[FairfieldLife] Re: TM puja is religious, as are other elements of TM practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, amritasyaputra amritasyapu...@... wrote: No, it is not religious. As far as I can tell, the bottom line of this Is TM a religion argument is that people are just continuing to think WHAT THEY WERE TOLD TO THINK. If Maharishi had followed some of his early followers' advice and set up the teaching of TM as a religion, THESE SAME PEOPLE would be appearing as witnesses in the Scientology-like court cases that would have been brought to prove that the teaching of TM was *not* a religion. And THESE SAME PEOPLE would be swearing under oath that it WAS a religion. Why don't we stop these silly debates and just call *both* Scientology and the TMO what they are -- businesses?
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'If Maharishi Wasn't Enlightened, then who is?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_re...@... wrote: Seriously, I would like to hear each person's definition in one or two sentences please. (we already know Vaj is going to inscrutably say And Sal is going to say A good BLT sandwich ...but what is the definition from the rest of you? Enlightenment -- a fluid, everchanging subjective state of mind that has no qualities or attributes except what the claimant of having attained it claims it has, and no benefits for the claimant or society other than what the claimant says it has. The only important thing is that other people must view the person who has claimed enlightenment as somehow special and better than they are. See 'unicorn,' and 'UFO sightings.' All in all, a BLT is more nourishing and better for you, and cheaper. -- The Dictionary of Cutting Through The Bullshit, Get Real Press, 33rd. edition.
[FairfieldLife] Maharishi's definition of praaNa?
I don't have an English copy of SBAL, but having read it about 30 years ago, I seem to recall Maharishi's definition of praaNa[1] was *something like*: Prana is the tendency of Being to vibrate. On the basis of the Finnish translation that might be quite close to his actual definition. 1 an = breathe; pra-an =~ pro-breathe?? :D
[FairfieldLife] Re: Oh, how intelligent he is!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote: Why does everyone always go out of their way to mention how intelligent Obama is? I find it racist, don't you? When I hear people say that, what I really hear is: How surprising to have an articulate Negro who sounds as intelligent as White people. Wasn't his mother Caucasian, and about as pale as, say, Conan O'Brien? In my understanding, some Blacks think Obama is not black enough...
[FairfieldLife] More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Seriously, I would like to hear each person's definition in one or two sentences please. (we already know Vaj is going to inscrutably say And Sal is going to say A good BLT sandwich ...but what is the definition from the rest of you? Enlightenment -- a fluid, everchanging subjective state of mind that has no qualities or attributes except what the claimant of having attained it claims it has, and no benefits for the claimant or society other than what the claimant says it has. The only important thing is that other people must view the person who has claimed enlightenment as somehow special and better than they are. See 'unicorn,' and 'UFO sightings.' All in all, a BLT is more nourishing and better for you, and cheaper. -- The Dictionary of Cutting Through The Bullshit, Get Real Press, 33rd. edition. MORE DEFINITIONS OF ENLIGHTENMENT The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi definition Enlightenment is exactly as I described it over the years, and it's the same for everyone. It's a steady progression through the states of CC, GC, UC and BC to complete fulfillment. When one reaches that state of full enlightenment, one is able to manifest all of the siddhis and levitate, as I do, and bring all of one's ideas to perfect completion, as I did with Vedaland and so many other projects. That'll be a million dollars, please. The Dumb Blonde definition Enlightenment is what I say it is. Anyone who says anything different is WRONG, and is just a monkey-mind chattering away. And I know this to be true because my TM initiator, What's-his-name, said so back when I first learned TM, back in Wherever-it-was-ville. The Vaj definition Enlightenment is what the people I consider enlightened say it is. And it is ONLY what the people I consider enlightened say it is. So there. :-) The TMO definition Enlightenment is the inevitable result of practicing the TM technique, which is the fastest, easiest, most effective means of attaining enlightenment ever seen on planet Earth. This can be verified by doing scientific tests on all the people we have certified as being fully enlightened over the 53 years of our teaching. Come back a week from some Thursday and we will provide you with a list of their names. Turq's definition Enlightenment is something that people who (on the whole) have never experienced it like to talk about as if they knew exactly what it was. In general, the more they talk about it as if they know exactly what it is, the less likelihood there is that they have ever had even a fleeting experience of it. Those who *have* had a fleeting experience of what they consider enlighten- ment to be are basically saying that their subjective experience -- whatever it might have been really -- is synonymous with enlightenment because *they* had the experience, and they are so important that if *they* had that experience, it *must* be cool and valuable and special, because *they* are cool and valuable and special. People talk about enlightenment in the same way they talk about unicorns -- they claim to know *exactly* what the unicorn of enlightenment looks like, but can't show you any unicorns so that you can verify that what they are describing is true. You're just supposed to take their word for it that the unicorn they are describing is really enlightenment, because they said it, and they're so special. (On the whole, there is more agreement about what unicorns look like than about what enlightenment looks like.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: So
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptyb...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: But only if you're buying me really fine Bourbon Bourbon IS my ishta, and by now it probably is a good part of my elements. I inherited this taste from my family. So do you put Woodford Reserve in the mix or consider it too commercial? By the way, Ishta-devata means a chosen or favored deity, as in favoring the mantra during meditation - when thoughts are dominating. Thus, interesting to note, unless you are a Ishta-mantrika AND a Bourbonist this would not make sense. On a side note, unless I'm deluded, Vaj would not understand. I don't think he would understand qualifiers such as unless I'm deluded. He seems fuelled by presumption, not Bourbon.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Score One For TM?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: Richard said: Let's say that he IS. That you appear to think that that should make a difference seems to me to betray an odd attitude to scientific method and research. Not really. Bias is a big issue and arguably most everyone has some degree of bias. Science needs to be the search for knowledge, not the quest to prove something is true. If you are a true believer meditator you may be on a quest to prove something is true. This may blind you to errors you make in the process, sampling errors, procedure errors, methodological errors, etc. Bias is pervasive because we want to confirm what we believe. Even the choice to study something can be the result of bias. Completely disagree! (Not so much in what you say, but in the significance of it). I think you have in the back of your mind the archetype of the disinterested, unbiased, passive observer in a white coat. It's an attitude infected with subjectivism. Oh horror! On the contrary Science is based on an ethic exactly OPPOSED to this which says: We don't care who thought up this conjecture; we don't care how they arrived at it; we don't care whether their heart is pure or whether they are paid by the Devil; we don't care whether they went to the right school, or belong to a special priesthood with the right type and fit of white coat. All we care about is this: What is the rationale and evidence for the conjecture? And are we prepared to follow the evidence whichever way that leads? Bias and motivation are in our heads. Evidence and knowledge are in the public domain. Are there so many pilot studies on TM because it is a promising technique to improve health? Or is it because the TMO promotes it as improving health? After all, there may be better techniques that are not getting the same research dollars. The latest ADH research was TMO sponsored research. It was worse than poor. In this case, the results of biases were easy to identify. In other cases it can be difficult because we don't have access to every step of the process. Lawson, the same goes for buddhist meditators as TM meditators. They need to examine and understand their own biases and we need to as well. Richard said: If you DO believe in research, then the truth lies in the data and the methodology. Nothing else matters. On the other hand, if you think that it is essential, or crucial, to take into account the beliefs of the authors (and consider who their paymasters are), then why do you set such store by Science? You seem to have no faith in the method! The method is what we have. It has weaknesses that we need to recognize. Errors occur all the time. Remembering that we don't prove anyhting but only look at probabilities and potentials is important. Over time, we develop knowledge. Over time, our knowledge changes. (BTW, how did you rate the research quality of the Tai Chi study you alluded to before and with which you are obviously impressed? Can you link to it? Did you check whether the researchers did Tai Chi themselves? ;-) ) I haven't read BP research for a long time, that is why in the previous sentence to the Tai chi reference I said other technqiues MAY have the same or more significant effect than TM. I am comfortable with the research on some drugs (like diuretics), on low fat/low salt diets and on exercise as improving BP. There is so much out there on those issues, the efects are very signficant, and the work has been done by many different researchers, that my comfort level is high. But everthing is just a matter of probabilities.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'If Maharishi Wasn't Enlightened, then who is?'
Perhaps a better queation is, 'why seek enlightenment'? Are there not different, equivalent states more desirable? Is there a state with many of the qualities of perceived enlightenment without the burdens that enlightenment may have? Can you name one enlightened public figure who didn't suffer more than many who have lived long, rich lives? Healthy body, mind, emotions, soul is not as desirable? Loving oneself deeply as well as others to fitting degrees, isn't that enough? Does 'more' enter the question? Would you trade your most wonderful moments if they continued, for an enlightenment 'mystery'? Is there even a question? Arhata --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, off_world_beings no_re...@.. . wrote: Seriously, I would like to hear each person's definition in one or two sentences please. (we already know Vaj is going to inscrutably say And Sal is going to say A good BLT sandwich ...but what is the definition from the rest of you? Enlightenment -- a fluid, everchanging subjective state of mind that has no qualities or attributes except what the claimant of having attained it claims it has, and no benefits for the claimant or society other than what the claimant says it has. The only important thing is that other people must view the person who has claimed enlightenment as somehow special and better than they are. See 'unicorn,' and 'UFO sightings.' All in all, a BLT is more nourishing and better for you, and cheaper. -- The Dictionary of Cutting Through The Bullshit, Get Real Press, 33rd. edition.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM puja is religious, as are other elements of TM practice
Hari Om Barry. You just can't club TM and scientiology to gether. TM is a scientific technique. Scientiology is just mumbo jumbo cult. Click below the see Barry's religion. http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=L_XFMCgeI7c --- TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM puja is religious, as are other elements of TM practice Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 12:36 AM As far as I can tell, the bottom line of this Is TM a religion argument is that people are just continuing to think WHAT THEY WERE TOLD TO THINK. If Maharishi had followed some of his early followers' advice and set up the teaching of TM as a religion, THESE SAME PEOPLE would be appearing as witnesses in the Scientology- like court cases that would have been brought to prove that the teaching of TM was *not* a religion. And THESE SAME PEOPLE would be swearing under oath that it WAS a religion. Why don't we stop these silly debates and just call *both* Scientology and the TMO what they are -- businesses? - amritasyaputra amritasyaputra@ ... wrote: No, it is not religious.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM puja is religious, as are other elements of TM practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_sp...@... wrote: Hari Om Barry. You just can't club TM and scientiology to gether. TM is a scientific technique. Scientiology is just mumbo jumbo cult. Click below the see Barry's religion. http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=L_XFMCgeI7c Click below to see Jason's: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/206110 I rest my case. --- TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM puja is religious, as are other elements of TM practice Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 12:36 AM As far as I can tell, the bottom line of this Is TM a religion argument is that people are just continuing to think WHAT THEY WERE TOLD TO THINK. If Maharishi had followed some of his early followers' advice and set up the teaching of TM as a religion, THESE SAME PEOPLE would be appearing as witnesses in the Scientology- like court cases that would have been brought to prove that the teaching of TM was *not* a religion. And THESE SAME PEOPLE would be swearing under oath that it WAS a religion. Why don't we stop these silly debates and just call *both* Scientology and the TMO what they are -- businesses? - amritasyaputra amritasyaputra@ ... wrote: No, it is not religious.
[FairfieldLife] David Gilmour - Red Sky At Night
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJEBN2nH9ds
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM puja is religious, as are other elements of TM practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: The word 'puja' either means 'preparing for purifying', or 'the birth (begining) of the purifying life' . That is its ACTUAL meaning. OffWorld Sorry Off, but I think that's a bit like claiming, for instance, that 'purpose' is equivalent to 'poor pose' You need to check your sanskrit. 'Pu' is 'purifying'; cleansing. 'Ja' is 'born' or 'beginning'. OffWorld ROTFLMFFLOFFOLLOWMAOi! ;D
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM puja is religious, as are other elements of TM practice
On Jan 27, 2009, at 8:22 AM, cardemaister wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: The word 'puja' either means 'preparing for purifying', or 'the birth (begining) of the purifying life' . That is its ACTUAL meaning. OffWorld Sorry Off, but I think that's a bit like claiming, for instance, that 'purpose' is equivalent to 'poor pose' You need to check your sanskrit. 'Pu' is 'purifying'; cleansing. 'Ja' is 'born' or 'beginning'. OffWorld ROTFLMFFLOFFOLLOWMAOi! ;D That's it! I'm not going to bathe anymore, I'm going to Pu Ju! It's a scientific procedure, so I'm not worried.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM puja is religious, as are other elements of TM practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: The word 'puja' either means 'preparing for purifying', or 'the birth (begining) of the purifying life' . That is its ACTUAL meaning. OffWorld Sorry Off, but I think that's a bit like claiming, for instance, that 'purpose' is equivalent to 'poor pose' You need to check your sanskrit. 'Pu' is 'purifying'; cleansing. 'Ja' is 'born' or 'beginning'. OffWorld ROTFLMFFLOFFOLLOWMAOi! ;D Just occurred to me, 'purohitam' in 'agnim iile pu-ro-hit-am' prolly means something like '(I) am hit by a purifying (pu) raw (ro)'
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: So
Thanks again for the warmest of welcomes. I like most all Bourbons. I pretty much stop at Turkey though. And I will drink Maker's if available and not need to search any higher. I was drinking Eagle Rare last night. I drank their whole bottle at one venue. I think then we had Woodford's so I like them all pretty much. ...things down South are well... Everyday here is like Angel Heart or Johnny Handsome. Kudos to Mickey Rourke for his movie The Wrestler, and then mini-comeback. Well, there's a certain mystique here in Louisiana, which makes it the birthing ground for some of the more compelling romances - such as Benjamin Buttons. Which is a pretty intense flick. The mystique is healing but also unhealthy. I'm not sure I can make any sense of it to anybody. But at least it feels like living. I'm not sure I had ever really lived before I moved here. It took me a very long time to reintegrate into society after four years at MIU.
[FairfieldLife] Re: So
The mystique is healing but also unhealthy. What the hell do you mean by that.?? Do you make cakes without sugar.? Sugar substitutes like Sucralose.? --- On Tue, 1/27/09, Kirk kirk_bernha...@cox.net wrote: Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: So Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 5:41 AM Thanks again for the warmest of welcomes. I like most all Bourbons. I pretty much stop at Turkey though. And I will drink Maker's if available and not need to search any higher. I was drinking Eagle Rare last night. I drank their whole bottle at one venue. I think then we had Woodford's so I like them all pretty much. ...things down South are well... Everyday here is like Angel Heart or Johnny Handsome. Kudos to Mickey Rourke for his movie The Wrestler, and then mini-comeback. Well, there's a certain mystique here in Louisiana, which makes it the birthing ground for some of the more compelling romances - such as Benjamin Buttons. Which is a pretty intense flick. The mystique is healing but also unhealthy. I'm not sure I can make any sense of it to anybody. But at least it feels like living. I'm not sure I had ever really lived before I moved here. It took me a very long time to reintegrate into society after four years at MIU. *
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Mahasamadhi Anniversary Ceremony in Allahabad, India 1/24/09 --
On Jan 26, 2009, at 11:50 PM, sparaig wrote: On Jan 26, 2009, at 8:01 PM, Dick Mays wrote: This is Maharishi's house at the Maharishi Ashram in Allahabad. The gentleman seated to the left of the cameraman, and in the third picture is Maharishi's brother. I met him on the Vedic Science course years ago. He was very friendly and happy. After a few minutes conversation, I asked him what it was like to be Maharishi's brother and he just laughed and said, It's very good!. I'll bet. Sal Yeah, those greedy 97-year-olds. They take and take and take and take It's good to be the king, spare. MMY's brother really is 97? Impressive. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: So
Well, what brings alot of people here is the laissez les bon temps roulez, vibe which is really cool. But then one starts to view all of life as one big party, and that's certainly not healthy. We can't have that. It's just not right, there's lots of work to do and so onmeditate...practiceand it gets harder and harder...without a drink in ones blood...ayurveda, I believe says alcoholism stems from dietary depletion or something like thatwell, being a chef is like always dealing with all your worst enemies constantly...so it could be just me except for the fact that everybody parties or went through recovery hereand I mean everybody. Or they lie. So it's even related almost to the sugar analogy Jason. Almost all together like that. - Original Message - From: Jason To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 8:04 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: So The mystique is healing but also unhealthy. What the hell do you mean by that.?? Do you make cakes without sugar.? Sugar substitutes like Sucralose.? --- On Tue, 1/27/09, Kirk kirk_bernha...@cox.net wrote: Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: So Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 5:41 AM Thanks again for the warmest of welcomes. I like most all Bourbons. I pretty much stop at Turkey though. And I will drink Maker's if available and not need to search any higher. I was drinking Eagle Rare last night. I drank their whole bottle at one venue. I think then we had Woodford's so I like them all pretty much. ...things down South are well... Everyday here is like Angel Heart or Johnny Handsome. Kudos to Mickey Rourke for his movie The Wrestler, and then mini-comeback. Well, there's a certain mystique here in Louisiana, which makes it the birthing ground for some of the more compelling romances - such as Benjamin Buttons. Which is a pretty intense flick. The mystique is healing but also unhealthy. I'm not sure I can make any sense of it to anybody. But at least it feels like living. I'm not sure I had ever really lived before I moved here. It took me a very long time to reintegrate into society after four years at MIU. *
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Stanley 1970 Holy Tradition MP3?
