[FairfieldLife] Physics geeks: particle zoo site

[bob_brigante]

Somebody may have posted this before:

http://particleadventure.org/npe.html

[FairfieldLife] 'ARBEIT mit LICHT und LIEBE'

[Robert]

'Working With Light and Love'
 
http://www.puramaryam.de/


  

[FairfieldLife] 'A Violent May Day in Berlin!'

[Robert]

GOOD COP, BAD COP
Police Officer Arrested for Joining Berlin's May Day Riot
During the May Day protests last week, Berlin police clashed with nearly every 
kind of demonstrator imaginable -- including one of their own. An off-duty 
police officer from Frankfurt has been arrested for stone-throwing during riots 
which left over 450 of his colleagues injured.






 
This year's May Day riots proved to be a serious headache for the roughly 6,000 
police officers on duty in Berlin last Friday. Over 450 of them -- four times 
as many as last year -- reported injuries, with 19 requiring out-patient 
hospital care, Berlin police chief Dieter Glietsch reported. 


PHOTO GALLERY: COPS AND CHAOS IN BERLIN
http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-42305.html#backToArticle=623723
 
Adding insult to injury is the news that one of the 289 protestors police 
arrested during the violence was actually one of their own -- a fellow officer 
with the German Federal Police. 

The 24-year-old, usually stationed at Frankfurt International Airport, is 
suspected of taking part in the May Day riots in Berlin and -- in at least two 
instances -- throwing cobblestones and striking police officers. He was 
off-duty and staying in Kreuzberg, the multi-ethnic and alternative 
neighborhood at the center of the annual demonstrations, during his visit to 
the capital, where he completed his training in August last year.
The policeman has been suspended and will remain off-duty until the criminal 
proceedings are over, said a representative for the German Federal Police on 
Friday. "We are all a bit shocked, because this is not the behavior we expect 
from a colleague," a spokeswoman for the Frankfurt Airport police told German 
news agency DDP. 
The mass circulation German daily Bild wrote in its Friday edition that the 
officer, a reported paintball enthusiast, had described his mood online as 
"looking for a fight."
The Labor Day holiday has been well-known for decades for its regular outbreaks 
of violence and the disorderly situation has become something of a tradition in 
Berlin -- and has since spread to other German cities, Hamburg in particular. 
In recent years, popular outdoor festivals held on May Day appeared to have 
cooled down some of the aggression -- although the peaceful performances and 
gatherings usually morph into some degree of stone-throwing and car-burning as 
the sun goes down. This year, however, marked an increase in mayhem, with some 
speculating that the amplified unrest might be in response to the ongoing 
economic crisis, especially rising unemployment. Protestors of all varieties -- 
left-wing, far-right, anti-capitalist, anti-fascist, and anarchist -- clashed 
with riot police in various Berlin neighborhoods. 

Until the early morning hours, police were attacked with bottles, stones, and 
firecrackers -- and responded in turn with tear gas, batons, and pepper spray, 
arresting twice as many protestors as last year in the process.
On Saturday morning, street cleaning teams battled the trash -- collecting 100 
cubic meters of garbage, stones, and shards of broken glass.
jcm - with wire reports


  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi on "Immortality of the body".

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5"  wrote:
>
> Billy, would it be okay if these were figures of speech?  Do they have to be 
> literal to be true?  Rings true in experience anyway.

I think MMY meant what he said, and it also concurs with what Swami Paramahansa 
Yogananda taught!
 
> Do you meditate anymore?  Or have you fallen away entirely?  Just wondering 
> what type of meditator you are now as you make these comments below.


I still meditate TM (since 1968) but am leaning towards the "Hong Sau" 
technique taught by SRF, not that TM is bad or anything, just that I have been 
studying under Swami Yogananda and his technique is more in harmony with what I 
am learning..the jury is still out.  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Quote from Guru Dev

[dhamiltony2k5]

Pretty good advice.  Everything but the parental, 'be careful the company you 
keep' and 'don't hangout with off-the-path unspiritual non-meditators'.

>
> 'One can become a  mahatma wherever one lives. No one becomes a mahatma by
> simply wearing ochre  clothing or by applying some marks to the forehead.
> Dress and other externals  will not lead to the ultimate good, whereas faith
> will certainly lead to it.  The state of a mahatma is determined by the
> state of mind. So stay wherever  you are, but change the direction of your
> mind. Think less about samsara and  think more about Paramatma.
>  
> Nowadays people think a  great deal about things they should not waste their
> time on. One should  primarily contemplate Paramatma; instead, people
> contemplate worldly objects.  That is why they are unable to experience
> peace and happiness. If you apply  your vital breath to worldly activities
> and enjoyment of the senses, then your  lungs are like the bellows of a
> blacksmith. Hence take care of your vital  breath and apply yourself to
> Paramatma. First generate faith. You already have  sufficient faith in
> money. That is why you are able to think about it. When  you have faith in
> Paramatma, then you will start contemplating Him.
>  
> You must realize that  money and all the objects of samsara will remain
> here, while you have to carry  out your future journey alone. Prepare for
> that future journey at this very  moment. Increase your faith in higher
> goals, and increase your love for that  ever-blissful Paramatma. Show
> superficial interest in the things of the world,  which will always remain
> here, and place primary faith in the ultimate goal,  which will remain with
> you. Once you discover that a tantalizing heap of money  was actually
> created by a magician, the temptation to take it will wither, and  you will
> no longer covet it. Like the magician's money, all the objects and
> relationships of samsara are transient. Therefore, carry out all daily
> affairs  according to social expectations, but do not reserve a place for
> these things  in your mind. Keep your mind free for the imperishable
> Paramatma, whose very  essence is bliss. Always keep Bhagavan in your mind
> and never transgress the  bounds of propriety - this is what it means to be
> a mahatma.'
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi on "Immortality of the body".

[Robert]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5"  wrote:
>
> Billy, would it be okay if these were figures of speech?  Do they have to be 
> literal to be true?  Rings true in experience anyway.
> 
> Do you meditate anymore?  Or have you fallen away entirely?  Just wondering 
> what type of meditator you are now as you make these comments below.
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG."  wrote:
> >
> > "About immortality on the physical level, I happened to mention some 
> > teaching in the Gita about a cessation of aging process and that I narrated 
> > on the level of your experience during meditation."
> > 
> > "When your thoughts become finer and finer, when the mind experiences finer 
> > realms of thought during meditation, then the metabolism is reduced, as the 
> > metabolism is reduced the mind becomes finer and finer and the metabolism 
> > becomes further reduced, the mind transcends and gets to that state of TC.  
> > Simultaneously the body, the mind, the entire functioning of the inner 
> > machinery, ALL METABOLIC RATE COMES TO ZERO." (Caps by me)
> > 
> > Has TM research demonstrated this???
> > 
> > "When this happens the physical structure of the nervous system comes to a 
> > state where it knows no action. It knows no action and without action it 
> > remains lively, yet without activity. This is that state where it has no 
> > decay."
> > 
> > "Decay comes, physical decay comes through activity. Cessation of activity 
> > results in cessation of the decaying process. As long as we can be in that 
> > state, the process of decay ceases to be. (Read Babaji anybody?) A very 
> > simple, very direct technique of attaining that state of life where 
> > neithrer the mental plane decays nor the physical plane decays; mental and 
> > physical planes come to the level of the spiritual plane wheich has eternal 
> > life and knows no change."  MMY The Vedas page five.
> > 
> > Note: Very few, if any, TM'ers or any meditators can demonstrate this state 
> > of 'zero metabolic rate', it is a very high state of development. Hence 
> > very few TM'ers actually transcend to Transcendental Consciousness, most 
> > transcend a little and that is reflected in the scientific research to 
> > date. It takes years and years of practice to achieve conscious 
> > transcending to Absolute Being, come on, get real!
> >
>
I would agree, here, it usually does take years, lifetimes of experience to 
even be motivated for such a thing...
It would take years of spending time in the silence of meditation, in a silent 
place...
The more silence the better.
Then, in these modern times, there are adjuncts to the movement towards 'Zero 
Breath'...
These techniques are available through listening the advanced CD's using the 
effect of tones to slow the brainwaves to as slow as 0.3 cycles, or beyond 
'Deep Sleep'...
So, if you culture the mind, to maintain awareness, even at the deepest point 
of sleep, then that is what is necessary...
Only at the point of zero breath, is one beyond the concept of ego...
R.G.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi on "Immortality of the body".

[dhamiltony2k5]

Billy, would it be okay if these were figures of speech?  Do they have to be 
literal to be true?  Rings true in experience anyway.

