[FairfieldLife] Re: What effect has Maharishi's passing had on Fairfield and the movement?
(snip) > Basically it has changed in some ways, and in some ways it hasn't. In > some ways we are anticipating change, and in some ways the change has > already come. There have been some changes on the surface, and some > changes deeper down. There have been some changes in Fairfield and > some changes in Vlodrop. Oh, and some changes in India. Basically > some of the change ocurred before the passing, and some ocurred > shortly after the passing. There is even some change that we expect > will happen, but has not yet happened fully. Some change has been > more pronounced, and some has been more subtle. > > Hope this helps. What does the word-change- mean? What exactly has changed? Could you give a concrete example of one thing that has changed? Thanx. R.G.
[FairfieldLife] P.S. to my bow to buttsplicer on free will
Hey, I realize that you really can't do much with my comments on free will and turning the other cheek, casting nets, and so on because they are so far out of the realm of reason. So I thought it might be worth quoting G. Spencer Brown. This is from the Preface of the first American Edition of Laws of Form in 1979, but I'm quoting from the 1994 edition: In ordinary algebra, complex values are accepted as a matter of course, and the more advanced techniques would be impossible without them. In Boolean algebra (and thus, for example, in all our reasoning processes) we disallow them. Whitehead and Russell introduced a special rule, which they called the Theory of Types, expressly to do so. Mistakenly, as it now turns out. So, in this field, the more advanced techniques, although not impossible, simply don't yet exist. At the present moment we are constrained, in our reasoning processes, to do it the way it was done in Aristotle's day. The poet Blake might have had some insight into this, for in 1788 he wrote that 'reason, or the ratio of all we have already known, is not the same that it shall be when we know more' (p. xiii). Well, Blake for damn sure did have some insight into this. It was Blake who sent me looking for Spencer Brown. I knew that there was a logician somewhere who would confirm for me that Blake was not just writing poetry about the process of manifestation of the universe, but that he was proceeding on the basis of strict logic (in addition to direct experience). And, not incidentally, when the young Spencer Brown approached Lord Russell to tell him that his "Theory of Types" was a piece of bogus bullshit, Russell agreed, saying he was glad he'd lived long enough to see the matter resolved, as, indeed Spencer Brown had done. Spencer Brown, being a Brit, was of course much more polite than I or Judy would have been. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] �Billy Graham as �The Typical White Person��
Rev. Billy Graham= A typical white person I remember he blessed- President Richard M. Nixon; While Nixon was bombing, terrorizing and napalming, Cambodia and Viet Nam (he promised to end the war in 1968)... The Nixon tapes revealed all the anti-Semitic rants and white superiority. HeÂs a typical white person HeÂs a war-monger, anti-Semitic Racist; Memories of how the U.S.A. had many white supporters of the Third Reich Henry Ford, Joe Kennedy, Remember how the U.S. turned back a ship of Jewish People, during the Holocaust. These decisions were made by, ÂTypical White People Another typical white person is Bill Clinton; HeÂll act and use black people, at his own convenience HeÂs a fraudulent man, and was a fraudulent President; Who weakened the Democratic PartyÂs agenda, still is Hillary Clinton, too, is a typical white person . She will sell her soul for power, Staying with her adulterous & rapist- Husband. For the sake of her own coveting of Power So, these are some typical white people IÂm sure you can think of many more Robert Gimbel Seattle, Washington 2008 Bill Clinton sued for rape- http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17302 Holocaust Ship Turned Away by US and Canada http://christianactionforisrael.org/antiholo/st_louis.html American Supporters of European Facists... http://christianactionforisrael.org/antiholo/st_louis.html - Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
[FairfieldLife] Re: hypocrisy of Americans
Here are your choices: http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/FOAD http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=F.O.A.D http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=foad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.O.A.D. I had to look it up myself. Since it came from Crudy, I mean Judy, your judgement will prolly be correct. If she wasn't a complete psycho she would be laughable. Like my mother used to say, "funny like a crutch." --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Someone please enlighten me as to the significance of > FOAD. > > > > --- okpeachman2000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 2008, at 10:04 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > > > > > > > I'm afraid what this mess has demonstrated is > > that > > > > > the country isn't ready for either a black or > > a female > > > > > president. > > > > > > > > What this has demonstrated is that a lot (or at > > least some) > > > > Hillary supporters, bitterly disappointed that > > her waltz to > > > > the nomination hasn't happened, are doing > > everything they > > > > can to wreck Obama's candidacy while pretending > > to superfically > > > > support him, so that McCain can win and Hillary > > can run again > > > > in 4 years. To hell with what's good for the > > country or even > > > > the world. It's only what's good for Hillary > > that really > > > > matters. > > > > > > Sorry, but that's totally absurd, the worst kind > > of > > > naive, nitwit conspiracy theorizing. (Lots easier > > > than actually trying to answer the question I > > asked > > > you, though, isn't it?) > > > > > > If Hillary doesn't win the nomination and the > > election, > > > she's finished as a presidential candidate. This > > is her > > > one and only chance. > > > > > > And if she doesn't campaign for Obama with > > everything > > > she's got once he has the nomination, she'll be > > > finished as a senator as well. She'll be a > > political > > > pariah (as will Bill if *he* doesn't campaign for > > > Obama with everything he's got). > > > > > > > Nice try, though, Judy. > > > > > > FOAD, Sal. People like you are the problem, not > > the > > > solution. > > > > > > > FOAD??? Now you want Sal AND Barack dead > > like MLK and brother Malcolm. Maybe you are > > not just racist but also a common inveterate hater. > > > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com >
[FairfieldLife] Karen Armstrong accepts 2008 TED Prize
If you watch it, note her use of the teacher's mudra, i.e. index finger (representing ego) held down by thumb. Watch On TED: http://www.ted. com/index. php/talks/ view/id/234 As she accepts her 2008 TED Prize, author and scholar Karen Armstrong talks about how the Abrahamic religions -- Islam, Judaism, Christianity -- have been diverted from the moral purpose they share to foster compassion. But Armstrong has seen a yearning to change this fact. People want to be religious, she says; we should act to help make religion a force for harmony. She asks the TED community to help her build a Charter for Compassion -- to help restore the Golden Rule as the central global religious doctrine. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Time for a new approach.
-I watched a CNN discussion about the democratic race and the agreement of all political analysts was that it would be impossible for Clinton to win unless Obama fell flat on his face, that is really her only hope... and so the search for dirt goes on, They said she would need 60-65% of the popular vote in every primary that is left and that would be nearly impossible. I do not like the Obama/Clinton ticket YUCK. If we are looking for a true representative, then we need someone who is not going to do the same ole, same ole, We need an entire paradygm shift and that would be Obama. It is very clear from the world of finance and Real estate that we could have an entire economic collapse. This could allow us to create a new style of barter, re-definiation of property ownership etc., but the country would have to let go of fear. Obama made it clear today that fear would not drive him to sacrifice our freedom. Hillary would just try to re-build the old instead of create an entire new paradygm. The higher consciousness demands a change. I was thinking of Edwards for a VP until I heard him today complementing both Clinton and Obama, like he would play them both incase he got offered the VP from either one. -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A candidate with a consistent 47% negative rating is not a strong candidate, despite > world-class name recognition. Sorry, Hillary, Obama doesn't need a 'two-fer' VP. Perhaps > McCain would put you (and Bill) on his ticket as VP. remember where you heard it first.. > -Mainstream > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Louis McKenzie wrote: > > > > One big problem I have with the competition between > > Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is that they are very > > much on the same page on many issues.That said it > > is hard for me to believe that the CLinton camp will > > go past Pennsylvania with this win at any cost > > politics. One reason is that Hillary, IF, she wins > > Pennsylvania will not win with enough of a margin to > > change what is already and that is that Barack has > > nearly a 150 delegate lead over her. > > > > Therefore in consideration that Barack Obama stands > > for all of what the CLintons have claimed to stand > > for, for nearly 40 years, I believe that after Penn > > there will be a change in the way they do things. I > > believe it is time for them to sit down with Barack > > Obama and map out a partnership. No more campaigning > > for McCain. No one person can change America, > > America will only be changed by everyone working > > together to make that change. > > > > The only real difference between Bill CLinton and > > Barack Obama is that Bill Clinton had Jessica Flowers > > and several other women in his closet not a minister > > who get over zealous in his sermons. For the last > > two weeks the press has been trying to make something > > out of nothing. In their efforts they have proven > > that Barack Obama is a christian not Muslim that he is > > a stand up guy not a slime bag. They have proven he > > will not stab his friends in the back. These are > > important things > > > > If Barack wins Pennsylvania or any of the coming > > primaries it will put an end to these attacks, because > > it will show that America is not listening. On the > > other hand with Bill Clinton after Jessica, and WHite > > water he could not keep still he had to fall for a set > > up and go after Monica Lewinsky.In other words > > once he won all the battles he had to stick a knife in > > his own back. I hope Barack is not so stupid. > > > > Point it is time to stop campaigning for McCain it is > > time for the Democrats to come together and stand > > together for America... > > > > > > > __ __ > > 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: hypocrisy of Americans
Someone please enlighten me as to the significance of FOAD. --- okpeachman2000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 22, 2008, at 10:04 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > > > > > I'm afraid what this mess has demonstrated is > that > > > > the country isn't ready for either a black or > a female > > > > president. > > > > > > What this has demonstrated is that a lot (or at > least some) > > > Hillary supporters, bitterly disappointed that > her waltz to > > > the nomination hasn't happened, are doing > everything they > > > can to wreck Obama's candidacy while pretending > to superfically > > > support him, so that McCain can win and Hillary > can run again > > > in 4 years. To hell with what's good for the > country or even > > > the world. It's only what's good for Hillary > that really > > > matters. > > > > Sorry, but that's totally absurd, the worst kind > of > > naive, nitwit conspiracy theorizing. (Lots easier > > than actually trying to answer the question I > asked > > you, though, isn't it?) > > > > If Hillary doesn't win the nomination and the > election, > > she's finished as a presidential candidate. This > is her > > one and only chance. > > > > And if she doesn't campaign for Obama with > everything > > she's got once he has the nomination, she'll be > > finished as a senator as well. She'll be a > political > > pariah (as will Bill if *he* doesn't campaign for > > Obama with everything he's got). > > > > > Nice try, though, Judy. > > > > FOAD, Sal. People like you are the problem, not > the > > solution. > > > > FOAD??? Now you want Sal AND Barack dead > like MLK and brother Malcolm. Maybe you are > not just racist but also a common inveterate hater. > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Time for a new approach.
-I watched a CNN discussion about the democratic race and the agreement of all political analysts was that it would be impossible for Clinton to win unless Obama fell flat on his face, that is really her only hope... and so the search for dirt goes on, They said she would need 60-65% of the popular vote in every primary that is left and that would be nearly impossible. I do not like the Obama/Clinton ticket YUCK. If we are looking for a true representative, then we need someone who is not going to do the same ole, same ole, We need an entire paradygm shift and that would be Obama. It is very clear from the world of finance and Real estate that we could have an entire economic collapse. This could allow us to create a new style of barter, re-definiation of property ownership etc., but the country would have to let go of fear. Obama made it clear today that fear would not drive him to sacrifice our freedom. Hillary would just try to re-build the old instead of create an entire new paradygm. The higher consciousness demands a change. I was thinking of Edwards for a VP until I heard him today complementing both Clinton and Obama, like he would play them both incase he got offered the VP from either one. -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A candidate with a consistent 47% negative rating is not a strong candidate, despite > world-class name recognition. Sorry, Hillary, Obama doesn't need a 'two-fer' VP. Perhaps > McCain would put you (and Bill) on his ticket as VP. remember where you heard it first.. > -Mainstream > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Louis McKenzie wrote: > > > > One big problem I have with the competition between > > Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is that they are very > > much on the same page on many issues.That said it > > is hard for me to believe that the CLinton camp will > > go past Pennsylvania with this win at any cost > > politics. One reason is that Hillary, IF, she wins > > Pennsylvania will not win with enough of a margin to > > change what is already and that is that Barack has > > nearly a 150 delegate lead over her. > > > > Therefore in consideration that Barack Obama stands > > for all of what the CLintons have claimed to stand > > for, for nearly 40 years, I believe that after Penn > > there will be a change in the way they do things. I > > believe it is time for them to sit down with Barack > > Obama and map out a partnership. No more campaigning > > for McCain. No one person can change America, > > America will only be changed by everyone working > > together to make that change. > > > > The only real difference between Bill CLinton and > > Barack Obama is that Bill Clinton had Jessica Flowers > > and several other women in his closet not a minister > > who get over zealous in his sermons. For the last > > two weeks the press has been trying to make something > > out of nothing. In their efforts they have proven > > that Barack Obama is a christian not Muslim that he is > > a stand up guy not a slime bag. They have proven he > > will not stab his friends in the back. These are > > important things > > > > If Barack wins Pennsylvania or any of the coming > > primaries it will put an end to these attacks, because > > it will show that America is not listening. On the > > other hand with Bill Clinton after Jessica, and WHite > > water he could not keep still he had to fall for a set > > up and go after Monica Lewinsky.In other words > > once he won all the battles he had to stick a knife in > > his own back. I hope Barack is not so stupid. > > > > Point it is time to stop campaigning for McCain it is > > time for the Democrats to come together and stand > > together for America... > > > > > > > __ __ > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? > > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php? category=shopping > > >
[FairfieldLife] for the artist in you
Clicking changes colors; spacebar erases to start over http://www.jacksonpollock.org/ Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] TIVO for software
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/technology/23proto.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: What effect has Maharishi's passing had on Fairfield and the movement?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, I am a former Fairfield resident (from the 80's!)and an occasional > visitor to this listserv. I imagine this topic has probably been > discussed, so if you want to direct me to former postings, that's > fine. Otherwise, I would be interested in opinion's on how Maharishi's > passing will change things in the movement and in Fairfield, if at > all. thanks! > I doubt that you will find the bozo units on this list terribly helpful. If you want to know whazzup in the TMO, look at their newsletter: http://www.globalgoodnews.com/global-news-success.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: What effect has Maharishi's passing had on Fairfield and the movement?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, I am a former Fairfield resident (from the 80's!)and an occasional > visitor to this listserv. I imagine this topic has probably been > discussed, so if you want to direct me to former postings, that's > fine. Otherwise, I would be interested in opinion's on how Maharishi's > passing will change things in the movement and in Fairfield, if at > all. thanks! > Basically it has changed in some ways, and in some ways it hasn't. In some ways we are anticipating change, and in some ways the change has already come. There have been some changes on the surface, and some changes deeper down. There have been some changes in Fairfield and some changes in Vlodrop. Oh, and some changes in India. Basically some of the change ocurred before the passing, and some ocurred shortly after the passing. There is even some change that we expect will happen, but has not yet happened fully. Some change has been more pronounced, and some has been more subtle. Hope this helps.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Headline of the Week
> Lieberman is nearly as old as McCain. > >From what I've read, campaign sniping has more Democrats saying they'll vote McCain if their candidate loses. "A growing number of worried Democrats wonder whether Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will ever stop slamming each other, which they see as only helping John McCain, the likely Republican nominee." Read more: 'McCain Gains from Clinton-Obama Feud' ABC News, March 21, 2008 http://tinyurl.com/2a2zvg
Re: [FairfieldLife] Headline of the Week
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/25/politics/main2397926.shtml Lieberman is nearly as old as McCain. Not a chance it will be Lieberman. --- Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Will It be McCain-Lieberman, McCain-Romney, McCain > Huckabee, or > McCain-Nursemaid? > > Kind of mean, I know, but still pretty funny. :) > > > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
[FairfieldLife] Re: WWF Title Match -- Shakti vs. Nirvikalpa Samadhi
Vaj wrote: > In the Shank. tradition, once one's stabilized in > samadhi, it's time to graduate to Vedantic contemplation > (nididhyasana) and to leave dualistic meditation behind-- > it has a different, monistic POV than dualistic meditation. > In the Shankaracharya tradition there are enumerated two levels of samadhi - savikalpa and nirvakalpa samadhi. Savikalpa and nirvakalpa samadhi are states of conciousness experienced during meditation and there is a return to the normal waking state once meditation is over. Both these state require yogic effort. These two states are always associated with profound meditation. However, in Adwaita sahaja samadhi there is full and lasting knolwdge of the Self. Sahaja samadhi is not a meditative trance, it is our true nature and once recognized, it is permanent. Sahaja samadhi is effortless and any effort to achieve sahaja must neccessaraily prevent it since effort means that the ego is involved. In sahaja samadhi there is no longer any 'person' experiencing anything. 'The Book of One' by Dennis Waite Other titles of interest: 'Acceptance of What Is - A Book About Nothing' by Wayne Liquorman 'The Truth Is' H.W. Poonja
[FairfieldLife] Re: WWF Title Match -- Shakti vs. Nirvikalpa Samadhi
TurquoiseB wrote: > I'm betting that anyone reading this who has > experienced both energies understands this, > even if my language is not the language or > spiritual jargon they are familiar with. > How much would you be willing o wager?