Geeze, now I've let the cat out of the bag. The audio tape of the puja is somewhere around here. Seems I saw it the other year when I was moving. If not, then, yikes, it's in a storage unit in California. Got boxes I haven't opened in years in the basement. And, I'm interested myself now that four folks have pogosticked about them. Hmmm, while you folks are waiting to see if I'll find it, maybe you could share with us why this piece of history has pronged ya suchly. The SCI tapes about biology and ? er, physics? chemistry? are in the storage unit, so they're not going to be sought until I am in CA again -- no date set right now. I can't remember exactly what Maharishi said on the tapes, but I remember being shocked at how uneducated he came off. Maybe if I see them again, I'll have quite a differing take, but I'd predict that if anything, I'll be even more chagrined that I didn't use these tapes as my reason to dig in my heels and say, Why am I listening to this BUSINESS MAN? I don't think the biology tape had Maharishi talking about the two nervous systems. Maybe, but I remember, at that time, that I thought the idea of two nervous systems was pretty cool, so if that's on that tape, I'll be surprised. I was shocked and ashamed during and after when I played that tape to my SCI class. I have a stronger grasp of these sciences than most folks, and I don't know how MMY came off to the less educated, but to me it was an emperor's new clothes kinda revelation. Yet, I stayed with the TMO for another 25 years. You're reading words right now from a person who can deny anything. I should be studied in a laboratory. Maybe such a looksee might find some DNA bit that causes this; call it the blinkers gene. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: In 1971 Majorca, Maharishi did a puja for all of us to watch after we'd been studying the puja words for a few weeks. Get this: during the puja -- Maharishi lost his place! The whole crowd knew it, held its breath, and then when Maharishi caught himself he got back to the right spot, but the crowd laughed aloud despite itself. So screw Rick Stanley's version -- ask me for my AUDIO RECORDING of that very puja! I still have it! For decades I never told anyone I'd recorded it, because the tape would have been taken from me -- or later, my badge would be taken for having contraband. Hey, I also have copies of the SCI tapes that they told us to destroy or send back -- and talk about whacky science by MMY -- even my true believer mind was shocked by those two tapes. I figure to put these on eBay and make a killing! Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anaand108 anaand108@ wrote: Hi - does anyone have an MP3 of Rick Stanley singing The Holy Tradition from 1970 - that they could either email me or post? thanks!
[FairfieldLife] Philosophy of All Goodness
So it has been said that all life and even death are all good as even having the benefit of either is itself just as good as anything could be. Life itself has natural goodness, and we feel it, in everything. We desire as based in our distractions forgetting the essential unity of goodness that even resides in just residing as oneself without any tampering. If one has realized this all goodness then they sense less that needs to be done. Now is that good or bad? I still feel like talking about this, so I'll continue. It would have been better to pause for effect and let the question sink in, but I prefer this distraction of writing, it's something I missed, the distraction of writing while considering this considerable audience, the consideration of which itself is mind expanding to me. All Goodness Shri Devi Dakiniyana Sun Just saying those terms makes me feel good. They don't have the same meanings, those systems and things. Somehow interrelated as Orgyen is found in the inner tripura of Shri Vidya. Of this thing I am probably really not allowed to talk. I really am probably not allowed to talk about these things here or anywhere actually. But then who am I fooling? All of this is for life itself - the qualities of which we contemplate - our very world is the body of Shri, the basis of all qualities, whatever that means, which is determined through ones practice, or not, myself just japa, mainly, Buddhist All goodness itself cannot have an intellectual meaning as for this understanding to exist it must occur prior to thought, it therefore relys upon a key of mental turning derived from ones tradition. As a Buddhist I really am not allowed to discuss other traditions such as Shri Vidya, also especially as I have not had full diksha, even if I have some small connection to a couple lineages in that but I consider that what many of us through TM had experienced and still do is the instantly self refreshing nature of pure primordial Shakti thus we have been graced with Shri Devi already as much as we could take probably, I feel I could just dive in and lose myself and never come back except that there's no diver, no diving, and no back or forth having considered that there is no conception that will stick in the mind, thus, this is it! There is simply nothing more to be done. So this was for myself a sort of meditation or reminder for my forgetfulness, I feel, I also feel like meditating now so I will let you all go for a moment
[FairfieldLife] What happens in meat . . . (Re: Maharishi and life after death)
curtisdeltablues wrote: For me I can't get past the assumption that the silence we feel in meditation is more than what it appears to be, the mind being attentive to being more silent. [snip] But I'm not ready to make any assumptions about its benefits. It just might be a thing our mind can do that is pleasurable and means absolutely nothing. Yep. Totally agree, but I still have a philosophical itch that only Advaita can scratch, so, you know, I can't keep my mind off it like it's a bad case of psychic-athlete's foot. Feels so good to rub it. I do have the meat-robot concept to keep me from going coo-coo with denial again. I can believe any and all manner of experiences are possible, but I am sobered by the thought that what happens in meat, stays in meat. Any experience is just that: a processing of a physical nervous system that will some day die and there goes EVERYTHING. Store not your treasure where moth and rust doth corrupt means don't flow Identity into a process that is certain to evolve beyond its meme. To me, dead is dead, and only the Absolute can possibly be a way for the universe to be some sort of Brahma's Cosmic Holodeck. I don't believe there's a God out there, but I do believe there's a God in here -- a God that dies, but one that I honor -- it's that aspect of my functioning that obeys the golden rules and slaps me upside da haid when I'm violating one of my axioms. Seems godly enough for my needs! Hee hee. On the wish it were true list is this notion that all of our nervous systems are transistors in creation's central processing unit -- all connected by quantum tunneling with infinite correlation that's refreshed at the speed of thought. Ah, I love that concept as it goes through my meat! Help! Edg
[FairfieldLife] Monkeys vs Meat (Re: Mantras, Religion and finally a statement . . .)
Enlightened_dawn11, In all sincerity I ask: Do you resonate with my concept of meat robot? My phrase yucks-out some here, and I don't blame them. But, it's my way of keeping the harsh in Maharishisms. Sobers me. That said, get this, I am rubbed the wrong way with your use of monkey this and monkey that, because, well, at least monkeys are true to their axioms whereas everyone knows you can't trust a meat-robot to keep its truths unsullied. I saw this nature program called Clever Monkeys. If you get a chance to see it, drop everything and do so. Them critters are freakin' amazing. Some monkeys speak a dozen or so other monkey-species' languages. Can your meat-robot do that? There's area in the jungle where a dozen different monkey species will have a United Nations thingie going and cooperate with each other on all sorts of meta-levels. I was totally floored at the sheer beauty of their civilization. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: congratulations o king of monkeys! having chattered on again about something you know almost nothing about, tonight i will grant you three plump bananas! chatter away, my little monkey! chattering is what you do- chatter, chatter, chatter...speak o monkey and let me know how long it has been since you did TM, and how wise a monkey you have become since, about ALL things, for i can tell, you are a wise little monkey king! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: Hi Billy Jim: On Jan 26, 2009, at 6:05 PM, billy jim wrote: Recently I have read here on FFL an argument professed by some former TM'ers who stopped practicing because they claimed they were deceived about the meaning of mantras. Their fundamental claim is that a mantra is the name of a Hindu god. You might want to reread those claims. These aren't names per se, but seed-forms of nicknames of Goddesses or Gods. Code-words, if you will. To use a previous example, Shri is not the name of Laxmi, Shri is a nickname or epithet of Laxmi. This is a crucial distinction. The claim is that a mantra, by definition, encapsulates a method for worshiping a Hindu god but that this fact is withheld from practitioners. No! It does not withhold any sort of method at all. It only withholds a meaning. Within the domain of this argument, these claimants will often quote some text from a Hindu Tantra. These are passages usually assigning a particular deity to a particular mantra and sometimes even assigning a set of deities to each of the Sanskrit letters composing the written forms of the mantric sound. This textual assignment is sometimes done haphazardly and occasionally is done in the Vedic format of rishi-deva-chhanda. Again, wrong. They are done in the TANTRIC format. This is only related to the Vedic sense in that the prior tantric forms, at a certain point in history, reached a certain symbiosis with the invading Vedic ideals. But the fact is, the tantric forms of mantra- shastra existed BEFORE the Vedic adaptations, not vice versa as you attempt. This would include the broader tantric interpretation of rishi-devata-chhandas-svara-prayoga, etc. etc. Along with the quoted Tantric text is sometimes a statement by MMY, declaring that a mantra is a sound whose effect is known. This argument quotes the TMO claim that a mantra is used in TM for the beneficial effects it produces in causing the spontaneous refinement of perception. This explanation is then paraded as an example of shameful exploitation of Western ignorance of the Hindu foundation of TM and of any other Indian meditation that does not confess itself as a form of Hindu devotionalism. This devotionalist criticism is further paraded by pointing to various Indian swamis and cross-eyed yogis who make these same claims and arguments themselves. Not sure what to think of this. It sounds like you're upset about some supposition you've made, in your mind. I'll leave that to your mind, your experience and your (evolving) knowledge to work it out. Some considerations about these claims: SBS taught in India. MMY began teaching in India before coming to the West. They both taught within the context of the Indian Hindu cultural model. Although they taught in India, where there are many Muslims, they did not present their teaching within a Muslim cultural model. Although Buddhism is from India and many Indian consider Buddha one of their own, neither SBS nor MMY taught within a Buddhist cultural model. Rather, they taught within the cultural context of their listeners. OK After coming to the West, MMY continued speaking and teaching within a similar Indian
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Stanley 1970 Holy Tradition MP3?
Edg, I would like to discuss the SCI tapes with you. I can't figure out how get an email directly to you, so I'd be grateful if you would write to me at at_man_and_brahmanATsbcglobal.net Please! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: Geeze, now I've let the cat out of the bag. The audio tape of the puja is somewhere around here. Seems I saw it the other year when I was moving. If not, then, yikes, it's in a storage unit in California. Got boxes I haven't opened in years in the basement. And, I'm interested myself now that four folks have pogosticked about them. Hmmm, while you folks are waiting to see if I'll find it, maybe you could share with us why this piece of history has pronged ya suchly. The SCI tapes about biology and ? er, physics? chemistry? are in the storage unit, so they're not going to be sought until I am in CA again -- no date set right now. I can't remember exactly what Maharishi said on the tapes, but I remember being shocked at how uneducated he came off. Maybe if I see them again, I'll have quite a differing take, but I'd predict that if anything, I'll be even more chagrined that I didn't use these tapes as my reason to dig in my heels and say, Why am I listening to this BUSINESS MAN? I don't think the biology tape had Maharishi talking about the two nervous systems. Maybe, but I remember, at that time, that I thought the idea of two nervous systems was pretty cool, so if that's on that tape, I'll be surprised. I was shocked and ashamed during and after when I played that tape to my SCI class. I have a stronger grasp of these sciences than most folks, and I don't know how MMY came off to the less educated, but to me it was an emperor's new clothes kinda revelation. Yet, I stayed with the TMO for another 25 years. You're reading words right now from a person who can deny anything. I should be studied in a laboratory. Maybe such a looksee might find some DNA bit that causes this; call it the blinkers gene. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: In 1971 Majorca, Maharishi did a puja for all of us to watch after we'd been studying the puja words for a few weeks. Get this: during the puja -- Maharishi lost his place! The whole crowd knew it, held its breath, and then when Maharishi caught himself he got back to the right spot, but the crowd laughed aloud despite itself. So screw Rick Stanley's version -- ask me for my AUDIO RECORDING of that very puja! I still have it! For decades I never told anyone I'd recorded it, because the tape would have been taken from me -- or later, my badge would be taken for having contraband. Hey, I also have copies of the SCI tapes that they told us to destroy or send back -- and talk about whacky science by MMY -- even my true believer mind was shocked by those two tapes. I figure to put these on eBay and make a killing! Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anaand108 anaand108@ wrote: Hi - does anyone have an MP3 of Rick Stanley singing The Holy Tradition from 1970 - that they could either email me or post? thanks!
[FairfieldLife] Monkeys vs Meat (Re: Mantras, Religion and finally a statement . . .)
i said before that i love monkeys, that i find them furry, cuddly and cute. they also chatter incessantly, and when applying their behavior to some few of those on this forum who insist on chattering about topics they know little or nothing about, the comparison is apt. to use another anology, let's imagine a group of full time pilots sitting around, discussing how best to fly a plane. and let's imagine another group, of ex-pilots, and occasional pilots, and non- pilots, joining the first group, and the second group of wannabees loudly proclaiming their opinions about all things aeronautical to the group of full time pilots. don't you think the wannabees would look like a chattering bunch of monkeys to the full time pilots? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: Enlightened_dawn11, In all sincerity I ask: Do you resonate with my concept of meat robot? My phrase yucks-out some here, and I don't blame them. But, it's my way of keeping the harsh in Maharishisms. Sobers me. That said, get this, I am rubbed the wrong way with your use of monkey this and monkey that, because, well, at least monkeys are true to their axioms whereas everyone knows you can't trust a meat-robot to keep its truths unsullied. I saw this nature program called Clever Monkeys. If you get a chance to see it, drop everything and do so. Them critters are freakin' amazing. Some monkeys speak a dozen or so other monkey-species' languages. Can your meat-robot do that? There's area in the jungle where a dozen different monkey species will have a United Nations thingie going and cooperate with each other on all sorts of meta-levels. I was totally floored at the sheer beauty of their civilization. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: congratulations o king of monkeys! having chattered on again about something you know almost nothing about, tonight i will grant you three plump bananas! chatter away, my little monkey! chattering is what you do- chatter, chatter, chatter...speak o monkey and let me know how long it has been since you did TM, and how wise a monkey you have become since, about ALL things, for i can tell, you are a wise little monkey king! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: Hi Billy Jim: On Jan 26, 2009, at 6:05 PM, billy jim wrote: Recently I have read here on FFL an argument professed by some former TM'ers who stopped practicing because they claimed they were deceived about the meaning of mantras. Their fundamental claim is that a mantra is the name of a Hindu god. You might want to reread those claims. These aren't names per se, but seed-forms of nicknames of Goddesses or Gods. Code-words, if you will. To use a previous example, Shri is not the name of Laxmi, Shri is a nickname or epithet of Laxmi. This is a crucial distinction. The claim is that a mantra, by definition, encapsulates a method for worshiping a Hindu god but that this fact is withheld from practitioners. No! It does not withhold any sort of method at all. It only withholds a meaning. Within the domain of this argument, these claimants will often quote some text from a Hindu Tantra. These are passages usually assigning a particular deity to a particular mantra and sometimes even assigning a set of deities to each of the Sanskrit letters composing the written forms of the mantric sound. This textual assignment is sometimes done haphazardly and occasionally is done in the Vedic format of rishi-deva-chhanda. Again, wrong. They are done in the TANTRIC format. This is only related to the Vedic sense in that the prior tantric forms, at a certain point in history, reached a certain symbiosis with the invading Vedic ideals. But the fact is, the tantric forms of mantra- shastra existed BEFORE the Vedic adaptations, not vice versa as you attempt. This would include the broader tantric interpretation of rishi-devata-chhandas-svara-prayoga, etc. etc. Along with the quoted Tantric text is sometimes a statement by MMY, declaring that a mantra is a sound whose effect is known. This argument quotes the TMO claim that a mantra is used in TM for the beneficial effects it produces in causing the spontaneous refinement of perception. This explanation is then paraded as an example of shameful exploitation of Western ignorance of the Hindu foundation of TM and of any other Indian meditation that does not confess itself as a form of Hindu devotionalism. This devotionalist criticism is further paraded by pointing to various Indian swamis and cross-eyed yogis who make these same claims
[FairfieldLife] Re: Oh, how intelligent he is!
I think both camps are correct - it's based on contrast. My nephew, who happens to be bi-racial, like Obama is often told during job interviews that he speaks so well!. He takes that comment as a shock that he isn't using Ebonics. The expectation that an African American might speak differently exists because people have experienced people of color who do speak in a distinct manner - the way all subcultures do. So the contrast surprises them. In the case of Obama; the contrast between the countrified, colloquial manner in which Bush speaks (cowboy talk) and the precise and eloquent manner in which Obama speaks(a Harvard man)is noticeable to many people - providing a surprising contrast and sense of relief actually. Bush's style of speaking may have caused people to misunderestimate his intellect. I think this is due, in part, to not being a reader.
[FairfieldLife] Evil fiddler vs Evil fumbler (Re: Oh, how intelligent he is!)
It is such a bitter note that Bill Clinton, who was a Rhodes Scholar fer crissakes, still fiddled while hundreds of thousands of women and babies were hacked to death by assassins hired by the Chinese. So much for I.Q. If Bush had had a heart, I wouldn't care nearly so much that he was relatively stupid. Clinton's intelligence only serves to further justify a dark decree about the nature of his heart, his immorality. He knew he was sinning by omission. On his watch, in the entire history of the world, genocide was never more easy to see or to stop in its tracks. He saw and did nothing. Whatever he did good was counterbalanced by this sin. Obama walks his talk -- so far. There's hundreds of campaign promises yet to keep. I'm watchin'! He's got to tip toe through the mine fields, and I won't look too closely at which mine he deactivates first, but he'd better eventually get to almost all of them. Here's my reason to have patience with Obama: Most of us are awed by Obama's swift and detailed actions to undo the Bush shit. But don't miss the fact that Bush was surrounded by evil--hyper-intelligent advisers who JUST AS RAPIDLY AND WITH JUST AS THOROUGHLY WORKED NIGHT AND DAY for eight fucking years to put every sort of miscreant into bureaucracies, issue every sort of signing statement, issue every sort of executive order, slow down every life-supporting process, etc. etc. etc. etc. Think of Obama's task. He has to identify all of Bush's muddy footprints on the Declaration of Independence -- how much energy, time etc. is Obama using to do this instead of, you know, being able to direct his attention upon life-supporting processes? In fact, it seems that Obama has TWICE the presidential workload. I fear for his mind as it boggles by the second and will do so for the foreseeable future. If I was a believer, I'd be praying for him. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Jan 26, 2009, at 8:33 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: Why does everyone always go out of their way to mention how intelligent Obama is? I find it racist, don't you? When I hear people say that, what I really hear is: How surprising to have an articulate Negro who sounds as intelligent as White people. And, of course, it's only liberals who say it. Bill Clinton is one of the most intelligent people around. I NEVER remember people saying that about him all the time. Feeling a tad defensive about how pathetically stupid the last 3 Republican presidents have been, are we, Shemp? People marvel at Obama's intelligence because after 8 years of being subjected to someone with a brain the size of a pea and the consistency of Swiss cheese, it's kind of nice to have someone in the White House who *is* intelligent, and acts like it. And doesn't feel the need to hide it. And of course people mentioned how intelligent Clinton was, I still often do. And Jimmy Carter as well. I'm sure it must kind of grate that all along you've been supporting people whose greatest qualifications for office are their last name and how completely they can divorce themselves from reality. And so people are undoubtedly going to keep on mentioning how nice it is to have someone in the WH who is intelligent, acts like an adult, and actually engages with opposing viewpoints. Get used to it. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
your definitions all sound so monkey-like. here's a banana, my little chiquita. enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. this can't be accomplished on the thinking level. it is not about thinking, imagining, believing, denying, or hallucinating. the most effective way to establish that state is by alternating the practice of transcending with activity. the easiest way to do this is through the regular (2x a day) practice of Transcendental Maditation, or TM. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Seriously, I would like to hear each person's definition in one or two sentences please. (we already know Vaj is going to inscrutably say And Sal is going to say A good BLT sandwich ...but what is the definition from the rest of you? Enlightenment -- a fluid, everchanging subjective state of mind that has no qualities or attributes except what the claimant of having attained it claims it has, and no benefits for the claimant or society other than what the claimant says it has. The only important thing is that other people must view the person who has claimed enlightenment as somehow special and better than they are. See 'unicorn,' and 'UFO sightings.' All in all, a BLT is more nourishing and better for you, and cheaper. -- The Dictionary of Cutting Through The Bullshit, Get Real Press, 33rd. edition. MORE DEFINITIONS OF ENLIGHTENMENT The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi definition Enlightenment is exactly as I described it over the years, and it's the same for everyone. It's a steady progression through the states of CC, GC, UC and BC to complete fulfillment. When one reaches that state of full enlightenment, one is able to manifest all of the siddhis and levitate, as I do, and bring all of one's ideas to perfect completion, as I did with Vedaland and so many other projects. That'll be a million dollars, please. The Dumb Blonde definition Enlightenment is what I say it is. Anyone who says anything different is WRONG, and is just a monkey-mind chattering away. And I know this to be true because my TM initiator, What's-his-name, said so back when I first learned TM, back in Wherever-it-was-ville. The Vaj definition Enlightenment is what the people I consider enlightened say it is. And it is ONLY what the people I consider enlightened say it is. So there. :-) The TMO definition Enlightenment is the inevitable result of practicing the TM technique, which is the fastest, easiest, most effective means of attaining enlightenment ever seen on planet Earth. This can be verified by doing scientific tests on all the people we have certified as being fully enlightened over the 53 years of our teaching. Come back a week from some Thursday and we will provide you with a list of their names. Turq's definition Enlightenment is something that people who (on the whole) have never experienced it like to talk about as if they knew exactly what it was. In general, the more they talk about it as if they know exactly what it is, the less likelihood there is that they have ever had even a fleeting experience of it. Those who *have* had a fleeting experience of what they consider enlighten- ment to be are basically saying that their subjective experience -- whatever it might have been really -- is synonymous with enlightenment because *they* had the experience, and they are so important that if *they* had that experience, it *must* be cool and valuable and special, because *they* are cool and valuable and special. People talk about enlightenment in the same way they talk about unicorns -- they claim to know *exactly* what the unicorn of enlightenment looks like, but can't show you any unicorns so that you can verify that what they are describing is true. You're just supposed to take their word for it that the unicorn they are describing is really enlightenment, because they said it, and they're so special. (On the whole, there is more agreement about what unicorns look like than about what enlightenment looks like.)
