[FairfieldLife] Der Führer und gutes Karma?
It seems to me the only explanation for Hitler's years of huge success
is that his prArabdha-karma during those years was predominantly very
good...
If that's really the case, it's a nice example of how devastating good
karma
can be for the future of an individual, or stuff.
prArabdha mfn. commenced , begun , undertaken MBh. Ka1v. c. ; one who
has cñcommenced or bñbegun (also %{-vat} mfn. ) Amar. Ra1jat.
Katha1s. ; n. an undertaking , enterprise Ka1v. Pan5cat. ; %{-karman}
(Ni1lak.) ,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Der Führer und gutes Karma?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_re...@... wrote: It seems to me the only explanation for Hitler's years of huge success is that his prArabdha-karma during those years was predominantly very good... It seems to me that the only explanation for still believing that there is such a thing as good karma and bad karma is humans' need to justify their beliefs and actions. There is only karma. Also that another explanation for the seeming success of his early years is that the German people were so fixated on finding someone to blame for their own karma, and he supplied scapegoats. http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=200909\ 27 http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20090\ 927
[FairfieldLife] Comparing American and British pronunciation
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Prevailingly Just noticed that it's possible to compare British and US pronunciation above. US pronunciation is, IMO 1. sexier 2. more relaxed 3. lower pitched(?) Furthermore, British short i-sound feels to me a more pure, Italian type vowel than the corresponding American...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Comparing American and British pronunciation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_re...@... wrote: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Prevailingly Just noticed that it's possible to compare British and US pronunciation above. US pronunciation is, IMO 1. sexier 2. more relaxed 3. lower pitched(?) Furthermore, British short i-sound feels to me a more pure, Italian type vowel than the corresponding American... I don't know how linguistics would interpret the difference. I interpret it as the long- term deleterious effects of the British woman having been convinced that Hugh Grant is the epitome of a male sex star. :-)
[FairfieldLife] of Negative Energy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/230575 Rakshasas are imaginary. Get over it. Om no, no, Turq; That what thee don't know may not hurt thee or else explains a lot otherwise. Spiritually aware people seem to know... Sit with this e-mail: paste Of Negative Energy, in Method -anonymous e-mail Love is a form of insight. If someone says something to you and they have some observation about you, you can watch yourself thinking, I don't know whether I want to take that in. If the person doesn't do it perfectly, if they don't say it exactly the way your mind wants to hear it, you just reject it. You can't pull the kernel of truth out of a stone. The purpose of insight meditation is to get that kernel of truth to come out of the stone, and to particularly get it out of people who have no skillful means, that is, they're abrupt and they don't know how to do it nicely, they're not poised, they don't have good delivery. The purpose of insight meditation is to see the truth coming from people who you perceive as enemies or that are ruthless in some way. The purpose of insight meditation is to turn your enemies into friends. It means that you have to have insight into how their enmity can be friendly to you. They can teach you about yourself. The result of that, ideally, is that you don't insulate yourself and always surround yourself with supporters. You are courageous enough to be in the presence of people who are not of skillful means, doing the right thing at the right moment, and you're able to pull truth even out of that stone. That makes it possible to pull love out of anything, out of a dead branch. That is the nature of insight meditation. There are a lot of situations in life in which love is not so easily seen. There are people who, for whatever reason, make themselves into your enemy, who throw stuff at you that is really hurtful, and not even stuff that's unconscious but rakshasic, demonic stuff. Those rakshasas, those demons, those bad guys are there to help you practice. That's their job, that's what they do. The way they help you practice is that you see them for what they are. You realize that if there's negative energy coming your way from another person which is not allowing you to experience the field of love between you and them, it is not only them doing that but there is an entity doing that, a negative force that is blocking the love. It doesn't want the love to be there, it's invested in that, it's employed by the devil, if you want to call it that, the dark side, the shadow. When you recognize that something is getting in the way between you loving another person, it is one of those or a cluster or aggregate of those. In both the Hindu and the Buddhist tradition the idea is to shoot them in the foot, to cut through, to completely annihilate their power, to debilitate them, to get them out of your life. How do you get rid of those demonic beings that are breaking up the love, that are destroying the love between you and your family, your relations, your lover? This is another important point about insight meditation. It teaches you that they exist, that it's not your imagination, and what to do with them. What do you do with them? Well, right now I'm locked up like this with my sister, God bless her. When you see that another person is emanating a powerful negative energy and they may not even know it, then you have a job to do. As a spiritual person you're on call. Your job is to shoot this thing, get rid of it, take it out, annihilate it, blast it, explode it. How do you do that? When you have an enemy of this rakshasic nature, which it isn't always, sometimes it's at a personality structure level, but if it is, if that's what's coming at you, you have to get rid of it. If its job is to create fear, it will generate more fear. If its job is to create anger, it will generate more anger. That's what rakshasas do. That's their job. According to a lot of scriptures, they don't have a choice, they're slaves, essentially, of the dark side, they are made to do that, they don't have free will. Basically they are there to fight you into sadness, into fear, into anger, into jealousy, but ultimately they are there to cause you to break from practice. They're sadhana breakers. They're there to stop you from practicing, from doing what you know is the best thing for your evolution. How do you stop them from stopping you? From a transcendent point of view, the way that you stop rakshasas is that you get deeper into the transcendent that they are sourced from. If they're here and they have a pipeline into the transcendent and it's this far down and that's where they're getting their rakshasa juice from, you go down lower. You have to go underneath them to get at them. It's like what Maharishi said, you can't solve a problem on the level of the problem.
