[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: Hebrews 4:12 12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. More on the 'word' John 1: 1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. Peshitta Aramaic/English Interlinear New Testament, The Preaching of Yukhanan [John]: In the beginning was the Miltha and that Miltha was with God and God was that Miltha. http://www.peshitta.org/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: Hebrews 4:12 12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. More on the 'word' John 1: 1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. Peshitta Aramaic/English Interlinear New Testament, The Preaching of Yukhanan [John]: In the beginning was the Miltha and that Miltha was with God and God was that Miltha. http://www.peshitta.org/ http://www.standardversion.org/article-what-is-the-peshitta.php To properly understand some of the phrases used in the Peshitta Targum, including some of the parables spoken by Messiah, one must understand the cultural setting that surrounds these first century writings of the collected Scriptures, which was a Jewish world eventually filtering into the world of the Greeks, Persians and various oriental lands. Evidence leans toward the fact that the Greek (and eventually Latin) manuscripts were translated from the original Aramaic Peshitta and other Hebrew manuscripts. Sometimes the later Greek translators did not understand the Aramaic phrases and catch words, so they had to make up phrases to make it sound the way they understood it and unfortunately these Greek and Latin translations lost much of the original meaning. Remember the passage talking about people taking up serpents? That was a phrase back then that meant Believers would deal with their enemiesit had nothing to do with snake handling. What about the passage talking about cutting off one's hand or removing one's eye? These passages have plagued Greek translators who did not understand the phrases Yeshua used. That was a phrase back then that simply meant, Stop what you are doing. In other words, If you are stealing, then stop it already!, and so on. Yeshua never commanded that His followers mutilate themselves. There are so many other examples that have crept into the later editions of the Greek simply because the translators did not understand the cultural setting of Jews in Israel. Unfortunately these same misunderstandings have crept into the modern translations of today.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My Dinner With Doctor Mahapatra
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity ruthsimplicity@ wrote: So what I want to know, did MMY fill this out: http://www.vedicvibration.com/apply/endocrine/pancreas.html and go on an appropriately kapha pacifying diet? Dunno. I doubt it. M. had a long hstory as a sweet addict (Swiss chocolates, sweet rasayanas, honey, etc.). And of course, sweet tastes increase kapha-dosha. who was the sweet addict, Vaj? Sweet poison. - Maharishi about Ravi Shankar
[FairfieldLife] Re: Selfless Service --- and Breaking the Link Between Fruit and Action
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: why are you so interested and caught up in Maharishi's ego? its all ego, ego, ego, to you. the central core of what he was and what he did you always relate in terms of what he must have thought about himself and what others thought about him. That is all we have to measure him by. Everything else is a claim or a subjective seeing. Same with you. i see him essentially as a fungus or a hummingbird or a galaxy. playing his part in the universe just like anyone else. That's true, but meaningless if what you want to discern is whether he was a benevolent fungus or a benign fungus or one that causes infirmity in other sentient beings. Face it, dude...one is going to be measured as a result of one's *actions* -- one's thoughts and how one expres- ses them in words and how one treats the people around them, NOT by any of their claims of enlightenment. That's exactly why many of us don't believe your claims of enlightenment. To you, its existence is self-evident, and you don't seem to understand why people don't buy it. But to us, you are Just Another Ego, acting *just* as petty and *just* as much from anger and a need to protect that ego as anyone else we've ever seen. So, in my opinion, was Maharishi. So while it's true you are no different than any other fungus on the planet, you're just another fungus on the planet.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Chopra Letter
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thing is, Chopra decided that he had better judgement than MMY and could do more. Which is certainly his choice, but raises an interesting question: if he really thought that MMY was enlightened, as he now claims, why would he assume his judgemnt was better than MMY's? At the least, it would have made more sense for him to stick around, and work *within*the enlightened man's organization then to leave the only person on Earth he was certain was enlightened (to quote one of his articles about MMY). Lawson, with all due respect (belief is belief and thus there is not much we can say about some- one else's belief except that it exists), what you are saying here is based on YOUR beliefs about enlightenment, beliefs that were carefully cultivated by Maharishi and by the TM movement. YOU believe that because a person is enlightened they have better judgement than the non-enlightened. I don't. I believe that the Sixth Dalai Lama was enlightened, but his judgement got him murdered by his own monks, in collusion with the Chinese. YOU seem to believe that the only thing a person CAN rationally do if he believes that a person is enlightened is stick by him, work within his organization forever. THAT is what you are angry about, but Chopra *obviously* didn't believe that. What's WRONG with him not believing that? YOU seem to feel that Maharishi is enlightened and YOU don't act like you're claiming Chopra should have acted. Don't you detect a little cognitive dissonance here?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Pundits Fleeced
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rick Archer rick@ wrote: When they were met in Chicago just prior to boarding the plane they were ordered to surrender the money, apparently by someone representing the Varma family. The pundits were not pleased but they felt they had no choice. I'm just thinking that the India TMO may not have appropiated quite as many funds as we have suspected. I'm thinking that the big push to embezzle as much cash from the greater TMO is on in full swing, to be accomplished before the bozos left in charge figure out how much *has* been embezelled. I honestly suspect that the Rajas are going to find out soon that they are in charge of a supposedly 2.5 billion dollar organization in which no one can find the money. It's all mysteriously disappeared. In other words, I wouldn't be surprised to see the TMO in bankruptcy proceedings within a few short years, as the full extent of the embezellment is revealed.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I Think We Need To Know
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LOL. There are plenty of fully enlightened folks in the TM from the cooks to da King (I assume) but the TMO definition of full enlightenment is merely that one have a sufficiently stress free nervous system that one never loses Self, even during intense activity or sleep. Not a big deal: as MMY says, merely normal. Does King Tony float at will? seems to be what you are asking. It seems obvious that MMY wasn't a perfected floater since he died of old age, so why would you expect King Tony to be? Lawson, just as a point, not everyone *believes* the TMO definition of enlightenment. The first part above makss sense to me as an over- simplified baseline for enlightenment. But the floating thing? I don't believe that for an instant, and neither do 99% of the enlightenment traditions on the planet. Why do you? Oh yeah, I forgot...Maharishisez.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Past life experience and how it relates to practice in this life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ispiritkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for posting this, Turq. After reading another thread about MMY's zany behavior, it occurred to me that maybe Mahesh himself anticipated that a householder would spend only a very small slice of his enlightenment path with the TMO (additional time with tm itself, but not with TMO). By pushing people constantly, he had to know he would push them out of the TMO envelope, and onto something else. There is a case to be made for this. My reason for not believing it completely is how Maharishi tended to *treat* the people he'd pushed out of the nest. If he had continued to refer to them with respect, that would indicate one thing; to refer to them in derogatory terms, as he often did, seems to indicate another. May I ask who was this smorgasbord-style teacher you had? He was a controversial spiritual teacher by the name of Rama (Frederick Lenz). The Wikipedia page on him gives an overview of both positive and negative. I try not to talk about him here because people get a little hinky when I do. Pretty much anything I had to say about the dude I said in the book I wrote about him. It's on the Web, at http://www.ramalila.net/RoadTripMind --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Therefore we had all developed different predi- lections, spiritually. He presented lots of differ- ent paths and options to us because he didn't think that there was such a thing as One size fits all. Instead he seemed to figure that if he threw out enough breadcrumbs, sooner or later each of us would find the breadcrumbs that tasted best *to us*, and would follow them down the path that was best *for us*. I think he was onto something.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Selfless Service --- and Breaking the Link Between Fruit and Action
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Don't forget Jennifer's comment, that Maharishi often derided the Westerners as gullible fools for believing all the things he told them. That's oneof the women who reports that MMY slept with her dozens of times? Well... LOL. A trustworthy soul, for certain. Lawson, you've been doing well, but it's time to up the dosage of your OCD medication again. This is beneath even you. YOU don't want to believe what she says, so SHE is untrustworthy? Man, seriously...just LOOK at what you're doing here. You're going out of your way to systematically demonize people who don't believe about Maharishi the things you believe about him. It's not a matter of a simple difference of opinion, where they just have a different view on the subject than you do. Instead, you seem compelled to suggest -- and strongly -- that the people who hold these different views are deficient in character and somehow untrustworthy. OCD, schmoeCD. What is WRONG with you that someone else is not entitled to believe what they want about Maharishi or about Deepak Chopra? What is WRONG with you that your first reaction when they believe some- thing that you do not is to suggest that they are not only wrong, but broken or untrustworthy in some way? I *understand* that you believe what you believe. I have no problem with that. But it's just a belief, man. SO is what these other people believe. NONE of you has any handle on truth as far as I can tell. I don't believe that floating has anything whatsoever to do with enlightenment, but at the same time I don't feel compelled to suggest that because *you* believe the definition of enlightenment is floating that there is something wrong with you, or that you are untrustworthy. You seem to feel the need to imply that about these people you're demonizing lately. Why do you think that is? Where do you think you *learned* this behavior? BTW, the other day you suggested that people here didn't cut Judy a break because she was a woman and that they have...uh...unresolved anger against women. I'm suggesting that there may be more than a little projection going on in that statement. Look what you just did to a woman you have never met who has done nothing more than report her experiences.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Chopra Letter
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Thing is, Chopra decided that he had better judgement than MMY and could do more. Which is certainly his choice, but raises an interesting question: if he really thought that MMY was enlightened, as he now claims, why would he assume his judgemnt was better than MMY's? At the least, it would have made more sense for him to stick around, and work *within*the enlightened man's organization then to leave the only person on Earth he was certain was enlightened (to quote one of his articles about MMY). Lawson, the thing is, at some point you realize you have given your all. You have been given assignments, and you have fulfilled them. Sometimes beyond expectations. And then something happens which doesn't make sense, and you realize that it may be time to leave. At least that is my story. Mine, too. But I think the thing to remember, Lurk, is that some people can never forgive someone for not going the distance and sticking with Maharishi *no matter what*. They have this fantasy idea of what being a student of an enlightened teacher IS. That student just DOES WHAT HE IS TOLD, period. There is NO situation in which the student is justified in NOT doing what the teacher has told him to do. That is essen- tially the position that Lawson is taking with regard to Deepak Chopra -- if he believed that Maharishi was enlightened, he should have done what Maharishi said. The most fascinating thing about this number to me is that most of the people who run it NEVER WALKED THEIR OWN TALK. *Lawson* has never done what he is harranguing Chopra for not doing. This kind of this is the way a disciple of an enlight- ened being 'should' act stuff might be palatable coming from one of the Rajas who HAS walked his talk for decades. But coming from someone who NEVER did any of the things he's suggesting a disciple should?