[FairfieldLife] Monkeys vs Meat (Re: Mantras, Religion and finally a statement . . .)
enlightened_dawn11 wrote: to use another anology, let's imagine a group of full time pilots sitting around, discussing how best to fly a plane. and let's imagine another group, of ex-pilots, and occasional pilots, and non- pilots, joining the first group, and the second group of wannabees loudly proclaiming their opinions about all things aeronautical to the group of full time pilots. don't you think the wannabees would look like a chattering bunch of monkeys to the full time pilots? Erp, ya used the wrong metaphor for me. My woman's family are all pilots -- her Mother and Father are in the Wisconsin Aviation Hall of Fame. Her son captains a 747. So, I've heard pilot talk of every sort, but I've never heard one pilot yet disenfranchise another who'd been on the ground for decades. If you learn to fly, there's some things ya never forget. You're a pilot on your death bed. Her mother was the youngest woman licensed pilot in AMERICA at 17 years old -- barnstormer and all that. She's 85 years old now, and when she talks of flying . . . I LISTEN. Just so, if, say, Turq says something about TM, validity still rings. Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
i meant Transcendental MEDitation, not MADitation, though at times along the way i confess to have felt quite crazy.:) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: your definitions all sound so monkey-like. here's a banana, my little chiquita. enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. this can't be accomplished on the thinking level. it is not about thinking, imagining, believing, denying, or hallucinating. the most effective way to establish that state is by alternating the practice of transcending with activity. the easiest way to do this is through the regular (2x a day) practice of Transcendental Maditation, or TM. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Seriously, I would like to hear each person's definition in one or two sentences please. (we already know Vaj is going to inscrutably say And Sal is going to say A good BLT sandwich ...but what is the definition from the rest of you? Enlightenment -- a fluid, everchanging subjective state of mind that has no qualities or attributes except what the claimant of having attained it claims it has, and no benefits for the claimant or society other than what the claimant says it has. The only important thing is that other people must view the person who has claimed enlightenment as somehow special and better than they are. See 'unicorn,' and 'UFO sightings.' All in all, a BLT is more nourishing and better for you, and cheaper. -- The Dictionary of Cutting Through The Bullshit, Get Real Press, 33rd. edition. MORE DEFINITIONS OF ENLIGHTENMENT The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi definition Enlightenment is exactly as I described it over the years, and it's the same for everyone. It's a steady progression through the states of CC, GC, UC and BC to complete fulfillment. When one reaches that state of full enlightenment, one is able to manifest all of the siddhis and levitate, as I do, and bring all of one's ideas to perfect completion, as I did with Vedaland and so many other projects. That'll be a million dollars, please. The Dumb Blonde definition Enlightenment is what I say it is. Anyone who says anything different is WRONG, and is just a monkey-mind chattering away. And I know this to be true because my TM initiator, What's-his-name, said so back when I first learned TM, back in Wherever-it-was-ville. The Vaj definition Enlightenment is what the people I consider enlightened say it is. And it is ONLY what the people I consider enlightened say it is. So there. :-) The TMO definition Enlightenment is the inevitable result of practicing the TM technique, which is the fastest, easiest, most effective means of attaining enlightenment ever seen on planet Earth. This can be verified by doing scientific tests on all the people we have certified as being fully enlightened over the 53 years of our teaching. Come back a week from some Thursday and we will provide you with a list of their names. Turq's definition Enlightenment is something that people who (on the whole) have never experienced it like to talk about as if they knew exactly what it was. In general, the more they talk about it as if they know exactly what it is, the less likelihood there is that they have ever had even a fleeting experience of it. Those who *have* had a fleeting experience of what they consider enlighten- ment to be are basically saying that their subjective experience -- whatever it might have been really -- is synonymous with enlightenment because *they* had the experience, and they are so important that if *they* had that experience, it *must* be cool and valuable and special, because *they* are cool and valuable and special. People talk about enlightenment in the same way they talk about unicorns -- they claim to know *exactly* what the unicorn of enlightenment looks like, but can't show you any unicorns so that you can verify that what they are describing is true. You're just supposed to take their word for it that the unicorn they are describing is really enlightenment, because they said it, and they're so special. (On the whole, there is more agreement about what unicorns look like than about what enlightenment looks like.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Stanley 1970 Holy Tradition MP3?
Write to me at:
duveyoung {{ - at - }} yahoo DOTTYDOTTYDOT com
Edg
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, at_man_and_brahman
at_man_and_brah...@... wrote:
Edg,
I would like to discuss the SCI tapes with you.
I can't figure out how get an email directly to
you, so I'd be grateful if you would write to
me at
at_man_and_brahmanATsbcglobal.net
Please!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote:
Geeze, now I've let the cat out of the bag.
The audio tape of the puja is somewhere around here. Seems I saw
it the other year when I was moving. If not, then, yikes, it's in a
storage unit in California. Got boxes I haven't opened in years in
the basement.
And, I'm interested myself now that four folks have pogosticked about
them.
Hmmm, while you folks are waiting to see if I'll find it, maybe you
could share with us why this piece of history has pronged ya suchly.
The SCI tapes about biology and ? er, physics? chemistry? are in the
storage unit, so they're not going to be sought until I am in CA again
-- no date set right now.
I can't remember exactly what Maharishi said on the tapes, but I
remember being shocked at how uneducated he came off. Maybe if I see
them again, I'll have quite a differing take, but I'd predict that if
anything, I'll be even more chagrined that I didn't use these tapes as
my reason to dig in my heels and say, Why am I listening to this
BUSINESS MAN?
I don't think the biology tape had Maharishi talking about the two
nervous systems. Maybe, but I remember, at that time, that I thought
the idea of two nervous systems was pretty cool, so if that's on that
tape, I'll be surprised. I was shocked and ashamed during and after
when I played that tape to my SCI class. I have a stronger grasp of
these sciences than most folks, and I don't know how MMY came off to
the less educated, but to me it was an emperor's new clothes kinda
revelation.
Yet, I stayed with the TMO for another 25 years. You're reading words
right now from a person who can deny anything. I should be studied in
a laboratory. Maybe such a looksee might find some DNA bit that
causes this; call it the blinkers gene.
Edg
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote:
In 1971 Majorca, Maharishi did a puja for all of us to watch after
we'd been studying the puja words for a few weeks.
Get this: during the puja -- Maharishi lost his place! The whole
crowd knew it, held its breath, and then when Maharishi caught
himself he got back to the right spot, but the crowd laughed aloud
despite itself.
So screw Rick Stanley's version -- ask me for my AUDIO RECORDING of
that very puja! I still have it!
For decades I never told anyone I'd recorded it, because the tape
would have been taken from me -- or later, my badge would be
taken for
having contraband.
Hey, I also have copies of the SCI tapes that they told us to
destroy
or send back -- and talk about whacky science by MMY -- even my true
believer mind was shocked by those two tapes.
I figure to put these on eBay and make a killing!
Edg
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anaand108 anaand108@
wrote:
Hi - does anyone have an MP3 of Rick Stanley singing The Holy
Tradition from 1970 - that
they could either email me or post?
thanks!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
On Jan 27, 2009, at 10:50 AM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: the most effective way to establish that state is by alternating the practice of transcending with activity. the easiest way to do this is through the regular (2x a day) practice of Transcendental Maditation, or TM. Interesting how it doesn't seemed to have helped you SPELL YOUR FAVORITE FORM OF MEDITATION CORRECTLY! Unless of course you're actually practicing Transcendental Maditation in which case, yes, that does make a lot of sense. Nobody in the game of football should be called a genius. A genius is somebody like Norman Einstein. —former NFL quarterback Joe Theisman
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
On Jan 27, 2009, at 10:53 AM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: i meant Transcendental MEDitation, not MADitation, though at times along the way i confess to have felt quite crazy.:) It was just a Freudian slip, I wouldn't worry too much about it. And about the crazy feelings, yes we all noticed, but we still are enjoying your posts. Please continue.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'If Maharishi Wasn't Enlightened, then who is?'
When Identity is withdrawn from the processings of the nervous system, no matter what the robot does from then on, it ain't you, it's the gunas. The resulting moral-relief is palpable, and religion is born in a chorus of hallelujahs. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Seriously, I would like to hear each person's definition in one or two sentences please. (we already know Vaj is going to inscrutably say And Sal is going to say A good BLT sandwich ...but what is the definition from the rest of you? Enlightenment -- a fluid, everchanging subjective state of mind that has no qualities or attributes except what the claimant of having attained it claims it has, and no benefits for the claimant or society other than what the claimant says it has. The only important thing is that other people must view the person who has claimed enlightenment as somehow special and better than they are. See 'unicorn,' and 'UFO sightings.' All in all, a BLT is more nourishing and better for you, and cheaper. -- The Dictionary of Cutting Through The Bullshit, Get Real Press, 33rd. edition.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: your definitions all sound so monkey-like. here's a banana, my little chiquita. enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. Yeah, that's right: puruSaartha-shuunyaanaaM guNaanaaM pratiprasavaH [is] kaivalyam... !
Re: [FairfieldLife] Evil fiddler vs Evil fumbler (Re: Oh, how intelligent he is!)
On Jan 27, 2009, at 9:42 AM, Duveyoung wrote: Think of Obama's task. I am. He has to identify all of Bush's muddy footprints on the Declaration of Independence -- how much energy, time etc. is Obama using to do this instead of, you know, being able to direct his attention upon life-supporting processes? In fact, it seems that Obama has TWICE the presidential workload. I fear for his mind as it boggles by the second and will do so for the foreseeable future. If I was a believer, I'd be praying for him. Yep, he's going to be spending a significant amount of his first term simply undoing the massive damage of the last 8 years. I'm sure there'll be time for more, but that's a priority. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'If Maharishi Wasn't Enlightened, then who is?'
Arhata, Can you really believe the below? Do you actually know folks who are satisfied with their lives to such a deep degree that no cognitive dissonance is bugging them? I have a sister who, 40 years ago, was enmeshed in a sea of bitchingness, yet when I asked her if she was happy, she looked at me like I was nuts and said she was VERY HAPPY. She wasn't, believe me. Just so when I think I've found someone who might have a decent chance at being in the happy category, a deeper examination reveals otherwise. I don't think any rich person, any care giving person, any honored or respected person, any famous person, any powerful person, any happily married person, any person with an outward appearance of having made it and are enjoying themselves, are any less likely to face challenges of every sort. Nobody gets off the karmic hook. I've never met someone whose life I would take on instead of my own set of challenges to evolve. We're all in the same foxhole. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Arhata Osho arhatafreespe...@... wrote: Perhaps a better queation is, 'why seek enlightenment'? Are there not different, equivalent states more desirable? Is there a state with many of the qualities of perceived enlightenment without the burdens that enlightenment may have? Can you name one enlightened public figure who didn't suffer more than many who have lived long, rich lives? Healthy body, mind, emotions, soul is not as desirable? Loving oneself deeply as well as others to fitting degrees, isn't that enough? Does 'more' enter the question? Would you trade your most wonderful moments if they continued, for an enlightenment 'mystery'? Is there even a question? Arhata --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, off_world_beings no_reply@ . wrote: Seriously, I would like to hear each person's definition in one or two sentences please. (we already know Vaj is going to inscrutably say And Sal is going to say A good BLT sandwich ...but what is the definition from the rest of you? Enlightenment -- a fluid, everchanging subjective state of mind that has no qualities or attributes except what the claimant of having attained it claims it has, and no benefits for the claimant or society other than what the claimant says it has. The only important thing is that other people must view the person who has claimed enlightenment as somehow special and better than they are. See 'unicorn,' and 'UFO sightings.' All in all, a BLT is more nourishing and better for you, and cheaper. -- The Dictionary of Cutting Through The Bullshit, Get Real Press, 33rd. edition.
