts. I'm happy to hear that. Thank you; you're very kind :-) *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?
Past-life memories came floating up of following the highly charismatic Hitler; of being his second-in-command; I don't think I misread this at all; it looks pretty plain. But I like your posts. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: He claims he was (see his website), or at least he claims that in a past life he was Hitler's second-in-command, who was Bormann. What was it like to be Bormann, Rory? Actually, I am wondering if you read my website very closely. I made no such claim. I *did* say that a lot of images and emotions floated up, which I tentatively identified as past-life memories, and which I eventually identified as Herman Goering's, not Martin Bormann's. At the time, I found this useful for making sense of emotional patterns I was then entangled in: moving through judgement, projection, disempowerment and anger, learning to embrace my (and everyone's) innate capacity for evil, and to move from there into unconditional love. I am not prepared to say that I *was* Herman Goering, or anyone else for that matter, although I am prepared to say Herman Goering *is* a part of me, as is everything and everyone else. This feels indescribable because it's a priori, but utterly loving- radiant-ecstatic if I choose to externalize and put my attention on it; thanks for asking :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Three Days of Special Live Puja Broadcasts (Dhanvantari, Hanuman, Mahalakshm
OffWorld wrote: Great, First its the guy that gives you the runs, then its monkey day (so I'll be monkeying around that day), and the one I look forward to the most, BigMammaries Day on Friday ! I love it ! Jai MahaLakshmi a friendly reminder, from our guiding light: The Laws of Manu, at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/india/manu-full.html A once-born man (a Sudra), who insults a twice-born man with gross invective, shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of low origin. -- Laws Of Manu, Ch 8 vs. 270 translation from Barbarian: Inevitably a time will come, when one is no longer capable of saying anything more; therefore, dont be a low-life and waste words on dissing higher teachings.
[FairfieldLife] Weather Channel founder: Global Warming greatest scam in history!
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/
[FairfieldLife] Deepak Chopra and Mike Myers on Sundance Channel
Just a reminder that Deepak Chopra and Mike Myers will be on Iconoclasts tomorrow evening Thursday the 8th at 10 PM on the Sundance Channel. http://www.sundancechannel.com/iconoclasts#/episode/210248251 That should be an interesting pair.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Now about Jim personally...I have given him a partial pass on his claims of internal experiences. By that I mean I think it is possible that he is experiencing an internal state very different from the one he had before. But it means nothing to me since I never relate to people according to their internal states, I couldn't care less. What interest me is how does this state express itself in communication. I am really curious to see if Jim can either admit to being wrong on this point or if he can proffer an insight that will make me think beyond my current boundaries. I am waiting... Regarding the Vedas, I see them as the essential vibrations from which all Creation springs, and I understand that different nervous systems cognize different parts of the Veda. This is pure intuition on my part-- I have not spent any time on, nor am I interested in attempting such a cognition. However when I listen to verses of the veda chanted, it makes sense that they are in fact the vibrations from which creation springs. This is my direct experience. In any case, since these Vedas are directly cognized, they are descriptive of the seer, rather than perscrptive of how the seer achieved their state of being able to cognize the knowledge. When these cognitions are written down and translated without commmentary, I think we are treading very tricky ground. I have heard it said that the knowledge of many spiritual traditions is deliberately hidden when written down. This also makes sense to me. Personally I only indulge in academic thought or read books when it is absolutely necessary. I have grown up in such a rich world of experience that written materials are usually a last resort for me. I think they can actually damage intuition and common sense if relied on too heavily. So, whatever these translations of the vedas may say does not much concern me. I am going by my intuition on this one. If you on the other hand have a different point of view, I completely accept that. I like playing in the non conceptual present, here and now. Much of what I discover is discovered in immediacy, not previously known to me, and I live much of my life on that basis. So when I responded to those who were ridiculing the vedas without giving it a second thought, that was my perspective on it. I don't really learn much from academically oriented debates-- in other words, based on second hand knowledge, or group consensus. I like my meat fresh! Hope that helps clear this up Curtis, and I appreciate you wanting to talk about it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok Jim, You are an original spirit, so am I. I hope you know that when I ridicule the Veda, it is with a LOT of thought. But you sound like you are enjoying a cool life and giving a good support to your kids, so I am all kumbaya man. Keep on enjoying the life you have chosen. I don't care to bust your balls over how I see things. I wouldn't post here if I didn't want to interact with people who see things differently than I do. Peace Excellent! yes, I am sure that you are seeing things from a considerate viewpoint also. I enjoy your posts, and I really like your humor. Thanks again for this discussion.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
--- curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I am waiting... Just don't wait on the toilet, okay? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Me: This is a difference we have had in the past. You seen unable to distinguish a person's attack on an idea with a personal attack. I have not made any statement about what I think of you as a person if you decide you want to embrace the idea that looking at your turds is harmful. I am saying that this belief is misguided, wrong, nonsense,like much information from pre-scientific societies. snip Your characterization of my belief as howling and barking, the vocalizations of dogs, is personally insulting in every culture I know. So your characterization of Jim's belief as misguided, wrong, and nonsense isn't an attack on Jim; but Jim's characterization of your belief as howling and barking *is* an attack on you. How does that work, exactly? I sure don't know how I would make that distinction. I suspect that your last sentence is what we in the writing business call stating the obvious. You *don't* know how to make that distinction. Neither does Jim. Oops, you should have read Curtis's response. As he recognized, I was commenting on his phrasing, and he agreed that it didn't make the distinction he had been aiming for. *Both* of you reacted to my silly Aphorisms as if I had attacked the *belief systems*, when what they were really were a set of snarks about the common actions of the *believers*. Yet you claimed: The more spiritual aphorisms you come up with in an attempt to discredit spiritual paths, the angrier you are about your own inability to find one of your own. A path is whatever one is following, of course, === message truncated === __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
Me:But taking them literally or attempting to portray them as descriptive of higher states denies the obvious. Me correcting me: I should have said portraying scriptures as unerring descriptions of life from the perspective of higher states. I understand that in TM they are used as being descriptive of higher states. I hope that saves someone from having to make a correction post on an obvious point! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Turq: I suspect that your last sentence is what we in the writing business call stating the obvious. You *don't* know how to make that distinction. Neither does Jim. Judy: Oops, you should have read Curtis's response. As he recognized, I was commenting on his phrasing, and he agreed that it didn't make the distinction he had been aiming for. Me: I did appreciate Judy's point about how to keep the discussion on track and not personal. I think she raised a legitimate point. I have to accept that for some here there is a close identification of themselves with certain ideas if I want the discussion to stay civil. I don't know if I crossed that line with Jim because he has not really weighed in. Although attacking an idea seems fair game, if I denigrate a person for holding it I am inviting trouble and certainly can't claim any higher ground. But to be fair to Turq concerning Jim, my comment was about a belief in a scripture and Jim's response was to equate my opinion with that of a dog's vocalizations. I guess Bob could have taken it personally since he had expressed the belief as being true for him. But Bob has strong enough intellectual boundaries it seems to not give a shit (now that was a clever tie in) about what I believe or disbelieve. Since he obviously equates noticing the effect of such things with refined consciousness and my lack of it as indicative of my lack of development, me speaking against the belief only strengthens his own I suspect. But more to the point, Jim's misapplying MMY's perspective to the wrong scriptures is what interests me. There are clear contradictions in his position and I have attempted to get him to respond to them. I don't really care if he considers my expressions dog like, I am interested to see if he is capable of amending his position given counter evidence. Summing up all the Vedic scriptures as descriptive rather then prescriptive is a radical departure from MMY's teaching. I am curious to see if Jim just used a movement cliche in the wrong context, or if he has thought this through in an interesting way that I can learn from. For anyone who has actually read the Laws of Manu which is what MMY was referring to, his claim is preposterous as Rick and other have pointed out. They are detailed caste level punishments with some of the worst ones being meted out to people banging the Guru's wife. (what a surprise!) Why does this matter? I believe that viewing the Vedic literature as gospel truth is a huge mistake because it reduces a fascinating body of human thought into a thought stopper. Appreciating the many insights into human life that scriptures contain transcends culture and religious beliefs. Pretending that they are all infallible in the right state of consciousness reduces them to the level of the Bible for Christian fundamentalists. Even atheists can find value in all the world's scriptures. But taking them literally or