Do you meditate anymore?  Or have you fallen away entirely?  Just wondering 
what type of meditator you are now as you make these comments below.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG."  wrote:
>
> "About immortality on the physical level, I happened to mention some teaching 
> in the Gita about a cessation of aging process and that I narrated on the 
> level of your experience during meditation."
> 
> "When your thoughts become finer and finer, when the mind experiences finer 
> realms of thought during meditation, then the metabolism is reduced, as the 
> metabolism is reduced the mind becomes finer and finer and the metabolism 
> becomes further reduced, the mind transcends and gets to that state of TC.  
> Simultaneously the body, the mind, the entire functioning of the inner 
> machinery, ALL METABOLIC RATE COMES TO ZERO." (Caps by me)
> 
> Has TM research demonstrated this???
> 
> "When this happens the physical structure of the nervous system comes to a 
> state where it knows no action. It knows no action and without action it 
> remains lively, yet without activity. This is that state where it has no 
> decay."
> 
> "Decay comes, physical decay comes through activity. Cessation of activity 
> results in cessation of the decaying process. As long as we can be in that 
> state, the process of decay ceases to be. (Read Babaji anybody?) A very 
> simple, very direct technique of attaining that state of life where neithrer 
> the mental plane decays nor the physical plane decays; mental and physical 
> planes come to the level of the spiritual plane wheich has eternal life and 
> knows no change."  MMY The Vedas page five.
> 
> Note: Very few, if any, TM'ers or any meditators can demonstrate this state 
> of 'zero metabolic rate', it is a very high state of development. Hence very 
> few TM'ers actually transcend to Transcendental Consciousness, most transcend 
> a little and that is reflected in the scientific research to date. It takes 
> years and years of practice to achieve conscious transcending to Absolute 
> Being, come on, get real!
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why the mantras ARE the sound vibrations (names) of the Devatas.

[Robert]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On May 7, 2009, at 8:57 PM, BillyG. wrote:
> 
> > The Devatas are formless creative intelligences that Hinduism has  
> > anthropomorphized
> 
> 
> Another misunderstanding of mantra. The form arises with the sound  
> and light.
> 
> The "tree" (the mandala or deities dimension) emerges from the  
> "seed", which emerges as sound, light, etc. There is a visual and a  
> sonic component that is the process of the revelation of mantra. The  
> visual part experienced becomes the dhyana-vidhi, the visualized  
> aspect of the deity, considered one of the necessary pieces of mantra- 
> yoga.
>
Hey Vaj, 
I'm wondering, when Buddha left the nest,
And he wanted to start meditation practice, would he have to think of the 
visual aspect of the deity? 
Wouldn't that keep him on the level of visualization? And if stays on the level 
of visualization, then how can he gain dhyana, or transcending his 
visualization?

That's the whole value and difference with the brilliance and simplified 
subtlety of Maharishi's teaching...
It's the lack of 'visualization' of the deity...that one picks up the mantra, 
in an innocent state...
A meaningless sound, used for transcending (dhayana), in order to finally 
transcend the mantra, and experience the experiencer or transcendence...The 
self experiencing the self through the innate ability to become aware of 
awareness itself.
After becoming familiar with transcending quickly, then the added advanced 
techniques, slow the dhanana, to experience more fully, the finer levels of 
thought...
Then the sidhi techniques, based on the aspects of dhyana and sutra,
And the developement of Ritam or the aspect of cognizing the name/form 
relationship.
Then this aspect of 'Dhyana-Vidya' will spontaneously arise, and not in a 
manipulative or superficial way, as in 'Straining to Remain on a Superficial 
Level of Visualization...
Then Buddha can become Buddha by realizing his natural state, uncomplicated 
with mental analysis.
R.G.

[FairfieldLife] 'Joan of River & Immortality'

[Robert]

 






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Rivers



  

[FairfieldLife] 'Goldie Gets Mindful'

[Robert]

 
Date: Friday, May 8, 2009, 4:48 PM






http://www.thehawnfoundation.org/



  

[FairfieldLife] 'The 5 Gifts of Root Chakra'

[Robert]

 


The five gifts of the root chakra

by Khalid Malik



There are those who court the heart chakra looking for love both internally and 
externally. Then there are some who seek to energise the brow chakra looking to 
peer across the divide into realms unknown and finally there are a few who wish 
to harmonise the crown chakra and so discover the oneness of creation.

Personally, I am a root chakra person; this chakra, when energised provides 
focus and clarity. Imagine gathering all the strands that make up who you are 
and pulling them together into whole and complete being, this is the first gift 
of a harmonised root chakra.

Roots that go as deep as the earth's core are the foundations of this energy 
centre giving strength that can endure all the worlds tumbles and upheavals 
this is the second gift of this wonder-filled chakra.

And with these deep roots comes a connection to a being so vast and wise that 
its first communion will change ones life forever. This being, this mother is 
perhaps the only source of true unconditional love in the physical world and 
this forms the third gift of a balanced root chakra.

Mother earth, by some called Gaia, has a more fabled gift for those who would 
form a union with her through their root chakras. This fourth gift comes in the 
form of knowledge, perhaps, the most fundamentally important knowledge of all. 
Should you divine deep with your root chakra you will encounter a message from 
the earth, a message that shatters the chaos that often surrounds us. Shatters 
it by bringing a clear and unequivocal message. The fourth gift is a message 
that answers the question "Where am I?"

Life is a journey, a path to be followed, but to have any chance of making 
sense of this journey a crucial piece of information is needed and that is the 
answer to "where am I?" a balanced and energised root chakra provides this 
knowledge as its fourth gift.

The root chakra is all about the physical; the universe that we can touch is in 
the realm of the root chakra. This being the case when one energises this 
profoundly material chakra one gets an undeniable sense that we are human 
beings having a spiritual experience. This is the fifth gift of this chakra.



      



  

[FairfieldLife] 'Dakani- Earth Goddess'

[Robert]

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): Sat May 02 00:00:00 2009
End Date (UTC): Sat May 09 00:00:00 2009
633 messages as of (UTC) Fri May 08 23:46:24 2009

50 authfriend 
50 TurquoiseB 
45 Vaj 
44 nablusoss1008 
32 "grate.swan" 
31 Bhairitu 
29 sparaig 
27 ruthsimplicity 
27 "Richard J. Williams" 
22 off_world_beings 
22 dhamiltony2k5 
21 enlightened_dawn11 
20 Rick Archer 
20 Duveyoung 
18 "do.rflex" 
17 bob_brigante 
16 Sal Sunshine 
15 "BillyG." 
13 Richard M 
12 shempmcgurk 
10 satvadude108 
10 raunchydog 
10 lurkernomore20002000 
 9 cardemaister 
 8 wle...@aol.com
 8 Nelson 
 7 geezerfreak 
 3 drpetersutphen 
 3 William108 
 3 Dick Richardson 
 3 Dick Mays 
 3 Alex Stanley 
 2 sgrayatlarge 
 2 scienceofabundance 
 2 beno beno 
 2 Tom 
 2 Marek Reavis 
 2 Hugo 
 1 uns_tressor 
 1 tkrystofiak 
 1 pranamoocher 
 1 nelson lafrancis 
 1 metoostill 
 1 Peter 
 1 Paul Mason 
 1 Patrick Gillam 
 1 Mike Doughney 
 1 Mike Dixon 
 1 Joe Smith 
 1 Barbara Thomas 
 1 "min.pige" 

Posters: 51
Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
=
Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
Standard Time (Winter):
US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com 

[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan  wrote:
> >
> > > I'll
> > > just say what I say and allow those I say it
> > > about to react the way that *they* see fit. I
> > > feel no obligation to "back up" any of my opin-
> > > ions (because that is, in fact, what they are), 
> > 

GrateSwan, Thanks for a thoughtful post. I've enjoyed some really wonderful 
conversations on FFLife. My two favorite debaters are Judy and Curtis. They are 
both willing to go the distance to intelligently make their case and for the 
most part they do so respectfully. I don't have the deeply analytical skills 
that they do but I enjoy jumping into an interesting conversation. Putting 
myself on the skillet in support of TM gives me a chance to recount experiences 
I've had with the TMO and tell stories I wouldn't have written about otherwise. 

The best of Barry's posts are creative and entertaining but the one's that 
creep me out are like drive by shootings. It adds nothing to the conversation 
and only inspires me to respond in kind. The bully in the schoolyard who lobs 
the rock enjoys how powerful it makes him feel suffers no consequences for any 
head he happens to split open unless he gets a knock from someone unwilling to 
take a stand against him. No one likes a bully.

