[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Monogamy Required for Attaining Higher Levels of Consciousness?
---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 Catholic Saints who have recorded their Spiritual exercises. You are probably aware of various books such as The Spiritual Exercises of St(so and so). I've read these and discarded them as counterproductive, frequently involving some type of hard conentration. If you have gained some benefit from the exercises of the Meister or Hindegard, great. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The monastic tradition keeps coming up with great saints who have a clue. Hildegard von Bingen, for instance, but there's a whole slew. Where do they come from? Some commentators say that mysticism is sui generis, but then what were these people doing in their monasteries? There's a contemporary nun whose name escapes me who has written extensively on consciousness. When I taught at the Catholic school, I developed a friendship with the spokeswoman of a Carmelite monastery situated on campus, and we talked about these things quite a bit. The Carmelites are strictly monastic. I never saw this woman since she remained hidden behind a screen. She was the only one who met the public and only from behind that screen. She was the only one who talked. The others observed strict silence. But silence, though a powerful technique, was not the only technique they practiced. So there are techniques that are kept secret by the officially visible Church--which is not all there is. The Jesuits...but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish. --- tertonzeno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -If by Catholic Church one means some secret version of the truth that only elitists know, one can conjure up any truth that appeals to us -say some weird Da Vinci secrets; or perhaps: only Mel Gibson knows the real truth about the Tridentine Mass. You tantalize and tease with such tidbits but offer only empty air. What's the truth here? Who conveyed it in an unbroken disciplic succession? I see no such succession from the Meister Eckhart. OTOH if you mean by The Catholic Church - the organization in Rome headed by the current Pope, as the former Grand Inquisitor his position on yoga is well known: Salvation is not an interior revelation, doesn't depend on Wisdom or Gnosis; but is an acceptance of one's dualist relationship with Jesus Christ who supposedly died on the cross for our sins and is based on faith and belief. Enlightenment is based on Transcendence of belief, not embracing a dogma. Basically, your're saying that the Pope's version of the Catholic Church's teachings is faulty and you know the real truth. OK, what's your evidence for this? - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: The Pope also excommunicated Galileo for finding the true nature of the planetary system. During Pope John Paul II tenure, the Catholic Church apologized to everyone for making a mistake--only about 500 years later. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: The Catholic Church offers several paths and recognized the phenomenon of enlightenment throughout its history. But they kept any techniques secret and behind monastery walls. In fact, if you even talked about
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Normalcy was: When MIU was first announced...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 2:41 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: When MIU was first announced... Thank you so much for sharing this Rick. Very nice, and insightful ! You're welcome. It's always nice when you and I can appreciate one another. Someone on the conferancephone broke into the conversation in the middle of a meeting and said; Who are you really, Maharishi? I am an ordinary human being - Bevan: Well, this night we got a new definition of an ordinary human being. You choose. Personally I liked Rick's story as rather telling. When Maharishi said he/TM would create more enlightened people than Buddha, it was just that - stating the simple facts without drawing attention to himself. The greatness was and is for me in the simplicity. Despite all the fuss made around his public persona, I think that Maharishi often privately longed to be treated more normally, and he treasured the few close people whom he allowed to treat him that way, such as Vernon Katz, Jemima Pittman, and Henry Nyberg. The latter once showed up in Courchevel with his dog in his car, smoking a cigar. Maharishi was very happy to see him and referred to him as his best friend. Henry Nyburg (Nyberg ?)came for a visit to Seelisberg a last time also, ofcourse with his dog. Someone rushed to Maharishi saying that Nyburg had arrived and asked where he should stay. Maharishi told him that he should have the biggest suite available whereupon the rather bewildered secretary wondered what to do with the dog. Give the dog a suite also was the calm reply. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: WWF Title Match -- Shakti vs. Nirvikalpa Samadhi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nice summary post Turq. I like your secular description. Secular descriptions is just what I DO, Doug. It's a trait I picked up from the Rama fellow. He was somehow able to talk about the most esoteric and tech-y phenomena without having to throw around a lot of spiritual buzzwords. The buzzwords are nice, and can be precise, IF the audience for the talk or the written message all understands them, and understands them in the same way. If they do not, you're going to almost by definition leave some people in the dust, and give rise to misunderstandings. Besides, I get off on the *challenge* of trying to come up with my own words for my own exper- iences, rather than rely on someone else's. Thanks for calling attention to this thread with this post and your earlier ones with vaj. Well, it's just that something came up in that particular bash-Vaj session that I felt needed to be cleared up. A couple of people assumed that if one is sitting in the same room with a spiritual teacher and perceiving some subjec- tive benefit from that, it's a shakti phenomenon. My experience is that this is not so. I've been there done that with shakti, and know what it feels like. And I've been there done that with being in the same room with the energy of nirvi- kalpa samadhi or rigpa, and I know what *that* feels like, too. And the two phenomena are very, very different -- orders of magnitude apart. So I just felt obliged to try to describe that from my own point of view and in my own words, to see whether it was possible to make that distinction for someone who might not have