[FairfieldLife] Cute How Much Creative Intelligence Did TM Give You? Word Quiz
This one's fun. There is a simple answer that most people get, but another answer that few people get (including myself). The answer is a few page scrolls down, but give it a try first. What do these words have in common? Banana Dresser Grammar Potato Revive Uneven Assess Have you already given up? Give it another try . . Answer: No, it is not that each of the words contains two sets of double letters. That's true, but also in each of the words listed, if you take the first letter, place it at the end of the word and then spell the word backwards, it is the same word.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Selfless Service --- and Breaking the Link Between Fruit and Action
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity ruthsimplicity@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: Ruth, we're all trained one way or another. It is impossible for any living thing not to be trained from birth on (and maybe before). And all training looks more or less normal from the inside. It only gets scary when we see training radically different from our own. Liberation means a perceived spiritual independence from training. The training is still there, but you don't identify with it. From that point of view, all training looks bizarre--even, and, maybe especially, the training most of us consider to be the normal state for most folks at any given time in any given culture. We are all a product of our genes and our experiences and some might say, our karma. We all look at the world through those glasses. I have yet to meet a person that I would consider liberated from this state. My reference to scary isn't a reference to different experiences or backgrounds. Scary is when people lose their capacity for independent thought and do anything that their master tells them to do, no matter how inappropriate because it simply cannot be wrong. I am not saying that occurred with MMY, but there are signs . . . . Thank god MMY was not the type to ask people to drink the kool-aid. Funny that you brought this up Ruth. One of the reasons I originally bailed on MMY and TMO was because it had occurred to me that I was rationalizing every kind of behavior for him. If he put someone though some kind of mental torment, it was to burn that person's karmanot that he was pissed off and being ornery. If he lost his temper (and boy could he EVER!) it was all part of some cosmic play, certainly not that he was just in a bad mood. As I thought about it I realized that if he had ordered someone killed, for instance (not saying that he did mind you) that I would have also excused this, since heywe're all in this for the long hall anyway and he was simply moving that person ahead on the long corridor of time. I needed to get off of that bus. Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. ~~ Buddha
[FairfieldLife] The two sets of rules for assessing truth (was Re: My Dinner With Mahapatra)
H. T'would seem that there are a few...uh... discrepancies between Dr. Mahapatra's view of things when he's broke and has been abandoned by Maharishi and the TMO (this earlier account) and his recent letter now that he's got a cushy job with the Enlightened Sentencing Project. What we'll see now is that the same people who pointed out the possible discrepancies and inconsistencies in Chopra's account and used them as a way to either imply or state outright that the writer is lying and untrustworthy will now do the same for Dr. Mahapatra, based on his two conflicting views of the same events. Yeah, right. Or, it could be that nitpicking to find possible discrepancies and using them to try to demonize the writer is something that one does only for *critics* of Maharishi and the TM movement. Those who are now supporters of Maharishi and the TM movement get a free ride when their stories are inconsistent. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the same folks who have been Googling up a firestorm and trying to find any way they possibly can to suggest that the discrep- ancies and inconsistencies they see in Chopra's stories are a bad thing, and using these inconsis- tencies to demonize him and portray him as a liar will now do exactly the same thing for Mahapatra, and in exactly the same volume of posts. Yeah, right. Those who point out that the fence is falling apart and shaky and that it was never much of a fence in the first place get get the full-on Google-bomb-em- back-to-the-stone-age treatment and get demonized. Those who attempt to slap a fresh coat of whitewash on the fence get a free ride. Note also -- if it happens -- that not a WORD will be said by the Chopra demonizers about several other interesting points in Dr. Mahapatra's earlier account -- the bilking of dying patients' families, the depiction of Maharishi as a megalomaniac, his paranoia about the CIA and about poisoning, the undue influence his family had on him, and the way that Maharishi followed through on his promises. If they don't get mentioned, I guess that means that these sorts of things are not candidates for analysis and discussion in the pursuit of truth. Again, it seems to be because there are different rules for assessing the words of a current TM supporter than there are for assessing the words of a TM critic. I seem to remember that the rules for the latter have been characterized in the past here on FFL as being founded in a quest for honesty and a desire to determine the truth. Yeah, right. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak [EMAIL PROTECTED] reposted: My Dinner With Doctor Mahapatra, He says he was M's personal physician from about 87 to 91. His English was a bit hard to understand so I'll do my best to relay some of the interesting things he said. After 91, (I'm not sure of exact dates) M had him as one of the people in charge of a group of 6000 boys (M calls them pundits...). At some point M's family told M that they didn't like what was going on with the big group (I don't have any details) and M dismantled the whole thing sending all the boys home to all the families consternation. Maha Patra was in the dog house after that, which sounded like about 95 or 96. He said it was very uncomfortable dealing with all the boys families during that time. Patra said in 87 he was called to M's side in Noida, India and M was rolling on the ground, screaming with the pain. He had pancreitis (sorry for spelling). Patra put him on a pain killer and a sedative. M eventually went to England for 6 months or so for treatment for this. M is diabetic and his family has a history of diabetes. I wonder if his high sugar intake had anything to do with it? When in England everything was kept very secret. When some reporters heard he was at a particular hotel, they would rapidly disappear to another location. During that time M had his heart attack. I didn't get much of the details. M didn't have heart surgery but he did have angeoplasty at a hospital in Holland. M used western drugs and western hospitals while promoting Ayurveda as the be all and end all. M has good days and bad days and has variety of health problems. He stays out of view on the bad days. Patra says M is a megamaniac after world power, (we're all surprised). He says the only ones M trusts are his family members, who he gives untold millions to. M thinks all Americans are CIA and is really paranoid. M asked him if he could test the blood of M's relatives to see if someone was trying to poison them. He says M's family members are not all good people or ethical people and that they have undue influence on M's decisions. He had not heard any stories of M with women. Patra said he spoke with Deepak, his friend, who told him that all the problems started one time when Deepak had to leave M and M wanted him to not go. Deepak told M that he had speaking engagements for thousands of people
[FairfieldLife] Re: UK to license smokers (and that's the least of what they're doing)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7247470.stm I don't know what it's like for those of you who live in the UK, but from the point of view of we other EU residents, your country must be going through some weird shit lately, possibly weirder even than under Blair. You're now officially the most surveilled society on the planet. Each of you are filmed on the average of 80 times a day, on closed circuit cameras that have all been networked (even if they're private, on ATMs and the like) so that the government can use them watch everybody. And, as attested to by friends who tried to travel there recently from Spain, you're cracking down on tourists who overstay their EU tourist visas. A couple of friends who were a few days over the limit of their three-month visa flew into Britain for a few days' visit last week, prior to their return to the US. The officials at the airport looked at their passports and dragged them out of line, took all of their possessions away from them, and wouldn't let them call anyone. They put them in a locked detention cell with no beds in it overnight where they had to sleep on the floor with 20 other detainees stopped for similar tourist visa violations, and then put them on the next plane back to where they had come from in the morning. This was a married couple who were obviously well off. They were just passing through, and had unintentionally gone over the limit on their tourist visas because they had been having fun touring Europe, moving from country to country. Each time they did they got new stamps on their passports, and thought that that was sufficient to renew their three-month tourist visas. Trouble was they never traveled outside EU countries, and the new crackdown says that tourists have to leave the EU *completely* after three months. Everyone treated this way had black marks stamped on their passport records such that they will prob- ably have trouble traveling anywhere in the world from now on, because they have been officially deported from a country. As far as I know, even though the overstaying the tourist visas thing IS a larger EU concern, no other country in the EU is reacting like this and getting all gestapo on people's asses. So tell me, those of you who live there...what the FUCK is going on? I don't know what's going on but it scares the hell out of me. The story above about your friends disturbs me a lot, we never hear about things like that in the press here, I hate to think our country treats people like that. It's very paranoid, but the tabloids have been whipping people into a xenophobic frenzy recently and the government uses them as a barometer for the national mood, I hate to think it's gone this far though. I can see the far-right doing well in the next elections. As for the erosion of civil liberties, the legislation has crept in since 9/11 bit by bit our hard won liberty has been eroded, I don't know why people don't care about this maybe it's the slow drip-drip that that people I talk to assume that the government has our best interests at heart, I've never been that trusting. The police are never slow to abuse their power, anti terrorist legislation can be used to arrest people for just about anything. I used to be a regular demo attendee always trying to change the world or at least the government. I can't do it anymore cos it's illegal, yep someone got arrested and held without charge for 4 days just for reading out the names of war-dead in Iraq in public. And I don't think the kids are too bothered, probably got enough worries paying off their students debts and looking forward to those mortgages to care. And the CCTV thing, that really winds me up, everywhere you go there are cameras, even when I'm walking the dog in the morning they're following me, what are they expecting me to do? strap explosives to her and blow up the police station? It's madness, they even watch me when I'm doing chin-ups on the swings in the park, I give them a volley of rude hand signals for that, quite surprised I haven't been arrested actually. As they monitor all e-mails too I'll probably get my door kicked in by the spooks tonight, if you never hear from me again I'm rotting in a cell somewhere. They have plans for roadside cameras to log every car that drives past, face recognition software so they can automatically track whoever they want wherever they want. The Stasi would have loved technology like that. I think that could be the problem, a lot of this only happens because the technology has been invented and someone in the government thinks it will save time and money to use cameras rather than actual policemen and then it gets used to monitor just for the sheer
[FairfieldLife] Re: UK to license smokers (and that's the least of what they're doing)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 16, 2008, at 5:29 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: Everyone treated this way had black marks stamped on their passport records such that they will prob- ably have trouble traveling anywhere in the world from now on, because they have been officially deported from a country. As far as I know, even though the overstaying the tourist visas thing IS a larger EU concern, no other country in the EU is reacting like this and getting all gestapo on people's asses. So tell me, those of you who live there...what the FUCK is going on? Are you aware that this is the new policy and that mass deportations now seem to be the order of the day? My friends said that the scene at the airport and in the detention cell was like something out of the film Children Of Men, and that they will never under any circumstances set foot in the UK again. It's all because the TMO pulled out of England, Barry, and took all their support of nature with them. Things there will never be normal and sane again, you know, like it is here in America. :) Sal I know TMers who actually think like that Sal. When that poor Brazillian guy was mistaken for a terrorist and shot dead on a train in London it was just after MMY closed the movement and a lot of TM folk made the link
[FairfieldLife] Re: More on Deepak/Mahapatra
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From someone on Huffington Post This letter by Dr. Mahapatra that the TM movement is circulating is most peculiar. I heard full accounts of this episode in Maharishi's life over a decade ago. Because of the extraordinary circumstances, I paid close attention to details. One of the themes of that time was extreme secrecy, not only between Maharishi and the outside world, but even between Maharishi's various caregivers and family members. Maharishi was listed under a false name , and payments were in cash. Kirti and family weren't allowed into the room. Deepak reported to them daily. This was per Maharishi's instructions. The only constant companion to Maharishi throughout the time was Deepak. Mahapatra was there for much of the time, but not all. His primary function was to buy groceries. Deepak did speak with Mahapatra regarding many medical details as the BUN and creatinine levels, so it's odd that he would deny the kidney failure, or quibble about the timing. The whole rationale for moving Maharishi to England was for dialysis. Other events such as carrying Maharishi into the hospital and the blood transfusion, Mahapatra presumably did not know happened. From my perspective, as a health professional, if I carried a saint with no vital signs through London traffic into a hospital, I'd remember that. Likewise, long discussions prior to giving my blood for transfusion to an anemic patient, is an event I wouldn't forget. What really surprised me is that Mahapatra brought up the issue of money. The money was offered to Deepak's father who was still an occasional visitor. Maharishi asked one of his close assistants to give the elder Dr. Chopra a couple of sealed suitcases of US and European currency. Deepak's father saw it as an under the table payoff and refused it out of principle. The money incident deeply insulted Deepak's mother causing her to cry for days. I have heard other unsavory financial details that Deepak's account charitably ommitted. Regarding the helicopter ride to Vlodrop, who knows? Regardless, I would trust the account of the person who was there with Maharishi the whole time. HYPERLINK http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/the-maharishi-years-the_b_86412 .htmlReply | HYPERLINK http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/the-maharishi-years-the_b_86412 .html#comment_11483686Parent | posted 03:36 pm on 02/16/2008 From Deepak: A word to my rebutter: I feel that the probity of my account speaks for itself. I have not embellished any details of my past with Maharishi. Once he regained consciousness after his health crisis in London, he controlled whatever version of events he wanted the world and the TM movement to hear. For the past seventeen years the main version was outright denial. The person who has tried to refute my account at Huffington was marginally present on the scene, but even that was intermittent. He wasn't privy to the critical events I recount. Perhaps he wants to imagine a nicer reality for the sake of the departed. The truth will be more healing. Maharishi was as enigmatic as anyone can possibly be, and it serves no good purpose to weave more mystery around him when the facts are clear to those who witnessed them. Love, Deepak And out pops the word *enigma-tic* once again, isn't that fascinating, that word is used so ofter to describe MMY. Eberwein also used it, as well as myself
[FairfieldLife] Re: UK to license smokers (and that's the least of what they're doing)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7247470.stm I don't know what it's like for those of you who live in the UK, but from the point of view of we other EU residents, your country must be going through some weird shit lately, possibly weirder even than under Blair. You're now officially the most surveilled society on the planet. Each of you are filmed on the average of 80 times a day, on closed circuit cameras that have all been networked (even if they're private, on ATMs and the like) so that the government can use them watch everybody. And, as attested to by friends who tried to travel there recently from Spain, you're cracking down on tourists who overstay their EU tourist visas. A couple of friends who were a few days over the limit of their three-month visa flew into Britain for a few days' visit last week, prior to their return to the US. The officials at the airport looked at their passports and dragged them out of line, took all of their possessions away from them, and wouldn't let them call anyone. They put them in a locked detention cell with no beds in it overnight where they had to sleep on the floor with 20 other detainees stopped for similar tourist visa violations, and then put them on the next plane back to where they had come from in the morning. This was a married couple who were obviously well off. They were just passing through, and had unintentionally gone over the limit on their tourist visas because they had been having fun touring Europe, moving from country to country. Each time they did they got new stamps on their passports, and thought that that was sufficient to renew their three-month tourist visas. Trouble was they never traveled outside EU countries, and the new crackdown says that tourists have to leave the EU *completely* after three months. Everyone treated this way had black marks stamped on their passport records such that they will prob- ably have trouble traveling anywhere in the world from now on, because they have been officially deported from a country. As far as I know, even though the overstaying the tourist visas thing IS a larger EU concern, no other country in the EU is reacting like this and getting all gestapo on people's asses. So tell me, those of you who live there...what the FUCK is going on? I don't know what's going on but it scares the hell out of me. The story above about your friends disturbs me a lot, we never hear about things like that in the press here. The reason my friends were told that they were taking their mobile phones away is that they didn't want anyone taking photos and selling them to the press. No shit. I hate to think our country treats people like that. It's very paranoid, but the tabloids have been whipping people into a xenophobic frenzy recently and the government uses them as a barometer for the national mood, I hate to think it's gone this far though. I can see the far-right doing well in the next elections. Remember the night I volunteered to gather up the Maharishi photos and put them into a Word file for people because I was up anyway? This is what I was up for. They finally, after six hours of being held incommunicado, put a phone in the detention cell so that people could call someone. It was dial-out only so that no one could call them, and the detainees could only call landlines, collect. I was the only person my friends could get ahold of. The wife was as hysterical as I have ever heard anyone be in my life, in tears, barely able to control herself. She had been treated like the worst sort of criminal for six hours for wanting to visit London. As for the erosion of civil liberties, the legislation has crept in since 9/11 bit by bit our hard won liberty has been eroded, I don't know why people don't care about this maybe it's the slow drip-drip that that people I talk to assume that the government has our best interests at heart, I've never been that trusting. The police are never slow to abuse their power, anti terrorist legislation can be used to arrest people for just about anything. This is what I've heard about the UK as well. I've been pretty vocal about why I no longer live in the US; it's sad to me to see another country that was *founded* on liberty and the rights of individuals following its lead. I used to be a regular demo attendee always trying to change the world or at least the government. I can't do it anymore cos it's illegal, yep someone got arrested and held without charge for 4 days just for reading out the names of war-dead in Iraq in public. And I don't think the kids are too
[FairfieldLife] Re: Selfless Service --- and Breaking the Link Between Fruit and Action
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ispiritkin ispiritkin@ wrote: Creating that kind of experience for a student is quite an accomplishment for a sage, no? No. And what does that say about Nader, Morris, Hagelin et. al? To me it says [and has for years] that Transcendental Meditation is a do-it-yourself proposition and you can't look to Maharishi or to the TMO for what you're looking for within yourself. Neti, neti - not this, not this. Some seem to have bought into this and this instead.