> > I am perhaps hopelessly naive, but I had assumed that posts are primarily 
> > about sharing and working out ideas -- and passing on and discussing news. 
> > A forum is not a blog. Blogs are more for monologues. Forums are generally 
> > for discussions.
> > 
> > If one is throwing out ideas and has no inclination to enagage in dialog 
> > about them, then that, to me, says boatloads about what degree of depth a 
> > post has. That is, is it a momentary, mouth bypassing brain gut response -- 
> > or is it a well considered thought, reflecting some depth, and 
> > "pre-challenging" of the ideas by the poster. By the latter I mean -- has 
> > the poster critiqued his own ideas, looked at them from other perspectives 
> > -- worked them out a bit before posting. That doesn't have to be a lengthy 
> > process for a post. But to just throw things out there as "Hey, look at 
> > this new thing that just popped up inside my head! I have no idea if its 
> > any good, or has much truth value, but I do know that its truly art simply 
> > because IT is a thought that I had -- so it must be fantasticaly worthy". 
> > 
> > Just because one has a thought says nothing about how insightful, truthful 
> > or valid it is. I may be in the minority, but I confess -- everything that 
> > pops into my head is not necessarily golden. The mind has thoughts -- 
> > monkey mind at times. The intellect, experience, judgement help sift out 
> > low value thoughts from high value ones. 
> > 
> > If a poster is content to just throw what ever thought comes onto the forum 
> > without consideration, that's their perogotive. If they are not inclined 
> > to, even then, evaluate it further, discuss it, provide some background as 
> > to claims made (if claims are indeed made) then its a double whammy of 
> > non-consideration.   The idea was not worthy of any evaluation prior to 
> > posting, and not worthy of any evaluation after posting. Whew! What smells 
> > in here? 
> > 
> > The non-separation of ideas from self is an interesting concept. If one 
> > posts an idea -- hopefully somewhat considered prior to posting -- and not 
> > just mind vomit -- the idea is not the poster. Well that's my view. Others, 
> > it would seem, may not distinguish the two. So a question about an idea is 
> > viewed as a personal challenge. My view is that the two are quite distinct. 
> > However, i can see the reluctance to address reactions, feedback, questions 
> > etc about an idea or claim made -- if one sees the idea as themselves. The 
> > ownership is so deep, they see no distinction between self and thought.
> > 
> > (btw, This post is not a response directed at the original post, simply 
> > some (considered) ideas that the post has stimulated. I will be happy to 
> > discuss the content of my post with anyone and entertain different 
> > perspectives. If its a weak thought that I have had, better to figure it 
> > out now, than to cling to it for years.)
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> Btw, the above ideas are not MINE, I don't claim exclusive ownership of them. 
> They reflect ideas that were "out there" -- I have simply tried to give the 
> ideas some care and nourishment -- and then let them fly (or crash) where 
> they might. 
> 
> And the ideas, not being MINE, are not ME. If you disagree with the ideas, 
> you are not attacking me. In fact, if the ideas are flawed, and you don't 
> challenge them, I would consider that an "attack" or at least an unfriendly 
> gesture -- like seeing someone with snot on their shirt and not telling them.
> 
> But also, since I am not claiming ownership or privleege for having 
> momentarily nurtur

Re: [FairfieldLife] Escape from Socialism!

[Bhairitu]

do.rflex wrote:
> Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0 
Sounds like just the place for Shemp.  He's probably packing his bags 
right now!

[FairfieldLife] Escape from Socialism!

[do.rflex]

Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count Status

[Bhairitu]

Are you carrying on a conversation with yourself, Doug?  Yes, meditation 
is part of my tantric sadhana.  It is an advanced form using a powerful 
guru mantra.

dhamiltony2k5 wrote:
>> Are these writers, all meditators?   Of some kind?
>>
>> 
>
> Like, current practicing meditators?
>
>   
>>> Fairfield Life Post Counter
>>> ===
>>> Start Date (UTC): Sat May 02 00:00:00 2009
>>> End Date (UTC): Sat May 09 00:00:00 2009
>>> 575 messages as of (UTC) Fri May 08 00:07:36 2009
>>>
>>> 50 authfriend 
>>> 48 TurquoiseB 
>>> 44 nablusoss1008 
>>> 41 Vaj 
>>> 30 "grate.swan" 
>>> 28 sparaig 
>>> 28 Bhairitu 
>>> 24 ruthsimplicity 
>>> 24 "Richard J. Williams" 
>>> 20 enlightened_dawn11 
>>> 20 Duveyoung 
>>> 19 Rick Archer 
>>> 18 off_world_beings 
>>> 16 dhamiltony2k5 
>>> 16 bob_brigante 
>>> 14 Sal Sunshine 
>>> 14 "do.rflex" 
>>> 12 Richard M 
>>> 12 "BillyG." 
>>> 11 shempmcgurk 
>>> 10 satvadude108 
>>> 10 lurkernomore20002000 
>>>  7 geezerfreak 
>>>  7 cardemaister 
>>>  7 WLeed3@
>>>  7 Nelson 
>>>  6 raunchydog 
>>>  3 William108 
>>>  3 Dick Richardson 
>>>  3 Alex Stanley 
>>>  2 beno beno 
>>>  2 Tom 
>>>  2 Marek Reavis 
>>>  2 Hugo 
>>>  2 Dick Mays 
>>>  1 uns_tressor 
>>>  1 tkrystofiak 
>>>  1 sgrayatlarge 
>>>  1 pranamoocher 
>>>  1 metoostill 
>>>  1 drpetersutphen 
>>>  1 Peter 
>>>  1 Patrick Gillam 
>>>  1 Mike Doughney 
>>>  1 Mike Dixon 
>>>  1 Joe Smith 
>>>  1 Barbara Thomas 
>>>  1 "min.pige" 
>>>
>>> Posters: 48
>>> Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
>>> =
>>> Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
>>> US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
>>> Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
>>> Standard Time (Winter):
>>> US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
>>> Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
>>> For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com
>>>
>>>   
>
>
>
>   

[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count Status

[dhamiltony2k5]

>
> Are these writers, all meditators?   Of some kind?
> 

Like, current practicing meditators?

> > Fairfield Life Post Counter
> > ===
> > Start Date (UTC): Sat May 02 00:00:00 2009
> > End Date (UTC): Sat May 09 00:00:00 2009
> > 575 messages as of (UTC) Fri May 08 00:07:36 2009
> > 
> > 50 authfriend 
> > 48 TurquoiseB 
> > 44 nablusoss1008 
> > 41 Vaj 
> > 30 "grate.swan" 
> > 28 sparaig 
> > 28 Bhairitu 
> > 24 ruthsimplicity 
> > 24 "Richard J. Williams" 
> > 20 enlightened_dawn11 
> > 20 Duveyoung 
> > 19 Rick Archer 
> > 18 off_world_beings 
> > 16 dhamiltony2k5 
> > 16 bob_brigante 
> > 14 Sal Sunshine 
> > 14 "do.rflex" 
> > 12 Richard M 
> > 12 "BillyG." 
> > 11 shempmcgurk 
> > 10 satvadude108 
> > 10 lurkernomore20002000 
> >  7 geezerfreak 
> >  7 cardemaister 
> >  7 WLeed3@
> >  7 Nelson 
> >  6 raunchydog 
> >  3 William108 
> >  3 Dick Richardson 
> >  3 Alex Stanley 
> >  2 beno beno 
> >  2 Tom 
> >  2 Marek Reavis 
> >  2 Hugo 
> >  2 Dick Mays 
> >  1 uns_tressor 
> >  1 tkrystofiak 
> >  1 sgrayatlarge 
> >  1 pranamoocher 
> >  1 metoostill 
> >  1 drpetersutphen 
> >  1 Peter 
> >  1 Patrick Gillam 
> >  1 Mike Doughney 
> >  1 Mike Dixon 
> >  1 Joe Smith 
> >  1 Barbara Thomas 
> >  1 "min.pige" 
> > 
> > Posters: 48
> > Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
> > =
> > Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
> > US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
> > Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
> > Standard Time (Winter):
> > US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
> > Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
> > For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] 18 fun atrocities straight from the Bible

[Rick Archer]

http://www.iheartchaos.com/content/18-fun-atrocities-straight-bible-more-you
-know 

[FairfieldLife] Oprah Radio: The Power of Meditation - host Dr. Mehmet Oz interviews David Lynch

[Dick Mays]

The Power of Meditation
Oprah Radio host Dr. Mehmet Oz talks with TV and film producer David 
Lynch, a dedicated meditator, about how meditation can help children 
achieve happiness and greater intelligence.

00:05:26 Oprah Radio | Dr. Mehmet Oz | In Partnership with: RealAge
http://www.oprah.com/media/20090428-radio-dr-oz-meditation<>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count Status

[dhamiltony2k5]

Are these writers, all meditators?   Of some kind?