ever experienced the difference, or the phenomena themselves. I still don't know whether I did, but the exercise itself was fun. I was wondering whether to post this next link, because I'm pretty sure it will draw fire from some who don't like to hear different points of view on this subject of shakti vs. samadhi. It's a talk from 1982, tape recorded and transcribed by me, on this very subject. Some will hear it as poppycock, and they are welcome to do so. The teacher in question was FULL of poppycock, and I doubt that he would be offended by anyone con- sidering this particular rap silly or incorrect. On the other hand, he could DO all of the things he speaks about in this talk, and we in the audi- ence had sat in rooms with him experiencing them for some time when he finally got around to giv- ing this particular explanation. I remember that it greatly clarified things for me at the time, and explained what I had been feeling before about the *difference* between the two energies (shakti vs. samadhi), but never was able to pin down clearly. Maybe it'll do the same for someone else here. Maybe not. Anyway, here's the link. The talk I'm referring to is the first one in this story; the others are from different evenings and about different subjects: http://ramalila.net/RoadTripMind/rtm03.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: When MIU was first announced...
(snip) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, aztjbailey aztjbailey@ wrote: I thought that MIU would become a beacon of light to all persons interested in concioussness research. I actually believed MIU would boldly go where no one had gone before, and using TM as a base, explore all aspects of human concioussness from all perspectives, historically, culturally and especially rigorously using the scientific method and instruments to search for truths of the human nervous system. I thought it would become an institution recognized the world over for an understanding of human life from both eastern and western perspectives. I really thought that is what it would become. So, what do you think happened, to kill this dream?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barack Obama in context?
(snip) I mean, how can anyone justify a comment like that? We all know typical white people...are like... Prejudice, closed minded, angry, two dimensional. Barack Obama was on the inside of the typical white person's world, in Kansas. It's not hard to figure out what he meant. Unless, your more typical then just mildly typical.
[FairfieldLife] Re: WWF Title Match -- Shakti vs. Nirvikalpa Samadhi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was wondering whether to post this next link, because I'm pretty sure it will draw fire from some who don't like to hear different points of view on this subject of shakti vs. samadhi. It's a talk from 1982, tape recorded and transcribed by me, on this very subject. Some will hear it as poppycock, and they are welcome to do so. The teacher in question was FULL of poppycock, and I doubt that he would be offended by anyone con- sidering this particular rap silly or incorrect. On the other hand, he could DO all of the things he speaks about in this talk, and we in the audi- ence had sat in rooms with him experiencing them for some time when he finally got around to giv- ing this particular explanation. I remember that it greatly clarified things for me at the time, and explained what I had been feeling before about the *difference* between the two energies (shakti vs. samadhi), but never was able to pin down clearly. Maybe it'll do the same for someone else here. Maybe not. Anyway, here's the link. The talk I'm referring to is the first one in this story; the others are from different evenings and about different subjects: http://ramalila.net/RoadTripMind/rtm03.html For the record, before anyone leaps in and tries to diss me because of what this gentle- man says, I don't necessarily AGREE with all that he says in this talk, or any talk. I feel that I gained a great deal from sitting with him for years, and I'm grateful for that, but I disagreed with him at the time about many things, and I continue to disagree with him now. I made that abundantly clear to him, and to his credit he not only never had the slightest problem with my disagreement, he encouraged it. I miss that quality in some of the spiritual teachers I have met later. Back to the original point of contention -- IS it somehow artificial or a dependency to sit with a spiritual teacher to gain some per- ceived benefit from their energy, whether that energy be a lower-grade shakti or a high-grade emanation of samadhi? Well, duh...of course it's somewhat artificial. And yeah, in a perfect world it would be cooler if someone could just hand out a cheat sheet and tell his or her students, Just do this -- follow each of these instructions to the letter -- and you will realize the highest enlightenment. My experience in life is that things just don't work like that. Some of the higher (*not* better) forms of meditation CAN'T be taught in cheat sheets. They can't even be taught in words. They can't be achieved via techniques. They fall into the category of what Vaj referred to as pointing out instructions. You kinda have to be SHOWN these things, via transmission. When you are, you find that no words are necessary. No step-by-step instructions or techniques are necessary. The knowledge of how to return to the samadhi you are experiencing, how to get back there on your own is INHERENT in the experience of it. Having experienced it clearly, there is no need for further instructions on how to experience it again on your own. As *opposed* to some of the subjective experiences one has when exposed to the mystical kundalini or shakti. Those subjective phenomena are FUN, and can be very transforming, but you really *need* some outside catalyst to jumpstart them. And I think that the critics here who were ragging on the shakti seekers and the empowerment junkies who flit from teacher to teacher hoping for another hit, another jumpstart, were correct in ragging on them. It's JUST as possible to become a shakti junkie as it is to become a heroin junkie. Whereas -- the whole *point* of me writing all these words that no one is probably reading anyway -- it's very difficult to become, or to even *want* to become, a samadhi junkie. Different order of experience, just as I said at the beginning.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unwavering Samadhi: Meditative Achievement and Its Impact in the World
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snipWhat is not to *like* about incarnating? :-) You tell me... Live Rent free?