[FairfieldLife] The two sets of rules for assessing truth (was Re: My Dinner With Mahapatra)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: H. T'would seem that there are a few...uh... discrepancies between Dr. Mahapatra's view of things when he's broke and has been abandoned by Maharishi and the TMO (this earlier account) and his recent letter Which discrepancies would these be? Please list them for us. now that he's got a cushy job with the Enlightened Sentencing Project. Which project has been in serious conflict with the TMO, such that it must provide a disclaimer that it is not associated with the TMO. From its Web site: The Enlightened Sentencing Project is a 501 (c) 3 organization and is not affiliated with the national Transcendental Meditation organization. So what would be the difference between Dr. Mahapatra's attitude toward MMY in 2005 and now? What we'll see now is that the same people who pointed out the possible discrepancies and inconsistencies in Chopra's account and used them as a way to either imply or state outright that the writer is lying and untrustworthy will now do the same for Dr. Mahapatra, based on his two conflicting views of the same events. Again, please, what are the conflicts? Have you actually compared the two? Yeah, right. Or, it could be that nitpicking to find possible discrepancies and using them to try to demonize the writer is something that one does only for *critics* of Maharishi and the TM movement. Those who are now supporters of Maharishi and the TM movement get a free ride when their stories are inconsistent. belly laugh Dr. Mahapatra is *not* now a supporter of MMY and the TMO. You've got your panties in such a twist that anyone dare challenge Chopra that you can't even get the elementary facts straight. snip Those who point out that the fence is falling apart and shaky and that it was never much of a fence in the first place get get the full-on Google-bomb-em- back-to-the-stone-age treatment and get demonized. Those who attempt to slap a fresh coat of whitewash on the fence get a free ride. What in Dr. Mahapatra's latest account can *possibly* be characterized as whitewashing MMY? Note also -- if it happens -- that not a WORD will be said by the Chopra demonizers about several other interesting points in Dr. Mahapatra's earlier account -- the bilking of dying patients' families, the depiction of Maharishi as a megalomaniac, his paranoia about the CIA and about poisoning, the undue influence his family had on him, and the way that Maharishi followed through on his promises. If they don't get mentioned, I guess that means that these sorts of things are not candidates for analysis and discussion in the pursuit of truth. No, they're candidates for a *different* discussion. Again, it seems to be because there are different rules for assessing the words of a current TM supporter than there are for assessing the words of a TM critic. I seem to remember that the rules for the latter have been characterized in the past here on FFL as being founded in a quest for honesty and a desire to determine the truth. Yeah, right. How well do you believe you conform to those rules, Barry? I'm sure you will immediately rise to the occasion and document your charges that there are discrepancies between Dr. Mahapatra's accounts, as well as documenting your assertion that Dr. Mahaptra has again become a supporter of MMY and the TMO via his employment with the Enlightened Sentencing Project. Yeah, right.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
Mine neither. I find ancient texts interesting from a historical point of view. Aside from that they have little relevance in a world. The ancients did not know about basic things we take for granted effecting on our ethical viewpoint. Concepts like human equality, human rights, and individual freedom. These do not work in the paternalistic tribal world that brought us the five books of Moses. Well said! The lack of this POV is causing such suffering in the world IMO. (Wow two abbreviations in one sentence, I am practically texting! I feel s young.) I thought this was my favorite part of what you wrote until I found this little gem: I am making the point that the rules imposed by the OT are so diverse and arcane that we are forced to select what is for our core belief and what to throw out. We have to make our own moral distinction. In other words, it sells itself as The Law of Moses but in the end it is your existential point of view that interprets the text. Its the Law of Fred. Tell it brother! And on a Sunday morning no less. The way super religious people dodge this obvious reality in their attempt at asserting a moral high ground makes me crazy. (What...oh...OK...I am being asked to change that to crazier. Damn lawyers!) When the Christian right decides that they will follow God's law and stone adulterers instead of getting stoned WITH adulterers (my personal preference) they can claim to use that old book as a moral guide. Till then it's best use is in the middle of my bookshelf with the center of the pages cut out for a secret stash. (If I leave it out the adulterers steal some.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boyboy_8 no_reply@ wrote: Life is too short to cherry pick quotes from OT? Huh? It depends on what interests you have. You came to this group with a kvetch about TM based on arbitrary pronouncements made in the OT. It seems that if you are going to accept one core belief than you should be bound to follow all the core beliefs. Otherwise you are making your own moral distinctions on which of g-d's laws are moral and which are not. On the other hand, if you understand the OT to be the work of men, then you should understand it has shortcomings. After a few thousand years it has morphed through rewrites and additions. When written it certainly was subject to the social conditions of the people who wrote it. People who lived in fear of very difficult survival conditions. This colored their accounts. My central core belief system is not Gita or Upanishads or any other Vedic/Hindu/Indian opus. It's the OT; so, I refer to it over and over again. Mine neither. I find ancient texts interesting from a historical point of view. Aside from that they have little relevance in a world. The ancients did not know about basic things we take for granted effecting on our ethical viewpoint. Concepts like human equality, human rights, and individual freedom. These do not work in the paternalistic tribal world that brought us the five books of Moses. Lot did offer up his daughter, your memory is correct. The angels that Abraham had come visit him were now in Sodom/Gomorrah and were outside Lot's door when a group of locals wanted to get to know them. Lot was horrified (the Rabbinic commentary says that they wanted to have their way with these strangers - sexually, if you can believe this!) and so Lot just brings them into this house and slams the door shut. The locals won't go away, so Lot offers his daughter to them if they'd just leave the strangers alone. I do not understand a word of this part of Genesis. So, I do not know what to say. It is true that the OT has many references to slavery between Hebrews. Why it was allowed is hotly debated. Working out your karma? Honestly, its a deep subject and I'm not sure this is the venue. Its only one example I point out. There are others. I am making the point that the rules imposed by the OT are so diverse and arcane that we are forced to select what is for our core belief and what to throw out. We have to make our own moral distinction. In other words, it sells itself as The Law of Moses but in the end it is your existential point of view that interprets the text. Its the Law of Fred. I am saying drop the pretense that it anything but the Law of Fred. If the OT tells us how to live morally and we are to take it all in as a whole, then do you accept that in the Biblical days a Hebrew might end up as a slave to another Hebrew? It's a tough one Fred, my lansman, its not so tough. You know in your modern heart of heart that slavery is really really a bad thing. You know that since the 17th century enlightenment we have risen above old testament fixed dogma. Human Rights and equality have their place in ethics based not on g-d's
[FairfieldLife] Re: My Dinner With Doctor Mahapatra
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity ruthsimplicity@ wrote: So what I want to know, did MMY fill this out: http://www.vedicvibration.com/apply/endocrine/pancreas.html and go on an appropriately kapha pacifying diet? Dunno. I doubt it. M. had a long hstory as a sweet addict (Swiss chocolates, sweet rasayanas, honey, etc.). And of course, sweet tastes increase kapha-dosha. I was joking, probably in bad taste. :)
[FairfieldLife] Maharishi's perspective [was Re: making the rounds: another view of Deepak]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jyouells2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom azgrey@ wrote: Did you go thru with the recertification process Rick? From what little I know it sounds insulting to ask people to do that who have initiated thousands. Was it done as akin to a loyalty test? like everything else Maharishi did, the recertification was to break people out of their consensual and complacent realities. He sure wasn't here to be anyone's buddy and pal. He didn't give a shit if you hated his guts, or were dismayed by his actions, or thought him unfair or unlawful or immoral or of a flawed character. He only wanted to do one thing and that was to rejuvenate enlightenment within the earth's populace, and if people didn't like the way he went about it, boo- fucking-hoo. no apologies, no problem. What bullshit Tough love spirituality? Right. JohnY I've said this before, to the huge audience of about 23 people here: To be a disciple of Maharishi is not for the fainthearted.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I Think We Need To Know
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: LOL. There are plenty of fully enlightened folks in the TM from the cooks to da King (I assume) but the TMO definition of full enlightenment is merely that one have a sufficiently stress free nervous system that one never loses Self, even during intense activity or sleep. Not a big deal: as MMY says, merely normal. Does King Tony float at will? seems to be what you are asking. It seems obvious that MMY wasn't a perfected floater since he died of old age, so why would you expect King Tony to be? Lawson, just as a point, not everyone *believes* the TMO definition of enlightenment. The first part above makss sense to me as an over- simplified baseline for enlightenment. But the floating thing? I don't believe that for an instant, and neither do 99% of the enlightenment traditions on the planet. Why do you? Oh yeah, I forgot...Maharishisez. Huh, I've been under the impression that most enlightenment traditions DO accept MMY's premise, save that they think that it isn't necessary to actually demonstrate the ability to float to show that one is enlightened. Of course, the TM stance doesn't say its necessary that one demonstrate floating, only that if one practices the Yoga Sutra for Yogic FLying and does NOT float, then one isn't fully enlightened. Or are you talking about the aging thing? A fully enlightened personhave transcended mortality (if it be possible), according to TM theory, but aging, per se, wouldn't be a contra-indication of full enlightenment. Its not that far off from other theories of enlightenment either, as far as I am aware. Lawson Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Whatever did become of Jerry Jarvis?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boyboy_8 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: boy, I have not thought of him in a long time. All I heard was all many times removed so it's probably all garbagecan someone tell me what happened to him? Regards, Fred Someone identified as Jerry Jarvis, started meditation in 1961, appears on the History Channel documentary about MMY that came out recently. You can find it on youtube. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip When the Christian right decides that they will follow God's law and stone adulterers instead of getting stoned WITH adulterers (my personal preference) they can claim to use that old book as a moral guide. FWIW, Christians are not bound by Jewish Law. They may draw moral lessons from the Hebrew Scriptures but are not obligated to follow any of its commandments but the Big 10.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I Think We Need To Know
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: LOL. There are plenty of fully enlightened folks in the TM from the cooks to da King (I assume) but the TMO definition of full enlightenment is merely that one have a sufficiently stress free nervous system that one never loses Self, even during intense activity or sleep. Not a big deal: as MMY says, merely normal. Does King Tony float at will? seems to be what you are asking. It seems obvious that MMY wasn't a perfected floater since he died of old age, so why would you expect King Tony to be? Lawson, just as a point, not everyone *believes* the TMO definition of enlightenment. The first part above makss sense to me as an over- simplified baseline for enlightenment. But the floating thing? I don't believe that for an instant, and neither do 99% of the enlightenment traditions on the planet. Why do you? Oh yeah, I forgot...Maharishisez. Huh, I've been under the impression that most enlightenment traditions DO accept MMY's premise, save that they think that it isn't necessary to actually demonstrate the ability to float to show that one is enlightened. Of course, the TM stance doesn't say its necessary that one demonstrate floating, only that if one practices the Yoga Sutra for Yogic FLying and does NOT float, then one isn't fully enlightened. Or are you talking about the aging thing? A fully enlightened person have transcended mortality (if it be possible), according to TM theory, but aging, per se, wouldn't be a contra-indication of full enlightenment. I'm talking about levitation. Its not that far off from other theories of enlightenment either, as far as I am aware. I would suggest then that you are not aware of very much. I know of NO spiritual tradition on the planet with the exception of Maharishi's TMO that believes that the indicator of full enlight- enment is the ability to float (levitate). I know of many who would, in fact, disagree with this vehemently. Please find me a quote that says otherwise. If you can't, I suggest that your impression came about because you just accepted what Maharishi said was the definition of full enlightenment BECAUSE HE SAID IT, and that you never looked into any other traditions' definitions of enlightenment, because you never had to. You already HAD the definition, and it was true because Maharishisez.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More on Deepak/Mahapatra
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip From Deepak: A word to my rebutter: I feel that the probity of my account speaks for itself. Boy, I don't know what this could possibly mean. How can it speak for itself if the facts it states are in dispute? Why didn't he use the word truth or accuracy? I looked up probity in my dictionary: : adherence to the highest principles and ideals : UPRIGHTNESS synonyms see HONESTY Maybe he chose probity for a reason. I have not embellished any details of my past with Maharishi. Once he regained consciousness after his health crisis in London, he controlled whatever version of events he wanted the world and the TM movement to hear. For the past seventeen years the main version was outright denial. The person who has tried to refute my account at Huffington was marginally present on the scene, but even that was intermittent. He wasn't privy to the critical events I recount. Perhaps he wants to imagine a nicer reality for the sake of the departed. This is peculiar as well. How was Dr. Mahapatra's account a nicer reality for the sake of the departed?? For sure, Chopra's account, real or imagined, is a nicer reality than Dr. Mahapatra's, but for the sake of Chopra. It's also of interest that what Dr. Mahapatra asserted in his letter, and his account as reported by anonymousff on FFL in 2005, are fully consistent. In 2005, he was not attempting to rebut Chopra; and that account is highly critical of MMY. We do know for a fact that 1991 cannot be the correct date for MMY's illness if, as Chopra claims, it coincided with the publication of Perfect Health. We also know Chopra himself, in public accounts, has given a wide range of dates for MMY's illness, from late '80s to 1991 to 1996, and that only late '80s is not contradicted by facts on the record. Dr. Mahapatra gave the date of 1987 in anonymousff's report of his meeting with him. We also know for a fact that Chopra's claim that MMY was out of touch with the movement for an entire year cannot be true, if, as at_man_and_brahman has asserted, he was always present for both the Guru Purnima and January 12 celebrations. So while Chopra's account may speak for itself in terms of some higher probity not dependent on factual accuracy, the truth of its details remains to be confirmed against a set of competing details (some of them supplied by Chopra himself in other accounts).
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Past life experience and how it relates to practice in this life
May I ask who was this smorgasbord-style teacher you had? -The other 'white meat' Rama.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Selfless Service --- and Breaking the Link Between Fruit and Action
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] BTW, the other day you suggested that people here didn't cut Judy a break because she was a woman and that they have...uh...unresolved anger against women. I'm suggesting that there may be more than a little projection going on in that statement. Look what you just did to a woman you have never met who has done nothing more than report her experiences. That you presume to have reported her experiences Certain aspects of MMY's womanizing have never quite made sense to me. That doesn't mean they didn't happen, just that htey don't make sense. Specifically, the time of life that MMY would have *started* having sex with women, and what he was doing with the rest of his time while he was doing them also. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Enlightened TM'ers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello again Jim :-) How many have attained enlightenement, at least CC, with TM according to your information ?