> Fairfield Life Post Counter
> ===
> Start Date (UTC): Sat May 02 00:00:00 2009
> End Date (UTC): Sat May 09 00:00:00 2009
> 575 messages as of (UTC) Fri May 08 00:07:36 2009
> 
> 50 authfriend 
> 48 TurquoiseB 
> 44 nablusoss1008 
> 41 Vaj 
> 30 "grate.swan" 
> 28 sparaig 
> 28 Bhairitu 
> 24 ruthsimplicity 
> 24 "Richard J. Williams" 
> 20 enlightened_dawn11 
> 20 Duveyoung 
> 19 Rick Archer 
> 18 off_world_beings 
> 16 dhamiltony2k5 
> 16 bob_brigante 
> 14 Sal Sunshine 
> 14 "do.rflex" 
> 12 Richard M 
> 12 "BillyG." 
> 11 shempmcgurk 
> 10 satvadude108 
> 10 lurkernomore20002000 
>  7 geezerfreak 
>  7 cardemaister 
>  7 wle...@...
>  7 Nelson 
>  6 raunchydog 
>  3 William108 
>  3 Dick Richardson 
>  3 Alex Stanley 
>  2 beno beno 
>  2 Tom 
>  2 Marek Reavis 
>  2 Hugo 
>  2 Dick Mays 
>  1 uns_tressor 
>  1 tkrystofiak 
>  1 sgrayatlarge 
>  1 pranamoocher 
>  1 metoostill 
>  1 drpetersutphen 
>  1 Peter 
>  1 Patrick Gillam 
>  1 Mike Doughney 
>  1 Mike Dixon 
>  1 Joe Smith 
>  1 Barbara Thomas 
>  1 "min.pige" 
> 
> Posters: 48
> Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
> =
> Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
> US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
> Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
> Standard Time (Winter):
> US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
> Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
> For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev - Our happiness or unhappiness is OUR responsibility

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Mason"  wrote:
>
> You asked that I notify when the Guru Dev trilogy is available.
> I had hoped to be able to also announce the release of the Guru Dev DVD I am 
> preparing, but that will be some weeks yet.
> However, anyone wanting copies of the books can go to:-
> http://www.paulmason.info/booksetc.html
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Mason"  wrote:
> > >
> > > The three volumes of the Guru Dev trilogy will be available through the 
> > > following:-
> > > http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/upadesh.htm
> > > http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/GuruDevLifeStory.htm
> > > http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/AKtransrough.htm
> > 
> > 
> > Paul, please give notice here when these volumes become available.


Thanks, Paul. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev - Our happiness or unhappiness is OUR responsibility

[Paul Mason]

You asked that I notify when the Guru Dev trilogy is available.
I had hoped to be able to also announce the release of the Guru Dev DVD I am 
preparing, but that will be some weeks yet.
However, anyone wanting copies of the books can go to:-
http://www.paulmason.info/booksetc.html


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Mason"  wrote:
> >
> > The three volumes of the Guru Dev trilogy will be available through the 
> > following:-
> > http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/upadesh.htm
> > http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/GuruDevLifeStory.htm
> > http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/AKtransrough.htm
> 
> 
> Paul, please give notice here when these volumes become available.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is he a TMer?

[Richard M]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>
> 
> http://www.peterrussell.com/Ordering.php#TM
>

He used to be! (have been on courses with him). A long time ago
he fell out with the TMO - but not with MMY and TM I believe.

[FairfieldLife] Is he a TMer?

[cardemaister]

http://www.peterrussell.com/Ordering.php#TM

[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)

[grate . swan]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan  wrote:
>
> > I'll
> > just say what I say and allow those I say it
> > about to react the way that *they* see fit. I
> > feel no obligation to "back up" any of my opin-
> > ions (because that is, in fact, what they are), 
> 
> 
> 
> I am perhaps hopelessly naive, but I had assumed that posts are primarily 
> about sharing and working out ideas -- and passing on and discussing news. A 
> forum is not a blog. Blogs are more for monologues. Forums are generally for 
> discussions.
> 
> If one is throwing out ideas and has no inclination to enagage in dialog 
> about them, then that, to me, says boatloads about what degree of depth a 
> post has. That is, is it a momentary, mouth bypassing brain gut response -- 
> or is it a well considered thought, reflecting some depth, and 
> "pre-challenging" of the ideas by the poster. By the latter I mean -- has the 
> poster critiqued his own ideas, looked at them from other perspectives -- 
> worked them out a bit before posting. That doesn't have to be a lengthy 
> process for a post. But to just throw things out there as "Hey, look at this 
> new thing that just popped up inside my head! I have no idea if its any good, 
> or has much truth value, but I do know that its truly art simply because IT 
> is a thought that I had -- so it must be fantasticaly worthy". 
> 
> Just because one has a thought says nothing about how insightful, truthful or 
> valid it is. I may be in the minority, but I confess -- everything that pops 
> into my head is not necessarily golden. The mind has thoughts -- monkey mind 
> at times. The intellect, experience, judgement help sift out low value 
> thoughts from high value ones. 
> 
> If a poster is content to just throw what ever thought comes onto the forum 
> without consideration, that's their perogotive. If they are not inclined to, 
> even then, evaluate it further, discuss it, provide some background as to 
> claims made (if claims are indeed made) then its a double whammy of 
> non-consideration.   The idea was not worthy of any evaluation prior to 
> posting, and not worthy of any evaluation after posting. Whew! What smells in 
> here? 
> 
> The non-separation of ideas from self is an interesting concept. If one posts 
> an idea -- hopefully somewhat considered prior to posting -- and not just 
> mind vomit -- the idea is not the poster. Well that's my view. Others, it 
> would seem, may not distinguish the two. So a question about an idea is 
> viewed as a personal challenge. My view is that the two are quite distinct. 
> However, i can see the reluctance to address reactions, feedback, questions 
> etc about an idea or claim made -- if one sees the idea as themselves. The 
> ownership is so deep, they see no distinction between self and thought.
> 
> (btw, This post is not a response directed at the original post, simply some 
> (considered) ideas that the post has stimulated. I will be happy to discuss 
> the content of my post with anyone and entertain different perspectives. If 
> its a weak thought that I have had, better to figure it out now, than to 
> cling to it for years.)
> 



Btw, the above ideas are not MINE, I don't claim exclusive ownership of them. 
They reflect ideas that were "out there" -- I have simply tried to give the 
ideas some care and nourishment -- and then let them fly (or crash) where they 
might. 

And the ideas, not being MINE, are not ME. If you disagree with the ideas, you 
are not attacking me. In fact, if the ideas are flawed, and you don't challenge 
them, I would consider that an "attack" or at least an unfriendly gesture -- 
like seeing someone with snot on their shirt and not telling them.

But also, since I am not claiming ownership or privleege for having momentarily 
nurtured the ideas, I probably won't try to defend them to the death. If anyone 
is interested in discussion of the ideas, and the ideas may very well not be 
worthy of discussion,  I will try to point out both sound and unsound critiques 
of them -- from my perspective -- to help, again, nourish the ideas and then 
let them fly to where ever they may seek home.

>   
> 
> --- In fairfieldl...@..., TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > Theorem: Anyone can say anything about you
> > that they want; that is out of your control.
> > What is *not* out of your control is how to
> > react, or whether to at all. It is my con-
> > tention that those who react defensively or
> > angrily to "protect their self image" have 
> > the most self to protect, and the least Self.
> > 
> > Take Marek as yer classic example of how a
> > person who is *not* heavily invested in his
> > self acts. Several people on this forum have 
> > laid into him mercilessly; one threatened him 
> > in real life. But as far as I know he has 
> > *never* tried to "defend himself." In my book, 
> > that indicates a lack *of* self, in its neg-
> > ative connotation. And it indicates a presence 
> > of Self, in its positive co

[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)

[grate . swan]

> I'll
> just say what I say and allow those I say it
> about to react the way that *they* see fit. I
> feel no obligation to "back up" any of my opin-
> ions (because that is, in fact, what they are), 



I am perhaps hopelessly naive, but I had assumed that posts are primarily about 
sharing and working out ideas -- and passing on and discussing news. A forum is 
not a blog. Blogs are more for monologues. Forums are generally for discussions.

If one is throwing out ideas and has no inclination to enagage in dialog about 
them, then that, to me, says boatloads about what degree of depth a post has. 
That is, is it a momentary, mouth bypassing brain gut response -- or is it a 
well considered thought, reflecting some depth, and "pre-challenging" of the 
ideas by the poster. By the latter I mean -- has the poster critiqued his own 
ideas, looked at them from other perspectives -- worked them out a bit before 
posting. That doesn't have to be a lengthy process for a post. But to just 
throw things out there as "Hey, look at this new thing that just popped up 
inside my head! I have no idea if its any good, or has much truth value, but I 
do know that its truly art simply because IT is a thought that I had -- so it 
must be fantasticaly worthy". 

Just because one has a thought says nothing about how insightful, truthful or 
valid it is. I may be in the minority, but I confess -- everything that pops 
into my head is not necessarily golden. The mind has thoughts -- monkey mind at 
times. The intellect, experience, judgement help sift out low value thoughts 
from high value ones. 

If a poster is content to just throw what ever thought comes onto the forum 
without consideration, that's their perogotive. If they are not inclined to, 
even then, evaluate it further, discuss it, provide some background as to 
claims made (if claims are indeed made) then its a double whammy of 
non-consideration.   The idea was not worthy of any evaluation prior to 
posting, and not worthy of any evaluation after posting. Whew! What smells in 
here? 