[FairfieldLife] Bill Richardson endorses Obama
I try to stay out of the political discussions as much as possible, but I see this as an interesting event. Bill Richardson is potentially a major player in the political arena. He's Hispanic, he's smart as a whip, and he's got good ideas. I think he'd make a smashing Vice-President, and possibly someday a good President. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080321/ap_on_el_pr/obama_richardson New Mexico is an interesting state. It's still got a lot of that frontier mentality that forced former NM governor Lew Wallace (author of Ben Hur) to quip, Every calculation based on experience elsewhere fails in New Mexico. That's the nature of the beast, and the dogmatic politician just doesn't stand a chance there. Heck, even the former Republican governor took a stand that was against his Party and against his own interests by lobbying for the decriminalization of marijuana. New Mexico grows interesting people. Good to see that they are able to perceive *other* interesting people, such as Obama. The story Bill tells in the article about Obama bailing him out at the convention is perfect; it really captures the nature of the man. Can you imagine Hillary ever doing that? Or *any* of the other candidates?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
Do any of you have speculation as how what Jill Bolte Taylor http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229 said ties in with Maharishi's once held view of the dual nervous system. It seems she implies that the right brain gives an experience of Being and the left of individual concerns. The problem is, as always, how to function individually while enjoying non local awareness. David http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barack Obama in context?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] I think the *reverend* is probably a race hustler. The reverend is one of the most articulate Christian ministers I've ever heard. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, David Fiske [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do any of you have speculation as how what Jill Bolte Taylor http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229 said ties in with Maharishi's once held view of the dual nervous system. It seems she implies that the right brain gives an experience of Being and the left of individual concerns. The problem is, as always, how to function individually while enjoying non local awareness. David http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229 What I found most fascinating and uplifting about the talk was that it DIDN'T tie in with any pre-existing framework or philosophy. It really seemed to me as if Jill approached this situation *without* having been pre-programmed to have ideas about Being, samadhi, nirvana, etc. I got the feeling that she learned of these terms and these concepts *after* having experienced what she did, in an attempt to understand them. As you suggest, there seems to be some *literal* overshadowing effect of the left brain that tends to hide the expansive, non-local right brain. It's like the left brain is a worrywart, and nags and talks all the time, while the right brain is more Rastafarian. Ja, mon...I hear what you be sayin', but chill. Don't worry...be happy. I think what we need is for the left brain to sit down with the right brain and share a big spliff from time to time, so that they can get along better and coexist more peacefully. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unwavering Samadhi: Meditative Achievement and Its Impact in the World
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 21, 2008, at 7:37 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ 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. Implying that the TM researchers aren't honest... Unlike the BUddhist researchers, such as the one that is in lead researcher of the current meditation study you like to tout who confided to the head of the research project that I've always known there's no need to conduct scientific research to confirm that BUddhist meditation works... Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, David Fiske fiskedavid@ wrote: Do any of you have speculation as how what Jill Bolte Taylor http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229 said ties in with Maharishi's once held view of the dual nervous system. It seems she implies that the right brain gives an experience of Being and the left of individual concerns. The problem is, as always, how to function individually while enjoying non local awareness. David http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229 What I found most fascinating and uplifting about the talk was that it DIDN'T tie in with any pre-existing framework or philosophy. It really seemed to me as if Jill approached this situation *without* having been pre-programmed to have ideas about Being, samadhi, nirvana, etc. I got the feeling that she learned of these terms and these concepts *after* having experienced what she did, in an attempt to understand them. As you suggest, there seems to be some *literal* overshadowing effect of the left brain that tends to hide the expansive, non-local right brain. It's like the left brain is a worrywart, and nags and talks all the time, while the right brain is more Rastafarian. Ja, mon...I hear what you be sayin', but chill. Don't worry...be happy. I think what we need is for the left brain to sit down with the right brain and share a big spliff from time to time, so that they can get along better and coexist more peacefully. :-) Samadhi, as defined in TM research, comes about when the left and right hemispheres are *in balance* in the frontal lobes. IOW, neither the right nor left hemisphere is dominating. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, David Fiske fiskedavid@ wrote: Do any of you have speculation as how what Jill Bolte Taylor http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229 said ties in with Maharishi's once held view of the dual nervous system. It seems she implies that the right brain gives an experience of Being and the left of individual concerns. The problem is, as always, how to function individually while enjoying non local awareness. David http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229 What I found most fascinating and uplifting about the talk was that it DIDN'T tie in with any pre-existing framework or philosophy. It really seemed to me as if Jill approached this situation *without* having been pre-programmed to have ideas about Being, samadhi, nirvana, etc. I got the feeling that she learned of these terms and these concepts *after* having experienced what she did, in an attempt to understand them. As you suggest, there seems to be some *literal* overshadowing effect of the left brain that tends to hide the expansive, non-local right brain. It's like the left brain is a worrywart, and nags and talks all the time, while the right brain is more Rastafarian. Ja, mon...I hear what you be sayin', but chill. Don't worry...be happy. I think what we need is for the left brain to sit down with the right brain and share a big spliff from time to time, so that they can get along better and coexist more peacefully. :-) Samadhi, as defined in TM research, comes about when the left and right hemispheres are *in balance* in the frontal lobes. IOW, neither the right nor left hemisphere is dominating. Lawson, Lawson, Lawson...when are you going to understand that samadhi cannot possibly be defined by research? All that the researchers can ever possibly do is to attempt to track and find physical coorelates of a non-physical subjective experience. They are Wile E. Coyotes chasing a roadrunner they will never catch. At best they can catch glimpses of the roadrunner and try to measure the piles of dust as he says Beep Beep and runs away. The scientists in ALL of the research on meditation are GUESSING, dude. They're measuring people who are meditating and they're searching for something -- anything -- out of the ordinary. And of course they're going to think that those out of the ordin- ary things that they find are coorelates of samadhi. But are they? Some of the things that Wallace believed were the definitors of higher states of consciousness when he did his experiments have been shown not to be. I would expect that ALL of the things found so far will be found to be just as non-definitive. I -- unlike you and your belief in MMY's idea that there IS a physiological coorelate to everything spiritual -- do not believe that scientists will EVER be able to define samadhi or enlightenment physically. The roadrunner's going to keep getting away. That's just the way things work in this cartoon universe.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unwavering Samadhi: Meditative Achievement and Its Impact in the World
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 21, 2008, at 7:37 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ 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.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Monogamy Required for Attaining Higher Levels of Consciousness?