[FairfieldLife] Realizing Brahma
I started reading your fine discussion list after Maharishi died. I've never been one for gossip and now that I'm learning all these new details I realize that I'm still not into it. Not because it isn't interesting but because it takes so much time to sort through. I've noticed a thread that goes something like, Why would an enlightened guy do X? followed by some implication like, he wasn't enlightened or enlightened guys work in mysterious ways. After about 15 years of meditating and philosophical musing I came to the conclusion that there is no truth. That it's just something we make up and desire. It serves a very useful purpose but in our exaggerated generalization of everything we make it into something real. The next 15 years didn't change my mind any. I consider this realization of the fakeness of life to be Brahma. I am that, thou art that and all this is that. It's all fake. That's Brahma. So as to Maharishi's enlightenment. Just as soon as he realized how fake he was he was enlightened. It seems like a pretty easy thing to obtain. So what does and enlightened guy do? Anything he wants. Sam
[FairfieldLife] Re: attention sandiego
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip the insults are to the individual ego, that it ever thinks it knows what is going on within its treasured context of segregated, albeit artificial, existence. this keeps getting broken down by tearing down and destroying the ego's world view until it cannot resist any longer and surrenders, dies, disappears, and in so doing transforms into cosmic ego. there is no PTSD or PTED to experience once this process is complete because there is no longer a localized self to apply it to, no if a equals b and b equals c then a equals c. does not compute. no one home in the conventional sense. I would like to explore this a bit more with you. Several people here have implied that you previously were on this forum using a different identity, Jim Flanagan. I don't care if you use different identities. But apparently Jim Flanagan claimed he was enlightened. Do you make that claim? Tell me a bit about what enlightenment means to you. From what I have read from you, it appears that good and evil is not part of your concept of enlightenment, that when enlightened you are nature and nature has no good or evil. (I am referring to your tsunami analogy).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Selfless Service --- and Breaking the Link Between Fruit and Action
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. ~~ Buddha Thank you for the lovely and on point quote.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I Think We Need To Know
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: I know of NO spiritual tradition on the planet with the exception of Maharishi's TMO that believes that the indicator of full enlight- enment is the ability to float (levitate). I know of many who would, in fact, disagree with this vehemently. Please find me a quote that says otherwise. If you can't, I suggest that your impression came about because you just accepted what Maharishi said was the definition of full enlightenment BECAUSE HE SAID IT, and that you never looked into any other traditions' definitions of enlightenment, because you never had to. You already HAD the definition, and it was true because Maharishisez. If I may briefly interrupt this discussion, I have a question. Did MMY clearly say that if you could not float you were not enlightened? Is there a written source for that? I don't have a source, Ruth, but it has been quoted here often with no refutations from the TM faithful. The criterion may have been for full enlightenment, as Lawson has been using it. I dunno. I do know that not only do I not agree with it, back in the early days of his teaching, *Maharishi* didn't agree with it. At Squaw Valley in 1968 he gave several talks in which he said emphatically that the siddhis and the ability to perform them had nothing whatsoever to do with enlightenment. At that time he actively pooh-poohed interest in the siddhis. It was the original context of his capture the fort metaphor, as I remember. Obviously, this former teaching went by the wayside when he found a way to sell the siddhis.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I Think We Need To Know
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know of NO spiritual tradition on the planet with the exception of Maharishi's TMO that believes that the indicator of full enlight- enment is the ability to float (levitate). I know of many who would, in fact, disagree with this vehemently. Please find me a quote that says otherwise. If you can't, I suggest that your impression came about because you just accepted what Maharishi said was the definition of full enlightenment BECAUSE HE SAID IT, and that you never looked into any other traditions' definitions of enlightenment, because you never had to. You already HAD the definition, and it was true because Maharishisez. If I may briefly interrupt this discussion, I have a question. Did MMY clearly say that if you could not float you were not enlightened? Is there a written source for that?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Chopra Letter
Lawson, the thing is, at some point you realize you have given your all. You have been given assignments, and you have fulfilled them. Sometimes beyond expectations. And then something happens which doesn't make sense, and you realize that it may be time to leave. At least that is my story. OK, Lurk, now I'm curious--what was it that happened that caused you to leave? The story, please. :) Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: UK to license smokers (and that's the least of what they're doing)
On Feb 17, 2008, at 7:56 AM, hugheshugo wrote: They have plans for roadside cameras to log every car that drives past, face recognition software so they can automatically track whoever they want wherever they want. The Stasi would have loved technology like that. I think that could be the problem, a lot of this only happens because the technology has been invented and someone in the government thinks it will save time and money to use cameras rather than actual policemen and then it gets used to monitor just for the sheer control-freakness of it. What *is* the purpose of all this, hugo? It seems that if there is so much info out there, it becomes almost useless because how can anyone sift through so much? I don't understand what it's supposed to accomplish. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip When the Christian right decides that they will follow God's law and stone adulterers instead of getting stoned WITH adulterers (my personal preference) they can claim to use that old book as a moral guide. FWIW, Christians are not bound by Jewish Law. They may draw moral lessons from the Hebrew Scriptures but are not obligated to follow any of its commandments but the Big 10. I just got a note from my penis: NOW ya tell me!. The big ten may not prescribe stoning but I think adultery in one of the death sentence commandments isn't it? No seriously, I REALLY need to know!
[FairfieldLife] Re: UK to license smokers (and that's the least of what they're doing)
This whole surveillance thing has pretty much happened in the last ten years. But in the last year, I have just gotten sick about it and had to divert my mind to something else. It has become a symbol that triggers many of my paranoias -- the interment camps being built all around America, for instance. Right now, I'm having trouble even thinking about flying anywhere, because just the other day they found a SPECK of marijuana on some guy's heel and he's jailed for something that he could have picked up while walking into the airport, and now they're making it clear that if you bring a laptop they can make you show them every file on it which means they can grab your cell phone too and take down a list of all the folks you talk to. To me it smacks of the Illuminati creating such Big Brother Is Looking fears that they keep everyone at home and afraid to talk to anyone about anything. As I've said here several times: who in today's world would use certain terrorist buzz-words in emails or online postings without some trepidation that the government listeners would pick up on it and suddenly there's a knock on the door and your whole house is ransacked for terrorist-clues? It is simply and obviously a stifling of free speech and of the right to assemble and of the right to privacy. Well, one thing's certain, the masses are asses and if they ever get fed up with this deal, then I expect that all the public cameras will be vandalized by those types who are presently content to write their names with spray paint on subway cars. The populous can only take so much, ya know? But when does that happen? I'm thinking we have a lot more tamping down of the masses before any sort of backlash happens. If only BushCo had re-instituted the draft -- that would have gotten the youth up in arms about being forced to be killers of babies for oil. But nope, the powers have figured that slow but steady erosion of rights will do the trick to keep the crowds from forming. Which brings me to Obama and the huge crowds he's gathering. No other threat to GlobalBiz can match the fires he's seemingly setting in the group consciousness, and every time I catch one of his commercials, all I see is a very very dangerous man with tons of raw power to change things overnight. GlobalBiz is doing the slow erosion thingie, and here's this hippy getting everyone believing that they have RIGHTS again, and that Obama is like Christ Returned At Last to right the wrongs of all our leaders since First Bush. The thing about group consciousness is that when a mob gets a notion, it is then out of the hands of the person who put the notion into the crowd. Obama might be inspiring folks to think they'll get such big fast changes that when he takes office he will simply be unable to fulfill their expectations and he'll look like a foot dragging, glad handing, back stabbing, colluder with GlobalBiz. But who am I kidding? It won't go that far. Obama's too powerful right now, and I truly fear for his life. What's another assassination to GlobalBiz? Some headlines, some conspiracy theories, and the usual work of disinformation, lost film, pooh-poohings and there you have it: dead guy, crowds dispersed, and no one on trial except some boob they set up to pull the trigger. A Parallax View for sure. Where's Warren Beatty when you need him? Oh, wait, he died at the end of that film. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7247470.stm I don't know what it's like for those of you who live in the UK, but from the point of view of we other EU residents, your country must be going through some weird shit lately, possibly weirder even than under Blair. You're now officially the most surveilled society on the planet. Each of you are filmed on the average of 80 times a day, on closed circuit cameras that have all been networked (even if they're private, on ATMs and the like) so that the government can use them watch everybody. And, as attested to by friends who tried to travel there recently from Spain, you're cracking down on tourists who overstay their EU tourist visas. A couple of friends who were a few days over the limit of their three-month visa flew into Britain for a few days' visit last week, prior to their return to the US. The officials at the airport looked at their passports and dragged them out of line, took all of their possessions away from them, and wouldn't let them call anyone. They put them in a locked detention cell with no beds in it overnight where they had to sleep on the floor with 20 other detainees stopped for similar tourist visa violations, and then put them on the next plane back to where they had come from
[FairfieldLife] Re: Realizing Brahma
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Samuel Gravina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I started reading your fine discussion list after Maharishi died. I've never been one for gossip and now that I'm learning all these new details I realize that I'm still not into it. Not because it isn't interesting but because it takes so much time to sort through. I've noticed a thread that goes something like, Why would an enlightened guy do X? followed by some implication like, he wasn't enlightened or enlightened guys work in mysterious ways. After about 15 years of meditating and philosophical musing I came to the conclusion that there is no truth. That it's just something we make up and desire. It serves a very useful purpose but in our exaggerated generalization of everything we make it into something real. The next 15 years didn't change my mind any. I consider this realization of the fakeness of life to be Brahma. I am that, thou art that and all this is that. It's all fake. That's Brahma. So as to Maharishi's enlightenment. Just as soon as he realized how fake he was he was enlightened. It seems like a pretty easy thing to obtain. So what does and enlightened guy do? Anything he wants. Sam - That's very nice Samuel. Now, do your parents know your on the computer? -
[FairfieldLife] Re: Realizing Brahma
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When I am on my deathbed I want to look back and say that I lived a good life. Well, if you die in bed sick and all, it probably means it wasn't over the top a good life. Better to take a bullet skiing, reveling in new knowledge, laughing with friends. Or fighting with someone on FLL -- defending the knowledge. Of course, being send out into the ocean on a piece of ice -- with no food has some appeal. Actually I want to go when I am floating. Or perhaps on a weekend getaway with Maria Sharapova. The latter probably more a test of true enlightenment, and support nature. At least a sign of a great life.
[FairfieldLife] Re: attention sandiego
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity ruthsimplicity@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: snip the insults are to the individual ego, that it ever thinks it knows what is going on within its treasured context of segregated, albeit artificial, existence. this keeps getting broken down by tearing down and destroying the ego's world view until it cannot resist any longer and surrenders, dies, disappears, and in so doing transforms into cosmic ego. there is no PTSD or PTED to experience once this process is complete because there is no longer a localized self to apply it to, no if a equals b and b equals c then a equals c. does not compute. no one home in the conventional sense. I would like to explore this a bit more with you. Several people here have implied that you previously were on this forum using a different identity, Jim Flanagan. I don't care if you use different identities. But apparently Jim Flanagan claimed he was enlightened. Do you make that claim? Tell me a bit about what enlightenment means to you. From what I have read from you, it appears that good and evil is not part of your concept of enlightenment, i have no concepts of enlightenment. within the experience of enlightenment, there are no concepts. most thinking and concepts exist only for the ego's pleasure. action in enlightenment is just action-- direct experience, not much about concepts, justification, all of that ego dressing. that when enlightened you are nature and nature has no good or evil. (I am referring to your tsunami analogy). its an integrated life-- no more i end here they end there, so not many boundaries-- all flow, and flow doesn't make moral distinctions at the level of morality. so morality is transcended. of course once in the enlightened state there are discoveries to be made about the cosmic ego. in other words who's cosmos is it? and depending on the experience, the values of the enlightened will mirror the values and the personality of the owner of the cosmos. very tough to put into words and be understood clearly-- because the ego is not trying anymore to build boundaries in order to ensure its existence, change is constant and experience is constant, and though truth is known as an unmistakable dynamic energy, it is not known anymore as a set of static ideas and concepts. the point is to gain enlightenment first. I understand the difficulty of putting this in words. I want to step back a step. Are you enlightened? I am not setting up a personal attack. I am trying to figure out what enlightenment is to different people. please send me the question at my screenname @ yahoo dot com. thanks.
[FairfieldLife] Re: attention sandiego
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity ruthsimplicity@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: snip the insults are to the individual ego, that it ever thinks it knows what is going on within its treasured context of segregated, albeit artificial, existence. this keeps getting broken down by tearing down and destroying the ego's world view until it cannot resist any longer and surrenders, dies, disappears, and in so doing transforms into cosmic ego. there is no PTSD or PTED to experience once this process is complete because there is no longer a localized self to apply it to, no if a equals b and b equals c then a equals c. does not compute. no one home in the conventional sense. I would like to explore this a bit more with you. Several people here have implied that you previously were on this forum using a different identity, Jim Flanagan. I don't care if you use different identities. But apparently Jim Flanagan claimed he was enlightened. Do you make that claim? Tell me a bit about what enlightenment means to you. From what I have read from you, it appears that good and evil is not part of your concept of enlightenment, i have no concepts of enlightenment. within the experience of enlightenment, there are no concepts. most thinking and concepts exist only for the ego's pleasure. action in enlightenment is just action-- direct experience, not much about concepts, justification, all of that ego dressing. that when enlightened you are nature and nature has no good or evil. (I am referring to your tsunami analogy). its an integrated life-- no more i end here they end there, so not many boundaries-- all flow, and flow doesn't make moral distinctions at the level of morality. so morality is transcended. of course once in the enlightened state there are discoveries to be made about the cosmic ego. in other words who's cosmos is it? and depending on the experience, the values of the enlightened will mirror the values and the personality of the owner of the cosmos. very tough to put into words and be understood clearly-- because the ego is not trying anymore to build boundaries in order to ensure its existence, change is constant and experience is constant, and though truth is known as an unmistakable dynamic energy, it is not known anymore as a set of static ideas and concepts. the point is to gain enlightenment first. I understand the difficulty of putting this in words. I want to step back a step. Are you enlightened? I am not setting up a personal attack. I am trying to figure out what enlightenment is to different people.