[FairfieldLife] subtle but brilliant
http://www.MaharishiVedicCity-Iowa.gov/ "Only governments can use '.gov'..." Lawson
[FairfieldLife] What effect has Maharishi's passing had on Fairfield and the movement?
Hi, I am a former Fairfield resident (from the 80's!)and an occasional visitor to this listserv. I imagine this topic has probably been discussed, so if you want to direct me to former postings, that's fine. Otherwise, I would be interested in opinion's on how Maharishi's passing will change things in the movement and in Fairfield, if at all. thanks!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Headline of the Week
Sal Sunshine wrote: > Will It be McCain-Lieberman... > It would be unusual to select two senators for the ticket, Sal. McCain will probably select a governor with executive experience for his running mate.
[FairfieldLife] Re: good article on Rev Right
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Order of magnitude is not exactly an argument against > the conspiracy status of the AIDS virus. Right (see, we're agreeing again). It's an argument against the suggestion that knowing one Unthinkable Thing happened should make it easier to entertain the possibility that an Exponentially More Unthinkable Thing occurred. > Depopulation, moreover, may be necessary to save > humanity for all I know. So in all my > conspiracy-theorizing, I do not, unlike most > conspiracy theorists, make a judgment of evil. For > one thing, such a judgment would cloud the clarity of > my research efforts. LOL!! > Your mind seems clouded in that way, as the judgment > of evil is implicit in your phrase "order of > magnitude" and in your characterization of > "unthinkable." Well, no, it isn't at all. Check Mr. Dictionary. Unthinkable: 1 : not capable of being grasped by the mind 2 : being contrary to what is reasonable, desirable, or probable : being out of the question There is a semantic issue, though: whether "unthinkable" is an absolute like "pregnant," or whether there can be degrees and orders of magnitude of unthinkability. That is at the heart of my statement > that the willing suspension of disbelief is as > necessary for the researcher as it is for the reader > of fiction. As my father used to say: Don't let your mind be so open that your brains fall out.
[FairfieldLife] Online SF short-short story (funny)
Wikihistory by Desmond Warzel International Association of Time Travelers: Members' Forum Subforum: Europe Twentieth Century Second World War Page 263 11/15/2104 At 14:52:28, FreedomFighter69 wrote: Reporting my first temporal excursion since joining IATT: have just returned from 1936 Berlin, having taken the place of one of Leni Riefenstahl's cameramen and assassinated Adolf Hitler during the opening of the Olympic Games. Let a free world rejoice! At 14:57:44, SilverFox316 wrote: Back from 1936 Berlin; incapacitated FreedomFighter69 before he could pull his little stunt. Freedomfighter69, as you are a new member, please read IATT Bulletin 1147 regarding the killing of Hitler before your next excursion. Failure to do so may result in your expulsion per Bylaw 223. Read the rest here: http://www.abyssandapex.com/200710-wikihistory.html (via BoingBoing)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Free will and atheism
Buttsplicer, once again I bow to your ass. --- Stu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" > buttsplicer@ wrote: > snip > > Stu, did you *read* what was in the post? The > writer > > is addressing people *who call themselves > atheists*. > > > > And he doesn't appear to be a religionist himself, > > so both parts of your formula fall apart. > > > Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens all make arguments > about the absurdity of > the label atheist. The only place I have seen the > word used was by > religious people as a pejorative. This writer was > clearly reacting > against these writers. > > Harris makes an effective argument saying that it is > much like the term > racist. Racist is a clear term to identify a KKK > member, but there is no > term to identify those who fight racism. Because > not believing in > racial superiority is not a characteristic of any > one group. > > If you really want I can send you some links. I > understand this article > is not your view anyway. I just wanted to point out > this fact. > Incidentally, there are atheist organizations but > the writers being > discussed have criticized these organizations for > the same misuse of > terms. > > > > The interesting part of that piece to me was his > > point that free will, at least in Western > countries, > > is a notion that originated with religion. Western > > secularists (including some on this very forum) > > tend to tout free will as if it were antithetical > > to faith, when in fact it is the very *basis* of > > faith. > > > Free will does not necessarily follow from faith. > Augustine, Calvin, > and Luther (and many others) all argued strongly for > the doctrine of > pre-determination. Their interpretation of the > bible suggests that God > has chosen who will receive salvation. We can not > override god's will. > In the eastern religions pre-determination is an > integral part of the > philosophy, with some schools arguing that > enlightenment is the only > case when a person exercises there freedom as they > break the wheel of > birth and rebirth. And even within these schools > many times > enlightenment is not a product of free will. > Instead the Dharma fully > overrides freewill. > > If I remember my philosophy history correctly it was > Thomas Aquinas who > proposed the terminology of free will. And it has > become a dominant > feature of the modern church. The concept did its > part to help create > the Magna Carta and other doctrines moving towards > recognizing > individual rights. > > Modern secularists on the other hand don't all agree > on the question of > free will as well. However, I am asserting that the > modern approach to > free will is better explained in the context of > freedom of individual > expression. This takes it out of the realm of > metaphysics and puts it > in the more practical realm of politics. Sartre > best illustrated this > in "Being and Nothingness" when he questioned why > some Frenchmen would > not resist the Nazi invasion during WWII. He felt > that his neighbors > who went along with the Nazis abandoned their > authentic existentialist > selves and the distinctively human gift of free > will. > > In all cases, free will is adopted and rejected by > people regardless of > their proclivity towards faith. However, I am ever > suspicious of > anyone's arguments if they involve themselves with > faith. If they are > willing to accept one notion without adequate > evidence what then of > their other notions? Sounds to me like a lot of > guesswork. > > s. > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: good article on Rev Right
I am, indeed, in fact, for fuccing sure, and without a doubt clueless in your mind, Judy; I know it and accept it completely, albeit unrepentantly. So you can save yourself the trouble (and the posts) of pointing that out, though you may feel a need to remind yourself and others of the fact. I, for one, look forward to your insults because even if you read me to find fault, you do read me. I am flattered flatter than a flounder. As for your notion that the evidence being in Russian (and in Chinese) is "con-V-nient," I disagree completely. It is decidedly inconvenient for me, as I'd love to show it to you. The Russian scientist who presented the evidence that the SAARS was indeed a man-made virus referred to the evidence that the AIDS virus was man-made also. My university in China, Jiangsu University of Science and Technology, had research faculty who were able to assess that evidence--I would not have been without their help since I am not an expert in the relevant science. Order of magnitude is not exactly an argument against the conspiracy status of the AIDS virus. Depopulation, moreover, may be necessary to save humanity for all I know. So in all my conspiracy-theorizing, I do not, unlike most conspiracy theorists, make a judgment of evil. For one thing, such a judgment would cloud the clarity of my research efforts. Your mind seems clouded in that way, as the judgment of evil is implicit in your phrase "order of magnitude" and in your characterization of "unthinkable." That is at the heart of my statement that the willing suspension of disbelief is as necessary for the researcher as it is for the reader of fiction. I fault the Rev Wright for not suspending his judgment of evil also. When it comes to understanding anything, "unthinkable" is a luxury we cannot afford. --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela > Mailander > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright and the Audacity of > Truth > > By Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III > > t r u t h o u t | Perspective > > > > Saturday 22 March 2008 > > > > http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032208F.shtml > > > > Leon doesn't address the AIDS issue very directly > but > > he does give it a historical context that may > point > > even a Judy to at least entertain the possibility > of a > > conspiracy, as the historical context he mentions > > certainly was one and implicitly acknowledged as > such > > by Prez Clinton. > > I know about Tuskegee, Angela. Utterly contemptible, > but several orders of magnitude less unthinkable > than > that the government would create the AIDS virus and > deliberately infect blacks with it in order to get > rid of them. > > > I doubt that Judy has actually considered the > evidence > > fully, especially since a) she is completely > unwilling > > to suspend disbelief (which is as hard to suspend > as > > belief is) > > You're clueless on both scores, Angela. > > and b) a lot of that evidence is not > > available in English. > > Ah, yes, the "not available in English" dodge. > How con-V-nient. > > I don't disagree with anything else Leon points > out, however (and I was already aware of > everything in our history that he mentions). > > > > There is, however, evidence > > and, moreover, there is excellent evidence in > Russian > > that the SARS virus was a similar "experiment." > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] I shook Obama's hand today
I am sure many of you have seen him already. When asked about the environment he said that many changes in the Bush administration were through executive order and the first job of his attorney general would be to review all executive orders since he can rescind them. He spoke about the same with regards to our civil liberties. He said most of the violations were through executive order. He said that if Iraq cannot get its act together to govern itself with five years of our help, it wasn't going to do it. He will have the troops out within 18 monthes and that makes 7 years for Iraq to learn self government. I really feel like he is there to "represent" the people truly. Yahoo. I am jazzed. I have not been into any candidate my whole life. When I said "the future president of the United States" He replied "thank you". Love that graciousness. He brings back eloquence and honor.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Time for a new approach.
(snip) > > The only real difference between Bill CLinton and > Barack Obama is that Bill Clinton had Jessica Flowers > and several other women in his closet not a minister > who get over zealous in his sermons. For the last > two weeks the press has been trying to make something > out of nothing. In their efforts they have proven > that Barack Obama is a christian not Muslim that he is > a stand up guy not a slime bag. They have proven he > will not stab his friends in the back. These are > important things Bill Clinton lies; that's the difference. Can't trust him with anything, really. The Clinton's will do anything; Just like the Bush's... That's the difference. Bill Clinton made lot's of money while governor, with his cocaine deals; and his whoring around with prositutes, while Hillary looked the other way.. That's the difference. He continued the sell-out of America, to the corporate interests... That's the difference. I can think of many more...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free will and atheism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" buttsplicer@ wrote: > snip > > Stu, did you *read* what was in the post? The writer > > is addressing people *who call themselves atheists*. > > > > And he doesn't appear to be a religionist himself, > > so both parts of your formula fall apart. > > Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens all make arguments about the > absurdity of the label atheist. The only place I have seen > the word used was by religious people as a pejorative. This > writer was clearly reacting against these writers. Stu, do a Google search for the phrase "Why I Am an Atheist," see what you come up with. Also see: http://tinyurl.com/yqodc3 (Amazon page) http://richarddawkins.net/article,318,n,n (Note that the American Atheist Alliance's top honor is the Richard Dawkins Award; and that he has started something called the Out Campaign, which features wearing T-shirts with a scarlet "A" for "Atheist.") Harris is the only one of the three to have real problems with the term "atheist." > > The interesting part of that piece to me was his > > point that free will, at least in Western countries, > > is a notion that originated with religion. Western > > secularists (including some on this very forum) > > tend to tout free will as if it were antithetical > > to faith, when in fact it is the very *basis* of > > faith. > > > Free will does not necessarily follow from faith. Not what I said. Augustine, Calvin, > and Luther (and many others) all argued strongly for the > doctrine of pre-determination. Their interpretation of the > bible suggests that God has chosen who will receive salvation. > We can not override god's will. Not the same as arguing that we don't have free will. > In the eastern religions As I said, "at least in Western countries..." > If I remember my philosophy history correctly it was Thomas > Aquinas who proposed the terminology of free will. And it has > become a dominant feature of the modern church. The concept did > its part to help create the Magna Carta and other doctrines > moving towards recognizing individual rights. Exactly. > Modern secularists on the other hand don't all agree on the > question of free will as well. Of course not, never said they did. Not the point, in any case.
[FairfieldLife] NPR FM may be available in FF
NPR has only been available (unless I have been out of FF too long to know whazzup) in Fairfield on AM. Now listeners may be able to get the NPR via FM from an Ottumwa broadcast tower: IPR launched KUNZ 91.1 FM on Friday. It's the first IPR station specifically aired to reach this part of the state. A second station, KDWI 89.1 FM, will follow in the coming months. Technical problems delayed its launch date, which was originally slated for Friday as well. http://www.ottumwacourier.com/local/local_story_081230900.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: good article on Rev Right
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright and the Audacity of Truth > By Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III > t r u t h o u t | Perspective > > Saturday 22 March 2008 > > http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032208F.shtml > > Leon doesn't address the AIDS issue very directly but > he does give it a historical context that may point > even a Judy to at least entertain the possibility of a > conspiracy, as the historical context he mentions > certainly was one and implicitly acknowledged as such > by Prez Clinton. I know about Tuskegee, Angela. Utterly contemptible, but several orders of magnitude less unthinkable than that the government would create the AIDS virus and deliberately infect blacks with it in order to get rid of them. > I doubt that Judy has actually considered the evidence > fully, especially since a) she is completely unwilling > to suspend disbelief (which is as hard to suspend as > belief is) You're clueless on both scores, Angela. and b) a lot of that evidence is not > available in English. Ah, yes, the "not available in English" dodge. How con-V-nient. I don't disagree with anything else Leon points out, however (and I was already aware of everything in our history that he mentions). There is, however, evidence > and, moreover, there is excellent evidence in Russian > that the SARS virus was a similar "experiment."
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free will and atheism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" buttsplicer@ wrote: snip > Stu, did you *read* what was in the post? The writer > is addressing people *who call themselves atheists*. > > And he doesn't appear to be a religionist himself, > so both parts of your formula fall apart. Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens all make arguments about the absurdity of the label atheist. The only place I have seen the word used was by religious people as a pejorative. This writer was clearly reacting against these writers. Harris makes an effective argument saying that it is much like the term racist. Racist is a clear term to identify a KKK member, but there is no term to identify those who fight racism. Because not believing in racial superiority is not a characteristic of any one group. If you really want I can send you some links. I understand this article is not your view anyway. I just wanted to point out this fact. Incidentally, there are atheist organizations but the writers being discussed have criticized these organizations for the same misuse of terms. > > The interesting part of that piece to me was his > point that free will, at least in Western countries, > is a notion that originated with religion. Western > secularists (including some on this very forum) > tend to tout free will as if it were antithetical > to faith, when in fact it is the very *basis* of > faith. > Free will does not necessarily follow from faith. Augustine, Calvin, and Luther (and many others) all argued strongly for the doctrine of pre-determination. Their interpretation of the bible suggests that God has chosen who will receive salvation. We can not override god's will. In the eastern religions pre-determination is an integral part of the philosophy, with some schools arguing that enlightenment is the only case when a person exercises there freedom as they break the wheel of birth and rebirth. And even within these schools many times enlightenment is not a product of free will. Instead the Dharma fully overrides freewill. If I remember my philosophy history correctly it was Thomas Aquinas who proposed the terminology of free will. And it has become a dominant feature of the modern church. The concept did its part to help create the Magna Carta and other doctrines moving towards recognizing individual rights. Modern secularists on the other hand don't all agree on the question of free will as well. However, I am asserting that the modern approach to free will is better explained in the context of freedom of individual expression. This takes it out of the realm of metaphysics and puts it in the more practical realm of politics. Sartre best illustrated this in "Being and Nothingness" when he questioned why some Frenchmen would not resist the Nazi invasion during WWII. He felt that his neighbors who went along with the Nazis abandoned their authentic existentialist selves and the distinctively human gift of free will. In all cases, free will is adopted and rejected by people regardless of their proclivity towards faith. However, I am ever suspicious of anyone's arguments if they involve themselves with faith. If they are willing to accept one notion without adequate evidence what then of their other notions? Sounds to me like a lot of guesswork. s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Time for a new approach.