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 Catholic Saints who have recorded their Spiritual exercises. You are probably aware of various books such as The Spiritual Exercises of St(so and so). I've read these and discarded them as counterproductive, frequently involving some type of hard conentration. If you have gained some benefit from the exercises of the Meister or Hindegard, great. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The monastic tradition keeps coming up with great saints who have a clue. Hildegard von Bingen, for instance, but there's a whole slew. Where do they come from? Some commentators say that mysticism is sui generis, but then what were these people doing in their monasteries? There's a contemporary nun whose name escapes me who has written extensively on consciousness. When I taught at the Catholic school, I developed a friendship with the spokeswoman of a Carmelite monastery situated on campus, and we talked about these things quite a bit. The Carmelites are strictly monastic. I never saw this woman since she remained hidden behind a screen. She was the only one who met the public and only from behind that
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip I think what we need is for the left brain to sit down with the right brain and share a big spliff from time to time, so that they can get along better and coexist more peacefully. :-) Samadhi, as defined in TM research, comes about when the left and right hemispheres are *in balance* in the frontal lobes. IOW, neither the right nor left hemisphere is dominating. Lawson, Lawson, Lawson...when are you going to understand that samadhi cannot possibly be defined by research? Lawson didn't say defined by TM research, he said defined IN TM research. All that the researchers can ever possibly do is to attempt to track and find physical coorelates of a non-physical subjective experience. Which is, of course, what Lawson is referring to: physical correlates of reports of a subjective experience. They are Wile E. Coyotes chasing a roadrunner they will never catch. At best they can catch glimpses of the roadrunner and try to measure the piles of dust as he says Beep Beep and runs away. The scientists in ALL of the research on meditation are GUESSING, dude. They're measuring people who are meditating and they're searching for something -- anything -- out of the ordinary. And of course they're going to think that those out of the ordin- ary things that they find are coorelates of samadhi. But are they? Actually, what they're searching for is the physical correlates of reports of the experience by their subjects. Did you really think they just looked at the EEG tracings, found an unusual pattern, and labeled it samadhi? Not incidentally, it's very similar to the way scientists have studied dreaming. They hook the subjects up to the EEG and other measurement devices, have them go to sleep, wake them up at intervals, and ask them if they were dreaming. Then they look at the measurements from the instruments to see if there are distinct patterns correlated with subjective reports of having been dreaming. Some of the things that Wallace believed were the definitors of higher states of consciousness when he did his experiments have been shown not to be. I would expect that ALL of the things found so far will be found to be just as non-definitive. I -- unlike you and your belief in MMY's idea that there IS a physiological coorelate to everything spiritual -- do not believe that scientists will EVER be able to define samadhi or enlightenment physically. Just the way scientists have never been able to define dreaming physically, eh? Barry, before you do any more criticism of TM research, it would be a good idea for you to acquire some understanding of what is actually involved in that research.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Monogamy Required for Attaining Higher Levels of Consciousness?
Great discussion. Comments below. --- Angela Mailander wrote: I totally agree that a path to realization is implicit in the Christian tradition. There may have been techniques that were either kept secret so well that they became lost or that were suppressed. After all, there were techniques in the Platonic tradition. Socrates was initiated by his teacher Diotima in a meditative technique which was called 'practicing death.' And the Platonic and the neo-Platonic tradition merged with the emerging Christian reframing of things and there was a lot of cross-pollination. Moreover, Greece was aware of Indian culture. That there must have been something going on because look at Matthew 6:22: If therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. That is my direct experience of the third eye. And that's Matthew, the least mystical of the four apostles whose gospels we have. John is the most. --- John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John wrote: It just appears to me that the accepted way to Realization, particularly among Christians, is to curb the urge for sexual indulgence. Thus, celibacy and marriage to one person, and in that order, are regarded as the solution to leading a peaceful life, or attaining higher levels of consciousness. --- Gillam wrote: What Christian faiths offer a path to Realization, John? None I've encountered. My childhood church, the notably conservative Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, considers enlightenment to be an impossible delusion. Hence the need for the external intervention of God. John again: IMO, the basic teachings of Christ offer a way to Realization, although it may not be stated in the same way as in the vedic literature. Christ taught through parables and actual life experience that the divine life is NOT so distant from relative life. In other words, one does not need to die to get a taste of the absolute. We can experience heaven on earth, but not in its fullness. 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: 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. Holobuda also offer this kicker: if there are such secret techniques, if they are truly secret then they're useless! I feel it's more likely that enlightened people are attracted to the church than the church is producing enlightened people. As for John's original remark, above, that Christianity promotes celibacy or monogamy as ways to foster spirituality; yes, it does, but I believe the promotion of what we today call family values has more to do with preserving families than it does with fostering self-realization. In my experience, the only thing about sex that gets in the way of knowing the Self is the tendency to stay up too late at night. The act itself is likely to generate more chi than I've felt in any meditation.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Bill Richardson endorses Obama
On Mar 22, 2008, at 4:46 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: I try to stay out of the political discussions as much as possible, but I see this as an interesting event. Bill Richardson is potentially a major player in the political arena. He's Hispanic, he's smart as a whip, and he's got good ideas. I think he'd make a smashing Vice-President, and possibly someday a good President. Here's another good one, Barry: http://tinyurl.com/yrj6l5 A great line from this article: The reaction of some of Mr. Clinton’s allies suggests that might have been a wise decision. “An act of betrayal,” said James Carville, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton and a friend of Mr. Clinton. “Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week. LOL...hopefully if Richardson got his 30 pieces of silver, he'll put it back in the campaign...or something. I got a funny feeling he ain't going to hell for this one. Another good point the article makes is that former supporters are finally starting to speak up and tell her it's time to quit. Hallelujah. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Unity Consciousness?
