[FairfieldLife] Re: How woman misuse the power of attraction.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: I have always wondered what beauty is. Why are we attracted to something beautiful and less to something plain. What are the attribute of beauty and its inner essence? Why is one particular woman in Home Depot or Nordstroms attactive and another not so much. In jyotish, a person with a strong Venus influence would be attractive and beautiful to the opposite sex. In Sanskrit, Venus is translated to sukra or semen. So, there you have it, a very quick and easy way to understanding the question in mind.
[FairfieldLife] Re: How woman misuse the power of attraction.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: I have always wondered what beauty is. Why are we attracted to something beautiful and less to something plain. What are the attribute of beauty and its inner essence? Why is one particular woman in Home Depot or Nordstroms attactive and another not so much. Genetic markers promoting evolutionary sustainability may give insight to men's (perhaps odd) obsessions with breasts and behinds -- and other markers that make women breath deeply when one man passes and cringe at another. Perfectly symmetrical faces and proportions has been shown to tie to perceptions of beauty. Cultural and media conditioning is another element. But these things hardly capture the totality of all the factors of attraction -- they barely scratch the surface of defining beauty. Is beuaty simply and ultimately arbitrary? or does it have an eternal form and attributes? I wish that I remembered the name of a public TV series I saw once that dealt with this very issue, but I do not. It was great, because it examined the issue of What do we consider attractive in a human being? *across cultures*. What I remember is that in specifics it isn't the same. In the West (possibly as a result of decades of waif-like supermodels), thin is in, but in Eastern Europe or the Middle East or India, thin is not seen as attractive at all. Wide hips and a big butt are seen as attractive in some cultures because they (historically) indicate less potential problems with childbirth. The characteristics that I remember from the series that ARE the same in every culture are the following: * Symmetry of features -- the more symmetrical the face or body, the more we find it attractive. And the opposite. * Long hair in women -- physically, an indicator of good health (not all women can even grow their hair really long), and again a positive flag in terms of childbirth and passing along one's genes. * A V-shaped torso -- both in men and women, more important in men. * Good skin -- again, an indicator of health. There were more such agreements across cultures, but after only half a cup of coffee I can't remember the others right now. One interesting point made was that the size of women's breasts is seen biologically as *purely* an attract males phenomenon. There is no biological reason for big boobs; small breasts pro- duce just as much milk as big ones. But even in apes, big breasts attract more males. (Not me, whatever it's worth.) And beauty clearly does not stop with humans. Design and art, manifest in many processes and things, can be beautiful. And nature can be so breathtakingly beautiful. I would suggest that the perception of What is beauty? would vary across cultures with regard to art, just as it does with potential mates. But I can suggest a reason (also from one of these PBS specials) for why we find vistas and landscapes beautiful. It's purely physical. The muscles of your eyes (which are very close to the brain and are important to the brain as an indicator of stress or lack of stress) are at rest (un-tensed) only when the eyes are focused on infinity. Thus if you are indoors, or on a city street surrounded by buildings, the eye muscles are always tensed. But go to the seaside or stand on the rim of the Grand Canyon and look out, and the eye muscles relax. Thus your brain assumes that your whole body is more relaxed, thus the perception of beauty. Mirror mirror on the wall, who is the fariest of them all? Is a beautiful woman more beautiful than a sunset on a gorgeous beach Given the above, it may depend on how far away she is. :-) Here's a commentary on beauty that I found a while back, and have been waiting for an appropriate moment to post here. It's called, Why I don't drink tequila any more. http://i41.tinypic.com/2yorcc2.jpg :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: How woman misuse the power of attraction.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote: Billie, what if God doesn't exist? Or Go exists and God is found to be way different than you conceptualize God? I imagine your reaction would be one of devastation -- but that is only speculation. I imagine if God exists and Curtis met God, he would say cool -- so to speak, -- I am sure he would have more eloquent words. His life would be similar to how it is now. Which, if there is a God, I imagine God, ironically. would find the use of God as a crutch less worthy than one who is thinking and acting with tools God created in him. And if God actually prefers the man using God as a crutch, then that may speak to the deficiency of the God's creative power to create self-sufficient beings. That such had God may be a lesser God -- not the Creator of the entire cosmos. Think about it -- God has to manage the whole Cosmos. If God is smart -- and if God exists I hope its a smart God ( what if God is like Bush) -- from God's view, or any managers, is it more efficient to micro manage every single thing God creates humans, plants, cells, galaxies) or to create the tools within each being to be make decisions far down the chain of command as possible. If man is truly made in the image of God, then doesn't it follow that man has the blueprint -- and has the resources to (eventually) figure it out and manage their lives productively and with other people and nature? My suspicion is that the blueprint comes from us, not from God. If triangles had a God, He'd have three sides. - old Yiddish proverb What parent wants their kid living at home at 30, totally dependent on the parents for sustenance and guidance in every single little thing that comes along? If no parents want this, why would God, for God's sake, want it? Gotta agree. The *sickest* belief system I can imagine is that which postulates a jealous god. You know, the Thou shalt have no other Gods before me thang. How petty. How human to project that onto what you conceive of as God. When I told the people of Northern Ireland that I was an atheist, a woman in the audience stood up and said, 'Yes, but is it the God of the Catholics or the God of the Protestants in whom you don't believe?' - Quentin Crisp
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joe Smith Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 9:33 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ??? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , ysoy10li ysoy10li@ wrote: ---Any new books on Maharishi in the last year ?? I had read here maybe a few years ago that the infamous Judy (no, not Stein...) had mentioned she wouldn't publish her book about her alleged experiences with M. until after his passing... She changed her mind and recanted the whole story saying it was just a hoax propagated by unhappy people in the movement. Are you saying this with any evidence or authority Joe, or is this just the way you wish it were? My thoughts exactly. When did she recant her story? Please give exact quotes and references. oh i see, since there is nothing but hearsay regarding the possibility of Maharishi's sexual escapades, you are more comfortable believing the he fucked around rumors, instead of believing the he didn't fuck around rumors? did i get that right? You mean like your unsupported claim that Barry got kicked out of the TMO?
[FairfieldLife] Re: How woman misuse the power of attraction.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_re...@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote:
I have always wondered what beauty is. Why are we attracted to
something beautiful and less to something plain. What are the
attribute of beauty and its inner essence? Why is one
particular woman
in Home Depot or Nordstroms attactive and another not so much.
In jyotish, a person with a strong Venus influence would be
attractive and beautiful to the opposite sex. In Sanskrit,
Venus is translated to sukra or semen. So, there you have
it, a very quick and easy way to understanding the question
in mind.
Well, cough, the primary meaning of 'shukra' is 'bright',
from 'shuc', 'to shine':
zukra a. clear, bright, pure, white. -- m. fire or the god of fire,
the planet Venus, a cert. cup of Soma ({ñgraha}), N. of sev. men. n.
brightness, purity; water, Soma, juice i.g., semen virile.
I love it when you post the real definitions of
Sanskrit words that some believe are unambiguous,
Card. Especially when posted by someone who believes
that Sanskrit writings in the Vedic literature offer
him an unambiguous definition of life.
Given the above definitions, it occurs to my sick
mind that a good pickup line in the singles bars of
Brahmaloka might be, Hey baby...wanna come back to
my palace and check out my zukra?
The goddess being hit upon then has to decide whether
the god is inviting her to check out his semen of
purity, his semen of soma, his semen of brightness,
his semen that looks like the planet Venus, or his
semen of fire.
My bet is that unless the goddess has private parts
lined with asbestos, if she chooses the last definition,
the god in question is going to be going home and having
fun only with Rosie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpmFwAb73X8
She was standing at the load-in,
When the trucks rolled up.
She was sniffing all around,
Like a half grown female pup.
She wasn't hard to talk to,
Looked like she had nowhere to go.
So, I gave her a pass,
So she could get in and see the show.
Well, I sat her down right next to me,
And I got her a beer,
While I mixed that sound on the stage,
So the band could hear.
The more I watched her watch 'em play,
The less I thought of to say.
And when they walked off-stage
The drummer swept that girl away.
But, Rosie, you're all right, ((You wear my ring)).
When you hold me tight, ((Rosie, that's my thing)).
When you turn out the light, ((I' got to hand it to me)).
((Looks like it's me an' you again tonight)), Rosie.
Well, I guess I might have known from the start,
She'd come for a star.
Could-a told my imagination not to run too far.
Of all the times that I've been burned,
By now you'd think I'd-a learned,
That it's who you look like,
Not who you are.
Rosie, you're all right. ((You wear my ring.))
When you hold me tight, ((Rosie, that's my thing.))
When you turn out the light, ((I' got to hand it to me.))
((Looks like it's me an' you again tonight)), Rosie.
((Looks like it's me an' you again tonight.))
((Looks like it's me an' you again tonight, Rosie.))
Rosie. ((Rosie.))
Rosie. ((Rosie.))
- Rosie, by Jackson Browne
[FairfieldLife] Re: How woman misuse the power of attraction.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavisma...@... wrote: Severe Punishment. [Only tangentially related to this thread.] http://tinyurl.com/beh26z Because of my state of *tremendous* spiritual evolution, the scantily clad babes had no effect on me. The surfing was great. And, shutting off my speaker system put an end to the punishment.
[FairfieldLife] Re: How woman misuse the power of attraction.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: I have always wondered what beauty is. Why are we attracted to something beautiful and less to something plain. What are the attribute of beauty and its inner essence? Why is one particular woman in Home Depot or Nordstroms attactive and another not so much. If yer system produced, for some reason or another, very little or no testosterone at all, I guess any woman (Jessica Alba, Rihanna, Pamela Anderson, Brigitte Bardot, Gina Lollobrigida, Anita Ekberg, u name it) would prolly look in yer eyes as attractive as a metrin halko (halko of ~3 feet?) http://www.mit.jyu.fi/opetus/sovellusprojektit/halko/halko.jpg
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
---Any new books on Maharishi in the last year ?? I had read here maybe a few years ago that the infamous Judy (no, not Stein...) had mentioned she wouldn't publish her book about her alleged experiences with M. until after his passing... She changed her mind and recanted the whole story saying it was just a hoax propagated by unhappy people in the movement. Are you saying this with any evidence or authority Joe, or is this just the way you wish it were? My thoughts exactly. When did she recant her story? Please give exact quotes and references. oh i see, since there is nothing but hearsay regarding the possibility of Maharishi's sexual escapades, you are more comfortable believing the he fucked around rumors, instead of believing the he didn't fuck around rumors? did i get that right? gotta wonder about the bias, don't you-- or does that just not matter, trumped by character assassination? Given that Joe has just posted that his it was a hoax post was...uh...just a...uh...hoax and that he was just being a jerk, do you have enough self-honesty to take your statement above and turn it around to apply to yourself? It seems to me that you were very willing to play pile on and play the character assassination game against some here for being anxious to believe the Maharishi fucked around rumors, but you yourself seem to have jumped the gun in your eagerness to believe a Maharishi didn't fuck around and any attempt to say so was a hoax rumor. Right? I would suggest that there is a lot of projection and wish fulfillment going on on both sides. My suspicion is that those who believe that Maharishi couldn't possibly have fucked around believe this because they believe he was enlightened and if the rumor were true, that would upset their definition of what enlightenment is. ( Which definition, it is good to remember, came from the guy who possibly fucked around. :-) The TBs don't believe the rumors because it would be impossible for them to be true. Sorta along the lines of, If an enlightened being (and we assume as a given that MMY was one) tells us that he's a celibate monk, well the words of the enlight- ened are always true (and we know this because MMY told us so), then him fucking around is *impossible*. One can't believe impossible things, said Alice. I daresay you haven't had much practice, said the queen. When I was your age I always did it for half- an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed six impossible things before breakfast. - Lewis Carroll
[FairfieldLife] Re: How woman misuse the power of attraction.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_...@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote:
I have always wondered what beauty is. Why are we attracted to
something beautiful and less to something plain. What are the
attribute of beauty and its inner essence? Why is one particular woman
in Home Depot or Nordstroms attactive and another not so much.
In jyotish, a person with a strong Venus influence would be attractive
and beautiful to the opposite sex. In Sanskrit, Venus is translated to
sukra or semen. So, there you have it, a very quick and easy way to
understanding the question in mind.
Well, cough, the primary meaning of 'shukra' is 'bright',
from 'shuc', 'to shine':
zukra a. clear, bright, pure, white. -- m. fire or the god of fire,
the planet Venus, a cert. cup of Soma ({ñgraha}), N. of sev. men. n.
brightness, purity; water, Soma, juice i.g., semen virile.
zuc, zocati, -te (zucyati 1 {zociti}) flame, light, shine, glow,
[[-,]]
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe Smith msilver1...@... wrote: snip Just being a jerk Rick, but it has been a year now. Personally, I don't think the book will ever be published. FWIW, that it's been a year isn't really a good reason to assume the book will never be published. How long it takes to get a book out depends on a great many things. Has she even written it yet? Does she have a publisher? We don't know the most basic facts about what she plans and how far she's gotten.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
On Feb 1, 2009, at 12:43 AM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: oh i see, since there is nothing but hearsay regarding the possibility of Maharishi's sexual escapades, you are more comfortable believing the he fucked around rumors, instead of believing the he didn't fuck around rumors? did i get that right? gotta wonder about the bias, don't you-- or does that just not matter, trumped by character assassination? It's not considered hearsay when it's already been published in newspapers Dawn. I'd say it's now no longer hearsay that old Mahesh was not a life long renunciate, but instead, a lifelong liar and loved the ladies. For clarities sake, let's look at all the assumed alias's of Mahesh Varma and see which ones ring true: His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi His Holiness: Joyce Collin Smith put an end to this one. He just decided one day himself His Holiness and began ordering stationary with H.H. on it! Detailed in her excellent Call No Man Master. Maharishi: another assumed name. He claimed it was because people were calling him that at early lectures, but really there is no external evidence of this. Another great ego grab. He couldn't of been more grandiose in terms of Sanskrit names, after all his most recent competitor was Ramana Maharshi, the real deal. Mahesh: his personal name and the only one that's legit. Yogi: According to guru-bhais of ole Mahesh and Guru Dev, Mahesh never trained in yoga-darshana. In fact when it came time to teach yoga- asanas, M. got a gym teacher to write the course on it. This one's not looking good either. But it does look cool on your name, esp. if you dress the part and carry a flower. Looks like all that's left is Mahesh. Oh well, it may take a while to make all the corrections on that one. ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Feb 1, 2009, at 12:43 AM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: oh i see, since there is nothing but hearsay regarding the possibility of Maharishi's sexual escapades, you are more comfortable believing the he fucked around rumors, instead of believing the he didn't fuck around rumors? did i get that right? gotta wonder about the bias, don't you-- or does that just not matter, trumped by character assassination? It's not considered hearsay when it's already been published in newspapers Dawn. Uh, yes, it certainly can be, unless you're claiming newspapers never publish rumors, which would be pretty hard to support. I'd say it's now no longer hearsay that old Mahesh was not a life long renunciate, but instead, a lifelong liar and loved the ladies. For clarities sake, let's look at all the assumed alias's of Mahesh Varma and see which ones ring true: For clarities sake, it should be noted that even if your claims about his name were true, it would have nothing to do with whether he fooled around. It wouldn't surprise me if he had, but let's use just a little common sense here.