attempting to portray them as descriptive of higher states denies the obvious. That contained in all the world's scriptures are parts that IMO are best labeled as nonsense and others with great value. There is no redeeming quality of promoting racism or misogyny, but these values are found in most world scriptures and in spades in the Vedic literature. I think it is important to point out where we in the modern world have advanced out thinking. Now about Jim personally...I have given him a partial pass on his claims of internal experiences. By that I mean I think it is possible that he is experiencing an internal state very different from the one he had before. But it means nothing to me since I never relate to people according to their internal states, I couldn't care less. What interest me is how does this state express itself in communication. I am really curious to see if Jim can either admit to being wrong on this point or if he can proffer an insight that will make me think beyond my current boundaries. I am waiting... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Me: This is a difference we have had in the past. You seen unable to distinguish a
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I am waiting... Just don't wait on the toilet, okay? If I didn't I could never keep up with my magazine subscriptions! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Me: This is a difference we have had in the past. You seen unable to distinguish a person's attack on an idea with a personal attack. I have not made any statement about what I think of you as a person if you decide you want to embrace the idea that looking at your turds is harmful. I am saying that this belief is misguided, wrong, nonsense,like much information from pre-scientific societies. snip Your characterization of my belief as howling and barking, the vocalizations of dogs, is personally insulting in every culture I know. So your characterization of Jim's belief as misguided, wrong, and nonsense isn't an attack on Jim; but Jim's characterization of your belief as howling and barking *is* an attack on you. How does that work, exactly? I sure don't know how I would make that distinction. I suspect that your last sentence is what we in the writing business call stating the obvious. You *don't* know how to make that distinction. Neither does Jim. Oops, you should have read Curtis's response. As he recognized, I was commenting on his phrasing, and he agreed that it didn't make the distinction he had been aiming for. *Both* of you reacted to my silly Aphorisms as if I had attacked the *belief systems*, when what they were really were a set of snarks about the common actions of the *believers*. Yet you claimed: The more spiritual aphorisms you come up with in an attempt to discredit spiritual paths, the angrier you are about your own inability to find one of your own. A path is whatever one is following, of course, === message truncated === __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: He claims he was (see his website), or at least he claims that in a past life he was Hitler's second-in-command, who was Bormann. What was it like to be Bormann, Rory? Actually, I am wondering if you read my website very closely. I made no such claim. I *did* say that a lot of images and emotions floated up, which I tentatively identified as past-life memories, and which I eventually identified as Herman Goering's, not Martin Bormann's. At the time, I found this useful for making sense of emotional patterns I was then entangled in: moving through judgement, projection, disempowerment and anger, learning to embrace my (and everyone's) innate capacity for evil, and to move from there into unconditional love. I am not prepared to say that I *was* Herman Goering, or anyone else for that matter, although I am prepared to say Herman Goering *is* a part of me, as is everything and everyone else. This feels indescribable because it's a priori, but utterly loving- radiant-ecstatic if I choose to externalize and put my attention on it; thanks for asking :-)
[FairfieldLife] 9-11 Truth Debate on Thom Hartmann
Tomorrow (Nov. 8th) Thom Hartmann will be hosting a 9-11 truth debate on his morning show on Air America Radio: http://www.airamerica.com/thomhartmannpage/ Some stations such as the Bay Area's www.quakeradio.com will have podcasts of the show available for download. Here is an excellent debunking of 9-11 debunkers by Dr. David Ray Griffin in a two hour MP3 file: http://www.archive.org/details/Dr-David-Ray-Griffin-Debunking-the-911-Debunkers-Vancouver-BC-May16-2007 Very useful for if you're trying to wake up those still on the blue pill.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question regarding TMO view on Pets