[FairfieldLife] Obama's pick for Sec. Education disappoints progressives Bill Ayers
Obama's pick for Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, disappoints progressives Bill Ayers but for different reasons. Obama disappoints progressives because Duncan is interested in privatization of schools rather than tackling the social issues creating the achievement gap in America. read more http://tinyurl.com/c4eyts Duncan's pick disappoints Bill Ayers because he wanted Linda Darling-Hammond, race theorist, anti-union and small schools advocate who with Ayers has been pushing for a slavery reparations policy in education, called repayment of the education debt owed to people of color. read more http://tinyurl.com/aeak5t
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's pick for Sec. Education disappoints progressives Bill Ayers
I'm cutting Obama a break on whomever he appoints to work UNDER HIM. To me, Obama is a true leader -- if he's putting someone in power, he's got them on a leash, and they're expected to heel on command. I don't think that any of these underlings are going to run rampant with their own agendas and not be choke-chained to a halt by Obama the Force Whisperer. He's constructing a psychic force under him, and so far he's using it like Bruce Lee with numchucks if you ask me. The buck stops at Obama's desk, and he'll take it personally if one of his minions gets (dare I use the word?) uppity. I think he's as if training seeing-eye dogs. They're dogs!!! but they're trainable. Hell, if he hired Karl Rove, I'd be happy, cuz then Rove would be fired when he went off the reservation. I'm waiting for Obama to do this to someone. He's playing with fire in some of his appointments -- not the least of which is Hillery and Bill -- but I think he's micro-managing enough to have a hands-on feel for the government. Woe to any who would try to skew his vision. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: Obama's pick for Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, disappoints progressives Bill Ayers but for different reasons. Obama disappoints progressives because Duncan is interested in privatization of schools rather than tackling the social issues creating the achievement gap in America. read more http://tinyurl.com/c4eyts Duncan's pick disappoints Bill Ayers because he wanted Linda Darling-Hammond, race theorist, anti-union and small schools advocate who with Ayers has been pushing for a slavery reparations policy in education, called repayment of the education debt owed to people of color. read more http://tinyurl.com/aeak5t
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
A corrupt marketing tool and identity crutch used by those who feel that the natural culmination of life processes is something that can be packaged, sold and owned.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Obama's pick for Sec. Education disappoints progressives Bill Ayers
On Jan 27, 2009, at 10:14 AM, raunchydog wrote: Obama's pick for Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, disappoints progressives Bill Ayers but for different reasons. Obama disappoints progressives because Duncan is interested in privatization of schools rather than tackling the social issues creating the achievement gap in America. read more http://tinyurl.com/c4eyts Duncan's pick disappoints Bill Ayers because he wanted Linda Darling-Hammond, race theorist, anti-union and small schools advocate who with Ayers has been pushing for a slavery reparations policy in education, called repayment of the education debt owed to people of color. read more http://tinyurl.com/aeak5t This is nonsense, raunch, and the source you cite has about as much credibility as shemp's theory of global warming. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: your definitions all sound so monkey-like. here's a banana, my little chiquita. enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. You know this sounds like a made-up problem to solve. I never met anyone who was lost in or identified with the objects of perception. Someone would have an unimaginable pathological lack of self awareness for this to be a problem. I mean this seriously because it is one of the fundamental presuppositions of Maharishi's teaching. Can anyone here remember when this was a problem in your life before TM? I honestly can't. this can't be accomplished on the thinking level. it is not about thinking, imagining, believing, denying, or hallucinating. the most effective way to establish that state is by alternating the practice of transcending with activity. the easiest way to do this is through the regular (2x a day) practice of Transcendental Maditation, or TM. I have heard this exact phrase somewhere before but I just can't place it... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Seriously, I would like to hear each person's definition in one or two sentences please. (we already know Vaj is going to inscrutably say And Sal is going to say A good BLT sandwich ...but what is the definition from the rest of you? Enlightenment -- a fluid, everchanging subjective state of mind that has no qualities or attributes except what the claimant of having attained it claims it has, and no benefits for the claimant or society other than what the claimant says it has. The only important thing is that other people must view the person who has claimed enlightenment as somehow special and better than they are. See 'unicorn,' and 'UFO sightings.' All in all, a BLT is more nourishing and better for you, and cheaper. -- The Dictionary of Cutting Through The Bullshit, Get Real Press, 33rd. edition. MORE DEFINITIONS OF ENLIGHTENMENT The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi definition Enlightenment is exactly as I described it over the years, and it's the same for everyone. It's a steady progression through the states of CC, GC, UC and BC to complete fulfillment. When one reaches that state of full enlightenment, one is able to manifest all of the siddhis and levitate, as I do, and bring all of one's ideas to perfect completion, as I did with Vedaland and so many other projects. That'll be a million dollars, please. The Dumb Blonde definition Enlightenment is what I say it is. Anyone who says anything different is WRONG, and is just a monkey-mind chattering away. And I know this to be true because my TM initiator, What's-his-name, said so back when I first learned TM, back in Wherever-it-was-ville. The Vaj definition Enlightenment is what the people I consider enlightened say it is. And it is ONLY what the people I consider enlightened say it is. So there. :-) The TMO definition Enlightenment is the inevitable result of practicing the TM technique, which is the fastest, easiest, most effective means of attaining enlightenment ever seen on planet Earth. This can be verified by doing scientific tests on all the people we have certified as being fully enlightened over the 53 years of our teaching. Come back a week from some Thursday and we will provide you with a list of their names. Turq's definition Enlightenment is something that people who (on the whole) have never experienced it like to talk about as if they knew exactly what it was. In general, the more they talk about it as if they know exactly what it is, the less likelihood there is that they have ever had even a fleeting experience of it. Those who *have* had a fleeting experience of what they consider enlighten- ment to be are basically saying that their subjective experience -- whatever it might have been really -- is synonymous with enlightenment because *they* had the experience, and they are so important that if *they* had that experience, it *must* be cool and valuable and special, because *they* are cool and valuable and special. People talk about enlightenment in the same way they talk about unicorns -- they claim to know *exactly* what the unicorn of enlightenment looks like, but can't show you any unicorns so that you can verify that what they are describing is true. You're just supposed to take their word for it that the unicorn they are describing is really enlightenment, because they said it, and they're so special. (On the whole, there is more agreement about what unicorns look
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's pick for Sec. Education disappoints progressives Bill Ayers
Edg, Obama picks people with whom he agrees. He doesn't pick a tabula rasa on which to write his policy, that would mean starting from scratch, an impossible task given the breadth of issues he has to deal with. Recently, everyone in town was having a fit over Vilsack's appointment to Secretary of Agriculture because he doesn't appeal to the organic purists. All their wailing and gnashing of teeth on carrot sticks, didn't help, Vilsack rules. Yes, the buck stops with Obama, but make no mistake about it, whoever Obama chooses for his administration is a clear indication of the policies he wants to implement. If Obama wanted to indicate his support for public schools he would have picked such an advocate and not someone like Duncan who will probably repackage Bush's No Child Left Behind but with Obama's stamp of approval on it. Forewarned is forearmed. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: I'm cutting Obama a break on whomever he appoints to work UNDER HIM. To me, Obama is a true leader -- if he's putting someone in power, he's got them on a leash, and they're expected to heel on command. I don't think that any of these underlings are going to run rampant with their own agendas and not be choke-chained to a halt by Obama the Force Whisperer. He's constructing a psychic force under him, and so far he's using it like Bruce Lee with numchucks if you ask me. The buck stops at Obama's desk, and he'll take it personally if one of his minions gets (dare I use the word?) uppity. I think he's as if training seeing-eye dogs. They're dogs!!! but they're trainable. Hell, if he hired Karl Rove, I'd be happy, cuz then Rove would be fired when he went off the reservation. I'm waiting for Obama to do this to someone. He's playing with fire in some of his appointments -- not the least of which is Hillery and Bill -- but I think he's micro-managing enough to have a hands-on feel for the government. Woe to any who would try to skew his vision. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Obama's pick for Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, disappoints progressives Bill Ayers but for different reasons. Obama disappoints progressives because Duncan is interested in privatization of schools rather than tackling the social issues creating the achievement gap in America. read more http://tinyurl.com/c4eyts Duncan's pick disappoints Bill Ayers because he wanted Linda Darling-Hammond, race theorist, anti-union and small schools advocate who with Ayers has been pushing for a slavery reparations policy in education, called repayment of the education debt owed to people of color. read more http://tinyurl.com/aeak5t
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Mahasamadhi Anniversary Ceremony in Allahabad, India 1/24/09 --
No photos at all? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Jan 26, 2009, at 8:01 PM, Dick Mays wrote: This is Maharishi's house at the Maharishi Ashram in Allahabad. The gentleman seated to the left of the cameraman, and in the third picture is Maharishi's brother. I met him on the Vedic Science course years ago. He was very friendly and happy. After a few minutes conversation, I asked him what it was like to be Maharishi's brother and he just laughed and said, It's very good!. I'll bet. Sal Yeah, those greedy 97-year-olds. They take and take and take and take
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
the most effective way to establish that state is by alternating the practice of transcending with activity. the easiest way to do this is through the regular (2x a day) practice of Transcendental Maditation, or TM. ---Ah if you must know I started feeling the all oneness thing about six months before 9/11 after buying my first high powered rudraksha malas of three faced and one faced moon beads. I wore it to work. I felt the Shiva/Agni connection was good for cooking. You know you have to piss and other things sometimes and that's all good to remind us all how we start as smart little monkey apes and regress really to our prebirth state during -LIFE- only to reverse and forget everything we ever knew just so as to -DIE. So I don't really know if TM is the ultimate as during long resident courses they wouldn't even speak to the effects of visuals and colors and so on whereas the Tibetans have all that shit sussed out fully. The main idea here being that seing God in shit is probably the better way to quick realization than mere alternating mind of silence and mind of action. Truely the key being the mind, tantras then are keys to training the mind. And wearing Shiva around ones neck is a very close and personal tantra in any case. Sitting at a bar, seing Shiva twinkling in an offered line, and thank you Lord.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's pick for Sec. Education disappoints progressives Bill Ayers
Sal, If you have information that contradicts the information in the articles, let's see it. If you're going to dispute the validity of factual information, make your case rather than, I don't like what the guy said, so he must be wrong. What exactly do you think is untrue in the articles? Be specific and we can talk about it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Jan 27, 2009, at 10:14 AM, raunchydog wrote: Obama's pick for Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, disappoints progressives Bill Ayers but for different reasons. Obama disappoints progressives because Duncan is interested in privatization of schools rather than tackling the social issues creating the achievement gap in America. read more http://tinyurl.com/c4eyts Duncan's pick disappoints Bill Ayers because he wanted Linda Darling-Hammond, race theorist, anti-union and small schools advocate who with Ayers has been pushing for a slavery reparations policy in education, called repayment of the education debt owed to people of color. read more http://tinyurl.com/aeak5t This is nonsense, raunch, and the source you cite has about as much credibility as shemp's theory of global warming. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM puja is religious, as are other elements of TM practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, amritasyaputra amritasyapu...@... wrote: You say Veda is more than religion, it is everything. Well, to me, that is a religious concept. So the so-called Theory of Everything in Physics is a religious theory, hmm? This is the heart of the disconnect in our different POVs I think. If you want to do what Judy seems to be doing and calling the Vedic teaching a working hypothesis which is exactly what the TOE is all about, then you might be closer to it not being a religious assertion. But this is the phrase Ruth was commenting on: Veda is Sanatan Dharm, the eternalway of life. NO religion. Remember that Sanatana Dharma includes detailed instructions of the most repressive social organization in history, the caste system. It is being presented in a religious context as being an absolute, handed down from antiquity through India's scriptures without being modified by present experiences which is the opposite of physic's attempt to develop a TOE. So for example if I were to say that the caste system that requires that some people how are born in the clean up other people's doodie caste can NEVER rise above that by taking a computer class and getting a job at the Bangalore AOL call center is wrong...then the answer would be that I just don't understand that this organization of society is the best thing for the person's evolution assuming that there is reincarnation and that they will come back next life in a higher caste if they do their doodie cleaning really well in this life. These are religious beliefs. They are not subject to revision with modern sense of ethic concerning human rights. It is not the attempt to explain how everything works that defines some body of knowledge as religious. It is the appeal to an authority as the reason for the belief. A claim that this body of knowledge is the eternal way of life for example. Mistaking the intensity of belief for its epistemological justification is one of the most important traps to avoid in sorting out the natural human bias for believing that our POV doesn't need any more supporting evidence than its enthusiastic assertion. It does if we care about the truth in a scientific sense. But religion pull this move all the time. Well, continue to worry your pretty little head... You and your fiends here seem to see religion everywhere! Actually, also nice. With best wishes Shaas --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, amritasyaputra amritasyaputra@ wrote: Thanks, that's what I am saying too: TM just by itself is obviously not a religion THerefore, we can close that boring discussion. Just practise it and don't bother about all those theories. Well, I worry my pretty little head about these theories. And Veda, too, is not a religion. Maybe Hinduism is but Veda is not. Veda is Sanatan Dharm, the eternal way of life. NO religion. It is a knowledge pertaining to the whole so certainly including religion as any other knowledge. Our root is in Veda, not Hinduism Shaas I guess you told us! The eternal way of life is a religious concept. Religion deals with ultimate questions. I get the feeling that to call TM or the Vedas religion minimizes both in the TB's mind. You say Veda is more than religion, it is everything. Well, to me, that is a religious concept. Everything else must fit or be bent to fit the concepts of the Vedas. Meditation is a technique of this religion. Much like taking communion or going to confession is a technique of the Catholic. So Shaas, do you believe in hovering? In Jyotish? In doing the puja? In pulse diagnosis of illness? That east facing homes are better than west facing homes? How religious are you?
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernha...@... wrote: And wearing Shiva around ones neck is a very close and personal tantra in any case. Sitting at a bar, seing Shiva twinkling in an offered line, and thank you Lord. I would be more inclined to believe you saw a god in the line if your answer was: No thanks, I don't need any more shrinkage in areas of my bank account or dick right now. the most effective way to establish that state is by alternating the practice of transcending with activity. the easiest way to do this is through the regular (2x a day) practice of Transcendental Maditation, or TM. ---Ah if you must know I started feeling the all oneness thing about six months before 9/11 after buying my first high powered rudraksha malas of three faced and one faced moon beads. I wore it to work. I felt the Shiva/Agni connection was good for cooking. You know you have to piss and other things sometimes and that's all good to remind us all how we start as smart little monkey apes and regress really to our prebirth state during -LIFE- only to reverse and forget everything we ever knew just so as to -DIE. So I don't really know if TM is the ultimate as during long resident courses they wouldn't even speak to the effects of visuals and colors and so on whereas the Tibetans have all that shit sussed out fully. The main idea here being that seing God in shit is probably the better way to quick realization than mere alternating mind of silence and mind of action. Truely the key being the mind, tantras then are keys to training the mind. And wearing Shiva around ones neck is a very close and personal tantra in any case. Sitting at a bar, seing Shiva twinkling in an offered line, and thank you Lord.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
curtisdeltablues wrote: enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. You know this sounds like a made-up problem to solve. I never met anyone who was lost in or identified with the objects of perception. Someone would have an unimaginable pathological lack of self awareness for this to be a problem. I mean this seriously because it is one of the fundamental presuppositions of Maharishi's teaching. Can anyone here remember when this was a problem in your life before TM? I honestly can't. Curtis, This is the crux issue: what is the nature of Identity? I think your suspicions are well founded only if you ignore that the mind itself is an object of consciousness. Every thought-feeling (the mind) is a tar baby that allures Identity to become its soul. Moment by moment WE INVEST in objects. We enter them. We identify with them. We affirm their existence like dying folks in the desert crawling towards a mirage of an oasis. Each thought impossibly grabs us effortlessly -- we rubberneck them like roadside accidents . . . unable to avert our gazing. When I buy a new car, woe unto anyone who comes up to it and bangs it with a fist -- I will feel pain I tells ya! That's my Identity you're pounding on there bub! Just so, being a narcissist, I'm happy to report that each of my thoughts is like a new Ferrari being delivered to my driveway. Curtis, I keep banging on your door about Identity -- am I merely droning at this stage, or do you see enough wiggle room such that you are examining this assertion of mine that Identity is non-physical with the intent to reach a deeper clarity about it? Or do you think I'm just slinging Advaita shit that can safely be dismissed? Does ya got twelve in the juryroom still? Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's pick for Sec. Education disappoints progressives Bill Ayers
You might be right. I'm watchin'!!! It's not a case of hiring a fox to watch the hen house to me if the fox, wily as ever but on a leash is turned into a lemonade dog. If Obama did hire Karl Rove, well, who better to sic on the problem of illegally using the justice department for political ends? Rove's nose can smell the least bit of shit from another dog. I don't get that Obama is appointing folks who he agrees with so much as he thinks he can use their skills and smack 'em with a folded up newspaper if they do doody on the carpet. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: Edg, Obama picks people with whom he agrees. He doesn't pick a tabula rasa on which to write his policy, that would mean starting from scratch, an impossible task given the breadth of issues he has to deal with. Recently, everyone in town was having a fit over Vilsack's appointment to Secretary of Agriculture because he doesn't appeal to the organic purists. All their wailing and gnashing of teeth on carrot sticks, didn't help, Vilsack rules. Yes, the buck stops with Obama, but make no mistake about it, whoever Obama chooses for his administration is a clear indication of the policies he wants to implement. If Obama wanted to indicate his support for public schools he would have picked such an advocate and not someone like Duncan who will probably repackage Bush's No Child Left Behind but with Obama's stamp of approval on it. Forewarned is forearmed. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: I'm cutting Obama a break on whomever he appoints to work UNDER HIM. To me, Obama is a true leader -- if he's putting someone in power, he's got them on a leash, and they're expected to heel on command. I don't think that any of these underlings are going to run rampant with their own agendas and not be choke-chained to a halt by Obama the Force Whisperer. He's constructing a psychic force under him, and so far he's using it like Bruce Lee with numchucks if you ask me. The buck stops at Obama's desk, and he'll take it personally if one of his minions gets (dare I use the word?) uppity. I think he's as if training seeing-eye dogs. They're dogs!!! but they're trainable. Hell, if he hired Karl Rove, I'd be happy, cuz then Rove would be fired when he went off the reservation. I'm waiting for Obama to do this to someone. He's playing with fire in some of his appointments -- not the least of which is Hillery and Bill -- but I think he's micro-managing enough to have a hands-on feel for the government. Woe to any who would try to skew his vision. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Obama's pick for Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, disappoints progressives Bill Ayers but for different reasons. Obama disappoints progressives because Duncan is interested in privatization of schools rather than tackling the social issues creating the achievement gap in America. read more http://tinyurl.com/c4eyts Duncan's pick disappoints Bill Ayers because he wanted Linda Darling-Hammond, race theorist, anti-union and small schools advocate who with Ayers has been pushing for a slavery reparations policy in education, called repayment of the education debt owed to people of color. read more http://tinyurl.com/aeak5t
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Oh, how intelligent he is!