[FairfieldLife] The Power Of Attraction
Since Billy brought up this issue, and because it's another rainy cafe day here in Sitges, I thought I'd spend a few minutes rappin' about attraction, but from a somewhat different perspective. The Rama guy I studied with (whatever one might think of him) had a fascination with and a knowledge of the occult side of life. That is, the study of energy and how it can be moved around to affect consciousness and people's perceptions. So one of the things we talked about a lot was what's actually *going on* when we find another person attractive. Sometimes it's innocent, and we're just fascinated by something that we see in another person's aura (even if we can't consciously see auras, in his view that's what we're always seeing). But other times the thing that we find ourselves being attracted to is the other person pushing it out, energetically. Call it shakti, call it kundalini, call it charisma, it's a science of sorts. If you know how to do it, you can push it out and capture the attention of others *no matter what you look like*. It's almost a form of energy cosmetics or shakti-based push-up bras. :-) He would demonstrate pushing it out for us, and show us examples of it in other students, so that we could use our seeing to try to identify the energy sig- anture associated with it. One of the first experiences I had after hearing some of these talks and seeing these demos that validated them in my mind was in L.A. I was early for a movie in Westwood, and chose to go to a little food stand there while waiting. It was *not* a classy place, more of a hamburger stand, with formica tables and not much ambiance. And as I was sitting there, I found my attention being drawn over and over to a woman who was sitting across the room. She had her back to me, and so all I could really see was her hair. But for some reason I just could not keep my eyes off of her. She was dressed casually as far as I could tell from the back, wearing jeans and a nondescript blouse. And there was really no body language to explain why I found my attention going to her over and over, because she was just sit- ting there talking quietly with her companion. So I was a little puzzled as to why I couldn't keep my eyes off of her. Then finally she stood up and turned around and I understood why. It was Lesley Ann Warren. She had recently been nominated for an Oscar for her work as a bimbo in Victor Victoria. But dressed down as she was, and wearing sunglasses, my bet is that I was the only person in the cafe other than her companion who recognized her *as* Lesley Ann Warren. Nevertheless, when she stood up and walked to the door, *every eye in the cafe* was following her. Male and female. Why? She was pushing it out. Her charisma was a factor of moving her own kundalini in ways that caused it to radiate outwards, and create an energy field that others found attractive, and that captured their attention. After that I started paying more attention when I ran into people who seemed to have charisma or be able to capture attention, and subjectively I found that I always saw the same energy signature. The woman or man who walked into a party and caused every head in the room to turn and look at them -- pushing it out. The woman walking along the Venice boardwalk who in reality was no more attractive than any other woman, or dressed more suggestively, but whom *every* person turned and watched until she was out of sight -- pushing it out. Once you've nailed the energy signature, you can spot it a mile away. For Billy, I might suggest that if having one's atten- tion captured by women is *not* one of your goals in life, learning to tell when one of them is pushing it out is a great way to recognize the energy sig- nature when you run into it, and not fall for it to the point of resenting the woman for it and writing afterwards about what a lowlife she probably is. :-) For others here, another reason I bring this up is that some *spiritual teachers* use this same energy signature and the occult ability to push it out to attract students. Many seekers in the audiences, not aware of what is going on on an energetic or occult level, interpret this ability to push it out as enlightenment, when in fact it might not be. Again, learning to recognize the energy signature can help to tell the mere occultists from the teachers who might actually have something real going for them.
[FairfieldLife] Quote of the Day
QUOTE OF THE DAY There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though EVERYTHING IS A MIRACLE. -Tinkerbell http://www.freedomofspeech.netfirms.com/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Advaitic Sleep Yoga
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jan 29, 2009, at 9:17 PM, yifuxero wrote: snip The bottom line is that some of the TMO people and Neo-Advaitins claim Witnessing during sleep; but is this a mode of feeling that one WAS Witnessing after waking up; or does one konk out during the transition from waking into dreaming. If one konk's out, they're not in CC yet. That's right. MIU tried to test someone to prove they were conscious during sleep, but it turned out to be someone with a pre-existing sleep disorder But not, as we know, according to the person himself, in his exchanges on FFL with Vaj back in April 2008 (see #173059 and #172613). This past December Vaj told the same story, in considerable detail, none of which was consistent with what the person himself said here. I quoted the posts cited above documenting this at the time. But here Vaj is making his claim *again*, as if it were a matter of established fact.
[FairfieldLife] Where would Guru Dev find his teacher today? (Re: fluoride in water)
Alex, There's a lot of controversy about water being depleted of minerals by the various purifying processes out there. The naysaying theory is that if you drink pure water, the body will have its minerals leached out of it. The body's supplies are diluted, less available. My son did some reading on this, and he concludes that ordinary tap water is your best bet compared to virtually all the bottled waters and to the brand name conditioners like Culligan. I have struggled to accept this, but I haven't done the research myself to get the clarity, so I suffer with dissonance. What's your POV, Alex? To me this issue is a tempest in a teapot, cuz we're all imbibing on so many industrial chemicals that are allowed in food, water, air -- 30,000 chemicals last I read up on this. That's merely what's allowed by American law -- what do the Chinese allow? To me that's 30,000 chances of getting a chemical that'll deform a zygote, give ya a headache, ruin yer liver, etc. Fluoride is but one chemical that's gotten into the headlines 60 years ago and still has way too much of the attention that many other pollutants equally deserve. YMMV. As long as the corporations can keep the fluoride issue on the front burner the other 29,999 chemicals get a pass, see? Think of it. We allow folks to smoke, drink, breathe smog, eat mercury, because that's the only way that corporations can make money. If they had to pay for the eventual clean up of their filth, their products would be too expensive for most buyers. Anyone out there living in L.A. smog and yet bitching about the fluorides in their water? Where is instruction about this issue in the schools? Like: Chemical Triage 100 -- how to survive the environment. I suppose there's parts of the world that don't have pollution -- parts where a yogi in a cave can breathe air that won't disrupt his ritam, but by this late date, maybe not. The oceans are fizzy, the air is fuzzy, and food'll bizzy yer mind. By definition alone, if ritam is a true concept, then anyone who believes it must see any pollution level being intolerable, right? If ritam is the most delicate hands working the greatest power, does ya want to meditate next door to a smoke stack? Each errant molecule is a noise -- a chemical that jangles into processes that cannot take the least jiggle. Consider these chemicals all having, say, the virility of LSD wherein even micrograms'll wallop ya. Still breathing? This is one of the main reasons I quit TM -- what good a pea shooter on such a battlefront of chemical pollution, radiant pollution, psychic pollution. I decided that it was better to limp along hefting a load but getting another four hours a day of life out of the deal -- the four hours of program were seen by me as merely a way to mood make about the fighting the good fight while all along we're fully involved in the real war of living in a corporate chemical soup. You know how Guru Dev tried to find a yogi who had never used fire? Does ya see it? See it? HE DIDN'T WANT A GURU WHO HAD BEEN SULLIED BY WOOD SMOKE. Even good old campfire smoke could knock a guru over as far as Guru Dev was concerned -- no Marlboro Men need apply for the job. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe Smith msilver1951@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Nelson nelsonriddle2001@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe Smith msilver1951@ wrote: Anyone have any opinions on fluoride in the drinking water, it's benefits and health problems.Does Vedic City fluoridate it's water as well as MUM? Google it and it should be easy to decide Opinion- very bad stuff. N. After researching it, I agree, that it's not good for anyone which is why I wondered if MUM or Vedic City allow it in the water system considering their concern for healthy living. As far as I know, neither MUM nor Vedic City are self-sufficient with respect to water supply. Municipal water in Jefferson County comes from either the City of Fairfield or the Rathbun Regional Water Association, and MUM/VC have no control over how that water is treated. As for the fluoride and other crap in FF's water, reverse osmosis is an effective and commonly used method of removing it. RO water is what you get from the water dispensing machines at Everybody's and HyVee.
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
Whatever you might believe, if this were any kind of formal hearing, the charges would be thrown out immediately. No first person account. Strictly hearsay. Judy never gave a first person account. Account was only through an interview with a third party. That person seemed to have an angle he was working. I would like to see some resolution on the matter since the charges have been leveled. Personally I always suspected that the book Judy was to write or release would never materialize. That said, I have no interest in protecting the legacy of M. Hardly. But it does matter to me to exercise fairness when you are accusing someone of sexual impropieties, or at least sexual hypocrosy. She changed her mind and recanted the whole story saying it was just a hoax propagated by unhappy people in the movement. Are you saying this with any evidence or authority Joe, or is this just the way you wish it were? My thoughts exactly. When did she recant her story? Please give exact quotes and references. oh i see, since there is nothing but hearsay regarding the possibility of Maharishi's sexual escapades, you are more comfortable believing the he fucked around rumors, instead of believing the he didn't fuck around rumors? did i get that right? gotta wonder about the bias, don't you-- or does that just not matter, trumped by character assassination?
[FairfieldLife] Re: fluoride in water
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe Smith msilver1...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Nelson nelsonriddle2001@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe Smith msilver1951@ wrote: Anyone have any opinions on fluoride in the drinking water, it's benefits and health problems.Does Vedic City fluoridate it's water as well as MUM? Google it and it should be easy to decide Opinion- very bad stuff. N. After researching it, I agree, that it's not good for anyone which is why I wondered if MUM or Vedic City allow it in the water system considering their concern for healthy living. As far as I know, neither MUM nor Vedic City are self-sufficient with respect to water supply. Municipal water in Jefferson County comes from either the City of Fairfield or the Rathbun Regional Water Association, and MUM/VC have no control over how that water is treated. As for the fluoride and other crap in FF's water, reverse osmosis is an effective and commonly used method of removing it. RO water is what you get from the water dispensing machines at Everybody's and HyVee.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
On Feb 1, 2009, at 9:34 AM, Vaj wrote: On Feb 1, 2009, at 12:43 AM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: oh i see, since there is nothing but hearsay regarding the possibility of Maharishi's sexual escapades, you are more comfortable believing the he fucked around rumors, instead of believing the he didn't fuck around rumors? did i get that right? gotta wonder about the bias, don't you-- or does that just not matter, trumped by character assassination? It's not considered hearsay when it's already been published in newspapers Dawn. I'd say it's now no longer hearsay that old Mahesh was not a life long renunciate, but instead, a lifelong liar and loved the ladies. Here's a copy of the newspaper article with the woman in question, Linda Pierce. If any one has a larger copy or PDF of the article, It'd be nice to have it for the files section. This interview by Linda Pearce (nee Williams) is the most detailed claim regarding Maharishi's sexual activities. In interviews from the late sixties concurrent with the events Linda describes, Maharishi describes himself as a renunciate. What is not made clear is that at the time of speaking to News of The World Linda had switched allegience to another Indian teacher Shri Mataji. Mataji regarded Maharishi as a 'false Guru' and encouraged former TM Teachers to speak out against Maharishi and encouraged allegations of sexual impropriety. This is probably why Linda Pearce chose to speak out in ths way in 1981. David Fiske a former TM leader who knew Linda Pearce has said he did not believe Linda would invent the story. http://maharishi-mahesh-yogi.re-membered.com/1981/01/linda-pearce-interview.html LINK
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
On Feb 1, 2009, at 10:22 AM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote: Whatever you might believe, if this were any kind of formal hearing, the charges would be thrown out immediately. No first person account. Strictly hearsay. Judy never gave a first person account. Account was only through an interview with a third party. That person seemed to have an angle he was working. I would like to see some resolution on the matter since the charges have been leveled. Personally I always suspected that the book Judy was to write or release would never materialize. That said, I have no interest in protecting the legacy of M. Hardly. But it does matter to me to exercise fairness when you are accusing someone of sexual impropieties, or at least sexual hypocrosy. The person's name is Linda Pearce (neé Williams), not Judy.
[FairfieldLife] File - FFL Acronyms
BC - Brahman Consciousness BN - Bliss Ninny or Bliss Nazi CC - Cosmic Consciousness GC - God Consciousness MMY - Maharishi Mahesh Yogi OTP - Off the Program - a phrase used in the TM movement meaning to do something (such as see another spiritual teacher) considered in violation of Maharishi's program. POV - Point of View SBS - Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, Maharishi's master SCI Science of Creative Intelligence SOC - State of Consciousness SSRS - Sri Sri Ravi Shankar (Pundit-ji) SV - Stpathya Ved (Vedic Architecture) TB - True Believer (in TM doctrines) TNB - True Non-Believer TMO - The Transcendental Meditation organization TTC TM Teacher Training Course UC - Unity Consciousness WYMS - World Youth Meditation Society later changed to World Youth Movement for the Science of Creative Intelligence was founded by Peter Hübner in Germany, as a national TM outlet competing with SIMS, Students International Meditation Society YMMV = Your Mileage may vary 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] He sees the Self in ALL things (Was: How woman misuse the power of att...)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: It wouldn't be a problem for you BillyG if you weren't attached to it. The attachment is within 'you'. The problem is 'yours'. And yours my friend, the attraction to the opposite sex is put there by God to procreate the race. If woman are constantly abusing that power by agitating it in man (for personal gain) they are transgressing the laws of nature by using it outside of the context for which it was intended == He sees the Self in ALL things, and ALL things in the Self. The devotee that has gained right realization sees all things, by the eye of knowledge, as existing in his own self, and the one self as all things. - Shankara Tat Wale Baba: The world is within you. And, if you are at peace within, if your awareness is established in your Self your world is in peace. And, if you are wavering and peaceless and you are not in tune with your own eternal state of Being then the world is in peacelessness. If you want to create peace on the cosmic level then you must take refuge in God. And, if you want peace within yourself, realize the Self and your world will be in peace and you will see that the whole world is in peace. The world is as you are, and the world will be as you will be. Student: Are there any shortcuts to purification of karma? Tat Wale Baba: The shortest cut to the purification of karma is surrender to God, devotion to God, realization of the Self. And, when you realize the Self all your mind and senses will be purified. And, when your senses are purified all your actions will be good. They will be life supporting. They behave with you as your friends. And, if the mind is not established in the Self, in the glory of God, then your own senses will become your enemy. And then, all your karma will pounce upon you as your enemy. It is the fixity of the mind in the Self that makes your senses your friend, and non-fixity of the mind in the Self makes your senses your enemy. Senses-enemy means karma, because the karma is performed by the senses. So the karma will be good if the mind is established in the Self and karma will not be good if the mind is not established in the Self.
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: My suspicion is that those who believe that Maharishi couldn't possibly have fucked around believe this because they believe he was enlightened and if the rumor were true, that would upset their definition of what enlightenment is. ( Which definition, it is good to remember, came from the guy who possibly fucked around. :-) The TBs don't believe the rumors because it would be impossible for them to be true. Sorta along the lines of, If an enlightened being (and we assume as a given that MMY was one) tells us that he's a celibate monk, well the words of the enlight- ened are always true (and we know this because MMY told us so), then him fucking around is *impossible*. Or, you have those who believe that maybe he did maybe he didn't, but if he did it was in accord with Nature, Which We Cannot Understand or Comprehend Until We are Enlightened Too.
[FairfieldLife] Re: How woman misuse the power of attraction.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote:
I have always wondered what beauty is. Why are we attracted to
something beautiful and less to something plain. What are the
attribute of beauty and its inner essence? Why is one
particular woman
in Home Depot or Nordstroms attactive and another not so much.
In jyotish, a person with a strong Venus influence would be
attractive and beautiful to the opposite sex. In Sanskrit,
Venus is translated to sukra or semen. So, there you have
it, a very quick and easy way to understanding the question
in mind.
Well, cough, the primary meaning of 'shukra' is 'bright',
from 'shuc', 'to shine':
zukra a. clear, bright, pure, white. -- m. fire or the god of fire,
the planet Venus, a cert. cup of Soma ({ñgraha}), N. of sev. men. n.
brightness, purity; water, Soma, juice i.g., semen virile.
I love it when you post the real definitions of
Sanskrit words that some believe are unambiguous,
Card. Especially when posted by someone who believes
that Sanskrit writings in the Vedic literature offer
him an unambiguous definition of life.
I believe any natural language contains only rather few words
that are totally semantically independent of their context. Numerals
probably are the most unambiguous in most languages.
Perhaps it's OK in some esoteric or whatever context
to interpret Sanskrit words ignoring for instance the length of
vowels which is a very important, so called distinctive
feature in Sanskrit. Like for instance 'puja' for 'puujaa'.
But I feel that's rather strange.
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Feb 1, 2009, at 10:22 AM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote: Whatever you might believe, if this were any kind of formal hearing, the charges would be thrown out immediately. No first person account. Strictly hearsay. Judy never gave a first person account. Account was only through an interview with a third party. That person seemed to have an angle he was working. I would like to see some resolution on the matter since the charges have been leveled. Personally I always suspected that the book Judy was to write or release would never materialize. That said, I have no interest in protecting the legacy of M. Hardly. But it does matter to me to exercise fairness when you are accusing someone of sexual impropieties, or at least sexual hypocrosy. The person's name is Linda Pearce (neé Williams), not Judy. The person Lurk and Joe are referring to, the one who was said to be writing a book, is Judy, or Judith. From the intro paragraph to the Sexy Sadie file: An attempt has been made to put this information in chronological order. Reportedly, two of the women (Jennifer and Judith) are collaborating on a book, which they intend to publish after Maharishi dies. Judith is referred to throughout the file.
[FairfieldLife] Re: fluoride in water
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe Smith msilver1...@... wrote: Anyone have any opinions on fluoride in the drinking water, it's benefits and health problems.Does Vedic City fluoridate it's water as well as MUM? My opinion is that it is fine and does much to strengthen tooth enamel and prevent cavities in the US, where dental care leaves much to be desired in many populations. We know the bad things fluoride can do because some water actually has too much fluoride in it. At a high a dose it can cause a variety of bone problems. There is no evidence that the very minimal amount of fluoride in treated drinking water is harmful. It can cause some mottling of the teeth if the dose is a bit too high, not a health but an aesthetic concern. It is one of those things like vaccines where people get all bent out of shape, distrusting government.