Ok Jim, You are an original spirit, so am I. I hope you know that when I ridicule the Veda, it is with a LOT of thought. But you sound like you are enjoying a cool life and giving a good support to your kids, so I am all kumbaya man. Keep on enjoying the life you have chosen. I don't care to bust your balls over how I see things. I wouldn't post here if I didn't want to interact with people who see things differently than I do. Peace --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Now about Jim personally...I have given him a partial pass on his claims of internal experiences. By that I mean I think it is possible that he is experiencing an internal state very different from the one he had before. But it means nothing to me since I never relate to people according to their internal states, I couldn't care less. What interest me is how does this state express itself in communication. I am really curious to see if Jim can either admit to being wrong on this point or if he can proffer an insight that will make me think beyond my current boundaries. I am waiting... Regarding the Vedas, I see them as the essential vibrations from which all Creation springs, and I understand that different nervous systems cognize different parts of the Veda. This is pure intuition on my part-- I have not spent any time on, nor am I interested in attempting such a cognition. However when I listen to verses of the veda chanted, it makes sense that they are in fact the vibrations from which creation springs. This is my direct experience. In any case, since these Vedas are directly cognized, they are descriptive of the seer, rather than perscrptive of how the seer achieved their state of being able to cognize the knowledge. When these cognitions are written down and translated without commmentary, I think we are treading very tricky ground. I have heard it said that the knowledge of many spiritual traditions is deliberately hidden when written down. This also makes sense to me. Personally I only indulge in academic thought or read books when it is absolutely necessary. I have grown up in such a rich world of experience that written materials are usually a last resort for me. I think they can actually damage intuition and common sense if relied on too heavily. So, whatever these translations of the vedas may say does not much concern me. I am going by my intuition on this one. If you on the other hand have a different point of view, I completely accept that. I like playing in the non conceptual present, here and now. Much of what I discover is discovered in immediacy, not previously known to me, and I live much of my life on that basis. So when I responded to those who were ridiculing the vedas without giving it a second thought, that was my perspective on it. I don't really learn much from academically oriented debates-- in other words, based on second hand knowledge, or group consensus. I like my meat fresh! Hope that helps clear this up Curtis, and I appreciate you wanting to talk about it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Being overweight may give longer life expectancy
In the 70's before there was MAPI a lot of TM'ers were into Dr. Abravanel's Body Type system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliot_Abravanel The endocrine system throws a curve into the works with a lot of diet theory. So ones ability to eat high fat foods without high triglycerides or cholesterol can be due to what gland is dominant. During the 1970s I could also eat a lot of cheese and butter and still have low cholesterol and triglycerides. But I was very vata back then). I once asked Abrananel at a lecture about the difference between ayurveda and his system. He said, if we had a couple of hours I could go into it. He did say that he thought ayurveda too complicated. Also note that most of the pictures I've seen of the yogis who lived very long (over 100 and 200) we overweight. The ayurvedic system sort of declares that tonification has to stay on top of reduction (detox) to work. If you do reduction therapies too much you destroy your body. One has to master a balance between the two. It makes perfect sense that if you don't feed your body enough to replenish its cells you're not going to enjoy longevity. Alex Stanley wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --A lot depends on what type of fats people are eating, regardless of weight; i.e. transfats, and/or highly processed oils as consumed widely in India and used as cooking oils. Bad news for their health! I don't recall all the exact figures, but in the ghee-loving north of India, they eat 17 times more animal fat than they do in the south, yet the south of India has several times the rate of cardio-vascular disease. As I understand it, they tend to cook with cheap refined polyunsaturated seed oils in the south. Personally, I'm convinced that a lot of the current dietary dogmas are completely bass ackward. The notion that chemically reactive, easily damaged, highly peroxidizable, polyunsaturated fats are heart healthy makes no sense at all to me. And, a blood screening a few weeks ago at HyVee leads me to believe I'm right. The last time I was tested was a little over three years ago, less than a year after I'd stopped eating so many carbs, lost weight, and started weight training. My total cholesterol was 208 (a little high), but the HDL was excellent and the LDL was only a little higher than desirable. Triglycerides were 55. In the years since that last test, I've almost completely purged my diet of polyunsaturated vegetable oil. Most of the fat in my diet is from meat, butter, virgin coconut oil, and a little olive oil. As I've put on muscle over those years, my meat intake has gone up, including red meat. So, according to current dietary dogmas, my meaty diet and all that saturated fat should translate into a terrible lipid profile. The numbers: Total cholesterol: 169 HDL: 40 (desired is above 35) LDL: lower than the portable device could measure Triglycerides: less than 50 My diet is basically paleo plus dairy with minimal amounts of grain, beans, and potatoes. Recently, I stopped eating wheat. I eat three completely satiating meals a day with carbohydrate content low enough to not cause an insulin spike and blood sugar crash. If I need a snack, I nibble on raw nuts.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Three Days of Special Live Puja Broadcasts (Dhanvantari, Hanuman, Mahalakshmi)