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 9:41 AM, martyboi marty...@yahoo.com wrote: I think both camps are correct - it's based on contrast. My nephew, who happens to be bi-racial, like Obama is often told during job interviews that he speaks so well!. He takes that comment as a shock that he isn't using Ebonics. The expectation that an African American might speak differently exists because people have experienced people of color who do speak in a distinct manner - the way all subcultures do. So the contrast surprises them. In the case of Obama; the contrast between the countrified, colloquial manner in which Bush speaks (cowboy talk) and the precise and eloquent manner in which Obama speaks(a Harvard man)is noticeable to many people - providing a surprising contrast and sense of relief actually. Bush's style of speaking may have caused people to misunderestimate his intellect. I think this is due, in part, to not being a reader. Texas speak and Texas act is sort of a game to see who can speak and act more down home than the other guy. I know that I or someone else is being slammed down bigtime in Texas when someone asks us if we could explain something in terms that a poor, simple country boy can understand. Usually not spoken by someone who doesn't have a couple Ph.Ds. and or a net worth of a billion dollars. Myself, I was surprised during the primaries (and I was in Fairfield for the caucuses) that Obama chose not to speak in the style of the black preacher. I swear I heard it creeping into his speeches a number of times. Perhaps he decided not to play that card. The black preacher style of speaking was best embodied by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and by Representative Barbara Jordan. When I hear recordings of Barbara Jordan I ever marvel at her and wonder just how she perfected that style of speech and that very unique pronounciation. I'd imagine it's something developed in black churches.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's pick for Sec. Education disappoints progressives Bill Ayers
On Jan 27, 2009, at 10:55 AM, raunchydog wrote: Sal, If you have information that contradicts the information in the articles, let's see it. If you're going to dispute the validity of factual information, make your case rather than, I don't like what the guy said, so he must be wrong. What exactly do you think is untrue in the articles? Be specific and we can talk about it. Contradicts what? That progressives are unhappy with Duncan? Well, I'm a progressive, and I'm happy with him. Supposedly he's done an excellent job in Chicago. Post something that's not nonsense and there might be some way to have a rational discussion. What you posted doesn't lend itself to that. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
i can relate to the mystical avenues for gaining enlightenment also. but those come and go, and are a less reliable path for the establishment of non-identification. more a validation of the worthiness of the path, than a means to establish Being. also the use of drugs to enable mystical experiences is valid to a degree, though drugs work on the principle of 'robbing peter to pay paul'-- side effects, hangovers, etc. not saying its a bad thing, just a very real trade-off. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernha...@... wrote: the most effective way to establish that state is by alternating the practice of transcending with activity. the easiest way to do this is through the regular (2x a day) practice of Transcendental Maditation, or TM. ---Ah if you must know I started feeling the all oneness thing about six months before 9/11 after buying my first high powered rudraksha malas of three faced and one faced moon beads. I wore it to work. I felt the Shiva/Agni connection was good for cooking. You know you have to piss and other things sometimes and that's all good to remind us all how we start as smart little monkey apes and regress really to our prebirth state during -LIFE- only to reverse and forget everything we ever knew just so as to -DIE. So I don't really know if TM is the ultimate as during long resident courses they wouldn't even speak to the effects of visuals and colors and so on whereas the Tibetans have all that shit sussed out fully. The main idea here being that seing God in shit is probably the better way to quick realization than mere alternating mind of silence and mind of action. Truely the key being the mind, tantras then are keys to training the mind. And wearing Shiva around ones neck is a very close and personal tantra in any case. Sitting at a bar, seing Shiva twinkling in an offered line, and thank you Lord.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: Identity is non-physical with the intent to reach a deeper clarity about it? Or do you think I'm just slinging Advaita shit that can safely be dismissed? Does ya got twelve in the juryroom still? My identity is not physical. It is tied to the physical so that when the physical becomes worm food I have a suspicion that I'm not going to be able to remember the Brazilian Samba chords I learned on my guitar this morning. I can't even maintain consciousness when a doctor pumps a white liquid into my veins for a little fireside chat with the interior of my colon. I also acknowledge that I have an aspect of my mind that is an unchanging witness of my personality. It is an artifact of consciousness and a part of being human if you choose to spend enough time to notice it. I'll even acknowledge that meditating helps you notice this aspect of your mind more clearly. But making a case for it being the transpersonal basis for all creation is just imposing a religious assertion on top of it. It is making a bigger deal about it than I think it deserves. But I could be wrong. But so far all the magical stuff claimed about this state of mind has not shown up. Has it? Maharishi was a charismatic interesting guy and all but he didn't show up as having special powers to me, beyond what an eccentric relentless self promoter like Donald Trump exhibits. The Donald sleeps as little as Maharishi did too! curtisdeltablues wrote: enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. You know this sounds like a made-up problem to solve. I never met anyone who was lost in or identified with the objects of perception. Someone would have an unimaginable pathological lack of self awareness for this to be a problem. I mean this seriously because it is one of the fundamental presuppositions of Maharishi's teaching. Can anyone here remember when this was a problem in your life before TM? I honestly can't. Curtis, This is the crux issue: what is the nature of Identity? I think your suspicions are well founded only if you ignore that the mind itself is an object of consciousness. Every thought-feeling (the mind) is a tar baby that allures Identity to become its soul. Moment by moment WE INVEST in objects. We enter them. We identify with them. We affirm their existence like dying folks in the desert crawling towards a mirage of an oasis. Each thought impossibly grabs us effortlessly -- we rubberneck them like roadside accidents . . . unable to avert our gazing. When I buy a new car, woe unto anyone who comes up to it and bangs it with a fist -- I will feel pain I tells ya! That's my Identity you're pounding on there bub! Just so, being a narcissist, I'm happy to report that each of my thoughts is like a new Ferrari being delivered to my driveway. Curtis, I keep banging on your door about Identity -- am I merely droning at this stage, or do you see enough wiggle room such that you are examining this assertion of mine that Identity is non-physical with the intent to reach a deeper clarity about it? Or do you think I'm just slinging Advaita shit that can safely be dismissed? Does ya got twelve in the juryroom still? Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
i was never able to learn touch typing, so i am not able to correct as i type, only through proofreading afterwards. thanks for your concern, though... have a banana, you've earned another one today, oh cuddly and cute king of monkeys! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jan 27, 2009, at 10:50 AM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: the most effective way to establish that state is by alternating the practice of transcending with activity. the easiest way to do this is through the regular (2x a day) practice of Transcendental Maditation, or TM. Interesting how it doesn't seemed to have helped you SPELL YOUR FAVORITE FORM OF MEDITATION CORRECTLY! Unless of course you're actually practicing Transcendental Maditation in which case, yes, that does make a lot of sense. Nobody in the game of football should be called a genius. A genius is somebody like Norman Einstein. former NFL quarterback Joe Theisman
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's pick for Sec. Education disappoints progressives Bill Ayers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: You might be right. I'm watchin'!!! It's not a case of hiring a fox to watch the hen house to me if the fox, wily as ever but on a leash is turned into a lemonade dog. If Obama did hire Karl Rove, well, who better to sic on the problem of illegally using the justice department for political ends? Rove's nose can smell the least bit of shit from another dog. I don't get that Obama is appointing folks who he agrees with so much as he thinks he can use their skills and smack 'em with a folded up newspaper if they do doody on the carpet. Edg It looks like Rove might be getting a well deserved smack on the nose from Conyers. http://tinyurl.com/a9zynr Pass the popcorn. Edg, I'm housebroken, I don't pee on rug Raunchy has barkened and sends you a hug --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Edg, Obama picks people with whom he agrees. He doesn't pick a tabula rasa on which to write his policy, that would mean starting from scratch, an impossible task given the breadth of issues he has to deal with. Recently, everyone in town was having a fit over Vilsack's appointment to Secretary of Agriculture because he doesn't appeal to the organic purists. All their wailing and gnashing of teeth on carrot sticks, didn't help, Vilsack rules. Yes, the buck stops with Obama, but make no mistake about it, whoever Obama chooses for his administration is a clear indication of the policies he wants to implement. If Obama wanted to indicate his support for public schools he would have picked such an advocate and not someone like Duncan who will probably repackage Bush's No Child Left Behind but with Obama's stamp of approval on it. Forewarned is forearmed. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: I'm cutting Obama a break on whomever he appoints to work UNDER HIM. To me, Obama is a true leader -- if he's putting someone in power, he's got them on a leash, and they're expected to heel on command. I don't think that any of these underlings are going to run rampant with their own agendas and not be choke-chained to a halt by Obama the Force Whisperer. He's constructing a psychic force under him, and so far he's using it like Bruce Lee with numchucks if you ask me. The buck stops at Obama's desk, and he'll take it personally if one of his minions gets (dare I use the word?) uppity. I think he's as if training seeing-eye dogs. They're dogs!!! but they're trainable. Hell, if he hired Karl Rove, I'd be happy, cuz then Rove would be fired when he went off the reservation. I'm waiting for Obama to do this to someone. He's playing with fire in some of his appointments -- not the least of which is Hillery and Bill -- but I think he's micro-managing enough to have a hands-on feel for the government. Woe to any who would try to skew his vision. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Obama's pick for Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, disappoints progressives Bill Ayers but for different reasons. Obama disappoints progressives because Duncan is interested in privatization of schools rather than tackling the social issues creating the achievement gap in America. read more http://tinyurl.com/c4eyts Duncan's pick disappoints Bill Ayers because he wanted Linda Darling-Hammond, race theorist, anti-union and small schools advocate who with Ayers has been pushing for a slavery reparations policy in education, called repayment of the education debt owed to people of color. read more http://tinyurl.com/aeak5t
[FairfieldLife] The Master's article for Share International Magazine, January - February 2009
Maitreya's first interview by the Master , through Benjamin Creme, 11 January 2009 In the very near future, people everywhere will have the opportunity to witness an extraordinary and significant sign, the like of which has been manifested only once before, at the birth of Jesus. Then, according to Christian teaching, a star appeared in the heavens and led three wise men from the East to the birthplace of Jesus. Soon, once again, a star-like luminary of brilliant power will be seen around the world. What does this mean? How is it possible? The answer lies in the fact that this mysterious event is a sign, and heralds the beginning of Maitreya's open mission. Soon after the sign appears in our skies, Maitreya will give His first media interview on American television. Public On that open, public occasion, still unannounced as Maitreya, the World Teacher will present His views on the economic and financial chaos which now grips the world. He will explain its origins and final outcome, and present, to some extent, His recipe for amelioration of the present heavy burden on the poor of the world. Thus He will prepare the way for a more detailed and specific announcement of His ideas. How will viewers respond? They will not know His background or status. Will they listen to and consider His words? It is too soon to know exactly but the following may be said: Never before will they have seen or heard Maitreya speak. Nor, while listening, will they have experienced His unique energy, heart to heart. Also, this is a unique time in history with whole nations stunned and apprehensive for the future. Therefore it can be assumed that many who hear His words will be open and eager to hear more. It is not for nothing that Maitreya has waited patiently for this moment to enter the public world; America, for one, would not have responded sooner. Now, for the first time in many years, a new Administration has to cope with financial chaos, unemployment and social unrest on a massive scale. The moment of truth for America and the world has arrived. Worldwide Not alone in America but worldwide, people are awakening to the need for and the possibility of change. The politicians and economists call the present situation a `downturn' and a `recession'. In truth, we are witnessing the last stumbling steps of the old order. Millions are becoming aware that unbridled competition and greed are not the safest path for men, that such materialistic doctrines create a `slippery slope' for the unwary, and, eventually, the international crisis we have today. Of course, many people of burgeoning wealth stand clear of the present loss of confidence in the ways which have made them rich, and think it only `a matter of time' until we are back on course and thriving again. Will they heed Maitreya and recognize the sense of His argument? Lost in their arrogance and self-esteem, possibly not. However, many are less sanguine about a return to the status quo. Many have suffered painful losses and have lost faith in the old methods. The peoples of the nations are ripe and ready for change. They call out for change and a more meaningful life. Maitreya will remind men of the essentials without which there is no future for man: Justice and Peace. And the only way to both is through sharing. http://shareintl.org/magazine/old_issues/2009/2009-01.htm#Anchor-47857 http://shareintl.org/magazine/old_issues/2009/2009-01.htm#Anchor-47857
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
you are trying so hard today, curt, and your reward is due-- enjoy a banana! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: your definitions all sound so monkey-like. here's a banana, my little chiquita. enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. You know this sounds like a made-up problem to solve. I never met anyone who was lost in or identified with the objects of perception. Someone would have an unimaginable pathological lack of self awareness for this to be a problem. I mean this seriously because it is one of the fundamental presuppositions of Maharishi's teaching. Can anyone here remember when this was a problem in your life before TM? I honestly can't. this can't be accomplished on the thinking level. it is not about thinking, imagining, believing, denying, or hallucinating. the most effective way to establish that state is by alternating the practice of transcending with activity. the easiest way to do this is through the regular (2x a day) practice of Transcendental Maditation, or TM. I have heard this exact phrase somewhere before but I just can't place it... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Seriously, I would like to hear each person's definition in one or two sentences please. (we already know Vaj is going to inscrutably say And Sal is going to say A good BLT sandwich ...but what is the definition from the rest of you? Enlightenment -- a fluid, everchanging subjective state of mind that has no qualities or attributes except what the claimant of having attained it claims it has, and no benefits for the claimant or society other than what the claimant says it has. The only important thing is that other people must view the person who has claimed enlightenment as somehow special and better than they are. See 'unicorn,' and 'UFO sightings.' All in all, a BLT is more nourishing and better for you, and cheaper. -- The Dictionary of Cutting Through The Bullshit, Get Real Press, 33rd. edition. MORE DEFINITIONS OF ENLIGHTENMENT The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi definition Enlightenment is exactly as I described it over the years, and it's the same for everyone. It's a steady progression through the states of CC, GC, UC and BC to complete fulfillment. When one reaches that state of full enlightenment, one is able to manifest all of the siddhis and levitate, as I do, and bring all of one's ideas to perfect completion, as I did with Vedaland and so many other projects. That'll be a million dollars, please. The Dumb Blonde definition Enlightenment is what I say it is. Anyone who says anything different is WRONG, and is just a monkey-mind chattering away. And I know this to be true because my TM initiator, What's-his-name, said so back when I first learned TM, back in Wherever-it-was-ville. The Vaj definition Enlightenment is what the people I consider enlightened say it is. And it is ONLY what the people I consider enlightened say it is. So there. :-) The TMO definition Enlightenment is the inevitable result of practicing the TM technique, which is the fastest, easiest, most effective means of attaining enlightenment ever seen on planet Earth. This can be verified by doing scientific tests on all the people we have certified as being fully enlightened over the 53 years of our teaching. Come back a week from some Thursday and we will provide you with a list of their names. Turq's definition Enlightenment is something that people who (on the whole) have never experienced it like to talk about as if they knew exactly what it was. In general, the more they talk about it as if they know exactly what it is, the less likelihood there is that they have ever had even a fleeting experience of it. Those who *have* had a fleeting experience of what they consider enlighten- ment to be are basically saying that their subjective experience -- whatever it might have been really -- is synonymous with enlightenment because *they* had the experience, and they are so important that if *they* had that experience, it *must* be cool and valuable and special, because *they* are cool and valuable and special. People talk about enlightenment in the same way they talk about unicorns -- they claim to know *exactly* what the unicorn of enlightenment looks like, but can't show you any unicorns so that
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: you are trying so hard today, curt, and your reward is due-- enjoy a banana! Who is Curt? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: your definitions all sound so monkey-like. here's a banana, my little chiquita. enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. You know this sounds like a made-up problem to solve. I never met anyone who was lost in or identified with the objects of perception. Someone would have an unimaginable pathological lack of self awareness for this to be a problem. I mean this seriously because it is one of the fundamental presuppositions of Maharishi's teaching. Can anyone here remember when this was a problem in your life before TM? I honestly can't. this can't be accomplished on the thinking level. it is not about thinking, imagining, believing, denying, or hallucinating. the most effective way to establish that state is by alternating the practice of transcending with activity. the easiest way to do this is through the regular (2x a day) practice of Transcendental Maditation, or TM. I have heard this exact phrase somewhere before but I just can't place it... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Seriously, I would like to hear each person's definition in one or two sentences please. (we already know Vaj is going to inscrutably say And Sal is going to say A good BLT sandwich ...but what is the definition from the rest of you? Enlightenment -- a fluid, everchanging subjective state of mind that has no qualities or attributes except what the claimant of having attained it claims it has, and no benefits for the claimant or society other than what the claimant says it has. The only important thing is that other people must view the person who has claimed enlightenment as somehow special and better than they are. See 'unicorn,' and 'UFO sightings.' All in all, a BLT is more nourishing and better for you, and cheaper. -- The Dictionary of Cutting Through The Bullshit, Get Real Press, 33rd. edition. MORE DEFINITIONS OF ENLIGHTENMENT The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi definition Enlightenment is exactly as I described it over the years, and it's the same for everyone. It's a steady progression through the states of CC, GC, UC and BC to complete fulfillment. When one reaches that state of full enlightenment, one is able to manifest all of the siddhis and levitate, as I do, and bring all of one's ideas to perfect completion, as I did with Vedaland and so many other projects. That'll be a million dollars, please. The Dumb Blonde definition Enlightenment is what I say it is. Anyone who says anything different is WRONG, and is just a monkey-mind chattering away. And I know this to be true because my TM initiator, What's-his-name, said so back when I first learned TM, back in Wherever-it-was-ville. The Vaj definition Enlightenment is what the people I consider enlightened say it is. And it is ONLY what the people I consider enlightened say it is. So there. :-) The TMO definition Enlightenment is the inevitable result of practicing the TM technique, which is the fastest, easiest, most effective means of attaining enlightenment ever seen on planet Earth. This can be verified by doing scientific tests on all the people we have certified as being fully enlightened over the 53 years of our teaching. Come back a week from some Thursday and we will provide you with a list of their names. Turq's definition Enlightenment is something that people who (on the whole) have never experienced it like to talk about as if they knew exactly what it was. In general, the more they talk about it as if they know exactly what it is, the less likelihood there is that they have ever had even a fleeting experience of it. Those who *have* had a fleeting experience of what they consider enlighten- ment to be are basically saying that their subjective experience -- whatever it might have been really -- is synonymous with enlightenment because *they* had the experience, and they are so important that if *they* had that experience, it *must* be cool and valuable and special, because *they* are cool and
[FairfieldLife] I can beat up 21 90-year olds
http://tinyurl.com/bme36w I answered the questions honestly. Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
Curtis, Under no circumstances are you to take a banana from ED11. Not that there's anything wrong with that! - Jerry Seinfeld Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: you are trying so hard today, curt, and your reward is due-- enjoy a banana! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: your definitions all sound so monkey-like. here's a banana, my little chiquita. enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. You know this sounds like a made-up problem to solve. I never met anyone who was lost in or identified with the objects of perception. Someone would have an unimaginable pathological lack of self awareness for this to be a problem. I mean this seriously because it is one of the fundamental presuppositions of Maharishi's teaching. Can anyone here remember when this was a problem in your life before TM? I honestly can't. this can't be accomplished on the thinking level. it is not about thinking, imagining, believing, denying, or hallucinating. the most effective way to establish that state is by alternating the practice of transcending with activity. the easiest way to do this is through the regular (2x a day) practice of Transcendental Maditation, or TM. I have heard this exact phrase somewhere before but I just can't place it... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Seriously, I would like to hear each person's definition in one or two sentences please. (we already know Vaj is going to inscrutably say And Sal is going to say A good BLT sandwich ...but what is the definition from the rest of you? Enlightenment -- a fluid, everchanging subjective state of mind that has no qualities or attributes except what the claimant of having attained it claims it has, and no benefits for the claimant or society other than what the claimant says it has. The only important thing is that other people must view the person who has claimed enlightenment as somehow special and better than they are. See 'unicorn,' and 'UFO sightings.' All in all, a BLT is more nourishing and better for you, and cheaper. -- The Dictionary of Cutting Through The Bullshit, Get Real Press, 33rd. edition. MORE DEFINITIONS OF ENLIGHTENMENT The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi definition Enlightenment is exactly as I described it over the years, and it's the same for everyone. It's a steady progression through the states of CC, GC, UC and BC to complete fulfillment. When one reaches that state of full enlightenment, one is able to manifest all of the siddhis and levitate, as I do, and bring all of one's ideas to perfect completion, as I did with Vedaland and so many other projects. That'll be a million dollars, please. The Dumb Blonde definition Enlightenment is what I say it is. Anyone who says anything different is WRONG, and is just a monkey-mind chattering away. And I know this to be true because my TM initiator, What's-his-name, said so back when I first learned TM, back in Wherever-it-was-ville. The Vaj definition Enlightenment is what the people I consider enlightened say it is. And it is ONLY what the people I consider enlightened say it is. So there. :-) The TMO definition Enlightenment is the inevitable result of practicing the TM technique, which is the fastest, easiest, most effective means of attaining enlightenment ever seen on planet Earth. This can be verified by doing scientific tests on all the people we have certified as being fully enlightened over the 53 years of our teaching. Come back a week from some Thursday and we will provide you with a list of their names. Turq's definition Enlightenment is something that people who (on the whole) have never experienced it like to talk about as if they knew exactly what it was. In general, the more they talk about it as if they know exactly what it is, the less likelihood there is that they have ever had even a fleeting experience of it. Those who *have* had a fleeting experience of what they consider enlighten- ment to be are basically saying that their subjective experience -- whatever it might have been really -- is synonymous with enlightenment because *they* had the experience, and they are so important
[FairfieldLife] New file uploaded to FairfieldLife
Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the FairfieldLife group. File: /Vedic Science/PHDMeeraNanda.pdf Uploaded by : vajradhatu108 vajradh...@earthlink.net Description : Manus Children: Vedic Science, Hindutva and Postmodernism You can access this file at the URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/files/Vedic%20%22Science%22/PHDMeeraNanda.pdf To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit: http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.htmlfiles Regards, vajradhatu108 vajradh...@earthlink.net To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com 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:fairfieldlife-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: fairfieldlife-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Monkeys vs Meat (Re: Mantras, Religion and finally a statement . . .)
