[FairfieldLife] Look at me, I'm important! I know the Truth! (was Re: Shaken)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Just asking. Unlike you, I don't claim to know that my answer to a question about *opinion* is true or factually correct. And a good thing too, since your opinion is based on nonfacts. Funny you should mention that. I was going to ask you about these facts you're referring to. Too late. You decided to show off your ignorance of a whole bunch of other facts instead, in two separate posts. Did you attend the same school of debate that Jim did? Your tactics are similar. I won't be the *least* bit offended or outraged if you don't agree with me. I don't *expect* anyone to agree with me just because I said something. But isn't it fascinating how many folks here DO? And how upset they sometimes get when others DON'T agree with their every word? I never asked you to agree with me. I merely asked you to clarify one of your own statements. You seem upset enough about the question to refuse to answer it. I was quoting you, Barry. I was more than aware of that. But you were quoting out of context. No one said anything about wanting to change your beliefs. All that I asked is for you to explain how you were so certain about them as to answer a Could it be that... question with the word No, and then explain that answer with the assertion that it was factually correct. I didn't see any facts in what you were replying to, *or* in your reply. I was curious as to where you see them. It's *fine* with me if you want to duck out on explaining your rather definitive statements, *especially* since you chose to do so in this particular thread. The original question was: Could it be that people who have spent decades *not* using their critical faculties, and reacting to ANYTHING said by the people they have deemed author- ities as Truth Incarnate, seem to feel after a few years or decades doing this that that is how other people should react to THEM? I consider the question answered by the nature of your response, and subsequent non-response. Thank you for your participation. You can go back to making similar pronouncements about Hillary and other subjects now. Jim did the same thing recently. I was just wondering whether you shared the same alma mater.
[FairfieldLife] Raja Barrett in Finland?
The Raja (H-K: rAja) of Finland, Dr. Pat Barrett (sp?) is, I believe, in Finland right now. Just heard in the morning news, that the celebrations of the beginning of summer vacation have been surprisingly calm. There might be a connection between those twain things, or, of course, then again, there mightn't. Be it as it may, I predicted that a couple of weeks ago or so, in a forum(?) of Kauppalehti (kauppa-lehti [cowp-pah-lekh-ty]: commercial paper)... http://www.profium.com/index.php?id=530
[FairfieldLife] Look at me, I'm important! I know the Truth! (was Re: Shaken)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: snip That's always what I understood him to have been saying, Bhairitu, not that you would know everything. He's quite specific about this in his Gita commentary. Exactly but some people believe that they will know everything when enlightened. He needed to emphasize that's not the case. And for good reason. Learning still has to take place at all levels of life-- has to. Even the gods learn. Interesting all of the misconceptions around enlightenment. Much of it due to the often paradoxical nature of the enlightened life. Like the question that comes up about mistakes. Some say the enlightened can make mistakes. Others say this is not so. The paradoxical reality is that enlightened people from their enlightened perspective cannot make mistakes, only because there is nothing to compare their thoughts and actions to, no conceptual template that the enlightened person has deviated from, and therefore made a mistake. Does it look the same way to someone unenlightened? It does not-- unenlightened people constantly make mistakes, and will always see them in others, even in the enlightened. So it is a paradox. The reality of mistakes no longer exists in permanent enlightenment, although the unenlightened will continue to see them in the thoughts and actions of the enlightened. No harm, no foul-- just the way it is. Jim, it seems to me that what you have defined above is that the enlightened live in a state that is completely divorced from reality. Their *perception* (in your words, from their enlightened perspective) is that there can be no possible mistakes, and yet they make them constantly (your word), and so do others. So, a few followup questions: 1. What do you perceive the value of enlight- enment to BE if it makes you perceive this badly and (by your own standards) incorrectly? 2. Should anyone pay ANY attention to the enlight- ened when they claim that there are no mistakes? (It seems to me that you yourself have just said that this perception is incorrect, and yet you keep saying it.) 3. If the enlightened can be *this* wrong about the issue of Are the words and actions of the enlightened perfect and free from mistakes, and *admit* it, why should anyone pay any attention to what they say about anything else?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Peckman on Larry King: some observations
boo_lives: Really interesting paragraph to think about. Though I think it might be more likely that neither the alien visitors nor humans would view each other as part of a nice family upon meeting. The history of human exploration into new worlds here on earth has been one of violence and genocide, so imagine what would happen when similar exploration among worlds with alien species takes place. One can imagine that the technological sophisticated that enabled an alien race to get here would be accompanied by some sort of higher consciousness as well, but again here on earth the development of technology has not produced a higher consciousness, in fact the most advanced technologies we have are those used for warfare. Rick: Yeah. I had always hoped that some sort of built-in safety mechanism would necessitate a close correlation between higher consciousness and interstellar travel technologies, but as you point out, there's no precedent for this here on Earth. I think that the last word on this is from Monty Python, in the Galaxy Song that Eric Idle sings in The Meaning of Life: Our universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding, In all of the directions it can whiz; As fast as it can go, that's the speed of light, you know, Twelve million miles a minute and that's the fastest speed there is. So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure, How amazingly unlikely is your birth; And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space, 'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth! My feeling is that the answer to the question of why so many believe in UFOs lies in the word pray in this verse of the song. Nothing they have seen on planet Earth should lead them to believe that other sentient beings are any more intelligent or less warlike than the humans around them. And yet they persist in believing not only this, but that they will be the saviors of mankind. Duh. The clue is in the word savior. It's a way of saying, I don't believe that we as humans can fix the problems that we have created. We need someone or something *else* to do it for us. That someone/something else can be a messiah figure, or a God, or little men from outer space, but what- ever form the messiah seems to take, he/she/it is always out there somewhere in the future. They never show up. My feeling is if the benevolent, highly-evolved space brothers really *are* out there, they're probably waiting for us to clean up our *own* mess before they choose to visit. Visiting barbarians probably wouldn't be their idea of a cool vacation. The built-in safety mechanism that Rick speaks of may be that no such being would bother appear- ing to a species so backwards that it spends more of its time and resources finding new and better ways to kill its members than it spends feeding them.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Raja Barrett in Finland?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Raja (H-K: rAja) of Finland, Dr. Pat Barrett (sp?) is, I believe, in Finland right now. Just heard in the morning news, that the celebrations of the beginning of summer vacation have been surprisingly calm. There might be a connection between those twain things, or, of course, then again, there mightn't. Be it as it may, I predicted that a couple of weeks ago or so, Well, actually that was only a couple of *days* ago. That fvkkin' smRti-nirodha! ;) http://keskustelu.kauppalehti.fi/5/i/keskustelu/thread.jspa?threadID=89331tstart=0 http://tinyurl.com/5kqmm5 in a forum(?) of Kauppalehti (kauppa-lehti [cowp-pah-lekh-ty]: commercial paper)... http://www.profium.com/index.php?id=530
[FairfieldLife] Look at me, I'm important! I know the Truth! (was Re: Shaken)
I misread one of Jim's statements below (being unenlightened, I am still able to make mistakes, unlike Jim), so some of my previous followup questions were based on that misreading. Jim may ignore them if he wants, as he probably would anyway because they were tough questions, and Jim has a tendency to run away when faced with tough questions. :-) I will start over. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: Interesting all of the misconceptions around enlightenment. Much of it due to the often paradoxical nature of the enlightened life. Like the question that comes up about mistakes. Some say the enlightened can make mistakes. Others say this is not so. The paradoxical reality is that enlightened people from their enlightened perspective cannot make mistakes, only because there is nothing to compare their thoughts and actions to, no conceptual template that the enlightened person has deviated from, and therefore made a mistake. So Jim, you are saying that from their enlightened perspective the enlightened *cannot make mistakes*. Did I get that right this time? Ok, does that enlightened perspective have any reality at all, or could it be just one more illusory point of view? If, as you go on to say, everyone around the enlightened being perceives them as having made a mistake, and *only* the enlightened being perceives themselves as *not* having made a mistake, why is the enlightened person's perspective definitive and everyone else's wrong? I mean, Son Of Sam was convinced that he hadn't made any mistakes, and that it was only the ignorance of the people who were viewing his perfect actions as imperfect that was the problem. Isn't what you are describing closer to a description of insanity than enlightenment? Does it look the same way to someone unenlightened? It does not-- unenlightened people constantly make mistakes, and will always see them in others, even in the enlightened. So it is a paradox. The reality of mistakes no longer exists in permanent enlightenment, although the unenlightened will continue to see them in the thoughts and actions of the enlightened. No harm, no foul-- just the way it is. So the bottom line that you are proposing is that the enlightened are right *because they say they are*, and that the only reason they are perceived to be making any mistakes is that those doing the perceiving are unenlightened. You are saying, in effect, that because you are enlight- ened, you cannot possibly make any mistakes. Is that correct? You are saying that the only reason it appears that you are making mistakes is that the unenlightened are not able to perceive the perfection of your actions. Is that correct? OK. It's a belief system, and I guess you are entitled to it. It seems to me a fairly self-serving, solipsist belief system closer to madness than enlightenment, but you seem to like it. But could you do me one favor, just in the interest of clearing up this unenlightened soul's confusion? Please explain to me a statement you made some time ago that appeared to me, from my unenlightened per- spective, to be a mistake. You said, quite clearly, and even repeated the statement in subsequent posts, that Buddha had said, God is love. Can you provide a reference as to where he said that? Then perhaps I will be less unenlightened, and can better understand the perfection of your enlightened actions.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Raja Barrett in Finland?
There might be a connection between those twain things, or, of course, then again, there mightn't. Be it as it may, I predicted that a couple of weeks ago or so, in a forum(?) of Kauppalehti (kauppa The word 'kauppa' (store, commerce, etc.) seems to be an Indo-Germanic loan word, cf. German 'kaufen', Islandic 'kaupthing', Swedish 'köpa' [sic!] and stuff.
[FairfieldLife] Look at me, I'm important! I know the Truth! (was Re: Shaken)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Do you think it's possible that when you know things the way they do, your seeing becomes so Vedic that you can perceive that it's against the laws of nature to explain how or why you know things? :-) The question you must ask yourself is not something sarcastic directed at others, but why you have this obvious battle going on within yourself, to, on the one hand, desire answers to questions, and on the other ask them is such a mocking and disrepectful tone that you not only substantially decrease your chances of receiving any answers, but also harden your heart and mind against any answers you do receive. It seems like a way to make noise, but not solve anything for yourself. Jim, in order: 1. There is no question I must ask myself. There is only the question you *want* me to ask myself. No matter how enlightened you consider yourself, you have neither the right nor the authority to must me about ANYTHING. Your act lately is to, whenever I ask you some tough questions that *you* don't want to or are unable to deal with, to turn it around and suggest that the problem is from *my* side. It's based on some *lack* in me that is *not* lacking in you. It's the *same* thing you're saying in the other post, that because YOU are enlightened (or claim to be), YOU define truth. You have stated -- quite clearly -- that essentially the reason you believe that you are enlightened is that you have chosen to call your own experiences by the name enlightenment. (That WAS what you said, in essence...you laid out your *own* experiences as a definition of enlightenment, and then said, in essence, Because these are my own experiences, and because I define those experiences as 'enlightenment,' I am enlightened. You then went on to say that it was *not* possible that you could be mistaken about the nature of these experiences. Now you're musting. Seems to me that you've kinda lost perspective on what your place is in the universe, dude. You do not have the intelligence, personal power, charisma, or state of consciousness to must a DOG into obeying you, much less me; you just like to think you have that power. :-) 2. You claim to have perceived that I have a battle going on inside myself. And after I have explained to you, quite patiently IMO, that I have *zero* desire for permanent enlightenment, *especially* as you define enlightenment. I am NOT seeking spiritual advice from you; I'd rather be *dead* than think like you. I'm merely asking you questions to put you on the spot and have you defend some of the statements you have made here in the past, and that you continue to make in the present. 3. With regard to my mocking and disrespectful tone, what is present in you that could possibly be mocked and disrespected? You *have* said, have you not, that you have no self, only Self, right? You *have* said, The process of attaining enlightenment involves the complete dissolution of any sort of artificial identity, have you not? What artificial identity in you thus is able to feel mocked or disrespected? Are you trying to tell us that Self feels mocked and disrespected by itsSelf? 4. As for your answers, I consider them worthless. I am not *looking* for any answers, least of all from you. I would sooner trust answers from Son Of Sam. So the issue of whether my attitude is blocking those answers is somewhat questionable. I think it comes down to what I have recognized about you previously... 5. What you have recognized. Is that synonymous with Truth, Jim? Does the fact that you recognize something make it by definition true? What about your recognition that Buddha -- someone who did not believe in gods and was unfamiliar with even the concept of a single God -- said, God is love. Was that another of your re-cognitions? ...that you have both a fear and a need for enlightenment within you... 6. Methinks you projecting your own motivations onto me, dude. I have no need for enlightenment, nor do I fear it. It comes, it goes. I neither seek it nor avoid it. I don't CARE whether it comes or it goes. What is going on is that you are trying to SELL the need for enlightenment, and I am not buying. ...and you are stuck in the middle, unable to move forward until the fear is resolved. 7. Move forward to WHAT, dude? I have stated very clearly that I have NO desire for enlightenment, as you have defined it, or even as *I* define it. I seek only to appreciate what is, whatever is. It is YOU who is trying to sell me the need to seek enlightenment; it is me who is not buying. The fear is the fear of your ego dissolving. Trust me, it feels a lot better once you have let go. I do NOT trust you. I do NOT believe for an instant that you have dissolved your ego. I do NOT believe for an instant that you are enlightened. And
[FairfieldLife] Re: Video of Judy?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LOL. Not absolutely certain, but I'm pretty sure that's just another Judy impersonator. On Jun 1, 2008, at 1:45 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s The most amazing assertion here (among many) is the belief of this type of clinton supporter that the only reason Obama ran for president was because a white woman was running and he was determined to bring her down. This is real paranoia victimhood, and it's why younger feminists do not relate to this older demographic of feminists headed up by hillary. Younger feminists not only don't resort to victimhood anytime they lose (in this case to an obama campaign that outsmarted and outorganized them at every turn), they're just fine with having a pro-feminist man like Obama be in the white house. Also disturbing from the meeting are the reports of Clinton supporters handing out literature saying Obama is gay, used drugs, and is a murderer. Would you rather have a president who had an affair [Bill Clinton] or one who was a murderer [Obama]? Jeannie, the Greensboro Democrat, asks a fellow in a floppy Tilley hat and Hillary buttons. That's a good point, he replies.
[FairfieldLife] File - FFL Acronyms
BC - Brahman Consciousness BN - Bliss Ninny or Bliss Nazi CC - Cosmic Consciousness GC - God Consciousness MMY - Maharishi Mahesh Yogi OTP - Off the Program - a phrase used in the TM movement meaning to do something (such as see another spiritual teacher) considered in violation of Maharishi's program. POV - Point of View SBS - Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, Maharishi's master SCI Science of Creative Intelligence SOC - State of Consciousness SSRS - Sri Sri Ravi Shankar (Pundit-ji) SV - Stpathya Ved (Vedic Architecture) TB - True Believer (in TM doctrines) TNB - True Non-Believer TMO - The Transcendental Meditation organization TTC TM Teacher Training Course UC - Unity Consciousness YMMV = Your Mileage may vary To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Look at me, I'm important! I know the Truth! (was Re: Shaken)
This is a great discussion. In my experience enlightened guys never subject themselves to a continued skeptical inquiry concerning the implications of what they are claiming. Can anyone direct me to other such discussions from masters? The closest I have seen Maharishi allow this was a discussion with one of my philosophy professors concerning the logic of the necessity for a transcendental consciousness beneath waking, dreaming and sleep states. It was an early course, maybe Humbolt. After going round and round Maharishi put a lid on it with the absurd statement Then you must change your logic, exposing his own anti-intellectual bias. Thanks to Jim for continuing on in a bit of a caustic exchange, and to Turq for keeping this alive. This is a legitimate line of inquiry IMO. There are so many assumptive beliefs contained in the idea of someone being in a special state. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I misread one of Jim's statements below (being unenlightened, I am still able to make mistakes, unlike Jim), so some of my previous followup questions were based on that misreading. Jim may ignore them if he wants, as he probably would anyway because they were tough questions, and Jim has a tendency to run away when faced with tough questions. :-) I will start over. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: Interesting all of the misconceptions around enlightenment. Much of it due to the often paradoxical nature of the enlightened life. Like the question that comes up about mistakes. Some say the enlightened can make mistakes. Others say this is not so. The paradoxical reality is that enlightened people from their enlightened perspective cannot make mistakes, only because there is nothing to compare their thoughts and actions to, no conceptual template that the enlightened person has deviated from, and therefore made a mistake. So Jim, you are saying that from their enlightened perspective the enlightened *cannot make mistakes*. Did I get that right this time? Ok, does that enlightened perspective have any reality at all, or could it be just one more illusory point of view? If, as you go on to say, everyone around the enlightened being perceives them as having made a mistake, and *only* the enlightened being perceives themselves as *not* having made a mistake, why is the enlightened person's perspective definitive and everyone else's wrong? I mean, Son Of Sam was convinced that he hadn't made any mistakes, and that it was only the ignorance of the people who were viewing his perfect actions as imperfect that was the problem. Isn't what you are describing closer to a description of insanity than enlightenment? Does it look the same way to someone unenlightened? It does not-- unenlightened people constantly make mistakes, and will always see them in others, even in the enlightened. So it is a paradox. The reality of mistakes no longer exists in permanent enlightenment, although the unenlightened will continue to see them in the thoughts and actions of the enlightened. No harm, no foul-- just the way it is. So the bottom line that you are proposing is that the enlightened are right *because they say they are*, and that the only reason they are perceived to be making any mistakes is that those doing the perceiving are unenlightened. You are saying, in effect, that because you are enlight- ened, you cannot possibly make any mistakes. Is that correct? You are saying that the only reason it appears that you are making mistakes is that the unenlightened are not able to perceive the perfection of your actions. Is that correct? OK. It's a belief system, and I guess you are entitled to it. It seems to me a fairly self-serving, solipsist belief system closer to madness than enlightenment, but you seem to like it. But could you do me one favor, just in the interest of clearing up this unenlightened soul's confusion? Please explain to me a statement you made some time ago that appeared to me, from my unenlightened per- spective, to be a mistake. You said, quite clearly, and even repeated the statement in subsequent posts, that Buddha had said, God is love. Can you provide a reference as to where he said that? Then perhaps I will be less unenlightened, and can better understand the perfection of your enlightened actions.