The non-separation of ideas from self is an interesting concept. If one posts 
an idea -- hopefully somewhat considered prior to posting -- and not just mind 
vomit -- the idea is not the poster. Well that's my view. Others, it would 
seem, may not distinguish the two. So a question about an idea is viewed as a 
personal challenge. My view is that the two are quite distinct. However, i can 
see the reluctance to address reactions, feedback, questions etc about an idea 
or claim made -- if one sees the idea as themselves. The ownership is so deep, 
they see no distinction between self and thought.

(btw, This post is not a response directed at the original post, simply some 
(considered) ideas that the post has stimulated. I will be happy to discuss the 
content of my post with anyone and entertain different perspectives. If its a 
weak thought that I have had, better to figure it out now, than to cling to it 
for years.)


  

--- In fairfieldl...@oogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> Theorem: Anyone can say anything about you
> that they want; that is out of your control.
> What is *not* out of your control is how to
> react, or whether to at all. It is my con-
> tention that those who react defensively or
> angrily to "protect their self image" have 
> the most self to protect, and the least Self.
> 
> Take Marek as yer classic example of how a
> person who is *not* heavily invested in his
> self acts. Several people on this forum have 
> laid into him mercilessly; one threatened him 
> in real life. But as far as I know he has 
> *never* tried to "defend himself." In my book, 
> that indicates a lack *of* self, in its neg-
> ative connotation. And it indicates a presence 
> of Self, in its positive connotation. Take
> Curtis, who rarely gets involved in "defending
> himself," and when he does, usually manages to
> do so with humor.
> 
> Now take a couple of other frequent posters who 
> shall go unnamed because there is no need -- 
> everyone here thought of them the moment I said 
> "those who react defensively or angrily." Then
> mentally count up the number of posts they
> spend each week "defending themselves." Now
> extrapolate from that to the amount of self
> they believe that they have to "defend."
> 
> In case no one has noticed, I've been trying
> not to defend myself. I've had many occasions
> to, but I don't. I may in fact do my best to
> portray those who spend the most time demon-
> izing me as being as ridiculous as I perceive
> them to be, in the hope that if enough people
> laugh at them, someday they might learn to
> laugh at themselves. And I may occasionally
> give them "a taste of their own medicine."
> 
> But I don't waste time trying to nitpick each
> derogatory name they call me or "defend myself"
> by disputing their claims. What would be the
> point? Those on this forum who already dislike
> me still will, no matter what I say. If I were
> to waste time 

[FairfieldLife] Regulation of the Neural Circuitry of Emotion by Compassion Meditation: Effects of Meditative Expertise

[Vaj]

RD here's the most recent cite (older one was the one from Monks, In  
the Lab and IIRC a study coded for micro-expressions in Paul Ekman's  
system), this one is while in an fMRI (thus they listen to sounds).  
There should be some new data eventually from the Shamatha Project  
findings.


http://www.box.net/shared/zfinn3n4so

Regulation of the Neural Circuitry of Emotion by
Compassion Meditation: Effects of Meditative Expertise

Antoine Lutz1*, Julie Brefczynski-Lewis2, Tom Johnstone3, Richard J.  
Davidson1*
1 University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of  
America, 2 West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia,  
United States of America, 3 University of

Reading, Reading, United Kingdom

Abstract
Recent brain imaging studies using functional magnetic resonance  
imaging (fMRI) have implicated insula and anterior
cingulate cortices in the empathic response to another’s pain.  
However, virtually nothing is known about the impact of
the voluntary generation of compassion on this network. To  
investigate these questions we assessed brain activity using
fMRI while novice and expert meditation practitioners generated a  
loving-kindness-compassion meditation state. To
probe affective reactivity, we presented emotional and neutral sounds  
during the meditation and comparison periods.
Our main hypothesis was that the concern for others cultivated during  
this form of meditation enhances affective
processing, in particular in response to sounds of distress, and that  
this response to emotional sounds is modulated by the
degree of meditation training. The presentation of the emotional  
sounds was associated with increased pupil diameter
and activation of limbic regions (insula and cingulate cortices)  
during meditation (versus rest). During meditation,
activation in insula was greater during presentation of negative  
sounds than positive or neutral sounds in expert than it
was in novice meditators. The strength of activation in insula was  
also associated with self-reported intensity of the
meditation for both groups. These results support the role of the  
limbic circuitry in emotion sharing. The comparison
between meditation vs. rest states between experts and novices also  
showed increased activation in amygdala, right
temporo-parietal junction (TPJ), and right posterior superior  
temporal sulcus (pSTS) in response to all sounds, suggesting,
greater detection of the emotional sounds, and enhanced mentation in  
response to emotional human vocalizations for
experts than novices during meditation. Together these data indicate  
that the mental expertise to cultivate positive
emotion alters the activation of circuitries previously linked to  
empathy and theory of mind in response to emotional

stimuli.

Citation: Lutz A, Brefczynski-Lewis J, Johnstone T, Davidson RJ  
(2008) Regulation of the Neural Circuitry of Emotion by Compassion  
Meditation: Effects of
Meditative Expertise. PLoS ONE 3(3): e1897. doi:10.1371/journal.pone. 
0001897

Editor: Bernhard Baune, James Cook University, Australia
Received November 30, 2007; Accepted February 15, 2008; Published  
March 26, 2008
Copyright:   2008 Lutz et al. This is an open-access article  
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution  
License, which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the  
original author and source are credited.
Funding: Support was provided by NCCAM U01AT002114-01A1, Fyssen  
foundation to AL and NIMH P50-MH069315 to RJD, and by gifts from  
Adrianne and
Edwin Cook-Ryder, Bryant Wangard and Ralph Robinson, Keith and Arlene  
Bronstein and the John W. Kluge Foundation. No funders or sponsors  
participated in
the design or conduct of the study, or in the analysis, and  
interpretation of the data, or in the preparation, review, or  
approval of the manuscript.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing  
interests exist.


Introduction
Many contemplative traditions speak of loving-kindness as the
wish of happiness for others, and of compassion as the wish to
relieve others’ suffering. In many traditions, these qualities are
cultivated through specific meditation practices designed to prime
behaviors compatible with these wishes in response to actual
interpersonal encounters. Despite the potential social and clinical
importance of these affective processes, the possibility that they
can be trained in a manner comparable to attentional [1] or
sensory-motor skills [2] has not yet been investigated with
neuroimaging techniques, even though recent electrophysiological
data support this hypothesis [3].

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why the mantras ARE the sound vibrations (names) of the Devatas.

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On May 7, 2009, at 8:57 PM, BillyG. wrote:
> 
> > The Devatas are formless creative intelligences that Hinduism has  
> > anthropomorphized
> 
> 
> Another misunderstanding of mantra. The form arises with the sound  
> and light.
> 
> The "tree" (the mandala or deities dimension) emerges from the  
> "seed", which emerges as sound, light, etc. There is a visual and a  
> sonic component that is the process of the revelation of mantra. The  
> visual part experienced becomes the dhyana-vidhi, the visualized  
> aspect of the deity, considered one of the necessary pieces of mantra- 
> yoga.

True that forms are a product of sound and/or light but, since Mother Nature or 
Shakti is already ALL things (trees, etc.) she is anthropomorphised as the 
Devis Lakshmi , Parvati and Saraswati, emphasizing her qualities for the 
purpose of worship etc., essentially she is formless creative intelligence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakti

[FairfieldLife] The Bankers and the Republicans have Won

[raunchydog]

The stress tests are finished and the verdicts are in:  The Bankers Have Won.

James Kwak and Simon Johnson of Baseline Scenario have a not-to-be-missed post 
that lay it all out:

In short, relationships between the government and the large banks have 
never been closer, with large amounts of money flowing in one direction, and 
complete co-dependency going in both directions. Those relationships are not 
entirely friendly, which is not surprising. In any crisis when public resources 
are called on to bail out the private sector, not all of the oligarchs will 
survive; Bear Stearns and Lehman have already vanished. But the winners – which 
should include Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase and Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman – 
will emerge even more powerful and influential than before.

In rejecting "nationalization" (regulatory takeover and conservatorship), 
the government has not ensured a private, properly functioning banking system. 
Instead, it has muddled into a broken-down, undercapitalized system that is 
nominally in private hands, but is able to tap the state for apparently 
limitless support. And to date, that support has flowed on one-sided terms, 
with the taxpayer accepting downside risk but limited upside potential. No 
wonder bank shareholders are comfortable with this outcome.

Read More: 
http://tinyurl.com/qpmpq4
http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/friday-free-milk-and-a-cow-reprise/

[FairfieldLife] Meanwhile in Wasilla ...

[do.rflex]

http://www.bartcop.com/palin-tut.gif 

[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)

[enlightened_dawn11]

one of the Turqy's silliest posts ever- what's the point? definitely a 
masturbatory tirade of epic proportions...