cool stuff about your family. i have always loved flying. i guess my pilot analogy doesn't capture the transcendent nature of the TM practice, the evolving body of self knowledge as one continues TM, and the benefits derived and the strength of the practice when done properly (2x a day) vs occasionally. this is what a few here don't understand, UNLESS THEY ACTUALLY DO TM REGULARLY. what we are left with is a bunch of old chattering, lovable, furry monkeys, confirming their prejudices, based on...their prejudices. current experience has nothing to do with the chattering of the monkeys, which is neither wise, nor accurate, and only serves to get them bananas- --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: enlightened_dawn11 wrote: to use another anology, let's imagine a group of full time pilots sitting around, discussing how best to fly a plane. and let's imagine another group, of ex-pilots, and occasional pilots, and non- pilots, joining the first group, and the second group of wannabees loudly proclaiming their opinions about all things aeronautical to the group of full time pilots. don't you think the wannabees would look like a chattering bunch of monkeys to the full time pilots? Erp, ya used the wrong metaphor for me. My woman's family are all pilots -- her Mother and Father are in the Wisconsin Aviation Hall of Fame. Her son captains a 747. So, I've heard pilot talk of every sort, but I've never heard one pilot yet disenfranchise another who'd been on the ground for decades. If you learn to fly, there's some things ya never forget. You're a pilot on your death bed. Her mother was the youngest woman licensed pilot in AMERICA at 17 years old -- barnstormer and all that. She's 85 years old now, and when she talks of flying . . . I LISTEN. Just so, if, say, Turq says something about TM, validity still rings. Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
excellent starting point! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: you are trying so hard today, curt, and your reward is due-- enjoy a banana! Who is Curt? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: your definitions all sound so monkey-like. here's a banana, my little chiquita. enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. You know this sounds like a made-up problem to solve. I never met anyone who was lost in or identified with the objects of perception. Someone would have an unimaginable pathological lack of self awareness for this to be a problem. I mean this seriously because it is one of the fundamental presuppositions of Maharishi's teaching. Can anyone here remember when this was a problem in your life before TM? I honestly can't. this can't be accomplished on the thinking level. it is not about thinking, imagining, believing, denying, or hallucinating. the most effective way to establish that state is by alternating the practice of transcending with activity. the easiest way to do this is through the regular (2x a day) practice of Transcendental Maditation, or TM. I have heard this exact phrase somewhere before but I just can't place it... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Seriously, I would like to hear each person's definition in one or two sentences please. (we already know Vaj is going to inscrutably say And Sal is going to say A good BLT sandwich ...but what is the definition from the rest of you? Enlightenment -- a fluid, everchanging subjective state of mind that has no qualities or attributes except what the claimant of having attained it claims it has, and no benefits for the claimant or society other than what the claimant says it has. The only important thing is that other people must view the person who has claimed enlightenment as somehow special and better than they are. See 'unicorn,' and 'UFO sightings.' All in all, a BLT is more nourishing and better for you, and cheaper. -- The Dictionary of Cutting Through The Bullshit, Get Real Press, 33rd. edition. MORE DEFINITIONS OF ENLIGHTENMENT The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi definition Enlightenment is exactly as I described it over the years, and it's the same for everyone. It's a steady progression through the states of CC, GC, UC and BC to complete fulfillment. When one reaches that state of full enlightenment, one is able to manifest all of the siddhis and levitate, as I do, and bring all of one's ideas to perfect completion, as I did with Vedaland and so many other projects. That'll be a million dollars, please. The Dumb Blonde definition Enlightenment is what I say it is. Anyone who says anything different is WRONG, and is just a monkey-mind chattering away. And I know this to be true because my TM initiator, What's-his-name, said so back when I first learned TM, back in Wherever-it-was-ville. The Vaj definition Enlightenment is what the people I consider enlightened say it is. And it is ONLY what the people I consider enlightened say it is. So there. :-) The TMO definition Enlightenment is the inevitable result of practicing the TM technique, which is the fastest, easiest, most effective means of attaining enlightenment ever seen on planet Earth. This can be verified by doing scientific tests on all the people we have certified as being fully enlightened over the 53 years of our teaching. Come back a week from some Thursday and we will provide you with a list of their names. Turq's definition Enlightenment is something that people who (on the whole) have never experienced it like to talk about as if they knew exactly what it was. In general, the more they talk about it as if they know exactly what it is, the less likelihood there is that they have ever had even a fleeting experience of it. Those who *have* had a fleeting experience of what they consider enlighten- ment to be are basically saying that their subjective experience --
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM puja is religious, as are other elements of TM practice
Mistaking the intensity of belief for its epistemological justification is one of the most important traps to avoid in sorting out the natural human bias for believing that our POV doesn't need any more supporting evidence than its enthusiastic assertion. ** Curtis, this quote (above), not to mention the rest of the post, nail the issue directly. You'd make a hell of a trial lawyer. I'm continually impressed by your posts. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, amritasyaputra amritasyaputra@ wrote: You say Veda is more than religion, it is everything. Well, to me, that is a religious concept. So the so-called Theory of Everything in Physics is a religious theory, hmm? This is the heart of the disconnect in our different POVs I think. If you want to do what Judy seems to be doing and calling the Vedic teaching a working hypothesis which is exactly what the TOE is all about, then you might be closer to it not being a religious assertion. But this is the phrase Ruth was commenting on: Veda is Sanatan Dharm, the eternalway of life. NO religion. Remember that Sanatana Dharma includes detailed instructions of the most repressive social organization in history, the caste system. It is being presented in a religious context as being an absolute, handed down from antiquity through India's scriptures without being modified by present experiences which is the opposite of physic's attempt to develop a TOE. So for example if I were to say that the caste system that requires that some people how are born in the clean up other people's doodie caste can NEVER rise above that by taking a computer class and getting a job at the Bangalore AOL call center is wrong...then the answer would be that I just don't understand that this organization of society is the best thing for the person's evolution assuming that there is reincarnation and that they will come back next life in a higher caste if they do their doodie cleaning really well in this life. These are religious beliefs. They are not subject to revision with modern sense of ethic concerning human rights. It is not the attempt to explain how everything works that defines some body of knowledge as religious. It is the appeal to an authority as the reason for the belief. A claim that this body of knowledge is the eternal way of life for example. Mistaking the intensity of belief for its epistemological justification is one of the most important traps to avoid in sorting out the natural human bias for believing that our POV doesn't need any more supporting evidence than its enthusiastic assertion. It does if we care about the truth in a scientific sense. But religion pull this move all the time. Well, continue to worry your pretty little head... You and your fiends here seem to see religion everywhere! Actually, also nice. With best wishes Shaas --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, amritasyaputra amritasyaputra@ wrote: Thanks, that's what I am saying too: TM just by itself is obviously not a religion THerefore, we can close that boring discussion. Just practise it and don't bother about all those theories. Well, I worry my pretty little head about these theories. And Veda, too, is not a religion. Maybe Hinduism is but Veda is not. Veda is Sanatan Dharm, the eternal way of life. NO religion. It is a knowledge pertaining to the whole so certainly including religion as any other knowledge. Our root is in Veda, not Hinduism Shaas I guess you told us! The eternal way of life is a religious concept. Religion deals with ultimate questions. I get the feeling that to call TM or the Vedas religion minimizes both in the TB's mind. You say Veda is more than religion, it is everything. Well, to me, that is a religious concept. Everything else must fit or be bent to fit the concepts of the Vedas. Meditation is a technique of this religion. Much like taking communion or going to confession is a technique of the Catholic. So Shaas, do you believe in hovering? In Jyotish? In doing the puja? In pulse diagnosis of illness? That east facing homes are better than west facing homes? How religious are you?
[FairfieldLife] New file uploaded to FairfieldLife
Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the FairfieldLife group. File: /Vedic Science/MeeraNandaResponseToCritics.pdf Uploaded by : vajradhatu108 vajradh...@earthlink.net Description : Meera Nanda responds to the peddlers the romance of Vedic Science You can access this file at the URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/files/Vedic%20%22Science%22/MeeraNandaResponseToCritics.pdf To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit: http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.htmlfiles Regards, vajradhatu108 vajradh...@earthlink.net
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM puja is religious, as are other elements of TM practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavisma...@... wrote: Mistaking the intensity of belief for its epistemological justification is one of the most important traps to avoid in sorting out the natural human bias for believing that our POV doesn't need any more supporting evidence than its enthusiastic assertion. ** Curtis, this quote (above), not to mention the rest of the post, nail the issue directly. You'd make a hell of a trial lawyer. I'm continually impressed by your posts. Thanks for the good vibes brother! You'd make a hell of a trial lawyer too...why wait a second... you ARE one! I rest my case. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, amritasyaputra amritasyaputra@ wrote: You say Veda is more than religion, it is everything. Well, to me, that is a religious concept. So the so-called Theory of Everything in Physics is a religious theory, hmm? This is the heart of the disconnect in our different POVs I think. If you want to do what Judy seems to be doing and calling the Vedic teaching a working hypothesis which is exactly what the TOE is all about, then you might be closer to it not being a religious assertion. But this is the phrase Ruth was commenting on: Veda is Sanatan Dharm, the eternalway of life. NO religion. Remember that Sanatana Dharma includes detailed instructions of the most repressive social organization in history, the caste system. It is being presented in a religious context as being an absolute, handed down from antiquity through India's scriptures without being modified by present experiences which is the opposite of physic's attempt to develop a TOE. So for example if I were to say that the caste system that requires that some people how are born in the clean up other people's doodie caste can NEVER rise above that by taking a computer class and getting a job at the Bangalore AOL call center is wrong...then the answer would be that I just don't understand that this organization of society is the best thing for the person's evolution assuming that there is reincarnation and that they will come back next life in a higher caste if they do their doodie cleaning really well in this life. These are religious beliefs. They are not subject to revision with modern sense of ethic concerning human rights. It is not the attempt to explain how everything works that defines some body of knowledge as religious. It is the appeal to an authority as the reason for the belief. A claim that this body of knowledge is the eternal way of life for example. Mistaking the intensity of belief for its epistemological justification is one of the most important traps to avoid in sorting out the natural human bias for believing that our POV doesn't need any more supporting evidence than its enthusiastic assertion. It does if we care about the truth in a scientific sense. But religion pull this move all the time. Well, continue to worry your pretty little head... You and your fiends here seem to see religion everywhere! Actually, also nice. With best wishes Shaas --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, amritasyaputra amritasyaputra@ wrote: Thanks, that's what I am saying too: TM just by itself is obviously not a religion THerefore, we can close that boring discussion. Just practise it and don't bother about all those theories. Well, I worry my pretty little head about these theories. And Veda, too, is not a religion. Maybe Hinduism is but Veda is not. Veda is Sanatan Dharm, the eternal way of life. NO religion. It is a knowledge pertaining to the whole so certainly including religion as any other knowledge. Our root is in Veda, not Hinduism Shaas I guess you told us! The eternal way of life is a religious concept. Religion deals with ultimate questions. I get the feeling that to call TM or the Vedas religion minimizes both in the TB's mind. You say Veda is more than religion, it is everything. Well, to me, that is a religious concept. Everything else must fit or be bent to fit the concepts of the Vedas. Meditation is a technique of this religion. Much like taking communion or going to confession is a technique of the Catholic. So Shaas, do you believe in hovering? In Jyotish? In doing the puja? In pulse diagnosis of illness? That east facing homes are better than west facing homes? How religious are you?
[FairfieldLife] Friendship vs Love
Friendship vs Love...
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
I also acknowledge that I have an aspect of my mind that is an unchanging witness of my personality. It is an artifact of consciousness and a part of being human if you choose to spend enough time to notice it. I'll even acknowledge that meditating helps you notice this aspect of your mind more clearly. ** This quote (above), is what I'm interested in. The assertion that the unchanging witness is an aspect of the mind and an artifact of consciousness, however, is still unsettled for me. I can understand why you'd assert that, but I don't understand how you could support the assertion. And I'm not saying that you're wrong in the assertion, only that I don't know myself. At some point, it became clear that awareness always is (and was), but somehow I hadn't noticed it before. Meditation and other tools apparently assisted the discovery of it. Awareness persisted in sleep and during episodes of unconsciousness resulting from injury or illness. However, since at no time, did the body fall away, there's no telling whether awareness persists or not when the body dies. (But it feels like it does.) It seems clear that the Eastern traditions and lineages have found the apparent persistence of awareness to have value, and have constructed some elaborate and some convincing arguments to support both the belief in its value and to stimulate individuals to gain that experience in their own lives. Whether or not those traditions have it right, or are merely touting an experience that feels good, or feels right, but doesn't have any larger, transpersonal value is still in question. For myself, I've taken the position that there's enough of value to continue to experiment with consciousness to get a clearer sense of what it all means. Eastern traditions (including Maharishi's), mystical philosophies, and the many insightful posts on FFL have been excellent adjuncts to that continued exploration. Thanks, Curtis. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: Identity is non-physical with the intent to reach a deeper clarity about it? Or do you think I'm just slinging Advaita shit that can safely be dismissed? Does ya got twelve in the juryroom still? My identity is not physical. It is tied to the physical so that when the physical becomes worm food I have a suspicion that I'm not going to be able to remember the Brazilian Samba chords I learned on my guitar this morning. I can't even maintain consciousness when a doctor pumps a white liquid into my veins for a little fireside chat with the interior of my colon. I also acknowledge that I have an aspect of my mind that is an unchanging witness of my personality. It is an artifact of consciousness and a part of being human if you choose to spend enough time to notice it. I'll even acknowledge that meditating helps you notice this aspect of your mind more clearly. But making a case for it being the transpersonal basis for all creation is just imposing a religious assertion on top of it. It is making a bigger deal about it than I think it deserves. But I could be wrong. But so far all the magical stuff claimed about this state of mind has not shown up. Has it? Maharishi was a charismatic interesting guy and all but he didn't show up as having special powers to me, beyond what an eccentric relentless self promoter like Donald Trump exhibits. The Donald sleeps as little as Maharishi did too! curtisdeltablues wrote: enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. You know this sounds like a made-up problem to solve. I never met anyone who was lost in or identified with the objects of perception. Someone would have an unimaginable pathological lack of self awareness for this to be a problem. I mean this seriously because it is one of the fundamental presuppositions of Maharishi's teaching. Can anyone here remember when this was a problem in your life before TM? I honestly can't. Curtis, This is the crux issue: what is the nature of Identity? I think your suspicions are well founded only if you ignore that the mind itself is an object of consciousness. Every thought-feeling (the mind) is a tar baby that allures Identity to become its soul. Moment by moment WE INVEST in objects. We enter them. We identify with them. We affirm their existence like dying folks in the desert crawling towards a mirage of an oasis. Each thought impossibly grabs us effortlessly -- we rubberneck them like roadside accidents . . . unable to avert our gazing. When I buy a new car, woe unto anyone who comes up to it and bangs it with a fist -- I will feel pain I tells ya! That's my Identity you're
[FairfieldLife] 75% Americans Confident Change is Coming
The latest Diageo/Hotline Poll finds that 75% of voters are confident that President Obama will bring real change to the way things are done in Washington, D.C. This represents a nine-point increase from the 66% of voters who said they were confident in his ability to bring real change in the poll conducted immediately after the election. It seem Obama's inaugural speech had a lot to do with it. A whopping 83% of those who watched the speech said it made them more optimistic that the U.S. will meet its challenges. ~Diageo/Hotline Poll [pdf]: http://snipurl.com/aty8k
Re: [FairfieldLife] 75% Americans Confident Change is Coming
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:24 PM, do.rflex do.rf...@yahoo.com wrote: The latest Diageo/Hotline Poll finds that 75% of voters are confident that President Obama will bring real change to the way things are done in Washington, D.C. This represents a nine-point increase from the 66% of voters who said they were confident in his ability to bring real change in the poll conducted immediately after the election. It seem Obama's inaugural speech had a lot to do with it. A whopping 83% of those who watched the speech said it made them more optimistic that the U.S. will meet its challenges. I'll just be happy if my new line of disposable diapers, the Change You Can Believe In brand, takes off.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I can beat up 21 90-year olds
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: http://tinyurl.com/bme36w I answered the questions honestly. 31. I answered honestly, too. Must have been all the martial arts training. Besides, my motto is, Never give a guy a break who can take his teeth out of his mouth and slash you with them.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM puja is religious, as are other elements of TM practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavisma...@... wrote (quoting Curtis): Mistaking the intensity of belief for its epistemological justification is one of the most important traps to avoid in sorting out the natural human bias for believing that our POV doesn't need any more supporting evidence than its enthusiastic assertion. Certainty is an emotion, not a fact. - Father Flynn, Doubt
[FairfieldLife] Re: 75% Americans Confident Change is Coming
What I'd be interested in knowing, Bongo, is what changes YOU want for America? Could you list them for us, please? And please don't copy and paste some article from another part of the web...from your heart...what changes do you want for America? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rf...@... wrote: The latest Diageo/Hotline Poll finds that 75% of voters are confident that President Obama will bring real change to the way things are done in Washington, D.C. This represents a nine-point increase from the 66% of voters who said they were confident in his ability to bring real change in the poll conducted immediately after the election. It seem Obama's inaugural speech had a lot to do with it. A whopping 83% of those who watched the speech said it made them more optimistic that the U.S. will meet its challenges. ~Diageo/Hotline Poll [pdf]: http://snipurl.com/aty8k