[FairfieldLife] File - FFL Guidelines.txt
Guidelines File 11/18/07 Fairfield Life used to average 75-150 posts a day - 300+ on peak days - and the guidelines included steps on how to deal with the volume. But this volume was due largely to indiscriminate posting by a few members. We now have a policy that limits all members to 50 posts a week. Most participants feel this policy has greatly enhanced the quality of the forum. Members are responsible for counting and restricting their own posts. Those who exceed their weekly quota will be banned without warning for a week (2nd offense, 2 weeks, etc.). -- You can also read FFL posts at http://www.mail-archive.com/fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com/. Some say this is faster than the Yahoo groups interface, and prefer it because it allows sorting by thread and has a better search function. Additional images are archived at http://alex.natel.net/ffl/images/. -- Check out http://www.frappr.com/fairfieldlife and add yourself if you feel like it. -- 1) This group has long maintained a thoughtful and considerate tone. Please refrain from personal attacks, insults and excessive venting. Speak the truth that is sweet is a worthy aspiration. If angry, take some time to gain composure before writing or pushing the send button. 2) Edit your posts and make them as concise and non-repetitive as possible. 3) Please snip - be highly selective in quoting a message to which you are responding, deleting all but the most relevant portions of the prior posts. This makes the daily digest easier to read for those who subscribe to it. Also, if the topic of a thread changes, please change the subject header. 4) Try to make clear to the reader if you are writing from the perspective of personal experience, from information gained from teachers or books, from your own thoughts, reasoning, logic or conjecture. Please cite sources where relevant. 5) Reference prior posts by their archive number whenever possible. 6) Anonymous posts are permitted, using an account you create. 7) FFL is a newsgroup public forum. FFL can be openly read from the web. Posting privileges are through membership only. Material published to FFL is not privileged or protected by law. Material published to FFL might be quoted and used elsewhere. 8) Make cross-posts from other sites only as they are relevant to this group. If you think another site has great value, write one post saying so, then let others join or go to that site on their own, at their discretion. 9) Only post links to other sites that are relevant references to the specific discussion at hand. 10) While friendly exchange between friends is natural, try to pass on personal messages via personal e-mail, refraining where possible from sending personal messages to the whole list. 11) Feel to invite your friends to join FFL, and to use the site's Promote feature on your websites. The broader the personal network, the greater the value to all. Friends may now access the posts of FFL directly off the home page without having to join the list. 12) Please don't post commercial announcements in the main message area. Folders have been set up in the Database, Links and Files sections for listing books, CDs, DVDs and other items for trade, a Fairfield ride board, local events, hiring/looking for work announcements, informative articles, useful links, etc. Also check http://fairfieldtoday.com/. 13) Political discussions are allowed. However, be kind and respectful of others' viewpoints. Come with a humble heart, an open mind, and the desire to contribute constructively to everyone's broader awareness. 14) Keep in mind that many FFL members desire to maintain anonymity. If you happen to know a member's real name, perhaps because that member has mentioned it in a post or two, or just to you privately, please refer to that member only by their pseudonym. 15) If you want to make suggestions for the refinement of these guidelines, please post them in the forum.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama resigns from Trinity (the church)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, amarnath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: His resignation now just highlights the question of why he didn't do it a long time ago. maybe he didn't attend church that often after all he's a busy man if you're a TMer, would you like to be held accountable for everything MMY did ? look to the man's deeds, not his church Amen. MMY praised and sucked up to some of the worst dictators in the world, engaged in all sorts of questionable business practices, condemned the US on numerous occasions, condemned Britain as a scorpion nation, made all sorts of wild predictions that never came true, but Judy's main job here is to stand up for him and his mov't. According to her own logic, obviously that means Judy embraces dictators and hates the US.
[FairfieldLife] Look at me, I'm important! I know the Truth! (was Re: Shaken)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Just asking. Unlike you, I don't claim to know that my answer to a question about *opinion* is true or factually correct. And a good thing too, since your opinion is based on nonfacts. Funny you should mention that. I was going to ask you about these facts you're referring to. Too late. You decided to show off your ignorance of a whole bunch of other facts instead, in two separate posts. Did you attend the same school of debate that Jim did? Your tactics are similar. I won't be the *least* bit offended or outraged if you don't agree with me. I don't *expect* anyone to agree with me just because I said something. But isn't it fascinating how many folks here DO? And how upset they sometimes get when others DON'T agree with their every word? I never asked you to agree with me. I merely asked you to clarify one of your own statements. You seem upset enough about the question to refuse to answer it. I was quoting you, Barry. I was more than aware of that. But you were quoting out of context. No one said anything about wanting to change your beliefs. Nor did I say anything about that, including in the quote from your post. Did you misread what you yourself wrote? My point, of course, is that *you* got upset because I disagreed with *you*. And now you're even more upset that I don't feel required to respond to your demand that I tell you how I know that what you said that I disagreed with is wrong.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Peckman on Larry King: some observations
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Nothing they have seen on planet Earth should lead them to believe that other sentient beings are any more intelligent or less warlike than the humans around them. And yet they persist in believing not only this, but that they will be the saviors of mankind. Well, actually, there's a very solid logical basis basis for thinking they are, at the very least, way way more technologically advanced than we are, which would probably mean they've been around a lot longer, which might well mean they're more intelligent and less warlike. (Caveat: I don't think UFOs or close encounters have anything to do with extraterrestrial beings, nor do I think whatever *is* involved will be the saviors of [hu]mankind. I'm just playing devil's advocate.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can Meditation Help At-Risk Kids? | Newsweek Education | Newsweek.com
From the article: This 1-2 minute ceremony of gratitude in India is traditionally done in appreciation for one's teacher, says Robert Roth, vice president of the David Lynch Foundation. Patrick speaking: If I hustle through the puja it takes at least six minutes. Why jeopardize one's credibility by saying it lasts one or two minutes? Another gripe: The puja is a technology to quiet the mind. It's an eyes-open meditation in that respect. I wonder why the TM folks never make that case. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HYPERLINK http://www.newsweek.com/id/139206
Re: [FairfieldLife] Video of Judy?
LOL. Not absolutely certain, but I'm pretty sure that's just another Judy impersonator. On Jun 1, 2008, at 1:45 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s
[FairfieldLife] Look at me, I'm important! I know the Truth! (was Re: Shaken)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip You are saying that the only reason it appears that you are making mistakes is that the unenlightened are not able to perceive the perfection of your actions. Is that correct? OK. It's a belief system, and I guess you are entitled to it. It seems to me a fairly self-serving, solipsist belief system closer to madness than enlightenment, but you seem to like it. But could you do me one favor, just in the interest of clearing up this unenlightened soul's confusion? Please explain to me a statement you made some time ago that appeared to me, from my unenlightened per- spective, to be a mistake. You said, quite clearly, and even repeated the statement in subsequent posts, that Buddha had said, God is love. Try this: The perfection was in saying Buddha had said God is love and getting you all freaked out about the factual error.
[FairfieldLife] Look at me, I'm important! I know the Truth! (was Re: Shaken)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a great discussion. In my experience enlightened guys never subject themselves to a continued skeptical inquiry concerning the implications of what they are claiming. Can anyone direct me to other such discussions from masters? Thank you for getting it. That is the point. As far as I can tell, the entire lore about enlightenment is based on first-hand reports from those who have claimed to be enlightened. In the entire 40+ years I have been in and around enlightenment traditions, I have never seen one piece of evidence that any of the people who claimed to be enlightened actually were. Everyone just assumed they were because they said so. I was curious as to what would happen if someone didn't just assume this, and followed up the declaration of enlightenment with some requests for the person claiming enlightenment to explain how he knows this, and why we should believe that he knows this. The closest I have seen Maharishi allow this was a discussion with one of my philosophy professors concerning the logic of the necessity for a transcendental consciousness beneath waking, dreaming and sleep states. It was an early course, maybe Humbolt. After going round and round Maharishi put a lid on it with the absurd statement Then you must change your logic, exposing his own anti-intellectual bias. Not to mention that you must thing that has showed up here on FFL lately. Thanks to Jim for continuing on in a bit of a caustic exchange, and to Turq for keeping this alive. Thanks to Jim from me as well. Yes, I *am* being caustic. But why *shouldn't* I be? Jim offered to answer a bunch of questions as enlightenment speaking, and then bailed the minute the questioner *didn't* automatically assume that he was really enlightened. At that point it was declared that I wasn't showing him the proper respect, and the you musts started in. Jim talks about respect, and that I have not been showing him enough of it. But then he tells me that I must do things, simply because he says to. Sounds a lot to me how Maharishi reacted when deal- ing with your philosophy professor. The bottom line was repeating that the professor not only believe what the enlightened one had told him to believe, but that he must believe it. I'm persisting in this because I'm wondering whether Jim has any other tools in his enlightened arsenal than I am enlightened, because I say so, so there! and You must do this or that. This is a legitimate line of inquiry IMO. This is a legitimate line of inquiry. Whole traditions of never asking the teacher any tough questions have been in place for centuries to *keep* it from being a legitimate line of inquiry, but it is. There are so many assumptive beliefs contained in the idea of someone being in a special state. So many. And as far as I can tell, ALL of them have their basis in the *claim* that they are in a special state. No proof is ever offered. Very rarely are any tough questions asked of the person claiming to be in a special state. Such questions are actually considered impolite or disrespectful. What IS considered respectful is to just take the person at their word and then (one of the assumptive beliefs mentioned by Curtis), do what- ever he says, because he is enlightened and the enlightened know the truth (another assumptive belief, told to them by the *same* person who claimed to be enlightened and defined it). Most of us, at least for at time, took Maharishi at his word about enlightenment and its nature. Very few if any of us ever asked him any tough questions. I don't think it's wrong to ask tough questions, especially of those who are claiming to be enlightened. If they ARE enlightened, they should not only be able to handle the questions, they should be able to handle them gracefully. If they are not able to handle the questions, maybe they shouldn't be billing themselves as enlightened.
[FairfieldLife] Look at me, I'm important! I know the Truth! (was Re: Shaken)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Do you think it's possible that when you know things the way they do, your seeing becomes so Vedic that you can perceive that it's against the laws of nature to explain how or why you know things? :-) The question you must ask yourself is not something sarcastic directed at others, but why you have this obvious battle going on within yourself, to, on the one hand, desire answers to questions, and on the other ask them is such a mocking and disrepectful tone that you not only substantially decrease your chances of receiving any answers, but also harden your heart and mind against any answers you do receive. It seems like a way to make noise, but not solve anything for yourself. Jim, in order: 1. There is no question I must ask myself. There is only the question you *want* me to ask myself. No matter how enlightened you consider yourself, you have neither the right nor the authority to must me about ANYTHING. If I may butt in again: I suspect there's a tacit If...then involved here: [If you want to solve anything for yourself,] you must ask yourself...
[FairfieldLife] Look at me, I'm important! I know the Truth! (was Re: Shaken)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a great discussion. In my experience enlightened guys never subject themselves to a continued skeptical inquiry concerning the implications of what they are claiming. Can anyone direct me to other such discussions from masters? Thanks to Jim for continuing on in a bit of a caustic exchange, and to Turq for keeping this alive. This is a legitimate line of inquiry IMO. There are so many assumptive beliefs contained in the idea of someone being in a special state. I agree. I think Jim cut out a little early. On the other hand, it does take considerable time to address all the questions. On the other hand, at some point further discussion on an issue can seem useless. As the to MMY way dialog with that professor, I recall that tape, and M's final answer about changing your logic Sometimes these intellecual discussions just drone and on. But, I would have liked to see Jim take it a few steps further. I mean I can think of a few brief replies to some of these questions. And I think for the most part, you ignore the tone in which they are asked, and just address the issue. Don't mind the mockery. As you go through life, make this your goal, watch the donut, not the hole (Burl Ives)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rising Insanity of the Age of Enlightment
Judy wrote: No, TM isn't Selye's eustress, nor is unstressing Selye's eustress. No, 'eu-stress is just like meditation. TM meditation is a curative type of stress or as Selye call's it, 'eu-stress'. Marshy called it 'unstressing'. It's the yoga philosophy of samskaras adapted by Selye for western scientific people. Stress is 'karma', the results of actions performed in the past and in the present. Eustress can be defined as a pleasant or curative stress. Source: What is stress: http://tinyurl.com/3wz98u
[FairfieldLife] Re: OffWorld and the Jews
Correction OffWorld: Dr. Hanna Swaid is a Palestinian Israeli Member of the Knesset from the Hadash Party Please if you will elaborate on your following points: 1. How is Israel a documented illegal zionist state. Can you explain what happened after the UN voted for partitian? On day one which group opposed partitian? Who agreed to all terms? 2. Exactly how much land did the Zionist purchase legally ( and at a premium) in the early 1900's that became the basis of the current state of Israel? 3. You mentioned that their are Jewish Rabbis that oppose the existence of the Jewish state, can you describe what kind of Rabbis, their ultra orthodox sect(probably the only Jews in the world that doesn't support Israel) and how they are basing their beliefs on extreme religious grounds and why are you supporting your claims against Israel based on ultra-religious grounds which you oppose in the first place? 4. The Pro-Zionist movement was totally non-religious based secular movement. You say you are opposed to all religion, why would you oppose a non-religios movement. 5. Did you oppose the formation of Pakistan, a country that was wrenched out of India, where millions of people died in the process and where in fact it was a completely made up country with no historical foundations? Why is the world completely ok with Pakistan and not Israel? 6. Can you describe the provisions of the Oslo Accords? 7. How big was Arafats' bank account? 8. Which US president agreed to provide billions to both Israel and Egypt? I'll answere that you can blame Jimmy Carter, because before that, the aid to Israel was considerably less. 9. Can you discuss the Hamas charter with regards to the existence of the state of Israel? 10. How many rockets has Hamas launched into Israel since Gaza was given back? 11. Since Israel built the fence or wall (which I'm sure you consider as a facist act) can you document the level of suicide bombings their have been? 12. Finally if religion doesn't matter, can you share with us how many suicide bombing have been conducted by Christian Palestinians ? Just curious OffWorld --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: [snip] I think Shemp should join the Illuminati. They like Jewish AWOL Ex- Pat Chickenhawks. OffWorld This is about the third or fourth post of late in which OffWorld mentions Jewish or Shalom or anything that suggests Jewishness in regards to me. What has that got to do with anything and why are you bringing it up? It has nothing to do with anything, you are paranoid. You are Jewish, that's all. Some of my best friends are Jews. I am Scottish, and Turq is Tuetonic. What's the big deal Shemp? Are you paranoid? I have nothing against any religious type (but I am against all religions as a whole.) I also think it is superbly and hilariously ironic that a Jewish draft-dodger from the 60's, is now a chickenhawk supporter of aggressive zionism and the documented illegal zionist state (by the way, 'Zionist' does not equate with all Jews, if that is what you think. Zionists are a sect, active as the largest lobby in Britain, long before Israel was created by the annexing of huge areas to rule over as a fascist state - ie. only Jews allowed in Parliament or in charge. There are Jewish Rabbi's that protest against the existence of the Israeli state) How did I know that you are Jewish? How did I know you are a Draft Dodger from he 60's? How did I know you are a Chickenhawk (well that one is obvious) OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rising Insanity of the Age of Enlightment
Curtis wrote: And I still don't think you have addressed the original question was whether or not the term Unstressing is met with anything but disdain in medical circles. TM meditation is a subtle type of curative stress that can relieve the pathology of unrelieved stress. The notion that unrelieved stress can be relieved by meditation or yoga is very popular in medical circles these days. They may not call it 'unstress' but they do call it 'eu-stress' after Selye. You can read a definition of 'eu-stress below: Eustress can be defined as a pleasant or curative stress. Source: What is stress: http://tinyurl.com/3wz98u Practice meditation and/or prayer. Source: Dealing with Mind Stress: http://tinyurl.com/3m5eea
[FairfieldLife] Re: Video of Judy?