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: My suspicion is that those who believe that Maharishi couldn't possibly have fucked around believe this because they believe he was enlightened and if the rumor were true, that would upset their definition of what enlightenment is. ( Which definition, it is good to remember, came from the guy who possibly fucked around. :-) The TBs don't believe the rumors because it would be impossible for them to be true. Sorta along the lines of, If an enlightened being (and we assume as a given that MMY was one) tells us that he's a celibate monk, well the words of the enlight- ened are always true (and we know this because MMY told us so), then him fucking around is *impossible*. Or, you have those who believe that maybe he did maybe he didn't, but if he did it was in accord with Nature, Which We Cannot Understand or Comprehend Until We are Enlightened Too. And then there are those who are a little clearer on the implications of being in accord with Nature who understand that if he did what he's rumored to have done, he's subject to strong disapproval regardless of whether he was enlightened and in accord with nature.
[FairfieldLife] Obama hates white people and wants them to die
www.AmericanThinker.com January 31, 2009 Obama hates white people and wants them to die Rick Moran With nearly 1.5 million people in the mid-west without power during a cold snap, what other possible reason is there that this new competent administration and FEMA would be failing so spectacularly in helping in this natural disaster? It's got to be that Obama hates white people and wants them to die! Of course, I am just aping what lefty blogs were saying about Bush less than 24 hours after Katrina's hurricane winds stopped blowing. But AP is reporting that Midwest disaster relief people are none too pleased with our new president's FEMA. In Kentucky's Grayson County, there are 25 National Guardsmen there to help - but no chain saws to cut away fallen limbs and trees. EM Director Randell Smith is quoted as saying, We've got people out in some areas we haven't even visited yet, Smith said. We don't even know that they're alive. Smith is also quoted as saying that FEMA is a no show. What's that? Here we are 5 days after the storm ended and still no FEMA? I demand a Congressional investigation. And let's get all the anchors and media people down here pronto. People's lives are at stake. For all we know, there are babies being eaten and people jumping off their roofs committing suicide because FEMA is nowhere to be found. And where is our president? Shouldn't he be visiting these ravaged areas? It must be that he HATES WHITE PEOPLE AND WANTS THEM TO DIE. That is the only possible explanation for this incredible failure of our national government to relieve the suffering of these people. Isn't it interesting that now that we have a Democrat as president that all of a sudden, disaster relief is a state and local matter and the federal government should stand aside and allow them to do their jobs? Just wondering...
[FairfieldLife] Re: How woman misuse the power of attraction.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: I have always wondered what beauty is. Why are we attracted to something beautiful and less to something plain. What are the attribute of beauty and its inner essence? Why is one particular woman in Home Depot or Nordstroms attactive and another not so much. Genetic markers promoting evolutionary sustainability may give insight to men's (perhaps odd) obsessions with breasts and behinds -- and other markers that make women breath deeply when one man passes and cringe at another. Perfectly symmetrical faces and proportions has been shown to tie to perceptions of beauty. Cultural and media conditioning is another element. But these things hardly capture the totality of all the factors of attraction -- they barely scratch the surface of defining beauty. Is beuaty simply and ultimately arbitrary? or does it have an eternal form and attributes? And beauty clearly does not stop with humans. Design and art, manifest in many processes and things, can be beautiful. And nature can be so breathtakingly beautiful. Mirror mirror on the wall, who is the fariest of them all? Is a beautiful woman more beautiful than a sunset on a gorgeous beach -- with just the right defraction of light and spread of clouds -- and lapping waves, and glassy ocean. Or mountains and rivers in so many ways and forms. I just spend a more wonderful afternoon absorbed in nature and exercise. Lots of heavy breathing, and I was totally embraced by both expansively subtle and intense clusters of beauty. Would an afternoon of sex with the home depot lady have been more fulfilling? While I am up for research on this, lots of A/B trials, taking nature as a lover has some clear appeal. She is ever fresh, creative, sparkling and surprising. No fear of her running off with another man. Its not hard to get a date. And if you need some time alone, without her, she doesn't cringe and she welcomes you back when ever you want with open enthusiastic arms. And what is the commonality between a a beautiful woman and nature? Beyond outward expression, is there a commonality, or at least overlap, at a deep level? It seems a times that the glow within her is the same glow within Her. It's a great question, as some woman exude beauty and others mere sexuality. In general all beauty is borrowed from God. The more in harmony a person is with God and the laws of nature the more beautiful will that person appear. A woman may have a beautiful face but lack inner beauty, so she has physical merit but lacks inner merit, such is life. The reason we appreciate beauty is that the beauty 'in nature' is a clue as to that which is hidden underneath and that which is hidden underneath is hidden in us as well. So actually, it is a reminder of our spiritual home within our Self, so we respond with joy, music is the same. A woman may appear more attractive sexuality because she pushes more buttons of a sexual nature, pretty simple. The buttons she has learned to push are designed to obtain your/and others attention for her sometimes egotistical needs be it vanity, relationships, etc. Woman are forced to behave this way in our primitive culture.
[FairfieldLife] Re: How woman misuse the power of attraction.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: When I told the people of Northern Ireland that I was an atheist, a woman in the audience stood up and said, 'Yes, but is it the God of the Catholics or the God of the Protestants in whom you don't believe?' - Quentin Crisp Sort of like a Woody Allen early stand-up routine I recently reheard: My first wife was an atheist and I was an agnostic. It didn't work out because we could not agree what religion not to raise the children in.
[FairfieldLife] File - FFL Guidelines.txt
Guidelines File - Updated 9/8/08 Fairfield Life used to average 75-150 posts a day - 300+ on peak days - and the guidelines included steps on how to deal with the volume. But this volume was due largely to indiscriminate posting by a few members. We now have a policy that limits all members to 50 posts a week. Most participants feel this policy has greatly enhanced the quality of the forum. A Post Count message is posted every evening, listing members' names (or aliases) and the number of messages they've posted that week. Those who exceed their weekly quota will be prohibited from posting for a week. The new week starts each Friday at 7pm Iowa time, or 00:00 UTC (Coordinated Universal Time). UTC is the same as Greenwich Mean Time during winter. -- You can also read FFL posts at http://www.mail-archive.com/fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com/. Some say this is faster than the Yahoo groups interface, and prefer it because it allows sorting by thread and has a better search function. Additional images are archived at http://alex.natel.net/ffl/images/. -- 1) This group has long maintained a thoughtful and considerate tone. Please refrain from personal attacks, insults and excessive venting. Speak the truth that is sweet is a worthy aspiration. If angry, take some time to gain composure before writing or pushing the send button. 2) Edit your posts and make them as concise and non-repetitive as possible. 3) Please snip - be highly selective in quoting a message to which you are responding, deleting all but the most relevant portions of the prior posts. This makes the daily digest easier to read for those who subscribe to it. Also, if the topic of a thread changes, please change the subject header. 4) Try to make clear to the reader if you are writing from the perspective of personal experience, from information gained from teachers or books, from your own thoughts, reasoning, logic or conjecture. Please cite sources where relevant. 5) Reference prior posts by their archive number whenever possible. 6) Anonymous posts are permitted, using an account you create. 7) FFL is a newsgroup public forum. FFL can be openly read from the web. Posting privileges are through membership only. Material published to FFL is not privileged or protected by law. Material published to FFL might be quoted and used elsewhere. 8) Posting of adult material, either text or photos, is prohibited. Violation of this guideline may result in expulsion from the group. 9) Make cross-posts from other sites only as they are relevant to this group. If you think another site has great value, write one post saying so, then let others join or go to that site on their own, at their discretion. 10) Only post links to other sites that are relevant references to the specific discussion at hand. 11) While friendly exchange between friends is natural, try to pass on personal messages via personal e-mail, refraining where possible from sending personal messages to the whole list. 12) Feel to invite your friends to join FFL, and to use the site's Promote feature on your websites. The broader the personal network, the greater the value to all. Friends may now access the posts of FFL directly off the home page without having to join the list. 13) Please don't post commercial announcements in the main message area. Folders have been set up in the Database, Links and Files sections for listing books, CDs, DVDs and other items for trade, a Fairfield ride board, local events, hiring/looking for work announcements, informative articles, useful links, etc. Also check http://fairfieldtoday.com/. 14) Political discussions are allowed. However, be kind and respectful of others' viewpoints. Come with a humble heart, an open mind, and the desire to contribute constructively to everyone's broader awareness. 15) Keep in mind that many FFL members desire to maintain anonymity. If you happen to know a member's real name, perhaps because that member has mentioned it in a post or two, or to you privately, please refer to that member only by their pseudonym. 16) If you want to make suggestions for the refinement of these guidelines, please post them in the forum.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: How woman misuse the power of attraction.
Billy G say: The suggestion that you need sex to be happy is one of the biggest lies we are born into. What you need to be 'truly happy' is a relationship with God. If that truth were proselytized as much as the other we'd have a happier world. ---You know, happiness is a subjective thing. My main objection to this invective is from nondual POV of lack of POV where this 'God' really does cease to exist. I remember how Billy G is really intractable and ineffable so it would be foolish for me to feel offended by the fact that his viewpoint will not be changed by mine. That's the great thing about some people. It would be hard for my opinions also to mean much and it would be hard for me to hurt such people also. My wife is like that. I couldn't change her mind about anything. But that's a good thing as we have spent 20 years in each other's presence and so I am glad she brought herself to the table as I have and we changed ourselves very little for each other. That has made for the simple comfort of our relationship. But we are a needy couple in the sense that we dominate each other completely. There's really no question to me where the necessity of pairing up comes from. Pairing up comes from the fact of the basic goodness of the base of all including the elements of humans like one. Thus there is no 'transcendental' anything separate from anything, as evidenced in the fact that no separation can be found from any perspective between Absolute and relative. No separation being found, one should understand gradually that 'creation' per se, has never itself taken place. It's important to find and hang out with other really enlightened beings. Like for instance I know someone so claravoyant he can read the future in his own palm. It's good to have such people for companions because you get used to this total integrated synchronicity between inner/outer. My question for Billy G and people (few) who think like him beliving in this 'God' thing. My question is this - do you really believe that beliving in God has made you happy? Happier than sex? And is sex separate from this 'God' and if not then it's pretty damn good aye? So it's then like adding 100 percent and 100 percent, easy, very easy to understand that as sex after program is really ideal as mind is soft and silent, senses are heightened and one is feeling empathy, this is then ideal time for sexual healing. Not being any sort of monk I am pretty much free from rules and such. How awesome is that? To have the benefits of tantra as well as being able to choose hedonism as my lifestyle. How awesome is that? To the devotional such as myself. (Goddess is great!) I feel quite blessed. Very blessed indeed. So to steer people away from grooving out in sex and so on as if there's some being out there or something to me is both not only incorrect intellectually but also experiencially. There really is no good excuse for not getting into sex. Especially if one is married one has no excuse for not giving in. And if you live in this world you should also indulge some other fantasies and whims while you're at it. This world is rare. This life is rarer. Indeed the huge dependencies of things which it took for any thing at all to occur is preposterous. Life itself is preposterous. 'Preposterous' is God. So also preposterous is life.
[FairfieldLife] Re: How woman misuse the power of attraction.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote: There is nothing to compare with the superior bliss of spirit. Billy, how long has it been? Really, years or decades now? Think maybe it's time to break the dry spell? Sal The suggestion that you need sex to be happy is one of the biggest lies we are born into. What you need to be 'truly happy' is a relationship with God. If that truth were proselytized as much as the other we'd have a happier world. The dry life is one that is devoid of the pure happiness of the soul, brought on by living for, and in, the senses; even a little prayer now and then turns the mind within to the inner peace we all have AS our own soul. Better health, peace of mind, integrity are all bi-products of living a life of chastity, a challenge at first but a yield well worth the effort. Give it a try.
[FairfieldLife] Where would Guru Dev find his teacher today? (Re: fluoride in water)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: Alex, There's a lot of controversy about water being depleted of minerals by the various purifying processes out there. The naysaying theory is that if you drink pure water, the body will have its minerals leached out of it. The body's supplies are diluted, less available. My son did some reading on this, and he concludes that ordinary tap water is your best bet compared to virtually all the bottled waters and to the brand name conditioners like Culligan. I have struggled to accept this, but I haven't done the research myself to get the clarity, so I suffer with dissonance. What's your POV, Alex? My POV is that for millions of years, hominids have been drinking water with a broad range of dissolved mineral content, and that as long as the diet is not mineral deficient, the mineral content of drinking water doesn't make a whole lot of difference. There are all sorts of health claims being made for both extremes of the mineral content spectrum, from distilled water to the mineral rich river water flowing out of the Himalayas, and I just regard them as silly religious dogmas. My POV is that the only truly important quality of drinking water is that it not be toxic. We had a RO filter for many years, and I was fine with it. In recent years, however, Petra seemed to have some stomach problems with the aggressively solvent RO water that she didn't have when drinking the mineral water in Germany, and since the quality of the Culligan RO membranes had deteriorated to the point that they were failing after 6 months, we stopped using RO. For most of the year, our household water is rainwater collected off the roof and stored in a 15,000 gallon, epoxy lined, concrete cistern (we switch to pond water when we run out of rain water). The mineral content of that water is very low, so our new drinking water system compensates for that. The first filter is one specifically designed for removing mercury and other heavy metals (coal burning means mercury in rainwater). Next is a cartridge filled with crushed calcite that adds mineral content. Finally, the water passes through one those Japanese Wellness Filters (the system also includes two storage tanks and a delivery pump.) This is, by *far*, the best drinking water we've ever had. RO water now tastes strange to me, although not as empty, dead, and dreadful tasting as distilled water.
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Feb 1, 2009, at 12:43 AM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: oh i see, since there is nothing but hearsay regarding the possibility of Maharishi's sexual escapades, you are more comfortable believing the he fucked around rumors, instead of believing the he didn't fuck around rumors? did i get that right? gotta wonder about the bias, don't you-- or does that just not matter, trumped by character assassination? It's not considered hearsay when it's already been published in newspapers Dawn. -that- is your standard, that something has been published in newspapers?? unbelievable...and what about all of those health benefits of TM that i have read published in newspapers? sorry, that just doesn't cut it, and is a ludicrousdly low bar, my Biased Buddhist.
[FairfieldLife] Obama gets laughs at Alfalfa dinner
The nation's first African-American president attended his first Alfalfa Club Dinner as commander in chief last night, and Barack Obama got into the spirit of the evening with jokes aimed at the dinner itself, his famously profane chief of staff and even himself. According to the White House, among the jokes the president told were: I am seriously glad to be here tonight at the annual Alfalfa dinner. I know that many you are aware that this dinner began almost one hundred years ago as a way to celebrate the birthday of General Robert E. Lee. If he were here with us tonight, the general would be 202 years old. And very confused. Now, this hasn't been reported yet, but it was actually Rahm's idea to do the swearing-in ceremony again. Of course, for Rahm, every day is a swearing-in ceremony. But don't believe what you read. Rahm Emanuel (Obama's chief of staff) is a real sweetheart. No, it's true. Every week the guy takes a little time away to give back to the community. Just last week he was at a local school, teaching profanity to poor children. But these are the kind of negotiations you have to deal with as president. In just the first few weeks, I've had to engage in some of the toughest diplomacy of my life. And that was just to keep my BlackBerry. I finally agreed to limit the number of people who could e-mail me. It's a very exclusive list. How exclusive? Everyone look at the person sitting on your left. Now look at the person sitting on your right. None of you have my e-mail address. As the Associated Press notes, among the others in attendance at the Capitol Hilton in Washington were 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain, a senator from Arizona, and his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. The dinner is supposed to be off-the-record, but reports of what was said always leak out. Politico reports that: Looking to Joe Lieberman, the Democrat-turned-independent-turned McCain supporter, Obama told the Connecticut senator he had no hard feelings. The door is always open, Obama assured Lieberman, who observes the Sabbath, so feel to drop by -- any Saturday afternoon. To Palin, Obama expressed surprise to see her with such members of the Washington elite she railed against during the campaign. Or, as he termed it in language Palin is familiar with, palling around with this crew. The Washington Post says that Lieberman, who also spoke, noted that former vice president Richard B. Cheney injured himself while moving into his new home, according to a source inside the dinner. 'I had no idea waterboards were so heavy,' Lieberman quipped. And, the Post reports: The incoming club president, Sen. Christopher S. Bond, R-Mo. reminded guests that a newspaper recently published a list of the 25 people most responsible for the global economic meltdown. You know who you are, he said, according to the source. And it's good to see you here tonight. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/02/62218794/1
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
and we have those, like me, and i suspect the majority of those who practice TM, who just don't know, and until something is proved one way or another, don't care- unlike the Maharishi bashers who are content to climb into their igloos of ignorance and proclaim endlessly that the Maharishi did fuck around, and it is up to the rest of us to prove otherwise. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: My suspicion is that those who believe that Maharishi couldn't possibly have fucked around believe this because they believe he was enlightened and if the rumor were true, that would upset their definition of what enlightenment is. ( Which definition, it is good to remember, came from the guy who possibly fucked around. :-) The TBs don't believe the rumors because it would be impossible for them to be true. Sorta along the lines of, If an enlightened being (and we assume as a given that MMY was one) tells us that he's a celibate monk, well the words of the enlight- ened are always true (and we know this because MMY told us so), then him fucking around is *impossible*. Or, you have those who believe that maybe he did maybe he didn't, but if he did it was in accord with Nature, Which We Cannot Understand or Comprehend Until We are Enlightened Too.