[FairfieldLife] Re: UK to license smokers (and that's the least of what they're doing)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This whole surveillance thing has pretty much happened in the last ten years. But in the last year, I have just gotten sick about it and had to divert my mind to something else. It has become a symbol that triggers many of my paranoias -- the interment camps being built all around America, for instance. Right now, I'm having trouble even thinking about flying anywhere, because just the other day they found a SPECK of marijuana on some guy's heel and he's jailed for something that he could have picked up while walking into the airport, Man, I hope they never pry open Curtis' boot heel.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Realizing Brahma
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Samuel Gravina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I've noticed a thread that goes something like, Why would an enlightened guy do X? followed by some implication like, he wasn't enlightened or enlightened guys work in mysterious ways. What a great summary! After about 15 years of meditating and philosophical musing I came to the conclusion that there is no truth. That it's just something we make up and desire. It serves a very useful purpose but in our exaggerated generalization of everything we make it into something real. The next 15 years didn't change my mind any. I consider this realization of the fakeness of life to be Brahma. I am that, thou art that and all this is that. It's all fake. That's Brahma. So as to Maharishi's enlightenment. Just as soon as he realized how fake he was he was enlightened. It seems like a pretty easy thing to obtain. So what does and enlightened guy do? Anything he wants. Sam I am coming to the opposite conclusion. This is all effing real. What we do has consequences and we should not limit our focus to self realization or enlightenment, but to doing good. I must live like this is the only life I have. When I am on my deathbed I want to look back and say that I lived a good life.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I Think We Need To Know
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity ruthsimplicity@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: I know of NO spiritual tradition on the planet with the exception of Maharishi's TMO that believes that the indicator of full enlight- enment is the ability to float (levitate). I know of many who would, in fact, disagree with this vehemently. Please find me a quote that says otherwise. If you can't, I suggest that your impression came about because you just accepted what Maharishi said was the definition of full enlightenment BECAUSE HE SAID IT, and that you never looked into any other traditions' definitions of enlightenment, because you never had to. You already HAD the definition, and it was true because Maharishisez. If I may briefly interrupt this discussion, I have a question. Did MMY clearly say that if you could not float you were not enlightened? Is there a written source for that? I don't have a source, Ruth, but it has been quoted here often with no refutations from the TM faithful. *Cited*, not quoted. There are some quotes from MMY to this effect in some of the early articles on the TM-Sidhis program in the MIU journal Modern Science and Vedic Science, but the articles haven't been reproduced on the Web that I know of. I have copies, but unfortunately they're in deep storage. The criterion may have been for full enlightenment, as Lawson has been using it. I dunno. Yes, Unity Consciousness. That's my understanding as well. I do know that not only do I not agree with it, back in the early days of his teaching, *Maharishi* didn't agree with it. At Squaw Valley in 1968 he gave several talks in which he said emphatically that the siddhis and the ability to perform them had nothing whatsoever to do with enlightenment. At that time he actively pooh-poohed interest in the siddhis. It was the original context of his capture the fort metaphor, as I remember. Heh. The point of the capture the fort metaphor was that you weren't to get distracted from the fort (enlightenment) by all the treasures (siddhis) to be found in the surrounding territory, because once you had captured the fort, you automatically owned all the treasures in the surrounding territory as well. In other words: once you're enlightened, you'll have all the siddhis--exactly the opposite of what Barry is suggesting. Obviously, this former teaching went by the wayside when he found a way to sell the siddhis. Or, when he realized that practice of the siddhis sutras was actually designed by Patanjali as a program for achieving enlightenment, and that performing siddhis was just a byproduct, a consequence and benchmark of one's progress toward enlightenment (specifically Unity Consciousness). Whther he had this in mind all along and simply didn't want people to expect or experiment with siddhis until he had all the details of sutra practice and the rationale for it worked out, or whether the purpose of Patanjali's program was something he discovered later on, who can say? At any rate, at first MMY was voicing the conventional understanding, that Patanjali had warned *against* practicing the siddhis sutras because the siddhis were just a distraction. It's entirely possible MMY believed that at first. But as with so many other elements of the enlightenment tradition, he came to believe that the conventional understanding of Patanjali was in error: Patanjali was warning against practicing the siddhis sutras *for the sake of achieving siddhis*, as opposed to for the sake of achieving Unity Consciousness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Realizing Brahma
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Samuel Gravina sgravina@ wrote: snip After about 15 years of meditating and philosophical musing I came to the conclusion that there is no truth. That it's just something we make up and desire. It serves a very useful purpose but in our exaggerated generalization of everything we make it into something real. The next 15 years didn't change my mind any. I consider this realization of the fakeness of life to be Brahma. I am that, thou art that and all this is that. It's all fake. That's Brahma. So as to Maharishi's enlightenment. Just as soon as he realized how fake he was he was enlightened. It seems like a pretty easy thing to obtain. So what does and enlightened guy do? Anything he wants. I am coming to the opposite conclusion. This is all effing real. Exactly. The notion that the relative world isn't real is a misinterpretation IMO. Of course it's real; it's just not ALL that's real. What we do has consequences and we should not limit our focus to self realization or enlightenment, but to doing good. Exactly again. Although I may agree with Samuel theoretically that there is no truth, and I may even agree theoretically that there is no such thing as an absolute good, still there is doing good. The criteria for doing good are first Do no harm, or at the very least *try* to do no harm, and second, try to do things that have the instantaneous karmic effect of elevating your own state of attention. IMO *that* is one of the only indicators we have that we are doing good. What I couldn't agree with less is his sugges- tion that the enlightened can do anything they want and actually be enlightened. In my book the enlightened still produce karma, and thus still can create negative karma and suffer the results of it if they perform negative actions. Being able to do anything they want is lazy philosophy, and the top of a very slippery slide into Hell. Tibetan lore is full of stories of enlightened folks who believed that they could do anything they wanted, and wound up losing their enlightenment as a result. One of my favorite visual aids for explaining the karma of anything I want is to present the Before and After photos of someone in the world of who believed thoroughly that he could do anything he wanted. His exact quote on the subject was Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Aleister Crowley at the beginning of living a life based on this philosophy: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Aleister_Crowley_2.png or http://tinyurl.com/yqpa3q Aleister Crowley at the end of a life based on this philosophy: http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3376794.jpg?v=1c=ViewImagesk=2d=89B856506CE54654589639FDCAE79635A55A1E4F32AD3138 or http://tinyurl.com/3xfgk5 THAT is what believing that you can do whatever you want gets you, karmically. I must live like this is the only life I have. When I am on my deathbed I want to look back and say that I lived a good life. When I'm on mine, I want to still be looking forward. :-) But at the same time, I want to be able to look forward without having to look back in regret. Living as if the effects of my actions on others are more important than the benefits of those actions for myself is one way of trying to make sure that I *don't* look back in regret.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip When the Christian right decides that they will follow God's law and stone adulterers instead of getting stoned WITH adulterers (my personal preference) they can claim to use that old book as a moral guide. FWIW, Christians are not bound by Jewish Law. They may draw moral lessons from the Hebrew Scriptures but are not obligated to follow any of its commandments but the Big 10. Yeah. Authoritarian fundamentalist Christianity tends to adopt some of the dogmatic and contemporarily popular harsh Mosaic laws and fails to recognize the distinct [subtle and gross] break with them that Christianity introduced. FWIW - This is some of what Paul said in making that distinction: 2 Corinthians 3:13-16 13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Romans 7:6 6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. Hebrews 7:18-19 18 For there is verily a disannulling [voiding completely] of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. 19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. [words added in parentheses -jrm]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Realizing Brahma
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Samuel Gravina sgravina@ wrote: snip I've noticed a thread that goes something like, Why would an enlightened guy do X? followed by some implication like, he wasn't enlightened or enlightened guys work in mysterious ways. What a great summary! After about 15 years of meditating and philosophical musing I came to the conclusion that there is no truth. That it's just something we make up and desire. It serves a very useful purpose but in our exaggerated generalization of everything we make it into something real. The next 15 years didn't change my mind any. I consider this realization of the fakeness of life to be Brahma. I am that, thou art that and all this is that. It's all fake. That's Brahma. So as to Maharishi's enlightenment. Just as soon as he realized how fake he was he was enlightened. It seems like a pretty easy thing to obtain. So what does and enlightened guy do? Anything he wants. Sam I am coming to the opposite conclusion. This is all effing real. What we do has consequences and we should not limit our focus to self realization or enlightenment, but to doing good. I must live like this is the only life I have. When I am on my deathbed I want to look back and say that I lived a good life. ...we should not limit our focus to self realization or enlightenment, but to doing good. so in other words, rather than finding out who we are and what our purpose in this life may be, we should remain not knowing who we are, and even what this life is all about, and shrouded within our illusion, do good, whatever that may mean. are you sure that this approach will guarantee tranquility and satisfaction on your deathbed?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: UK to license smokers (and that's the least of what they're doing)
On Feb 17, 2008, at 7:59 AM, hugheshugo wrote: I know TMers who actually think like that Sal. When that poor Brazillian guy was mistaken for a terrorist and shot dead on a train in London it was just after MMY closed the movement and a lot of TM folk made the link I believe it, unfortunately. (I mean I believe they made the link, not that there actually was one.) The ME in reverse I guess, in their minds at least. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: attention sandiego
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: snip the insults are to the individual ego, that it ever thinks it knows what is going on within its treasured context of segregated, albeit artificial, existence. this keeps getting broken down by tearing down and destroying the ego's world view until it cannot resist any longer and surrenders, dies, disappears, and in so doing transforms into cosmic ego. there is no PTSD or PTED to experience once this process is complete because there is no longer a localized self to apply it to, no if a equals b and b equals c then a equals c. does not compute. no one home in the conventional sense. I would like to explore this a bit more with you. Several people here have implied that you previously were on this forum using a different identity, Jim Flanagan. I don't care if you use different identities. But apparently Jim Flanagan claimed he was enlightened. Do you make that claim? Tell me a bit about what enlightenment means to you. From what I have read from you, it appears that good and evil is not part of your concept of enlightenment, i have no concepts of enlightenment. within the experience of enlightenment, there are no concepts. most thinking and concepts exist only for the ego's pleasure. action in enlightenment is just action-- direct experience, not much about concepts, justification, all of that ego dressing. that when enlightened you are nature and nature has no good or evil. (I am referring to your tsunami analogy). its an integrated life-- no more i end here they end there, so not many boundaries-- all flow, and flow doesn't make moral distinctions at the level of morality. so morality is transcended. of course once in the enlightened state there are discoveries to be made about the cosmic ego. in other words who's cosmos is it? and depending on the experience, the values of the enlightened will mirror the values and the personality of the owner of the cosmos. very tough to put into words and be understood clearly-- because the ego is not trying anymore to build boundaries in order to ensure its existence, change is constant and experience is constant, and though truth is known as an unmistakable dynamic energy, it is not known anymore as a set of static ideas and concepts. the point is to gain enlightenment first.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I Think We Need To Know
you've read Jed McKenna and you won't turn to yourself? please kick yourself in the ass for me. thanks. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sticheau sticheau@ wrote: snip 'Cause, to use Jed's idea, if it isn't abiding, it isn't sh*t. So, to those deep in the nether regions and in the know, I ask: Is Tony Nader enlightened? It's a most simple question, Y or N. Why do I ask? Because we're all looking for someone to turn to now. We've already demonstrated to one degree or another that we won't turn to ourselves, so if not our own self, then who? I should've skipped the onions tonight, I guess. Thanks. you've read Jed McKenna and you won't turn to yourself? please kick yourself in the ass for me. thanks.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I Think We Need To Know
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity ruthsimplicity@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: I know of NO spiritual tradition on the planet with the exception of Maharishi's TMO that believes that the indicator of full enlight- enment is the ability to float (levitate). I know of many who would, in fact, disagree with this vehemently. Please find me a quote that says otherwise. If you can't, I suggest that your impression came about because you just accepted what Maharishi said was the definition of full enlightenment BECAUSE HE SAID IT, and that you never looked into any other traditions' definitions of enlightenment, because you never had to. You already HAD the definition, and it was true because Maharishisez. If I may briefly interrupt this discussion, I have a question. Did MMY clearly say that if you could not float you were not enlightened? Is there a written source for that? I don't have a source, Ruth, but it has been quoted here often with no refutations from the TM faithful. The criterion may have been for full enlightenment, as Lawson has been using it. I dunno. I do know that not only do I not agree with it, back in the early days of his teaching, *Maharishi* didn't agree with it. At Squaw Valley in 1968 he gave several talks in which he said emphatically that the siddhis and the ability to perform them had nothing whatsoever to do with enlightenment. At that time he actively pooh-poohed interest in the siddhis. It was the original context of his capture the fort metaphor, as I remember. Obviously, this former teaching went by the wayside when he found a way to sell the siddhis. i know this is a tragically un-hip perspective around here, but if i may offer a more charitable explanation for Maharishi bringing out the siddhis: i think he recognized that meditators had enough experience by the time the siddhis were introduced in the late 70's so that meditators would not get lost in the sometimes flashy experiences, and still keeping their intention on capturing the fort, could use the siddhis as a tool to further their ultimate goal. His perspective on the sidhis never changed afaik.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Selfless Service --- and Breaking the Link Between Fruit and Action
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. ~~ Buddha Thank you for the lovely and on point quote. Yeah, it gets to the bottom line for me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Realizing Brahma
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: so in other words, rather than finding out who we are and what our purpose in this life may be, we should remain not knowing who we are, and even what this life is all about, and shrouded within our illusion, do good, whatever that may mean. are you sure that this approach will guarantee tranquility and satisfaction on your deathbed? Those aren't my words. I am finding out who I am. I am comfortable in my skin. I am fulfilling my purpose in life and feel rewarded in my chosen careers. I volunteer with organizations I believe in. I lobby for causes that are important to me. This is not illusion, this is real life and real life has value. Part of real life is exploring the spiritual and I am doing that as well. part of exploring the spiritual is living a life consistent with my values. Not just sitting twice a day doing the program. Love and marriage, love and marriage Go together like a horse and carriage This I tell you brother You cant have one without the other. thanks for clarifying that, so the straw man here is just sitting twice a day doing the program. i agree that that doesn't work for me either. gotta dip the cloth and hang it in the sun and all that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Chopra Letter
Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, Lurk, now I'm curious--what was it that happened that caused you to leave? The story, please. :) Nothing earth shattering. I had some pretty good successes teaching in the midwest. Teaching many people, setting up events, celebrations, residence facilities, CIC Courses, Washington Campaign, MIU student thrown it. I was in Livingston Manor, being interviewed to go to Zambia. My interviewer was Reid Martin, (who I really liked, and felt was pretty down to earth). We had just heard a lecture from M about certain experiences we as meditators and teachers might have. Experiences had something to do with feeling in tune with the ebb and flow of world events. I related to Reid that I have/had experiences along these lines. Because of this I must have been put in the unstable category, and was not allowed to go to Zambia. Right at that moment something in me just changed, and all I could think about was leaving. No malice, no anger. Something said. Move On. And that's pretty much what I did.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Realizing Brahma
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip THAT is what believing that you can do whatever you want gets you, karmically. You mean, that you get older?
[FairfieldLife] Re: making the rounds: another view of Deepak
I missed out completely on this whole project, Tom. Was this a technique provided/sold under the auspices of the TMO? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My own experience was somewhat different probably due to not getting the 3 in 1 deal mentioned in an earlier post. I received/purchased the bliss aka psycho-physiological technique during a summer assembly in DC. After opening and placing on a table a small pocket sized two sided picture frame containing pictures of both Guru Dev and MMY, the technique was imparted. No mantra instruction was involved, hence no puja. I remember having the feeling that the warmth present was about on the level of visiting the DMV. Much later, having read that the gross was $35K and that Dr. Chopra probably received next to none of the dough, I thought I knew why. I was quite satisfied with the technique and enjoyed its effects quite readily. The price of $700 versus the $55 of my initial TM instruction years before was not really a big issue for me especially compared to the $3K spent a year earlier for the CIC. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: One thing comes to mind in this regard: someone mentioned on this forum in another posting that in Deepak's method of meditation that he imparts the mantra without doing a puja.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip When the Christian right decides that they will follow God's law and stone adulterers instead of getting stoned WITH adulterers (my personal preference) they can claim to use that old book as a moral guide. FWIW, Christians are not bound by Jewish Law. They may draw moral lessons from the Hebrew Scriptures but are not obligated to follow any of its commandments but the Big 10. Yeah. Authoritarian fundamentalist Christianity tends to adopt some of the dogmatic and contemporarily popular harsh Mosaic laws and fails to recognize the distinct [subtle and gross] break with them that Christianity introduced. FWIW - This is some of what Paul said in making that distinction: Too bad it's so anti-Semitic. 2 Corinthians 3:13-16 13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Romans 7:6 6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. Hebrews 7:18-19 18 For there is verily a disannulling [voiding completely] of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. 19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. [words added in parentheses -jrm]
[FairfieldLife] What ever has happened to Read Martin my friend as well?