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. And even when she's right, she's missing your intention. 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. --- TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, David Fiske fiskedavid@ wrote: Do any of you have speculation as how what Jill Bolte Taylor http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229 said ties in with Maharishi's once held view of the dual nervous system. It seems she implies that the right brain gives an experience of Being and the left of individual concerns. The problem is, as always, how to function individually while enjoying non local awareness. David http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229 What I found most fascinating and uplifting about the talk was that it DIDN'T tie in with any pre-existing framework or philosophy. It really seemed to me as if Jill approached this situation *without* having been pre-programmed to have ideas about Being, samadhi, nirvana, etc. I got the feeling that she learned of these terms and these concepts *after* having experienced what she did, in an attempt to understand them. As you suggest, there seems to be some *literal* overshadowing effect of the left brain that tends to hide the expansive, non-local right brain. It's like the left brain is a worrywart, and nags and talks all the time, while the right brain is more Rastafarian. Ja, mon...I hear what you be sayin', but chill. Don't worry...be happy. I think what we need is for the left brain to sit down with the right brain and share a big spliff from time to time, so that they can get along better and coexist more peacefully. :-) Samadhi, as defined in TM research, comes about when the left and right hemispheres are *in balance* in the frontal lobes. IOW, neither the right nor left hemisphere is dominating. Lawson, Lawson, Lawson...when are you going to understand that samadhi cannot possibly be defined by research? It was a poorly worded phrase. Judy's made a stab at clarifying, and I'll reword: The TM research on people who report transcendental consciousness finds that their self- reports come seconds after the brain returns to a more normal mode of functioning from a mode of higher inter-hemispheric EEG coherence in the frontal lobes of the brain. IOW, they might press a button to indicate: that was TC! and by the time they press the button, their brain is functioning normally, but *just before* they press the button, their brain is in a different state and it's a state where the right and left frontal lobes are more in-tune with each other. The frontal lobes, btw, are where science usually locates our sense of identity or self. In TMers, IOW, reports of the samadhi state are associated with the hemispheres of the brain being in balance. So the suggestion that one part of the brain is dominating during samadhi don't hold true for TMers. HOWEVER, in some Buddhist meditations, there IS an imbalance in the brain hemispheres that shows up: the intellectual side dominates. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: When MIU was first announced...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] So, what do you think happened, to kill this dream? Nothing: the dream is alive and well, and growing stronger by the minute. 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 any real effect on the world, but its a sign that things are proressing for the MIU, as is the opening of the new MUM student center, another thing you appear unwilling to acknowledge. Lawson Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Monogamy Required for Attaining Higher Levels of Consciousness?
Angela said, There's a contemporary nun whose name escapes me who has written extensively on consciousness. Her name is Bernadette Roberts. --- 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 Catholic Saints who have recorded their Spiritual exercises. You are probably aware of various books such as The Spiritual Exercises of St(so and so). I've read these and discarded them as counterproductive, frequently involving some type of hard conentration. If you have gained some benefit from the exercises of the Meister or Hindegard, great. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: The monastic tradition keeps coming up with great saints who have a clue. Hildegard von Bingen, for instance, but there's a whole slew. Where do they come from? Some commentators say that mysticism is sui generis, but then what were these people doing in their monasteries? There's a contemporary nun whose name escapes me who has written extensively on consciousness. When I taught
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bill Richardson endorses Obama
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 22, 2008, at 4:46 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: I try to stay out of the political discussions as much as possible, but I see this as an interesting event. Bill Richardson is potentially a major player in the political arena. He's Hispanic, he's smart as a whip, and he's got good ideas. I think he'd make a smashing Vice-President, and possibly someday a good President. Here's another good one, Barry: http://tinyurl.com/yrj6l5 A great line from this article: The reaction of some of Mr. Clinton�s allies suggests that might have been a wise decision. �An act of betrayal,� said James Carville, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton and a friend of Mr. Clinton. �Mr. Richardson�s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,� Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week. LOL...hopefully if Richardson got his 30 pieces of silver, he'll put it back in the campaign...or something. I got a funny feeling he ain't going to hell for this one. Another good point the article makes is that former supporters are finally starting to speak up and tell her it's time to quit. Hallelujah. BTW, the original report *I* read said that the initial tapes of the Reverend Wright were given to CNN by Clinton campaign staffers. lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Monogamy Required for Attaining Higher Levels of Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip 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: Bill Richardson endorses Obama
On Mar 22, 2008, at 8:58 AM, sparaig wrote: BTW, the original report *I* read said that the initial tapes of the Reverend Wright were given to CNN by Clinton campaign staffers. I wouldn't doubt it--the plot thickens. And you can bet that if the tables were turned this would have come out long ago. Actually, if the tables were turned, Obama's candidacy would be history by now. Clinton's supporters, and Clinton herself, just can't get over the idea that she's not entitled to the nomination by divine right. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: When MIU was first announced...