Might be her sister. You know, the nicer one. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LOL. Not absolutely certain, but I'm pretty sure that's just another Judy impersonator. On Jun 1, 2008, at 1:45 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama resigns from Trinity (the church)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, amarnath anatol_zinc@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: His resignation now just highlights the question of why he didn't do it a long time ago. maybe he didn't attend church that often after all he's a busy man if you're a TMer, would you like to be held accountable for everything MMY did ? look to the man's deeds, not his church Amen. MMY praised and sucked up to some of the worst dictators in the world, engaged in all sorts of questionable business practices, condemned the US on numerous occasions, condemned Britain as a scorpion nation, made all sorts of wild predictions that never came true, but Judy's main job here is to stand up for him and his mov't. Uh, hardly. According to her own logic, obviously that means Judy embraces dictators and hates the US. Not at all. In the first place, I never claimed Obama embraces Wright's beliefs and actions (although, to a certain extent, it wouldn't bother me at all if he did). Whether he does or does not isn't the point. You have completely misunderstood my logic (even though I've explained myself several times previously). In the second place, I'm not running for president. If I were, I would fully expect to be held accountable for MMY's beliefs and actions, whether I stood up for them or not (as it happens, in this case I don't), if I were still associated with him and the TMO. (For the record, it's been many years since I've had any association with MMY or the TMO, other than practicing TM and the TM-Sidhis. And although I think MMY has the Indian sign, as it were, on the nature and mechanics of consciousness, I don't consider his social/political/economic beliefs to be definitive; and I've always thought the TMO sucked big-time.) My point all along has been that Obama *should have known* that if he ran for president, he would be held accountable for what went on in his church, and that a significant portion of the electorate would consider it a deal-breaker. Quitting the church should have been the first thing he did once he began thinking seriously about running. For me, it isn't his membership in Trinity that's the deal-breaker, it's his poor judgment in not recognizing that it could very well result in his losing the election to the Republican. (His candidacy has other deal-breakers for me, but that's a big 'un.)
[FairfieldLife] Look at me, I'm important! I know the Truth! (was Re: Shaken)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip You are saying that the only reason it appears that you are making mistakes is that the unenlightened are not able to perceive the perfection of your actions. Is that correct? OK. It's a belief system, and I guess you are entitled to it. It seems to me a fairly self-serving, solipsist belief system closer to madness than enlightenment, but you seem to like it. But could you do me one favor, just in the interest of clearing up this unenlightened soul's confusion? Please explain to me a statement you made some time ago that appeared to me, from my unenlightened per- spective, to be a mistake. You said, quite clearly, and even repeated the statement in subsequent posts, that Buddha had said, God is love. Try this: The perfection was in saying Buddha had said God is love and getting you all freaked out about the factual error. Despite your attempt to do exactly what Jim has been doing and make it all about me and claim that I am freaked out, I'm not. It is simply that this comment of Jim's is a clear example of him having made a mistake. He has never admitted this mistake. It would seem that he cannot, because to do so undercuts what he says about the nature of enlightenment. But thanks anyway for your theory.
[FairfieldLife] Memories of Maharishi with Vernon Katz
FW: Dear Friends, You are cordially invited to enjoy an evening with Dr. Vernon Katz entitled Memories of Maharishi, next Wednesday, June 4, at 8:00 p.m. in the Maharishi Patanjali Golden Dome. Current Dome badges are required, or meditators without University badges may get a badge through the new Peace Palaces (please call 472- 1174 for open hours). Please enjoy the beautiful attached poster.
[FairfieldLife] Re: FF Directory, Active Spiritual Practice Groups
Spiritual Practice Groups of Fairfield Directory of Active Fairfield Spiritual Practice Groups Outside of Fairfield, people intently ask, What is going on in Fairfield? The spiritual, utopian side of Fairfield is something they are wondering about. Fairfield has become recognized as a spiritual Mecca of sorts, ranking with Sedona, Arizona, Boulder and Crestone, Colorado, Ashville, North Carolina and the like. Within these past three decades, Fairfield spiritual practice groups have matured, giving this community a rich, new face. The long-time Fairfield meditating community today is its own center for spiritual practice. The breadth of spiritual practice groups in Fairfield is now a unique feature of our town in the 21st Century. ___Alphabetical: A Course in Miracles, Mondays 7:30 pm. Local contact: 472-7148. The Afternoon Satsang, at Revelations Coffee Shop. North room 2:30pm most days. Spiritual experience and understanding. Ammachi Fairfield Satsang Ammachi Fairfield weekly schedule of meditation, chanting, and bhajans. http://amma-fairfield.org/ contact: 472-8563 or 472-9336 Art of Living Foundation -Sri Sri Ravi Shankar Meditation and program schedule in Fairfield. 472-9892 http://us.artofliving.org/index.html Babaji Group: Local contact: 472-9952 Bapuji Group Shri Avadoot, better known as ³Bapuji². Local contact: 472-9260 Chalanda Sai Maa Satang in Fairfield Group meditations based on the teachings of Chalanda Sai Maa Lakshmi Devi. First and third Monday of the month at 7:30 PM. Call for location information: 641-919-5223 or email directly at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.humanityinunity.org Circle of Sophia a holy order for women at St. Gabriel and All Angels, the Liberal Catholic Church. Original worship celebration, written from sources in ancient Christianity, enlivens the Feminine Divine for both men and women. Celebrations monthly. 300 E. Burlington. www.stgabe.org Contact 472-1645 Deeksha Darshan and teachings of Bhagavan Kalki Padmavati Amma Fairfield contact for local program: 472-6948 Divine Mother Church in Fairfield `We don¹t talk about God, we commune with God'. Interfaith Service: Sundays 11 AM; 51 North Court, East Entrance Contact 641.209.9900 Fairfield Vedic Pujas, Yagyas and Ceremonies Scheduled public events always open to interested persons. By Vedic Scholar and Priest, Pandit Dhruv Narain Sharma: 630-240-3368 http://yagya108.org/default.aspx Fellowship of the Holy Spirit in Fairfield `Consciousness, Joy, and Devotion: Christianity that works.' Sundays, 11 AM, 51 North Court. 472-8737. Gangaji Group Local contact: 472-9476. Golden Shield Qi Gong Fairfield practice: 641-919-3913. Golden Shield Qi Gong www.jingui.com 641-472-5998 Hatha Yoga classes. Sue Berkey: 472-6577 Henry Hertzberger Chanting, Pujas Yagyas. Mahaganapati Temple Schedule: Fairfield Shri Karunamayi Satsang Fairfield Group Meditation and Program. 472-8422 http://www.karunamayi.org/tour/2008Fairfield.shtml Liberal Catholic Church in Fairfield St Gabriel and all Angels, 300 E. Burlington. Contact, 472-1625www.stgabe.org Manavata Mandir Vedic Temple 800 W. Burlington in Fairfield. 469-6041. Mother Meera: 641.472.5149 http://www.mothermeera-fairfield.com/default.jsp Quaker Meeting Fairfield Society of Friends (Conservative Un- programmed) silent meeting for worship. 472-8422. St. Germain Meditation. Two active groups meeting for meditation weekly http://www.reiki-seichem.com/germain.html http://saintgermainfoundation.com/ Saniel Bonder, `Waking Down' in Fairfield. Sittings calendar: call 472-2001. http://wakingdowninfairfield.com/ Scalar Group Meditation Programs facilitated by Lilli Botchis. A unique opportunity as a group to research in mind/body consciousness the universal themes of pure energy and manifestation potential of HHFe Scalar wave regeneration system. Programs designed to clear, balance and open the chakra system. Contact, 472-0129. http://earthspectrum.com/ http://www.timeportalpubs.com/index.htm Shivabalayogi Group All are welcome. There is never any charge for Swamiji's blessings. For further information, contact: 641-233-1025. Svaroopa Yoga (641) 472-7499. Tetra Building Meditation Room. Daily morning and afternoon meditation facility for the practice of the TM-Sidhi meditation. A quiet, clean and convenient and unaffiliated place, `to do program'. Contact David Hawthorne for use and membership information: 472-3799. Transcendental Meditation Programs: TMmovement: 472-1174 Transformational Prayer in Fairfield For information on Fairfield activities, call 472-0662. Wednesday Night Satsang - Every Wednesday starting at 8pm CentralTime. Kirkwood Apartments at 304 W Kirkwood just east of Sidha Insurance near 4th and Kirkwood Apartment #10 third floor first door on the left. those who haven't quite got it complete the search. Contact - 919- 6917 The Active Spiritual Practice
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rising Insanity of the Age of Enlightment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curtis wrote: And I still don't think you have addressed the original question was whether or not the term Unstressing is met with anything but disdain in medical circles. TM meditation is a subtle type of curative stress that can relieve the pathology of unrelieved stress. The notion that unrelieved stress can be relieved by meditation or yoga is very popular in medical circles these days. They may not call it 'unstress' but they do call it 'eu-stress' after Selye. You can read a definition of 'eu-stress below: Excellent links that prove my point. They are not using stress as defined by Maharishi as a physical or chemical abnormality in the nervous system. They are using it as an active strain that may cause other damage, but not in the way Maharishi does. And they certainly don't believe that there is a way to permanently remove it all to reach a magical state of mind. In the examples of Eustess, there is not one that is anything like meditating. They are all activities that stress the person, but in a way that is stimulating rather than destructive. Eustress can be defined as a pleasant or curative stress. Source: What is stress: http://tinyurl.com/3wz98u Practice meditation and/or prayer. Source: Dealing with Mind Stress: http://tinyurl.com/3m5eea
[FairfieldLife] Look at me, I'm important! I know the Truth! (was Re: Shaken)
Jim wrote: Does it look the same way to someone unenlightened? Jim, it seems to me that what you have defined above is that the enlightened live in a state that is completely divorced from reality. Those that are 'enlightened' live in a different reality than those that live in ignorance. The enlightened have an experience of 'gnosis' in that they realize the illusory aspect of reality. They 'Know', gain 'Gnosis' of a new reality, that existence is composed of suffering, lamentation, and grief. Those who are enlightened understand that existence is not real - it is unreal in the sense of being illusory, that is, unsubtantial, having no absolute basis. Their *perception* (in your words, from their enlightened perspective) is that there can be no possible mistakes, and yet they make them constantly (your word), and so do others. In reality, the individual does not really act at all - it's just the samskaras of the individual that are completing the current cycle of illusory birth and death. Once this cycle is completed, the individual is not reborn as a illusionary soul-monad. So, a few followup questions: 1. What do you perceive the value of enlight- enment to BE if it makes you perceive this badly and (by your own standards) incorrectly? What you percieve, in YOUR unenlightened state, is just the illusion of mistakes. In reality, this perception is just the appearance of what you interpret to be wrong action. In reality, that is, in the enlightened state, actions are percieved to be merely the results of the gunas, which act out due to the karma accumulated in previous lives. 2. Should anyone pay ANY attention to the enlight- ened when they claim that there are no mistakes? (It seems to me that you yourself have just said that this perception is incorrect, and yet you keep saying it.) Those who are enlightened have experienced Nirvana, that is, they understand the 'Twelve-fold Chain of Causation' and the 'Four Noble Truths'. Those who have experienced this state of Nirvana are free, and immortal, in the sense that they have blown out the flame of illusion - they have 'Knowledge', or 'Gnosis', in that, they realize that there is a release from the birth and death. They know that they will not be reborn again - they will not suffer ever again because they know the reality of rebirth and all the sorrow lamentation and suffering that life entails. Buddhas do not have to come back unless they choose to do so. 3. If the enlightened can be *this* wrong about the issue of Are the words and actions of the enlightened perfect and free from mistakes, and *admit* it, why should anyone pay any attention to what they say about anything else? While living we must all recognize the customary habits and morality of the society we are living in, otherwise you may find yourself commited either to a psychiatric ward to to a jail. But this is realtive to your own situation. All of the above is just standard Buddhist and Enlightenment Tradition doctrine. Why on earth you persist in arguing the materialistic POV is beyond me. Even the Rama Guy said as much!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rising Insanity of the Age of Enlightment
Eustress can be defined as a pleasant or curative stress. Come on Richard. You are destroying the integrity of the word stress as well as the word Eustress. Name one way that the practice of TM can be considered stress. Me playing guitar at a show for hours is an example of Eustress. It is effort and stress on me, but it makes me feel great. In contrast taking a nap also makes me feel great, but it is not eustress just because it makes me feel good. You can start with these definitions or provide a source of your own: 1.Importance or significance attached to a thing; emphasis: to lay stress upon good manners. 2.Phonetics. emphasis in the form of prominent relative loudness of a syllable or a word as a result of special effort in utterance. 3.Prosody. accent or emphasis on syllables in a metrical pattern; beat. 4.emphasis in melody, rhythm, etc.; beat. 5.the physical pressure, pull, or other force exerted on one thing by another; strain. 6.Mechanics. a.the action on a body of any system of balanced forces whereby strain or deformation results. b.the amount of stress, usually measured in pounds per square inch or in pascals. c.a load, force, or system of forces producing a strain. d.the internal resistance or reaction of an elastic body to the external forces applied to it. e.the ratio of force to area. 7.Physiology. a specific response by the body to a stimulus, as fear or pain, that disturbs or interferes with the normal physiological equilibrium of an organism. 8.physical, mental, or emotional strain or tension: Worry over his job and his wife's health put him under a great stress. 9.a situation, occurrence, or factor causing this: The stress of being trapped in the elevator gave him a pounding headache. 10.Archaic. strong or straining exertion. verb (used with object) 11.to lay stress on; emphasize. 12.Phonetics. to pronounce (a syllable or a word) with prominent loudness: Stress the first syllable of runner. Stress the second word in put up with. Compare accent (def. 18). 13.to subject to stress or strain. 14.Mechanics. to subject to stress. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy wrote: No, TM isn't Selye's eustress, nor is unstressing Selye's eustress. No, 'eu-stress is just like meditation. TM meditation is a curative type of stress or as Selye call's it, 'eu-stress'. Marshy called it 'unstressing'. It's the yoga philosophy of samskaras adapted by Selye for western scientific people. Stress is 'karma', the results of actions performed in the past and in the present. Eustress can be defined as a pleasant or curative stress. Source: What is stress: http://tinyurl.com/3wz98u
[FairfieldLife] Re: Video of Judy?