A candidate with a consistent 47% negative rating is not a strong candidate, despite world-class name recognition. Sorry, Hillary, Obama doesn't need a 'two-fer' VP. Perhaps McCain would put you (and Bill) on his ticket as VP. remember where you heard it first.. -Mainstream --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Louis McKenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > One big problem I have with the competition between > Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is that they are very > much on the same page on many issues.That said it > is hard for me to believe that the CLinton camp will > go past Pennsylvania with this win at any cost > politics. One reason is that Hillary, IF, she wins > Pennsylvania will not win with enough of a margin to > change what is already and that is that Barack has > nearly a 150 delegate lead over her. > > Therefore in consideration that Barack Obama stands > for all of what the CLintons have claimed to stand > for, for nearly 40 years, I believe that after Penn > there will be a change in the way they do things. I > believe it is time for them to sit down with Barack > Obama and map out a partnership. No more campaigning > for McCain. No one person can change America, > America will only be changed by everyone working > together to make that change. > > The only real difference between Bill CLinton and > Barack Obama is that Bill Clinton had Jessica Flowers > and several other women in his closet not a minister > who get over zealous in his sermons. For the last > two weeks the press has been trying to make something > out of nothing. In their efforts they have proven > that Barack Obama is a christian not Muslim that he is > a stand up guy not a slime bag. They have proven he > will not stab his friends in the back. These are > important things > > If Barack wins Pennsylvania or any of the coming > primaries it will put an end to these attacks, because > it will show that America is not listening. On the > other hand with Bill Clinton after Jessica, and WHite > water he could not keep still he had to fall for a set > up and go after Monica Lewinsky.In other words > once he won all the battles he had to stick a knife in > his own back. I hope Barack is not so stupid. > > Point it is time to stop campaigning for McCain it is > time for the Democrats to come together and stand > together for America... > > > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping >
[FairfieldLife] Re: hypocrisy of Americans
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine > wrote: > > > > On Mar 22, 2008, at 10:04 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > > > I'm afraid what this mess has demonstrated is that > > > the country isn't ready for either a black or a female > > > president. > > > > What this has demonstrated is that a lot (or at least some) > > Hillary supporters, bitterly disappointed that her waltz to > > the nomination hasn't happened, are doing everything they > > can to wreck Obama's candidacy while pretending to superfically > > support him, so that McCain can win and Hillary can run again > > in 4 years. To hell with what's good for the country or even > > the world. It's only what's good for Hillary that really > > matters. > > Sorry, but that's totally absurd, the worst kind of > naive, nitwit conspiracy theorizing. (Lots easier > than actually trying to answer the question I asked > you, though, isn't it?) > > If Hillary doesn't win the nomination and the election, > she's finished as a presidential candidate. This is her > one and only chance. > > And if she doesn't campaign for Obama with everything > she's got once he has the nomination, she'll be > finished as a senator as well. She'll be a political > pariah (as will Bill if *he* doesn't campaign for > Obama with everything he's got). > > > Nice try, though, Judy. > > FOAD, Sal. People like you are the problem, not the > solution. > FOAD??? Now you want Sal AND Barack dead like MLK and brother Malcolm. Maybe you are not just racist but also a common inveterate hater.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: poem for Marek
Yes, yes, yes. Every detail in my poem is accurate. The sound frequencies of bird song really do open the pores of leaves so they can absorb the nutrients in rain and dew. And the city state is from a video Rick sent, I believe. Maybe I should dedicate it to Rick and Marek. Unfortunately, I've lost the link. Water is very obviously intelligent. It creates its tamasic quality as surface tension. It is surface tension that keeps the dew drop in its beautifully mutable shape. Here's another aspect of the beauty of water's tamasic quality. This is page one of Chapter Nineteen of my Memoir--and by way of introduction, Johannes, the shepherd, was not only my TM-teacher (according to MMY), he was also a colleague: he herded sheep; I herded geese. Wolf is the sheep dog, an all-black German shepherd. Sibylle is a pet cow. Chapter Nineteen Johannes, Wolf, and I were lying on the big black shepherds cloak next to Sybille in a flowery meadow in early summer on a perfectly windless day. Wolf was snoozing and Sybille was chewing her cud. The sheep and the geese were grazing lazily, while Johannes and I were looking up into cloudless, dazzling blue. Meadows like that dont exist anymore. Maybe far back in the mountains. These days people use weed killers so that nothing but grass grows in a pasture. Ive often wondered if grazing animals really get a balanced diet without those flowers. What if a sheep or a cow were ever not feeling quite up to snuff, where would she find the herbs to fix it? And hay smells good, but not as wonderful as it does when there are flowers and wild herbs mixed in with the grass. I wonder, too, if some of those flowers I knew as a child are now extinct. But back then our meadow was replete and resplendent with dozens of different meadow flowers, and therefore it was also over-flown by a thousand golden bees, their summer humming sweet in our ears. And the larks were up. Johannes said, Have you ever seen them play? We sat up, and not only were they singing joyfully in flight, as no other bird can, they were playing a game with swans down. That day, our meadow lay next to a fairly large pond that was the summer home of a couple of swans. If there are swans, then there will be swans down lying so lightly on the surface tension of the water that it doesnt get wet. During molting season, there can sometimes be so much swans down on a pond that it looks like luminous mist especially in slant light, when the sun, rising or setting, shines through it. A lark would come swooping down to the water, pick up some swans down in its beak and take it aloft as high into the sky as only larks will dare and then drop it. Another lark would catch it in his beak and drop it; the first lark would let it float down a bit and then catch it. They would alternate like this, and the winner was the lark who could pick it up closest to the water without getting the tips of his wing feathers wet. Some of the larks were doing it in pairs and some of them were practicing solo. We watched them and then lay down again on our backs with our hands folded under our heads and watched tiny points of light in the bright blueness. Johannes asked, Do you see those small points of light dancing? Uh huh. Do you think they are part of the sky or do you think they are part of your eyes? I dont know, I said after a long pause. Why dont you watch them and then see if you can tell. I watched and watched. Finally I said. I really cant tell; can you? --- sandiego108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela > Mailander > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > You can see it clearly with the monarch's cocoon. > The > > shell is actually pretty colorless, and > translucent > > except for a few metallic gold spots. You can see > the > > liquid inside forming, then the whole thing > becomes > > this translucent almost clear and luminous green > > liquid, and then you can see the black beginning > to > > form within that liquid as the butterfly takes > shape. > > I used to keep them and watch them daily as they > > progressed. > > > amazing- truly amazing. as so many things in the > natural world, they > are just here to confound us in a most enjoyable and > delightful way. > > oddly enough i was thinking about that today while > looking at > dewdrops on the grass and recognizing that it was > the tamasic > property of water that allowed such perfect little > jewels to form, > and that tamas is thought of as a bad thing with us > humans because > it reinforces the ego's tendency towards segregation > and stagnation > and false identity, but with water, which flows > constantly and is > stateful always according to its surroundings, tamas > is beautiful. > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: poem for Marek
Yes, yes, yes. Every detail in my poem is accurate. The sound frequencies of bird song really do open the pores of leaves so they can absorb the nutrients in rain and dew. And the city state is from a video Rick sent, I believe. Maybe I should dedicate it to Rick and Marek. Unfortunately, I've lost the link. Water is very obviously intelligent. It creates its tamasic quality as surface tension. It is surface tension that keeps the dew drop in its beautifully mutable shape. Here's another aspect of the beauty of water's tamasic quality. This is page one of Chapter Nineteen of my Memoir--and by way of introduction, Johannes, the shepherd, was not only my TM-teacher (according to MMY), he was also a colleague: he herded sheep; I herded geese. Wolf is the sheep dog, an all-black German shepherd. Sibylle is a pet cow. Chapter Nineteen Johannes, Wolf, and I were lying on the big black shepherds cloak next to Sybille in a flowery meadow in early summer on a perfectly windless day. Wolf was snoozing and Sybille was chewing her cud. The sheep and the geese were grazing lazily, while Johannes and I were looking up into cloudless, dazzling blue. Meadows like that dont exist anymore. Maybe far back in the mountains. These days people use weed killers so that nothing but grass grows in a pasture. Ive often wondered if grazing animals really get a balanced diet without those flowers. What if a sheep or a cow were ever not feeling quite up to snuff, where would she find the herbs to fix it? And hay smells good, but not as wonderful as it does when there are flowers and wild herbs mixed in with the grass. I wonder, too, if some of those flowers I knew as a child are now extinct. But back then our meadow was replete and resplendent with dozens of different meadow flowers, and therefore it was also over-flown by a thousand golden bees, their summer humming sweet in our ears. And the larks were up. Johannes said, Have you ever seen them play? We sat up, and not only were they singing joyfully in flight, as no other bird can, they were playing a game with swans down. That day, our meadow lay next to a fairly large pond that was the summer home of a couple of swans. If there are swans, then there will be swans down lying so lightly on the surface tension of the water that it doesnt get wet. During molting season, there can sometimes be so much swans down on a pond that it looks like luminous mist especially in slant light, when the sun, rising or setting, shines through it. A lark would come swooping down to the water, pick up some swans down in its beak and take it aloft as high into the sky as only larks will dare and then drop it. Another lark would catch it in his beak and drop it; the first lark would let it float down a bit and then catch it. They would alternate like this, and the winner was the lark who could pick it up closest to the water without getting the tips of his wing feathers wet. Some of the larks were doing it in pairs and some of them were practicing solo. We watched them and then lay down again on our backs with our hands folded under our heads and watched tiny points of light in the bright blueness. Johannes asked, Do you see those small points of light dancing? Uh huh. Do you think they are part of the sky or do you think they are part of your eyes? I dont know, I said after a long pause. Why dont you watch them and then see if you can tell. I watched and watched. Finally I said. I really cant tell; can you? --- sandiego108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela > Mailander > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > You can see it clearly with the monarch's cocoon. > The > > shell is actually pretty colorless, and > translucent > > except for a few metallic gold spots. You can see > the > > liquid inside forming, then the whole thing > becomes > > this translucent almost clear and luminous green > > liquid, and then you can see the black beginning > to > > form within that liquid as the butterfly takes > shape. > > I used to keep them and watch them daily as they > > progressed. > > > amazing- truly amazing. as so many things in the > natural world, they > are just here to confound us in a most enjoyable and > delightful way. > > oddly enough i was thinking about that today while > looking at > dewdrops on the grass and recognizing that it was > the tamasic > property of water that allowed such perfect little > jewels to form, > and that tamas is thought of as a bad thing with us > humans because > it reinforces the ego's tendency towards segregation > and stagnation > and false identity, but with water, which flows > constantly and is > stateful always according to its surroundings, tamas > is beautiful. > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] good article on Rev Right
The Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright and the Audacity of Truth By Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III t r u t h o u t | Perspective Saturday 22 March 2008 http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032208F.shtml Leon doesn't address the AIDS issue very directly but he does give it a historical context that may point even a Judy to at least entertain the possibility of a conspiracy, as the historical context he mentions certainly was one and implicitly acknowledged as such by Prez Clinton. I doubt that Judy has actually considered the evidence fully, especially since a) she is completely unwilling to suspend disbelief (which is as hard to suspend as belief is) and b) a lot of that evidence is not available in English. There is, however, evidence and, moreover, there is excellent evidence in Russian that the SARS virus was a similar "experiment." Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: MM => FF 911
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Michael, can you tell me if Boston is a definite stop > on the tour? The Boston website still says it depends > upon the interest level. It is definite. They just didn't yet update their web pages. You can also see that some of the web pages have the correct dates on their link-list, but not yet on their main page. The reason is, they have someone else doing the web page for them, so there is a delay, while I updated right away. The only difference between cities will be, that those with fewer applications, will only have one evening Darshan (7 pm), and those with more interest, will have an additional afternoon Darshan (2 pm). But Mother will definitely go to these places now. The best is, if you are interested, do a pre-registration, and they should inform you in a short while. > Also, clicking on New "Yorg" brings up the Washington, > DC website. Thank you. I just did it, it was late at night, and I did a few 'undos' obviously one too much :-) > --- Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Mother Meera will be in Fairfield finally - on > > September 11. Just came > > out that way. No special symbolism intended. See the > > whole schedule here: > > http://mothermeeradarshan.org/ > > http://www.MotherMeera-Fairfield.com/ > > > > Mother will also go to India again in May and will > > be first time in > > North India, Delhi April 30, Rishikesh May 3 > > http://mothermeeraindia.com/ > > > > > > > > > > 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: Is Monogamy Required for Attaining Higher Levels of Consciousness?
Re: Is Monogamy Required for Attaining Higher Levels of Consciousness? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > I wonder how much of a technique is needed to meditate. > > I've been told that MMY once said, "TM isn't a technique. > We call it a technique because it works." > > ** Right, TM is the pathless path -- the path reduced to the goal. MMY commentary on v.5, ch.6 of the Gita: "This teaching illuminates the whole area of the search for truth. Nothing in the outside world is relevant to this search. For the Lord says, there is no friend of the self other than the Self. No particular culture or way of life is especially conducive to Self- realization; no sense of detachment or attachment is conducive or opposed to Self-realization. Renunciation of the world, or a recluse way of life, is not especially helpful to the unfolding of the Self, for it unfolds Itself by Itself to Itself. The wind does nothing to the sun; it only clears away the clouds and the sun is found shining by its own light. The sun of the Self is self-effulgent. Meditation only takes the mind out of the clouds of relativity. The absolute state of the Self ever shines in its own glory."
[FairfieldLife] Re: Richardson Explains Obama Endorsement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Richardson says the speech Obama gave in response to the Rev. Wright > smear campaign showed his real leadership abilities and sealed the > deal for his endorsement. Richardson and Hillary don't get along, so she definitely would not choose him as VP. Barack, however, might go with Richardson to help with the Hispanic vote -- I think Richardson is just angling for an appointment that would put him in position to run for pres in 2012.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Monogamy Required for Attaining Higher Levels of Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > I wonder how much of a technique is needed to meditate. > > I've been told that MMY once said, "TM isn't a technique. > We call it a technique because it works." > > ** Right, TM is the pathless path -- the path reduced to the goal. MMY commentary on v.5, ch.6 of the Gita: "This teaching illuminates the whole area of the search for truth. Nothing in the outside world is relevant to this search. For the Lord says, there is no friend of the self other than the Self. No particular culture or way of life is especially conducive to Self- realization; no sense of detachment or attachment is conducive or opposed to Self-realization. Renunciation of the world, or a recluse way of life, is not especially helpful to the unfolding of the Self, for it unfolds Itself by Itself to Itself. The wind does nothing to the sun; it only clears away the clouds and the sun if found shining by its own light. The sun of the Self is self-effulgent. Meditation only takes the mind out of the clouds of relativity. The absolute state of the Self ever shines in its own glory."
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free will and atheism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The concept of free will in a metaphysical > sense is unprovable. The question of determinism versus > free will turns on circular logic. Exactly. > As for the polemic on atheism - I reject the notion of atheism > altogether. This twisted expression is the fantasy of > religious thinkers and dreamers. There is no such thing as > atheism. You might want to make that argument to those who vigorously asssert they are atheists. However by > making such a label delusional religious people can attach > their own projections on certain philosophers and thinkers. Stu, did you *read* what was in the post? The writer is addressing people *who call themselves atheists*. And he doesn't appear to be a religionist himself, so both parts of your formula fall apart. The interesting part of that piece to me was his point that free will, at least in Western countries, is a notion that originated with religion. Western secularists (including some on this very forum) tend to tout free will as if it were antithetical to faith, when in fact it is the very *basis* of faith.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Teapot??