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: -that- is your standard, that something has been published in newspapers?? unbelievable...and what about all of those health benefits of TM that i have read published in newspapers? sorry, that just doesn't cut it, and is a ludicrousdly low bar, my Biased Buddhist. I think that the point was her account was a first person account, instead of just a rumor on the internet. As to whether the account is true I have no idea.
[FairfieldLife] Where would Guru Dev find his teacher today? (Re: fluoride in water)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: Alex, There's a lot of controversy about water being depleted of minerals by the various purifying processes out there. The naysaying theory is that if you drink pure water, the body will have its minerals leached out of it. The body's supplies are diluted, less available. My son did some reading on this, and he concludes that ordinary tap water is your best bet compared to virtually all the bottled waters and to the brand name conditioners like Culligan. I have struggled to accept this, but I haven't done the research myself to get the clarity, so I suffer with dissonance. What's your POV, Alex? My POV is that for millions of years, hominids have been drinking water with a broad range of dissolved mineral content, and that as long as the diet is not mineral deficient, the mineral content of drinking water doesn't make a whole lot of difference. There are all sorts of health claims being made for both extremes of the mineral content spectrum, from distilled water to the mineral rich river water flowing out of the Himalayas, and I just regard them as silly religious dogmas. My POV is that the only truly important quality of drinking water is that it not be toxic. We had a RO filter for many years, and I was fine with it. In recent years, however, Petra seemed to have some stomach problems with the aggressively solvent RO water that she didn't have when drinking the mineral water in Germany, and since the quality of the Culligan RO membranes had deteriorated to the point that they were failing after 6 months, we stopped using RO. For most of the year, our household water is rainwater collected off the roof and stored in a 15,000 gallon, epoxy lined, concrete cistern (we switch to pond water when we run out of rain water). The mineral content of that water is very low, so our new drinking water system compensates for that. The first filter is one specifically designed for removing mercury and other heavy metals (coal burning means mercury in rainwater). Next is a cartridge filled with crushed calcite that adds mineral content. Finally, the water passes through one those Japanese Wellness Filters (the system also includes two storage tanks and a delivery pump.) This is, by *far*, the best drinking water we've ever had. RO water now tastes strange to me, although not as empty, dead, and dreadful tasting as distilled water. Alex, could you post the brnd names of the filters you use? We have had RO for about 10 years and I have been thinking of changing and could use some guidance.
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Feb 1, 2009, at 9:34 AM, Vaj wrote: On Feb 1, 2009, at 12:43 AM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: oh i see, since there is nothing but hearsay regarding the possibility of Maharishi's sexual escapades, you are more comfortable believing the he fucked around rumors, instead of believing the he didn't fuck around rumors? did i get that right? gotta wonder about the bias, don't you-- or does that just not matter, trumped by character assassination? It's not considered hearsay when it's already been published in newspapers Dawn. I'd say it's now no longer hearsay that old Mahesh was not a life long renunciate, but instead, a lifelong liar and loved the ladies. Here's a copy of the newspaper article with the woman in question, Linda Pierce. If any one has a larger copy or PDF of the article, It'd be nice to have it for the files section. This interview by Linda Pearce (nee Williams) is the most detailed claim regarding Maharishi's sexual activities. In interviews from the late sixties concurrent with the events Linda describes, Maharishi describes himself as a renunciate. What is not made clear is that at the time of speaking to News of The World Linda had switched allegience to another Indian teacher Shri Mataji. Mataji regarded Maharishi as a 'false Guru' and encouraged former TM Teachers to speak out against Maharishi and encouraged allegations of sexual impropriety. This is probably why Linda Pearce chose to speak out in ths way in 1981. David Fiske a former TM leader who knew Linda Pearce has said he did not believe Linda would invent the story. http://maharishi-mahesh-yogi.re-membered.com/1981/01/linda-pearce-interview.html LINK The obvious question for me, Vaj, is why you should be so enthusiastic about such a piece of tabloid journalism, when, relative to some belief you hold dear, you would I am sure be only be too quick to cry just tabloid journalism! (and probably quite rightly too). The newspaper in question that you link to - the News of the World - has a reputation for being the pits of the pits of the UK gutter press. It's barely more than a comic. Are you in the habit of uncritical acceptance of tabloid truths? Here are a couple of classics of the genre from the News Of The world's sister paper The Sun: (1) Freddie Starr Ate My Hamster: http://tinyurl.com/dkae47 The English comedian's defence is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Starr The incident was a complete fabrication...I have never eaten or even nibbled a live hamster, gerbil, guinea pig, mouse, shrew, vole or any other small mammal. The man behind the hamster story was the British publicist Max Clifford. When asked in a television interview with Esther Rantzen some years later whether Starr really had eaten a hamster, his reply was 'Of course not.' Clifford was unapologetic, insisting that the story had given a huge boost to Starr's career (2) UFO Hits Wind Turbine (4am prang at 300 feet): http://tinyurl.com/dcdlct
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joe Smith Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 1:57 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ??? Are you saying this with any evidence or authority Joe, or is this just the way you wish it were? Just being a jerk Rick, but it has been a year now. Personally, I don't think the book will ever be published. You may be right. I wonder how many of us would write a book if we were in her position? I sent an email off to Conny Larson asking if he knows what her intentions are. She's over in Sweden, where he lives, and they're in touch. I'll post his response. Of course, Judith wasn't the only one, but she was the only one rumored to have written a book.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 4:49 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ??? The TBs don't believe the rumors because it would be impossible for them to be true. Sorta along the lines of, If an enlightened being (and we assume as a given that MMY was one) tells us that he's a celibate monk, well the words of the enlight- ened are always true (and we know this because MMY told us so), then him fucking around is *impossible*. Kinda like the Bible saying every word in this book is true and you'd better not change anything.
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rf...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joe Smith Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 9:33 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ??? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , ysoy10li ysoy10li@ wrote: ---Any new books on Maharishi in the last year ?? I had read here maybe a few years ago that the infamous Judy (no, not Stein...) had mentioned she wouldn't publish her book about her alleged experiences with M. until after his passing... She changed her mind and recanted the whole story saying it was just a hoax propagated by unhappy people in the movement. Are you saying this with any evidence or authority Joe, or is this just the way you wish it were? My thoughts exactly. When did she recant her story? Please give exact quotes and references. oh i see, since there is nothing but hearsay regarding the possibility of Maharishi's sexual escapades, you are more comfortable believing the he fucked around rumors, instead of believing the he didn't fuck around rumors? did i get that right? You mean like your unsupported claim that Barry got kicked out of the TMO? i was just messing with him, tight ass.
[FairfieldLife] Re: How woman misuse the power of attraction.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wg...@... wrote: A woman may appear more attractive sexuality because she pushes more buttons of a sexual nature, pretty simple. The buttons she has learned to push are designed to obtain your/and others attention for her sometimes egotistical needs be it vanity, relationships, etc. Woman are forced to behave this way in our primitive culture. Billy, maybe you would be happiest as a monk in seclusion. We sweat, we mate, we eat, we scratch, we poop, we laugh, we die. Enjoy it or opt out as best you can.
[FairfieldLife] Re: How woman misuse the power of attraction.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wg...@... wrote: \ It's a great question, as some woman exude beauty and others mere sexuality. Snip A woman may have a beautiful face but lack inner beauty, so she has physical merit but lacks inner merit, such is life. Any chance you might consider that this perspective reveals your own lack of ability to see beneath the surface? Almost every human has a lot under their projected exterior, and that includes women that you have demoted to the subhuman reduction of exuding mere sexuality. Here's an idea: Instead of shunning the next so called sexy woman, ask her what is on her mind. There is a real person there who exists without any relationship to the projections from your testicular repression agenda. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote: I have always wondered what beauty is. Why are we attracted to something beautiful and less to something plain. What are the attribute of beauty and its inner essence? Why is one particular woman in Home Depot or Nordstroms attactive and another not so much. Genetic markers promoting evolutionary sustainability may give insight to men's (perhaps odd) obsessions with breasts and behinds -- and other markers that make women breath deeply when one man passes and cringe at another. Perfectly symmetrical faces and proportions has been shown to tie to perceptions of beauty. Cultural and media conditioning is another element. But these things hardly capture the totality of all the factors of attraction -- they barely scratch the surface of defining beauty. Is beuaty simply and ultimately arbitrary? or does it have an eternal form and attributes? And beauty clearly does not stop with humans. Design and art, manifest in many processes and things, can be beautiful. And nature can be so breathtakingly beautiful. Mirror mirror on the wall, who is the fariest of them all? Is a beautiful woman more beautiful than a sunset on a gorgeous beach -- with just the right defraction of light and spread of clouds -- and lapping waves, and glassy ocean. Or mountains and rivers in so many ways and forms. I just spend a more wonderful afternoon absorbed in nature and exercise. Lots of heavy breathing, and I was totally embraced by both expansively subtle and intense clusters of beauty. Would an afternoon of sex with the home depot lady have been more fulfilling? While I am up for research on this, lots of A/B trials, taking nature as a lover has some clear appeal. She is ever fresh, creative, sparkling and surprising. No fear of her running off with another man. Its not hard to get a date. And if you need some time alone, without her, she doesn't cringe and she welcomes you back when ever you want with open enthusiastic arms. And what is the commonality between a a beautiful woman and nature? Beyond outward expression, is there a commonality, or at least overlap, at a deep level? It seems a times that the glow within her is the same glow within Her. It's a great question, as some woman exude beauty and others mere sexuality. In general all beauty is borrowed from God. The more in harmony a person is with God and the laws of nature the more beautiful will that person appear. A woman may have a beautiful face but lack inner beauty, so she has physical merit but lacks inner merit, such is life. The reason we appreciate beauty is that the beauty 'in nature' is a clue as to that which is hidden underneath and that which is hidden underneath is hidden in us as well. So actually, it is a reminder of our spiritual home within our Self, so we respond with joy, music is the same. A woman may appear more attractive sexuality because she pushes more buttons of a sexual nature, pretty simple. The buttons she has learned to push are designed to obtain your/and others attention for her sometimes egotistical needs be it vanity, relationships, etc. Woman are forced to behave this way in our primitive culture.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Power Of Attraction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: Since Billy brought up this issue, and because it's another rainy cafe day here in Sitges, I thought I'd spend a few minutes rappin' about attraction, but from a somewhat different perspective. The Rama guy I studied with (whatever one might think of him) had a fascination with and a knowledge of the occult side of life. That is, the study of energy and how it can be moved around to affect consciousness and people's perceptions. So one of the things we talked about a lot was what's actually *going on* when we find another person attractive. Sometimes it's innocent, and we're just fascinated by something that we see in another person's aura (even if we can't consciously see auras, in his view that's what we're always seeing). But other times the thing that we find ourselves being attracted to is the other person pushing it out, energetically. Call it shakti, call it kundalini, call it charisma, it's a science of sorts. If you know how to do it, you can push it out and capture the attention of others *no matter what you look like*. It's almost a form of energy cosmetics or shakti-based push-up bras. :-) He would demonstrate pushing it out for us, and show us examples of it in other students, so that we could use our seeing to try to identify the energy sig- anture associated with it. One of the first experiences I had after hearing some of these talks and seeing these demos that validated them in my mind was in L.A. I was early for a movie in Westwood, and chose to go to a little food stand there while waiting. It was *not* a classy place, more of a hamburger stand, with formica tables and not much ambiance. And as I was sitting there, I found my attention being drawn over and over to a woman who was sitting across the room. She had her back to me, and so all I could really see was her hair. But for some reason I just could not keep my eyes off of her. She was dressed casually as far as I could tell from the back, wearing jeans and a nondescript blouse. And there was really no body language to explain why I found my attention going to her over and over, because she was just sit- ting there talking quietly with her companion. So I was a little puzzled as to why I couldn't keep my eyes off of her. Then finally she stood up and turned around and I understood why. It was Lesley Ann Warren. She had recently been nominated for an Oscar for her work as a bimbo in Victor Victoria. But dressed down as she was, and wearing sunglasses, my bet is that I was the only person in the cafe other than her companion who recognized her *as* Lesley Ann Warren. Nevertheless, when she stood up and walked to the door, *every eye in the cafe* was following her. Male and female. Why? She was pushing it out. Her charisma was a factor of moving her own kundalini in ways that caused it to radiate outwards, and create an energy field that others found attractive, and that captured their attention. After that I started paying more attention when I ran into people who seemed to have charisma or be able to capture attention, and subjectively I found that I always saw the same energy signature. The woman or man who walked into a party and caused every head in the room to turn and look at them -- pushing it out. The woman walking along the Venice boardwalk who in reality was no more attractive than any other woman, or dressed more suggestively, but whom *every* person turned and watched until she was out of sight -- pushing it out. Once you've nailed the energy signature, you can spot it a mile away. For Billy, I might suggest that if having one's atten- tion captured by women is *not* one of your goals in life, learning to tell when one of them is pushing it out is a great way to recognize the energy sig- nature when you run into it, and not fall for it to the point of resenting the woman for it and writing afterwards about what a lowlife she probably is. :-) For others here, another reason I bring this up is that some *spiritual teachers* use this same energy signature and the occult ability to push it out to attract students. Many seekers in the audiences, not aware of what is going on on an energetic or occult level, interpret this ability to push it out as enlightenment, when in fact it might not be. Again, learning to recognize the energy signature can help to tell the mere occultists from the teachers who might actually have something real going for them. Thats interesting. It addresses, indirectly, my question about what is beauty. And Marek's description of the attractive older woman full of sparkle and grace. I can sense a type of energy signal or structure in some -- and that was part of my wondering about beauty -- preferring a plain glower to a beautiful energy wasteland. Some thoughts -- trying to piece together experiences
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: and we have those, like me, and i suspect the majority of those who practice TM, who just don't know, and until something is proved one way or another, don't care- unlike the Maharishi bashers who are content to climb into their igloos of ignorance and proclaim endlessly that the Maharishi did fuck around, and it is up to the rest of us to prove otherwise. I am a bit of a MMY basher, but the sex issue likely can't be proved one way or another. Too much time has passed. So, I don't spend time thinking about it either. Igloo of ignorance? Are you from up nort, eh?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: that- is your standard, that something has been published in newspapers?? unbelievable...and what about all of those health benefits of TM that i have read published in newspapers? sorry, that just doesn't cut it, and is a ludicrousdly low bar, my Biased Buddhist. ED, do you get into this strange possessiveness with people you've never met in reality? If so, it might explain why you spend so much time haunting internet forums. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: -that- is your standard, that something has been published in newspapers?? unbelievable...and what about all of those health benefits of TM that i have read published in newspapers? sorry, that just doesn't cut it, and is a ludicrousdly low bar, my Biased Buddhist. I think that the point was her account was a first person account, instead of just a rumor on the internet. According to Vaj, it's no longer hearsay because an interview with her was published in a trashy British tabloid (which he referred to as the newspapers) while she was under the influence of another teacher who urged her disciples to tell stories about MMY's supposed sexual misdeeds. As a standard, that ain't much above rumors on the Internet.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
On Feb 1, 2009, at 10:42 AM, Richard M wrote: The newspaper in question that you link to - the News of the World - has a reputation for being the pits of the pits of the UK gutter press. It's barely more than a comic. Yeah, but it's high-class journalism compared to the pits of the American press. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Power Of Attraction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: If someone can push it out -- and mesmerize us a bit, whether its our gender of choice, teachers or politicians (actors and great performances is another phenomenon that comes to mind -- as well as musicians -- I mean the Beatles had some good music -- but good enough for all that hoopla -- was there something else there?) -- is there some antidote we can do to make us less suceptible to such manipulation? You had a lot of good stuff in your post. One thing I do to help me resist manipulation is to have a personal rule that I do not make important decisions without walking away first and getting some space away from whoever is trying to sell or convince me of something. If someone is trying to get me to do something, I tell them I have this rule. It helps me stick to it. Another thing is to try to play devil's advocate with yourself. If you can clearly articulate the opposite position it will help with your critical thinking. And don't sleep with him on the first date. :)
[FairfieldLife] Re: How woman misuse the power of attraction.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernha...@... wrote: My question for Billy G and people (few) who think like him beliving in this 'God' thing. My question is this - do you really believe that beliving in God has made you happy? Happier than sex? And is sex separate from this 'God' and if not then it's pretty damn good aye? Sex, compared to the experience of God, is *chump change* believe me, I've experienced them both...:-) gday!