[FairfieldLife] Baby Dance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikTxfIDYx6Q
[FairfieldLife] Re: of Negative Energy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/230575 Rakshasas are imaginary. Get over it. Om no, no, Turq; That what thee don't know may not hurt thee or else explains a lot otherwise. Spiritually aware people seem to know... Sit with this e-mail: paste Of Negative Energy, in Method I didn't bother to read it. I refer you instead to this writeup from Wikipedia, which I think better describes the phenomenon: The bogeyman (also spelled boogyman, bogyman, boogieman, boogey monster, or boogeyman) is a legendary ghost-like monster. The bogeyman has no specific appearance, and conceptions of the monster can vary drastically even from household to household within the same community; in many cases he simply has no set appearance in the mind of a child, but is just an amorphous embodiment of terror. The Boogieman is the pure essence of fear, and cannot be killed, harmed, or in anyway inconven- ienced, as he is made of fear, and as long as people have any fear at all, he will exist.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mckenna Advaita and Transcendental FF
Vaj wrote: Vedantins don't go to heaven. All realized Siddhas do to Siddhaloka. Thanks. You are welcome.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tricycle Interview with Adyashanti
yifuxero wrote: MMY is definitely not a Neo-Advaitin... Well, first you'd have to define traditional Advaita and then explain 'Neo-Advaita'. Traditional Advaita, as taught by the Adi Shankaracharya, has sadhana requirements. Not everyone will be accepted into the Saraswati Order. Most people won't have access to the initiation performed for the Sannyasin of the Saraswati tradition. However, although the Shankaracharya Order adheres to the Advaita Vedanta, at the same time they all worship the Divine Mother - Sri Vidya, and that is why they are termed Saraswati. They are Sri Vidya proponents who follow Shankaracharya's Advaita Vedanta. Ramana Maharshi changed all that - he established the 'Direct Path' teachings. He taught that Realization is open to everyone, and that a long series of preparatory studies was not a requirement that the non-dual Reality be realized without all the prerequisites. MMY seems to agree with much that Ramana Maharshi has said, as do Poonja, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Papaji, Atmananda Krishna Menon, Swami Chinmayananda, and Ramesh Balsekar. Read more: Subject: Guru Dev's Sadhana From: Willytex Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental, alt.meditation, alt.yoga Date: August 15, 2003 http://tinyurl.com/ydzz8as Advaita Vedanta: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta Ramana Maharshi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramana_Maharshi
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mckenna Advaita and Transcendental FF
On Sep 27, 2009, at 8:49 AM, WillyTex wrote:Vaj wrote: Vedantins don't go to heaven.All realized Siddhas do to Siddhaloka. Thanks.You are welcome.Siddha-loka is not svarga, heaven. People from the siddha path might decide to go to siddha-loka, but not Vedantins. You sound really confused.Mahesh was a mimamsaka. That's why his pundits declared "Maharishi is in heaven" silly.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mckenna Advaita and Transcendental FF
Vaj wrote: People from the siddha path might decide to go to siddha-loka, but not Vedantins. All the Saraswati Advaitins are Siddhas and they worship the Tripurasundari. They are Tantric Siddhas. They go to Siddhaloka, not because they are Vedantins, but because they follow the Siddha Tradition of the Sri Vidya.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count
Steve wrote: Said he was sorry that he over posted. Why don't you give him some spiritual help - you're a spiritual teacher, right? At least you said you were - trained by the Maharishi.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The FFL Posting Limit Get Out Of Jail Free Card (Was: Post Count)
TurquoiseB wrote: I am tempted to suggest a special exemption to the FFL Posting Limits. This sounds like a typical TMO rule. I guess once a TMO, always a TMO. Why is the TMO so full of rules and regulations? I thought Turq said he was out of the TMO and out of teaching. The TMO is always trying to block access to information. Hey, Turq, what happened to all the money?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev quoted in Maharishi meditation leaflet
Premanand wrote: 'By treatments of the outer physical existence, the peacelessness in the sukshma sharir (subtle body) will not go away. For the purpose of removing ashanti (peacelessness) the healing of the subtle body is required... So, I guess it has been pretty well established by Premanand that Guru Dev was a Siddha Yogi. That figures, since the Guru Dev was a Saraswati adherent that worshiped the Sri Vidya. And, it would seem that Guru Dev also enjoyed many aspects of the 'Nath' Siddha tradition as well. This isn't very surprising, since it is well known that the memebers of the Saraswati Order are all tantric yogis that worship Sri Saraswati.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The FFL Posting Limit Get Out Of Jail Free Card (Was: Post Count)
Bhairitu wrote: Just say the free week expires with the six-month period. No rollover... Screw you and your silly TMO rules. I can go to Usenet and post anything I want to as many times as I want to. You regulators already drove off the only interesting respondent over here - Lawson. You guys and your moderators really screwed Lawson over with your rules. Lawson was just about the only TMO insider that was willing to tell us what was really going on with TM. We've got Ministers, Governors, and Teachers here that won't even tell me what happened to all the money. Even the Raja's brother won't tell us the truth, and you want more rules for a discussion group?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mckenna Advaita and Transcendental FF
On Sep 27, 2009, at 10:00 AM, WillyTex wrote: Vaj wrote: People from the siddha path might decide to go to siddha-loka, but not Vedantins. All the Saraswati Advaitins are Siddhas and they worship the Tripurasundari. They are Tantric Siddhas. They go to Siddhaloka, not because they are Vedantins, but because they follow the Siddha Tradition of the Sri Vidya. Marshy wasn't a Saraswati Advaitin Willy, he was a secretary to one!