Thai pot is another option. So cardemaister, since you had the Finnish version available, how come you sent me the Latin to translate? Just to see if I really know Latin? Given the Internet, I can handle virtually any human language whether I know it or not--it would take time is all. --- cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Would *you* read that as "teapot"? > > http://www.gypsii.com/place.cgi?op=view&id=56731 > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Free will and atheism
Buttsplicer, this is fuccing brilliant--in my opinion, a phrase they add tirelessly to any statement of such in China and with mantra-like efficiency--speaking of techniques that work. Now, to my mind, there is freedom of choice, if you're willing to grant the mathematical and logical certainty of re-incarnation, while also rejecting the silly notion of past lives or future lives. All life is now. And in that now-moment (using Eckhart's term) there is freedom of choice. Even when reaping lousy karma there is escape. When Christ said, "Turn the other cheek," he didn't mean "Ask the son-of-a-bitch to lay you flat again." He meant something like "Turn THAT cheek towards life that invites what you want instead, now that it's abundantly clear what you don't want." Think of it this way: any life casts a net (moment by moment) into infinity and draws in a catch. If you don't like it, cast your net again. It is possible even now. Hell, in Dante's sense (a very great master, that Dante) is an eternal state, but that doesn't mean you have to take out eternal squatter's rights. The state is there as a form of Divine mercy (Absolute Compassion), as Blake recognized, to give a "limit of opacity" and a "limit of contraction" to the individual soul so it doesn't wander forever in that direction. You bang your head against a wall until you realize, this is a wall, this is not a path. In other words, until you turn the other cheek. To a being truly in Brahman that means that alternate universes are yours to realize moment by moment. a --- Stu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela > Mailander > > mailander111@ wrote: > > > > > > Whether or not there is free will depends not on > > > belief but on state of consciousness, > > > > I'd say what depends on state of consciousness > > is not whether there is or is not free will, but > > whether the existence or nonexistence of free > > will is even a valid question. > > > > the question of whether there is or > > is not free will is a *valid* one depends not on > > belief but on state of conscioiusness. > > > > and any > > > understanding of what free will might be that is > > > formulated in waking state is necessarily a > fiction. > > > > Total agreement on that point. > > > > The concept of free will is not so much a state of > consciousness but a > political/social question. The concept of free will > in a metaphysical > sense is unprovable. The question of determinism > versus free will turns > on circular logic. Of course if every action of > ours was determined by > the clockwork of the universe there is no way to > know if thats true or > not. Einstein was a great proponent of determinism. > Although he was a > strong believer in determinism, he also believed in > the political > importance of freedom of individual expression. > > Einstein's notion of free will may be the best > starting point. We know > our thought and actions are determined by a variety > of forces outside > our control (and often our consciousness). Our will > is restricted by, > genetics, the structure of language, bodily > limitations, perceptions, > political situations, social conventions, duties and > so on. On the > other hand we appear to make choices as best we can > within these > restrictions. We have limited means of expanding > freedom of our own > biology. The extent to which we can broaden the > freedom of exercised > will is determined by society. Hence, Sartres > words, "Hell is other > people". > > As for the polemic on atheism - I reject the notion > of atheism > altogether. This twisted expression is the fantasy > of religious > thinkers and dreamers. There is no such thing as > atheism. However by > making such a label delusional religious people can > attach their own > projections on certain philosophers and thinkers. > We can not generalize > about an individual's mental life based on what they > don't believe. The > universe of not believing is infinite. > > However, philosophy has a history and a duty to > question beliefs. The > ongoing dialectic concerning what we believe to be > true is not only a > valid path of inquiry but a necessary one. > > s. > > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Teapot??
Would *you* read that as "teapot"? http://www.gypsii.com/place.cgi?op=view&id=56731
[FairfieldLife] Headline of the Week
Will It be McCain-Lieberman, McCain-Romney, McCain Huckabee, or McCain-Nursemaid? Kind of mean, I know, but still pretty funny. :)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Monogamy Required for Attaining Higher Levels of Consciousness?
Right on: Father=rishi; Holy Spirit=devata; Son=chhandas. Not by coincidence either and with the same profound underlying assumptions and the same run-away (world without end) implications. > In other words, there is a triune relationship in > nature which could > be interpreted as the relationship of the Christian > understanding of > the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. And guess > what? This > relationship is not so dissimilar from MMY's > paradigm of the Rishi- > Devata-Chandas unity. > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Monogamy Required for Attaining Higher Levels of Consciousness?
Not exactly. Briefly now, more when I have time. The Church doesn't try, the Church succeeds in ways you wouldn't believe. I remember hearing once that the really enlightened masters are people you never hear about. They are in the caves in the Himalayas and they have maybe one thought, and that thought, that one thought, is beneficial for the evolution of humanity. Sounds right to me. And I remember thinking at the time, not only mountain caves, but there are, for example, the sisters of Sister Angela right in that Carmelite monastery in the good old US of Christ IS Awakening Itself. But the Church has a whole arsenal of excellent techniques that we can call techniques because they work. Humility as a practice for instance--a practice in the sense that meditation is a practice and in the sense that mindfullness is a practice, a practice in the Chinese sense of the word practice. Trying to get people to be more Christlike, however, does not sound like an effective technique to me, though it works as a conceptual tool to describe all techniques. a --- Patrick Gillam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I need something clarified: I got into this thread > by saying > Christianity does not recognize, let alone promote, > self- > realization. Angela and John, you seem to be saying > the > church tries to get people to be more like Christ, > and in > that, it's promoting Awakening in the vedic sense, > because > Christ was really an awakened being. Is that a fair > understanding of your position? Maybe you could talk > about that a little bit. > > More questions below. > > >--- Angela Mailander wrote: > > > > Your assumptions are that the Vatican doesn't know > or > > doesn't care about a possible 1% effect. > > Angela, you have me at a disadvantage. I don't see > how > I'm assuming the Vatican doesn't know or care about > a > 1% Effect. If you care to elaborate, I'd enjoy > reading your > insights. > > > I'm sure > > they know about it. They have reasons for keeping > > techniques a secret. > > If you care to surmise what those reasons may be, > I'd > enjoy reading those thoughts, too. > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Zbigniew Brzezinski predictions on Iraq & views on 2008 Candidates
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "abutilon108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" wrote: > > > > > > > > [video starts after brief ad]: > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23726367#23726367 > > > > Great video -- right on the mark! > > Do you know when the interview occurred or when this was first aired? > > Thanks. Zbigniew Brzezinski appeared with Joe Scarborough on March 20, 2008. That's last Thursday.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Zbigniew Brzezinski predictions on Iraq & views on 2008 Candidates
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "abutilon108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" wrote: > > > > > > > > [video starts after brief ad]: > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23726367#23726367 > > > > Great video -- right on the mark! > > Do you know when the interview occurred or when this was first aired? > > Thanks. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Zbigniew Brzezinski predictions on Iraq & views on 2008 Candidates
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > [video starts after brief ad]: > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23726367#23726367 > Great video -- right on the mark! Do you know when the interview occurred or when this was first aired? Thanks.
[FairfieldLife] Re: poem for Marek
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You can see it clearly with the monarch's cocoon. The > shell is actually pretty colorless, and translucent > except for a few metallic gold spots. You can see the > liquid inside forming, then the whole thing becomes > this translucent almost clear and luminous green > liquid, and then you can see the black beginning to > form within that liquid as the butterfly takes shape. > I used to keep them and watch them daily as they > progressed. > amazing- truly amazing. as so many things in the natural world, they are just here to confound us in a most enjoyable and delightful way. oddly enough i was thinking about that today while looking at dewdrops on the grass and recognizing that it was the tamasic property of water that allowed such perfect little jewels to form, and that tamas is thought of as a bad thing with us humans because it reinforces the ego's tendency towards segregation and stagnation and false identity, but with water, which flows constantly and is stateful always according to its surroundings, tamas is beautiful.
Re: [FairfieldLife] MM => FF 911
Michael, can you tell me if Boston is a definite stop on the tour? The Boston website still says it depends upon the interest level. Also, clicking on New "Yorg" brings up the Washington, DC website. --- Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mother Meera will be in Fairfield finally - on > September 11. Just came > out that way. No special symbolism intended. See the > whole schedule here: > http://mothermeeradarshan.org/ > http://www.MotherMeera-Fairfield.com/ > > Mother will also go to India again in May and will > be first time in > North India, Delhi April 30, Rishikesh May 3 > http://mothermeeraindia.com/ > > > > > 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] Richardson Explains Obama Endorsement
Richardson says the speech Obama gave in response to the Rev. Wright smear campaign showed his real leadership abilities and sealed the deal for his endorsement. Richardson called for the negative tone and dirty politics to come to an end and for the party to come together to put forward a positive message. He says he still has enormous respect for both Bill and Hillary Clinton, but in the end, it was the negativity that started to take place after the Texas primary that moved him to move toward Obama. >From an Interview with Keith Olbermann--- RICHARDSON: "Well I waited because I was just legitimately very torn. You mentioned my ties to the Clintons, my loyalties to President Clinton, my support and respect for Senator Clinton. But, I just realized that if I was going to make a difference, at a time we need party unity, at a time when the campaign was really getting nasty and personal, at a time when Senator Obama responded, I believe, in such a courageous way to a problem in his campaign those remarks by his own pastor I felt that I needed to step in and say that I am backing Senator Obama because I think this man has got something very good about him, something very special." Transcript: http://tinyurl.com/322smm
[FairfieldLife] Richardson Explains Obama Endorsement
Richardson says the speech Obama gave in response to the Rev. Wright smear campaign showed his real leadership abilities and sealed the deal for his endorsement. Richardson called for the negative tone and dirty politics to come to an end and for the party to come together to put forward a positive message. He says he still has enormous respect for both Bill and Hillary Clinton, but in the end, it was the negativity that started to take place after the Texas primary that moved him to move toward Obama. >From an Interview with Keith Olbermann--- RICHARDSON: "Well I waited because I was just legitimately very torn. You mentioned my ties to the Clintons, my loyalties to President Clinton, my support and respect for Senator Clinton. But, I just realized that if I was going to make a difference, at a time we need party unity, at a time when the campaign was really getting nasty and personal, at a time when Senator Obama responded, I believe, in such a courageous way to a problem in his campaign those remarks by his own pastor I felt that I needed to step in and say that I am backing Senator Obama because I think this man has got something very good about him, something very special." Transcript:
[FairfieldLife] Re: Time for a new approach.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Louis McKenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > One big problem I have with the competition between > Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is that they are very > much on the same page on many issues.That said it > is hard for me to believe that the CLinton camp will > go past Pennsylvania with this win at any cost > politics. One reason is that Hillary, IF, she wins > Pennsylvania will not win with enough of a margin to > change what is already and that is that Barack has > nearly a 150 delegate lead over her. > > Therefore in consideration that Barack Obama stands > for all of what the CLintons have claimed to stand > for, for nearly 40 years, I believe that after Penn > there will be a change in the way they do things. I > believe it is time for them to sit down with Barack > Obama and map out a partnership. No more campaigning > for McCain. Neither of them is "campaigning for McCain." No one person can change America, > America will only be changed by everyone working > together to make that change. > > The only real difference between Bill CLinton and > Barack Obama is that Bill Clinton had Jessica Flowers Gennifer Flowers. "Jessica" was Jessica Hahn, the woman whom televangelist Jim Bakker got in trouble over.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
That's a great rap, Turq. I was aware of Intention Itself, but had not found its more than obvious name. But I have often told the poets I work with that the impulse to write a poem is necessarily deep. That's if they're really intending to write a poem rather than writing a piece of crap whose real intention it is to say, "Look how sensitive I am," or recently, "Look how gutsy I am" etc. I don't work with writers like that. So thanks again for the term "Intention Itself." Worthy improvement on Kant's Das Ding Ansich" I'd suggest an editorial change for: "To lower as many others as possible to my plane of awareness" to read instead "To lower as many others as possible to a plane of awareness lower than mine." --- TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela > Mailander > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Good one, Turq, that about encapsulates what I've > > thought often about her comments: Out of touch > with > > intention itself. > > Intent is not really *dealt with* in the TM > dogma. It's very possible to miss its value. > In some of the other traditions I studied, > we were taught specifically to cut through > the fog of someone's word and suss out their > *intent* in saying them. She never had that > training; she probably doesn't even believe > that such a sussing is possible. > > On this forum, a focus on intent would involve > reading someone's post and then thinking, "What > did this person hope to *accomplish* by posting > this?" > > If the answer to that question is, "To uplift > others to a more noble or interesting plane > of awareness," then you are dealing with one > sort of being. If the answer to that question > is, "To lower as many others as possible to > my plane of awareness," then you're dealing > with another sort of being. > > Interestingly, that is the factor that is kill- > ing Hillary in the polls and helping Obama. > The people can feel each of their *intents*, > and are reacting accordingly. > > > --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela > > > Mailander > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > And even when she's right, > > > > > she's missing your intention. > > > > > > > > Here I not only agree but offer you a > high-five > > > > for "seeing." I think the root cause is that > she > > > > is so out of touch with intention *itself*, > esp- > > > > ecially her own. > > > > > > But note that (a) Barry didn't read my post, and > (b) > > > he's no more able than Angela to explain how I > > > "missed" his intention. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends > http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Time for a new approach.
Louis, go away. You posted 59 times last week, and you did so *after* having been explicitly warned about it by Rick. Come back next Saturday. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Louis McKenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > One big problem I have with the competition between > Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is that they are very > much on the same page on many issues.That said it > is hard for me to believe that the CLinton camp will > go past Pennsylvania with this win at any cost > politics. One reason is that Hillary, IF, she wins > Pennsylvania will not win with enough of a margin to > change what is already and that is that Barack has > nearly a 150 delegate lead over her. > > Therefore in consideration that Barack Obama stands > for all of what the CLintons have claimed to stand > for, for nearly 40 years, I believe that after Penn > there will be a change in the way they do things. I > believe it is time for them to sit down with Barack > Obama and map out a partnership. No more campaigning > for McCain. No one person can change America, > America will only be changed by everyone working > together to make that change. > > The only real difference between Bill CLinton and > Barack Obama is that Bill Clinton had Jessica Flowers > and several other women in his closet not a minister > who get over zealous in his sermons. For the last > two weeks the press has been trying to make something > out of nothing. In their efforts they have proven > that Barack Obama is a christian not Muslim that he is > a stand up guy not a slime bag. They have proven he > will not stab his friends in the back. These are > important things > > If Barack wins Pennsylvania or any of the coming > primaries it will put an end to these attacks, because > it will show that America is not listening. On the > other hand with Bill Clinton after Jessica, and WHite > water he could not keep still he had to fall for a set > up and go after Monica Lewinsky.In other words > once he won all the battles he had to stick a knife in > his own back. I hope Barack is not so stupid. > > Point it is time to stop campaigning for McCain it is > time for the Democrats to come together and stand > together for America... > > > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander > wrote: > > > > Good one, Turq, that about encapsulates what I've > > thought often about her comments: Out of touch with > > intention itself. > > Intent is not really *dealt with* in the TM > dogma. It's very possible to miss its value. > In some of the other traditions I studied, > we were taught specifically to cut through > the fog of someone's word and suss out their > *intent* in saying them. She never had that > training; she probably doesn't even believe > that such a sussing is possible. Hilarious. I do such sussing all the time, and Barry just *hates* it. > On this forum, a focus on intent would involve > reading someone's post and then thinking, "What > did this person hope to *accomplish* by posting > this?" Barry's intent in the post at issue was to call Lawson's statements about TM research, and the validity of the TM research itself, in question. But Barry misfired big-time because he doesn't know what the research involves. > If the answer to that question is, "To uplift > others to a more noble or interesting plane > of awareness," then you are dealing with one > sort of being. If the answer to that question > is, "To lower as many others as possible to > my plane of awareness," then you're dealing > with another sort of being. > > Interestingly, that is the factor that is kill- > ing Hillary in the polls and helping Obama. > The people can feel each of their *intents*, > and are reacting accordingly. Actually in many cases they're projecting intents on both candidates.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Monogamy Required for Attaining Higher Levels of Consciousness?