Judy, On television this week, Geraldine Ferraro was asked directly whether she would vote for John McCain over Obama and her reply was: I haven't decided yet. You may have answered this question already but I'll ask it to you as well: will you vote for Obama, McCain, someone else, or not at all? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives boo_lives@ wrote: snip On Jun 1, 2008, at 1:45 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s The most amazing assertion here (among many) is the belief of this type of clinton supporter that the only reason Obama ran for president was because a white woman was running and he was determined to bring her down. This is real paranoia victimhood, and it's why younger feminists do not relate to this older demographic of feminists headed up by hillary. I'd guess very few of this older demographic of feminists hold this woman's belief. I certainly don't, nor do I know anybody who does--or who isn't appalled by it, for that matter.(*) Younger feminists not only don't resort to victimhood anytime they lose (in this case to an obama campaign that outsmarted and outorganized them at every turn), they're just fine with having a pro-feminist man like Obama be in the white house. Many older feminists, including moi, would also have been just fine with Obama in the White House toward the beginning of the campaign. We supported Hillary but would have had no problem with Obama getting the nomination. And even today, we don't think the misogyny and sexism directed against Clinton by the media and many of Obama's supporters (including some from Obama himself) is the reason she's losing. That doesn't mean we aren't royally pissed off about it. And we have plenty of other reasons to be royally pissed off at Obama that have developed over time. Also disturbing from the meeting are the reports of Clinton supporters handing out literature saying Obama is gay, used drugs, and is a murderer. How disturbed were you by the Obama campaign's encouragement of the media story that Hillary had said she was staying in the race because she hoped Obama would be assassinated? That aside, every candidacy has its nutcase supporters. There are Obama supporters who are quite ready to believe all the old smears about Hillary, such as that she murdered Vince Foster, and new ones such as that she's having a hot lesbian affair with one of her aides. For you to try to tar all Clinton's supporters with the same brush, and to pretend the same tendencies can't be found among Obama's supporters, is despicable. Your candidate is supposedly for Unity, Unity, Unity. How come so many of his supporters are more interested in being divisive? -- * It *does* seem a distinct possibility that the powers that be in the Democratic Party encouraged Obama to run against Clinton, not because she's a woman but because they wanted to be rid of the Clinton dynasty and have a fresh start.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Video of Judy?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip On Jun 1, 2008, at 1:45 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s The most amazing assertion here (among many) is the belief of this type of clinton supporter that the only reason Obama ran for president was because a white woman was running and he was determined to bring her down. This is real paranoia victimhood, and it's why younger feminists do not relate to this older demographic of feminists headed up by hillary. I'd guess very few of this older demographic of feminists hold this woman's belief. I certainly don't, nor do I know anybody who does--or who isn't appalled by it, for that matter.(*) Younger feminists not only don't resort to victimhood anytime they lose (in this case to an obama campaign that outsmarted and outorganized them at every turn), they're just fine with having a pro-feminist man like Obama be in the white house. Many older feminists, including moi, would also have been just fine with Obama in the White House toward the beginning of the campaign. We supported Hillary but would have had no problem with Obama getting the nomination. And even today, we don't think the misogyny and sexism directed against Clinton by the media and many of Obama's supporters (including some from Obama himself) is the reason she's losing. That doesn't mean we aren't royally pissed off about it. And we have plenty of other reasons to be royally pissed off at Obama that have developed over time. Also disturbing from the meeting are the reports of Clinton supporters handing out literature saying Obama is gay, used drugs, and is a murderer. How disturbed were you by the Obama campaign's encouragement of the media story that Hillary had said she was staying in the race because she hoped Obama would be assassinated? That aside, every candidacy has its nutcase supporters. There are Obama supporters who are quite ready to believe all the old smears about Hillary, such as that she murdered Vince Foster, and new ones such as that she's having a hot lesbian affair with one of her aides. For you to try to tar all Clinton's supporters with the same brush, and to pretend the same tendencies can't be found among Obama's supporters, is despicable. Your candidate is supposedly for Unity, Unity, Unity. How come so many of his supporters are more interested in being divisive? -- * It *does* seem a distinct possibility that the powers that be in the Democratic Party encouraged Obama to run against Clinton, not because she's a woman but because they wanted to be rid of the Clinton dynasty and have a fresh start.
[FairfieldLife] TM Moral Character
TM and moral character... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/177111 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/177096 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/177106 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/177122 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/177095 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/177336
[FairfieldLife] Re: Video of Judy?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, On television this week, Geraldine Ferraro was asked directly whether she would vote for John McCain over Obama and her reply was: I haven't decided yet. You may have answered this question already but I'll ask it to you as well: will you vote for Obama, McCain, someone else, or not at all? (I have answered it already.) Unless by the time of the election the polling in New Jersey suggests that Obama might not win the state, I plan to write in Hillary's name. If the state is in real contention, I'll vote for Obama, but I'll have to take an emesis basin into the voting booth with me. I'm also changing my registration from Democratic to Independent in protest over how the DNC has run this campaign, and to disassociate myself from what the party will become under Obama's leadership. At this point, I can't think of any circumstance under which I'd vote for McCain, but I don't rule the possibility out, if something happens that makes me think it's imperative to keep Obama out of the White House. As things stand now, though, he'd be preferable to McCain.
[FairfieldLife] Look at me, I'm important! I know the Truth! (was Re: Shaken)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip You are saying that the only reason it appears that you are making mistakes is that the unenlightened are not able to perceive the perfection of your actions. Is that correct? OK. It's a belief system, and I guess you are entitled to it. It seems to me a fairly self-serving, solipsist belief system closer to madness than enlightenment, but you seem to like it. But could you do me one favor, just in the interest of clearing up this unenlightened soul's confusion? Please explain to me a statement you made some time ago that appeared to me, from my unenlightened per- spective, to be a mistake. You said, quite clearly, and even repeated the statement in subsequent posts, that Buddha had said, God is love. Try this: The perfection was in saying Buddha had said God is love and getting you all freaked out about the factual error. Despite your attempt to do exactly what Jim has been doing and make it all about me and claim that I am freaked out, I'm not. Yeah, it freaks you out. You've brought it up over and over and *over* again. In any case, I'm not trying to make it all about you, much as that might appeal to you. I'm trying, once again, to expand your painfully pedestrian conceptual vocabulary about enlightenment. It is simply that this comment of Jim's is a clear example of him having made a mistake. He has never admitted this mistake. And you're still not getting it. The perfection doesn't stop at freaking you out over the error itself; it includes never admitting the mistake (which also freaks you out). The perfection of the factual error and the way Jim deals with it, in other words, isn't self-contained: It includes all the reactions to it as well. It would seem that he cannot, because to do so undercuts what he says about the nature of enlightenment. Au contraire, Pierre. What it undercuts is your understanding of the nature of enlightenment.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rising Insanity of the Age of Enlightment
Eustress can be defined as a pleasant or curative stress. Curtis wrote: You are destroying the integrity of the word stress as well as the word Eustress. Name one way that the practice of TM can be considered stress. Have you ever heard of the word 'unstress'? People who practice TM meditation have reported all kinds of stress during meditation - you only have to read a few of these messages on FFL. But people have also reported many instances of stress relief from practicing TM. The key concept here is that unrelieved stress can be pathological. So, even if some people report stressfull experiences in mediation, the overall end result is stress relief. But, TM in itself is just a very subtle form of stress, what Selye called 'eu-stress; stress that is curative. I know it sounds paradoxical to say that TM relieves stress by causing stress, but this is just the general adaption syndrome. Sometimes you have to use a thron to remove a thorn! Me playing guitar at a show for hours is an example of Eustress. It is effort and stress on me, but it makes me feel great. Maybe so. In contrast taking a nap also makes me feel great, but it is not eustress just because it makes me feel good. Maybe so. You can start with these definitions or provide a source of your own: Thanks for the definions, Curtis, but you failed to define either 'eu-stress' or 'unstress', so I think I'll go with this definition of 'eu-stress': Eustress can be defined as a pleasant or curative stress. Source: What is stress: http://tinyurl.com/3wz98u Selye conceptualized the physiology of stress as having two components: a set of responses he called the general adaptation syndrome, and the development of a pathological state from ongoing, unrelieved stress. Read more: Hans Selye: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Selye 1. Importance or significance attached to a thing; emphasis: to lay stress upon good manners. 2. Phonetics. emphasis in the form of prominent relative loudness of a syllable or a word as a result of special effort in utterance. 3. Prosody. accent or emphasis on syllables in a metrical pattern; beat. 4.emphasis in melody, rhythm, etc.; beat. 5.the physical pressure, pull, or other force exerted on one thing by another; strain. 6. Mechanics. a. the action on a body of any system of balanced forces whereby strain or deformation results. b.the amount of stress, usually measured in pounds per square inch or in pascals. c. a load, force, or system of forces producing a strain. d. the internal resistance or reaction of an elastic body to the external forces applied to it. e. the ratio of force to area. 7. Physiology. a specific response by the body to a stimulus, as fear or pain, that disturbs or interferes with the normal physiological equilibrium of an organism. 8. physical, mental, or emotional strain or tension: Worry over his job and his wife's health put him under a great stress. 9. a situation, occurrence, or factor causing this: The stress of being trapped in the elevator gave him a pounding headache. 10. Archaic. strong or straining exertion. verb (used with object) 11.to lay stress on; emphasize. 12.Phonetics. to pronounce (a syllable or a word) with prominent loudness: Stress the first syllable of runner. Stress the second word in put up with. Compare accent (def. 18). 13. to subject to stress or strain. 14.Mechanics. to subject to stress. Judy wrote: No, TM isn't Selye's eustress, nor is unstressing Selye's eustress.
[FairfieldLife] Look at me, I'm important! I know the Truth! (was Re: Shaken)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim wrote: Does it look the same way to someone unenlightened? Jim, it seems to me that what you have defined above is that the enlightened live in a state that is completely divorced from reality. Those that are 'enlightened' live in a different reality than those that live in ignorance. The enlightened have an experience of 'gnosis' in that they realize the illusory aspect of reality. First, excellent detailed answers. Here is the fundamental problem that I have. How could we possibly know what a person's internal experience is? I can't really separate your points from a bunch of beliefs that any fundamentalist Hindu would have. The enlightened person is just making a claim of having special internal knowledge with no evidence. Most of your points were right out of scriptures. So anyone can claim to know in this special way. I think the difference is that some people get others to buy into the claim. But the problem here is that the the most popular leader by the numbers who was felt to be an actual god on earth was Mao. And he also competes with Stalin for greatest mass murderer. I know that people into the enlightenment model look down on religious people who just read the scriptures and believe a bunch of stuff. But I can't see how they are really different, or if they are, how we could know. Most traditions of enlightenment that I know about including the Jesus cult, make the case for the specialness of their enlightened leader using bad evidence and unsupported claims of miraculous goings on outside the ability to be evaluated carefully. The movement is full of Maharishi's legendary enlightened workaholism. But I've met obsessive driven people like him in business so that doesn't cut it. And the darshon thing gets blown out by Mao. So how could we tell if someone was functioning specially, beyond their spouting words we can all read in scriptures? They 'Know', gain 'Gnosis' of a new reality, that existence is composed of suffering, lamentation, and grief. Those who are enlightened understand that existence is not real - it is unreal in the sense of being illusory, that is, unsubtantial, having no absolute basis. Their *perception* (in your words, from their enlightened perspective) is that there can be no possible mistakes, and yet they make them constantly (your word), and so do others. In reality, the individual does not really act at all - it's just the samskaras of the individual that are completing the current cycle of illusory birth and death. Once this cycle is completed, the individual is not reborn as a illusionary soul-monad. So, a few followup questions: 1. What do you perceive the value of enlight- enment to BE if it makes you perceive this badly and (by your own standards) incorrectly? What you percieve, in YOUR unenlightened state, is just the illusion of mistakes. In reality, this perception is just the appearance of what you interpret to be wrong action. In reality, that is, in the enlightened state, actions are percieved to be merely the results of the gunas, which act out due to the karma accumulated in previous lives. 2. Should anyone pay ANY attention to the enlight- ened when they claim that there are no mistakes? (It seems to me that you yourself have just said that this perception is incorrect, and yet you keep saying it.) Those who are enlightened have experienced Nirvana, that is, they understand the 'Twelve-fold Chain of Causation' and the 'Four Noble Truths'. Those who have experienced this state of Nirvana are free, and immortal, in the sense that they have blown out the flame of illusion - they have 'Knowledge', or 'Gnosis', in that, they realize that there is a release from the birth and death. They know that they will not be reborn again - they will not suffer ever again because they know the reality of rebirth and all the sorrow lamentation and suffering that life entails. Buddhas do not have to come back unless they choose to do so. 3. If the enlightened can be *this* wrong about the issue of Are the words and actions of the enlightened perfect and free from mistakes, and *admit* it, why should anyone pay any attention to what they say about anything else? While living we must all recognize the customary habits and morality of the society we are living in, otherwise you may find yourself commited either to a psychiatric ward to to a jail. But this is realtive to your own situation. All of the above is just standard Buddhist and Enlightenment Tradition doctrine. Why on earth you persist in arguing the materialistic POV is beyond me. Even the Rama Guy said as much!