[FairfieldLife] Pittsburgh: occupied ghost town
Sign the petition to protest: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1170/t/3716/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=2115 G20 in Pittsburgh: Police State Ghost Town Saturday, 26 September 2009 07:36 By Rob Kall This is a slightly edited version of an article originally posted on OpEd news. Pittsburgh is a ghost-town, emptied of workers and the usual pedestrians, but filled to overflowing with over 12,000 swat cops from all over the US. Anti-war activist Bill Perry, a Viet Nam war veteran, has posted an incredible collection of images to flickr. I spoke to veteran civil defense attorney Paul Hetznecker about how the police try to block photos from being taken at events-- one way, by segregating protesters to specified, distant areas. My take-away from that conversation: Take pictures. The police use photos and videos to craft false scenarios and lies. The best defense for protesters is to take still images and videos of police-- thousands of them. Get their faces, their shifting positions. This is one of the most powerful defenses when protesters are charged. The police will, otherwise, use photos to place you on the scene, to support charges of criminal conspiracy. Bill writes, “G-20 Finance Ministers have robbed Pension Plans, Looted 401 k's, Foreclosed Mortgages, Smashed Dreams, and Ruined Lives, yet they get this sort of Police Protection:I know 3 Strike Shop Lifters doing Life, while these Grand Master Thieves party on OUR dime.” WHO ARE THE REAL CRIMINALS? Take pictures. The police use photos and videos to craft false scenarios and lies. The best defense for protesters is to take still images and videos of police-- thousands of them. Get their faces, their shifting positions. This is one of the most powerful defenses when protesters are charged. I spoke to a friend whose son lives in Pittsburgh. The city is locked down tight. He has been instructed to work at home. Stores are closed. One report says that over 12,000 police have been brought in and they are working 12 hour shifts. Protesters have been given two remote locations to protest at. I spoke with noted Philadelphia civil defense attorney Paul Hetznecker, on this and he observed that the idea of protest is to be where the people who need to hear the message are. He said that this nation was founded by protesters, that this new approach of blocking and hiding dissent and protest has been continued by the Obama administration. The protesters in Pittsburgh are heroes, standing up to a government that has thrown out the constitution and embraced a police state. They are the scraggly line that keeps the US from leading the world to become a locked down, massively policed, safe place for corporatists to do as they please. Every protester who marches without permission, facing arrest is a soldier, without armor, without tear-gas mask, without kevlar vest and knee and elbow pads, like these automaton-like robo-cops who travel from all over the US, probably as volunteers, getting a thrill, playing macho-cop so they can take pictures and Tivo themselves being tough. These out of state cops are neo fascists pissing on the constitution, erasing the freedoms the founders died for. Thomas Jefferson must be rolling in his grave.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mckenna Advaita and Transcendental FF
On Sep 27, 2009, at 9:49 AM, Vaj wrote: On Sep 27, 2009, at 10:00 AM, WillyTex wrote: Vaj wrote: People from the siddha path might decide to go to siddha-loka, but not Vedantins. All the Saraswati Advaitins are Siddhas and they worship the Tripurasundari. They are Tantric Siddhas. They go to Siddhaloka, not because they are Vedantins, but because they follow the Siddha Tradition of the Sri Vidya. Marshy wasn't a Saraswati Advaitin Willy, he was a secretary to one! Why do I think of s'mores every time I see MMY's name written like this? Is it just me? Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mckenna Advaita and Transcendental FF
All the Saraswati Advaitins are Siddhas and they worship the Tripurasundari. They are Tantric Siddhas. They go to Siddhaloka, not because they are Vedantins, but because they follow the Siddha Tradition of the Sri Vidya. Vaj wrote: Marshy wasn't a Saraswati Advaitin Willy, he was a secretary to one! Secretaries can be Saraswati Advaitins, Vaj. Maharishi was a Saraswati Advaitin, he initiated me in a diksha with the Saraswati bija. His Master, Brahmanand Saraswati, was also a Saraswati Advaitin. This has also been established by Premanand and by James Duffy. Maharishi is a 'Neo-Advaitin' who taught the 'Direct Path' teachings. All the Saraswati Advaitins are tantrics because they ascribe to the Sri Vidya.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mckenna Advaita and Transcendental FF
Marshy wasn't a Saraswati Advaitin... Sal Sunshine wrote: Why do I think of s'mores every time I see MMY's name written like this? Is it just me? Maybe it's because you don't read Sanskrit and don't know how to use ITRANS for your transliterations. Who knows, maybe it's because you're always thinking about eating food. But, because they called Ramana the 'Maharshi', they pronounced it 'Marshy'?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Pittsburgh: occupied ghost town
Vaj wrote: Pittsburgh: occupied ghost town... Don't you just hate those rock-throwing anarchists marching against Obama's economic recovery program! They should be rounded up and sent down to Cuba.
[FairfieldLife] Re: of Negative Energy
I didn't bother to read it. I refer you instead to this writeup from Wikipedia, which I think better describes the phenomenon Oh no, Turq. Sorry you missed it. Yours is more descriptive while the other Is more practical. The other is more the FF take on negativity. The transcendental Look. Print it out and take it to the beach with you, I think you'd appreciate its take. There is a sensibility shared in this as it is said, that you could hear even in line in a coffee shop around FF in the meditating Community. I like it as a record of a spiritual POV as it is said that is in the Transcendental community. Jai Adi Shankara, -D in FF --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/230575 Rakshasas are imaginary. Get over it. Om no, no, Turq; That what thee don't know may not hurt thee or else explains a lot otherwise. Spiritually aware people seem to know... Sit with this e-mail: paste Of Negative Energy, in Method -anonymous e-mail Love is a form of insight. If someone says something to you and they have some observation about you, you can watch yourself thinking, I don't know whether I want to take that in. If the person doesn't do it perfectly, if they don't say it exactly the way your mind wants to hear it, you just reject it. You can't pull the kernel of truth out of a stone. The purpose of insight meditation is to get that kernel of truth to come out of the stone, and to particularly get it out of people who have no skillful means, that is, they're abrupt and they don't know how to do it nicely, they're not poised, they don't have good delivery. The purpose of insight meditation is to see the truth coming from people who you perceive as enemies or that are ruthless in some way. The purpose of insight meditation is to turn your enemies into friends. It means that you have to have insight into how their enmity can be friendly to you. They can teach you about yourself. The result of that, ideally, is that you don't insulate yourself and always surround yourself with supporters. You are courageous enough to be in the presence of people who are not of skillful means, doing the right thing at the right moment, and you're able to pull truth even out of that stone. That makes it possible to pull love out of anything, out of a dead branch. That is the nature of insight meditation. There are a lot of situations in life in which love is not so easily seen. There are people who, for