aztjbailey wrote: I thought that MIU would become a beacon of light to all persons interested in concioussness research. I actually believed MIU would boldly go where no one had gone before, and using TM as a base, explore all aspects of human concioussness from all perspectives, historically, culturally and especially rigorously using the scientific method and instruments to search for truths of the human nervous system. I thought it would become an institution recognized the world over for an understanding of human life from both eastern and western perspectives. I really thought that is what it would become. Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, what do you think happened, to kill this dream? I'd like to hear what aztjbailey has to say in reply to this question, but if I may jump in, I believe aztjbailey's apprehension of the purpose of MIU was mistaken in the first place. Maharishi International University was not created to conduct research into consciousness from all perspectives. It was founded to promote Maharishi's teachings. MMY's most fundamental teaching is that vedic knowledge had been eroded over time, but Guru Dev revived it in its purity, and now that we have been entrusted with it, we must be vigilant in preserving it in its fullness. Hence, the institution is inherently orthodox, not open-minded. It is exclusive, not ecumenical. When one has God's own truth, what is the purpose of entertaining lesser truths? MIU's purpose was not investigation into knowledge, but marketing of TM. What happened to kill the dream of MIU? Perhaps the same thing that happens to dreams upon waking up.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Monogamy Required for Attaining Higher Levels of Consciousness?
See my last email for some responses to Holobuda that anticipate your discussion. Catholicism was the only Christian game in town until the Reformation. The research I did on the so-called residential schools for native American children (death rate of 60%) and the research I've done in the area of political history both convince me that that the Catholic Church secretly controls many (if not all) Protestant churches at the highest level. Your assumptions are that the Vatican doesn't know or doesn't care about a possible 1% effect. I'm sure they know about it. They have reasons for keeping techniques a secret. --- Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great discussion. Comments below. --- Angela Mailander wrote: I totally agree that a path to realization is implicit in the Christian tradition. There may have been techniques that were either kept secret so well that they became lost or that were suppressed. After all, there were techniques in the Platonic tradition. Socrates was initiated by his teacher Diotima in a meditative technique which was called 'practicing death.' And the Platonic and the neo-Platonic tradition merged with the emerging Christian reframing of things and there was a lot of cross-pollination. Moreover, Greece was aware of Indian culture. That there must have been something going on because look at Matthew 6:22: If therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. That is my direct experience of the third eye. And that's Matthew, the least mystical of the four apostles whose gospels we have. John is the most. --- John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John wrote: It just appears to me that the accepted way to Realization, particularly among Christians, is to curb the urge for sexual indulgence. Thus, celibacy and marriage to one person, and in that order, are regarded as the solution to leading a peaceful life, or attaining higher levels of consciousness. --- Gillam wrote: What Christian faiths offer a path to Realization, John? None I've encountered. My childhood church, the notably conservative Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, considers enlightenment to be an impossible delusion. Hence the need for the external intervention of God. John again: IMO, the basic teachings of Christ offer a way to Realization, although it may not be stated in the same way as in the vedic literature. Christ taught through parables and actual life experience that the divine life is NOT so distant from relative life. In other words, one does not need to die to get a taste of the absolute. We can experience heaven on earth, but not in its fullness. 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: 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. Holobuda also offer this kicker: if there are such secret techniques, if they are truly secret then they're useless! I feel it's more likely that enlightened people are attracted to the church than the church is producing enlightened people. As for John's original remark, above, that Christianity promotes celibacy or monogamy as ways to foster spirituality; yes, it does, but I believe the promotion of what we today call family values has more to do with preserving families than it does with fostering self-realization. In my experience, the only thing about sex that gets in the way of knowing the Self is the tendency to stay up too late at night. The act itself is likely to generate more chi than I've felt in any meditation. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Monogamy Required for Attaining Higher Levels of Consciousness?