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > Theorem: Anyone can say anything about you
> > that they want; that is out of your control.
> > What is *not* out of your control is how to
> > react, or whether to at all. It is my con-
> > tention that those who react defensively or
> > angrily to "protect their self image" have 
> > the most self to protect, and the least Self.
> > 
> > Take Marek as yer classic example of how a
> > person who is *not* heavily invested in his
> > self acts. Several people on this forum have 
> > laid into him mercilessly; one threatened him 
> > in real life. But as far as I know he has 
> > *never* tried to "defend himself." In my book, 
> > that indicates a lack *of* self, in its neg-
> > ative connotation. And it indicates a presence 
> > of Self, in its positive connotation. Take
> > Curtis, who rarely gets involved in "defending
> > himself," and when he does, usually manages to
> > do so with humor.
> > 
> > Now take a couple of other frequent posters who 
> > shall go unnamed because there is no need -- 
> > everyone here thought of them the moment I said 
> > "those who react defensively or angrily." Then
> > mentally count up the number of posts they
> > spend each week "defending themselves." Now
> > extrapolate from that to the amount of self
> > they believe that they have to "defend."
> > 
> > In case no one has noticed, I've been trying
> > not to defend myself. I've had many occasions
> > to, but I don't. I may in fact do my best to
> > portray those who spend the most time demon-
> > izing me as being as ridiculous as I perceive
> > them to be, in the hope that if enough people
> > laugh at them, someday they might learn to
> > laugh at themselves. And I may occasionally
> > give them "a taste of their own medicine."
> > 
> > But I don't waste time trying to nitpick each
> > derogatory name they call me or "defend myself"
> > by disputing their claims. What would be the
> > point? Those on this forum who already dislike
> > me still will, no matter what I say. If I were
> > to waste time "defending myself," all that would
> > happen is that I'd be playing the game of the
> > people who want me to do just that. 
> > 
> > No way. I'll stick to "drive bys," thanks. I'll
> > just say what I say and allow those I say it
> > about to react the way that *they* see fit. I
> > feel no obligation to "back up" any of my opin-
> > ions (because that is, in fact, what they are), 
> > or to argue about them incessantly, the way some 
> > seem to want me to. If that's what they see as 
> > a good use of their time, so be it. I'll stick 
> > to expressing my opinion and allowing others to 
> > express theirs in response. Or not, depending 
> > on how much self they feel they have and how 
> > desperately they feel it needs defending. 
> > 
> > And that's all I have to say about that. Lit-
> > erally, this being my last post of the week. :-)
> > 
> > 
> 
> "So there!" says Barry as he stamps his foot and fizzles into the ether. 
> Adieu, Bro.
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I've rapped a few times about the tendency of some
> > > > spiritual seekers to mistake a feeling of strong
> > > > emotion for spiritual experience. This morning 
> > > > over coffee, I'd like to rap about doing that in
> > > > public, and link it to the phenomenon I think it's
> > > > most similar to -- whacking off.
> > > > 
> > > > Think about recent rants in which one of our resident
> > > > emotional jackoffs went on and on inventing fantasies
> > > > about about poor, victimized people and those who
> > > > prey on them. Now go back and read that same rant
> > > > and visualize him masturbating furiously while 
> > > > writing it. Doesn't it fit? Doesn't it seem like 
> > > > that's *exactly* what's going on?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > POT:
> > > Gather 'round children, and get a good picture in your 
> > > head of Edg, jacking off and cleaning up after himself. 
> > > (Ewww!) Now watch and be amazed as I, the biggest crybaby 
> > > of all and master of irony, jacks off in public on FFLife. 
> > > 
> > > KETTLE:
> > > Pretend not to notice that Pot is desperately trying to 
> > > convince you that Edg is just a big meanie for picking on him.
> > > 
> > > GREEK CHORUS: 
> > > Hey Pot, don't forget to clean up after yourself.
> > >  
> > > 
> > > > My theory is this -- if a spiritual organization does
> > > > not provide real spiritual experience on a regular
> > > > basis, it learns very quickly that to keep followers
> > > > on the line and contributing the big bucks it has to 
> > > > give them something *else*. That "something else"
> > > > is often regular doses of strong emotion. 
> > > > 
>

[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> Theorem: Anyone can say anything about you
> that they want; that is out of your control.
> What is *not* out of your control is how to
> react, or whether to at all. It is my con-
> tention that those who react defensively or
> angrily to "protect their self image" have 
> the most self to protect, and the least Self.
> 
> Take Marek as yer classic example of how a
> person who is *not* heavily invested in his
> self acts. Several people on this forum have 
> laid into him mercilessly; one threatened him 
> in real life. But as far as I know he has 
> *never* tried to "defend himself." In my book, 
> that indicates a lack *of* self, in its neg-
> ative connotation. And it indicates a presence 
> of Self, in its positive connotation. Take
> Curtis, who rarely gets involved in "defending
> himself," and when he does, usually manages to
> do so with humor.
> 
> Now take a couple of other frequent posters who 
> shall go unnamed because there is no need -- 
> everyone here thought of them the moment I said 
> "those who react defensively or angrily." Then
> mentally count up the number of posts they
> spend each week "defending themselves." Now
> extrapolate from that to the amount of self
> they believe that they have to "defend."
> 
> In case no one has noticed, I've been trying
> not to defend myself. I've had many occasions
> to, but I don't. I may in fact do my best to
> portray those who spend the most time demon-
> izing me as being as ridiculous as I perceive
> them to be, in the hope that if enough people
> laugh at them, someday they might learn to
> laugh at themselves. And I may occasionally
> give them "a taste of their own medicine."
> 
> But I don't waste time trying to nitpick each
> derogatory name they call me or "defend myself"
> by disputing their claims. What would be the
> point? Those on this forum who already dislike
> me still will, no matter what I say. If I were
> to waste time "defending myself," all that would
> happen is that I'd be playing the game of the
> people who want me to do just that. 
> 
> No way. I'll stick to "drive bys," thanks. I'll
> just say what I say and allow those I say it
> about to react the way that *they* see fit. I
> feel no obligation to "back up" any of my opin-
> ions (because that is, in fact, what they are), 
> or to argue about them incessantly, the way some 
> seem to want me to. If that's what they see as 
> a good use of their time, so be it. I'll stick 
> to expressing my opinion and allowing others to 
> express theirs in response. Or not, depending 
> on how much self they feel they have and how 
> desperately they feel it needs defending. 
> 
> And that's all I have to say about that. Lit-
> erally, this being my last post of the week. :-)
> 
> 

"So there!" says Barry as he stamps his foot and fizzles into the ether. Adieu, 
Bro.

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > >
> > > I've rapped a few times about the tendency of some
> > > spiritual seekers to mistake a feeling of strong
> > > emotion for spiritual experience. This morning 
> > > over coffee, I'd like to rap about doing that in
> > > public, and link it to the phenomenon I think it's
> > > most similar to -- whacking off.
> > > 
> > > Think about recent rants in which one of our resident
> > > emotional jackoffs went on and on inventing fantasies
> > > about about poor, victimized people and those who
> > > prey on them. Now go back and read that same rant
> > > and visualize him masturbating furiously while 
> > > writing it. Doesn't it fit? Doesn't it seem like 
> > > that's *exactly* what's going on?
> > 
> > 
> > POT:
> > Gather 'round children, and get a good picture in your 
> > head of Edg, jacking off and cleaning up after himself. 
> > (Ewww!) Now watch and be amazed as I, the biggest crybaby 
> > of all and master of irony, jacks off in public on FFLife. 
> > 
> > KETTLE:
> > Pretend not to notice that Pot is desperately trying to 
> > convince you that Edg is just a big meanie for picking on him.
> > 
> > GREEK CHORUS: 
> > Hey Pot, don't forget to clean up after yourself.
> >  
> > 
> > > My theory is this -- if a spiritual organization does
> > > not provide real spiritual experience on a regular
> > > basis, it learns very quickly that to keep followers
> > > on the line and contributing the big bucks it has to 
> > > give them something *else*. That "something else"
> > > is often regular doses of strong emotion. 
> > > 
> > > The organization might do this in the form of "telling 
> > > stories" about the teacher or root guru, stories cal-
> > > culated to make the followers feel strong emotion 
> > > about them. And, over time, the followers begin to 
> > > associate those strong emotions with real bhakti, and 
> > > believe that the manipulated pseudo-emotions they're 
> > > feeling were somehow spontaneous, and th

[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)

[TurquoiseB]

Theorem: Anyone can say anything about you
that they want; that is out of your control.
What is *not* out of your control is how to
react, or whether to at all. It is my con-
tention that those who react defensively or
angrily to "protect their self image" have 
the most self to protect, and the least Self.