whatever reason, make themselves into your enemy, who throw stuff at you that is really hurtful, and not even stuff that's unconscious but rakshasic, demonic stuff. Those rakshasas, those demons, those bad guys are there to help you practice. That's their job, that's what they do. The way they help you practice is that you see them for what they are. You realize that if there's negative energy coming your way from another person which is not allowing you to experience the field of love between you and them, it is not only them doing that but there is an entity doing that, a negative force that is blocking the love. It doesn't want the love to be there, it's invested in that, it's employed by the devil, if you want to call it that, the dark side, the shadow. When you recognize that something is getting in the way between you loving another person, it is one of those or a cluster or aggregate of those. In both the Hindu and the Buddhist tradition the idea is to shoot them in the foot, to cut through, to completely annihilate their power, to debilitate them, to get them out of your life. How do you get rid of those demonic beings that are breaking up the love, that are destroying the love between you and your family, your relations, your lover? This is another important point about insight meditation. It teaches you that they exist, that it's not your imagination, and what to do with them. What do you do with them? Well, right now I'm locked up like this with my sister, God bless her. When you see that another person is emanating a powerful negative energy and they may not even know it, then you have a job to do. As a spiritual person you're on call. Your job is to shoot this thing, get rid of it, take it out, annihilate it, blast it, explode it. How do you do that? When you have an enemy of this rakshasic nature, which it isn't always, sometimes it's at a personality structure level, but if it is, if that's what's coming at you, you have to get rid of it. If its job is to create fear, it will generate more fear. If its job is to create anger, it will generate more anger. That's what rakshasas do. That's their job. According to a lot of scriptures, they don't have a choice, they're slaves, essentially, of the dark side, they are made to do that,
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mckenna Advaita and Transcendental FF
On Sep 27, 2009, at 11:27 AM, WillyTex wrote: All the Saraswati Advaitins are Siddhas and they worship the Tripurasundari. They are Tantric Siddhas. They go to Siddhaloka, not because they are Vedantins, but because they follow the Siddha Tradition of the Sri Vidya. Vaj wrote: Marshy wasn't a Saraswati Advaitin Willy, he was a secretary to one! Secretaries can be Saraswati Advaitins, Vaj. Maharishi was a Saraswati Advaitin, he initiated me in a diksha with the Saraswati bija. His Master, Brahmanand Saraswati, was also a Saraswati Advaitin. This has also been established by Premanand and by James Duffy. Maharishi is a 'Neo-Advaitin' who taught the 'Direct Path' teachings. All the Saraswati Advaitins are tantrics because they ascribe to the Sri Vidya. Don't be silly Willy, the Marshy was not a member of the Saraswati order, he was not a Brahmin. And although he talked about Advaita Vedanta vaguely, he did not teach the techniques of Advaita Vedanta. You have to go to one of the Neo-advaitic satsangarians if you wanted the 'highest first'. Marshy taught tantric mantra meditation but liked to call it Vedic. No wonder you're so confused! I'd be confused too if I took tantric mantra meditation as the highest first! Sheesh, if you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop diggin'. Not our Marshy! He just kept diggin'.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mckenna Advaita and Transcendental FF
On Sep 27, 2009, at 11:12 AM, Sal Sunshine wrote: Marshy wasn't a Saraswati Advaitin Willy, he was a secretary to one! Why do I think of s'mores every time I see MMY's name written like this? Is it just me? I keep getting a cute swamp.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The FFL Posting Limit Get Out Of Jail Free Card (Was: Post Count)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: We've got Ministers, Governors, and Teachers here that won't even tell me what happened to all the money. Even the Raja's brother won't tell us the truth, and you want more rules for a discussion group? I don't know what money you're referring to, and I don't know what truth it is you want me to tell you. I have no involvement with and zero interest in the TMO. Just because my brother is a Raja doesn't mean I have any idea what the TMO is up to. I never discuss TM stuff with my brother.
[FairfieldLife] Re: of Negative Energy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony...@... wrote: I didn't bother to read it. I refer you instead to this writeup from Wikipedia, which I think better describes the phenomenon Oh no, Turq. Sorry you missed it. Yours is more descriptive while the other Is more practical. The other is more the FF take on negativity. The transcendental Look. I see it as trying to put a New Age spin on the fact that they're focusing on their fears, personifying them, and indulging in them.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mckenna Advaita and Transcendental FF
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Sep 27, 2009, at 11:12 AM, Sal Sunshine wrote: Marshy wasn't a Saraswati Advaitin Willy, he was a secretary to one! Why do I think of s'mores every time I see MMY's name written like this? Is it just me? I keep getting a cute swamp. [http://www.toplessrobot.com/return_of_the_swamp_thing_poster_01.jpg]
[FairfieldLife] Re: of Negative Energy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: I didn't bother to read it. I refer you instead to this writeup from Wikipedia, which I think better describes the phenomenon Oh no, Turq. Sorry you missed it. Yours is more descriptive while the other Is more practical. The other is more the FF take on negativity. The transcendental Look. I see it as trying to put a New Age spin on the fact that they're focusing on their fears, personifying them, and indulging in them. Says Barry, who didn't bother to read it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TV Review: Dollhouse Episode 1 Season 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: Well I would say that Whedon finally got this series right. Let's hope they can keep up the quality. There is much more character development and scene development this season. I disagree. It just seems that way because Joss is able to build upon a framework that he created in last season's character development. Looks like Echo is going to be more like an undercover agent and hence the downplay of prostitution theme which turned off some viewers in the first season. The mind programming is used more for a cover. Topher has a bigger role in this episode as does Whisky. Jamie Bamber of BSG is a guest star, not using an American accent, playing an international arms dealer. I'm not going to get into spoilers or analysis but just say I was impressed with this first episode and the space they gave for scene development which puts it head and shoulders above last season. Now to go see how the other armchair critics saw it. Well, this one's not even going to bother, except to say that I enjoyed it. I learned last season -- and over the years, as I appreciated Joss Whedon's work -- that to view this as episodic television is a huge category mistake. To judge the series based on one chapter of what is going to be a 12-chapter novel is as silly as trying to do the same thing with a novel in print. Whedon doesn't *write* episodes. He writes scenarios that all lead up to something happening in show #7 or #8 or #12, or even next season. The fact that the *individual* plotline of one show seems to wrap up within an hour doesn't mean that it's ever designed to be a standalone hour. IMO, of course...