Great, First its the guy that gives you the runs, then its monkey day (so I'll be monkeying around that day), and the one I look forward to the most, BigMammaries Day on Friday ! I love it ! Jai MahaLakshmi OffWorld --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Three Days of Special Live Puja Broadcasts: Wednesday through Friday In honor of three very auspicious days in the Vedic Calendar there will be special Pujas with Vedic Pandits broadcast live on the Maharishi Channel by satellite and on the Internet. Dhanvantari Day, Wednesday, Nov 7th 2007. Time: 12:30 PM Central European and 05:30 AM US Central Time. Dhanvantari is the embodiment of Ayurveda, the eternal science of life. On this Day of Dhanvantari the tradition of the complete knowledge of Ayurveda is revived and enlivened in human awareness. On this day the Laws of Nature that support perfect health and immortality are especially lively. Hanuman Jayanti, Thursday, Nov 8th 2007. Time: 12:30 PM Central European Time and 05:30 US Central Time. On this day the Hanuman quality of Natural Law is most lively, helping to maintain the flow of evolution in an uninterrupted way. Mahalakshmi, Dipavali, the Festival of Lights, Friday, Nov 9th 2007. Time: 1:30 PM Central European Time and 06:30 US Central Time. The Day of Mahalakshmi is one of the most important days of the year in the Vedic calendar. Mahalakshmi is that impulse of Creative Intelligence in Nature that is responsible for prosperity, growth, and affluence. On this day that element in Nature whose Creative Intelligence represents all possibilities, prosperity, and fulfillment is most lively. We will replay each day's celebration later in the same day. For replay times please check our homepage at: http://www.mou.org To view the celebrations on the Internet visit: http://www.mou.org or http://maharishichannel.org Jai Guru Dev - Heute schon einen Blick in die Zukunft von E-Mails wagen? Versuchen Sie´s mit dem neuen Yahoo! Mail.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Wholesale mung dahl - organic
Dear Jeff: We know now you have lots of dahl-- where's the beef? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, David Hawthorne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Jeff: Hi. I would love to buy at least 10 lbs of your organic mung dahl Or, let me know how many lbs are in a bag... i'm located in the Tetra 1 Building across the street from everybody's... hope this works for you. David Hawthorne 508 N. Second St., Fairfield, IA 52556 Tel: 641-472-3799 \ - Original Message - From: Rick Archer To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 9:37 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Wholesale mung dahl - organic Dear Friends, In case you don't know, Jeff Mecurio is back in Fairfield, and planning to open a small grocery store and wholesale buying club. He is just getting started, but he currently has 25 bags of organic mung dahl for $1.72 a pound. He is very willing to deliver, because his store is still very much in process. His address is 503 N. 3rd. His email is Jeff Mercurio [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unfortunately I just bought a lot of dahl for $2.25 lb. Of course next time I will buy from Jeff. Blessings, Marie No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.23/1114 - Release Date: 11/6/2007 8:05 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Rory Martin Bormann?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: Past-life memories came floating up of following the highly charismatic Hitler; of being his second-in-command; I don't think I misread this at all; it looks pretty plain. a) I do see a difference between Bormann and Goering, and b) I also said I didn't know if I was Goering, but found the memories useful. I still stand by that. I have no objections to being Goering, or Hitler, or anyone else, you understand -- I am just trying to be clear about the actual experience and its possible ramifications. I have generally found one can access whatever one wishes in the universe, to the degree one needs, by remembering it is all oneself, and by simply being it -- know by being -- which doesn't mean one personally was or is the entity from a transmigratory standpoint. Many if not all so-called past-life or future-life memories are equally viewable as a kind of multisensory movie. In the end it is moot, I suppose, as one can learn from and heal from the experiences whether they are personally one's own or not. That's the great thing about stories -- we make them our own, and derive entertainment and meaning from them. Claiming past-lives as one's own however can have significant egoic/delusional pitfalls, particularly if one is tapping into someone famous, and as a rule I definitely don't recommend any sort of entertainment as an addictive avoidance of one's a priori emptifulness, or one's unattended pain, though perhaps at times that is unavoidable :-) But I like your posts. I'm happy to hear that. Thank you; you're very kind :-) *L*L*L* It has been brought up before that all too often people attempting to view their past lives will conclude that they were someone famous. I understand you are not doing this (since that is what you just said-lol), but I wonder if the reason people make this error is because the words, appearance, and actions of famous people are multiplied by all of the consciousnesses observing them, and as such gain a greater share of the psychic record so to speak. Easier to tune in- stronger, clearer transmission.