Any one have a Tel # or email address or info on or about his present location? Thanks in advance -Original Message- From: lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 11:38 am Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Chopra Letter Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, Lurk, now I'm curious--what was it that happened that caused you to leave? The story, please. :) Nothing earth shattering. I had some pretty good successes teaching in the midwest. Teaching many people, setting up events, celebrations, residence facilities, CIC Courses, Washington Campaign, MIU student thrown it. I was in Livingston Manor, being interviewed to go to Zambia. My interviewer was Reid Martin, (who I really liked, and felt was pretty down to earth). We had just heard a lecture from M about certain experiences we as meditators and teachers might have. Experiences had something to do with feeling in tune with the ebb and flow of world events. I related to Reid that I have/had experiences along these lines. Because of this I must have been put in the unstable category, and was not allowed to go to Zambia. Right at that moment something in me just changed, and all I could think about was leaving. No malice, no anger. Something said. Move On. And that's pretty much what I did. 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 More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: I Think We Need To Know
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: I know of NO spiritual tradition on the planet with the exception of Maharishi's TMO that believes that the indicator of full enlight- enment is the ability to float (levitate). I know of many who would, in fact, disagree with this vehemently. Please find me a quote that says otherwise. If you can't, I suggest that your impression came about because you just accepted what Maharishi said was the definition of full enlightenment BECAUSE HE SAID IT, and that you never looked into any other traditions' definitions of enlightenment, because you never had to. You already HAD the definition, and it was true because Maharishisez. If I may briefly interrupt this discussion, I have a question. Did MMY clearly say that if you could not float you were not enlightened? Is there a written source for that? In MMYS teaching the states of enlightenment correspond to the experiential POV of three different texts. Cosmic Consciousness is the style of E for the Yoga Sutras. The YS would claim that one should have clear experiences of all the siddhis metioned therein. In the early TMO, Tat Whale Baba was the yogi who exemplified tis type of realization.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Chopra Letter
Thank you for your notes. NO, I have yet to read the other posts you refer to. I suppose I should. I do hope it is not a case of he said, no he didn't, yes he did, you were not there, he lied, etc. That would just turn my stomach and I'd just lose interest in this discussion very quickly. AS I said, this Chopra letter, flaws or what have you, has left a pain. You are correct though, perhaps I just have to live with the puzzles and accept them for what they are, rather than try to sift and winnow. I could do that for the rest of my life and not really know for sure. Seeking clarity is what I desire but there are limits to what I can know. All the best Fred [snip]
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Chopra Letter
Thank you for sharing that. All I was saying, I think, was that I am aware of how lost I feel (from time to time). The Chopra letter for some reason just knocked the wind right out of my gut. Perhaps there are still some ideas left in me, beliefs, that I had harbored that need to be examined and maybe let go. Regards, Fred --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: boyboy_8 no_reply@ wrote: Just want to know the truth. FWIW Fred, I think many of us start with this simple desire. At at some point, assuming you don't capitulate to someone else's story, we realize it's not as easy a quest as we figured. I, and many others could go on and on about this. One sort of funny example from my experience. You read accounts, seemingly credible, of people who say they have accessed the akashic records. And the accounts they come back with can differ markedly from one another. In the final analysis, as one seeker put it, Life is not so much a mystery to be solved, as a riddle to be lived
[FairfieldLife] Re: Realizing Brahma
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity ruthsimplicity@ wrote: When I am on my deathbed I want to look back and say that I lived a good life. Well, if you die in bed sick and all, it probably means it wasn't over the top a good life. Better to take a bullet skiing, reveling in new knowledge, laughing with friends. Or fighting with someone on FLL -- defending the knowledge. Of course, being send out into the ocean on a piece of ice -- with no food has some appeal. Actually I want to go when I am floating. Or perhaps on a weekend getaway with Maria Sharapova. The latter probably more a test of true enlightenment, and support nature. At least a sign of a great life. Hey, I want to die when I am 100 years old in midst of an orgasm from doing it with Johny Depp's grandson! But old and in bed works. And yes, revealing in new knowledge, laughing with friends, is part of the good life.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Realizing Brahma
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: thanks for clarifying that, so the straw man here is just sitting twice a day doing the program. i agree that that doesn't work for me either. gotta dip the cloth and hang it in the sun and all that. Exactly.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Realizing Brahma
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so in other words, rather than finding out who we are and what our purpose in this life may be, we should remain not knowing who we are, and even what this life is all about, and shrouded within our illusion, do good, whatever that may mean. are you sure that this approach will guarantee tranquility and satisfaction on your deathbed? Those aren't my words. I am finding out who I am. I am comfortable in my skin. I am fulfilling my purpose in life and feel rewarded in my chosen careers. I volunteer with organizations I believe in. I lobby for causes that are important to me. This is not illusion, this is real life and real life has value. Part of real life is exploring the spiritual and I am doing that as well. part of exploring the spiritual is living a life consistent with my values. Not just sitting twice a day doing the program. Love and marriage, love and marriage Go together like a horse and carriage This I tell you brother You cant have one without the other.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Chopra Letter
On Feb 17, 2008, at 10:38 AM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote: OK, Lurk, now I'm curious--what was it that happened that caused you to leave? The story, please. :) Nothing earth shattering. I had some pretty good successes teaching in the midwest. Teaching many people, setting up events, celebrations, residence facilities, CIC Courses, Washington Campaign, MIU student thrown it. I was in Livingston Manor, being interviewed to go to Zambia. My interviewer was Reid Martin, (who I really liked, and felt was pretty down to earth). We had just heard a lecture from M about certain experiences we as meditators and teachers might have. Experiences had something to do with feeling in tune with the ebb and flow of world events. I related to Reid that I have/had experiences along these lines. Because of this I must have been put in the unstable category, and was not allowed to go to Zambia. Right at that moment something in me just changed, and all I could think about was leaving. No malice, no anger. Something said. Move On. And that's pretty much what I did. Great story--thanks, Lurk. And it says volumes about the way they operate. I left pretty much before they had the chance to discover that about me. :) Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: UK to license smokers (and that's the least of what they're doing)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This whole surveillance thing has pretty much happened in the last ten years. Six, really, for the scary stuff. It's been a consequence of 9/11 (or 9/11 was the excuse, at any rate). Right now, I'm having trouble even thinking about flying anywhere, because just the other day they found a SPECK of marijuana on some guy's heel and he's jailed for something that he could have picked up while walking into the airport Were you planning on visiting or changing planes in the United Arab Emirates? Because that's where this happened--in Dubai, not in the U.S.: http://www.canaseed.com/CannabisNews.aspx?id=757
[FairfieldLife] Re: OK---My vote is that Sandiego108 is NOT Jim: (was I Think We Need To Know)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hermandan0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you've read Jed McKenna and you won't turn to yourself? please kick yourself in the ass for me. thanks. ROTFL This post clinches it for me. I've never been convinced that sandiego108 is Jim, but now I'm almost convinced of the opposite. Reasons: --His syntax strikes me as fundamentally different from Jim's. My guess is that it's hard to change your writing style and stick with it consistently over time. It would be great if Judy the editor could give some insight here. To me they just write differently. --sandiego108 has a wicked sense of humor. Jim would often have to tell people he was laughing at things, lest his comments be taken otherwise. 108's humor can be biting, and caustic in a no-holds-barred kind of way. --He doesn't talk about himself, his own enlightenment or his devotion to Guru Dev, experiences of Guru Dev, Brahman, etc. My guess is that Jim would have something to say about MMY's death in that context. 108 seems not to have that bhakti component to his posts. At least, I don't see it. He seems more detached than Jim. --Jim doesn't read books; sandiego108 appears to. --The content of his posts seems to me quite different from Jim's, more radically relentless in a unity/non-dual/i-don't-know-wtf-to-call-it kind of way. He pokes and prods and tweaks peoples' perspectives and beliefs without minding the reaction. --He has never once, in all the time people have accused him of being Jim, and a poser, risen to the bait. He has neither confirmed nor denied. Nor has he made any reference to anything Jim said or did. Who knows, maybe it is the poster formerly known as Jim who has totally awakened and Jim no longer exists; but I think it is not Jim. --Oh yeah--did I mention that he is wickedly funny? So, that's my speculation FWIW, which isn't much. I'd be interested in Judy's take on the syntax thing, or anyone else's on anything. Some of us are paying attention even if we are only lurking--and we don't work for MUM. Of course, I could be totally wrong and it is Jim, in which case I'll just have a little laugh at myself, give him a high five and bow to the greater insight of those who believe it is. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sticheau sticheau@ wrote: snip 'Cause, to use Jed's idea, if it isn't abiding, it isn't sh*t. So, to those deep in the nether regions and in the know, I ask: Is Tony Nader enlightened? It's a most simple question, Y or N. Why do I ask? Because we're all looking for someone to turn to now. We've already demonstrated to one degree or another that we won't turn to ourselves, so if not our own self, then who? I should've skipped the onions tonight, I guess. Thanks. you've read Jed McKenna and you won't turn to yourself? please kick yourself in the ass for me. thanks. The reason I pointed out that Sandi = Jim when he first came on here and began tallking was because at the same time, offlist, J. emaile me. The wording and phrasing was identical to Sandi's--athough it was clear to me the minute he'd opened his mouth.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I Think We Need To Know
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip In MMYS teaching the states of enlightenment correspond to the experiential POV of three different texts. Cosmic Consciousness is the style of E for the Yoga Sutras. Quote, please. What *I* was taught when I learned the TM-Sidhis was that the siddhis sutras are a program for achieving Unity Consciousness.
[FairfieldLife] OK---My vote is that Sandiego108 is NOT Jim: (was I Think We Need To Know)
you've read Jed McKenna and you won't turn to yourself? please kick yourself in the ass for me. thanks. ROTFL This post clinches it for me. I've never been convinced that sandiego108 is Jim, but now I'm almost convinced of the opposite. Reasons: --His syntax strikes me as fundamentally different from Jim's. My guess is that it's hard to change your writing style and stick with it consistently over time. It would be great if Judy the editor could give some insight here. To me they just write differently. --sandiego108 has a wicked sense of humor. Jim would often have to tell people he was laughing at things, lest his comments be taken otherwise. 108's humor can be biting, and caustic in a no-holds-barred kind of way. --He doesn't talk about himself, his own enlightenment or his devotion to Guru Dev, experiences of Guru Dev, Brahman, etc. My guess is that Jim would have something to say about MMY's death in that context. 108 seems not to have that bhakti component to his posts. At least, I don't see it. He seems more detached than Jim. --Jim doesn't read books; sandiego108 appears to. --The content of his posts seems to me quite different from Jim's, more radically relentless in a unity/non-dual/i-don't-know-wtf-to-call-it kind of way. He pokes and prods and tweaks peoples' perspectives and beliefs without minding the reaction. --He has never once, in all the time people have accused him of being Jim, and a poser, risen to the bait. He has neither confirmed nor denied. Nor has he made any reference to anything Jim said or did. Who knows, maybe it is the poster formerly known as Jim who has totally awakened and Jim no longer exists; but I think it is not Jim. --Oh yeah--did I mention that he is wickedly funny? So, that's my speculation FWIW, which isn't much. I'd be interested in Judy's take on the syntax thing, or anyone else's on anything. Some of us are paying attention even if we are only lurking--and we don't work for MUM. Of course, I could be totally wrong and it is Jim, in which case I'll just have a little laugh at myself, give him a high five and bow to the greater insight of those who believe it is. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sticheau sticheau@ wrote: snip 'Cause, to use Jed's idea, if it isn't abiding, it isn't sh*t. So, to those deep in the nether regions and in the know, I ask: Is Tony Nader enlightened? It's a most simple question, Y or N. Why do I ask? Because we're all looking for someone to turn to now. We've already demonstrated to one degree or another that we won't turn to ourselves, so if not our own self, then who? I should've skipped the onions tonight, I guess. Thanks. you've read Jed McKenna and you won't turn to yourself? please kick yourself in the ass for me. thanks.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Realizing Brahma
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Samuel Gravina sgravina@ wrote: snip I've noticed a thread that goes something like, Why would an enlightened guy do X? followed by some implication like, he wasn't enlightened or enlightened guys work in mysterious ways. What a great summary! After about 15 years of meditating and philosophical musing I came to the conclusion that there is no truth. That it's just something we make up and desire. It serves a very useful purpose but in our exaggerated generalization of everything we make it into something real. The next 15 years didn't change my mind any. I consider this realization of the fakeness of life to be Brahma. I am that, thou art that and all this is that. It's all fake. That's Brahma. So as to Maharishi's enlightenment. Just as soon as he realized how fake he was he was enlightened. It seems like a pretty easy thing to obtain. So what does and enlightened guy do? Anything he wants. Sam I am coming to the opposite conclusion. This is all effing real. What we do has consequences and we should not limit our focus to self realization or enlightenment, but to doing good. I must live like this is the only life I have. When I am on my deathbed I want to look back and say that I lived a good life. Me too. For me, God is in the picture.
[FairfieldLife] Maharishi's perspective [was Re: making the rounds: another view of Deepak]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jyouells2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom azgrey@ wrote: Did you go thru with the recertification process Rick? From what little I know it sounds insulting to ask people to do that who have initiated thousands. Was it done as akin to a loyalty test? like everything else Maharishi did, the recertification was to break people out of their consensual and complacent realities. He sure wasn't here to be anyone's buddy and pal. He didn't give a shit if you hated his guts, or were dismayed by his actions, or thought him unfair or unlawful or immoral or of a flawed character. He only wanted to do one thing and that was to rejuvenate enlightenment within the earth's populace, and if people didn't like the way he went about it, boo- fucking-hoo. no apologies, no problem. What bullshit Tough love spirituality? Right. JohnY downright offensive, huh?