[FairfieldLife] TM-induced psychosis
From: joerg dao [mailto:joerg...@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 6:06 PM To: r...@searchsummit.com Subject: Re: TM-induced psychosis Re: TM-induced psychosis People liked it. I couldn't hear anything from our house, even though I can hear school marching bands practicing over there. Probably because the speakers were facing the opposite direction. Thx for reporting I just want to answer this discussion about psychosis. I was on professional conferences of psychiatrists, and they ALL are AFRAID of that outburst, and really DON´T know 1) what it is 2) to work it out other than intense medication. (which by the way really harms your personality in the long run ...) So psychosis happening to TM-people is another of the riddles, the TMers haven`t looked at it enough to understand. Since I have my own approach, where these outbursts are definitely 1) understood 2) worked out by entangling them I really know what I`m talking about. 1) The term is wrong. It mostly is intense outburst of heavy emotions. 2) 99% of all socalled experts, docs, psychiatrists etc. are themselves AFRAID of the outbursts. (Some of them might even gotten beaten up, bec they tried something inexceptible ...) 3) bec of that intense fear - and that is institutionalized by instructing xperts, NOT to work on the emotional level, but ONLY medications ... 4) xperts still are even more afraid Bec of all this confusion, TMers haven`t had any chance to get good new understanding. And when TMers had psychotic outburst, they got the same old wrong treatment PLUS the whole speculation in the TMers-sphere, what it could be all about. So point 1) Stop speculating. Get the facts. 2) Its possible, to easily work these things out. - but in that case, you need training. There is a complete new understanding of the human psyche. Developed from meditation. But it went greatly beyond that. You can read some here: www.dao-clinique.com http://www.dao-clinique.com/ cheers joerg.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TV Review: Dollhouse Episode 1 Season 2
TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: Well I would say that Whedon finally got this series right. Let's hope they can keep up the quality. There is much more character development and scene development this season. I disagree. It just seems that way because Joss is able to build upon a framework that he created in last season's character development. The scenes were much longer than last season but maybe you didn't notice. Those kind of things I do (along with story arcs) but then I'm into film making. Enjoy while you can: Dollhouse death watch: Ratings worse than ever Joss Whedon's sci-fi Dollhouse premiered Friday, and the news isn't good: Overnight ratings were the worst in the show's history. Translated: If you like it, you'd better watch it while you can. More here: http://scifiwire.com/2009/09/dollhouse-death-watch-rat.php OTOH, I would love to see HBO or Showtime do a series based on Sleep Dealer. That would be very compelling and very possible given the way the film is set up. The broadcast and cable networks would piss all over such a series since it would be too controversial.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The FFL Posting Limit Get Out Of Jail Free Card (Was: Post Count)
WillyTex wrote: Bhairitu wrote: Just say the free week expires with the six-month period. No rollover... Screw you and your silly TMO rules. I can go to Usenet and post anything I want to as many times as I want to. You regulators already drove off the only interesting respondent over here - Lawson. You guys and your moderators really screwed Lawson over with your rules. Lawson was just about the only TMO insider that was willing to tell us what was really going on with TM. We've got Ministers, Governors, and Teachers here that won't even tell me what happened to all the money. Even the Raja's brother won't tell us the truth, and you want more rules for a discussion group? Lawson a TMO insider? He wasn't even TM teacher. Lawson would love Twitter. Wonder if he has an account? :-D Well we're all retired in the Caymans, Willy. We just say we're somewhere else. All that initiation money came in quite handy. And finally you're memory is getting really short, I was opposed to the posting limit. I only wrote the Post Count script to help people easily know many messages they've posted during the week. And the get out of jail card is flawed because one would have to add a limit or someone will flood the group with posts using it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TV Review: Dollhouse Episode 1 Season 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: Well I would say that Whedon finally got this series right. Let's hope they can keep up the quality. There is much more character development and scene development this season. I disagree. It just seems that way because Joss is able to build upon a framework that he created in last season's character development. The scenes were much longer than last season but maybe you didn't notice. Those kind of things I do (along with story arcs) but then I'm into film making. With all due respect, based on your comments on this forum, you're into traditional, commer- cial filmmaking. Remember how much you liked the Unaired Pilot? Joss said that once that it was finally finished, he looked at it and realized that FOX had made him make the kind of TV that he swore he would never make, so he trashed it and started over. The first time it came up here I said I hated it as well. One of us thought more like Joss Whedon and one of us thought more like a FOX executive. :-) Enjoy while you can: Dollhouse death watch: Ratings worse than ever Joss Whedon's sci-fi Dollhouse premiered Friday, and the news isn't good: Overnight ratings were the worst in the show's history. Translated: If you like it, you'd better watch it while you can. A lot of people would like to see him fail. And he might. But it *won't* be because he's reduced himself to making TV shows like everyone else. He'll go out making the stuff *he* thinks he should be making. And that's what distinguishes the artists from the hacks. I liked a lot about the new episode. Since I have always felt that the hottest babe on the series (and possibly the best actress, along with DeWitt) was Whiskey, I'm pleased to see her taking on a larger role. I really like the Dr. Frankenstein/ monster thang that's developing between her and another character (trying to avoid spoilers). But I saw it as primarily setup, stuff to pave the way for future episodes and get the audience to think they know what's going to happen. Then Joss can fuck with those expectations and do something else. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Why electrical sockets are like they are
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10Eo9xnRXbA
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TV Review: Dollhouse Episode 1 Season 2
TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: Well I would say that Whedon finally got this series right. Let's hope they can keep up the quality. There is much more character development and scene development this season. I disagree. It just seems that way because Joss is able to build upon a framework that he created in last season's character development. The scenes were much longer than last season but maybe you didn't notice. Those kind of things I do (along with story arcs) but then I'm into film making. With all due respect, based on your comments on this forum, you're into traditional, commer- cial filmmaking. Hardly. But I do somewhat know how the business (or game) works. So do a lot of independent film makers. The ones that don't usually have a hard time of getting their films made. Let's just say there are minefields in the business. Did you read the book Stu recommended? Those that know where the mines are can game the business to put out the films or series they want. I watch a lot of arthouse films. Film structure is like grammar. If you are breaking it you need to know what you're doing. I don't believe for a minute that Whedon is trying to be extra artsy or anything. Neither do I believe he is into writing just scenarios (which is more the first step to your teleplay) and knows well how to use the episode form to tell a story and that doesn't bother him at all. If he didn't want to risk the commercial TV world he should have either sold the series to FX, their cable network. A show like Sons of Anarchy has a lot more creative freedom or if you want just high art look at Rescue Me which I wasn't expecting at all to be done the way it is. Or he really should have pitched it to Showtime or HBO for even more artistic freedom. Maybe he did and they didn't bite. I'm beginning to get the impression people in the business see Whedon as a hit-or-miss guy and a bit of a gamble. And these days with the economy they really don't like to gamble. Why do you think there are so unimaginative remakes? They seem like a sure deal to the suits. Long scenes are considered a risk in production. Rescue Me is known for long scenes and actors love them but if a line gets blown during a long dialog then they start to get expensive. BTW, I also noticed a bit of the CW (was WB) formula in the episode, particularly the use of music. Remember how much you liked the Unaired Pilot? Joss said that once that it was finally finished, he looked at it and realized that FOX had made him make the kind of TV that he swore he would never make, so he trashed it and started over. The first time it came up here I said I hated it as well. One of us thought more like Joss Whedon and one of us thought more like a FOX executive. :-) I'm not sure you want to think like Joss Whedon. :-D You might prefer to say you would like to make the kind of shows he does. And me, an executive? Hardly, I hate wearing a suit (yup TTC was a drag that way). I don't even have the mindset to be a bean counter. A friend drops off his Hollywood Reporter back issues and it hard to read them after a while because it is about the same old clique of blowhards that run Hollywood. And reading about them issue after issue can be boring though informative. Hint: we're going to see even more sci-fi series and movies coming down the pike. We're going to have to agree to disagree and the armchair critics on the forums seem to be split too.
[FairfieldLife] Can a movie be a good film or even a great film and not be Art?
I had been thinking about this before the subject arose with Dollhouse, so I'll rap about it a bit more. Call me elitist, but I think that there is a difference between good movies (or even great movies) and those films I would call Art. Yes, this is pure opinion on my part, and as such purely subjective, but I have my reasons for drawing such a distinction. It has to do with formulas and templates. *Dan Brown* writes using formulas and templates. He even *taught* writing. And he makes a gazillion dollars writing stuff that people think is good. Some probably think it's great. But I doubt that anyone considers it Art. A *great deal* of filmmaking and television is is based on templates. Three acts. X happens in Act One, Y happens in Act Two, and Z happens in Act Three. Boy meets girl, boy and girl fall in love, boy loses girl, boy finds girl again and everybody lives happily ever after. Stranger rides into River City and finds Trouble with a capital T there, so the stranger kicks ass, cleans up all the loose karma, and rides off into the sunset. Someone can make a good movie -- or even a great movie -- by following templates. Case in point: Sergio Leone. His schooling as a filmmaker was to watch the films of the masters of his era. He then stole from each of them and put them together into movies of his own, some of which can be truly called great. But were they Art? I don't know. I'm just speculating and expressing personal preference here. But my feeling is that the thing that turns a great movie into Art is *breaking* the templates and fucking with them, not following them. Case in point: Quentin Tarantino. Nothing could *be* more formulaic and template-driven than the tale of a bunch of misfit soldiers who form into an elite band of warriors and do noble things. I mean, we're talkin' The Wild Bunch, or The Dirty Dozen, or even Seven Samurai. The whole idea just *reeks* of cliches. But somehow Inglorious Basterds wasn't a cliche. It took all of the formulas and all of the templates and paid homage to them, but them *twisted* them and fucked with them as much as possible. Maybe it's because I'm more than a little twisted myself, but I like that. :-) Once Upon A Time In The West might be a great movie, but I don't think it's Art. Inglorious Basterds, on the other hand, just may be Art.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can a movie be a good film or even a great film and not be Art?
Rudely following up on my own rap :-), I've thought of a great example of my premise, although not one from the world of movies. I'm thinkin' William Shakespeare. Shakespeare wrote for the television of his time. The Globe wasn't filled with nobles, except during command performances; it was filled with street rabble. And Shakespeare gave them what they wanted, and what they were used to. A professor of mine in college was a noted Shakes- pearian scholar whose particular schtick was digging through historical libraries to find where Shakes- peare's inspiration came from. Turns out that most of it came from the streets of London, in the form of the cheaply printed books and pamphlets that you could buy on any street corner for one pence. They told stories that the common people wanted to hear. Stories about kings and queens and courtly intrigues. Stories about faraway mysterious islands, like the ones that explorers of the time were saying they'd found. Romantic tragedies. Romantic comedies. Ribald comedies. Stories about astrology, and the influence of the stars. Stories about ghosts, and the influence of the dead. It's pretty much agreed upon among Shakespearian scholars that he stole *all* of his plots. But it's what he did with them that turned them into Art. He transcended the source material, transcended the formulas and the templates that his source material followed and that his audience expected him to follow, and he transcended the audiences themselves, very few of whom had any *clue* how brilliant the play they were watching really was. Shakespeare was an alchemist. He took lead and turned it into gold. And he took formulas and templates and turned them into Art.