I need something clarified: I got into this thread by saying Christianity does not recognize, let alone promote, self- realization. Angela and John, you seem to be saying the church tries to get people to be more like Christ, and in that, it's promoting Awakening in the vedic sense, because Christ was really an awakened being. Is that a fair understanding of your position? Maybe you could talk about that a little bit. More questions below. >--- Angela Mailander wrote: > > Your assumptions are that the Vatican doesn't know or > doesn't care about a possible 1% effect. Angela, you have me at a disadvantage. I don't see how I'm assuming the Vatican doesn't know or care about a 1% Effect. If you care to elaborate, I'd enjoy reading your insights. > I'm sure > they know about it. They have reasons for keeping > techniques a secret. If you care to surmise what those reasons may be, I'd enjoy reading those thoughts, too.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Monogamy Required for Attaining Higher Levels of Consciousness?
> Sorry, John and Angela. I enjoy reading your thoughts, > especially your personal experiences, and I like to think > Christianity offers spiritual insights, but I cannot buy > the notion that Christianity (by which you appear to > mean Catholicism) leads to, let alone actively promotes, > self realization. If such were the case, the amount of > time Christianity has existed and the number of > Christians that have lived would have generated more > enlightened people than it has apparently produced. > As holobuda put it in another post in this thread: Perhaps you're putting self-realization in such a high pedestal that most people cannot reach it. If such were the case, there would not be too many people who can enter heaven. This fact alone is a barrier to self-realization. IMO, ordinary people can enter paradise through humility. It does not require years of effort and strain doing severe austerity. The very act of leading a just life (not merely human existence) for most people is the yoga itself that could qualify a person for heavenly reward. This could lead to more questions and debate. But that's for another day. As far as "family values" are concerned, the term should be applied in a holistic way. It is not strictly for the preservation of the immediate family members and the continuation of the species. The term is really describing dharma, in using the vedic equivalent. That is, the term involves ones own self, children, and religion, particularly one's personal Deity (using a generic term). In other words, there is a triune relationship in nature which could be interpreted as the relationship of the Christian understanding of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. And guess what? This relationship is not so dissimilar from MMY's paradigm of the Rishi- Devata-Chandas unity.
[FairfieldLife] Time for a new approach.
One big problem I have with the competition between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is that they are very much on the same page on many issues.That said it is hard for me to believe that the CLinton camp will go past Pennsylvania with this win at any cost politics. One reason is that Hillary, IF, she wins Pennsylvania will not win with enough of a margin to change what is already and that is that Barack has nearly a 150 delegate lead over her. Therefore in consideration that Barack Obama stands for all of what the CLintons have claimed to stand for, for nearly 40 years, I believe that after Penn there will be a change in the way they do things. I believe it is time for them to sit down with Barack Obama and map out a partnership. No more campaigning for McCain. No one person can change America, America will only be changed by everyone working together to make that change. The only real difference between Bill CLinton and Barack Obama is that Bill Clinton had Jessica Flowers and several other women in his closet not a minister who get over zealous in his sermons. For the last two weeks the press has been trying to make something out of nothing. In their efforts they have proven that Barack Obama is a christian not Muslim that he is a stand up guy not a slime bag. They have proven he will not stab his friends in the back. These are important things If Barack wins Pennsylvania or any of the coming primaries it will put an end to these attacks, because it will show that America is not listening. On the other hand with Bill Clinton after Jessica, and WHite water he could not keep still he had to fall for a set up and go after Monica Lewinsky.In other words once he won all the battles he had to stick a knife in his own back. I hope Barack is not so stupid. Point it is time to stop campaigning for McCain it is time for the Democrats to come together and stand together for America... Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Good one, Turq, that about encapsulates what I've > thought often about her comments: Out of touch with > intention itself. Intent is not really *dealt with* in the TM dogma. It's very possible to miss its value. In some of the other traditions I studied, we were taught specifically to cut through the fog of someone's word and suss out their *intent* in saying them. She never had that training; she probably doesn't even believe that such a sussing is possible. On this forum, a focus on intent would involve reading someone's post and then thinking, "What did this person hope to *accomplish* by posting this?" If the answer to that question is, "To uplift others to a more noble or interesting plane of awareness," then you are dealing with one sort of being. If the answer to that question is, "To lower as many others as possible to my plane of awareness," then you're dealing with another sort of being. Interestingly, that is the factor that is kill- ing Hillary in the polls and helping Obama. The people can feel each of their *intents*, and are reacting accordingly. > --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela > > Mailander > > > wrote: > > > > > > And even when she's right, > > > > she's missing your intention. > > > > > > Here I not only agree but offer you a high-five > > > for "seeing." I think the root cause is that she > > > is so out of touch with intention *itself*, esp- > > > ecially her own. > > > > But note that (a) Barry didn't read my post, and (b) > > he's no more able than Angela to explain how I > > "missed" his intention. > > > > > > > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free will and atheism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander > mailander111@ wrote: > > > > Whether or not there is free will depends not on > > belief but on state of consciousness, > > I'd say what depends on state of consciousness > is not whether there is or is not free will, but > whether the existence or nonexistence of free > will is even a valid question. > > the question of whether there is or > is not free will is a *valid* one depends not on > belief but on state of conscioiusness. > > and any > > understanding of what free will might be that is > > formulated in waking state is necessarily a fiction. > > Total agreement on that point. > The concept of free will is not so much a state of consciousness but a political/social question. The concept of free will in a metaphysical sense is unprovable. The question of determinism versus free will turns on circular logic. Of course if every action of ours was determined by the clockwork of the universe there is no way to know if thats true or not. Einstein was a great proponent of determinism. Although he was a strong believer in determinism, he also believed in the political importance of freedom of individual expression. Einstein's notion of free will may be the best starting point. We know our thought and actions are determined by a variety of forces outside our control (and often our consciousness). Our will is restricted by, genetics, the structure of language, bodily limitations, perceptions, political situations, social conventions, duties and so on. On the other hand we appear to make choices as best we can within these restrictions. We have limited means of expanding freedom of our own biology. The extent to which we can broaden the freedom of exercised will is determined by society. Hence, Sartres words, "Hell is other people". As for the polemic on atheism - I reject the notion of atheism altogether. This twisted expression is the fantasy of religious thinkers and dreamers. There is no such thing as atheism. However by making such a label delusional religious people can attach their own projections on certain philosophers and thinkers. We can not generalize about an individual's mental life based on what they don't believe. The universe of not believing is infinite. However, philosophy has a history and a duty to question beliefs. The ongoing dialectic concerning what we believe to be true is not only a valid path of inquiry but a necessary one. s.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
Good one, Turq, that about encapsulates what I've thought often about her comments: Out of touch with intention itself. --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela > Mailander > > wrote: > > > > And even when she's right, > > > she's missing your intention. > > > > Here I not only agree but offer you a high-five > > for "seeing." I think the root cause is that she > > is so out of touch with intention *itself*, esp- > > ecially her own. > > But note that (a) Barry didn't read my post, and (b) > he's no more able than Angela to explain how I > "missed" his intention. > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
Thanks, for the link, Turq, I'll want to read more stories. The roadrunner story was a great read. --- TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela > Mailander > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Turq, Turq, Turq, > > that is a totally excellent understanding of the > > roadrunner as metaphor. I might have to dedicate > my > > next poem to you for that one. > > It's not my metaphor. I stole that one from > the Rama - Frederick Lenz guy I studied with > for so long. It just knocked my socks off the > first time I heard it, and does to this day. > > One of my Road Trip Mind stories was about > this wonderful metaphor, and my real-life > encounter with a real roadrunner. I still have > the stuffed Wile E. Coyote spoken about in the > story. He sits up on one of my bookcases look- > ing down at me as I write this. > > http://ramalila.net/RoadTripMind/rtm27.html > > > When I just now saw Judy's first post of the week, > I > > thought "What do you bet it's a put-down of Turq?" > > > Too bad I didn't have millions to bet or some > wiling > > fool to bet with cause the odds were > astronomically in > > my favor. > > How could you expect anything less. Or, more > sadly, more? Two of my best friends have a > saying about a third friend we have in common. > He's a sweet guy at heart, but has some...uh... > ego issues. ( He produced the film "What the > bleep..." ) Their saying is, "We love Bill, but > he never fails to disappoint." > > > While settling into my ring-side seat, I'd like to > > suggest that she's right with some, though by no > means > > all, of her objections. > > Being in a fiesta mood, I will agree with you. > > > And even when she's right, > > she's missing your intention. > > Here I not only agree but offer you a high-five > for "seeing." I think the root cause is that she > is so out of touch with intention *itself*, esp- > ecially her own. > > > Even so, of course, > > there was absolutely no need for her final > paragraph > > in which she indulges in an unwarranted personal > > attack by means of a generalization about your > > supposed inability to understand research. > > Get used to it. I have. It's not going to change. > Because that would mean that Judy has changed. > And I think we all know by now that *that* is > never going to be allowed to happen. > > > --- TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > The roadrunner's going to keep getting away. > > > That's > > > > just the way things work in this cartoon > universe. > > > > > > Actually, there was one exception. > > > > > > If the roadrunner is enlightenment and Wile E. > > > Coyote is the seeker, there WAS one moment in > > > which he transcended the laws of this cartoon > > > universe and realized his dream. He *caught* > > > the roadrunner. > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJJW7EF5aVk > > > > > > This is a potent metaphor for how close I think > > > scientists are ever going to get to "defining" > > > samadhi and enlightenment. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends > http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: hypocrisy of Americans
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 22, 2008, at 11:15 AM, Peter wrote: > > > Its so sad. The Clinton's have revealed themselves to > > be old school southern politicians-win at any cost. > > Right. And it doesn't matter what else gets wrecked in the > process. Hillary's all but finished, and hopefully soon she'll > realize that, but Bill isn't exactly doing his own legacy much > good either. "Win at any cost" is, of course, a right-wing meme about the Clintons that the Obama (and McCain)-loving media has woven into its narrative, helped along by Obamaphiles who know a good smear when they see it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: hypocrisy of Americans
On Mar 22, 2008, at 11:15 AM, Peter wrote: Its so sad. The Clinton's have revealed themselves to be old school southern politicians-win at any cost. Right. And it doesn't matter what else gets wrecked in the process. Hillary's all but finished, and hopefully soon she'll realize that, but Bill isn't exactly doing his own legacy much good either. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Monogamy Required for Attaining Higher Levels of Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I wonder how much of a technique is needed to meditate. I've been told that MMY once said, "TM isn't a technique. We call it a technique because it works." I ran into an > old friend recently who had just stumbled onto his own form of > meditation. I asked him about it and meditated with him. Of course I > don't know what is going on inside his mind, but I did sort of run > some checking questions to try to figure out something about his inner > experience. It all seemed like what I would have gotten from a TMer. > He seemed to have figured out that he didn't need to "try" in order > for his mind to settle down. Other than not using as mantra it seemed > like what I was experiencing. I certainly couldn't come up with any > reason why he should use a mantra as I do. I don't think I still > believe that the mantra keeps the mind lively or any of the > transcending theory. > > I remember when I first started experimenting with meditation again > and was not using a mantra. I can't say that my meditations are > really much different now that my mantra machine has started up. It > certainly isn't worth trying to stop the mantra. But I have no way > determining if it is different from anyone just sitting regularly. I > do think that meditation gets easier with practice but I still don't > know if there is any cumulative benefit. > > What does seem important is some kind of belief that it is a valuable > practice in order to stick with it for a while. He shares my secular > approach but does believe that meditation has a value in keeping > himself centered. So he stuck with it long enough for it to become > natural for him. I wonder how many people have found their own way > like this. I think it is more common to go to an "authority" as I > did. I sort of needed an official version and the beliefs. But my > friend is a pretty independent thinker and he sees no reason to seek > more than what he is already getting on his own. Very interesting to > me. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Gillam" > > wrote: > > > > > I feel it's more likely that enlightened people are attracted > > > to the church than the church is producing enlightened people. > > > > Bingo. And Christians who are mystically inclined > > may well be drawn to the monastic life, because it > > gives them an opportunity to explore their own > > consciousness via prolonged contemplation, as well > > as to worship the divine as it is revealed to them > > through that contemplation, with minimal intrusion > > from the outside world. > > > > Same with the mystics of any religion that has a > > monastic tradition, of course, regardless of whether > > it includes "techniques" for development of > > consciousness. > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: hypocrisy of Americans
--- Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mar 22, 2008, at 10:04 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > I'm afraid what this mess has demonstrated is that > > the country isn't ready for either a black or a > female > > president. > > What this has demonstrated is that a lot (or at > least some) Hillary > supporters, bitterly disappointed that her waltz > to the nomination > hasn't happened, are doing everything they can to > wreck Obama's > candidacy while pretending to superfically support > him, so that McCain > can win and Hillary can run again in 4 years. To > hell with what's good > for the country or even the world. It's only what's > good for > Hillary that really matters. > > Nice try, though, Judy. > > Sal Its so sad. The Clinton's have revealed themselves to be old school southern politicians-win at any cost. > > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Monogamy Required for Attaining Higher Levels of Consciousness?