Take Marek as yer classic example of how a
person who is *not* heavily invested in his
self acts. Several people on this forum have 
laid into him mercilessly; one threatened him 
in real life. But as far as I know he has 
*never* tried to "defend himself." In my book, 
that indicates a lack *of* self, in its neg-
ative connotation. And it indicates a presence 
of Self, in its positive connotation. Take
Curtis, who rarely gets involved in "defending
himself," and when he does, usually manages to
do so with humor.

Now take a couple of other frequent posters who 
shall go unnamed because there is no need -- 
everyone here thought of them the moment I said 
"those who react defensively or angrily." Then
mentally count up the number of posts they
spend each week "defending themselves." Now
extrapolate from that to the amount of self
they believe that they have to "defend."

In case no one has noticed, I've been trying
not to defend myself. I've had many occasions
to, but I don't. I may in fact do my best to
portray those who spend the most time demon-
izing me as being as ridiculous as I perceive
them to be, in the hope that if enough people
laugh at them, someday they might learn to
laugh at themselves. And I may occasionally
give them "a taste of their own medicine."

But I don't waste time trying to nitpick each
derogatory name they call me or "defend myself"
by disputing their claims. What would be the
point? Those on this forum who already dislike
me still will, no matter what I say. If I were
to waste time "defending myself," all that would
happen is that I'd be playing the game of the
people who want me to do just that. 

No way. I'll stick to "drive bys," thanks. I'll
just say what I say and allow those I say it
about to react the way that *they* see fit. I
feel no obligation to "back up" any of my opin-
ions (because that is, in fact, what they are), 
or to argue about them incessantly, the way some 
seem to want me to. If that's what they see as 
a good use of their time, so be it. I'll stick 
to expressing my opinion and allowing others to 
express theirs in response. Or not, depending 
on how much self they feel they have and how 
desperately they feel it needs defending. 

And that's all I have to say about that. Lit-
erally, this being my last post of the week. :-)


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > I've rapped a few times about the tendency of some
> > spiritual seekers to mistake a feeling of strong
> > emotion for spiritual experience. This morning 
> > over coffee, I'd like to rap about doing that in
> > public, and link it to the phenomenon I think it's
> > most similar to -- whacking off.
> > 
> > Think about recent rants in which one of our resident
> > emotional jackoffs went on and on inventing fantasies
> > about about poor, victimized people and those who
> > prey on them. Now go back and read that same rant
> > and visualize him masturbating furiously while 
> > writing it. Doesn't it fit? Doesn't it seem like 
> > that's *exactly* what's going on?
> 
> 
> POT:
> Gather 'round children, and get a good picture in your 
> head of Edg, jacking off and cleaning up after himself. 
> (Ewww!) Now watch and be amazed as I, the biggest crybaby 
> of all and master of irony, jacks off in public on FFLife. 
> 
> KETTLE:
> Pretend not to notice that Pot is desperately trying to 
> convince you that Edg is just a big meanie for picking on him.
> 
> GREEK CHORUS: 
> Hey Pot, don't forget to clean up after yourself.
>  
> 
> > My theory is this -- if a spiritual organization does
> > not provide real spiritual experience on a regular
> > basis, it learns very quickly that to keep followers
> > on the line and contributing the big bucks it has to 
> > give them something *else*. That "something else"
> > is often regular doses of strong emotion. 
> > 
> > The organization might do this in the form of "telling 
> > stories" about the teacher or root guru, stories cal-
> > culated to make the followers feel strong emotion 
> > about them. And, over time, the followers begin to 
> > associate those strong emotions with real bhakti, and 
> > believe that the manipulated pseudo-emotions they're 
> > feeling were somehow spontaneous, and that they're 
> > "growing in devotion" to the teacher or root guru. A 
> > few might very well be, but IMO most of them are just 
> > being manipulated as effectively as addicts of soap 
> > operas are. "Ooh...Guru Noname walked on water...I 
> > feel so uplifted and spiritual just thinking about it." 
> > "Ooh...Genna is pregnant with Darin's baby and he 
> > dumpe

[FairfieldLife] Re: Emotional Masturbation, or Why FFL Sells So Much Kleenex

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> I've rapped a few times about the tendency of some
> spiritual seekers to mistake a feeling of strong
> emotion for spiritual experience. This morning 
> over coffee, I'd like to rap about doing that in
> public, and link it to the phenomenon I think it's
> most similar to -- whacking off.
> 
> Think about recent rants in which one of our resident
> emotional jackoffs went on and on inventing fantasies
> about about poor, victimized people and those who
> prey on them. Now go back and read that same rant
> and visualize him masturbating furiously while 
> writing it. Doesn't it fit? Doesn't it seem like 
> that's *exactly* what's going on?
> 

POT:
Gather 'round children, and get a good picture in your head of Edg, jacking off 
and cleaning up after himself. (Ewww!) Now watch and be amazed as I, the 
biggest crybaby of all and master of irony, jacks off in public on FFLife. 

KETTLE:
Pretend not to notice that Pot is desperately trying to convince you that Edg 
is just a big meanie for picking on him.

GREEK CHORUS: 
Hey Pot, don't forget to clean up after yourself.
 

> My theory is this -- if a spiritual organization does
> not provide real spiritual experience on a regular
> basis, it learns very quickly that to keep followers
> on the line and contributing the big bucks it has to 
> give them something *else*. That "something else"
> is often regular doses of strong emotion. 
> 
> The organization might do this in the form of "telling 
> stories" about the teacher or root guru, stories cal-
> culated to make the followers feel strong emotion 
> about them. And, over time, the followers begin to 
> associate those strong emotions with real bhakti, and 
> believe that the manipulated pseudo-emotions they're 
> feeling were somehow spontaneous, and that they're 
> "growing in devotion" to the teacher or root guru. A 
> few might very well be, but IMO most of them are just 
> being manipulated as effectively as addicts of soap 
> operas are. "Ooh...Guru Noname walked on water...I 
> feel so uplifted and spiritual just thinking about it." 
> "Ooh...Genna is pregnant with Darin's baby and he 
> dumped her but she managed to overcome her angst and 
> saved the town from terrorists anyway...I feel so 
> uplifted."
> 
> The thing is, after decades of being manipulated by
> others telling you "uplifting stories" to stimulate
> you into a sense of heightened emotion that you have
> been trained to associate with "spiritual experience,"
> many people begin to do the same thing to *themselves*.
> They start to tell these "uplifting stories" to them-
> selves as a way of "jumpstarting" emotions that they
> cannot feel naturally.
> 
> Thus we get the phenomenon of "manufactured outrage"
> we see so often here on Fairfield Life. Someone pre-
> tends to be outraged about someone "lying," and rants
> on and on about it for hundreds of lines of text, 
> jacking themselves up into a mood of oh-so-righteous 
> indignation and moral superiority. Or they accuse 
> someone of "predation" and do the same thing. Or they 
> call someone else an "anti-TMer" and do exactly the 
> same thing. The supposed "causes" of the manufactured
> outrage vary, but the effect it has on the people
> expressing the faux outrage never does -- they're
> *getting off*. 
> 
> I'm presenting the notion that by doing this they are 
> essentially masturbating in public, indulging in 
> fantasies to jack their emotional levels up to the
> point where they can convince themselves that they
> can still *feel* emotion. And it is *SO* satisfying 
> to them to feel these emotions. Make up a story about
> some poor woman manipulated by evil scum who make her
> do Bad Things, and you can feel *SO* superior to the
> "scum," and *SO* evolved yourself because you *care*
> about the fate of this poor woman. Repeat with a 
> regular motion. Now grab a Kleenex and clean your-
> self up and run the same number again next week.
> 
> Feeling dull and gray and lifeless, as if your medi-
> tation practice did nothing for you? Simple solution:
> pick someone who has done something you can consider
> "wrong" like...uh...say something positive about a
> person you hate, and make up some stories about how
> he or she is evil and use the story as a kind of 
> masturbation fantasy. It doesn't really matter who 
> the target is of the fantasy...it could be Sal, or 
> Vaj, or Barry, or Ruth...it could be the Dalai Lama 
> or Obama or pretty much anyone...their faces are as 
> interchangeable as the photos in Hustler that guys 
> jack off to on the toilet or the photos of Burt 
> Reynolds that *you* jack off to in your bedroom. All
> that matters is that you can fantasize about them
> and GET OFF. Again, when you've finished, grab 
> a Kleenex and clean up, while claiming "victory"
> and saying that you "won." Uh huh. 
> 
> Call me a perv ( and I know that some will :-), but I
> think of this act, repeated ad na

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Trance 101

[Vaj]

On May 7, 2009, at 10:08 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:



What Bob is missing is that the sound has an implicit meaning which,
hopefully, collapses to a point and imprints itself on the
subconscious mind. That the conscious mind may have no explicit
meaning associated with the sound-sequence is actually irrelevant.  
The

important thing is that the sound sequence unfolds a meaning from
beyond the explicit realm of conscious thinking. It unfolds  
meaning at

deeper levels of the mind--parts of the mind that are actually non-
verbal. If mantras had no deeper meaning at finer levels of  
awareness,

more often non-awareness, they'd essentially be "worthless". What Bob
is deliberately ignoring is that the collapse of mental sounds gives
rise to different, non-mental sounds. These sounds need not be
attributed to "chakra petals" but instead it might be helpful to
understand their origin, which is a process of seed (proto-mantra)
emerging and giving birth to tree (the realm of manifested meaning  
and

intelligence associated with that "seed"). It is the Law of Seed and
Tree in actual (non-conventional) experience, bija-vraksha-nyaya.
Meditation on mantra is actually the exact opposite of this law, it's
the process of revelation or "seeing" of mantra, turned inwards. To
ignore such deep meaning is to ignore the seer and revelation.