[FairfieldLife] Clinton: There Won't Be A Repeat Of '94 Elections, Right Wing Is Weak
Will media report how low in the polls Republicans have sunk? ~ ~ The overall approval ratings of Congressional Republicans is 17% as a party! ~ ~ We constantly are seeing polling down from the major news services that follow President Obama's approval ratings and it is an important stat to keep track of, but can you tell me what the media is not covering? How low the Republicans have been polling ever since they became the party of Waterloo. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHV4nDS501Y The Democratic leaders do have terrible polling numbers, Nancy Pelosi has a 34% approval rating in DKOS's new poll http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/25/786217/-Weekly-Tracking-Pol\ l:-A-Levelling-Off and Harry Reid has a 31% approval rating, but let's take a look at the Republican leadership, shall we? [Dkos poll_64bf2.jpg] Poll via Crooks Liars http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/will-media-ever-report-how-low-poil\ ling Clinton: There Won't Be A Repeat Of '94 Elections Bill Clinton predicted on Sunday that Democrats in Congress would avoid the political bloodbath during the 2010 elections that they witnessed during the first mid-term elections under his presidency. Appearing on NBC's Meet the Press, the former president sought to calm the concerns of many within his own party that current political trends and electoral history foreshadow massive losses in the House and the Senate. There's no way they can make it that bad, Clinton said, when asked if he was worried about a repeat of the '94 elections, in which Republicans took over the House for the first time in 40 years. Number one, Clinton explained, the country is more diverse and more interested in positive action. Number two, they've seen this movie before, because they had eight years under President Bush when the Republicans finally had the whole government, and they know the results were bad. And--[laughing]--number three, the Democrats haven't taken on the gun lobby like I did, and they took 15 of our members out. So I don't think-- it'll be, whatever happens, it'll be manageable for the president. All of which was not to suggest that Clinton was dismissing the GOP's capacity for exacting political blood. At another point in his interview, the former president - whose legacy was, in part, defined by the loss of Congress in '94 - smarted that the so-called vast right wing conspiracy still exists and has its eyes set on the current White House. Oh, you bet, said Clinton. Sure it is. It's not as strong as it was, because America has changed demographically. But it's as virulent as it was. I mean, they're saying things about him. You know, it's like when they accused me of murder, and all that stuff they did. ... But ... it's not really good for the Republicans and the country, what's going on now. I mean, they may be hurting President Obama. They can take his numbers down. They can run his opposition up. But, fundamentally, he and his team have a positive agenda for America. Their agenda seems to be wanting him to fail. ... As for the 2010 elections, the current construct in House of Representatives - in which a substantial chunk of the 256 Democrats hail from traditionally conservative districts - does portend for significant (but, perhaps, not heavy) losses in the 2010 elections. --Video of Bill Clinton on Meet the Press at link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/27/clinton-there-wont-be-a-r_n_301\ 140.html Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/27/clinton-there-wont-be-a-r_n_301\ 140.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/27/clinton-there-wont-be-a-r_n_30\ 1140.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: TV Review: Dollhouse Episode 1 Season 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: Enjoy while you can: Dollhouse death watch: Ratings worse than ever I've watched every episode, and I won't be the least bit upset if it's canceled. It's an ok, mildly entertaining series.
[FairfieldLife] CBO: Public Option Saves Even More Money Than We Thought
According to Congress Daily http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/cda_20090925_6347.php , the CBO says attaching the public plan to Medicare rates will save even more money than originally thought: In a bid to wrangle concessions from the Blue Dog Coalition on healthcare reform, House leaders Thursday released CBO estimates for liberals' preferred version of the public option that show $85 billion more in savings than for the version the Blue Dogs prefer. Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D., a Blue Dog co-chair, said any possible new momentum toward a public option tethered to Medicare rates is, in part, because of the cost issue and the updated CBO score. The original House bill required the public plan to pay providers 5 percent more than Medicare reimbursement rates. But as part of a package of concessions to Blue Dogs, the House Energy and Commerce Committee accepted an amendment that requires the HHS Secretary to negotiate rates with providers. That version of the plan will save only $25 billion. In total, a public plan based on Medicare rates would save $110 billion over 10 years. That is $20 billion more than earlier estimates, a spokesman for House Speaker Pelosi said. In other words, the conservatives want to spend $85 billion more than the liberals do. Moreover, the CBO is estimating savings to the government. That is to say, the $85 billion reflects reduced federal spending on subsidies because premiums in the public plan will be lower. Savings to individuals and businesses paying lower premiums will be much larger than $85 billion, and politically, much more important. http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/cda_20090925_6347.php via: http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/cbo-good-public-option-saves-even\ -mor
[FairfieldLife] 65% Want Public Health Option
Poll: Public Option Favored By 65% Of Americans A New York Times/CBS poll found that 65% of respondents want a public health care option, while only 26% opposed such a plan. However, respondents said that President Obama had not been clear on health care reform. Fifty-five percent said he had not explained his plan clearly, and many felt under-informed about the policies under discussion. The Senate Finance Committee will vote on a government-run health insurance option Tuesday. We're going to have a full blown debate in the Finance Committee, said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a backer of the public option. While it may be an underdog, Schumer said, don't count it out. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/25/poll-public-option-favore_n_299\ 669.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/25/poll-public-option-favore_n_29\ 9669.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TV Review: Dollhouse Episode 1 Season 2
Alex Stanley wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: Enjoy while you can: Dollhouse death watch: Ratings worse than ever I've watched every episode, and I won't be the least bit upset if it's canceled. It's an ok, mildly entertaining series. Since I have so many entertainment options I more or less have to make a list of what shows I'm going to watch. If they aren't up to expectations they fall off the list. I watched Eastwick and decided it falls off my list. Not a bad show but not for me. Heroes may too. I'll give Dollhouse three episodes (if it gets that far) to see how it goes. I'm watching Fast Forward the same way. I just signed up to Showtime for $7 for six months to catch Dexter, Californication and catch up on Weeds and Nurse Jackie. HBO isn't going much head to head right now but because of an ordering glitch at Comcast for the HBO subscription they gave me 12 months for free. Can't complain about that but I'll have to pay $18 a month for True Blood next season but considering the numbers that might be okay for 3 months. HBO doesn't have the movie lineup that Showtime has or had but the HBO Argentine horror series is good. Right now IFC OnDemand has the first season of the IT Crowd available. Unfortunately it is just an upscaled SD widescreen version and my 9 year old HD set with overscan cuts off the top of heads. Getting itchier to get a new TV. Fry's has the third season for $19 but not sure I want to buy it. Hollywood Video doesn't have the series. Maybe time to resume my NetFlix subscription (which I had in the late 1990s when they started up).