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: I can't imagine anyone putting in the time and trouble for something which will be met with possibly legal battles from the movement and such high animosity from its members. Most of the world couldn't care less since the Maharishi's image is often used iconically as a symbol of the millionaire spiritual teacher. We have had a bit too much info on what goes on in the personal lives of the so called spiritual superstars to take any of their image projections seriously. (I'm a multi millionaire but don't have pockets so I don't care about money. I have hundreds of adoring female disciples who will do ANYTHING I ask, but my lingum is not interested in any of them,even the ones who are s hot they make my coral beads melt.) And who would she be writing for who would both care enough and be open minded to her story? It might read like truncated member list of FFL. (Nabby and E.D. removed) And is everyone here going to buy the book? I doubt it. There are just not enough people to support a published book. She could go the self published route, but again so much work just to get a lot of hate mail. Time has a way of changing perspectives on what matters. I really couldn't put my heart into a book that trashed the guy and I am a consistent critic. Putting your back into a negitive expose takes a certain type of personality. She would have to be content to be known as the chick who banged Maharishi. That would be a hard basis for the hard work of a promo tour. And I suspect that the type of person who felt compelled to bend to the will of her teacher is probably not that vitriolic. She would be attacked on a personal level as most sexual victims are. And for what? To let a few people inclined to believe her story high five at the specifics of whatever Star Report inquiry details would come out (Bill used a cigar...wow!) To fuel the hatred of believers toward her personally. And all for a project destined to be a financial failure to tell a story that she already knows is true (or not) decades after it really mattered. I'm gunna guess no book and the best vultures like me can hope for is a Word doc in the file section someday if she wants to tell a handful of people how her own innocence was lost. And the reaction here would be predictably mixed no matter what she writes. If I was her friend I would tell her there is no upside here. Unless she has a strong need to have her story told. In that case here is my Visa number, I'm gunna solve next year's Christmas gift list problem right now! From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joe Smith Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 1:57 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ??? Are you saying this with any evidence or authority Joe, or is this just the way you wish it were? Just being a jerk Rick, but it has been a year now. Personally, I don't think the book will ever be published. You may be right. I wonder how many of us would write a book if we were in her position? I sent an email off to Conny Larson asking if he knows what her intentions are. She's over in Sweden, where he lives, and they're in touch. I'll post his response. Of course, Judith wasn't the only one, but she was the only one rumored to have written a book.
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Feb 1, 2009, at 10:42 AM, Richard M wrote: The newspaper in question that you link to - the News of the World - has a reputation for being the pits of the pits of the UK gutter press. It's barely more than a comic. Yeah, but it's high-class journalism compared to the pits of the American press. Sal No way! Our journos would take Olympic gold for crap journalism any day. You are so out-guttered. Get real - do you really think you can go toe-to-toe with this? http://www.dailystar.co.uk/ourpaper/view/2009-02-01#
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Vaj Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 9:25 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ??? I would like to see some resolution on the matter since the charges have been leveled. Personally I always suspected that the book Judy was to write or release would never materialize. That said, I have no interest in protecting the legacy of M. Hardly. But it does matter to me to exercise fairness when you are accusing someone of sexual impropieties, or at least sexual hypocrosy. The person's name is Linda Pearce (neé Williams), not Judy. Linda wasnt rumored to have written a book. Last I heard, she was in an AV clinic in India being treated for MS, but that was several years ago. She may no longer be alive. Judy is another one: http://www.therealpatchadams.com/. Then there are others.
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
so for now, all we have is the Maharishi's word that he was actually a life long celibate. absolutely no proof to the contrary. the rest is just rumors, and for a public figure who was in close proximity to thousands of people, some with agendas of their own, there are always lots of rumors. i am curious why some of those here, like Vaj, and Curtis and geezerfreak and Barry feel it is so important to cling deperately to the possibility that the Maharishi was a liar in terms of his sex life? as if they are fundamentalists 180 degrees out from the TBs they so often criticize, but TBs themselves nonetheless. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: I can't imagine anyone putting in the time and trouble for something which will be met with possibly legal battles from the movement and such high animosity from its members.
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joe Smith Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 1:57 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ??? Are you saying this with any evidence or authority Joe, or is this just the way you wish it were? Just being a jerk Rick, but it has been a year now. Personally, I don't think the book will ever be published. You may be right. I wonder how many of us would write a book if we were in her position? Glory be to back pedaling.! Why not just say, I guess she may not be writing a book, which would then seem pretty much discredit her account, since she evidently was on record that she was going to write a book. Right? Or maybe the report that she was going to write a book was a second hand account and should therefore be discredited, but not her second hand account of her sexual relationship with M. Or maybe her first person account in the newspaper should be taken as sound in spite of the disclaimer that she was encouraged by her new Guru to try to discredit M. If this comes across as the ranting of a TBer, then I say to you, I have heard a lot of screaming by people here who claim they were smeared by innuendo, and weak accusations. So try to uphold a consistent standard of evidence, I say. I sent an email off to Conny Larson asking if he knows what her intentions are. She's over in Sweden, where he lives, and they're in touch. I'll post his response. Of course, Judith wasn't the only one, but she was the only one rumored to have written a book.
[FairfieldLife] Re: How woman misuse the power of attraction.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernhardt@ wrote: My question for Billy G and people (few) who think like him beliving in this 'God' thing. My question is this - do you really believe that beliving in God has made you happy? Happier than sex? And is sex separate from this 'God' and if not then it's pretty damn good aye? Sex, compared to the experience of God, is *chump change* believe me, I've experienced them both...:-) gday! And the God experience couldn't produce the compassion to understand that many women who are dressing in the most provocative manor are desperate for male attention due to good and sometimes tragic reasons in their personal history. Your God realization stops at seeing their inner needs beneath the surface of their superficial appearance because it tempts you as if this is what defines their lives. Whatever God you imagine is as bankrupt as your image of woman as temptresses rather then just folks with families and flaws and lives that matter beneath the mascara,the stacked high heals, and the tight leopard-skin tank top with a pair of erect nipples staring at you with the eyes of your own repressed desire. (That was almost poetic! Damn, I wish I could shoe horn that into a song!)
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of curtisdeltablues Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 11:10 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ??? Speaking of books, Curtis, I still think you could write one. Some sort of humorous/philosophical retrospective on your life. I really think you have a gift.
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sun...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joe Smith Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 1:57 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ??? Are you saying this with any evidence or authority Joe, or is this just the way you wish it were? Just being a jerk Rick, but it has been a year now. Personally, I don't think the book will ever be published. You may be right. I wonder how many of us would write a book if we were in her position? Glory be to back pedaling.! Why not just say, I guess she may not be writing a book, which would then seem pretty much discredit her account, since she evidently was on record that she was going to write a book. Right? Or maybe the report that she was going to write a book was a second hand account and should therefore be discredited, but not her second hand account of her sexual relationship with M. Or maybe her first person account in the newspaper should be taken as sound in spite of the disclaimer that she was encouraged by her new Guru to try to discredit M. If this comes across as the ranting of a TBer, then I say to you, I have heard a lot of screaming by people here who claim they were smeared by innuendo, and weak accusations. So try to uphold a consistent standard of evidence, I say. Yep. Well said. I sent an email off to Conny Larson asking if he knows what her intentions are. She's over in Sweden, where he lives, and they're in touch. I'll post his response. Of course, Judith wasn't the only one, but she was the only one rumored to have written a book.
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 4:49 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ??? The TBs don't believe the rumors because it would be impossible for them to be true. Sorta along the lines of, If an enlightened being (and we assume as a given that MMY was one) tells us that he's a celibate monk, well the words of the enlight- ened are always true (and we know this because MMY told us so), then him fucking around is *impossible*. Kinda like the Bible saying every word in this book is true and you'd better not change anything. Rick, you never can resist taking a hit from that jar. Like Newdawn said, let's just have a little higher standard of proof. But no, it's gotta be, these true belivers are so duped, they just refuse, refuse I say, under any circumstances they refuse that M fucked around. Their insistence of a higher burden of proof has got to be plain outright denial on their part.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard M Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 11:19 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ??? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Feb 1, 2009, at 10:42 AM, Richard M wrote: The newspaper in question that you link to - the News of the World - has a reputation for being the pits of the pits of the UK gutter press. It's barely more than a comic. Yeah, but it's high-class journalism compared to the pits of the American press. Sal No way! Our journos would take Olympic gold for crap journalism any day. You are so out-guttered. Get real - do you really think you can go toe-to-toe with this? http://www.dailystar.co.uk/ourpaper/view/2009-02-01# http://www.dailystar.co.uk/ourpaper/view/2009-02-01 You may have boobs, but you don't have Bat Boy: http://weeklyworldnews.com/mutants/bat-boy-crashes-inaugural-ball/
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: i am curious why some of those here, like Vaj, and Curtis and geezerfreak and Barry feel it is so important to cling deperately to the possibility that the Maharishi was a liar in terms of his sex life? Cling desperately huh? The guy lied about all sorts of stuff it isn't the biggest stretch to think he might have lied about that. You ever stand in a group of women giving flowers to him? The adoration and his appreciation of it was intense. as if they are fundamentalists 180 degrees out from the TBs they so often criticize, but TBs themselves nonetheless. I don't know if he did or didn't but give a better chance that he was a regular famous guy who enjoyed the perks. What I see little evidence for is that he was some kind of inhuman creature who didn't have human desires and failings. So I believe in human nature and I don't believe he was exempt. That had nothing to do with being a TB of any kind. Did you hang out with him? Or is your whole relationship on the fantasy level where keeping him in an idealized form is important to you? so for now, all we have is the Maharishi's word that he was actually a life long celibate. absolutely no proof to the contrary. the rest is just rumors, and for a public figure who was in close proximity to thousands of people, some with agendas of their own, there are always lots of rumors. i am curious why some of those here, like Vaj, and Curtis and geezerfreak and Barry feel it is so important to cling deperately to the possibility that the Maharishi was a liar in terms of his sex life? as if they are fundamentalists 180 degrees out from the TBs they so often criticize, but TBs themselves nonetheless. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I can't imagine anyone putting in the time and trouble for something which will be met with possibly legal battles from the movement and such high animosity from its members.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of lurkernomore20002000 Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 11:25 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ??? You may be right. I wonder how many of us would write a book if we were in her position? Glory be to back pedaling.! Why not just say, I guess she may not be writing a book, which would then seem pretty much discredit her account, She never gave a public account. Linda Pearce is the only one who did, AFAIK. since she evidently was on record that she was going to write a book. Right? Or maybe the report that she was going to write a book was a second hand account and should therefore be discredited, It was from my vantage point. I never spoke with her personally. but not her second hand account of her sexual relationship with M. Or maybe her first person account in the newspaper should be taken as sound in spite of the disclaimer that she was encouraged by her new Guru to try to discredit M. now you're referring to Linda, not Judith.
[FairfieldLife] Re: How woman misuse the power of attraction.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote: I wish that I remembered the name of a public TV series I saw once that dealt with this very issue, but I do not. It was great, because it examined the issue of What do we consider attractive in a human being? *across cultures*. What I remember is that in specifics it isn't the same. Some good points. * Symmetry of features -- the more symmetrical the face or body, the more we find it attractive. And the opposite. I have log heard this, and have verified it for my own tastes on some sites that test this. But why is it so? Symmetry is the last thing I would think of on my own. Is it that when we see subtly different halves of a factor (or body) it does not compute as well in our sensory / evaluation mechanisms? Maybe like the distance, relaxed eye thing, below, the brain is more at rest, requires less processing, in viewing a more symmetrical face. Maybe asymmetry is just plain hard for the brain to reconcile -- and tho we are not conscious the specific process, we do get the message from our brains WTF! when an asymmetrical face comes into vision -- and our chagrin and frustration from brain tightening up results in a displeasurable association with the asymmetrical woman or man. If the relaxation theory is true -- it explains your funny picture about Tequila. Relaxed brain and everything is gorgeous. And is consistent with the lament I never have gone to bed with an ugly woman, but I woke up with a few. So it would follow that the greatest beauty would be appreciated at deepest states of mind relaxation. Thus ANYTHING seen at most refined functioning of the mind during meditaion would be awesomely beautiful. Thus the descriptions of Lakskmi (as posted recently) or other Godesses.Maybe it was just a mind ripple of nothingness, of no significance, but people came out thinking I saw this most awesomely beautiful woman ... * Long hair in women -- physically, an indicator of good health (not all women can even grow their hair really long), and again a positive flag in terms of childbirth and passing along one's genes. * A V-shaped torso -- both in men and women, more important in men. * Good skin -- again, an indicator of health. So I get the genetic beacon call within to be attracted to those whom have the higher probability of bearing progeny. nature appears to favor quantity over quality -- a bimbo with great tits, ass, hair and skin is in the reptile brain seen as far more desirable than a brainy, articulate, creative plain jane. But given that much if not most sex has no procreative intent -- why isn't recreational and bonding sex then focussed on women with markers that scream not much chance of progeny here -- bad skin, short gray hair, droopy tits, and a woobly ass. Why arn't such women the first on our list for lusty non-procreative sex? It's purely physical. The muscles of your eyes (which are very close to the brain and are important to the brain as an indicator of stress or lack of stress) are at rest (un-tensed) only when the eyes are focused on infinity. Thus if you are indoors, or on a city street surrounded by buildings, the eye muscles are always tensed. But go to the seaside or stand on the rim of the Grand Canyon and look out, and the eye muscles relax. Thus your brain assumes that your whole body is more relaxed, thus the perception of beauty. So it may be a blessing that the hottest woman in the universe will always be the one on the other side, and far horizon of the Grand Canyon from us. Unattainable.
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: snip And is everyone here going to buy the book? I doubt it. There are just not enough people to support a published book. She could go the self published route, but again so much work just to get a lot of hate mail. She probably could make a few pennies if she had it published by one of those print-on-demand outfits like iUniverse, or even sell a PDF download. The financial investment would be minimal, and it wouldn't be hard to publicize on the Web; there are the various pro- and anti-TM forums and all the anticult forums, many of whose members would find it of interest, plus there would be word of mouth from them to others. She'd get mail praising her for her bravery as well as hate mail. The only major work involved would be writing it and getting the files properly formatted.
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of curtisdeltablues Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 11:10 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ??? Speaking of books, Curtis, I still think you could write one. Some sort of humorous/philosophical retrospective on your life. I really think you have a gift. Thanks Rick. I take such kind remarks in and really appreciate them.
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of lurkernomore20002000 Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 11:25 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ??? You may be right. I wonder how many of us would write a book if we were in her position? Glory be to back pedaling.! Why not just say, I guess she may not be writing a book, which would then seem pretty much discredit her account, She never gave a public account. Linda Pearce is the only one who did, AFAIK. since she evidently was on record that she was going to write a book. Right? Or maybe the report that she was going to write a book was a second hand account and should therefore be discredited, It was from my vantage point. I never spoke with her personally. but not her second hand account of her sexual relationship with M. Or maybe her first person account in the newspaper should be taken as sound in spite of the disclaimer that she was encouraged by her new Guru to try to discredit M. now you're referring to Linda, not Judith. Who the f's on first. I'm getting confused. I'm just gonna start making guacomole for the superbowl :)
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: i am curious why some of those here, like Vaj, and Curtis and geezerfreak and Barry feel it is so important to cling deperately to the possibility that the Maharishi was a liar in terms of his sex life? Cling desperately huh? The guy lied about all sorts of stuff yes, cling desperately-- you come across as this super reasonable, i'm ok, you're ok guy most of the time, curtis, but if someone challenges your blind spot biases, its a whole nother story. ok, you're on, please list five things that you can prove the Maharishi lied about. not differences of opinion, or quotes out of context, but actual provable lies.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
On Feb 1, 2009, at 11:51 AM, Rick Archer wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Vaj Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 9:25 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ??? I would like to see some resolution on the matter since the charges have been leveled. Personally I always suspected that the book Judy was to write or release would never materialize. That said, I have no interest in protecting the legacy of M. Hardly. But it does matter to me to exercise fairness when you are accusing someone of sexual impropieties, or at least sexual hypocrosy. The person's name is Linda Pearce (neé Williams), not Judy. Linda wasn’t rumored to have written a book. Last I heard, she was in an AV clinic in India being treated for MS, but that was several years ago. She may no longer be alive. Judy is another one: http://www.therealpatchadams.com/ . Then there are others. I see, Linda's just the first to go on the record for sexual exploitation then, that I'm aware of. I wouldn't think there'd be much of a market for such a book these days.