See my last email for some responses to Holobuda that anticipate your discussion. Catholicism was the only Christian game in town until the Reformation. The research I did on the so-called residential schools for native American children (death rate of 60%) and the research I've done in the area of political history both convince me that that the Catholic Church secretly controls many (if not all) Protestant churches at the highest level. Your assumptions are that the Vatican doesn't know or doesn't care about a possible 1% effect. I'm sure they know about it. They have reasons for keeping techniques a secret. --- Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great discussion. Comments below. --- Angela Mailander wrote: I totally agree that a path to realization is implicit in the Christian tradition. There may have been techniques that were either kept secret so well that they became lost or that were suppressed. After all, there were techniques in the Platonic tradition. Socrates was initiated by his teacher Diotima in a meditative technique which was called 'practicing death.' And the Platonic and the neo-Platonic tradition merged with the emerging Christian reframing of things and there was a lot of cross-pollination. Moreover, Greece was aware of Indian culture. That there must have been something going on because look at Matthew 6:22: If therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. That is my direct experience of the third eye. And that's Matthew, the least mystical of the four apostles whose gospels we have. John is the most. --- John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John wrote: It just appears to me that the accepted way to Realization, particularly among Christians, is to curb the urge for sexual indulgence. Thus, celibacy and marriage to one person, and in that order, are regarded as the solution to leading a peaceful life, or attaining higher levels of consciousness. --- Gillam wrote: What Christian faiths offer a path to Realization, John? None I've encountered. My childhood church, the notably conservative Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, considers enlightenment to be an impossible delusion. Hence the need for the external intervention of God. John again: IMO, the basic teachings of Christ offer a way to Realization, although it may not be stated in the same way as in the vedic literature. Christ taught through parables and actual life experience that the divine life is NOT so distant from relative life. In other words, one does not need to die to get a taste of the absolute. We can experience heaven on earth, but not in its fullness. 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: 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. Holobuda also offer this kicker: if there are such secret techniques, if they are truly secret then they're useless! I feel it's more likely that enlightened people are attracted to the church than the church is producing enlightened people. As for John's original remark, above, that Christianity promotes celibacy or monogamy as ways to foster spirituality; yes, it does, but I believe the promotion of what we today call family values has more to do with preserving families than it does with fostering self-realization. In my experience, the only thing about sex that gets in the way of knowing the Self is the tendency to stay up too late at night. The act itself is likely to generate more chi than I've felt in any meditation. 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: 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).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bill Richardson endorses Obama
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip BTW, the original report *I* read said that the initial tapes of the Reverend Wright were given to CNN by Clinton campaign staffers. I suspect what you read only entertained that possibility. In fact, the tape that sparked the big ruckus was given to ABC (not CNN) by McCain campaign workers. In any case, Sean Hannity of Fox News had been playing various bits and pieces of Wright's sermons for months. It wasn't until ABC aired that one tape that the whole thing took off. There's no evidence I'm aware of that the Clinton campaign had anything to do with it. And if you think about it, it's the last thing they'd want to be held responsible for, given how assiduously the Obama campaign and supporters have been working at painting the Clintons as injecting race into the campaign (entirely falsely, IMHO, but unfortunately quite successfully).
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
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 vajranatha@ 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: 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 Catholic Saints who have recorded their Spiritual exercises. You are probably aware of various books such as The Spiritual Exercises of St(so and so). I've
[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: 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 vajranatha@ wrote: On Mar 21, 2008, at 7:37 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ 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: 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: was: WWF Title Match -- Shakti vs. Nirvik
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip 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.
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 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: hypocrisy of Americans
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ 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: 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
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 vajranatha@ wrote: On Mar 21, 2008, at 7:37 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: hypocrisy of Americans
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ 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.
[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 mailander111@ 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 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 (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
[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?
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: hypocrisy of Americans
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip 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: 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: 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.
[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
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] 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
[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: 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
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
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
[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.
[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: 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 salsunshine@ 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: 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 no_reply@ 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: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: snip 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.
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: 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 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. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[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 jpgillam@ wrote: snip 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?
--- 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 jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgillam@ wrote: snip 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
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: 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: 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 no_reply@ 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
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 mailander111@ wrote: snip 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.
[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 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: snip 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] 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: 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] 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: Unity Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ 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: 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
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 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: snip 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.
--- 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.
[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] 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
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] 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.
[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: Zbigniew Brzezinski predictions on Iraq views on 2008 Candidates
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, abutilon108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex 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, abutilon108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex 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.
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
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
[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. :)
[FairfieldLife] Teapot??
Would *you* read that as teapot? http://www.gypsii.com/place.cgi?op=viewid=56731
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
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=viewid=56731 Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[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. snip 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.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Monogamy Required for Attaining Higher Levels of Consciousness?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 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: 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?
Re: Is Monogamy Required for Attaining Higher Levels of Consciousness? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 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: 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] 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
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