[FairfieldLife] Look at me, I'm important! I know the Truth! (was Re: Shaken)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Yes, I *am* being caustic. But why *shouldn't* I be? Jim offered to answer a bunch of questions as enlightenment speaking, and then bailed the minute the questioner *didn't* automatically assume that he was really enlightened. At that point it was declared that I wasn't showing him the proper respect, No, that's not true. Jim bailed after a post in which Barry delivered a long, insulting tirade. (That tirade is in post #178384, if anybody wants to check.) and the you musts started in. This is *very* funny. In fact, there was no you must at all from Jim. It was an I must, again in an if- then form: If I'm going to answer these questions, first I must know your definition of enlightenment, specifically whether it means passing the moonwalking- bear video test. And Barry went ballistic, telling Jim he had no right to must, even though Jim was stating his own conditions, not telling Barry *he* had to do anything. Absolutely amazing. According to Barry, Jim has no right to specify under what circumstances he will or will not do something Barry asked him to do. Anyway, then Barry proceeded to accuse Jim of playing games and went off on his insulting tirade. That was the point at which Jim bowed out.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rising Insanity of the Age of Enlightment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Eustress can be defined as a pleasant or curative stress. Curtis wrote: You are destroying the integrity of the word stress as well as the word Eustress. Name one way that the practice of TM can be considered stress. Have you ever heard of the word 'unstress'? People who practice TM meditation have reported all kinds of stress during meditation - you only have to read a few of these messages on FFL. But people have also reported many instances of stress relief from practicing TM. Some people feel distress but that doesn't mean that Maharishi's theory about undtressing is what is going on. The key concept here is that unrelieved stress can be pathological. So, even if some people report stressfull experiences in mediation, the overall end result is stress relief. This shows why it is not correct to call the experience in TM a form of eustress. It is the opposite body reaction to that of stress. But again relaxing doesn't prove Maharishi's extended theories of stress in the nervous system But, TM in itself is just a very subtle form of stress, You haven't shown how. You keep focusing on the curative value and ignore the stress aspect. what Selye called 'eu-stress; snip You can start with these definitions or provide a source of your own: Thanks for the definions, Curtis, but you failed to define either 'eu-stress' or 'unstress', so I think I'll go with this definition of 'eu-stress': Eustress can be defined as a pleasant or curative stress. Here you are switching the word from stress to Eustress which contains the word stress. You are avoiding showing how the aspect of stress which is a part of Eustress and separates it from the curative and pleasant nap. Are you just fucking with me or do you really not see this point? Source: What is stress: http://tinyurl.com/3wz98u Selye conceptualized the physiology of stress as having two components: a set of responses he called the general adaptation syndrome, and the development of a pathological state from ongoing, unrelieved stress. Read more: Hans Selye: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Selye 1. Importance or significance attached to a thing; emphasis: to lay stress upon good manners. 2. Phonetics. emphasis in the form of prominent relative loudness of a syllable or a word as a result of special effort in utterance. 3. Prosody. accent or emphasis on syllables in a metrical pattern; beat. 4.emphasis in melody, rhythm, etc.; beat. 5.the physical pressure, pull, or other force exerted on one thing by another; strain. 6. Mechanics. a. the action on a body of any system of balanced forces whereby strain or deformation results. b.the amount of stress, usually measured in pounds per square inch or in pascals. c. a load, force, or system of forces producing a strain. d. the internal resistance or reaction of an elastic body to the external forces applied to it. e. the ratio of force to area. 7. Physiology. a specific response by the body to a stimulus, as fear or pain, that disturbs or interferes with the normal physiological equilibrium of an organism. 8. physical, mental, or emotional strain or tension: Worry over his job and his wife's health put him under a great stress. 9. a situation, occurrence, or factor causing this: The stress of being trapped in the elevator gave him a pounding headache. 10. Archaic. strong or straining exertion. verb (used with object) 11.to lay stress on; emphasize. 12.Phonetics. to pronounce (a syllable or a word) with prominent loudness: Stress the first syllable of runner. Stress the second word in put up with. Compare accent (def. 18). 13. to subject to stress or strain. 14.Mechanics. to subject to stress. Judy wrote: No, TM isn't Selye's eustress, nor is unstressing Selye's eustress.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rising Insanity of the Age of Enlightment
Curtis wrote: Are you just fucking with me or do you really not see this point? Well, I guess I just don't get it. I'm no authority on stress or meditation, but in my case, if something seems to be logical, then I go with it. But, that's just me. If I'm told that Hans Selye used to hang around with the Marshy and had a bunch of TM meditaors in his lab doing tests, and if Selye then came out with a theory about stress and stress relief, then I just assume that Selye got a lot of his ideas from the Marshy. If I go online and read the same conclusion from Judy and Lawson, then I usually think I'm on the right track. Apparently, stress is 'karma', and 'eu-stress' is curative stress like meditation. But in my opinion, there is really only stress; theres no 'unstressing'; no 'eu-stress'; theres just stress. The only stress-free state would be an absolute state of 'no-thought', a state where thought drops off, but even then there would be physical stress until you drop the physical body. But stress is found in various levels from pathological unrelieved stress that makes you have heart attacks, all the way to very subtle stress, like when you are meditating and you forget your mantra. When you factor in that the yoga tradition has a very, very long history of dealing with techniques of stress relief, it just seems logical to me to infer that Selye was very much influenced by Marshy and the yoga tradition. Otherwise, I guess Selye would have told the Marshy that yoga and meditation was pure crap. The same thing goes for R. Buckminister Fuller. The fact that he DID NOT say that the Marshy was full of crap, pretty much says to me that he agreed with most of what the Marshy was saying. So, to me, if Selye and Fuller wrote forewords to a book by a medical doctor, entitled 'Overcoming Stress', then I just assume that they were in agreement with the Marshy. So, I'll leave the finer details and the definitions to brainiacs like you! Maybe you could help me out by indicating where the Marshy, Bloomfield, Selye, and Fuller went wrong. Thanks for all your help. Work cited: 'TM Discovering Inner Energy and Overcoming Stress' Foreword By Hans Selye, M.D. Introduction By R. Buckminster Fuller by Harold Bloomfield, M.D
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rising Insanity of the Age of Enlightment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Eustress can be defined as a pleasant or curative stress. Come on Richard. You are destroying the integrity of the word stress as well as the word Eustress. Name one way that the practice of TM can be considered stress. Me playing guitar at a show for hours is an example of Eustress. It is effort and stress on me, but it makes me feel great. In contrast taking a nap also makes me feel great, but it is not eustress just because it makes me feel good. You can start with these definitions or provide a source of your own: 1.Importance or significance attached to a thing; emphasis: to lay stress upon good manners. 2.Phonetics. emphasis in the form of prominent relative loudness of a syllable or a word as a result of special effort in utterance. 3.Prosody. accent or emphasis on syllables in a metrical pattern; beat. 4.emphasis in melody, rhythm, etc.; beat. 5.the physical pressure, pull, or other force exerted on one thing by another; strain. 6.Mechanics. a.the action on a body of any system of balanced forces whereby strain or deformation results. b.the amount of stress, usually measured in pounds per square inch or in pascals. c.a load, force, or system of forces producing a strain. d.the internal resistance or reaction of an elastic body to the external forces applied to it. e.the ratio of force to area. 7.Physiology. a specific response by the body to a stimulus, as fear or pain, that disturbs or interferes with the normal physiological equilibrium of an organism. 8.physical, mental, or emotional strain or tension: Worry over his job and his wife's health put him under a great stress. 9.a situation, occurrence, or factor causing this: The stress of being trapped in the elevator gave him a pounding headache. Interesting discussion chaps. Can I add a bit? I always thought that there were two components to this, first is 'stress' that acts on the nervous system. This could be anything that makes you have to work harder either mentally or physically. Can be either good or bad, which is largely down to unconscious personal preference, some people thrive under pressure, others... not so much. Secondly you have 'strain' which occurs when the nervous system can't take anymore without raising the natural anxiety background level, in MMY lingo it leaves a permanent imprint on the nervous sytem that only the deep relaxation of TM can release. interestingly, both good and bad can have an effect here, winning the lottery is very strainful, apparently. I think people in the TMO got so obsessed with releasing stress that they forgot most of it wasn't negative in any way at all, like the people I meet who never do more exercise than asanas in case they create stress in themselves that they will only have to undo whilst meditating later. If the question is, does TM release strain? I would have to say sometimes, but it's in no way as good as it says on the tin and I doubt that just being stress/strain free is all it takes to get one enlightened, it's a nice thought and I fell for it too but you have to look at the mechanism involved here. MMY claims that all stress/strain is a deviation from normal functioning and that TM will release it, trouble is you could be suffering anxiety from childhood trauma and the stress is caused by memory, hard-wired in. Is TM going to change that in any way? I think not, the anxiety from strain like this will stick around, TM may reduce the symptoms but you need to delve inside and change the way you react to memories. I can't see how any amount of meditation will change you that much. Which is another reason I think MMYs teaching can be dangerous, as they promise a cure for everything and may keep people away from help they need.
[FairfieldLife] Look at me, I'm important! I know the Truth! (was Re: Shaken)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I misread one of Jim's statements below (being unenlightened, I am still able to make mistakes, unlike Jim), so some of my previous followup questions were based on that misreading. Jim may ignore them if he wants, as he probably would anyway because they were tough questions, and Jim has a tendency to run away when faced with tough questions. :-) I will start over. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: Interesting all of the misconceptions around enlightenment. Much of it due to the often paradoxical nature of the enlightened life. Like the question that comes up about mistakes. Some say the enlightened can make mistakes. Others say this is not so. The paradoxical reality is that enlightened people from their enlightened perspective cannot make mistakes, only because there is nothing to compare their thoughts and actions to, no conceptual template that the enlightened person has deviated from, and therefore made a mistake. So Jim, you are saying that from their enlightened perspective the enlightened *cannot make mistakes*. Did I get that right this time? mistakes stop existing, for them and for anyone else. Making mistakes is a concept that only exists in duality. In oneness, mistakes cease to exist, from the enlightened person's point of view, and for anyone else they observe. For someone living duality, they make mistakes and enlightened people make mistakes all the time. Ok, does that enlightened perspective have any reality at all, or could it be just one more illusory point of view? It is reality. If, as you go on to say, everyone around the enlightened being perceives them as having made a mistake, and *only* the enlightened being perceives themselves as *not* having made a mistake, why is the enlightened person's perspective definitive and everyone else's wrong? I didn't state this as a conclusion. You did. I would not agree with you-- what you are saying is incorrect. I mean, Son Of Sam was convinced that he hadn't made any mistakes, and that it was only the ignorance of the people who were viewing his perfect actions as imperfect that was the problem. Isn't what you are describing closer to a description of insanity than enlightenment? What problem? Does it look the same way to someone unenlightened? It does not-- unenlightened people constantly make mistakes, and will always see them in others, even in the enlightened. So it is a paradox. The reality of mistakes no longer exists in permanent enlightenment, although the unenlightened will continue to see them in the thoughts and actions of the enlightened. No harm, no foul-- just the way it is. So the bottom line that you are proposing is that the enlightened are right *because they say they are*, and that the only reason they are perceived to be making any mistakes is that those doing the perceiving are unenlightened. What is this right and wrong you keep bringing up? What is done is done due to the consciousness of the actor. The way it is perceived is that way too. An enlightened person actsd from his state of consciousness, and all others do too. There is no right and wrong about it. You are saying, in effect, that because you are enlight- ened, you cannot possibly make any mistakes. Is that correct? I am saying that the concept of mistakes no longer exists. The way you are phrasing it assumes that the possibility of mistakes exist for me and I magically avoid them. You are saying that the only reason it appears that you are making mistakes is that the unenlightened are not able to perceive the perfection of your actions. Is that correct? Not exactly. Everything begins with us. So if an unenlightened person has not learned skill in thoughts and action, they will perceive their own actions as imperfect, and therefore they will see all actions as they see themselves; imperfect. OK. It's a belief system, and I guess you are entitled to it. It seems to me a fairly self-serving, solipsist belief system closer to madness than enlightenment, but you seem to like it. I wouldn't have it any other way. The alternative sucks, in my view. But could you do me one favor, just in the interest of clearing up this unenlightened soul's confusion? Please explain to me a statement you made some time ago that appeared to me, from my unenlightened per- spective, to be a mistake. You said, quite clearly, and even repeated the statement in subsequent posts, that Buddha had said, God is love. Here's another one: The value of pi is 4.83830930393939. Oops, I amde a mistake. Can you provide a reference as to where he said that? No. Then perhaps I will be less unenlightened, and can better understand the perfection of
[FairfieldLife] Look at me, I'm important! I know the Truth! (was Re: Shaken)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip So, a few followup questions: 1. What do you perceive the value of enlight- enment to BE if it makes you perceive this badly and (by your own standards) incorrectly? From my perspective, everything is fine, until it isn't. Its just that there is this story out there that enlightened people do not make mistakes, and (here's the kicker) they are not perceived as making mistakes by the unenlightened. That's the BS. That's the story. As explained earlier, anything an enlightened person does isn't perceived as a mistake *to themselves*, but to others, maybe it is seen as a mistake. 2. Should anyone pay ANY attention to the enlight- ened when they claim that there are no mistakes? (It seems to me that you yourself have just said that this perception is incorrect, and yet you keep saying it.) I am not sure I understand this-- as everyone is always free to decide what they do and don't pay attention to. I am certainly not going to render a judgment on what anyone may or may not do. 3. If the enlightened can be *this* wrong about the issue of Are the words and actions of the enlightened perfect and free from mistakes, and *admit* it, why should anyone pay any attention to what they say about anything else? It is purely a personal choice-- if someone desires enlightenment, then they might be interested in what an enlightened person says and does. If not, they might not be. Its all pretty simple really.
[FairfieldLife] Look at me, I'm important! I know the Truth! (was Re: Shaken)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Now you're musting. Seems to me that you've kinda lost perspective on what your place is in the universe, dude. You do not have the intelligence, personal power, charisma, or state of consciousness to must a DOG into obeying you, much less me; you just like to think you have that power. :-) I said you must in the context of resolving your inner conflict. I am not asking, telling or insisting you do a damned thing for me. If you go back and read all of the posts I have made I have not once asked, told or insisted anyone do anything for me or believe anything I say. Is that finally sinking in? 2. You claim to have perceived that I have a battle going on inside myself. Yes, very clearly. And after I have explained to you, quite patiently IMO, that I have *zero* desire for permanent enlightenment, *especially* as you define enlightenment. I am NOT seeking spiritual advice from you; And yet, clontine to try to clarify what I, the person who you don't want anything to do with, am thinking. I'd rather be *dead* than think like you. kinda the same thing actually... I'm merely asking you questions to put you on the spot and have you defend some of the statements you have made here in the past, and that you continue to make in the present. Fair enough. 3. With regard to my mocking and disrespectful tone, what is present in you that could possibly be mocked and disrespected? You *have* said, have you not, that you have no self, only Self, right? You *have* said, The process of attaining enlightenment involves the complete dissolution of any sort of artificial identity, have you not? What artificial identity in you thus is able to feel mocked or disrespected? Are you trying to tell us that Self feels mocked and disrespected by itsSelf? snip A mocking and disrespectful tone is apparent in whatever state of consciousness. Are you saying that because someone is enlightened, they can no longer perceive a mocking and disrespectful tone aimed at them? Try this experiment-- the next time you come across someone you are resonably sure is enlightened, hit them hard with a stick, then watch their reaction. They will have one I assure you.
[FairfieldLife] Look at me, I'm important! I know the Truth! (was Re: Shaken)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Now you're musting. Seems to me that you've kinda lost perspective on what your place is in the universe, dude. You do not have the intelligence, personal power, charisma, or state of consciousness to must a DOG into obeying you, much less me; you just like to think you have that power. :-) I said you must in the context of resolving your inner conflict. Which you have declared exists. :-) I am not asking, telling or insisting you do a damned thing for me. If you go back and read all of the posts I have made I have not once asked, told or insisted anyone do anything for me or believe anything I say. Is that finally sinking in? You *are*, however, claiming that I have some inner conflict that you can see because you're all enlightened and all. :-) 2. You claim to have perceived that I have a battle going on inside myself. Yes, very clearly. I will admit that it probably seems very clear to you. Then again, you believe that you are enlightened. That seems clear to you, too. :-) And after I have explained to you, quite patiently IMO, that I have *zero* desire for permanent enlightenment, *especially* as you define enlightenment. I am NOT seeking spiritual advice from you; And yet, clontine to try to clarify what I, the person who you don't want anything to do with, am thinking. I clontine (continue) to ask YOU to clarify what YOU are thinking. You continue to try to make it about me, rather than answer direct questions. I'd rather be *dead* than think like you. kinda the same thing actually... Cool. We have finally found a point of agreement. May you get your wish first. :-) I'm merely asking you questions to put you on the spot and have you defend some of the statements you have made here in the past, and that you continue to make in the present. Fair enough. Remember this at the end, when I ask three more questions. 3. With regard to my mocking and disrespectful tone, what is present in you that could possibly be mocked and disrespected? You *have* said, have you not, that you have no self, only Self, right? You *have* said, The process of attaining enlightenment involves the complete dissolution of any sort of artificial identity, have you not? What artificial identity in you thus is able to feel mocked or disrespected? Are you trying to tell us that Self feels mocked and disrespected by itsSelf? snip A mocking and disrespectful tone is apparent in whatever state of consciousness. Are you saying that because someone is enlightened, they can no longer perceive a mocking and disrespectful tone aimed at them? I am saying that someone who was really enlightened would not, in my opinion, use a perceived (and very present) disrespectful tone as an excuse to avoid answering a few simple questions about enlightenment. Try this experiment-- the next time you come across someone you are resonably sure is enlightened, hit them hard with a stick, then watch their reaction. They will have one I assure you. I did. A verbal stick. You're still running. Thanks for responding to all these posts. To clarify the situation at this point, nothing you have said has convinced me that you are enlightened or even close to it. All that you have done is spout dogma, and not very well. I *do* believe that *you* believe what you are saying. I just see no value in that belief -- for yourself or for anyone else. To continue, if you feel like it, at the point at which you used the excuse of disrespect to stop answering my questions, I was moving away from subjective experience and into the realm of the enlightened person's relationship with and responsibilities towards other sentient beings. That is the one thing that never seems to enter into your calculations, and that you never speak about. I can understand why. As you have tried to explain yourself, you don't even believe that other sentient beings EXIST -- you create them. But could you speak about this a little bit, just for fun, as if the rest of us *did* exist. :-) So far, NOTHING you have mentioned about enlight- enment has been of ANY value to anyone but yourself. 1. Are you comfortable with that? 2. Do you feel that you, as someone who claims to be enlightened, have any responsibilities to anyone else? 3. For that matter, do you believe that anyone else actually exists? Three simple questions. You'll either deal with them or you won't. ( Hint: If your answer to #3 is No, then the only thing disrespecting you is a figment of your imagination that you created. :-)
[FairfieldLife] How much is that alien in the window?