I wonder how much of a technique is needed to meditate. I ran into an old friend recently who had just stumbled onto his own form of meditation. I asked him about it and meditated with him. Of course I don't know what is going on inside his mind, but I did sort of run some checking questions to try to figure out something about his inner experience. It all seemed like what I would have gotten from a TMer. He seemed to have figured out that he didn't need to "try" in order for his mind to settle down. Other than not using as mantra it seemed like what I was experiencing. I certainly couldn't come up with any reason why he should use a mantra as I do. I don't think I still believe that the mantra keeps the mind lively or any of the transcending theory. I remember when I first started experimenting with meditation again and was not using a mantra. I can't say that my meditations are really much different now that my mantra machine has started up. It certainly isn't worth trying to stop the mantra. But I have no way determining if it is different from anyone just sitting regularly. I do think that meditation gets easier with practice but I still don't know if there is any cumulative benefit. What does seem important is some kind of belief that it is a valuable practice in order to stick with it for a while. He shares my secular approach but does believe that meditation has a value in keeping himself centered. So he stuck with it long enough for it to become natural for him. I wonder how many people have found their own way like this. I think it is more common to go to an "authority" as I did. I sort of needed an official version and the beliefs. But my friend is a pretty independent thinker and he sees no reason to seek more than what he is already getting on his own. Very interesting to me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Gillam" > wrote: > > > I feel it's more likely that enlightened people are attracted > > to the church than the church is producing enlightened people. > > Bingo. And Christians who are mystically inclined > may well be drawn to the monastic life, because it > gives them an opportunity to explore their own > consciousness via prolonged contemplation, as well > as to worship the divine as it is revealed to them > through that contemplation, with minimal intrusion > from the outside world. > > Same with the mystics of any religion that has a > monastic tradition, of course, regardless of whether > it includes "techniques" for development of > consciousness. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free will and atheism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Are you in brahman? If not, how would you know what's > real or not real in that state or states beyond? Where exactly did I suggest I knew, Angela? > --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela > > Mailander > > wrote: > > > > > > Whether or not there is free will depends not on > > > belief but on state of consciousness, > > > > I'd say what depends on state of consciousness > > is not whether there is or is not free will, but > > whether the existence or nonexistence of free > > will is even a valid question. > > > > the question of whether there is or > > is not free will is a *valid* one depends not on > > belief but on state of conscioiusness. > > > > and any > > > understanding of what free will might be that is > > > formulated in waking state is necessarily a > > fiction. > > > > Total agreement on that point. > > > > > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Free will and atheism
Are you in brahman? If not, how would you know what's real or not real in that state or states beyond? --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela > Mailander > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Whether or not there is free will depends not on > > belief but on state of consciousness, > > I'd say what depends on state of consciousness > is not whether there is or is not free will, but > whether the existence or nonexistence of free > will is even a valid question. > > the question of whether there is or > is not free will is a *valid* one depends not on > belief but on state of conscioiusness. > > and any > > understanding of what free will might be that is > > formulated in waking state is necessarily a > fiction. > > Total agreement on that point. > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander > wrote: > > And even when she's right, > > she's missing your intention. > > Here I not only agree but offer you a high-five > for "seeing." I think the root cause is that she > is so out of touch with intention *itself*, esp- > ecially her own. But note that (a) Barry didn't read my post, and (b) he's no more able than Angela to explain how I "missed" his intention.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Turq, Turq, Turq, > that is a totally excellent understanding of the > roadrunner as metaphor. I might have to dedicate my > next poem to you for that one. It's not my metaphor. I stole that one from the Rama - Frederick Lenz guy I studied with for so long. It just knocked my socks off the first time I heard it, and does to this day. One of my Road Trip Mind stories was about this wonderful metaphor, and my real-life encounter with a real roadrunner. I still have the stuffed Wile E. Coyote spoken about in the story. He sits up on one of my bookcases look- ing down at me as I write this. http://ramalila.net/RoadTripMind/rtm27.html > When I just now saw Judy's first post of the week, I > thought "What do you bet it's a put-down of Turq?" > Too bad I didn't have millions to bet or some wiling > fool to bet with cause the odds were astronomically in > my favor. How could you expect anything less. Or, more sadly, more? Two of my best friends have a saying about a third friend we have in common. He's a sweet guy at heart, but has some...uh... ego issues. ( He produced the film "What the bleep..." ) Their saying is, "We love Bill, but he never fails to disappoint." > While settling into my ring-side seat, I'd like to > suggest that she's right with some, though by no means > all, of her objections. Being in a fiesta mood, I will agree with you. > And even when she's right, > she's missing your intention. Here I not only agree but offer you a high-five for "seeing." I think the root cause is that she is so out of touch with intention *itself*, esp- ecially her own. > Even so, of course, > there was absolutely no need for her final paragraph > in which she indulges in an unwarranted personal > attack by means of a generalization about your > supposed inability to understand research. Get used to it. I have. It's not going to change. Because that would mean that Judy has changed. And I think we all know by now that *that* is never going to be allowed to happen. > --- TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > > wrote: > > > > > > The roadrunner's going to keep getting away. > > That's > > > just the way things work in this cartoon universe. > > > > Actually, there was one exception. > > > > If the roadrunner is enlightenment and Wile E. > > Coyote is the seeker, there WAS one moment in > > which he transcended the laws of this cartoon > > universe and realized his dream. He *caught* > > the roadrunner. > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJJW7EF5aVk > > > > This is a potent metaphor for how close I think > > scientists are ever going to get to "defining" > > samadhi and enlightenment. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com >
[FairfieldLife] Re: hypocrisy of Americans
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Once again tying things up with a personal attack. Yes, Sal does tend to do that. > > --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine > > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 22, 2008, at 10:04 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > > > > > I'm afraid what this mess has demonstrated is > > that > > > > the country isn't ready for either a black or a > > female > > > > president. > > > > > > What this has demonstrated is that a lot (or at > > least some) > > > Hillary supporters, bitterly disappointed that her > > waltz to > > > the nomination hasn't happened, are doing > > everything they > > > can to wreck Obama's candidacy while pretending to > > superfically > > > support him, so that McCain can win and Hillary > > can run again > > > in 4 years. To hell with what's good for the > > country or even > > > the world. It's only what's good for Hillary that > > really > > > matters. > > > > Sorry, but that's totally absurd, the worst kind of > > naive, nitwit conspiracy theorizing. (Lots easier > > than actually trying to answer the question I asked > > you, though, isn't it?) > > > > If Hillary doesn't win the nomination and the > > election, > > she's finished as a presidential candidate. This is > > her > > one and only chance. > > > > And if she doesn't campaign for Obama with > > everything > > she's got once he has the nomination, she'll be > > finished as a senator as well. She'll be a political > > pariah (as will Bill if *he* doesn't campaign for > > Obama with everything he's got). > > > > > Nice try, though, Judy. > > > > FOAD, Sal. People like you are the problem, not the > > solution. > > > > > > > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free will and atheism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Whether or not there is free will depends not on > belief but on state of consciousness, I'd say what depends on state of consciousness is not whether there is or is not free will, but whether the existence or nonexistence of free will is even a valid question. the question of whether there is or is not free will is a *valid* one depends not on belief but on state of conscioiusness. and any > understanding of what free will might be that is > formulated in waking state is necessarily a fiction. Total agreement on that point.
[FairfieldLife] Re-callability vs Lunch (WWF Title Match -- Shakti vs. Nirvikalpa Samadhi)
Note that recent studies showed that long-time comatose patients had their brains "get warmer" in the "tennis areas" when a discussion of tennis was "heard" by them. Is the patient dreaming of playing tennis? Seems so. If so, is that person a real person who should have all the rights and privileges of a person who can be awoken? Seem so. Given these warmed brains, I'd say that we watched "whatever was left of the ego" of Terri Schiavo get murdered by her well meaning husband and doctors because she couldn't awaken and tell them what she was doing in her dreams. If Terri had awakened for a few seconds and said, "I've been dreaming that I was at the feet of God and adoring Him," and then gone back into her coma, why, try to find a single person who would say, "Yep, starve her to death." In dreams at night we do all sorts of things that, unless we are lucid or awakened just after the dream, are not recallable by the awake personality. Yet it is assured that all of us "do stuff" in dreams. If a yogi can go into a state that is similar to dreaming or being comatose, well, what's so surprising about it? When it is so common to all of us to dream or have dreamless sleep, the yogi's ability seems ordinary. Since we can all do these things, re-callability seems to be a salient concept here, and that's a much less dramatic value than touting a "siddhi" of astral travel or out of the body, whatever. Warmed brain parts equal warmed brain parts -- recallability doesn't change the impact of the experiences. If all of us could remember our dreams as well as we remember what we had for breakfast, the entire history of humankind would be inestimably different. This non-recallablity, in this light, therefore looms large indeed -- as a "divine design limit" on the human experience. Charlie Lutes said that if we could remember our previous lifetimes, we'd all be paralyzed with fear, because we'd be recalling our many deaths that we had while living ordinary life -- we've all died while making love, washing dishes, eating, etc. The point I take from this concept is that ignorance is indeed bliss. Note that only the ego is doing the recalling. The brain apparently has "memories circuitry" that is in a constant state of "at the ready" for virtually every experience one has had in one's entire life. Thus, whether the ego can recall or not seems to be quite a secondary topic, and so, what an ego can or cannot experience "on purpose" pales as an important indicator of spiritual status. We may all be talking to Yogananada in our dreams, and if so, then that is being recorded by our brains too, and that is having whatever effects on us that ordinary thinking might be expected to have on us. Monkeys who viewed other monkeys doing a trick were able to learn it faster when they were given a chance. Dreaming of Yogananda must have similar salutory effects, eh? What parts of the brain get warmer when we think of Guru Dev, eh? Give me the choice of "spending three hours practicing a mental technique that will eventually gain me the ability to recall subtleties" or "going to lunch," well, give me lunch. Here's my lunch plan for today: me and da babe are ordering Chinese and watching one of the three touchy-feelers from Netflix just sitting there. And, arms and legs intermingled, blowing our noses and wiping our tears, we'll swoon and burp and get a wholelotta rubbing and smooching done. Compare amongst yourselves. On my deathbed, I'm guessing I'll be very afraid, and a yogi will be calm and ready, but I will have, say, a thousand lunchtime debaucheries to remember -- and that will make death a significant event since it ends that trail of pleasure -- whereas the yogi's death will signify the ending of an equal amount of time spent "foodlessly interpreting eating as an illusion." If another lifetime is imagined, then the yogi has a strong case, but if this is the only life, then precious time may have been wasted. Think about it over lunch -- my new motto. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "tertonzeno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ---Right! My Kriya Yoga Guru (Swami Satyeswarananda Giri of the > Himalayas) says in essence, that controlled out of body travel as > a "Kriya" or Siddhi is basically like frosting on the cake. But he > didn't say where he travels to. > Another Guru of mine, Madhusadandas (died at 115 years of age) gave > a demonstration of controlled out of body travel in 1976 at the East- > West Cultural Center in LA. (btw - I have every reason to believe > that he was in Brahman Consciousness already - so as you say, there's > no more advancement in that department). > Anyway, he sat in a lotus posture in front of the audience and > hyperventilated for about 45 sec. Then he fell over virtually flat > on his face as if dead. > He appeared to be dead for 20 minutes then gradually regained outer > awareness. He stated that he was conversing with Yogananda while out > of the body.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: hypocrisy of Americans
Once again tying things up with a personal attack. --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > On Mar 22, 2008, at 10:04 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > > > I'm afraid what this mess has demonstrated is > that > > > the country isn't ready for either a black or a > female > > > president. > > > > What this has demonstrated is that a lot (or at > least some) > > Hillary supporters, bitterly disappointed that her > waltz to > > the nomination hasn't happened, are doing > everything they > > can to wreck Obama's candidacy while pretending to > superfically > > support him, so that McCain can win and Hillary > can run again > > in 4 years. To hell with what's good for the > country or even > > the world. It's only what's good for Hillary that > really > > matters. > > Sorry, but that's totally absurd, the worst kind of > naive, nitwit conspiracy theorizing. (Lots easier > than actually trying to answer the question I asked > you, though, isn't it?) > > If Hillary doesn't win the nomination and the > election, > she's finished as a presidential candidate. This is > her > one and only chance. > > And if she doesn't campaign for Obama with > everything > she's got once he has the nomination, she'll be > finished as a senator as well. She'll be a political > pariah (as will Bill if *he* doesn't campaign for > Obama with everything he's got). > > > Nice try, though, Judy. > > FOAD, Sal. People like you are the problem, not the > solution. > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Free will and atheism
Whether or not there is free will depends not on belief but on state of consciousness, and any understanding of what free will might be that is formulated in waking state is necessarily a fiction. --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ...The idea of free will that informs liberal > notions of personal > autonomy is biblical in origin (think of the Genesis > story). The > belief that exercising free will is part of being > human is a legacy > of faith, and...most varieties of atheism today > [are] a derivative of > Christianity. > > Zealous atheism renews some of the worst features of > Christianity and > Islam. Just as much as these religions, it is a > project of universal > conversion. Evangelical atheists never doubt that > human life can be > transformed if everyone accepts their view of > things, and they are > certain that one way of living - their own, suitably > embellished - is > right for everybody. To be sure, atheism need not be > a missionary > creed of this kind. It is entirely reasonable to > have no religious > beliefs, and yet be friendly to religion. It is a > funny sort of > humanism that condemns an impulse that is peculiarly > human. Yet that > is what evangelical atheists do when they demonise > religion. > > http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/s > tory/0,,2265446,00.html > > http://tinyurl.com/372e2j > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: hypocrisy of Americans
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > > Its a very nasty time for the Democratic party no matter > > who is nominated... > > Truer words were never spoken. > > I'm afraid what this mess has demonstrated is that > the country isn't ready for either a black or a female > president. > You never know. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: hypocrisy of Americans
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 22, 2008, at 10:04 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > I'm afraid what this mess has demonstrated is that > > the country isn't ready for either a black or a female > > president. > > What this has demonstrated is that a lot (or at least some) > Hillary supporters, bitterly disappointed that her waltz to > the nomination hasn't happened, are doing everything they > can to wreck Obama's candidacy while pretending to superfically > support him, so that McCain can win and Hillary can run again > in 4 years. To hell with what's good for the country or even > the world. It's only what's good for Hillary that really > matters. Sorry, but that's totally absurd, the worst kind of naive, nitwit conspiracy theorizing. (Lots easier than actually trying to answer the question I asked you, though, isn't it?) If Hillary doesn't win the nomination and the election, she's finished as a presidential candidate. This is her one and only chance. And if she doesn't campaign for Obama with everything she's got once he has the nomination, she'll be finished as a senator as well. She'll be a political pariah (as will Bill if *he* doesn't campaign for Obama with everything he's got). > Nice try, though, Judy. FOAD, Sal. People like you are the problem, not the solution.
[FairfieldLife] Re: When MIU was first announced...