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: I can't imagine anyone putting in the time and trouble for something which will be met with possibly legal battles from the movement and such high animosity from its members. Most of the world couldn't care less since the Maharishi's image is often used iconically as a symbol of the millionaire spiritual teacher. We have had a bit too much info on what goes on in the personal lives of the so called spiritual superstars to take any of their image projections seriously. (I'm a multi millionaire but don't have pockets so I don't care about money. I have hundreds of adoring female disciples who will do ANYTHING I ask, but my lingum is not interested in any of them,even the ones who are s hot they make my coral beads melt.) And who would she be writing for who would both care enough and be open minded to her story? It might read like truncated member list of FFL. (Nabby and E.D. removed) And is everyone here going to buy the book? I doubt it. There are just not enough people to support a published book. She could go the self published route, but again so much work just to get a lot of hate mail. Time has a way of changing perspectives on what matters. I really couldn't put my heart into a book that trashed the guy and I am a consistent critic. Putting your back into a negitive expose takes a certain type of personality. She would have to be content to be known as the chick who banged Maharishi. That would be a hard basis for the hard work of a promo tour. And I suspect that the type of person who felt compelled to bend to the will of her teacher is probably not that vitriolic. She would be attacked on a personal level as most sexual victims are. And for what? To let a few people inclined to believe her story high five at the specifics of whatever Star Report inquiry details would come out (Bill used a cigar...wow!) To fuel the hatred of believers toward her personally. And all for a project destined to be a financial failure to tell a story that she already knows is true (or not) decades after it really mattered. I'm gunna guess no book and the best vultures like me can hope for is a Word doc in the file section someday if she wants to tell a handful of people how her own innocence was lost. And the reaction here would be predictably mixed no matter what she writes. If I was her friend I would tell her there is no upside here. Unless she has a strong need to have her story told. In that case here is my Visa number, I'm gunna solve next year's Christmas gift list problem right now! A seemingly insightful and deep analysis based on the assumption that she is not mad and has a truth to tell. But you may just be waiting your brain energy. Why bother? I think I'm channelling Uncle Tantra here when I say to you - It's not that you would *like to believe that her story is true* is it? And if there IS a story but she singularly fails to back it up, you would like to have in place an explanation to *save the appearances* is it? ;-) From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joe Smith Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 1:57 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ??? Are you saying this with any evidence or authority Joe, or is this just the way you wish it were? Just being a jerk Rick, but it has been a year now. Personally, I don't think the book will ever be published. You may be right. I wonder how many of us would write a book if we were in her position? I sent an email off to Conny Larson asking if he knows what her intentions are. She's over in Sweden, where he lives, and they're in touch. I'll post his response. Of course, Judith wasn't the only one, but she was the only one rumored to have written a book.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
On Feb 1, 2009, at 11:33 AM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: It's not considered hearsay when it's already been published in newspapers Dawn. -that- is your standard, that something has been published in newspapers?? unbelievable...and what about all of those health benefits of TM that i have read published in newspapers? sorry, that just doesn't cut it, and is a ludicrousdly low bar, my Biased Buddhist. I never claimed it was my standard as you falsely imply, merely that it's not hearsay, i.e. unsubstantiated rumor. We have an actual person, giving actual verbal testimony of Mahesh boning her. And of course there are others. Regarding TM benefits published in newspapers, benefits merely being published in newspapers is NOT my standard for scientific research and scientific veracity, nor would I hope it would be yours. But thanks for the non sequitur. ;-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: fluoride in water
shempmcgurk wrote: I'm with the latter. I grew up in a community that did NOT flouridate yet my mother wanted us to have the benefit of it. So what did she do? She purchased flouride from the pharmacy and put the prescribed dose in our orange juice every morning when we were kids. Boy that sure explains a lot doesn't it folks? :-D
[FairfieldLife] Where would Guru Dev find his teacher today? (Re: fluoride in water)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 waybac...@... wrote: Alex, could you post the brnd names of the filters you use? We have had RO for about 10 years and I have been thinking of changing and could use some guidance. Well, I just had a bit of a shock. Petra was the one who was all stressed out about mercury, and she had the plumber put in a mercury filter. I just looked at the label on those cartridges for the first time (had to shut the system off and twist them around to read them), and neither one appears to be a mercury filter. One is an Omnipure Q5633 for chlorine, taste, and odor. The other is an Omnipure Q5605 dirt and sand filter. The calcite cartridge has no label, but it's just a standard filter housing with a cartridge inside filled with crushed calcite sand. I have a bag of extra calcite, and I can refill the cartridge when it gets used up. The Wellness Filter: http://www.wellnessfilter.com/ Delivery pump: Aquatec DDP-5800 The delivery pump really kicks ass. As you can imagine, with all those filter cartridges, there isn't much water pressure left after the last one. The pump senses the flow of water when you turn the drinking water on, and it immediately turns on and delivers around one gallon per minute. The pump doesn't like to suck from or push through a filter, so we added a second pressure tank. The first tank stores 5 gallons of the prefiltered mineralized water. Then there's the Wellness Filter, followed by a 3 gallon tank and the pump. The pump will run continuously for 3 gallons of water before it starts choking as it tries to suck water through the Wellness Filter. We seldom need to access that much water at a time, and when we do, we just have to shut the water off and allow a little while for the water to flow from the 5 gallon tank, through the Wellness Filter, and into the 3 gallon tank. It's all quite elaborate, but it works really well. I am, however, going to have a chat with the plumber about the supposed mercury filter.
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: i am curious why some of those here, like Vaj, and Curtis and geezerfreak and Barry feel it is so important to cling deperately to the possibility that the Maharishi was a liar in terms of his sex life? I am curious why you are trying to include me in the group of people you named and portray me as clinging desperately to the idea that MMY had a sex life. I defy you to find even one post on this forum in which I said that I knew the truth about this issue for sure. I defy you to find one in which I even said that I cared about it very much. Me, I don't know. I find the statements in the Sexy Sadie files 1) completely credible, and 2) completely in line with my perceptions of the man during my occasional face time with him. He had ZERO ability to self-examine and analyze his own actions in terms of approp- riateness, and he spent a lifetime hiding things from his students and the world at large. So I am *very* open to the *possibility* that he had a secret sex life. But I don't know. Or much care. The man was a proven liar in so many other ways that the question of whether he was one with regard to being a lifelong celibate doesn't really interest me much. But I do find it interesting, since YOU were one of the first on this forum to leap into the fray and pounce on someone's suggestion that the stories about him having sex were a hoax (a sug- gestion that itself turned out to be a good- natured hoax), I'm wondering why you're attempt- ing now to paint US as the ones who are attached to the issue. My only contribution to the thread was to point out YOUR piling on to the hoax post and attempting to use it to demonize those who believe the Maharishi sex stories NOT to be a hoax. And, interestingly, rather than address that, you've renewed your attempts to portray anyone who finds these stories credible as having something wrong with them. Me, I don't care whether he was a celibate or whether he fucked the entire cheerleading squads of both teams on the field during halftime at the Super Bowl. Compared to some of the *other* things he did that were patently illegal or not in the interest of his students, that would be small potatoes to me. But it seems that you care *very much* about whether these rumors are true. Every time they come up, you go out of your was to demonize those who feel they have some credibility. Why do you think that is?
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
once again, the real TBs on FFL are being exposed. first it was all the bullshit flavored hoopla about the practice of TM, until it was discoved that those making all of the negative noise were folks who either never or rarely practice the technique. now we have the latest tempest in a pisspot (with thanks to Barry for that phrase...), regarding the TBs insisting that the Maharishi acted in sexually inappropriate ways. and once again, there is zero proof. there is much said on this board about people being brainwashed, and believing things that they were told, simply because they were told them... but no one ever comments on the other flavor of True Believers here on FFL, those that believe what they believe, and reality be damned. that no matter what facts come to light, these folks are every bit as brainwashed, and living with blinders on than the most fervent TMO members. so all of you TBs here on FFL, enjoy the spotlight. and now i'll leave you all to preen and parade, scream and scrap about, in your folly and nakedness, wearing your pristine emperor's and empress's new clothes. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Feb 1, 2009, at 11:51 AM, Rick Archer wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Vaj Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 9:25 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ??? I would like to see some resolution on the matter since the charges have been leveled. Personally I always suspected that the book Judy was to write or release would never materialize. That said, I have no interest in protecting the legacy of M. Hardly. But it does matter to me to exercise fairness when you are accusing someone of sexual impropieties, or at least sexual hypocrosy. The person's name is Linda Pearce (neé Williams), not Judy. Linda wasn't rumored to have written a book. Last I heard, she was in an AV clinic in India being treated for MS, but that was several years ago. She may no longer be alive. Judy is another one: http://www.therealpatchadams.com/ . Then there are others. I see, Linda's just the first to go on the record for sexual exploitation then, that I'm aware of. I wouldn't think there'd be much of a market for such a book these days.
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
i stand corrected wrt your views on this one, though you as curtis make the blithe statement that the Mahairshi lied about so many things. same challenge to you-- come up with five of them that can be proved. about the rumors, who cares about rumors? not me, but others here use them as a lynchpin for aspects of their identity. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: i am curious why some of those here, like Vaj, and Curtis and geezerfreak and Barry feel it is so important to cling deperately to the possibility that the Maharishi was a liar in terms of his sex life? I am curious why you are trying to include me in the group of people you named and portray me as clinging desperately to the idea that MMY had a sex life. I defy you to find even one post on this forum in which I said that I knew the truth about this issue for sure. I defy you to find one in which I even said that I cared about it very much. Me, I don't know. I find the statements in the Sexy Sadie files 1) completely credible, and 2) completely in line with my perceptions of the man during my occasional face time with him. He had ZERO ability to self-examine and analyze his own actions in terms of approp- riateness, and he spent a lifetime hiding things from his students and the world at large. So I am *very* open to the *possibility* that he had a secret sex life. But I don't know. Or much care. The man was a proven liar in so many other ways that the question of whether he was one with regard to being a lifelong celibate doesn't really interest me much. But I do find it interesting, since YOU were one of the first on this forum to leap into the fray and pounce on someone's suggestion that the stories about him having sex were a hoax (a sug- gestion that itself turned out to be a good- natured hoax), I'm wondering why you're attempt- ing now to paint US as the ones who are attached to the issue. My only contribution to the thread was to point out YOUR piling on to the hoax post and attempting to use it to demonize those who believe the Maharishi sex stories NOT to be a hoax. And, interestingly, rather than address that, you've renewed your attempts to portray anyone who finds these stories credible as having something wrong with them. Me, I don't care whether he was a celibate or whether he fucked the entire cheerleading squads of both teams on the field during halftime at the Super Bowl. Compared to some of the *other* things he did that were patently illegal or not in the interest of his students, that would be small potatoes to me. But it seems that you care *very much* about whether these rumors are true. Every time they come up, you go out of your was to demonize those who feel they have some credibility. Why do you think that is?
[FairfieldLife] [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
Everyone has a sex life- always more than we know - right Barack! so for now, all we have is the Maharishi's word that he was actually a life long celibate. absolutely no proof to the contrary. the rest is just rumors, and for a public figure who was in close proximity to thousands of people, some with agendas of their own, there are always lots of rumors. i am curious why some of those here, like Vaj, and Curtis and geezerfreak and Barry feel it is so important to cling deperately to the possibility that the Maharishi was a liar in terms of his sex life? as if they are fundamentalists 180 degrees out from the TBs they so often criticize, but TBs themselves nonetheless. --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ ... wrote: I can't imagine anyone putting in the time and trouble for something which will be met with possibly legal battles from the movement and such high animosity from its members.
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 but actual provable lies. This standard is absurd in this context. I'll give you the ones that I know he made in my movement career that effected me personally. I am in no position to prove any of these to you especially considering your own bias. CC in usually experienced in 7 years. 3 years in Sidhaland to master the sidhis. (Directly promised to people who signed on.) The third generation of crops from the seeds we saved grown on sidhaland would grow into amazing plants. Three years of unpaid labor at sihaland would pay for TTC. MIU students would have their phase I and II honored after their graduation if they finished their degrees. Again directly promised to us right from Switzerland in a directly answered question. Right after graduation he said our TTC phase I and II from MIU was not valid and we had to do them both again. That his teachers would have their ATR credits gained from their hard work of initiations honored instead of being eliminated after the fact. He doesn't care about money because his dhoti had no pockets. People would actually fly with his flying sutra. That TM improves people's social behavior. That TM makes people more creative or intelligent. That TM and Ayur Veda gives you perfect health when his last decade's health was pathetic. That's off the top of my head. Your challenge is ridiculous because we all decide for ourselves how credible the guy was. You have your own standards and I have mine. But if you lived in his fulltime organization you saw promises given and reneged on time after time. It usually involved money. OURS becoming HIS. yes, cling desperately-- you come across as this super reasonable, i'm ok, you're ok guy most of the time, curtis, but if someone challenges your blind spot biases, its a whole nother story. I don't know what blind spot you think you have challenged. I think it is likely that a famous guy like Maharishi banged some chicks. You don't. Where is the blind spot? I'm not clinging to anything, I could be wrong. So could you. no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: i am curious why some of those here, like Vaj, and Curtis and geezerfreak and Barry feel it is so important to cling deperately to the possibility that the Maharishi was a liar in terms of his sex life? Cling desperately huh? The guy lied about all sorts of stuff yes, cling desperately-- you come across as this super reasonable, i'm ok, you're ok guy most of the time, curtis, but if someone challenges your blind spot biases, its a whole nother story. ok, you're on, please list five things that you can prove the Maharishi lied about. not differences of opinion, or quotes out of context, but actual provable lies.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
On Feb 1, 2009, at 11:42 AM, Richard M wrote: The obvious question for me, Vaj, is why you should be so enthusiastic about such a piece of tabloid journalism, when, relative to some belief you hold dear, you would I am sure be only be too quick to cry just tabloid journalism! (and probably quite rightly too). What lead you to believe I was enthusiastic about it? As far as I'm concerned it is just an entry in the historical record. The newspaper in question that you link to - the News of the World - has a reputation for being the pits of the pits of the UK gutter press. It's barely more than a comic. Are you in the habit of uncritical acceptance of tabloid truths? Here are a couple of classics of the genre from the News Of The world's sister paper The Sun: No, I'm not but regardless of the source we, as witnesses to the series of events that is and was the TMO and Mahesh Varma, have to try to honestly look at this and ascertain is it or does it represent the historical fact of the matter. Is Linda Pearce a real person? Are the quotes from her? Is there any reason to believe she's making up these claims? What's more important in a hundred years, if we have an honest historical record for the life of M. Varma or whether we have one that is dishonest and not representing the facts as they truly were? Wouldn't it be egregious to have an historical figure portrayed as a monk or life long celibate as a major part of their life purpose when they were not in fact as they claimed? It's great to establish the actual facts for the historical record. In this case it's very difficult because of the cult-like nature of the TM org. And as I and several others here can tell you, when you present facts they do not want known you'll receive death threats and more from their adherents.
[FairfieldLife] Re: How woman misuse the power of attraction.