[Stan Romanek film]
[FairfieldLife] 'Spinning Machine Needs a Fixing'
nbsp; McCain’s McClellan Nightmarenbsp;nbsp; By FRANK RICH Published: June 1, 2008 nbsp; THEY thought they were being so slick. When the McCain campaign abruptly moved last Tuesday’s fund-raiser with President Bush from the Phoenix Convention Center to a private home, it was the next best thing to sending the loathed lame duck into the witness protection program. John McCain and Mr. Bush were caught on camera together for a mere 26 seconds, and at 9 p.m. Eastern time, safely after the networks’ evening newscasts. The two men’s furtive encounter on the Phoenix airport tarmac, as captured by a shaky, inaudible long shot on FoxNews.com, could have been culled from a surveillance video. nbsp; But for the McCain campaign, any “Mission Accomplished” high-fives had to be put on hold. That same evening Politico.com broke the news of Scott McClellan’s memoir, and it was soon All Bush All the Time in the mediasphere. Or more to the point: All Iraq All the Time, for the deceitful origins of the war in Iraq are the major focus of the former press secretary’s tell-all. There is no news in his book, hardly the first to charge that the White House used propaganda to sell its war and that the so-called liberal media were “complicit enablers” of the con job. The blowback by the last Bush defenders is also déjà vu. The claims that Mr. McClellan was “disgruntled,” “out of the loop,” two-faced, and a “sad” head case are identical to those leveled by Bush operatives (including Mr. McClellan) at past administration deserters like Paul O’Neill, Richard Clarke, John DiIulio and Matthew Dowd. So why the fuss? Mr. McClellan isn’t a sizzling TV personality, or, before now, a household name beyond the Beltway. His book secured no major prepublication media send-off on “60 Minutes” or a newsmagazine cover. But if the tale of how the White House ginned up the war is an old story, the big new news is how ferocious a hold this familiar tale still exerts on the public all these years later. We have not moved on. Americans don’t like being lied to by their leaders, especially if there are casualties involved and especially if there’s no accountability. We view it as a crime story, and we won’t be satisfied until there’s a resolution. That’s why the original sin of the war’s conception remains a political flash point, however much we tune out Iraq as it grinds on today. Even a figure as puny as Mr. McClellan can ignite it. The Democrats portray Mr. McCain as offering a third Bush term, but it’s a third term of the war that’s his bigger problem. Even if he locks the president away in a private home, the war will keep seeping under the door, like the blood in “Sweeney Todd.” Mr. McCain and his party are in denial about this. “Elections are about the future” is their mantra. On “Hardball” in April, Mr. McCain pooh-poohed debate about “whether we should have invaded or not” as merely “a good academic argument.” We should focus on the “victory” he magically foresees instead. But the large American majority that judges the war a mistake remains constant (more than 60 percent). For all the talk of the surge’s “success,” the number of Americans who think the country is making progress in Iraq is down nine percentage points since February (to 37 percent) in the latest Pew survey. The number favoring a “quick withdrawal” is up by seven percentage points (to 56 percent). It’s extremely telling that when Gen. David Petraeus gave his latest progress report before the Senate 10 days ago, his testimony aroused so little coverage and public interest that few even noticed his admission that those much-hyped October provincial elections in Iraq would probably not happen before November (after our Election Day, wanna bet?). Contrast the minimal attention General Petraeus received for his current news from Iraq with the rapt attention Mr. McClellan is receiving for his rehash of the war’s genesis circa 2002-3, and you can see what has traction this election year. There are other signs of Iraq’s durable political lethality as well. Looking for a bright spot in their loss of three once-safe House seats in special elections this spring, Republicans have duly noted that the Democrats who won in Louisiana and Mississippi were social “conservatives,” anti-abortion and pro-gun. They failed to notice that all three Democratic winners, including the two in the South, oppose the war. Even more remarkably, new polling in Texas finds that an incumbent Republican senator and Bush rubber stamp, John Cornyn, is only four percentage points ahead of his Democratic challenger, Rick Noriega, a fierce war critic who served in Afghanistan. In the woe-is-us analyses by leading Republicans about their party’s travails — whether by the House G.O.P. leader John Boehner (in The Wall Street Journal) or the media strategist Alex Castellanos (in National Review) — Iraq is conspicuous by its utter absence. The Republican
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rising Insanity of the Age of Enlightment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But, TM in itself is just a very subtle form of stress, what Selye called 'eu-stress; ugh! This is making my semantic synapses give me a headache!
[FairfieldLife] Look at me, I'm important! I know the Truth! (was Re: Shaken)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Now you're musting. Seems to me that you've kinda lost perspective on what your place is in the universe, dude. You do not have the intelligence, personal power, charisma, or state of consciousness to must a DOG into obeying you, much less me; you just like to think you have that power. :-) I said you must in the context of resolving your inner conflict. Which you have declared exists. :-) Yes. I am not asking, telling or insisting you do a damned thing for me. If you go back and read all of the posts I have made I have not once asked, told or insisted anyone do anything for me or believe anything I say. Is that finally sinking in? You *are*, however, claiming that I have some inner conflict that you can see because you're all enlightened and all. :-) I can see it. 2. You claim to have perceived that I have a battle going on inside myself. Yes, very clearly. I will admit that it probably seems very clear to you. Then again, you believe that you are enlightened. That seems clear to you, too. :-) I do not believe I am enlightened. I do not believe you have an inner conflict. Hey deja vu all over again! And after I have explained to you, quite patiently IMO, that I have *zero* desire for permanent enlightenment, *especially* as you define enlightenment. I am NOT seeking spiritual advice from you; And yet, clontine to try to clarify what I, the person who you don't want anything to do with, am thinking. I clontine (continue) to ask YOU to clarify what YOU are thinking. You continue to try to make it about me, rather than answer direct questions. Who is asking the questions, and guiding this discussion? I'd rather be *dead* than think like you. kinda the same thing actually... Cool. We have finally found a point of agreement. May you get your wish first. :-) What I was saying is being dead *is* kinda the same thing as thinking like me. I'm merely asking you questions to put you on the spot and have you defend some of the statements you have made here in the past, and that you continue to make in the present. Fair enough. Remember this at the end, when I ask three more questions. I will. 3. With regard to my mocking and disrespectful tone, what is present in you that could possibly be mocked and disrespected? You *have* said, have you not, that you have no self, only Self, right? You *have* said, The process of attaining enlightenment involves the complete dissolution of any sort of artificial identity, have you not? What artificial identity in you thus is able to feel mocked or disrespected? Are you trying to tell us that Self feels mocked and disrespected by itsSelf? snip A mocking and disrespectful tone is apparent in whatever state of consciousness. Are you saying that because someone is enlightened, they can no longer perceive a mocking and disrespectful tone aimed at them? I am saying that someone who was really enlightened would not, in my opinion, use a perceived (and very present) disrespectful tone as an excuse to avoid answering a few simple questions about enlightenment. So, enlightened people operate according to rules that only you perceive? The common wisdom that enlightenment is a state of unlimited freedom is bullshit in your eyes, that anyone enlightened only acts according to rules that you know about? Try this experiment-- the next time you come across someone you are resonably sure is enlightened, hit them hard with a stick, then watch their reaction. They will have one I assure you. I did. A verbal stick. You're still running. So you are admitting you are reasonably sure I am enlightened? I know your answer felt good to write, but does it make any sense? Thanks for responding to all these posts. You are welcome. To clarify the situation at this point, nothing you have said has convinced me that you are enlightened or even close to it. All that you have done is spout dogma, and not very well. I *do* believe that *you* believe what you are saying. I just see no value in that belief -- for yourself or for anyone else. To continue, if you feel like it, at the point at which you used the excuse of disrespect to stop answering my questions, I was moving away from subjective experience and into the realm of the enlightened person's relationship with and responsibilities towards other sentient beings. That is the one thing that never seems to enter into your calculations, and that you never speak about. I can understand why. As you have tried to explain yourself, you don't even believe that other sentient
[FairfieldLife] Look at me, I'm important! I know the Truth! (was Re: Shaken)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Three simple questions. You'll either deal with them or you won't. correct. You didn't. Your call.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rising Insanity of the Age of Enlightment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams willytex@ wrote: But, TM in itself is just a very subtle form of stress, what Selye called 'eu-stress; Well, eu-phoria, eu-kalyptos, eu-ropa, eu-logia, and stuff! And, of course, eu-raw! ugh! This is making my semantic synapses give me a headache!
[FairfieldLife] Look at me, I'm important! I know the Truth! (was Re: Shaken)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Three simple questions. You'll either deal with them or you won't. correct. You didn't. Your call. I most certainly did.
[FairfieldLife] And They're Off and Running...
It's Judy in the lead followed by Barry, then Shemp then Curtis: 175 posts since Saturdat May 31st, 2008 midnight -- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27 TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20 shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] 19 curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11 Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10 Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10 off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9 sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9 Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8 Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6 cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5 Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4 Louis McKenzie [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4 boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4 dhamiltony2k5 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4 Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3 nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2 artkonrad [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2 sgrayatlarge [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2 ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2 R.G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 Dick Mays [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 wayback71 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 seekliberation [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 okpeachman2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 bob_brigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 1 Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 Tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 Richard M [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 posters: 34 (as of 2:01 PM PDT)
[FairfieldLife] Re: OffWorld and the Jews
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , sgrayatlarge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Correction OffWorld: Dr. Hanna Swaid is a Palestinian Israeli Member of the Knesset from the Hadash Party Only recently have they been allowed in in small numbers and insignificant - it will take decades for it to not be a fascist state anymore. Imagine the first few women ever to enter Congress or Parliament in Britain. That is the stage Israel has only just reached in recent years. The Arabs make up LESS THAN 10% of the Parliament of Israel, and Israel deliberately makes it impossible for Palestinians to govern themselves by fencing them in, and illegally settling all the arable land that is not inside Israel already. Dr. Hanna Swaid has only been in the Knesset for 2 years, among a handful of Arabs. He was first elected to the Knesset in the 2006 elections. Please if you will elaborate on your following points: 1. How is Israel a documented illegal zionist state. Can you explain what happened after the UN voted for partitian? On day one which group opposed partitian? Who agreed to all terms? What happened was that there was an illegal annexation of land and expansion by the Zionists (self-named) who had been lobbying in Britain using money from German and European Jews for decades, since Britain was the ruler in the region for the most part. 2. Exactly how much land did the Zionist purchase legally ( and at a premium) in the early 1900's that became the basis of the current state of Israel? Lol...buying land now makes it legal to take a whole country and its governance? So maybe me and all the British should get together in America and declare it our country since we own a lot of stuff here. 3. You mentioned that their are Jewish Rabbis that oppose the existence of the Jewish state, can you describe what kind of Rabbis, Go here: http://tinyurl.com/498492 http://tinyurl.com/498492 4. The Pro-Zionist movement was totally non-religious based secular movement. You say you are opposed to all religion, why would you oppose a non-religios movement. Because they put themsleves in power over all the people of the region, and created apartheid, and then said to the PEOPLE OF THEIR RELIGION FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD...Come to your homeland, Israel, and we will welcome you and give you land -- No prizes for guessing as to whose land it is they are giving to the foreigners. The Phillistines mentioned in the bible, ARE the Palestinians. The 'Semitic peoples' are the Jews AND the Palestinians. They are cousins, and yet, the Palestininas have been denied a voice over their own affairs. Gaza is a prison camp, and the rest of Palestine is under an aparthied system, and their arable or any resource-rich land, is systematically being given away to Polish, Russians, and others. Have you ever been to Israel or the West Bank? Have you seen the apartheid there, as I have (and that was during a relatively peaceful time of the mid-80's.) If so, for how long were you there, and where did you go? 5. Did you oppose the formation of Pakistan, a country that was wrenched out of India, where millions of people died in the process and where in fact it was a completely made up country with no historical foundations? Why is the world completely ok with Pakistan and not Israel? Very stupid comparison. If Scotland became independent of England and every Scottish citizen had equal rights in all ways, then of course, no-one would care. Israel is a fascist state, much like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, etc., in that only if you belong to the right race/family can you be an equal citizen. Every Pakistani has had equal rights in Pakistan. This is not the case in Israel where Apartheid remains today. Pakisthan actually does have a historical basissince about 700 AD. Israel, by their own admission, was given to them by their Ghost in the Big Sky in 1948. 6. Can you describe the provisions of the Oslo Accords? Yes: Since the start of the al-Aqsa Intifada, the Oslo Accords are viewed with increasing disfavor by both the Palestinian and Israeli public. In May 2000, seven years after the Oslo Accords and five months before the start of the al-Aqsa Intifada, a survey...found that: 39% of all Israelis supported the Accords and that 32% believed that the Accords would result in peace in the next few years.[16]. By contrast, the May 2004 survey found that 26% of all Israelis supported the Accords and 18% believed that the Accords would result in peace in the next few years. Many Palestinians believed that the Oslo Accords had turned the PLO leadership into a tool of the Israeli state in suppressing their own people. While benefiting a small elite, the conditions of most Palestinians worsened. This was seen as one of the causes for the al-Aqsa Intifada. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accord#Criticisms_of_the_Oslo_Accords
[FairfieldLife] Re: And They're Off and Running...
I'm betting on Richard M. I always back the underdog in a race. OffWorld --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's Judy in the lead followed by Barry, then Shemp then Curtis: 175 posts since Saturdat May 31st, 2008 midnight -- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27 TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 20 shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] 19 curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11 Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10 Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10 off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 9 sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9 Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8 Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6 cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 5 Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4 Louis McKenzie [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4 boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4 dhamiltony2k5 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4 Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3 nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 2 artkonrad [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2 sgrayatlarge [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 2 ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 2 R.G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 Dick Mays [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 wayback71 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 seekliberation [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 okpeachman2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 bob_brigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 1 Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 Tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 Richard M [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 posters: 34 (as of 2:01 PM PDT)
[FairfieldLife] Look at me, I'm important! I know the Truth! (was Re: Shaken)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Those that are 'enlightened' live in a different reality than those that live in ignorance. The enlightened have an experience of 'gnosis' in that they realize the illusory aspect of reality. First, excellent detailed answers. Here is the fundamental problem that I have. How could we possibly know what a person's internal experience is? I can't really separate your points from a bunch of beliefs that any fundamentalist Hindu would have. The enlightened person is just making a claim of having special internal knowledge with no evidence. Most of your points were right out of scriptures. So anyone can claim to know in this special way. I think the difference is that some people get others to buy into the claim. Ones view doesn't necessarily need to be upheld by anyone. My view doesn't usually change because you don't see it that way. It may be good feedback and all, but my state is not dependent on anyone's approval. Evaluating mistakes' is quite relative to the evaluation criteria. And the definition of a mistake. Do cartoon characters make mistakes? Did the roadrunner make ANOTHER mistake that got him blown up one more time? Does Charlie Brown make a mistake when ready to kick the football when Lussy lets go of the it once again? Are spelling errors mistakes? In some contexts yes, in other's no. Spelling is anarbitrary convention. As are words. I choose not to buy into that convention, and spell Lucy as Lussy -- did I make mistake? Again -- by what standards, from what view, pursuant to which objective, and to what consequence. What if the maid slipped, fell down the stairs, mistakenly and accidently bumped Hitler over the rail, where he plunged to his death in 1940. Did the maid make a mistake? Did Scott McClellan make a mistake by not speaking up while press Secretary? He said this morning that he didn't figure out a lot of stuff until year ago. Are some things a mistake in hindsight, or with more knowledge, and not a mistake at the moment? One view, which I like, and which may be a mistake, is that everyone is doing the best with what they have. Is a '64 VW Beetle, on its last legs, choking and coughing to get to the end of the street, making a mistake? Or is it doing the best it can with what it still has? If everyone is doing their best, given all of everyone's limitations, where is are the mistakes? I flunked a course -- took it again, and now know more than anyone in wither class. Did I make a mistake in failing the first time? I hit 63 out of 478 balls into the net this morning. Were those mistakes -- or simply useful feedback to adjust the angle of my racquet head a bit? A child is learning to talk and is a bit inarticulate at times. Is she making a mistake --or on a perfect path to learn the language. I don't claim to have special knowledge, particularly the woo woo kind. I do have specialized knowledge that no one else has on this Forum. (Or ever had in the history of the universe -- for that matter). But its personal, or career, or academic training, or simply what I had for breakfast 2 days ago. And my specialized knowledge affects by views -- and vice versa. I picked up 6 instead of my intended 4 oranges at the store. Was that a mistake? Was it consequential? A man loses his fortune -- by various mistakes. And learns a shitload of valuable life lessons as a result. Was that a mistake? Mistakes are very relative to what. What view, objective, context, evaluation criteria, consequence, etc. Its possible to posit views in which every cloud has a silver lining and things happen for the best. Many people, far beyond enlightenment traditions, have some or much of this view. In that view, its all good good -- in the larger context. One step back, two steps forward. In that view, there are no mistakes. While I am not necessarily subscribing to such, it is a legitimate view.
[FairfieldLife] Re: And They're Off and Running...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's Judy in the lead followed by Barry, then Shemp then Curtis: 175 posts since Saturdat May 31st, 2008 midnight -- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27 TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20 shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] 19 ...and I don't count my posts, so I will likely be over by Tuesday or Wednesday and then Rick can ban me for 4 weeks this time... curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11 Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10 Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10 off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9 sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9 Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8 Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6 cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5 Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4 Louis McKenzie [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4 boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4 dhamiltony2k5 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4 Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3 nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2 artkonrad [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2 sgrayatlarge [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2 ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2 R.G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 Dick Mays [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 wayback71 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 seekliberation [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 okpeachman2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 bob_brigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 1 Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 Tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 Richard M [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 posters: 34 (as of 2:01 PM PDT)
[FairfieldLife] Look at me, I'm important! I know the Truth! (was Re: Shaken)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Could this be part of your plan to post out long before Hillary gets trounced in the primaries during the next few days and has to concede, so that you won't have to be here to explain it away? :-) Puerto Rico Primary Results CLINTON: 257,331 68% (38 delegates) OBAMA: 118,972 32% (17 delegates) 98% of precincts reporting. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#PR http://tinyurl.com/2m8jtd Just sayin'...