[FairfieldLife] was: UK to license. now: keep Billary off the ticket
For his own protection, Obama's choice for VP should exclude an overly-ambitious running mate The Dem nomination is yet to be one, yet the trend is clearly toward Obama. The Dem party was planning on nominating Hillary until Obama won the hearts and minds of so many. Hillary's baseline national negative rating of 47% is too risky to overlook. Obama will likely be the nominee. Look for a trial balloon from the Clintons that argues that Hillary could actually win the nomination, but that she is willing to serve as VP, and 'for the good of the party' , she will now abandon the fight for the top spot, and keep everything smooth in Denver next summer at the convention. Obama would be wise to defer making that deal now, and should risk a messy convention fight with Hillary for the top spot. Obama's life can't afford such an overly ambitious VP on the ticket. My kids are high on Obama. I was high on JFK. I don't want my kids to experience what I did when JFK was killed. It's regrettable that the Clintons' incredible political talent is accompanied by such brash LBJ - like ambition. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This whole surveillance thing has pretty much happened in the last ten years. But in the last year, I have just gotten sick about it and had to divert my mind to something else. It has become a symbol that triggers many of my paranoias -- the interment camps being built all around America, for instance. Right now, I'm having trouble even thinking about flying anywhere, because just the other day they found a SPECK of marijuana on some guy's heel and he's jailed for something that he could have picked up while walking into the airport, and now they're making it clear that if you bring a laptop they can make you show them every file on it which means they can grab your cell phone too and take down a list of all the folks you talk to. To me it smacks of the Illuminati creating such Big Brother Is Looking fears that they keep everyone at home and afraid to talk to anyone about anything. As I've said here several times: who in today's world would use certain terrorist buzz-words in emails or online postings without some trepidation that the government listeners would pick up on it and suddenly there's a knock on the door and your whole house is ransacked for terrorist-clues? It is simply and obviously a stifling of free speech and of the right to assemble and of the right to privacy. Well, one thing's certain, the masses are asses and if they ever get fed up with this deal, then I expect that all the public cameras will be vandalized by those types who are presently content to write their names with spray paint on subway cars. The populous can only take so much, ya know? But when does that happen? I'm thinking we have a lot more tamping down of the masses before any sort of backlash happens. If only BushCo had re-instituted the draft -- that would have gotten the youth up in arms about being forced to be killers of babies for oil. But nope, the powers have figured that slow but steady erosion of rights will do the trick to keep the crowds from forming. Which brings me to Obama and the huge crowds he's gathering. No other threat to GlobalBiz can match the fires he's seemingly setting in the group consciousness, and every time I catch one of his commercials, all I see is a very very dangerous man with tons of raw power to change things overnight. GlobalBiz is doing the slow erosion thingie, and here's this hippy getting everyone believing that they have RIGHTS again, and that Obama is like Christ Returned At Last to right the wrongs of all our leaders since First Bush. The thing about group consciousness is that when a mob gets a notion, it is then out of the hands of the person who put the notion into the crowd. Obama might be inspiring folks to think they'll get such big fast changes that when he takes office he will simply be unable to fulfill their expectations and he'll look like a foot dragging, glad handing, back stabbing, colluder with GlobalBiz. But who am I kidding? It won't go that far. Obama's too powerful right now, and I truly fear for his life. What's another assassination to GlobalBiz? Some headlines, some conspiracy theories, and the usual work of disinformation, lost film, pooh-poohings and there you have it: dead guy, crowds dispersed, and no one on trial except some boob they set up to pull the trigger. A Parallax View for sure. Where's Warren Beatty when you need him? Oh, wait, he died at the end of that film. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7247470.stm
[FairfieldLife] Re: UK to license smokers (and that's the least of what they're doing)
There's many software packages out there that can pose as being artificially intelligent. All photos on the Web can be mined for content by such filtering agents. All text can be examined to create lists of best bets on who's a terrorist. Vocabulary, syntax, spelling errors, time of posting, etc. all can get the list fairly short -- short enough to send out agents on fishing trips. I suspect they are able to parse telephone calls almost as well, but that would be a much harder coding accomplishment. Satellites can read license plate numbers. Whenever one is required to type in the letters you see in the graphic to prevent automatic software agents from signing up to get posting privileges for their spam, we see that these letters have to be ever more cleverly garbled so that machines can't read the graphics and submit a valid data-setso that shows how sophisticated graphic-reading-software already isand probably the government has much better software than the spammers are using. There's even software that can look at the blinking LED lights on your computer as the computer is sending and determine the text of the message. In less than 20 years there will be nanomachines that wirelessly communicate with each other and central brains. The cameras everywhere will be gone from sight and yet a thousand times more plentiful. Don't forget the new xray machines that shows a person as naked on the monitor -- hidden guns etc. pop right out. Scan ten thousand to catch one terrorist is a formula that GlobalBiz can live with. These days, I'm not even bothering to imagine a future past 2012things seem to be building up steam too fast, and something's got to blow. Edg PS -- Here's a previous post of mine that gives two examples of Big Brother bothering me -- and the saving grace of the scenario in that human intuition is an unexpected dynamic. Re: hate America? Two stories: At an airport, they pulled me aside. Don't know why. They search everything, feeling linings for lumps, checking my body for metal, patting me down, and then targeting my brief case and wiping it with a special cloth that would show if I had even a hint of banned chemicals to make on-board explosives with. The cloths showed positively that my brief case had something wrongobongo. So they called in their superior, cuz, well, I'm a very nice guy with gray hair with a woman whose luggage showed no signs of residues and I'm laughing aloud cuz I know I'm clean as clean can be. So, you know, I'm not fitting the terrorist profile. They're wiping repeatedly. Maybe 10 wiping-events, and the machine-reader called each one of them positive for banned something-or-other. Finally the supervisor makes a call, and whomever he talks to doesn't know what to do either. Finally, they just call it, and tell me I'm okay to fly. Sometimes a deodorant or shaving cream will have an ingredient that triggers these machines, he said. But everyone knew, it was their intuition overriding their testing devices. If I had had a beard or accent or turban, I'd probably still be being strip searched. See? You don't? Okay, next story: I get audited by the IRS, and they pull me into their office and go over my receipts -- one by one by one. I'm living in the upper bedroom of the center and using the rest of the house for business, but the tax guy says that if the center isn't open 24/7 then the house is for my personal use only during non-business hours and my deductions should be discounted downwards. I tell them, well, if that's the case, then this and that and this and that will have to be re-figured to make all the math come out correctly. The tax guy says, Well, how about you just pay $300 more in taxesdeal? See? Laws, schmaws, authorities are human and make up their own minds right there on the spot. Some days, ya just gotta love the lowest rung on bureacracy's ladder; some other days, not so much, eh? The laws are about spiritual intent -- not the letter of the law, but almost any intent can be projected into almost any law, and beware the minions who are dealing out the taro cards when they decide your fate. Hey, Boss, pick a card so I can process this passenger. Oops, sorry, Buddy, but the only kind of boarding you're going to get is waterboarding. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 17, 2008, at 7:56 AM, hugheshugo wrote: They have plans for roadside cameras to log every car that drives past, face recognition software so they can automatically track whoever they want wherever they want. The Stasi would have loved technology like that. I think that could be the problem, a lot of this only happens because the technology has been invented and someone in the government thinks it will save time and money to use cameras rather than actual policemen and then it gets used to monitor just for the sheer control-freakness of it. What *is* the purpose of all this,
[FairfieldLife] Re: OK---My vote is that Sandiego108 is NOT Jim: (was I Think We Need To Know)
its always all about ego for you Curtis. ego ego ego-- I am he is they are we think. you need to smoke a lot more dope before i'll take you seriously. Yes the nastiness of Jim in all his glory. I am a professional singer. I don't smoke anything. But nice try. Your understanding of the term ego is so wrapped up in your personal philosophical redefinitions that it is not a term that conveys any meaning to me when you use it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: He seems more detached than Jim. Exactly. It is a new protected persona of Jim's. It may be to keep his personal name out of this forum, which has a certain wisdom to it. Or it may be because without showing as much of himself personally he thinks he can deliver his POV and receive less challenge. Or he could have become more depersonalized and dissociated. But the same anti-intellectual position is promoted. The same moves made in argument, (peppered with personal digs), and most importantly of all, the same assumptive position as knower of absolute reality. Never appealing to quotes from Maharishi's doctrine but speaking from his own authority while winging the details philosophically. Using the word ego as a pejorative is another tell. It is Jim without the personal details that made him more likable and human to me. Now we just get pronouncements from the void. It creeped me out at first, now I accept the little game. The question of whether this is a contrived persona bolstered by a conscious change of some of his writing style, or a personality shift is kinda interesting. It reminds me of those guys who change their name one day and ask you to call them by their new name. Slightly squirrelly IMO. its always all about ego for you Curtis. ego ego ego-- I am he is they are we think. you need to smoke a lot more dope before i'll take you seriously.
Re: [FairfieldLife] The upside of not being a Recert
The below was always a choice one had regardless of anything. If we are enslaved, its because we enslave ourselves. Practical ramifications? Of course! But thats the price of freedom. One doesn't become free by asking permission from one's master/Master. Maharishi enslaved many people, with their permission of course. Why he did this, I don't have a clue! All I know is that he gave a transcendent smile to those who removed their shackles while condemning them on the surface. --- shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) I don't have to wear a tie to TM functions anymore! 2) Jeans are back in. 3) I can behave any fucking way I want to at TM functions...and be as politically incorrect as I want to be. 4) Let Kinky Kingy Tony, Bevan, Rajarski Hagelin, or any of the Knights Rajah Templar Global Village of Administation Poobahs try sending out the word for TM teachers to do this or that...hey, I'm not recertified...I DON'T HAVE TO BE AT YOUR FUCKING BECK AND CALL...get one of your recertified running dog lackies to do it. 5) Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of thought... To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: I Think We Need To Know
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 9:47 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: I Think We Need To Know --- In HYPERLINK mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.comFairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I may briefly interrupt this discussion, I have a question. Did MMY clearly say that if you could not float you were not enlightened? Is there a written source for that? I don't have a source, Ruth, but it has been quoted here often with no refutations from the TM faithful. The criterion may have been for full enlightenment, as Lawson has been using it. I dunno. I’m pretty sure he did. It was certainly part of the standard talk given by TM teachers introducing the sidhis. The sidhis were presented as having a two-fold purpose: to develop consciousness, and as a test of one’s level of consciousness, to prevent self-deception. i.e., if you couldn’t perform them, you weren’t enlightened. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1283 - Release Date: 2/16/2008 2:16 PM
[FairfieldLife] Re: OK---My vote is that Sandiego108 is NOT Jim: (was I Think We Need To Know)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: its always all about ego for you Curtis. ego ego ego-- I am he is they are we think. you need to smoke a lot more dope before i'll take you seriously. Yes the nastiness of Jim in all his glory. I am a professional singer. I don't smoke anything. But nice try. Your understanding of the term ego is so wrapped up in your personal philosophical redefinitions that it is not a term that conveys any meaning to me when you use it. my comments to you were prescriptive, not perjorative.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The upside of not being a Recert
Yay Shemp! Yay Shemp! I love such proclamations -- even when, as in this case, it is a guppy finning its nose at the priviledged snooty goldfish in a very very small pond. Are we not all wanting to stand up and shout like this to the larger world? Nice modeling Shemp! But, don't try this in front of Big Brother. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) I don't have to wear a tie to TM functions anymore! 2) Jeans are back in. 3) I can behave any fucking way I want to at TM functions...and be as politically incorrect as I want to be. 4) Let Kinky Kingy Tony, Bevan, Rajarski Hagelin, or any of the Knights Rajah Templar Global Village of Administation Poobahs try sending out the word for TM teachers to do this or that...hey, I'm not recertified...I DON'T HAVE TO BE AT YOUR FUCKING BECK AND CALL...get one of your recertified running dog lackies to do it. 5) Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of thought...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: making the rounds: another view of Deepak
I got my Bliss technique for free. I drove my girlfriend to his offices in Massachusetts so she could get her technique. I sat to wait (it was hours)and did my program. Apparently I was right next to the room were he was giving the Bliss technique and I heard the same technique being given out many times. No big deal. I tried it a few times, but I had a long Age of Enlightenment Technique, the siddhis, so I wasn't going to add another technique. --- shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I missed out completely on this whole project, Tom. Was this a technique provided/sold under the auspices of the TMO? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My own experience was somewhat different probably due to not getting the 3 in 1 deal mentioned in an earlier post. I received/purchased the bliss aka psycho-physiological technique during a summer assembly in DC. After opening and placing on a table a small pocket sized two sided picture frame containing pictures of both Guru Dev and MMY, the technique was imparted. No mantra instruction was involved, hence no puja. I remember having the feeling that the warmth present was about on the level of visiting the DMV. Much later, having read that the gross was $35K and that Dr. Chopra probably received next to none of the dough, I thought I knew why. I was quite satisfied with the technique and enjoyed its effects quite readily. The price of $700 versus the $55 of my initial TM instruction years before was not really a big issue for me especially compared to the $3K spent a year earlier for the CIC. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: One thing comes to mind in this regard: someone mentioned on this forum in another posting that in Deepak's method of meditation that he imparts the mantra without doing a puja. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
[FairfieldLife] Re: OK---My vote is that Sandiego108 is NOT Jim: (was I Think We Need To Know)
As I said, I could be wrong and it would only make me laugh. To me there's a different quality in the posts, as demonstrated in the other thread and his discussion with Ruth. If it is Jim, there's been some change in him and how he expresses things,IMO. I don't get a sense of trying to prove anything that I sometimes got with Jim. Sure he can be a bit of the wall sometimes, but normal does not seem to be a qualifying criterion for entry into FFL. If it is Jim, kudos all around. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hermandan0 no_reply@ wrote: Snip So, that's my speculation FWIW, which isn't much. I'd be interested in Judy's take on the syntax thing, or anyone else's on anything. Some of us are paying attention even if we are only lurking--and we don't work for MUM. Of course, I could be totally wrong and it is Jim, in which case I'll just have a little laugh at myself, give him a high five and bow to the greater insight of those who believe it is. Snip The reason I pointed out that Sandi = Jim when he first came on here and began tallking was because at the same time, offlist, J. emaile me. The wording and phrasing was identical to Sandi's--athough it was clear to me the minute he'd opened his mouth.