Nice post. (did you mean jains not farsi with the inhaling of bugs thing? God if farsi would be chagrined you did not lay your dead relatives in an open air sacred space an let crows devour the remains. (not a bad strategy ecologically). However, you and Billie seem focussed on a anthropomorphic god made in the image of man. What if God, if there is one, is an experimental biologist/chemist/physisict of sorts, and cranks out a lot of experiments, our big bang an subsequent progression and evolution just being somewhat random outcomes of the initial mixing of the brew. And he/she/it has no interest directing the flow. Just keen on watching. Or maybe not even that. Perhaps he has totally retired from any interest here. In other words, a God without conscious intent for a particular outcome, and no interest in any active participation in the the experiment. Or even the results of the experiment. Which may lead some to say, well then why postulate a God. Why not its just Nature experimenting with no intent, design, goal or direct intervention. Or its all just nature. its just what is. Which actually is far more magnificent, complex, beautiful and breathtaking than any religions conception of God. I mean damn, evolution, what a magnificent heuristic. Or the extent of the Cosmos. And the scale factor and mechanics down at the most basic level (which keeps evolving, or our understanding of it). And Relativity -- what a mind blower. Better than any myth the Gospels tell (or made up). I get more inspired and blown away by listening to a good physicist or biologist who can convey, accurately, his understandings in plainer english than used with his peers, than by listening to any scripture or God-man -- as they say in the indian tabloids. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote: Billie, what if God doesn't exist? Or Go exists and God is found to be way different than you conceptualize God? I imagine your reaction would be one of devastation -- but that is only speculation. I imagine if God exists and Curtis met God, he would say cool -- so to speak, God and I are not cool. Actually I would be all up in his infinite grill about animals eating each other alive. He made some with a merciful kill bite and others with a strategy of eating their prey alive. This is uncool and there is no excuse for it. Then we can discuss the Guinea worm in drinking water. What a total putz for inventing that! http://tinyurl.com/da9a4m There is no excuse for this suffering in the world. (I know some of this material is a repeat but I am not over Guinea worms yet so please bear with me, I'm still warming up.) If he wasn't a myth I would be totally pissed about his lack of concern for the suffering of living creatures. (the Karma copout only applies to humans, and not very well IMO) And he would also have to answer for his crappy communication skills. Everybody else has a Website or a cable TV channel and the lord of the universe can't shell out a few bucks so humans have a chance to understand what he wants? Hellooo Mr. Omniscient, ever heard of Myspace or texting? You lack the communication skills of 13 year old girls and you expect use to obey your words from old books that also support slavery? Even Doug Henning had TV specials, how hard is that? -- I am sure he would have more eloquent words. You are too kind, I would be a raging idiot. The meeting would not go well. His life would be similar to how it is now. Well, if he turns out to be Hindu there is that beef thing... Or Muslim there is that pork thing... And if he is really Amish we are all screwed just for using this electronic forum! And if he is a Parsi, can you imagine how damned we are for just the bugs we have inhaled? (I won't tell him about your roach motels if you don't tell him that my freezer is full of prime cuts of Bambi's mom. (And I would have wasted a life NOT putting Zoroastrianism on all invasively personal forms, just to see the bureaucrat's face!) And if he is Jewish and we don't have those curly sideburns and the years dipping lobster in melted butter and mornings with bacon, (both Canadian and the good kind) we are eternal toast. Of it turns out to be Kali and Pol Pot and Mao are sitting in heaven with big grins at the banquet table and people like me who only inhaled bugs and ate meat, but never took a human life, don't get in. And if she is Kali AND a feminist who knows what is in my JPG packed file in the folder named: boring business stuff that would be uninteresting to any girlfriend reading this. So Pascal's Wager (you might as well believe because it is not too much of a pain in the ass and the upside might be huge) is bogus. None of us are any better prepared for the WYMS thug at the pearly gates announcing in
[FairfieldLife] Re: How woman misuse the power of attraction.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: Nice post. (did you mean jains not farsi with the inhaling of bugs thing? Absolutely, thanks for catching that. God if farsi would be chagrined you did not lay your dead relatives in an open air sacred space an let crows devour the remains. (not a bad strategy ecologically). Excellent! However, you and Billie seem focussed on a anthropomorphic god made in the image of man. What if God, if there is one, is an experimental biologist/chemist/physisict of sorts, and cranks out a lot of experiments, our big bang an subsequent progression and evolution just being somewhat random outcomes of the initial mixing of the brew. And he/she/it has no interest directing the flow. Just keen on watching. Or maybe not even that. Perhaps he has totally retired from any interest here. In other words, a God without conscious intent for a particular outcome, and no interest in any active participation in the the experiment. Or even the results of the experiment. Which may lead some to say, well then why postulate a God. Why not its just Nature experimenting with no intent, design, goal or direct intervention. Or its all just nature. its just what is. That is a perfect description where I am at. Which actually is far more magnificent, complex, beautiful and breathtaking than any religions conception of God. I mean damn, evolution, what a magnificent heuristic. Or the extent of the Cosmos. And the scale factor and mechanics down at the most basic level (which keeps evolving, or our understanding of it). And Relativity -- what a mind blower. Better than any myth the Gospels tell (or made up). I get more inspired and blown away by listening to a good physicist or biologist who can convey, accurately, his understandings in plainer english than used with his peers, than by listening to any scripture or God-man -- as they say in the indian tabloids. That's the sermon of what I believe on this Sunday morning. Nicely said! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote: Billie, what if God doesn't exist? Or Go exists and God is found to be way different than you conceptualize God? I imagine your reaction would be one of devastation -- but that is only speculation. I imagine if God exists and Curtis met God, he would say cool -- so to speak, God and I are not cool. Actually I would be all up in his infinite grill about animals eating each other alive. He made some with a merciful kill bite and others with a strategy of eating their prey alive. This is uncool and there is no excuse for it. Then we can discuss the Guinea worm in drinking water. What a total putz for inventing that! http://tinyurl.com/da9a4m There is no excuse for this suffering in the world. (I know some of this material is a repeat but I am not over Guinea worms yet so please bear with me, I'm still warming up.) If he wasn't a myth I would be totally pissed about his lack of concern for the suffering of living creatures. (the Karma copout only applies to humans, and not very well IMO) And he would also have to answer for his crappy communication skills. Everybody else has a Website or a cable TV channel and the lord of the universe can't shell out a few bucks so humans have a chance to understand what he wants? Hellooo Mr. Omniscient, ever heard of Myspace or texting? You lack the communication skills of 13 year old girls and you expect use to obey your words from old books that also support slavery? Even Doug Henning had TV specials, how hard is that? -- I am sure he would have more eloquent words. You are too kind, I would be a raging idiot. The meeting would not go well. His life would be similar to how it is now. Well, if he turns out to be Hindu there is that beef thing... Or Muslim there is that pork thing... And if he is really Amish we are all screwed just for using this electronic forum! And if he is a Parsi, can you imagine how damned we are for just the bugs we have inhaled? (I won't tell him about your roach motels if you don't tell him that my freezer is full of prime cuts of Bambi's mom. (And I would have wasted a life NOT putting Zoroastrianism on all invasively personal forms, just to see the bureaucrat's face!) And if he is Jewish and we don't have those curly sideburns and the years dipping lobster in melted butter and mornings with bacon, (both Canadian and the good kind) we are eternal toast. Of it turns out to be Kali and Pol Pot and Mao are sitting in heaven with big grins at the banquet table and people like me who only inhaled bugs and ate meat, but never took a human life, don't get in. And if she is Kali AND a feminist who knows what is
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
On Feb 1, 2009, at 12:09 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: I can't imagine anyone putting in the time and trouble for something which will be met with possibly legal battles from the movement and such high animosity from its members. Most of the world couldn't care less since the Maharishi's image is often used iconically as a symbol of the millionaire spiritual teacher. We have had a bit too much info on what goes on in the personal lives of the so called spiritual superstars to take any of their image projections seriously. (I'm a multi millionaire but don't have pockets so I don't care about money. I have hundreds of adoring female disciples who will do ANYTHING I ask, but my lingum is not interested in any of them,even the ones who are s hot they make my coral beads melt.) And who would she be writing for who would both care enough and be open minded to her story? It might read like truncated member list of FFL. (Nabby and E.D. removed) And is everyone here going to buy the book? I doubt it. There are just not enough people to support a published book. She could go the self published route, but again so much work just to get a lot of hate mail. Time has a way of changing perspectives on what matters. I really couldn't put my heart into a book that trashed the guy and I am a consistent critic. Putting your back into a negitive expose takes a certain type of personality. She would have to be content to be known as the chick who banged Maharishi. That would be a hard basis for the hard work of a promo tour. And I suspect that the type of person who felt compelled to bend to the will of her teacher is probably not that vitriolic. She would be attacked on a personal level as most sexual victims are. And for what? To let a few people inclined to believe her story high five at the specifics of whatever Star Report inquiry details would come out (Bill used a cigar...wow!) To fuel the hatred of believers toward her personally. And all for a project destined to be a financial failure to tell a story that she already knows is true (or not) decades after it really mattered. I'm gunna guess no book and the best vultures like me can hope for is a Word doc in the file section someday if she wants to tell a handful of people how her own innocence was lost. And the reaction here would be predictably mixed no matter what she writes. If I was her friend I would tell her there is no upside here. Unless she has a strong need to have her story told. In that case here is my Visa number, I'm gunna solve next year's Christmas gift list problem right now! I agree. The time has probably passed for this to be a profitable venture--and with so much water under the bridge, who really want to be known as the women who had sex with a old bearded Indian guru. The only chance I can see any of this having any traction is if they were to get on Dr. Phil or Oprah with a theme of Spiritual Incest, etc. Throw in some priests who also had spiritually incestuous relationships with their followers. Of course since there is an upcoming major movement event--the Paul McCartney/David Lynch/Moby Donavan effort to bring the teachings of this person into our schools, an enterprising publisher could see that as an opportunity to sell some books. But even that is highly unlikely IMO.
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
Lots of pent up energy seems to be releasing, or imploding, on this topic. A perspective, not mine, but interesting to consider is that if the Maharishi created the ability in you to clearly see past present and future, then you could easily validate or reject any such claims personally, by just going there and viewing it -- given that such abilities are diamonds (or dung) found on the path or around the area of the fort. And if he did not create that widespread ability, then he didn't lead many to the fort. If he did not lead many to the fort, then why is he considered in your minds, a significant person? And, to follow this logic, if he is not a significant person, then why do you care about his sex life? (or are you equally as enthusiastically and energy-charged interested in everybody's sex life?)
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 but actual provable lies. This standard is absurd in this context. I'll give you the ones that I know he made in my movement career that effected me personally. I am in no position to prove any of these to you especially considering your own bias. You're playing fast and loose with the distinction between falsehoods and lies. That's not as deep as your usual thinking IMO! If I say to you tomorrow I think it might snow some, and then it doesn't. What do you think - that I LIED to you? A child might think that of its parent. Mummy you lied to me, you promised snow!. Or... a disciple might think that of his God. But do you see that? YOU made MMY your god, then you turn against him for being human! I admit I was more than a TB in the past than I am now - but I never, never, thought MMY was my god or even my guru (or that he asked that of me). CC in usually experienced in 7 years. 3 years in Sidhaland to master the sidhis. (Directly promised to people who signed on.) The third generation of crops from the seeds we saved grown on sidhaland would grow into amazing plants. Three years of unpaid labor at sihaland would pay for TTC. MIU students would have their phase I and II honored after their graduation if they finished their degrees. Again directly promised to us right from Switzerland in a directly answered question. Right after graduation he said our TTC phase I and II from MIU was not valid and we had to do them both again. That his teachers would have their ATR credits gained from their hard work of initiations honored instead of being eliminated after the fact. He doesn't care about money because his dhoti had no pockets. People would actually fly with his flying sutra. That TM improves people's social behavior. That TM makes people more creative or intelligent. That TM and Ayur Veda gives you perfect health when his last decade's health was pathetic. That's off the top of my head. Your challenge is ridiculous because we all decide for ourselves how credible the guy was. You have your own standards and I have mine. But if you lived in his fulltime organization you saw promises given and reneged on time after time. It usually involved money. OURS becoming HIS. yes, cling desperately-- you come across as this super reasonable, i'm ok, you're ok guy most of the time, curtis, but if someone challenges your blind spot biases, its a whole nother story. I don't know what blind spot you think you have challenged. I think it is likely that a famous guy like Maharishi banged some chicks. You don't. Where is the blind spot? I'm not clinging to anything, I could be wrong. So could you. no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: i am curious why some of those here, like Vaj, and Curtis and geezerfreak and Barry feel it is so important to cling deperately to the possibility that the Maharishi was a liar in terms of his sex life? Cling desperately huh? The guy lied about all sorts of stuff yes, cling desperately-- you come across as this super reasonable, i'm ok, you're ok guy most of the time, curtis, but if someone challenges your blind spot biases, its a whole nother story. ok, you're on, please list five things that you can prove the Maharishi lied about. not differences of opinion, or quotes out of context, but actual provable lies.
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: now we have the latest tempest in a pisspot (with thanks to Barry for that phrase...), regarding the TBs insisting that the Maharishi acted in sexually inappropriate ways. Hey, ED, thanks for acknowledging my one-liner. I do try to turn a funny phrase from time to time. But, speaking of time, I know that I said I wasn't going to harp on your past, and I won't, but I find myself curious as to how you KNOW about that one-liner. You first arrived on this forum September 28, 2008, and a quick trip to Yahoo Search tells me that the last time I used that phrase in a post to this forum was April 30, 2008. So what's up with that? Are you so obsessed with me that you've been going back and reading my greatest hits from the past? Or is there some other explanation? Curious minds want to know...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
Hi Dawn, I guess this is directed at me? On Feb 1, 2009, at 12:56 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: once again, the real TBs on FFL are being exposed. first it was all the bullshit flavored hoopla about the practice of TM, until it was discoved that those making all of the negative noise were folks who either never or rarely practice the technique. What am I being exposed for? For mentioning a first hand account of someone who got porked by the Big Reesh? Never practiced TM? I seriously doubt you'll find that any of the people remarking on it had never practiced TM. Yet you try to push lie after lie, like I had only practiced TM for 4 years. It's just makes you sound silly and desperate Dawn. now we have the latest tempest in a pisspot (with thanks to Barry for that phrase...), regarding the TBs insisting that the Maharishi acted in sexually inappropriate ways. and once again, there is zero proof. Well that's simply not true. And this is nothing new, it's OLD news. The only thing new is whenever it's mentioned a certain subset of people go ballistic anew having heard it for the first time or the 20th. For those people it represents both a lot of pent up energy and the difficulty at trying to look at this objectively, let alone assessing it truthfully and with integrity. there is much said on this board about people being brainwashed, and believing things that they were told, simply because they were told them... Yes I know Dawn.
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 but actual provable lies. This standard is absurd in this context. I'll give you the ones that I know he made in my movement career that effected me personally. I am in no position to prove any of these to you especially considering your own bias. You're playing fast and loose with the distinction between falsehoods and lies. That's not as deep as your usual thinking IMO! If I say to you tomorrow I think it might snow some, and then it doesn't. What do you think - that I LIED to you? A child might think that of its parent. Mummy you lied to me, you promised snow!. Agreed. The reneging on course promises directly made were outright lies, or were turned into lies by his lack of integrity to be a man of his word. The other things have other possibilities of interpretation. I am offering mine. The whole challenge had an absurd premise, I was playing along. We each choose the credibility of Maharishi's claims from our interactions with the guy. In my case his lack of integrity with the truth had strong financial repercussions. Or... a disciple might think that of his God. But do you see that? YOU made MMY your god, then you turn against him for being human! No. All humans don't renege on financial arrangements. Only dishonest ones. I admit I was more than a TB in the past than I am now - but I never, never, thought MMY was my god or even my guru (or that he asked that of me). You were not fulltime on Purusha or Sidhaland I assume? For us it was quite clear what our relationship was. CC in usually experienced in 7 years. 3 years in Sidhaland to master the sidhis. (Directly promised to people who signed on.) The third generation of crops from the seeds we saved grown on sidhaland would grow into amazing plants. Three years of unpaid labor at sihaland would pay for TTC. MIU students would have their phase I and II honored after their graduation if they finished their degrees. Again directly promised to us right from Switzerland in a directly answered question. Right after graduation he said our TTC phase I and II from MIU was not valid and we had to do them both again. That his teachers would have their ATR credits gained from their hard work of initiations honored instead of being eliminated after the fact. He doesn't care about money because his dhoti had no pockets. People would actually fly with his flying sutra. That TM improves people's social behavior. That TM makes people more creative or intelligent. That TM and Ayur Veda gives you perfect health when his last decade's health was pathetic. That's off the top of my head. Your challenge is ridiculous because we all decide for ourselves how credible the guy was. You have your own standards and I have mine. But if you lived in his fulltime organization you saw promises given and reneged on time after time. It usually involved money. OURS becoming HIS. yes, cling desperately-- you come across as this super reasonable, i'm ok, you're ok guy most of the time, curtis, but if someone challenges your blind spot biases, its a whole nother story. I don't know what blind spot you think you have challenged. I think it is likely that a famous guy like Maharishi banged some chicks. You don't. Where is the blind spot? I'm not clinging to anything, I could be wrong. So could you. no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: i am curious why some of those here, like Vaj, and Curtis and geezerfreak and Barry feel it is so important to cling deperately to the possibility that the Maharishi was a liar in terms of his sex life? Cling desperately huh? The guy lied about all sorts of stuff yes, cling desperately-- you come across as this super reasonable, i'm ok, you're ok guy most of the time, curtis, but if someone challenges your blind spot biases, its a whole nother story. ok, you're on, please list five things that you can prove the Maharishi lied about. not differences of opinion, or quotes out of context, but actual provable lies.