[FairfieldLife] Look at me, I'm important! I know the Truth! (was Re: Shaken)
---Precisely. Such things have to be judged at face value, not one set of Neo-Advaitin standards and another for the Proletariat calss. Mistakes are mistakes, and yes, Hitler was evil. Besides, the people in question are far from Buddhahood. Bourgeosie.fa In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Those that are 'enlightened' live in a different reality than those that live in ignorance. The enlightened have an experience of 'gnosis' in that they realize the illusory aspect of reality. First, excellent detailed answers. Here is the fundamental problem that I have. How could we possibly know what a person's internal experience is? I can't really separate your points from a bunch of beliefs that any fundamentalist Hindu would have. The enlightened person is just making a claim of having special internal knowledge with no evidence. Most of your points were right out of scriptures. So anyone can claim to know in this special way. I think the difference is that some people get others to buy into the claim. Ones view doesn't necessarily need to be upheld by anyone. My view doesn't usually change because you don't see it that way. It may be good feedback and all, but my state is not dependent on anyone's approval. Evaluating mistakes' is quite relative to the evaluation criteria. And the definition of a mistake. Do cartoon characters make mistakes? Did the roadrunner make ANOTHER mistake that got him blown up one more time? Does Charlie Brown make a mistake when ready to kick the football when Lussy lets go of the it once again? Are spelling errors mistakes? In some contexts yes, in other's no. Spelling is anarbitrary convention. As are words. I choose not to buy into that convention, and spell Lucy as Lussy -- did I make mistake? Again -- by what standards, from what view, pursuant to which objective, and to what consequence. What if the maid slipped, fell down the stairs, mistakenly and accidently bumped Hitler over the rail, where he plunged to his death in 1940. Did the maid make a mistake? Did Scott McClellan make a mistake by not speaking up while press Secretary? He said this morning that he didn't figure out a lot of stuff until year ago. Are some things a mistake in hindsight, or with more knowledge, and not a mistake at the moment? One view, which I like, and which may be a mistake, is that everyone is doing the best with what they have. Is a '64 VW Beetle, on its last legs, choking and coughing to get to the end of the street, making a mistake? Or is it doing the best it can with what it still has? If everyone is doing their best, given all of everyone's limitations, where is are the mistakes? I flunked a course -- took it again, and now know more than anyone in wither class. Did I make a mistake in failing the first time? I hit 63 out of 478 balls into the net this morning. Were those mistakes -- or simply useful feedback to adjust the angle of my racquet head a bit? A child is learning to talk and is a bit inarticulate at times. Is she making a mistake --or on a perfect path to learn the language. I don't claim to have special knowledge, particularly the woo woo kind. I do have specialized knowledge that no one else has on this Forum. (Or ever had in the history of the universe -- for that matter). But its personal, or career, or academic training, or simply what I had for breakfast 2 days ago. And my specialized knowledge affects by views -- and vice versa. I picked up 6 instead of my intended 4 oranges at the store. Was that a mistake? Was it consequential? A man loses his fortune -- by various mistakes. And learns a shitload of valuable life lessons as a result. Was that a mistake? Mistakes are very relative to what. What view, objective, context, evaluation criteria, consequence, etc. Its possible to posit views in which every cloud has a silver lining and things happen for the best. Many people, far beyond enlightenment traditions, have some or much of this view. In that view, its all good good -- in the larger context. One step back, two steps forward. In that view, there are no mistakes. While I am not necessarily subscribing to such, it is a legitimate view.
[FairfieldLife] Look at me, I'm important! I know the Truth! (was Re: Shaken)
Curtis wrote: Most of your points were right out of scriptures. You're using a very narrow defintion of scripture. Scripture is anything, verbal, written, or recorded - in short, the scriptures are verbal testimony, which is a valid means of knowledge. Based on your logic I could object to you consulting the dictionary in order to post the definition of stress! But I'm not sure exactly what 'scriptures' you are refering to. And, it's not just a matter of reading the 'scriptures', Curtis - we all read the scriptures. The scriptures are just another name for books of knowledge - for consulting with our friends and teachers. We all rely on the three vaild means of knowledge. There are three valid means of knowledge: 1. Sense perceptions. 2. Verbal testimony. 3. Inference. But beyond these valid means of knowledge, there is *transcendental* knowledge. There is the apriori knowledge that makes some actions a categorical imperative. Assuming materialism would not be a logical conclusion, because it is NOT supported by the three valid means of knowledge!
[FairfieldLife] Look at me, I'm important! I know the Truth! (was Re: Shaken)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curtis wrote: Most of your points were right out of scriptures. You're using a very narrow defintion of scripture. Scripture is anything, verbal, written, or recorded - in short, the scriptures are verbal testimony, which is a valid means of knowledge. Based on your logic I could object to you consulting the dictionary in order to post the definition of stress! But I'm not sure exactly what 'scriptures' you are refering to. And, it's not just a matter of reading the 'scriptures', Curtis - we all read the scriptures. The scriptures are just another name for books of knowledge - for consulting with our friends and teachers. We all rely on the three vaild means of knowledge. There are three valid means of knowledge: 1. Sense perceptions. 2. Verbal testimony. 3. Inference. But beyond these valid means of knowledge, there is *transcendental* knowledge. There is the apriori knowledge that makes some actions a categorical imperative. Assuming materialism would not be a logical conclusion, because it is NOT supported by the three valid means of knowledge!
[FairfieldLife] Look at me, I'm important! I know the Truth! (was Re: Shaken)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curtis wrote: Most of your points were right out of scriptures. You're using a very narrow defintion of scripture. Scripture is anything, verbal, written, or recorded - in short, the scriptures are verbal testimony, which is a valid means of knowledge. Based on your logic I could object to you consulting the dictionary in order to post the definition of stress! But I'm not sure exactly what 'scriptures' you are refering to. And, it's not just a matter of reading the 'scriptures', Curtis - we all read the scriptures. The scriptures are just another name for books of knowledge - for consulting with our friends and teachers. We all rely on the three vaild means of knowledge. There are three valid means of knowledge: 1. Sense perceptions. 2. Verbal testimony. 3. Inference. But beyond these valid means of knowledge, there is *transcendental* knowledge. There is the apriori knowledge that makes some actions a categorical imperative. Assuming materialism would not be a logical conclusion, because it is NOT supported by the three valid means of knowledge!
[FairfieldLife] Look at me, I'm important! I know the Truth! (was Re: Shaken)
Curtis wrote: But the problem here is that the most popular leader by the numbers who was felt to be an actual god on earth was Mao. Not sure I'm following you on this one; Mao was a materialist, but by the numbers, the historical Buddha would probably outnumber Mao in the millions in a popularity contest. Mao didn't believe in the 'gods' and Shakya by all accounts was a real historical person, not a 'god'. [snip] Most traditions of enlightenment that I know about There is only one enlightenment tradition, and according to Mircea Eliade, this is the Yoga tradition of South Asia. Mircea defined Yoga as introverted 'enstasis' and he found no evidence of this system in other cultures that he studied. including the Jesus cult, The 'Jesus' cult has nothing to do with the South Asian enlightenment tradition. The Jesus cult espouses the doctrine of atonement and bodily resurection, both of which are foreign to the enlightenmnet tradition. make the case for the specialness of their enlightened leader using bad evidence and unsupported claims of miraculous goings on outside the ability to be evaluated carefully. Maybe so. But the enlightenment tradition has nothing to say about 'specialness' - enlightenment is the normal state, not a 'special state', and it is not concerned with any individual soul-monad. Enlightement consists solely in *dispelling* the illusion that there are individual soul-monads. Enlightenment is beyond mundane knowledge, enlightenment is not a mere knowing of things and events. Work cited: 'Yoga : Immortality and Freedom' by Mircea Eliade Princeton University Press, 1970 Other titles of interst: 'Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy' by Mircea Eliade Princeton University Press; 2004 'The Yoga Tradition: Its History, Literature, Philosophy and Practice' by Georg Feuerstein, Ken Wilbur Hohm Press, 2001
Re: [FairfieldLife] Look at me, I'm important! I know the Truth! (was Re: Shaken)
On Jun 1, 2008, at 11:24 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim wrote: Does it look the same way to someone unenlightened? Jim, it seems to me that what you have defined above is that the enlightened live in a state that is completely divorced from reality. Those that are 'enlightened' live in a different reality than those that live in ignorance. The enlightened have an experience of 'gnosis' in that they realize the illusory aspect of reality. First, excellent detailed answers. Here is the fundamental problem that I have. How could we possibly know what a person's internal experience is? I can't really separate your points from a bunch of beliefs that any fundamentalist Hindu would have. The enlightened person is just making a claim of having special internal knowledge with no evidence. Most of your points were right out of scriptures. So anyone can claim to know in this special way. I think the difference is that some people get others to buy into the claim. But the problem here is that the the most popular leader by the numbers who was felt to be an actual god on earth was Mao. And he also competes with Stalin for greatest mass murderer. I know that people into the enlightenment model look down on religious people who just read the scriptures and believe a bunch of stuff. But I can't see how they are really different, or if they are, how we could know. Most traditions of enlightenment that I know about including the Jesus cult, make the case for the specialness of their enlightened leader using bad evidence and unsupported claims of miraculous goings on outside the ability to be evaluated carefully. The movement is full of Maharishi's legendary enlightened workaholism. But I've met obsessive driven people like him in business so that doesn't cut it. And the darshon thing gets blown out by Mao. So how could we tell if someone was functioning specially, beyond their spouting words we can all read in scriptures? Most teachers I've been around who had great realization actually would have the opposite of what most people would consider the 'enlightenment buzz'; instead of energy or bliss or shakti, etc. radiating from them or to the listeners, there was a very simple, plain presence. It was as if what we normally experience as mind- chatter simply ceased. Consequently, one could go into deep meditation, spontaneously; it didn't matter if your eye were open or closed. Answers to deep questions would be answered without words or one might spontaneously hear detailed commentaries to teachings, inseparable from the teacher, yet only you would hear it. It's inexplicable and paradoxical, but I have experienced it many times. The first time I met the Dalai Lama, he came up to me and grabbed my hands and shook me (he was laughing so hard) and suddenly stopped and just stared into my eyes. It would be impossible to describe the utter sense of balanced calm and unity that this gave, other than the warmth that just spread from the heart and then expanded to all sense contacts till you couldn't grok any separation. In cases like these, you just know. There's really no intellectual explanation, as it's completely paradoxical. I call it spontaneous presence and after a while you learn to recognize that presence when a teacher teaches. Similarly, it's absence is also rather obvious. OTOH I've also met a number of Hindu teachers who radiated shakti or bliss, and from my POV I'd have to say they were just advanced practitioners, but they seemed to be still in process. No sense of balanced wisdom.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rising Insanity of the Age of Enlightment
But, TM in itself is just a very subtle form of stress, what Selye called 'eu-stress; Richard M wrote: ugh! This is making my semantic synapses give me a headache! Do you balance periods of activity with times of relaxation? Practice stretching and/or yoga. Reference: Eustress at Whole Health Stress Management: http://tinyurl.com/6dk6cb
RE: [FairfieldLife] And They're Off and Running...
Bhairitu, if you feel like running this a few times a week (or every day if you wish) and posting the results, it would be a nice service and I wouldn’t count those posts towards your total. From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bhairitu Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 4:26 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] And They're Off and Running... It's Judy in the lead followed by Barry, then Shemp then Curtis: 175 posts since Saturdat May 31st, 2008 midnight -- authfriend HYPERLINK mailto:jstein%40panix.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] 27 TurquoiseB HYPERLINK mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] 20 shempmcgurk HYPERLINK mailto:shempmcgurk%40netscape.net[EMAIL PROTECTED] 19 curtisdeltablues HYPERLINK mailto:curtisdeltablues%40yahoo.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] 11 Rick Archer HYPERLINK mailto:rick%40searchsummit.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] 10 Richard J. Williams HYPERLINK mailto:willytex%40yahoo.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] 10 off_world_beings HYPERLINK mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] 9 sandiego108 HYPERLINK mailto:sandiego108%40yahoo.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] 9 Bhairitu HYPERLINK mailto:noozguru%40sbcglobal.net[EMAIL PROTECTED] 8 Vaj HYPERLINK mailto:vajradhatu%40earthlink.net[EMAIL PROTECTED] 6 cardemaister HYPERLINK mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] 5 Peter HYPERLINK mailto:drpetersutphen%40yahoo.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] 4 Louis McKenzie HYPERLINK mailto:ltm457%40yahoo.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] 4 boo_lives HYPERLINK mailto:boo_lives%40yahoo.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] 4 dhamiltony2k5 HYPERLINK mailto:dhamiltony2k5%40yahoo.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] 4 Sal Sunshine HYPERLINK mailto:salsunshine%40lisco.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] 3 nablusoss1008 HYPERLINK mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] 2 artkonrad HYPERLINK mailto:artkonrad%40yahoo.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] 2 sgrayatlarge HYPERLINK mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] 2 ruthsimplicity HYPERLINK mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] 2 R.G. HYPERLINK mailto:babajii_99%40yahoo.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 Dick Mays HYPERLINK mailto:dickmays%40lisco.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 do.rflex HYPERLINK mailto:do.rflex%40yahoo.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 wayback71 HYPERLINK mailto:wayback71%40yahoo.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 seekliberation HYPERLINK mailto:seekliberation%40yahoo.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 okpeachman2000 HYPERLINK mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 bob_brigante HYPERLINK mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 HYPERLINK mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.comFairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 1 Patrick Gillam HYPERLINK mailto:jpgillam%40yahoo.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 lurkernomore20002000 HYPERLINK mailto:steve.sundur%40sbcglobal.net[EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 Tom HYPERLINK mailto:azgrey%40yahoo.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 Hugo HYPERLINK mailto:richardhughes103%40hotmail.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 Robert HYPERLINK mailto:babajii_99%40yahoo.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 Richard M HYPERLINK mailto:compost1uk%40yahoo.co.uk[EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 posters: 34 (as of 2:01 PM PDT) No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.4/1476 - Release Date: 5/31/2008 12:25 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.4/1476 - Release Date: 5/31/2008 12:25 PM
[FairfieldLife] Look at me, I'm important! I know the Truth! (was Re: Shaken)
Vaj wrote: ...instead of energy or bliss or shakti, etc. radiating from them or to the listeners, there was a very simple, plain presence. [snip] The first time I met the Dalai Lama, he came up to me and grabbed my hands and shook me (he was laughing so hard) and suddenly stopped and just stared into my eyes. Maybe so, but you have just described a case of 'energy or bliss or shakti' in a 'very simple, plain presence', radiating. So, you have sort of contradicted yourself. But enlightenment isn't any of these - enlightenment is an interior ecstatic 'enstasis' - it may or may not be exhibited in one's actions or personality; it may or may not be percieved by anyone. Enlightenment has to do with dispelling the illusion of the individual soul-monad. You could just as easily have been experiencing an illusion or a dream. Maybe the Dalai Lama just *appeared* to be laughing or full of energy. There is nothing in the waking state that could not be experienced in a dream. In dreams you can also meet the Dalia Lama and he could just as well 'shake' your hand. Elightenment has nothing to do with the individual soul-monad, whether simple or complex, laughing or sad, Dalai Lama or not.
Re: [FairfieldLife] And They're Off and Running...