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--In other words, mind is a secondary witness to Witnessing; a fact even the Neo-Advaitins can't deny. (some mind-entity - illusory or not - is making various claims). What is the value of having those experiences.? If there is value in such experiences why aren't those experiencing It shouting from the rooftops? - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavisma...@... wrote: I also acknowledge that I have an aspect of my mind that is an unchanging witness of my personality. It is an artifact of consciousness and a part of being human if you choose to spend enough time to notice it. I'll even acknowledge that meditating helps you notice this aspect of your mind more clearly. ** This quote (above), is what I'm interested in. The assertion that the unchanging witness is an aspect of the mind and an artifact of consciousness, however, is still unsettled for me. I can understand why you'd assert that, but I don't understand how you could support the assertion. And I'm not saying that you're wrong in the assertion, only that I don't know myself. At some point, it became clear that awareness always is (and was), but somehow I hadn't noticed it before. Meditation and other tools apparently assisted the discovery of it. Awareness persisted in sleep and during episodes of unconsciousness resulting from injury or illness. However, since at no time, did the body fall away, there's no telling whether awareness persists or not when the body dies. (But it feels like it does.) It seems clear that the Eastern traditions and lineages have found the apparent persistence of awareness to have value, and have constructed some elaborate and some convincing arguments to support both the belief in its value and to stimulate individuals to gain that experience in their own lives. Whether or not those traditions have it right, or are merely touting an experience that feels good, or feels right, but doesn't have any larger, transpersonal value is still in question. For myself, I've taken the position that there's enough of value to continue to experiment with consciousness to get a clearer sense of what it all means. Eastern traditions (including Maharishi's), mystical philosophies, and the many insightful posts on FFL have been excellent adjuncts to that continued exploration. Thanks, Curtis. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: Identity is non-physical with the intent to reach a deeper clarity about it? Or do you think I'm just slinging Advaita shit that can safely be dismissed? Does ya got twelve in the juryroom still? My identity is not physical. It is tied to the physical so that when the physical becomes worm food I have a suspicion that I'm not going to be able to remember the Brazilian Samba chords I learned on my guitar this morning. I can't even maintain consciousness when a doctor pumps a white liquid into my veins for a little fireside chat with the interior of my colon. I also acknowledge that I have an aspect of my mind that is an unchanging witness of my personality. It is an artifact of consciousness and a part of being human if you choose to spend enough time to notice it. I'll even acknowledge that meditating helps you notice this aspect of your mind more clearly. But making a case for it being the transpersonal basis for all creation is just imposing a religious assertion on top of it. It is making a bigger deal about it than I think it deserves. But I could be wrong. But so far all the magical stuff claimed about this state of mind has not shown up. Has it? Maharishi was a charismatic interesting guy and all but he didn't show up as having special powers to me, beyond what an eccentric relentless self promoter like Donald Trump exhibits. The Donald sleeps as little as Maharishi did too! curtisdeltablues wrote: enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. You know this sounds like a made-up problem to solve. I never met anyone who was lost in or identified with the objects of perception. Someone would have an unimaginable pathological lack of self awareness for this to be a problem. I mean this seriously because it is one of the fundamental presuppositions of Maharishi's teaching. Can anyone here remember when this was a problem in your life before TM? I honestly can't. Curtis, This is the crux issue: what is the nature of Identity? I think your suspicions are well founded only if you ignore that the mind itself is an object of consciousness. Every thought- feeling (the mind) is a
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
why, the bananas come from the forest, my little chiquita! they grow in big bunches there, and are ripe for the monkeys to eat. us humans don't insert them anywhere except our mouths. does my little chiquita put them other places? can you describe please, my little chiquita? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: Curtis, Under no circumstances are you to take a banana from ED11. Absolutely. You don't know where that banana might have been. Worse, you do. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Evil fiddler vs Evil fumbler (Re: Oh, how intelligent he is!)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: It is such a bitter note that Bill Clinton, who was a Rhodes Scholar fer crissakes, still fiddled while hundreds of thousands of women and babies were hacked to death by assassins hired by the Chinese. So much for I.Q. If Bush had had a heart, I wouldn't care nearly so much that he was relatively stupid. Clinton's intelligence only serves to further justify a dark decree about the nature of his heart, his immorality. He knew he was sinning by omission. On his watch, in the entire history of the world, genocide was never more easy to see or to stop in its tracks. He saw and did nothing. Whatever he did good was counterbalanced by this sin. I'm with you there. But I have been surprised to discover how many folks here at FFL seem to think smarmy Bill has the brain the size of a planet. Perhaps being from the other side of the pond I don't have enough insight into his genius. Or I'm just to thick myself to appreciate his gargantuan intellect. What I would say is that political spin has the power to create the most extraordinary myths. Is Bill's brain one of those? In the UK we have prime minister Gordon Brown who has also been fabricated by the spin doctors as having a towering intellect with a grasp of economics second to none (despite never having held down a real job in business in his life). For the last 12 years or so whilst he held the reins of our economy he would repeatedly pronounce that he had ended the era of boom bust. What hubris! Which he can't shake off. Only a couple of weeks ago he let slip that he had saved the world through his bank bail-out plan. Oh my... Obama does look as though he could be the real deal though. Here's hoping. Obama walks his talk -- so far. There's hundreds of campaign promises yet to keep. I'm watchin'! He's got to tip toe through the mine fields, and I won't look too closely at which mine he deactivates first, but he'd better eventually get to almost all of them. Here's my reason to have patience with Obama: Most of us are awed by Obama's swift and detailed actions to undo the Bush shit. But don't miss the fact that Bush was surrounded by evil--hyper-intelligent advisers who JUST AS RAPIDLY AND WITH JUST AS THOROUGHLY WORKED NIGHT AND DAY for eight fucking years to put every sort of miscreant into bureaucracies, issue every sort of signing statement, issue every sort of executive order, slow down every life-supporting process, etc. etc. etc. etc. Think of Obama's task. He has to identify all of Bush's muddy footprints on the Declaration of Independence -- how much energy, time etc. is Obama using to do this instead of, you know, being able to direct his attention upon life-supporting processes? In fact, it seems that Obama has TWICE the presidential workload. I fear for his mind as it boggles by the second and will do so for the foreseeable future. If I was a believer, I'd be praying for him. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Jan 26, 2009, at 8:33 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: Why does everyone always go out of their way to mention how intelligent Obama is? I find it racist, don't you? When I hear people say that, what I really hear is: How surprising to have an articulate Negro who sounds as intelligent as White people. And, of course, it's only liberals who say it. Bill Clinton is one of the most intelligent people around. I NEVER remember people saying that about him all the time. Feeling a tad defensive about how pathetically stupid the last 3 Republican presidents have been, are we, Shemp? People marvel at Obama's intelligence because after 8 years of being subjected to someone with a brain the size of a pea and the consistency of Swiss cheese, it's kind of nice to have someone in the White House who *is* intelligent, and acts like it. And doesn't feel the need to hide it. And of course people mentioned how intelligent Clinton was, I still often do. And Jimmy Carter as well. I'm sure it must kind of grate that all along you've been supporting people whose greatest qualifications for office are their last name and how completely they can divorce themselves from reality. And so people are undoubtedly going to keep on mentioning how nice it is to have someone in the WH who is intelligent, acts like an adult, and actually engages with opposing viewpoints. Get used to it. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifux...@... wrote: --In other words, mind is a secondary witness to Witnessing; a fact even the Neo-Advaitins can't deny. (some mind-entity - illusory or not - is making various claims). What is the value of having those experiences.? That is the question that no one asks, because they have already been presented with (and bought hook, line, and sinker) the dogma that achieving this witnessing state is the highest point of human evolution, something that should be achieved. If they had NOT been presented with that view, it would have no value to them at all. And it's not even that hard to achieve. Based on reports of people who practiced techniques of lucid dreaming ( waking up in your dreams, to the point of being able to control them ), after only a few months pretty much everyone I was working with reported being able to witness not only their dreams, but deep sleep as well. These were people who have never meditated in their lives, and they could witness by performing a few simple exercises before sleep, and during it. To them, being able to witness their dreams or deep sleep is small potatoes, nothing to get excited about or value in itself. The point of lucid dreaming is to be able to fully control your dreams, and manifest anything you want in them, visit anyone you want to visit, stuff like that. They laughed with me when I told them that some people think that developing the witness thing was a big deal. They laughed *at* me when I told them that there were people who thought being able to do this was enlightenment...they thought I was putting them on, because in their view no one could be that stupid. The older I get, the more I agree with them. Obviously, I tend to agree with Curtis in all of this. So there is a thing called witnessing your activity. So what? Schizophrenics have that one down pat, or at least some of them do. What good has it done them? What good does it do any- one else? If there is value in such experiences why aren't those experiencing It shouting from the rooftops? - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: I also acknowledge that I have an aspect of my mind that is an unchanging witness of my personality. It is an artifact of consciousness and a part of being human if you choose to spend enough time to notice it. I'll even acknowledge that meditating helps you notice this aspect of your mind more clearly. ** This quote (above), is what I'm interested in. The assertion that the unchanging witness is an aspect of the mind and an artifact of consciousness, however, is still unsettled for me. I can understand why you'd assert that, but I don't understand how you could support the assertion. And I'm not saying that you're wrong in the assertion, only that I don't know myself. At some point, it became clear that awareness always is (and was), but somehow I hadn't noticed it before. Meditation and other tools apparently assisted the discovery of it. Awareness persisted in sleep and during episodes of unconsciousness resulting from injury or illness. However, since at no time, did the body fall away, there's no telling whether awareness persists or not when the body dies. (But it feels like it does.) It seems clear that the Eastern traditions and lineages have found the apparent persistence of awareness to have value, and have constructed some elaborate and some convincing arguments to support both the belief in its value and to stimulate individuals to gain that experience in their own lives. Whether or not those traditions have it right, or are merely touting an experience that feels good, or feels right, but doesn't have any larger, transpersonal value is still in question. For myself, I've taken the position that there's enough of value to continue to experiment with consciousness to get a clearer sense of what it all means. Eastern traditions (including Maharishi's), mystical philosophies, and the many insightful posts on FFL have been excellent adjuncts to that continued exploration. Thanks, Curtis. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: Identity is non-physical with the intent to reach a deeper clarity about it? Or do you think I'm just slinging Advaita shit that can safely be dismissed? Does ya got twelve in the juryroom still? My identity is not physical. It is tied to the physical so that when the physical becomes worm food I have a suspicion that I'm not going to be able to remember the Brazilian Samba chords I learned on my guitar this morning. I can't even maintain consciousness when a doctor pumps a white liquid into my veins for a little
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
interesting-- what do you mean by mind is a secondary witness to witnessing? i enjoy the paradox of witnessing occuring on its own, by virtue of the witness (atman), but it needs the mind to express the definition of witnessing, in order to communicate anything at all about it. wouldn't it be more precise to say the mind is in service to the witness, since the mind cannot have an identity of its own? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifux...@... wrote: --In other words, mind is a secondary witness to Witnessing; a fact even the Neo-Advaitins can't deny. (some mind-entity - illusory or not - is making various claims). What is the value of having those experiences.? If there is value in such experiences why aren't those experiencing It shouting from the rooftops? - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: I also acknowledge that I have an aspect of my mind that is an unchanging witness of my personality. It is an artifact of consciousness and a part of being human if you choose to spend enough time to notice it. I'll even acknowledge that meditating helps you notice this aspect of your mind more clearly. ** This quote (above), is what I'm interested in. The assertion that the unchanging witness is an aspect of the mind and an artifact of consciousness, however, is still unsettled for me. I can understand why you'd assert that, but I don't understand how you could support the assertion. And I'm not saying that you're wrong in the assertion, only that I don't know myself. At some point, it became clear that awareness always is (and was), but somehow I hadn't noticed it before. Meditation and other tools apparently assisted the discovery of it. Awareness persisted in sleep and during episodes of unconsciousness resulting from injury or illness. However, since at no time, did the body fall away, there's no telling whether awareness persists or not when the body dies. (But it feels like it does.) It seems clear that the Eastern traditions and lineages have found the apparent persistence of awareness to have value, and have constructed some elaborate and some convincing arguments to support both the belief in its value and to stimulate individuals to gain that experience in their own lives. Whether or not those traditions have it right, or are merely touting an experience that feels good, or feels right, but doesn't have any larger, transpersonal value is still in question. For myself, I've taken the position that there's enough of value to continue to experiment with consciousness to get a clearer sense of what it all means. Eastern traditions (including Maharishi's), mystical philosophies, and the many insightful posts on FFL have been excellent adjuncts to that continued exploration. Thanks, Curtis. Marek **
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
bravo monkey! chatter, chatter, chatter. are you done playing with your banana, and have decided to begin chattering again? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:
[FairfieldLife] Re: A reply to Vaj about Mantras, Religion, etc.
Normal 0 Re: [FairfieldLife] Mantras, Religion, etc Hi Billy Jim: On Jan 26, 2009, at 6:05 PM, billy jim wrote: Their fundamental claim is that a mantra is the name of a Hindu god. Vaj wrote: You might want to reread those claims. These aren't names per se, but seed-forms of nicknames of Goddesses or Gods. Code-words, if you will. Hi Vaj. Why gee, Vaj, you must have thought my post was talking about you. However, I have not reviewed your vast variety of claims here on FFL. Some of the people making these more basic claim about mantras write here, while others make their claims on different forums. Sorry to say, but whether you might agree or disagree with those peoples claims was not really significant to me when I composed my original post. I was addressing a set of common claims we all have heard over the years, many of them sounded out here on FFL. Vaj: To use a previous example, Shri is not the name of Laxmi, Shri is a nickname or epithet of Laxmi. This is a crucial distinction. Gosh gee, Vaj. You have become so creative that you are now making your own definitions. I dont have your flair for it so I just stick with scholars of Indian yoga, religion and mythology. According to them, Shri and Lakshmi were separate values that did not become properly defined as goddesses until the period of the Brahmanas. The famous Shri Suktam is actually a khila, or appendage hymn, added to the Rig Veda but is not placed with any of the original riks. Shri and Lakshmi appear in the Yajur Veda and later they coalesce into a single deity. As epitaphs, the words shri and lakshmi do appear in the Rig Veda but not as goddesses. These terms were used as adjectives of splendor and opulence, along with the word shiva, meaning auspicious, which also appears in Yajur Veda as the now famous namah shivaya. So in comment upon your claim, the only distinction that is crucial is that these terms were originally used to describe various forms of glory. They were later mythologized into goddesses, where they received these attributions as proper names, which then were descriptively united as a single goddess. And yes Vaj, I realize that you know there never were gods or goddesses in India, only devas. This is a well known journey from Vedic Brahmism to Purana-Agama Hindu temple worship. BillyJim: The claim is that a mantra, by definition, encapsulates a method for worshiping a Hindu god but that this fact is withheld from practitioners. Vaj: No! It does not withhold any sort of method at all. It only withholds a meaning. Sorry again Vaj, but I really must confess that I did not have you in mind. Christians and Post-Christians, who consider method and meaning to be the same for their argument, constructed this particular claim. Since mantras are considered god-names for them, worship of a false god is ingredient in using mantras, whether a meaning is imparted or not, whether a mantra is understood or not. This was why I used the word encapsulate. So sorry again, Vaj. Perhaps I should consult you first before posting here. That way you could better guarantee my posts would strictly follow your own prescient ideas about correct interpretation. Even better, maybe you can construct for me an outline I can follow to get it just right. What a relief you could give to me Vaj. I would no longer need to think for myself nor would I need to contemplate anything. I could then call myself Nirvikalpa Bill instead of just plain old Empty Bill. BillyJim: Within the domain of this argument, these claimants will often quote some text from a Hindu Tantra. These are passages usually assigning a particular deity to a particular mantra and sometimes even assigning a set of deities to each of the Sanskrit letters composing the written forms of the mantric sound. This textual assignment is sometimes done haphazardly and occasionally is done in the Vedic format of rishi-deva-chhanda. Vaj: Again, wrong. They are done in the TANTRIC format. This is only related to the Vedic sense in that the prior tantric forms, at a certain point in history, reached a certain symbiosis with the invading Vedic ideals. Gee gosh, Vaj. When a poster puts up quotes from a Tantra and then makes claims about the mantras in TM having the same meaning, I guess I need to send them to you on FFL. You could then say something like: Vaj: But the fact is, the tantric forms of mantra-shastra existed BEFORE the Vedic adaptations, not vice versa as you attempt. This would include the broader tantric interpretation of rishi-devata-chhandas-svara-prayoga, etc. etc. Gosh again, Vaj. What if these people need to see some history of the Veda literature and then compare it to Tantra, Shaiva Agama and Pancharatra Samhita before believing you? Which
[FairfieldLife] Why OJ is in jail?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/sports/football/28brain.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. This sounds like the I don't care anymore definition of enlightenment.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why OJ is in jail?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_re...@... wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/sports/football/28brain.html Let's do an autopsy and find out.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A reply to Vaj about Mantras, Religion, etc.
I get lost in the discussions of mantras and their source. But it appears to me that a constant in the discussions is that they are not without meaning. It also appears that over time the sounds have one way or another become associated with Hindu gods. Yes?
[FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. This sounds like the I don't care anymore definition of enlightenment. yes, agreed-- on the surface, that IS what it sounds like-- that is why making a mood of such behavior leads to apathy and inefficiency. i remember meeting a fellow once at a wedding who was trying to act and talk, while at the same time thinking, i am unattached, i am unattached came across like a zombie. the Maharishi has been very clear that this is not entertained on the level of thinking or imagining, which is a trap some fall into. the experience is nothing like that, and yet unmistakable. i am at a loss for words beyond that--
[FairfieldLife] Monkeys vs Meat (Re: Mantras, Religion and finally a statement . . .)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: to use another anology, let's imagine a group of full time pilots sitting around, discussing how best to fly a plane. and let's imagine another group, of ex-pilots, and occasional pilots, and non- pilots, joining the first group, and the second group of wannabees loudly proclaiming their opinions about all things aeronautical to the group of full time pilots. don't you think the wannabees would look like a chattering bunch of monkeys to the full time pilots? Well, the thing is, the full time pilots can't seem to get the plane off the ground. Your analogy is apt.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A reply to Vaj about Mantras, Religion, etc.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: I get lost in the discussions of mantras and their source. But it appears to me that a constant in the discussions is that they are not without meaning. It also appears that over time the sounds have one way or another become associated with Hindu gods. Yes? perhaps a good, but inexact analogy (i enjoy playing with analogies) is food. we know what the thing we are eating is called, but all we are really concerned with is the experience of eating, and the result of it. so if i eat an olive, or a steak, or some ice cream, the most important thing to me isn't the name of the food, but whether or not it looks good, smells good, and tastes good. and so with TM mantras. do they have meaning beyond their use in TM? possibly, but who cares? the meaning of the name has no purpose in the practice. it is the practice that keeps us meditating, not the possible name associated with it. i have been meditating for years, and have never bothered to find out what my TM mantra means in terms of definition, because that isn't what i use it for. so all of this discussion about what mantras mean is putting the cart before the horse. the meaning of the mantra is very much a distant second, if that, to the use of the mantra. experience of the mantra is the only thing that makes any difference. and the use of the mantra in TM is only concerned with the vibration produced, not that the mantra is thought about or entertained at all with regard to its meaning. so it isn't like chanting Krishna, or praying to Jesus, or worshipping Buddha, or venerating Mohammed, or any of that. those are all thinking uses of the names of gods and saints. the use of the mantra in TM is never used in that capacity, regardless of what some may chatter about. that is just an incorrect intepretation, and more about making noise than any attempt at understanding. experience, and only experience, is key for understanding how the mantra is used in TM, and it has nothing to do with its surface meaning.