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Feb 1, 2009, at 11:42 AM, Richard M wrote: The obvious question for me, Vaj, is why you should be so enthusiastic about such a piece of tabloid journalism, when, relative to some belief you hold dear, you would I am sure be only be too quick to cry just tabloid journalism! (and probably quite rightly too). What lead you to believe I was enthusiastic about it? As far as I'm concerned it is just an entry in the historical record. An entry in the historical record - isn't that a rather pompous way to describe a report in the News Of The World? The newspaper in question that you link to - the News of the World - has a reputation for being the pits of the pits of the UK gutter press. It's barely more than a comic. Are you in the habit of uncritical acceptance of tabloid truths? Here are a couple of classics of the genre from the News Of The world's sister paper The Sun: No, I'm not but regardless of the source we, as witnesses to the series of events that is and was the TMO and Mahesh Varma, have to try to honestly look at this and ascertain is it or does it represent the historical fact of the matter. Is Linda Pearce a real person? Are the quotes from her? Is there any reason to believe she's making up these claims? Yes - it appeared in the News of The World. What's more important in a hundred years, if we have an honest historical record for the life of M. Varma or whether we have one that is dishonest and not representing the facts as they truly were? Wouldn't it be egregious to have an historical figure portrayed as a monk or life long celibate as a major part of their life purpose when they were not in fact as they claimed? Fine - but you're pre-supposing the truth of what you believe, a circular argument. It's just as true that if there is NO truth in Ms Pearce's alleged allegations, then we don't want a historical record (to use your portentous phrase) in which MMY is falsely accused. Surely you would agree that there is some truth in the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof? What does your complex Buddhist metaphysics and architectonic teach you about the value or dangers of *gossip*? It's great to establish the actual facts for the historical record. In this case it's very difficult because of the cult-like nature of the TM org. And as I and several others here can tell you, when you present facts they do not want known you'll receive death threats and more from their adherents.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: fluoride in water
On Feb 1, 2009, at 11:55 AM, Bhairitu wrote: shempmcgurk wrote: I'm with the latter. I grew up in a community that did NOT flouridate yet my mother wanted us to have the benefit of it. So what did she do? She purchased flouride from the pharmacy and put the prescribed dose in our orange juice every morning when we were kids. Boy that sure explains a lot doesn't it folks? :-D LOL Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 but actual provable lies. This standard is absurd in this context. I'll give you the ones that I know he made in my movement career that effected me personally. I am in no position to prove any of these to you especially considering your own bias. You're playing fast and loose with the distinction between falsehoods and lies. That's not as deep as your usual thinking IMO! If I say to you tomorrow I think it might snow some, and then it doesn't. What do you think - that I LIED to you? A child might think that of its parent. Mummy you lied to me, you promised snow!. Agreed. The reneging on course promises directly made were outright lies, or were turned into lies by his lack of integrity to be a man of his word. The other things have other possibilities of interpretation. I am offering mine. The whole challenge had an absurd premise, I was playing along. We each choose the credibility of Maharishi's claims from our interactions with the guy. In my case his lack of integrity with the truth had strong financial repercussions. Or... a disciple might think that of his God. But do you see that? YOU made MMY your god, then you turn against him for being human! No. All humans don't renege on financial arrangements. Only dishonest ones. I admit I was more than a TB in the past than I am now - but I never, never, thought MMY was my god or even my guru (or that he asked that of me). You were not fulltime on Purusha or Sidhaland I assume? For us it was quite clear what our relationship was. I was on Sidhaland. That most certainly was NOT made to clear to me. I think a lot of my comrade sidhas felt as I did, but it is true (and I think it was wrong) that many, many deified MMY. But I didn't see that as his fault frankly, distasteful as it was. Maybe my bad, who knows. CC in usually experienced in 7 years. 3 years in Sidhaland to master the sidhis. (Directly promised to people who signed on.) The third generation of crops from the seeds we saved grown on sidhaland would grow into amazing plants. Three years of unpaid labor at sihaland would pay for TTC. MIU students would have their phase I and II honored after their graduation if they finished their degrees. Again directly promised to us right from Switzerland in a directly answered question. Right after graduation he said our TTC phase I and II from MIU was not valid and we had to do them both again. That his teachers would have their ATR credits gained from their hard work of initiations honored instead of being eliminated after the fact. He doesn't care about money because his dhoti had no pockets. People would actually fly with his flying sutra. That TM improves people's social behavior. That TM makes people more creative or intelligent. That TM and Ayur Veda gives you perfect health when his last decade's health was pathetic. That's off the top of my head. Your challenge is ridiculous because we all decide for ourselves how credible the guy was. You have your own standards and I have mine. But if you lived in his fulltime organization you saw promises given and reneged on time after time. It usually involved money. OURS becoming HIS. yes, cling desperately-- you come across as this super reasonable, i'm ok, you're ok guy most of the time, curtis, but if someone challenges your blind spot biases, its a whole nother story. I don't know what blind spot you think you have challenged. I think it is likely that a famous guy like Maharishi banged some chicks. You don't. Where is the blind spot? I'm not clinging to anything, I could be wrong. So could you. no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: i am curious why some of those here, like Vaj, and Curtis and geezerfreak and Barry feel it is so important to cling deperately to the possibility that the Maharishi was a liar in terms of his sex life? Cling desperately huh? The guy lied about all sorts of stuff yes, cling desperately-- you come across as this super reasonable, i'm ok, you're ok guy most of the time, curtis, but if someone challenges your blind spot biases, its a whole nother story. ok, you're on, please list five things that you can prove the Maharishi lied about. not differences of opinion, or quotes out
[FairfieldLife] Owning the Fruits of Artistic Creation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: now we have the latest tempest in a pisspot (with thanks to Barry for that phrase...), regarding the TBs insisting that the Maharishi acted in sexually inappropriate ways. Hey, ED, thanks for acknowledging my one-liner. I do try to turn a funny phrase from time to time. Do you actually try or just it just come out that way? I am not nitpicking (well, not intending to) -- but it seems most creative things, particularly word-play just pops out. May it needs a little polish and we add that. But the gem popped out fully formed. Trying to be creative seems to be an oxymoron (hmm probably not the best fit or words -- but you may get the gist). Trying creates stilted stuff. Uninteneded popping out seems to be the genises of most really good creative work (but that is pure speculation -- I have no research on that -- its just my own experience and limited observation) Which, I had not made the connection before, puts aristic and creative property rights in a whole new light. If you didn't REALLY create it -- just sort of helped manage the process a (tiny) bit -- where does the claim to vast fortunes and 30-60 years of patent or copyright protection come from. Its like trying to patent milk coming from a cow (which I am sure some have tried to do.) A fair wage for time spent seems reasonable -- and perhaps for all the time spent cultivating the conditions to let the thing of glory pop out. I am dreaming here, I know, but it seems that a truly creative genius would recognize this and (the first one to do so would have to be bold I know) would donate anything above a fair wage to Nature -- some charitable cause -- or perhaps rest home for old poets who perhaps added to the path -- but never had a big gem pop out of their head an the subsequent fortunes. Or a fund for the Arts -- which recognizes hey we in the artistic community are all vessels here - and I got lucky, some did not -- but I want to support the path of others given that my fortunes are based on something not my own. This donation ethic would define a true and great artist that lets Nature create thru themselves. And it would follow, under this perhaps twisted scenario, that the public would support true artists (per above definition) and shun hucksters selling stuff they struggled and struggled to manufacture (in contrast to creating). Probably not a popular idea amongst the artists here.
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: i stand corrected wrt your views on this one, though you as curtis make the blithe statement that the Mahairshi lied about so many things. same challenge to you-- come up with five of them that can be proved. Well, I'm not sure I can come up with five without going back and looking up posts here to jog my memory (which I am too busy right now to do) but one that leaps to mind was promising to pay the recertified TM teachers a monthly salary for life once they gave up their careers and went full-time. Yeah, that happened. :-) I saw him once in Switzerland being asked about the money smuggling. He denied all knowledge of it, which somewhat shocked the Regional Coordinator sitting beside me, because he had been asked by Maharishi personally to do this many times, and had done it. Dare I mention Enlightenment in 5-7 years? :-) Once in Switzerland I watched him ream out a German blissnazi for not doing something that he had told him to do. The poor fellow was such a TB that he burst into tears and ran from the room. After he was gone, because I was sitting close as a result of being a State Coordinator, I heard Jerry go up and tell Maharishi that, in fact, he had given that instruction to a completely dif- ferent set of course leaders, and never to that German guy. Maharishi laughed and said, Well, he must have felt guilty about *something*, and chuckled for several minutes over it. Not technically a lie, just poor memory and the inability to actually care about his students, but as I said I'm winging this. How about the promise to TM Teachers that they were accumulating ATR credit, and then taking it all away? What of the numerous fundraising drives to get local TMers to contribute to buying a property that would definitely be used as a TM center for their town, and then turning around and selling the property off for a profit, leaving the town with no TM center and the contributors with empty pockets? That's five, and about all the time I wish to spend on this exercise. I'm sure others here could contribute a few more. If you had had more face time with Maharishi -- or any -- I'm sure that you could come up with five or more of your own.
[FairfieldLife] Where would Guru Dev find his teacher today? (Re: fluoride in water)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@ wrote: Alex, could you post the brnd names of the filters you use? We have had RO for about 10 years and I have been thinking of changing and could use some guidance. Well, I just had a bit of a shock. Petra was the one who was all stressed out about mercury, and she had the plumber put in a mercury filter. I just looked at the label on those cartridges for the first time (had to shut the system off and twist them around to read them), and neither one appears to be a mercury filter. One is an Omnipure Q5633 for chlorine, taste, and odor. The other is an Omnipure Q5605 dirt and sand filter. The calcite cartridge has no label, but it's just a standard filter housing with a cartridge inside filled with crushed calcite sand. I have a bag of extra calcite, and I can refill the cartridge when it gets used up. The Wellness Filter: http://www.wellnessfilter.com/ Delivery pump: Aquatec DDP-5800 The delivery pump really kicks ass. As you can imagine, with all those filter cartridges, there isn't much water pressure left after the last one. The pump senses the flow of water when you turn the drinking water on, and it immediately turns on and delivers around one gallon per minute. The pump doesn't like to suck from or push through a filter, so we added a second pressure tank. The first tank stores 5 gallons of the prefiltered mineralized water. Then there's the Wellness Filter, followed by a 3 gallon tank and the pump. The pump will run continuously for 3 gallons of water before it starts choking as it tries to suck water through the Wellness Filter. We seldom need to access that much water at a time, and when we do, we just have to shut the water off and allow a little while for the water to flow from the 5 gallon tank, through the Wellness Filter, and into the 3 gallon tank. It's all quite elaborate, but it works really well. I am, however, going to have a chat with the plumber about the supposed mercury filter. Thanks Alex for your time. I am now in research mode and have a plumber coming out this next week to give me his input.
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ wrote: snip If I say to you tomorrow I think it might snow some, and then it doesn't. What do you think - that I LIED to you? A child might think that of its parent. Mummy you lied to me, you promised snow!. Agreed. The reneging on course promises directly made were outright lies, or were turned into lies by his lack of integrity to be a man of his word. A broken promise is not the same thing as a lie, Curtis. (If he said, I have never broken a promise, *that* would be a lie.) ED11 asked you for examples of lies, i.e., when he said something he knew wasn't true. You and others claim he told lies all the time, as justification for thinking the claims about his hanky-panky are likely to be true--in other words, that he was lying when he said he was a life celibate. I'd be curious to know whether he can be documented to have made this claim *after* the alleged hanky-panky is supposed to have taken place. If it was only before, then that wasn't a lie either. But assuming it *was* after, and therefore an outright lie, ED11 is asking you to document other such outright lies. So far, you haven't done so.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Owning the Fruits of Artistic Creation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: now we have the latest tempest in a pisspot (with thanks to Barry for that phrase...), regarding the TBs insisting that the Maharishi acted in sexually inappropriate ways. Hey, ED, thanks for acknowledging my one-liner. I do try to turn a funny phrase from time to time. Do you actually try or just it just come out that way? A good question. :-) The honest answer is that most of the time it just comes out that way. But underneath that is a baseline intention to be funny as often as I can manage. I think funny is important. I am not nitpicking (well, not intending to) -- but it seems most creative things, particularly word-play just pops out. May it needs a little polish and we add that. But the gem popped out fully formed. While this is true, there is the intention thing I mentioned above. If I am writing an article or a film review in which humor is appropriate, I find that I can set my pop out meter to a setting in which funny stuff tends to come out. However, when writing something in which humor would not be approp- riate, I can use a different intention setting, and fewer stupid attempts at humor pop out. I'm trying to be honest here, because yours is a very good question. I've never really thought much about this before, and am winging it as I write. Trying to be creative seems to be an oxymoron (hmm probably not the best fit or words -- but you may get the gist). While on some levels I agree, on others I do not. It is true that occasionally as a writer I just get a wild creative hair up my ass and stuff just pops out. But if you sit around *waiting* for those wild hair moments, and expect to make a living on them, you starve. So there is often a need to just sit down and write something -- ANYTHING -- to prime the pump and get the flow going. Once the flow has started, then things tend to pop out for me. Suffice it to say that my habit of writing to FFL over coffee first thing in the morning is my method of priming the pump for the rest of the day's writing. I find that this interesting group of people consistently brings up subjects that I can find some response to, and thus write. And then, once the writing process has been jumpstarted, I can shift that flow to some other project that I am working on. Trying creates stilted stuff. Uninteneded popping out seems to be the genises of most really good creative work (but that is pure speculation -- I have no research on that -- its just my own experience and limited observation) I would have to contradict your speculation. In my experience, most successful writers who have a long track record as successful writers are NOT the kinds of people who sit around waiting for creative inspiration. They write every day, and to a schedule. Steven King does this, although he is a spontaneous writer. My favorite humorist, Christopher Moore, definitely has a daily writing schedule, and needs it. Both are *very* creative writers, but they have to force themselves to *write*, not sit around waiting for inspiration.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
On Feb 1, 2009, at 12:13 PM, Vaj wrote: The only chance I can see any of this having any traction is if they were to get on Dr. Phil or Oprah with a theme of Spiritual Incest, etc. Throw in some priests who also had spiritually incestuous relationships with their followers. Of course since there is an upcoming major movement event--the Paul McCartney/David Lynch/Moby Donavan effort to bring the teachings of this person into our schools, an enterprising publisher could see that as an opportunity to sell some books. But even that is highly unlikely IMO. LOL...Yeah, I can just see that, Vaj...as Paul and Donovan, etc are up on stage, pushing the supposed value of TM and how much it can do for kids, there's a table set up in the entry with a tell-all book by someone who supposedly had a hot relationship with TM's founder and is dishing all the dirt. Ought to go over real big with David and the rest of the TM crowd. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: snip I see, Linda's just the first to go on the record for sexual exploitation then, that I'm aware of. Linda is the *only* one to have gone on the record (in a trashy British tabloid, under the influence of a teacher who encouraged her disciples to publicize MMY's alleged hanky-panky), as far as *any* of us are aware of.
[FairfieldLife] Where would Guru Dev find his teacher today? (Re: fluoride in water)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@ wrote: Alex, could you post the brnd names of the filters you use? We have had RO for about 10 years and I have been thinking of changing and could use some guidance. Well you folks sure seem particular about your water! I don't understand half of what you are talking about (nothing new there). What's RO? But we do have a little water filter from the supermarket. I'm not sure about its technology (money I think). The thing is, we have a cat, and as most people know, cats are EXTREMELY particular and sensitive about their food drink. A cat will more likely starve than eat something he/she disapproves of. What I am coming to is that we do our very, very best to put out the water that we think our cat will like. We try tap water; we try boiled water; we try filtered water. Yes, she will tolerate it for some of the time, but for the most part she opts for the EXACT OPPOSITE of what we think is good for her. Given a choice, she prefers the disgusting water from our small garden pond (full of goldfish excrement and who-knows-what bugs and microbes). Or she'll squat by a muddy puddle with an expression on her face as if it was purest bourbon. Does she know something we don't know?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
On Feb 1, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Richard M wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Feb 1, 2009, at 11:42 AM, Richard M wrote: The obvious question for me, Vaj, is why you should be so enthusiastic about such a piece of tabloid journalism, when, relative to some belief you hold dear, you would I am sure be only be too quick to cry just tabloid journalism! (and probably quite rightly too). What lead you to believe I was enthusiastic about it? As far as I'm concerned it is just an entry in the historical record. An entry in the historical record - isn't that a rather pompous way to describe a report in the News Of The World? Is it a record and did it occur? Popular gutter press newspapers do occasionally print good and factual articles, an excellent example being the National Enquirer here in the US (which IMO prints mostly tripe). While it mostly prints junk, occasionally they snag a good one. So an entry into the historical record I would hope depend less on whether you like the tabloid or not, but whether or not it represented the facts or not. I have not seen any retractions, have you? Has the TMO issued a press release declaring her statements false? Was their legal action taken against Ms. Pearce that we may have missed? If you think about it, junk tabloids are the perfect place for news of Mahesh's indiscretions. I think that's the level he and his org have sunken to. What's more important in a hundred years, if we have an honest historical record for the life of M. Varma or whether we have one that is dishonest and not representing the facts as they truly were? Wouldn't it be egregious to have an historical figure portrayed as a monk or life long celibate as a major part of their life purpose when they were not in fact as they claimed? Fine - but you're pre-supposing the truth of what you believe, a circular argument. No, you have people, me included, seeing no counter-intervening evidence to suggest that anything Ms. Pearce said was untrue. No counter articles. No lawsuits for having tarnished Mr. Varmas saintly reputation. No video of Mr. Varma claiming 'I did not have sexual relations with that girl'. Nada. Zero. Zip. It's just as true that if there is NO truth in Ms Pearce's alleged allegations, then we don't want a historical record (to use your portentous phrase) in which MMY is falsely accused. Surely you would agree that there is some truth in the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof? What does your complex Buddhist metaphysics and architectonic teach you about the value or dangers of *gossip*? That's just it, knowing what we already know, it's not that extraordinary. She's one more in the list that I was aware of. HH the 14th Dalai Lama has said publicly that when a guru is found to be dishonest or taking advantage of his students, esp. for sexual reasons, it's important that the public at large be made aware of the situation. One of the reasons this is important Richard is so others are not harmed by the person or their organization. That IS our moral obligation as human beings.