I can do that. I want to tweak this a little more to get a more accurate post time. Then I'll make the executables and source available. It should work with any client that uses the mbox file format to store messages. Rick Archer wrote: Bhairitu, if you feel like running this a few times a week (or every day if you wish) and posting the results, it would be a nice service and I wouldn’t count those posts towards your total. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Wormtooth Nation
HYPERLINK http://theskyisfree.com/videos/1-Trailer-for-Wormtooth-Nationhttp://thesky isfree.com/videos/1-Trailer-for-Wormtooth-Nation This show is being produced by Geoff Boothby, son of MUM faculty Sam and Mary Boothby. You may recognize local folks in it – Chris Busch, Steven White, etc. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.4/1476 - Release Date: 5/31/2008 12:25 PM
[FairfieldLife] Shotokan Dominates
Time for some people to eat sh!t. My man, Lyoto - humble Shotokan expert - hammers the UFC goon, Tito Ortiz. http://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=fighter.detailPID=519 http://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=fighter.detailPID=519 OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rising Insanity of the Age of Enlightment
Richard Hughes wrote: I always thought that there were two components to this, first is 'stress' that acts on the nervous system. This could be anything that makes you have to work harder either mentally or physically. Can be either good or bad, which is largely down to unconscious personal preference, some people thrive under pressure, others... not so much. Secondly you have 'strain' which occurs when the nervous system can't take anymore without raising the natural anxiety background level... According to Selye stress has two components: one he called the general adaptation syndrome, and another type of stress, a pathological state derived from ongoing, unrelieved stress. ...in MMY lingo it leaves a permanent imprint on the nervous sytem that only the deep relaxation of TM can release. interestingly, both good and bad can have an effect here... It's not just 'MMY lingo' - it's the yoga system of South Asia. Samskaras are the imprints of all previous actions in the past and in the present. Samskaras is a Sanskrit Buddhist word which refers to all conditioned phenomena. But the idea here is that there are structures within the unconscious that are the basis for all worldly activities and future REBIRTH. The purpose of stress relief in the yoga system is aimed at freedom from the conditions that lead to rebirth, not just practices that would help a person relax or feel better. But the 'imprints' are not permanent - otherwise there would be no relief. The samskaras can be 'burnt' away through the practice of tapas, which is a form of meditative stress release, what Selye called 'eu-stress' - a stress that is curative or pleasant. I think people in the TMO got so obsessed with releasing stress that they forgot most of it wasn't negative in any way at all, like the people I meet who never do more exercise than asanas in case they create stress in themselves that they will only have to undo whilst meditating later. Maybe so. If the question is, does TM release strain? I would have to say sometimes, but it's in no way as good as it says on the tin and I doubt that just being stress/strain free is all it takes to get one enlightened, it's a nice thought and I fell for it too but you have to look at the mechanism involved here. TM meditation is NOT the cause of enlightemnet. TM meditation simply provides an *ideal* opportunity for the transcending. It is NOT the practice that brings the enlightenmnet - enlightenment is an already present state. Enlightenment is the dispelling of the illusion of the individual soul-monad. MMY claims that all stress/strain is a deviation from normal functioning and that TM will release it, trouble is you could be suffering anxiety from childhood trauma and the stress is caused by memory, hard-wired in. You may have confused the Marshy with L. Ron Hubbard, because this is almost an exact description of Scientology. But it is a fact that Scientology works: some people just feel better when they have someone to talk to. But, Marshy follows more closely the idea of meditation being a curative 'eu-stress', rather than a release of purely physical stress/strain. According to Selye, stress is the disruption of homeostasis. This can be through physical or psychological stimuli. This is where the yoga system leaves the modern psychologists far behind. There is so much more to the yoga system and its accepted doctrines, that it makes western psychiatry look like a Fisher-Price toy in comparison. Is TM going to change that in any way? I think not, the anxiety from strain like this will stick around, TM may reduce the symptoms but you need to delve inside and change the way you react to memories. I can't see how any amount of meditation will change you that much. Maybe so, but you wouldn't know it if you saw it, since enlightenment is an interiorized enstasis. But you would know it, just as surely as the Buddha knew it. You should know that, according to the Buddha Shakya, when he attained enlightenment he saw the entire realm of his own becoming; he saw the suffering he had experienced in so many previous births, and he KNEW that he would be reborn no more. He SAW and DISPELLED the illusion of the individual soul-monad. He was at that moment FREE - he realized that rebirth was no more. What he did NOT say was that he had obtained any supernornal powers or insights. He did NOT say that he could fly through the air or pass through walls. What he DID say was that he had seen the way out of the endless births and deaths; the sorrow, lamentation and grief. He DID say that there was a way. This sounds logical - if there was no way out, individuals would be forever possesed of an individual soul-monad, locked in a cycle of materialistic dualistic illusion. Which is another reason I think MMYs teaching can be dangerous, as they promise a cure for everything and
[FairfieldLife] Re: Vedic Pandit Update #8, 200 More Vedic Pandits Have Arrived
ok, campers ... place your bets: will 200 more pandits raise the dow jones back to 14,000? how soon, ya thing ... a month? three months? by November, when we vote?? ~~ Join me on Facebook: www.facebook.com/people/George_DeForest/653225293 ~~ Dick Mays wrote: There are now 800 Vedic Pandits here in Maharishi Vedic City and on the Maharishi University of Management campus -- only 250 away from our goal of 1050! This means that on some days there will now be 2000 in the evening and 1750 in the morning on the Invincible America Assembly, more than we have ever had, and enough to exceed the Super Radiance number of 1744 necessary to create an Invincible America.
[FairfieldLife] Re: And They're Off and Running...
Rick Archer wrote: Bhairitu, if you feel like running this a few times a week (or every day if you wish) and posting the results, it would be a nice service and I wouldn't count those posts towards your total. Bhairitu wrote: I can do that. The two Barry's could be the counters! They don't seem to have much to say about the mechanics of consciousness anyway. This is more their speed. Oh, this is great - add insult to injury by making Bharat2 the official 'counter of posts' on Fairfield Life. But Bharat2 is opposed to moderators putting a limit of the number of posts. Go figure. Now I can look forward to getting at least six or seven useless messages in my Yohoo! Mail every week telling me how many useless posts the other Barry has made! LOL! How many moderators does this forum have? I thought Alex was the official counter. Whose newsgroup is this, anyway? But to not count the Bharat2's posts, which are just more political propaganda? This is outrageous!!!
[FairfieldLife] 111 countries ban the use of cluster bombs, except Israel, Russia, China, India,
111 countries ban the use of cluster bombs, except Israel, Russia, China, India, Pakistan and the US A: http://youtube.com/watch?v=qGwMYEDDRTc http://youtube.com/watch?v=qGwMYEDDRTc OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shotokan Dominates
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Time for some people to eat sh!t. My man, Lyoto - humble Shotokan expert - hammers the UFC goon, Tito What are you crowing about? He had a nice takedown in the first round and a nice knee to the liver in the third round. He still can't finish a fight and spent 90 percent of it running away from Tito. It was one of the most boring fights I have seen. I repeat, he did not finish. He did not knock Tito out with a scary karate strike, and he couldn't finish him on the ground. He needs to learn how to finish a fight. Stop your obnoxious crowing about a guy who won a decision in a boring fight. He did manage to run away really really well for most of the fight though. Perhaps he should take up track and field? Ortiz. http://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=fighter.detailPID=519 http://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=fighter.detailPID=519 OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shanti Shanti - the Sanskrit Rock Group - Incredible - Wonderful TM family
Thank you Rick Archer for adding your personal insight to this dialogue. Let me add that the girls teach Sanskrit, including Mike Loves' Children amongst their students and they wrote a book: Learn Sanskrit in just 300 years. (You got to love that title.) They have taught Sanskrit at some universities here in California. They have a lot of Sanskrit chants and songs on their 5 CD's as well as some songs with English and Sanskrit. They are about to release a new CD with ALL Sanskrit songs without any English at all. This is based upon popular demand of their following, which includes many people in other movements who appreciate Sanskrit. Anyone else here have experiences with Shanti Shanti they wish to share? Let me mention that the parents worked at KSCI in Los Angeles in the early days of the movement before their children were born. You may not know them as Shanti Shanti but as the Foreman Family, Robert and Linda. I think it has been at least a decade since Shanti Shanti performed in Fairfield. Anyone there interested in hosting them? Anyone interested in arranging a tour? In my list of links I was amiss in failing to provide this which has three great videos of Shanti Shanti: http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=UJ-posN4vRcfeature=related Enjoy, Art Konrad --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 8:42 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shanti Shanti - the Sanskrit Rock Group - Incredible - Wonderful TM family --- In HYPERLINK mailto:FairfieldLife% 40yahoogroups.comFairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, artkonrad artkonrad@ wrote: HI TurquoiseB If you read the book, Dreaming in real Time it describes more fully how the girls got into Sanskrit. The mom was learning Ayurveda and later ran a facility in Sparks Nevada. She was not chanting and not playing any recordings of chants. The Ayurveda books were in English but showed the Sanskrit original. I am impressed by the fact that such arcane writings should fascinate anyone of that age. You are easily impressed. Most of the Sanskrit I heard in the samples was the TM puja and other common chants it would have been impossible *not* to hear growing up in a TM family, pronounced badly. I am not saying that you shouldn't have the ability to believe anything you want about this group and their P.R. blurb. I'm only saying that I don't. Thanks for posting the links. These girls haven't just picked up the puja and a few tidbits. They have achieved a high level of Sanskrit mastery. They can speak it conversationally and read the scriptures, understanding what they're reading. In high school, they used to wake up at 4am and perform Vedic fire ceremonies before school. Their uncle, Dan Teglia, is an old friend of mine. I met their parents when I stayed in their grandparents' house in Sparks,Nevada in 1977, before they were born. Even then, their parents were professional musicians and their mother was having profound spiritual experiences regularly.
[FairfieldLife] move the line a little please I need more time to win......Popular vote
THe Clinton machine is very tricky. The whole thing with this whole Michigan Florida issue was not just delegates. The real deal was to push the number up so Obama could not win from the three states that were left. Sunday, Jun. 01, 2008 Adwatch: Clinton popular vote claim debatable - The Associated PressTITLE: 17 Million LENGTH: 30 seconds AIRING: Montana and South Dakota SCRIPT: Announcer: Tuesday, it's up you. You can join over 17 million people who've voted for a leader to fix the economy. 17 million for a commander in chief to bring our troops home from Iraq. 17 million who want to beat John McCain. 17 million Americans have voted for Hillary Clinton. More than for any primary candidate in history. Some say there isn't a single reason for Hillary to be the Democratic nominee. They're right. There are over 17 million of them. Clinton: I'm Hillary Clinton and I approved this message. KEY IMAGES: The ad begins with video of individual Clinton supporters. It segues to Clinton with a factory worker, a rancher, a mother and child and with veterans. Larger crowds appear. The screen fills with the script: More Americans have voted for Hillary Clinton than anyone in primary history. It ends with Clinton scanning a crowd as she stands in front of the American flag. Advertisement '); //-- ANALYSIS: The popular vote has become Clinton's main argument to party leaders and elected officials who make up the dwindling supply of undecided superdelegates who will determine the nomination. Obama is within reach of securing the nomination this week, after Montana and South Dakota vote on Tuesday. Clinton's camp argues that while Obama leads among delegates allocated by the primary elections, she has won the popular vote. It's a debatable point. Clinton counts the results of Michigan, a state that until Saturday had been denied delegates because it jumped ahead of other states in violation of Democratic Party rules. Though Clinton was on the ballot, Obama withdrew his name from contention in that primary. Clinton received 328,309 votes in Michigan to none for Obama. Clinton's claim also includes estimates for caucuses in Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington state, where no official candidate popular vote is available. Obama won Iowa, Maine and Washington state. She also includes the results from Florida, where none of the Democratic presidential candidates campaigned in advance of its primary earlier this year because the Democratic Pary had declared its delegates ineligible. Clinton won more votes than Obama in Florida. Without Florida and Michigan in the count, Obama leads Clinton by nearly 450,000 votes in the combined popular vote in primaries and caucuses where delegates were at stake. Moreover, under Democratic Party rules, the popular vote does not determine who the nominee is; delegates do. On that count, Obama has 2,068 delegates, leaving him 50 shy of the number needed to secure the nomination, with two primaries remaining. Clinton has 1905.5, according to the latest tally by the AP. Analysis by Jim Kuhnhenn.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shanti Shanti - the Sanskrit Rock Group - Incredible - Wonderful TM family
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of artkonrad Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 10:14 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shanti Shanti - the Sanskrit Rock Group - Incredible - Wonderful TM family I think it has been at least a decade since Shanti Shanti performed in Fairfield. Anyone there interested in hosting them? Anyone interested in arranging a tour? They visited years ago, but I don’t think they ever really performed. I talked with Andrea a couple of years ago about setting up tour, but they wanted $6,000 up front, and I lost interest. Dean Draznin was talking about setting something up last spring, but that fell through. I’ll send something to the manager of the new convention center. That would be a great venue for them. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.4/1476 - Release Date: 5/31/2008 12:25 PM
[FairfieldLife] Re: move the line a little please I need more time to win......Popular vote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Louis McKenzie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: THe Clinton machine is very tricky. The whole thing with this whole Michigan Florida issue was not just delegates. The real deal was to push the number up so Obama could not win from the three states that were left. He couldn't have reached the magic number of delegates from those three primaries anyway, even before the number was pushed up. He was always going to have to reach it with superdelegates.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 111 countries ban the use of cluster bombs, except Israel, Russia, China, India,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 111 countries ban the use of cluster bombs, except Israel, Russia, China, India, Pakistan and the US A: http://youtube.com/watch?v=qGwMYEDDRTc http://youtube.com/watch?v=qGwMYEDDRTc OffWorld *** Cluster bombs are as legitimate as any other weapons when they are used against combatants. The problem is when cluster bomb, indiscriminate by nature, are used in civilian-rich areas, like Israel did in its latest incursion into Lebanon -- from an Israeli newspaper: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/789876.html
[FairfieldLife] India tops world murder count
Murder rate per capita not bad, but tops in no. of chalk outlines: NEW DELHI: India has earned the dubious distinction of being the country where maximum number of murders takes place in the world, three times more than its neighbour Pakistan and double the figures in United States. http://tinyurl.com/54ybfx
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shotokan Dominates
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Time for some people to eat sh!t. http://www.mmatko.com/wanderlei-silva-vs-keith-jardine-fight-video-ufc-84/ Watch this guy. He can finish a fight with striking. Notice the lack of him running away from his opponent. Instead, he finishes the guy with strikes. When Lyoto starts serving up some performances like this you can run the he's the greatest routine. PS please note the lack of a second or third round or the need to resort to a judge's decision due to lack of finishing the fight in the ring. My man, Lyoto - humble Shotokan expert - hammers the UFC goon, Tito Ortiz. http://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=fighter.detailPID=519 http://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=fighter.detailPID=519 OffWorld
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: move the line a little please I need more time to win......Popular vote
He needed 50 or so delegates 17 PR minimum + super D 10 + 10 = 37 well so it will actually come out to a little less this way maybe. She should see they will not give her the full PV from Michigan and Florida if any.For two reasons one he was not on the Ballot two the election is not based on Popular vote. In PR he let her have the Island she could only pull 232,000 so her argument is getting weak. His argument should be she is more of a competitve oponent then Johm McCain authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Louis McKenzie wrote: THe Clinton machine is very tricky. The whole thing with this whole Michigan Florida issue was not just delegates. The real deal was to push the number up so Obama could not win from the three states that were left. He couldn't have reached the magic number of delegates from those three primaries anyway, even before the number was pushed up. He was always going to have to reach it with superdelegates. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Look at me, I'm important! I know the Truth! (was Re: Shaken)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curtis wrote: But the problem here is that the most popular leader by the numbers who was felt to be an actual god on earth was Mao. Not sure I'm following you on this one; Mao was a materialist, but by the numbers, the historical Buddha would probably outnumber Mao in the millions in a popularity contest. Mao didn't believe in the 'gods' and Shakya by all accounts was a real historical person, not a 'god'. You are right about the numbers of Buddhists in history but I was talking about the numbers when he was alive who believed he was a god. Even as a materialist, Mao was believed by his followers to be a god on earth. [snip] Most traditions of enlightenment that I know about There is only one enlightenment tradition, This can't be true? There are a whole bunch of them right? and according to Mircea Eliade, this is the Yoga tradition of South Asia. We both can name a whole lot more, I don't understand your point. Mircea defined Yoga as introverted 'enstasis' and he found no evidence of this system in other cultures that he studied. including the Jesus cult, The 'Jesus' cult has nothing to do with the South Asian enlightenment tradition. The Jesus cult espouses the doctrine of atonement and bodily resurection, both of which are foreign to the enlightenmnet tradition. I was using him as an example of bad evidence being used as proof that he was special. make the case for the specialness of their enlightened leader using bad evidence and unsupported claims of miraculous goings on outside the ability to be evaluated carefully. Maybe so. But the enlightenment tradition has nothing to say about 'specialness' - enlightenment is the normal state, not a 'special state', and it is not concerned with any individual soul-monad. There is nothing normal about the magical claims concerning the type of knowledge claimed about these states. Or the magical abilities. Enlightement consists solely in *dispelling* the illusion that there are individual soul-monads. Enlightenment is beyond mundane knowledge, enlightenment is not a mere knowing of things and events. I understand that this is part of your belief system. Richard, you have been serving up some really interesting detailed posts and it is appreciated. Work cited: 'Yoga : Immortality and Freedom' by Mircea Eliade Princeton University Press, 1970 Other titles of interst: 'Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy' by Mircea Eliade Princeton University Press; 2004 'The Yoga Tradition: Its History, Literature, Philosophy and Practice' by Georg Feuerstein, Ken Wilbur Hohm Press, 2001