[FairfieldLife] Monkeys vs Meat (Re: Mantras, Religion and finally a statement . . .)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: to use another anology, let's imagine a group of full time pilots sitting around, discussing how best to fly a plane. and let's imagine another group, of ex-pilots, and occasional pilots, and non- pilots, joining the first group, and the second group of wannabees loudly proclaiming their opinions about all things aeronautical to the group of full time pilots. don't you think the wannabees would look like a chattering bunch of monkeys to the full time pilots? Well, the thing is, the full time pilots can't seem to get the plane off the ground. Your analogy is apt. Ha-Ha-- i figured someone was going to say that! all the emphasis with the TMers on hovering and flying around through the air is the attempt by the ego to hold onto something while it dissolves. that is all. i did the TMSP until i didn't feel like it anymore. just lost interest-- i found the techniques very powerful and hugely useful, and i enjoyed lots of success, but not for me anymore.
[FairfieldLife] A nice story for Curtis - instead of a Karmic Tale it's a Karmic Ale
I am pleased to announce here on FFL that Boulevard Brewing Co. is now selling The Sixth Glass, a Trappist Monastery style Quadrupel Ale. What better place than a Trappist Monastery to face your final karma. Since they practice Mauna - silence from speaking - the monks let the Ale speak for itself. The Sixth Glass ale refers to one's final karma in a single life. In case you don't know the story, read on and weep - IT was New Year's day, and I went up on the tower. Ole spoke of the toasts that were drunk on the transition from the Old Year into the Newfrom one grave into the other, as he said. And he told me a story about the glasses, and this story had a very deep meaning. It was this: When on the New Year's night the clock strikes twelve, the people at the table rise up with full glasses in their hands, and drain these glasses, and drink success to the New Year. They begin the year with the glass in their hands; that is a good beginning for drunkards. They begin the New Year by going to bed, and that's a good beginning for drones. Sleep is sure to play a great part in the New Year, and the glass likewise. Do you know what dwells in the glass? asked Ole. I will tell you. There dwell in the glass, first, health, and then pleasure, then the most complete sensual delight; and misfortune and the bitterest woe dwell in the glass also. Now, suppose we count the glassesof course I count the different degrees in the glasses for different people. You see, the first glass, that's the glass of health, and in that the herb of health is found growing. Put it up on the beam in the ceiling, and at the end of the year you may be sitting in the arbor of health. If you take the second glassfrom this a little bird soars upward, twittering in guileless cheerfulness, so that a man may listen to his song, and perhaps join in `Fair is life! no downcast looks! Take courage, and march onward!' Out of the third glass rises a little winged urchin, who cannot certainly be called an angel child, for there is goblin blood in his veins, and he has the spirit of a goblinnot wishing to hurt or harm you, indeed, but very ready to play off tricks upon you. He'll sit at your ear and whisper merry thoughts to you; he'll creep into your heart and warm you, so that you grow very merry, and become a wit, so far as the wits of the others can judge. In the fourth glass is neither herb, bird, nor urchin. In that glass is the pause drawn by reason, and one may never go beyond that sign. Take the fifth glass, and you will weep at yourself, you will feel such a deep emotion; or it will affect you in a different way. Out of the glass there will spring with a bang Prince Carnival, nine times extravagantly merry. He'll draw you away with him; you'll forget your dignity, if you have any, and you'll forget more than you should or ought to forget. All is dance, song and sound: the masks will carry you away with them, and the daughters of vanity, clad in silk and satin, will come with loose hair and alluring charms; but tear yourself away if you can! The sixth glass! Yes, in that glass sits a demon, in the form of a little, well dressed, attractive and very fascinating man, who thoroughly understands you, agrees with you in everything, and becomes quite a second self to you. He has a lantern with him, to give you light as he accompanies you home. There is an old legend about a saint who was allowed to choose one of the seven deadly sins, and who accordingly chose drunkenness, which appeared to him the least, but which led him to commit all the other six. The man's blood is mingled with that of the demon. It is the sixth glass, and with that the germ of all evil shoots up within us; and each one grows up with a strength like that of the grains of mustard-seed, and shoots up into a tree, and spreads over the whole world: and most people have no choice but to go into the oven, to be re-cast in a new form. That's the history of the glasses, said the tower-keeper Ole, and it can be told with lacquer or only with grease; but I give it to you with both! Brought to you by Hans Christian Anderson
[FairfieldLife] The Speeding Ticket...
The Speeding Ticket... A police officer pulls a guy over for speeding... Officer: May I see your driver's license? Driver: I don't have one. I had it suspended when I got my fifth DUI. Officer: Can I see the registration for this vehicle? Driver: Oh, it's not my car. I stole it. Officer: The car is stolen? Driver: Yeah. Oh, but come to think of it, I think I saw the registration in the glove compartment when I was putting my gun in there. Officer: You have a gun in there? Driver: Yes sir. That's where I put it after I shot the lady who owns the car. She's in the trunk. Officer: There's a BODY in the trunk?!? The officer tells the man to hold on, backs off carefully, and calls for backup. Quickly, the car is surrounded by police, and the captain approaches the driver to handle the situation. Captain: Sir, can I see your license? Driver: Sure, Officer. Captain: Hmm, this license is just fine. Whose car is this? Driver: It's mine, officer. Here's the registration. Captain: Could you slowly open the glove compartment, please, so I can see if there's a gun in there? Driver: Yes, sir, but there's no gun in it. He opens it, and sure enough, there's no gun. Captain: Would you mind if we opened the trunk? I was told you said there's a body in there. Driver: No problem. The trunk is opened, nothing in there but a spare tire. Captain: The officer who stopped you said you told him you didn't have a license, stole the car, had a gun in the glove compartment, and that there was a dead body in the trunk. Driver: Yeah, I'll bet he told you I was speeding, too!
[FairfieldLife] Re: 75% Americans Confident Change is Coming
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rf...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: What I'd be interested in knowing, Bongo, is what changes YOU want for America? Could you list them for us, please? And please don't copy and paste some article from another part of the web...from your heart...what changes do you want for America? Well Magoo, first of all I'd like to see creeps like you finally admit that your 'me first, fuck everybody else' ideology is a failed load of horseshit for the USA. But I'm sure that's asking way too much. I'd really like to see the country successfully recover from the catastrophic 8 years of the far-reaching GOP/Bush policy disasters. That includes a list far too big to do the topic justice here. From what I can see, Obama is making the moves in the right direction. A large majority of Americans seem to think so as well. Exactly what I expected from you. You have no idea what changes you want, only what the media tells you is politically correct to want. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: The latest Diageo/Hotline Poll finds that 75% of voters are confident that President Obama will bring real change to the way things are done in Washington, D.C. This represents a nine-point increase from the 66% of voters who said they were confident in his ability to bring real change in the poll conducted immediately after the election. It seem Obama's inaugural speech had a lot to do with it. A whopping 83% of those who watched the speech said it made them more optimistic that the U.S. will meet its challenges. ~Diageo/Hotline Poll [pdf]: http://snipurl.com/aty8k
Re: [FairfieldLife] The Speeding Ticket...
On Jan 27, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Arhata Osho wrote: Driver: Yeah, I'll bet he told you I was speeding, too! LOL Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: A reply to Vaj about Mantras, Religion, etc.
bravo, billy jim! very enjoyable to read true scholarship vs. monkey chatter. i think vaj -definitely- deserves a banana after the solid thumping you have given his specious arguments. sounds like you have lived quite a life. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, billy jim emptyb...@... wrote: Normal 0 Re: [FairfieldLife] Mantras, Religion, etc Hi Billy Jim: On Jan 26, 2009, at 6:05 PM, billy jim wrote: Their fundamental claim is that a mantra is the name of a Hindu god. Vaj wrote: You might want to reread those claims. These aren't names per se, but seed-forms of nicknames of Goddesses or Gods. Code- words, if you will. Hi Vaj. Why gee, Vaj, you must have thought my post was talking about you. However, I have not reviewed your vast variety of claims here on FFL. Some of the people making these more basic claim about mantras write here, while others make their claims on different forums. Sorry to say, but whether you might agree or disagree with those people's claims was not really significant to me when I composed my original post. I was addressing a set of common claims we all have heard over the years, many of them sounded out here on FFL. Vaj: To use a previous example, Shri is not the name of Laxmi, Shri is a nickname or epithet of Laxmi. This is a crucial distinction. Gosh gee, Vaj. You have become so creative that you are now making your own definitions. I don't have your flair for it so I just stick with scholars of Indian yoga, religion and mythology. According to them, Shri and Lakshmi were separate values that did not become properly defined as goddesses until the period of the Brahmanas. The famous Shri Suktam is actually a khila, or appendage hymn, added to the Rig Veda but is not placed with any of the original riks. Shri and Lakshmi appear in the Yajur Veda and later they coalesce into a single deity. As epitaphs, the words shri and lakshmi do appear in the Rig Veda but not as goddesses. These terms were used as adjectives of splendor and opulence, along with the word shiva, meaning auspicious, which also appears in Yajur Veda as the now famous namah shivaya. So in comment upon your claim, the only distinction that is crucial is that these terms were originally used to describe various forms of glory. They were later mythologized into goddesses, where they received these attributions as proper names, which then were descriptively united as a single goddess. And yes Vaj, I realize that you know there never were gods or goddesses in India, only devas. This is a well known journey from Vedic Brahmism to Purana- Agama Hindu temple worship. BillyJim: The claim is that a mantra, by definition, encapsulates a method for worshiping a Hindu god but that this fact is withheld from practitioners. Vaj: No! It does not withhold any sort of method at all. It only withholds a meaning. Sorry again Vaj, but I really must confess that I did not have you in mind. Christians and Post-Christians, who consider method and meaning to be the same for their argument, constructed this particular claim. Since mantras are considered god-names for them, worship of a false god is ingredient in using mantras, whether a meaning is imparted or not, whether a mantra is understood or not. This was why I used the word encapsulate. So sorry again, Vaj. Perhaps I should consult you first before posting here. That way you could better guarantee my posts would strictly follow your own prescient ideas about correct interpretation. Even better, maybe you can construct for me an outline I can follow to get it just right. What a relief you could give to me Vaj. I would no longer need to think for myself nor would I need to contemplate anything. I could then call myself Nirvikalpa Bill instead of just plain old Empty Bill. BillyJim: Within the domain of this argument, these claimants will often quote some text from a Hindu Tantra. These are passages usually assigning a particular deity to a particular mantra and sometimes even assigning a set of deities to each of the Sanskrit letters composing the written forms of the mantric sound. This textual assignment is sometimes done haphazardly and occasionally is done in the Vedic format of rishi-deva-chhanda. Vaj: Again, wrong. They are done in the TANTRIC format. This is only related to the Vedic sense in that the prior tantric forms, at a certain point in history, reached a certain symbiosis with the invading Vedic ideals. Gee gosh, Vaj. When a poster puts up quotes from a Tantra and then makes claims about the mantras in TM having the same meaning, I guess I need to send them to you on FFL. You could then say something like: Vaj: But the fact is, the tantric forms of mantra-shastra existed BEFORE the
[FairfieldLife] Monkeys vs Meat (Re: Mantras, Religion and finally a statement . . .)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: Ha-Ha-- i figured someone was going to say that! all the emphasis with the TMers on hovering and flying around through the air is the attempt by the ego to hold onto something while it dissolves. that is all. i did the TMSP until i didn't feel like it anymore. just lost interest-- i found the techniques very powerful and hugely useful, and i enjoyed lots of success, but not for me anymore. What kind of success?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A reply to Vaj about Mantras, Religion, etc.
On Jan 27, 2009, at 4:55 PM, billy jim wrote: Re: [FairfieldLife] Mantras, Religion, etc Hi Billy Jim: On Jan 26, 2009, at 6:05 PM, billy jim wrote: Hi Vaj. Why gee, Vaj, you must have thought my post was talking about you. However, I have not reviewed your vast variety of claims here on FFL. Some of the people making these more basic claim about mantras write here, while others make their claims on different forums. Hi Billy: No it was a conversation a group of us were having. I did not think you were being negative just some comments that were to me, off.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A reply to Vaj about Mantras, Religion, etc.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: I get lost in the discussions of mantras and their source. But it appears to me that a constant in the discussions is that they are not without meaning. It also appears that over time the sounds have one way or another become associated with Hindu gods. Yes? perhaps a good, but inexact analogy (i enjoy playing with analogies) is food. we know what the thing we are eating is called, but all we are really concerned with is the experience of eating, and the result of it. so if i eat an olive, or a steak, or some ice cream, the most important thing to me isn't the name of the food, but whether or not it looks good, smells good, and tastes good. and so with TM mantras. do they have meaning beyond their use in TM? possibly, but who cares? the meaning of the name has no purpose in the practice. it is the practice that keeps us meditating, not the possible name associated with it. i have been meditating for years, and have never bothered to find out what my TM mantra means in terms of definition, because that isn't what i use it for. so all of this discussion about what mantras mean is putting the cart before the horse. the meaning of the mantra is very much a distant second, if that, to the use of the mantra. experience of the mantra is the only thing that makes any difference. and the use of the mantra in TM is only concerned with the vibration produced, not that the mantra is thought about or entertained at all with regard to its meaning. so it isn't like chanting Krishna, or praying to Jesus, or worshipping Buddha, or venerating Mohammed, or any of that. those are all thinking uses of the names of gods and saints. the use of the mantra in TM is never used in that capacity, regardless of what some may chatter about. that is just an incorrect intepretation, and more about making noise than any attempt at understanding. experience, and only experience, is key for understanding how the mantra is used in TM, and it has nothing to do with its surface meaning. I understand that TMists claim that the only concern is the vibration produced. However, curiosity as to meaning and origin is not a bad thing. Curiosity is not about making noise. Unless we know all the facts how can we decide for ourselves whether the food is good for us? So, what specifically did MMY say concerning the vibration of the mantras?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A reply to Vaj about Mantras, Religion, etc.
On Jan 27, 2009, at 6:29 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: bravo, billy jim! very enjoyable to read true scholarship vs. monkey chatter. i think vaj -definitely- deserves a banana after the solid thumping you have given his specious arguments. sounds like you have lived quite a life. Gee Dawn, thanks for maintaining the level of mature response we've come to expect from you!
[FairfieldLife] Post Count
Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): Sat Jan 24 00:00:00 2009 End Date (UTC): Sat Jan 31 00:00:00 2009 626 messages as of (UTC) Tue Jan 27 23:27:56 2009 49 authfriend jst...@panix.com 43 curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com 41 sparaig lengli...@cox.net 35 off_world_beings no_re...@yahoogroups.com 34 Duveyoung no_re...@yahoogroups.com 33 enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 32 ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com 29 Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net 29 TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com 28 geezerfreak geezerfr...@yahoo.com 26 raunchydog raunchy...@yahoo.com 22 Arhata Osho arhatafreespe...@yahoo.com 22 BillyG. wg...@yahoo.com 19 Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@lisco.com 17 yifuxero yifux...@yahoo.com 15 I am the eternal l.shad...@gmail.com 12 Kirk kirk_bernha...@cox.net 12 do.rflex do.rf...@yahoo.com 11 Nelson nelsonriddle2...@yahoo.com 10 cardemaister no_re...@yahoogroups.com 10 Richard M compost...@yahoo.co.uk 7 shempmcgurk shempmcg...@netscape.net 7 Robert babajii...@yahoo.com 7 Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net 5 arhatafreespe...@yahoo.com 5 Marek Reavis reavisma...@sbcglobal.net 4 Larry inmadi...@hotmail.com 4 grate.swan no_re...@yahoogroups.com 3 nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 3 emptybill emptyb...@yahoo.com 3 billy jim emptyb...@yahoo.com 3 amritasyaputra amritasyapu...@excite.com 3 Stu buttspli...@gmail.com 3 Dick Mays dickm...@lisco.com 3 Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com 3 Samadhi Is Much Closer Than You Think -- Really! -- It's A No-Brainer. Who'd've Thunk It? dharmamit...@gmail.com 2 uns_tressor uns_tres...@yahoo.ca 2 michael vedamer...@yahoo.de 2 lurkernomore20002000 steve.sun...@sbcglobal.net 2 bob_brigante no_re...@yahoogroups.com 2 at_man_and_brahman at_man_and_brah...@sbcglobal.net 2 anaand108 anaand...@yahoo.co.uk 2 Rick Archer r...@searchsummit.com 2 Peter drpetersutp...@yahoo.com 2 Paul Mason premanandp...@yahoo.co.uk 2 Jason jedi_sp...@yahoo.com 2 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 1 wayback71 waybac...@yahoo.com 1 pranamoocher bh...@hotmail.com 1 paultrunk paultr...@yahoo.com 1 martyboi marty...@yahoo.com 1 guyfawkes91 guyfawke...@yahoo.com 1 boo_lives boo_li...@yahoo.com 1 abutilon108 abutilon...@yahoo.com 1 wle...@aol.com 1 Richard Williams willy...@yahoo.com 1 Patrick Gillam jpgil...@yahoo.com 1 Joe Smith msilver1...@yahoo.com 1 min.pige min.p...@yahoo.com Posters: 59 Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times = Daylight Saving Time (Summer): US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM Standard Time (Winter): US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why OJ is in jail?
...An autopsy on OJ while he's still breathing might be even better. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/sports/football/28brain.html Let's do an autopsy and find out.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment
Enlightenment is not what you think. --- On Tue, 1/27/09, ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: From: ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: More definitions of enlightenment To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 5:10 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: enlightenment is that state of consciousness in which a person no longer identifies with, and gets lost in, the objects of perception. This sounds like the I don't care anymore definition of enlightenment. To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