However in his case, it's institutionally imposed ignorance,
institutionalized ignoring which he has consciously accepted as  
"true".




This seems pretty straightforward.  So why all the mantra mystery  
over the years?



I guess the desire to keep it looking non-sectarian was felt to be  
important. It also appears Mahesh had no real training in mantra- 
vidya, the "science" of mantra other than a couple of basic things  
(i.e., the four-fold division of sound) found in old Guru Dev talks.  
If you begin teaching the mechanics of how mantras are revealed,  
you'd be going down a slippery slope, as when these yogis realized  
these mantras they were also having a direct experience of the devata  
and their realm. It would be very difficult to parse that as  
"scientific".

Re: [FairfieldLife] Why the mantras ARE the sound vibrations (names) of the Devatas.

[Vaj]

On May 7, 2009, at 8:57 PM, BillyG. wrote:

The Devatas are formless creative intelligences that Hinduism has  
anthropomorphized



Another misunderstanding of mantra. The form arises with the sound  
and light.


The "tree" (the mandala or deities dimension) emerges from the  
"seed", which emerges as sound, light, etc. There is a visual and a  
sonic component that is the process of the revelation of mantra. The  
visual part experienced becomes the dhyana-vidhi, the visualized  
aspect of the deity, considered one of the necessary pieces of mantra- 
yoga.

[FairfieldLife] A Word on Sanskrit and the Davanagari syllables

[BillyG.]

"In a highly simplified description, it may be said that the fifty letters or 
sounds of the Sanskrit alphabet are on the petals of the sahasrara (Crown 
chakra), and that each alphabetical vibration in turn is connected with a 
specific petal (sound vibration) on the lotuses (chakras) in the spinal centers 
(which have a total of fifty corresponding petals: coccygeal, 4; sacral, 6; 
lumbar, 10; dorsal, 12; cervical, 16; and medullary-Ajna, 2).  Petals mean rays 
or vibrations."

"From the realization of the potencies of these vibratory bija or "seed" 
sounds, the rishis devised mantras that, when properly intoned, activate these 
creative forces to produce the desired result. Mantras, therefore, are one 
means of tuning in with subtle or divine forces."

"Actually, the sounds are synonymous with the petals, i.e., vibratory powers. 
The fifty letters or sounds, in multiples of twenty, equal the one thousand 
petals of the sahasrara."  From Swami Yogananda's Bhagavad Gita

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why the mantras ARE the sound vibrations (names) of the Devatas.

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG."  wrote:
> >
> 
> > The Devatas are formless creative intelligences that Hinduism has 
> > anthropomorphized
> 
> Or that that MMY et al scientized. 
> >
>

Can you be sure that there is a difference?


Patricia Carrington claimed that her research on CLinically SImulated Meditation
showed that different meaningless sounds would have a different affect on people
when used for meditation. Is this such a startling finding, even without knowing
about claims made by mystics?


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Emotional Masturbation, or Why FFL Sells So Much Kleenex

[TurquoiseB]

I've rapped a few times about the tendency of some
spiritual seekers to mistake a feeling of strong
emotion for spiritual experience. This morning 
over coffee, I'd like to rap about doing that in
public, and link it to the phenomenon I think it's
most similar to -- whacking off.

Think about recent rants in which one of our resident
emotional jackoffs went on and on inventing fantasies
about about poor, victimized people and those who
prey on them. Now go back and read that same rant
and visualize him masturbating furiously while 
writing it. Doesn't it fit? Doesn't it seem like 
that's *exactly* what's going on?

My theory is this -- if a spiritual organization does
not provide real spiritual experience on a regular
basis, it learns very quickly that to keep followers
on the line and contributing the big bucks it has to 
give them something *else*. That "something else"
is often regular doses of strong emotion. 

The organization might do this in the form of "telling 
stories" about the teacher or root guru, stories cal-
culated to make the followers feel strong emotion 
about them. And, over time, the followers begin to 
associate those strong emotions with real bhakti, and 
believe that the manipulated pseudo-emotions they're 
feeling were somehow spontaneous, and that they're 
"growing in devotion" to the teacher or root guru. A 
few might very well be, but IMO most of them are just 
being manipulated as effectively as addicts of soap 
operas are. "Ooh...Guru Noname walked on water...I 
feel so uplifted and spiritual just thinking about it." 
"Ooh...Genna is pregnant with Darin's baby and he 
dumped her but she managed to overcome her angst and 
saved the town from terrorists anyway...I feel so 
uplifted."

The thing is, after decades of being manipulated by
others telling you "uplifting stories" to stimulate
you into a sense of heightened emotion that you have
been trained to associate with "spiritual experience,"
many people begin to do the same thing to *themselves*.
They start to tell these "uplifting stories" to them-
selves as a way of "jumpstarting" emotions that they
cannot feel naturally.

Thus we get the phenomenon of "manufactured outrage"
we see so often here on Fairfield Life. Someone pre-
tends to be outraged about someone "lying," and rants
on and on about it for hundreds of lines of text, 
jacking themselves up into a mood of oh-so-righteous 
indignation and moral superiority. Or they accuse 
someone of "predation" and do the same thing. Or they 
call someone else an "anti-TMer" and do exactly the 
same thing. The supposed "causes" of the manufactured
outrage vary, but the effect it has on the people
expressing the faux outrage never does -- they're
*getting off*. 

I'm presenting the notion that by doing this they are 
essentially masturbating in public, indulging in 
fantasies to jack their emotional levels up to the
point where they can convince themselves that they
can still *feel* emotion. And it is *SO* satisfying 
to them to feel these emotions. Make up a story about
some poor woman manipulated by evil scum who make her
do Bad Things, and you can feel *SO* superior to the
"scum," and *SO* evolved yourself because you *care*
about the fate of this poor woman. Repeat with a 
regular motion. Now grab a Kleenex and clean your-
self up and run the same number again next week.

Feeling dull and gray and lifeless, as if your medi-
tation practice did nothing for you? Simple solution:
pick someone who has done something you can consider
"wrong" like...uh...say something positive about a
person you hate, and make up some stories about how
he or she is evil and use the story as a kind of 
masturbation fantasy. It doesn't really matter who 
the target is of the fantasy...it could be Sal, or 
Vaj, or Barry, or Ruth...it could be the Dalai Lama 
or Obama or pretty much anyone...their faces are as 
interchangeable as the photos in Hustler that guys 
jack off to on the toilet or the photos of Burt 
Reynolds that *you* jack off to in your bedroom. All
that matters is that you can fantasize about them
and GET OFF. Again, when you've finished, grab 
a Kleenex and clean up, while claiming "victory"
and saying that you "won." Uh huh. 

Call me a perv ( and I know that some will :-), but I
think of this act, repeated ad nauseum by those who
seem addicted to it, is *exactly* what I'm portraying
it as -- a form of mental and emotional masturbation.
The people who indulge in it are using fantasies to
manufacture cheap emotion in themselves and GET OFF.

And, interestingly, many in the "audience" they're
speaking to *cheer* the emotional jackoffs for doing
this, and shout "Booyah!" or "Boy, you sure nailed
him/her/it with that one!" I have to assume that 
after doing so they have to run for the Kleenex
box themselves.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why the mantras ARE the sound vibrations (names) of the Devatas.

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG."  wrote:
>
> You could use the word 'one' to meditate, or 'mike' and that would focus the 
> mind and settle down the nervous system. But the reason we use a mantra is, 
> these special sounds have *power* emanating from the Deity governing them.
> 
> The sound and the Devata (Deity) are one and the same, the *power* is  the 
> bliss and charm inherent IN the sound itself at it's source level. And yes, 
> the very reason meditation itself works and the "increasing charm" MMY often 
> talks about as the fundamentals of proper TM.
> 
> Hasn't it been said that God is Love, Bliss..ever new Joy, inner happiness?
> 
> "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
> God." John 1:1
> 

FWIW, at least in the Greek, Latin and German versions the last
phrase has "inverted" word order, compared to most other version:

Greek: theos en ho logos
Latin: Deus erat Verbum
German: Gott war das Wort