[FairfieldLife] Re: OK---My vote is that Sandiego108 is NOT Jim: (was I Think We Need To Know)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hermandan0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you've read Jed McKenna and you won't turn to yourself? please kick yourself in the ass for me. thanks. ROTFL This post clinches it for me. I've never been convinced that sandiego108 is Jim, but now I'm almost convinced of the opposite. Reasons: --His syntax strikes me as fundamentally different from Jim's. My guess is that it's hard to change your writing style and stick with it consistently over time. It would be great if Judy the editor could give some insight here. To me they just write differently. It's not that hard if you keep your mind on what you're doing. More below... --sandiego108 has a wicked sense of humor. Jim would often have to tell people he was laughing at things, lest his comments be taken otherwise. 108's humor can be biting, and caustic in a no- holds-barred kind of way. --He doesn't talk about himself, his own enlightenment or his devotion to Guru Dev, experiences of Guru Dev, Brahman, etc. My guess is that Jim would have something to say about MMY's death in that context. 108 seems not to have that bhakti component to his posts. At least, I don't see it. He seems more detached than Jim. --Jim doesn't read books; sandiego108 appears to. --The content of his posts seems to me quite different from Jim's, more radically relentless in a unity/non-dual/i-don't- know-wtf-to-call-it kind of way. He pokes and prods and tweaks peoples' perspectives and beliefs without minding the reaction. --He has never once, in all the time people have accused him of being Jim, and a poser, risen to the bait. He has neither confirmed nor denied. Nor has he made any reference to anything Jim said or did. Who knows, maybe it is the poster formerly known as Jim who has totally awakened and Jim no longer exists; but I think it is not Jim. --Oh yeah--did I mention that he is wickedly funny? So, that's my speculation FWIW, which isn't much. I'd be interested in Judy's take on the syntax thing, or anyone else's on anything. I honestly haven't been paying any attention to differences in syntax. Nothing has *called itself* to my attention, certainly. I'd have to take some time to compare the two closely to have an expert opinion, and frankly, I'm not that interested! Your comments about content seem right on. But I'd suggest that if sandiego108 and Jim are the same person, the differences in content may be a function of his trying a different approach to what he's been working at getting across. I really don't see any differences in the perspective itself. One thing that *does* seem similar is the Zen-like drive-by mockery, as opposed to longer explanations. As I vaguely recall, Jim's use of this tactic increased toward the end of his tenure here, as if he'd begun to give up on more straightforward presentations. sandiego108 isn't doing much *else* than the mockery, his response to Ruth being one of the few exceptions, perhaps because she was polite and nonconfrontational, just asking for information.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: I Think We Need To Know
--- Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 9:47 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: I Think We Need To Know --- In HYPERLINK mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.comFairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I may briefly interrupt this discussion, I have a question. Did MMY clearly say that if you could not float you were not enlightened? Is there a written source for that? I don't have a source, Ruth, but it has been quoted here often with no refutations from the TM faithful. The criterion may have been for full enlightenment, as Lawson has been using it. I dunno. Im pretty sure he did. It was certainly part of the standard talk given by TM teachers introducing the sidhis. The sidhis were presented as having a two-fold purpose: to develop consciousness, and as a test of ones level of consciousness, to prevent self-deception. i.e., if you couldnt perform them, you werent enlightened. Realization of Self and relative ability are two entirely different things. It like thinking that you'll spontaneously understand Chinese once you become enlightened. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1283 - Release Date: 2/16/2008 2:16 PM Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
[FairfieldLife] Re: I Think We Need To Know
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: achieving Unity Consciousness. aka UC, Ubiquitous Consciousness. Consciousness Everywhere. Its also highly scable. With massive underlying network connectivity capabilities. Linked by massive pipes. With a super RAID system built on akashic technology. And a quad core massive fast Ram based graphics engine. And an awesome motherboard (who is always at home.) And high speed wireless connectivity everywhere. post optical networking technology :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: OK---My vote is that Sandiego108 is NOT Jim: (was I Think We Need To Know)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: He seems more detached than Jim. Exactly. It is a new protected persona of Jim's. It may be to keep his personal name out of this forum, which has a certain wisdom to it. Or it may be because without showing as much of himself personally he thinks he can deliver his POV and receive less challenge. Or he could have become more depersonalized and dissociated. I would have said, Because it seemed like a good idea to him at the time. We might have had our differences, but I don't see Jim as planning ahead enough to be devious, so that's right out. I don't see him planning ahead more than It seems like a good idea at the moment. Not that that's a bad thing. :-) But the same anti-intellectual position is promoted. Now that description I can go for. It's like the Ronald Reagan approach to enlightenment. The same moves made in argument, (peppered with personal digs), and most importantly of all, the same assumptive position as knower of absolute reality. That's the tipoff, the thing that can't hide behind any screen name. Never appealing to quotes from Maharishi's doctrine but speaking from his own authority while winging the details philosophically. Using the word ego as a pejorative is another tell. Bingo. It is Jim without the personal details that made him more likable and human to me. Bingo. And with the creepy thing added in. I suspect that the It seems like a good idea in the moment idea was a kind of Castanedan exercise in erasing one's personal history. Start over, try to do things differently, that sorta thing. Not that that's a bad thing. :-) But to erase personal history effectively, you have to erase the self. If there is enough of the same old self in the new self that people instantly recognize it, then chances are there was self to start with. Just my opinion...
[FairfieldLife] Re: OK---My vote is that Sandiego108 is NOT Jim: (was I Think We Need To Know)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: He seems more detached than Jim. Exactly. It is a new protected persona of Jim's. It may be to keep his personal name out of this forum, which has a certain wisdom to it. Or it may be because without showing as much of himself personally he thinks he can deliver his POV and receive less challenge. Or he could have become more depersonalized and dissociated. But the same anti-intellectual position is promoted. The same moves made in argument, (peppered with personal digs), and most importantly of all, the same assumptive position as knower of absolute reality. Never appealing to quotes from Maharishi's doctrine but speaking from his own authority while winging the details philosophically. Using the word ego as a pejorative is another tell. It is Jim without the personal details that made him more likable and human to me. Now we just get pronouncements from the void. It creeped me out at first, now I accept the little game. The question of whether this is a contrived persona bolstered by a conscious change of some of his writing style, or a personality shift is kinda interesting. It reminds me of those guys who change their name one day and ask you to call them by their new name. Slightly squirrelly IMO. its always all about ego for you Curtis. ego ego ego-- I am he is they are we think. you need to smoke a lot more dope before i'll take you seriously.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I Think We Need To Know
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: snip In MMYS teaching the states of enlightenment correspond to the experiential POV of three different texts. Cosmic Consciousness is the style of E for the Yoga Sutras. Quote, please. What *I* was taught when I learned the TM-Sidhis was that the siddhis sutras are a program for achieving Unity Consciousness. yes they are. aside from the symptoms of the sutras, the other thing that results from the practice is that the nervous system is rapidly blown free of garbage so that should we want, UC can be lived in this life time.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Realizing Brahma
--- ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so in other words, rather than finding out who we are and what our purpose in this life may be, we should remain not knowing who we are, and even what this life is all about, and shrouded within our illusion, do good, whatever that may mean. are you sure that this approach will guarantee tranquility and satisfaction on your deathbed? Those aren't my words. I am finding out who I am. I am comfortable in my skin. I am fulfilling my purpose in life and feel rewarded in my chosen careers. I volunteer with organizations I believe in. I lobby for causes that are important to me. This is not illusion, this is real life and real life has value. Part of real life is exploring the spiritual and I am doing that as well. part of exploring the spiritual is living a life consistent with my values. Not just sitting twice a day doing the program. Love and marriage, love and marriage Go together like a horse and carriage This I tell you brother You cant have one without the other. Oh Ruth, you are so very lost! You should join Mother Divine and enjoy the bubbling bliss of Atma, the unified field of all the laws of nature. ;-) To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
[FairfieldLife] Re: I Think We Need To Know
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Realization of Self and relative ability are two entirely different things. It like thinking that you'll spontaneously understand Chinese once you become enlightened. I spontaneously came to understand Chinese. Didn't you?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Description of mantra?? : D
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip When the Christian right decides that they will follow God's law and stone adulterers instead of getting stoned WITH adulterers (my personal preference) they can claim to use that old book as a moral guide. FWIW, Christians are not bound by Jewish Law. They may draw moral lessons from the Hebrew Scriptures but are not obligated to follow any of its commandments but the Big 10. Yeah. Authoritarian fundamentalist Christianity tends to adopt some of the dogmatic and contemporarily popular harsh Mosaic laws and fails to recognize the distinct [subtle and gross] break with them that Christianity introduced. FWIW - This is some of what Paul said in making that distinction: Too bad it's so anti-Semitic. Paul is controversial for other reasons as well. 2 Corinthians 3:13-16 13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Romans 7:6 6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. Hebrews 7:18-19 18 For there is verily a disannulling [voiding completely] of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. 19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. [words added in parentheses -jrm]
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Pundits Fleeced
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 4:35 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Pundits Fleeced --- In HYPERLINK mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.comFairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rick Archer rick@ wrote: When they were met in Chicago just prior to boarding the plane they were ordered to surrender the money, apparently by someone representing the Varma family. The pundits were not pleased but they felt they had no choice. I'm just thinking that the India TMO may not have appropiated quite as many funds as we have suspected. For decades the Indian TMO has treated MUM as a cash cow, nearly bleeding it to death on numerous occasions. The university is up to its eyeballs in debt due to the constant financial drain from “International.” This incident with the pundits is the second blatant “inside job” I’m aware of. The first was when Eberhard Doberstein drove late one night from New Delhi to Noida carrying a large amount of cash to pay the salaries of the employees of the movement printing press he was managing there. En route, he was pulled over by armed, masked thugs who took the cash and let him go. Obviously someone on the inside knew that his particular car was carrying cash, and organized the heist. In this more recent pundit incident, the MUM/Vedic City authorities must have notified the folks in India that the pundits would be given some spending money. Someone in the chain of command, either the guy at the airport or the folks he was representing, decided that $5000 would be a nice little chunk of pocket change and decided to take it, thumbing their nose at the folks in FF who had contributed it. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1283 - Release Date: 2/16/2008 2:16 PM
[FairfieldLife] Re: UK to license smokers (and that's the least of what they're doing)
Yeah, Judy, I knew the speck guy was detained in an Arab country not America, but geeze, I was reading Playboy magazine in the 60's and there were always a ton of stories about persons jailed for three seeds, so I thought that a speck guy is a speck guy -- just a principle being seen. Do you think that such a thing couldn't happen in America? Over 800,000 persons were arrested this year alone for marijuana use/possession. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: This whole surveillance thing has pretty much happened in the last ten years. Six, really, for the scary stuff. It's been a consequence of 9/11 (or 9/11 was the excuse, at any rate). Right now, I'm having trouble even thinking about flying anywhere, because just the other day they found a SPECK of marijuana on some guy's heel and he's jailed for something that he could have picked up while walking into the airport Were you planning on visiting or changing planes in the United Arab Emirates? Because that's where this happened--in Dubai, not in the U.S.: http://www.canaseed.com/CannabisNews.aspx?id=757
[FairfieldLife] The upside of not being a Recert
1) I don't have to wear a tie to TM functions anymore! 2) Jeans are back in. 3) I can behave any fucking way I want to at TM functions...and be as politically incorrect as I want to be. 4) Let Kinky Kingy Tony, Bevan, Rajarski Hagelin, or any of the Knights Rajah Templar Global Village of Administation Poobahs try sending out the word for TM teachers to do this or that...hey, I'm not recertified...I DON'T HAVE TO BE AT YOUR FUCKING BECK AND CALL...get one of your recertified running dog lackies to do it. 5) Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of thought...
[FairfieldLife] Re: OK---My vote is that Sandiego108 is NOT Jim: (was I Think We Need To Know)
He seems more detached than Jim. Exactly. It is a new protected persona of Jim's. It may be to keep his personal name out of this forum, which has a certain wisdom to it. Or it may be because without showing as much of himself personally he thinks he can deliver his POV and receive less challenge. Or he could have become more depersonalized and dissociated. But the same anti-intellectual position is promoted. The same moves made in argument, (peppered with personal digs), and most importantly of all, the same assumptive position as knower of absolute reality. Never appealing to quotes from Maharishi's doctrine but speaking from his own authority while winging the details philosophically. Using the word ego as a pejorative is another tell. It is Jim without the personal details that made him more likable and human to me. Now we just get pronouncements from the void. It creeped me out at first, now I accept the little game. The question of whether this is a contrived persona bolstered by a conscious change of some of his writing style, or a personality shift is kinda interesting. It reminds me of those guys who change their name one day and ask you to call them by their new name. Slightly squirrelly IMO. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hermandan0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you've read Jed McKenna and you won't turn to yourself? please kick yourself in the ass for me. thanks. ROTFL This post clinches it for me. I've never been convinced that sandiego108 is Jim, but now I'm almost convinced of the opposite. Reasons: --His syntax strikes me as fundamentally different from Jim's. My guess is that it's hard to change your writing style and stick with it consistently over time. It would be great if Judy the editor could give some insight here. To me they just write differently. --sandiego108 has a wicked sense of humor. Jim would often have to tell people he was laughing at things, lest his comments be taken otherwise. 108's humor can be biting, and caustic in a no-holds-barred kind of way. --He doesn't talk about himself, his own enlightenment or his devotion to Guru Dev, experiences of Guru Dev, Brahman, etc. My guess is that Jim would have something to say about MMY's death in that context. 108 seems not to have that bhakti component to his posts. At least, I don't see it. He seems more detached than Jim. --Jim doesn't read books; sandiego108 appears to. --The content of his posts seems to me quite different from Jim's, more radically relentless in a unity/non-dual/i-don't-know-wtf-to-call-it kind of way. He pokes and prods and tweaks peoples' perspectives and beliefs without minding the reaction. --He has never once, in all the time people have accused him of being Jim, and a poser, risen to the bait. He has neither confirmed nor denied. Nor has he made any reference to anything Jim said or did. Who knows, maybe it is the poster formerly known as Jim who has totally awakened and Jim no longer exists; but I think it is not Jim. --Oh yeah--did I mention that he is wickedly funny? So, that's my speculation FWIW, which isn't much. I'd be interested in Judy's take on the syntax thing, or anyone else's on anything. Some of us are paying attention even if we are only lurking--and we don't work for MUM. Of course, I could be totally wrong and it is Jim, in which case I'll just have a little laugh at myself, give him a high five and bow to the greater insight of those who believe it is. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sticheau sticheau@ wrote: snip 'Cause, to use Jed's idea, if it isn't abiding, it isn't sh*t. So, to those deep in the nether regions and in the know, I ask: Is Tony Nader enlightened? It's a most simple question, Y or N. Why do I ask? Because we're all looking for someone to turn to now. We've already demonstrated to one degree or another that we won't turn to ourselves, so if not our own self, then who? I should've skipped the onions tonight, I guess. Thanks. you've read Jed McKenna and you won't turn to yourself? please kick yourself in the ass for me. thanks.
[FairfieldLife] Re: OK---My vote is that Sandiego108 is NOT Jim: (was I Think We Need To Know)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: its always all about ego for you Curtis. ego ego ego-- I am he is they are we think. you need to smoke a lot more dope before i'll take you seriously. Yes the nastiness of Jim in all his glory. I am a professional singer. I don't smoke anything. But nice try. Your understanding of the term ego is so wrapped up in your personal philosophical redefinitions that it is not a term that conveys any meaning to me when you use it. my comments to you were prescriptive, not perjorative. ...pejorative...(too many r's...
[FairfieldLife] Re: I Think We Need To Know
achieving Unity Consciousness. aka UC, Ubiquitous Consciousness. Consciousness Everywhere. Its also highly scable. With massive underlying network connectivity capabilities. Linked by massive pipes. With a super RAID system built on akashic technology. And a quad core massive fast Ram based graphics engine. And an awesome motherboard (who is always at home.) And high speed wireless connectivity everywhere.
[FairfieldLife] FW: My Dinner With Doctor Mahapatra
From a friend: Dear Rick: We sent the email below to Dr Mahapatra and he asked that you kindly do not circulate this email or put it on your blog/s. With best wishes, No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1283 - Release Date: 2/16/2008 2:16 PM
[FairfieldLife] Re: I Think We Need To Know
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: Realization of Self and relative ability are two entirely different things. It like thinking that you'll spontaneously understand Chinese once you become enlightened. I spontaneously came to understand Chinese. Didn't you? Kung Hei Fat Choy!
[FairfieldLife] Re: FW: My Dinner With Doctor Mahapatra
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From a friend: Dear Rick: We sent the email below to Dr Mahapatra and he asked that you kindly do not circulate this email or put it on your blog/s. There wasn't any email below in your post, Rick. What is he referring to that we aren't supposed to circulate?