> That you think otherwise only shows how afraid you are. Within a month or two, 1000 > vedic pundits will be doing thier thing together at Vedic City. THis may or may not have In other words "resistance is futile you will be assimilated...", "...all your base are belong to us!" or maybe even "OK guys open fire!" Grow up
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Unwavering Samadhi: Meditative Achievement and Its Impact in the World
On Mar 22, 2008, at 11:24 AM, endlessrainintoapapercup wrote: Good morning, Vaj. How nice to hear from you! As I read the words, "Kill the infidel while killing yourself and you get 32 virgins"...it struck me as a profound and pithy enlightenment teaching. Along the lines of killing the buddha... The problem would be in the literal interpretation. Indeed. Or a really bad translation. (Which I believe is the actual case in this instance)
[FairfieldLife] Free will and atheism
...The idea of free will that informs liberal notions of personal autonomy is biblical in origin (think of the Genesis story). The belief that exercising free will is part of being human is a legacy of faith, and...most varieties of atheism today [are] a derivative of Christianity. Zealous atheism renews some of the worst features of Christianity and Islam. Just as much as these religions, it is a project of universal conversion. Evangelical atheists never doubt that human life can be transformed if everyone accepts their view of things, and they are certain that one way of living - their own, suitably embellished - is right for everybody. To be sure, atheism need not be a missionary creed of this kind. It is entirely reasonable to have no religious beliefs, and yet be friendly to religion. It is a funny sort of humanism that condemns an impulse that is peculiarly human. Yet that is what evangelical atheists do when they demonise religion. http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/s tory/0,,2265446,00.html http://tinyurl.com/372e2j
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unwavering Samadhi: Meditative Achievement and Its Impact in the World
Good morning, Vaj. How nice to hear from you! As I read the words, "Kill the infidel while killing yourself and you get 32 virgins"...it struck me as a profound and pithy enlightenment teaching. Along the lines of killing the buddha... The problem would be in the literal interpretation. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mar 22, 2008, at 9:03 AM, endlessrainintoapapercup wrote: > > > My favored "honest method" is to lay down > > all beliefs in order to directly encounter > > reality, which is of course the essence of > > the scientific method. And the tantric > > path. As you know, there is a reality to > > be experienced directly which exists > > independently of our thoughts. Our > > beliefs about reality obscure reality, > > whether we're talking about scientific > > method or enlightenment teachings-- > > in the sense that our beliefs will > > predetermine the reality that we > > experience. This is the dis-advantage > > of a nice view. Or so I say. Just for play. > > > And you make a great point. > > Like Shakyamuni said: > > "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." > > Belief can be a trap. Kill the infidel while killing yourself and you > get 32 virgins. The universe is around 5000 years old. Hopping creates > coherence and brings world peace. Our meditation is the best for > everyone. Conceptual cognition is a way to really know something. > Jesus is coming. Soon. > > Only Clear Light Mental Activity can cognize Voidness beyond Concepts. > Otherwise we're bound by belief. > > Too bad Kirk isn't here. He does a great rap on Vedic cognition. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: hypocrisy of Americans
On Mar 22, 2008, at 10:04 AM, authfriend wrote: I'm afraid what this mess has demonstrated is that the country isn't ready for either a black or a female president. What this has demonstrated is that a lot (or at least some) Hillary supporters, bitterly disappointed that her waltz to the nomination hasn't happened, are doing everything they can to wreck Obama's candidacy while pretending to superfically support him, so that McCain can win and Hillary can run again in 4 years. To hell with what's good for the country or even the world. It's only what's good for Hillary that really matters. Nice try, though, Judy. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: hypocrisy of Americans
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm afraid what this mess has demonstrated is that > the country isn't ready for either a black or a female > president. I should add that perhaps the biggest single villain in all this has been the media, which has relentlessly fanned the flames of both sexism and racism because they generate better (and much easier-to-cover) stories.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Unwavering Samadhi: Meditative Achievement and Its Impact in the World
On Mar 22, 2008, at 9:03 AM, endlessrainintoapapercup wrote: My favored "honest method" is to lay down all beliefs in order to directly encounter reality, which is of course the essence of the scientific method. And the tantric path. As you know, there is a reality to be experienced directly which exists independently of our thoughts. Our beliefs about reality obscure reality, whether we're talking about scientific method or enlightenment teachings-- in the sense that our beliefs will predetermine the reality that we experience. This is the dis-advantage of a nice view. Or so I say. Just for play. And you make a great point. Like Shakyamuni said: "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." Belief can be a trap. Kill the infidel while killing yourself and you get 32 virgins. The universe is around 5000 years old. Hopping creates coherence and brings world peace. Our meditation is the best for everyone. Conceptual cognition is a way to really know something. Jesus is coming. Soon. Only Clear Light Mental Activity can cognize Voidness beyond Concepts. Otherwise we're bound by belief. Too bad Kirk isn't here. He does a great rap on Vedic cognition.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Judy, several unwarranted assumptions: > > Unwilling and unable are not equivalent. Right. That's why I said you would be unable, rather than merely unwilling, to explain yourself. > People may need to know, but that is not the same as > saying to Turq, "You need towhatever." Right, it's not the same. The latter is a specific instance of the former. > I'm disappointed: you're smart enough not to make > those errors. But I agreed that you were correct in both instances above. How then can you claim I made errors?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Monogamy Required for Attaining Higher Levels of Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I spent a summer once living directly across from Mt. > Athos where my sister has a summer home, and could > feel the silence. I'd have loved to visit them, but, > of course, that would have been impossible. They > don't even allow female animals on their island. > > But again, you cannot assume that what's made public > is all there is in the Western monastic tradition. > There are several stories of levitation (not > hopping--levitation) in that tradition. > > Christ is the membrane over the Absolute. Don't quote > me. It's only one way to see the reality. Mind, too, > that I am fairly convinced that the man, Jesus, ever > existed, at least not as told in the stories. One of > the popes early on remarked, "The myth of Jesus has > certainly been useful." I'd agree on a number of > counts. It's all a walk of faith. Everything is equally real and unreal, and our beliefs are just the tools we work with. I won't quote you, but Christ as a membrane over the Absolute sounds valid to me. Teresa of Avila was a levitator. Deeply absorbed in prayer, she would lift off and float... > > > --- endlessrainintoapapercup > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I read a wonderful book once, The > > Mountain of Silence, about the monks > > on Mt. Athos. So much bliss and purity > > and miracle stories that reminded me > > of the delightful tales of Himalayan > > yogis..bilocating, levitating, manifesting. > > And such joyful innocence and > > compassion, like that of Tibetan > > monks. The eastern church has a > > much more mystical tradition than > > the west...one that takes the disciple > > into deep union with Christ. The > > proof is always in the pudding, and > > Christian monastic traditions have > > made lots of good pudding through > > the years. I think that every mystic > > and seeker of enlightenment in any > > tradition reaches a point where they > > have to "rediscover" the path, whether > > or not the lineages remain intact. No > > one can carry us to God. We cross > > that final stretch alone, in faith, and > > by virtue of our complete and > > unwavering desire/attention. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela > > Mailander wrote: > > > > > > You are making at least eight unwarranted > > assumptions: > > > > > > 1. Maharishi saw nothing inferior about the > > technique > > > I'd been practicing for twenty-five years by the > > time > > > I talked to him--on the contrary--"Verry good, > > verry > > > good" was his constant refrain to my account. > > > > > > 2. Just because a technique is monastic doesn't > > mean > > > it's useless. If a monastic order persists, and > > they > > > have for more than a thousand years, then you > > cannot > > > assume that they are useless or that there is no > > > succession of oral transmission--again on the > > > contrary. Monasticism is certainly a good way to > > > preserve "the purity of the teaching." They are, > > > PERHAPS, not so useful in creating a 1% effect. > > But > > > whether a time is right for such an effect is > > another > > > question. > > > > > > 3. Just because you see no evidence in the bios of > > > saints of this succession doesn't mean that there > > > isn't one. > > > > > > 4. Just because enlightened individuals belonging > > to > > > some monastic tradition aren't famous doesn't mean > > > that the monasteries aren't crawling with them. > > > Remember, too, that a monastery is not just an > > order > > > of a brotherhood or a sisterhood. A monk or a nun > > > don't necessarily belong to a monastic order. If > > they > > > belong to some teaching order or nursing order > > etc., > > > they are not monastics. Monastic means "on a > > path." > > > Why these paths are kept secret is a very > > interesting > > > question. > > > > > > 5. I'm not so convinced by the authenticity of > > > stigmatics, especially since it was revealed > > recently > > > that Padre Pio used acid to create his wounds and > > keep > > > them fresh. > > > > > > 6. My own friendship with Sister Angela (yup--she > > was > > > Angela, too) has absolutely convinced me that > > there > > > are ongoing traditions of what we're pleased to > > call > > > "masters" these days. I guess I'd have to call > > Sister > > > Angela a mistress. She'd get a good laugh out of > > > that. > > > > > > 7. You cannot assume that published "spiritual > > > exercises" are what's practiced in monasteries. > > > > > > 8. A concentration technique is not for > > beginners, > > > but after you've got the mind under control, there > > are > > > all kinds of techniques that would be > > > counterproductive for beginners. > > > > > > > > > --- holobuda wrote: > > > > > > > ---Thanks, I've read all of the bios of Saints > > > > available from the Tan > > > > Publishing books. The Saints come forth > > > > independently of each other > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: hypocrisy of Americans
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine > > wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 21, 2008, at 1:20 AM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > > > And THESE are the remarks that have promopted the response > > > > everyone has made? > > > > > > > > Get real. > > > > > > And the same people who fixate on Wright (or, more to the > > > point, on Obama for belonging to his church) are sometimes > > > the very same ones who blithely dismiss Hillary's politically- > > > calculated vote for war which has resulted in the deaths of > > > tens of thousands, as well as her general support for the > > > Republican agenda, which has bankrupted the country. > > > > > > And yet Obama's the one they claim should drop out. Sheesh. > > > > I'm not sure if you're including me in the above, Sal, > > but just for the heck of it: > > > > *Some* of us progressives have no problem on a personal > > level with Obama's association with Wright and his church. > > In fact, some of us don't have any problem with Wright > > himself (except for his wackier conspiracy theories, such > > as that AIDS was a U.S. government plot to commit genocide > > on blacks). > > Its not all that wacky. As I pointed out before, the theory > that AIDS was induced in africa by infected OPV was credible > enough that the WHO had to formally refute it. > > AND... let us not forget (as I did) the Tuskugee Syphilis > study... > > Its not a stretch to conflate those two points, the discredited > theory AND the horrific nazi-esque study, and come up with the > idea that AIDS was a US gov conspiracy. Many gays believed that > for a very long time as well. "Many"? I don't think it was much beyond a fringe percentage. Many *did* believe there was a government conspiracy to ignore it, though (and there may have been an element of truth to that). In any case, to say there was reason to believe something doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't wacky to believe it for those reasons. > > Moreover, the association with Wright in and of itself > > wouldn't stop us from supporting Obama in the primary > > and the general election. > > > > So what do you imagine our objection to it is about? > > > > (BTW, I don't think any progressive "blithely dismisses" > > Hillary's vote for the AUMF, including those who are > > supporting her. On the other hand, the notion that she > > generally supports the Republican agenda is just off > > the wall.) > > However, there's a scary thing about both Obama AND Clinton > supporters in this election: they are personality supporters > rather than party supporters. 30% of the democrats who are > supporting one candiate over the other have said they will > vote for McCaine if their candidate isnt' nominated --not > because they think McCain is better than the other > person, but simply out of spite. Yes, that's appalling, but it's still less than a third. And my guess is that a good deal of it is bluster, a way to express anger. I suspect when push comes to shove, most will vote for the Democratic candidate. I don't think "personality supporters" covers it, though. A lot of the animosity has to do with campaign tactics. Maybe "character" would be a more appropriate term. > AND... *I* fear that a huge number of black Americans will > stay home this cycle out of bitterness if Obama isn't > nominated. And some women may stay home if Hillary isn't nominated. I had a fleeting moment yesterday when I entertained the possibility of not voting because I was so angry over the Obama campaign and supporters turning a statement of Bill Clinton upside-down, claiming he was suggesting Obama doesn't love America, when in fact he was implying precisely the opposite. > Its a very nasty time for the Democratic party no matter > who is nominated... Truer words were never spoken. I'm afraid what this mess has demonstrated is that the country isn't ready for either a black or a female president.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Unwavering Samadhi: Meditative Achievement and Its Impact in the World
Your ass may be lovely; nevertheless, I didn't jump on it. I jumped on some imprecision in your account of things, which account was actually really good or I wouldn't have bothered. --- endlessrainintoapapercup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Finally someone jumped on my ass! > I feel like a member of the family now... > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela > Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Ignorance (as defined in the TMO) is most > definitely > > not a beginner's mind. Scientist work on > achieving a > > beginner's mind which is at least witnessing if > you > > read them carefully. > > > > > > > > --- endlessrainintoapapercup > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 21, 2008, at 7:37 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj > > > wrote: > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > Heh. SO you can't compare the effects of > > > different forms of > > > > > > > meditation unless you expect > > > > > > > the different forms of meditation to not > be > > > different? > > > > > > > > > > > > You could, of course, do what ever you > want. > > > If you were to do so it > > > > > > would be helpful to actually have someone > with > > > that level of > > > > > > experience in different forms of > meditation, > > > instead of say, someone > > > > > > who only knows what they were told and > then > > > only in some diluted > > > > > > form. In other words, it should be someone > > > with some understanding > > > > > of > > > > > > different meditation forms, why they are > > > different, with some > > > > > > experiential understanding, etc. Merely > > > groping in the dark to try > > > > > to > > > > > > advertise a certain relaxation response > > > technique is rather silly > > > > > IMO... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So researchers into meditation must be > experts > > > in whatever form they > > > > > are researching? > > > > > > > > No. But ignorance is always a disadvantage. > > > Knowledge, a vantage. A > > > > nice View. > > > > > > > > We all naturally enjoy such a View. > > > > > > > > Don't you just love a nice View? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But they can't be biased either... > > > > > > > > > > Hmmm... > > > > > > > > Or at least put aside through honest method. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Knowledge can be so highly overrated, > > > and ignorance never gets its due! > > > > > > Is ignorance really always a disadvantage? > > > In regard to scientific research, doesn't > > > "ignorance" provide a certain neutrality that > > > could otherwise be missing...a kind of > > > beginner's mind? We're all inevitably > > > biased due to the influence of our beliefs > > > in determining what we see and experience, > > > even effecting results in scientific > > > experiments...and also our experiences > > > of enlightenment. Knowledge, though > > > providing a nice view, can also be a prison. > > > My favored "honest method" is to lay down > > > all beliefs in order to directly encounter > > > reality, which is of course the essence of > > > the scientific method. And the tantric > > > path. As you know, there is a reality to > > > be experienced directly which exists > > > independently of our thoughts. Our > > > beliefs about reality obscure reality, > > > whether we're talking about scientific > > > method or enlightenment teachings-- > > > in the sense that our beliefs will > > > predetermine the reality that we > > > experience. This is the dis-advantage > > > of a nice view. Or so I say. Just for play. > > > > > > > > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends > http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
Judy, several unwarranted assumptions: Unwilling and unable are not equivalent. People may need to know, but that is not the same as saying to Turq, "You need towhatever." I'm disappointed: you're smart enough not to make those errors. --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela > Mailander > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Well, no, Judy, I'm not gonna explain stuff; I > prefer > > to wait for Turq's comments. > > No, I didn't think you'd be able to explain > yourself. > > > On the other hand, look at your phrasing: "Turq > needs > > to..." Listen to people who use this phrase or > some > > variant: "You need to..." > > > > Who are you to say what other people need to do or > to > > understand etc? > > I'm not the least bit surprised to find you believe > people don't need to know what they're talking about > before they spout off, Angela. > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: hypocrisy of Americans
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine > wrote: > > > > On Mar 21, 2008, at 1:20 AM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > And THESE are the remarks that have promopted the response > > > everyone has made? > > > > > > Get real. > > > > And the same people who fixate on Wright (or, more to the > > point, on Obama for belonging to his church) are sometimes > > the very same ones who blithely dismiss Hillary's politically- > > calculated vote for war which has resulted in the deaths of > > tens of thousands, as well as her general support for the > > Republican agenda, which has bankrupted the country. > > > > And yet Obama's the one they claim should drop out. Sheesh. > > I'm not sure if you're including me in the above, Sal, > but just for the heck of it: > > *Some* of us progressives have no problem on a personal > level with Obama's association with Wright and his church. > In fact, some of us don't have any problem with Wright > himself (except for his wackier conspiracy theories, such > as that AIDS was a U.S. government plot to commit genocide > on blacks). > Its not all that wacky. As I pointed out before, the theory that AIDS was induced in africa by infected OPV was credible enough that the WHO had to formally refute it. AND... let us not forget (as I did) the Tuskugee Syphilis study... Its not a stretch to conflate those two points, the discredited theory AND the horrific nazi- esque study, and come up with the idea that AIDS was a US gov conspiracy. Many gays believed that for a very long time as well. > Moreover, the association with Wright in and of itself > wouldn't stop us from supporting Obama in the primary > and the general election. > > So what do you imagine our objection to it is about? > > (BTW, I don't think any progressive "blithely dismisses" > Hillary's vote for the AUMF, including those who are > supporting her. On the other hand, the notion that she > generally supports the Republican agenda is just off > the wall.) > However, there's a scary thing about both Obama AND Clinton supporters in this election: they are personality supporters rather than party supporters. 30% of the democrats who are supporting one candiate over the other have said they will vote for McCaine if their candidate isnt' nominated --not because they think McCain is better than the other person, but simply out of spite. AND... *I* fear that a huge number of black Americans will stay home this cycle out of bitterness if Obama isn't nominated. Its a very nasty time for the Democratic party no matter who is nominated... Lawson
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Monogamy Required for Attaining Higher Levels of Consciousness?
I spent a summer once living directly across from Mt. Athos where my sister has a summer home, and could feel the silence. I'd have loved to visit them, but, of course, that would have been impossible. They don't even allow female animals on their island. But again, you cannot assume that what's made public is all there is in the Western monastic tradition. There are several stories of levitation (not hopping--levitation) in that tradition. Christ is the membrane over the Absolute. Don't quote me. It's only one way to see the reality. Mind, too, that I am fairly convinced that the man, Jesus, ever existed, at least not as told in the stories. One of the popes early on remarked, "The myth of Jesus has certainly been useful." I'd agree on a number of counts. --- endlessrainintoapapercup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I read a wonderful book once, The > Mountain of Silence, about the monks > on Mt. Athos. So much bliss and purity > and miracle stories that reminded me > of the delightful tales of Himalayan > yogis..bilocating, levitating, manifesting. > And such joyful innocence and > compassion, like that of Tibetan > monks. The eastern church has a > much more mystical tradition than > the west...one that takes the disciple > into deep union with Christ. The > proof is always in the pudding, and > Christian monastic traditions have > made lots of good pudding through > the years. I think that every mystic > and seeker of enlightenment in any > tradition reaches a point where they > have to "rediscover" the path, whether > or not the lineages remain intact. No > one can carry us to God. We cross > that final stretch alone, in faith, and > by virtue of our complete and > unwavering desire/attention. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela > Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > You are making at least eight unwarranted > assumptions: > > > > 1. Maharishi saw nothing inferior about the > technique > > I'd been practicing for twenty-five years by the > time > > I talked to him--on the contrary--"Verry good, > verry > > good" was his constant refrain to my account. > > > > 2. Just because a technique is monastic doesn't > mean > > it's useless. If a monastic order persists, and > they > > have for more than a thousand years, then you > cannot > > assume that they are useless or that there is no > > succession of oral transmission--again on the > > contrary. Monasticism is certainly a good way to > > preserve "the purity of the teaching." They are, > > PERHAPS, not so useful in creating a 1% effect. > But > > whether a time is right for such an effect is > another > > question. > > > > 3. Just because you see no evidence in the bios of > > saints of this succession doesn't mean that there > > isn't one. > > > > 4. Just because enlightened individuals belonging > to > > some monastic tradition aren't famous doesn't mean > > that the monasteries aren't crawling with them. > > Remember, too, that a monastery is not just an > order > > of a brotherhood or a sisterhood. A monk or a nun > > don't necessarily belong to a monastic order. If > they > > belong to some teaching order or nursing order > etc., > > they are not monastics. Monastic means "on a > path." > > Why these paths are kept secret is a very > interesting > > question. > > > > 5. I'm not so convinced by the authenticity of > > stigmatics, especially since it was revealed > recently > > that Padre Pio used acid to create his wounds and > keep > > them fresh. > > > > 6. My own friendship with Sister Angela (yup--she > was > > Angela, too) has absolutely convinced me that > there > > are ongoing traditions of what we're pleased to > call > > "masters" these days. I guess I'd have to call > Sister > > Angela a mistress. She'd get a good laugh out of > > that. > > > > 7. You cannot assume that published "spiritual > > exercises" are what's practiced in monasteries. > > > > 8. A concentration technique is not for > beginners, > > but after you've got the mind under control, there > are > > all kinds of techniques that would be > > counterproductive for beginners. > > > > > > --- holobuda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > ---Thanks, I've read all of the bios of Saints > > > available from the Tan > > > Publishing books. The Saints come forth > > > independently of each other > > > (seemingly); and I see no everpresent, ongoing > > > disciplic succession. > > > If you take any of the traditional Saints, you > will > > > find no > > > noteworthy physically embodied Teacher (aside > from > > > Jesus) - except in > > > some rare instances in which one Saint follows > > > another. Also, > > > various Saints seem to be attracted to > one-another > > > as in the example > > > of St. Francis and St. Clair. > > > However, the Saints you mention are very few > and > > > far between - > > > Meister Eickhart and Hildegard von Bingen and > these > > > two in particular > > > are famous
[FairfieldLife] Re: was: WWF Title Match -- Shakti vs. Nirvik
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You're relatively new here. We had a problem before you > arrived, and after much debate and discussion, decided to > try a posting quota as a solution. Most would agree that > it has improved FFL considerably. The problem it solved > was that there were petty arguments between a couple of > people which sometimes ran into hundreds of posts per week. No, they didn't. Don't be ridiculous. Other people felt compelled > to reply to nearly every post, even if only with one or two > words. That's not true either, The > volume of posts these things created was such that it was hard > to find the good stuff and those reading FFL with their web > browser couldn't easily scroll through the posts. Nonsense. Having to conform to a quota has also tended to > improve the quality of the thought and writing. That's a matter of opinion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: hypocrisy of Americans
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 21, 2008, at 1:20 AM, sparaig wrote: > > > And THESE are the remarks that have promopted the response > > everyone has made? > > > > Get real. > > And the same people who fixate on Wright (or, more to the > point, on Obama for belonging to his church) are sometimes > the very same ones who blithely dismiss Hillary's politically- > calculated vote for war which has resulted in the deaths of > tens of thousands, as well as her general support for the > Republican agenda, which has bankrupted the country. > > And yet Obama's the one they claim should drop out. Sheesh. I'm not sure if you're including me in the above, Sal, but just for the heck of it: *Some* of us progressives have no problem on a personal level with Obama's association with Wright and his church. In fact, some of us don't have any problem with Wright himself (except for his wackier conspiracy theories, such as that AIDS was a U.S. government plot to commit genocide on blacks). Moreover, the association with Wright in and of itself wouldn't stop us from supporting Obama in the primary and the general election. So what do you imagine our objection to it is about? (BTW, I don't think any progressive "blithely dismisses" Hillary's vote for the AUMF, including those who are supporting her. On the other hand, the notion that she generally supports the Republican agenda is just off the wall.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unwavering Samadhi: Meditative Achievement and Its Impact in the World
Finally someone jumped on my ass! I feel like a member of the family now... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ignorance (as defined in the TMO) is most definitely > not a beginner's mind. Scientist work on achieving a > beginner's mind which is at least witnessing if you > read them carefully. > > > > --- endlessrainintoapapercup > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mar 21, 2008, at 7:37 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj > > wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > Heh. SO you can't compare the effects of > > different forms of > > > > > > meditation unless you expect > > > > > > the different forms of meditation to not be > > different? > > > > > > > > > > You could, of course, do what ever you want. > > If you were to do so it > > > > > would be helpful to actually have someone with > > that level of > > > > > experience in different forms of meditation, > > instead of say, someone > > > > > who only knows what they were told and then > > only in some diluted > > > > > form. In other words, it should be someone > > with some understanding > > > > of > > > > > different meditation forms, why they are > > different, with some > > > > > experiential understanding, etc. Merely > > groping in the dark to try > > > > to > > > > > advertise a certain relaxation response > > technique is rather silly > > > > IMO... > > > > > > > > > > > > > So researchers into meditation must be experts > > in whatever form they > > > > are researching? > > > > > > No. But ignorance is always a disadvantage. > > Knowledge, a vantage. A > > > nice View. > > > > > > We all naturally enjoy such a View. > > > > > > Don't you just love a nice View? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But they can't be biased either... > > > > > > > > Hmmm... > > > > > > Or at least put aside through honest method. > > > > > > > > > Knowledge can be so highly overrated, > > and ignorance never gets its due! > > > > Is ignorance really always a disadvantage? > > In regard to scientific research, doesn't > > "ignorance" provide a certain neutrality that > > could otherwise be missing...a kind of > > beginner's mind? We're all inevitably > > biased due to the influence of our beliefs > > in determining what we see and experience, > > even effecting results in scientific > > experiments...and also our experiences > > of enlightenment. Knowledge, though > > providing a nice view, can also be a prison. > > My favored "honest method" is to lay down > > all beliefs in order to directly encounter > > reality, which is of course the essence of > > the scientific method. And the tantric > > path. As you know, there is a reality to > > be experienced directly which exists > > independently of our thoughts. Our > > beliefs about reality obscure reality, > > whether we're talking about scientific > > method or enlightenment teachings-- > > in the sense that our beliefs will > > predetermine the reality that we > > experience. This is the dis-advantage > > of a nice view. Or so I say. Just for play. > > > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, no, Judy, I'm not gonna explain stuff; I prefer > to wait for Turq's comments. No, I didn't think you'd be able to explain yourself. > On the other hand, look at your phrasing: "Turq needs > to..." Listen to people who use this phrase or some > variant: "You need to..." > > Who are you to say what other people need to do or to > understand etc? I'm not the least bit surprised to find you believe people don't need to know what they're talking about before they spout off, Angela.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Monogamy Required for Attaining Higher Levels of Consciousness?
I read a wonderful book once, The Mountain of Silence, about the monks on Mt. Athos. So much bliss and purity and miracle stories that reminded me of the delightful tales of Himalayan yogis..bilocating, levitating, manifesting. And such joyful innocence and compassion, like that of Tibetan monks. The eastern church has a much more mystical tradition than the west...one that takes the disciple into deep union with Christ. The proof is always in the pudding, and Christian monastic traditions have made lots of good pudding through the years. I think that every mystic and seeker of enlightenment in any tradition reaches a point where they have to "rediscover" the path, whether or not the lineages remain intact. No one can carry us to God. We cross that final stretch alone, in faith, and by virtue of our complete and unwavering desire/attention. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You are making at least eight unwarranted assumptions: > > 1. Maharishi saw nothing inferior about the technique > I'd been practicing for twenty-five years by the time > I talked to him--on the contrary--"Verry good, verry > good" was his constant refrain to my account. > > 2. Just because a technique is monastic doesn't mean > it's useless. If a monastic order persists, and they > have for more than a thousand years, then you cannot > assume that they are useless or that there is no > succession of oral transmission--again on the > contrary. Monasticism is certainly a good way to > preserve "the purity of the teaching." They are, > PERHAPS, not so useful in creating a 1% effect. But > whether a time is right for such an effect is another > question. > > 3. Just because you see no evidence in the bios of > saints of this succession doesn't mean that there > isn't one. > > 4. Just because enlightened individuals belonging to > some monastic tradition aren't famous doesn't mean > that the monasteries aren't crawling with them. > Remember, too, that a monastery is not just an order > of a brotherhood or a sisterhood. A monk or a nun > don't necessarily belong to a monastic order. If they > belong to some teaching order or nursing order etc., > they are not monastics. Monastic means "on a path." > Why these paths are kept secret is a very interesting > question. > > 5. I'm not so convinced by the authenticity of > stigmatics, especially since it was revealed recently > that Padre Pio used acid to create his wounds and keep > them fresh. > > 6. My own friendship with Sister Angela (yup--she was > Angela, too) has absolutely convinced me that there > are ongoing traditions of what we're pleased to call > "masters" these days. I guess I'd have to call Sister > Angela a mistress. She'd get a good laugh out of > that. > > 7. You cannot assume that published "spiritual > exercises" are what's practiced in monasteries. > > 8. A concentration technique is not for beginners, > but after you've got the mind under control, there are > all kinds of techniques that would be > counterproductive for beginners. > > > --- holobuda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ---Thanks, I've read all of the bios of Saints > > available from the Tan > > Publishing books. The Saints come forth > > independently of each other > > (seemingly); and I see no everpresent, ongoing > > disciplic succession. > > If you take any of the traditional Saints, you will > > find no > > noteworthy physically embodied Teacher (aside from > > Jesus) - except in > > some rare instances in which one Saint follows > > another. Also, > > various Saints seem to be attracted to one-another > > as in the example > > of St. Francis and St. Clair. > > However, the Saints you mention are very few and > > far between - > > Meister Eickhart and Hildegard von Bingen and these > > two in particular > > are famous as well in the non-religious literature > > of mysticism. > > Again, such mystics (in contrast to the tradition > > Stigmatists for > > example) are few in number and pop up rarely in the > > span of hundreds > > of years. > > The dearth in numbers of such exemplary Mystics > > bolsters my > > viewpoint that they arise as Flowers in a field, > > independently of one- > > another and there is no "secret" ongoing Tradition > > of Self-Realized > > Saints in the Christian tradition. Indeed, the > > methods used by such > > Mystics are recorded in their own words. > > But even if there are such secret techniques, if > > they are truly > > secret then they're useless!. If they're available, > > then they are > > still probably inferior to TM, and thus useless > > again. > > In regard to the many years of meditation you > > practiced before > > starting TM, consider the benefit of starting from > > day 1 with TM and > > bypassing the inferior techniques. Thus, no need > > for any techniques > > from the Mystical saints such as Hildegard, the > > Meister; or the > > traditional
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Unwavering Samadhi: Meditative Achievement and Its Impact in the World
Ignorance (as defined in the TMO) is most definitely not a beginner's mind. Scientist work on achieving a beginner's mind which is at least witnessing if you read them carefully. --- endlessrainintoapapercup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 21, 2008, at 7:37 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj > wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > Heh. SO you can't compare the effects of > different forms of > > > > > meditation unless you expect > > > > > the different forms of meditation to not be > different? > > > > > > > > You could, of course, do what ever you want. > If you were to do so it > > > > would be helpful to actually have someone with > that level of > > > > experience in different forms of meditation, > instead of say, someone > > > > who only knows what they were told and then > only in some diluted > > > > form. In other words, it should be someone > with some understanding > > > of > > > > different meditation forms, why they are > different, with some > > > > experiential understanding, etc. Merely > groping in the dark to try > > > to > > > > advertise a certain relaxation response > technique is rather silly > > > IMO... > > > > > > > > > > So researchers into meditation must be experts > in whatever form they > > > are researching? > > > > No. But ignorance is always a disadvantage. > Knowledge, a vantage. A > > nice View. > > > > We all naturally enjoy such a View. > > > > Don't you just love a nice View? > > > > > > > > > > > But they can't be biased either... > > > > > > Hmmm... > > > > Or at least put aside through honest method. > > > > > Knowledge can be so highly overrated, > and ignorance never gets its due! > > Is ignorance really always a disadvantage? > In regard to scientific research, doesn't > "ignorance" provide a certain neutrality that > could otherwise be missing...a kind of > beginner's mind? We're all inevitably > biased due to the influence of our beliefs > in determining what we see and experience, > even effecting results in scientific > experiments...and also our experiences > of enlightenment. Knowledge, though > providing a nice view, can also be a prison. > My favored "honest method" is to lay down > all beliefs in order to directly encounter > reality, which is of course the essence of > the scientific method. And the tantric > path. As you know, there is a reality to > be experienced directly which exists > independently of our thoughts. Our > beliefs about reality obscure reality, > whether we're talking about scientific > method or enlightenment teachings-- > in the sense that our beliefs will > predetermine the reality that we > experience. This is the dis-advantage > of a nice view. Or so I say. Just for play. > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
Well, no, Judy, I'm not gonna explain stuff; I prefer to wait for Turq's comments. On the other hand, look at your phrasing: "Turq needs to..." Listen to people who use this phrase or some variant: "You need to..." Who are you to say what other people need to do or to understand etc? More likely that you need them to do or understand. Turq, I'm sure has no such need as you impute to him, albeit perhaps unconsciously. --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela > Mailander > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Turq, Turq, Turq, > > that is a totally excellent understanding of the > > roadrunner as metaphor. I might have to dedicate > my > > next poem to you for that one. > > > > When I just now saw Judy's first post of the week, > I > > thought "What do you bet it's a put-down of Turq?" > > > Too bad I didn't have millions to bet or some > wiling > > fool to bet with cause the odds were > astronomically in > > my favor. > > > > While settling into my ring-side seat, I'd like to > > suggest that she's right with some, though by no > means > > all, of her objections. > > Actually I made only one objection, Angela. > > But why don't you expand a bit and tell us what you > all my objections were, along with your considered > opinion about which were right and which weren't, > and why? > > > And even when she's right, she's missing your > intention. > > Er, no, I was confirming that his intention was > correct while pointing out that it was entirely > in line with what Lawson was saying. Barry thought > he was *criticizing* Lawson, because Barry does not > understand either what Lawson was saying, or how > the TM researchers study samadhi. > > If you disagree, why don't you tell us what you > think > Barry's intention was? > > Even so, of course, > > there was absolutely no need for her final > paragraph > > in which she indulges in an unwarranted personal > > attack by means of a generalization about your > > supposed inability to understand research. > > I've been telling Barry for some time that he needs > to pay some attention to what the research actually > involves before sounding off on it, because he > virtually always gets it all fouled up. > > Oh, and don't bother to hold onto your ringside > seat, because Barry won't be responding to my post > (at least not substantively). > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