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can a movie be a good film or even a great film and not be Art?
Some of the great composers took their melodies from bar songs of the day. Some so bawdy they wouldn't publish them for us to read in college music history. ;-) TurquoiseB wrote: Rudely following up on my own rap :-), I've thought of a great example of my premise, although not one from the world of movies. I'm thinkin' William Shakespeare. Shakespeare wrote for the television of his time. The Globe wasn't filled with nobles, except during command performances; it was filled with street rabble. And Shakespeare gave them what they wanted, and what they were used to. A professor of mine in college was a noted Shakes- pearian scholar whose particular schtick was digging through historical libraries to find where Shakes- peare's inspiration came from. Turns out that most of it came from the streets of London, in the form of the cheaply printed books and pamphlets that you could buy on any street corner for one pence. They told stories that the common people wanted to hear. Stories about kings and queens and courtly intrigues. Stories about faraway mysterious islands, like the ones that explorers of the time were saying they'd found. Romantic tragedies. Romantic comedies. Ribald comedies. Stories about astrology, and the influence of the stars. Stories about ghosts, and the influence of the dead. It's pretty much agreed upon among Shakespearian scholars that he stole *all* of his plots. But it's what he did with them that turned them into Art. He transcended the source material, transcended the formulas and the templates that his source material followed and that his audience expected him to follow, and he transcended the audiences themselves, very few of whom had any *clue* how brilliant the play they were watching really was. Shakespeare was an alchemist. He took lead and turned it into gold. And he took formulas and templates and turned them into Art.
[FairfieldLife] FlashForward
No one's mentioned this new TV show, so I will. My brother told me about it with a great one-liner: I've been trying NOT to find any new series that are any good, because I don't want to wind up having to watch another one every week. But damnit I think I've found one. Based on that, I've been trying to download it since Thursday, when it aired, and I finally got to see it tonight. He was right -- it's interesting. Good production values, good plot, good acting, heavyweight pro- ducers, the whole tamale. It's obviously trying to be the next Lost, and may succeed. ( Inter- estingly, in a shot just before the pivotal event in the series happens, you see a billboard on a building in the distance advertising flights on Oceanic Airways. :-) Based on a 1999 scifi novel by Canadian author Robert J. Sawyer, it's set in our time, but some- thing happens to take everyone out of time. And I do mean everyone. At exactly the same moment, everyone on Earth drops in their tracks and, while they're out, have a two minute and 17 second flashforward, seeing (or being) themselves, but six months forward in time. Some of the visions are scary, catastrophic. One of the reasons for this is obvious -- imagine what happened during these 2 minutes 17 seconds to all of the people driving cars, piloting planes, etc. Some of the visions are shared, in that two people who were in each others' vision remember the same vision, and agree on details that happened to both of them. The lead character is an FBI agent ( played by Joseph Fiennes ), and his vision showed him in an office working on solving this very mystery -- WTF happened? Others close to him, including his wife, had visions that reinforce his own, but make him fear the future that they all saw. One guy -- the FBI agent's sponsor in AA -- sees a future in which the daughter he thought had died in the Army in Afghanistan is still alive. While others are afraid that their future might happen, he is afraid that his won't. LOTs of good plot material here, if it's done right. The actors seem competent, the writing seems pretty good, and the potential is there to create a very interesting scifi series. Hope they do. I'll be watching. Damnit.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Comparing American and British pronunciation
My tantra guru has quite an accent which makes it difficult for westerners who aren't used to Indian speakers to understand him. In the west we pronounce each vowel but he pronounces words often dropping the vowels which sounds like a bunch of consonants strung together. This is common in India with words like yoga which they pronounce yog. I recently heard this guy on a radio talk show discussing how he had to teach Canadian actors how to speak American English for US TV series. He also teaches many Indians accent reduction. Note that he mentions pronouncing each vowel. http://www.andykrieger.com/index.php cardemaister wrote: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Prevailingly Just noticed that it's possible to compare British and US pronunciation above. US pronunciation is, IMO 1. sexier 2. more relaxed 3. lower pitched(?) Furthermore, British short i-sound feels to me a more pure, Italian type vowel than the corresponding American...
[FairfieldLife] Ramesh S. Balsekar May 25, 1917 - September 27, 2009
Dear Friends, It is with the heaviest of hearts I write to tell you of the passing of our beloved Ramesh this morning at 9AM in his home in Bombay. His death was quick and peaceful. Ramesh was truly an extraordinary being. His life as a successful banker, author and spiritual teacher directly enriched the lives of tens of thousands of people. Having met Ramesh was one of the defining moments of my life, as I am certain it was for many of you reading this note. His generous spirit, open, loving presence and spiritual Understanding combined to make him one of the truly great Sages of the 20th century. We are truly blessed to have known him...be it in person or through his Teaching. Ramesh lives on. Though his body will this evening return to the elements, his spirit lives on in his books and in the hearts of all of us who have known him and loved him.. Twenty-two years ago Ramesh came into my life. Today his body leaves it. To have been able to walk beside him for all this time and to have been able to bow at his feet has been for me the greatest of life's blessings.I shall miss not being able to sit with Ramesh, to watch a cricket match together or to share some chocolate or to laugh at some silly joke he reads from the newspaper. It is not the greatness of the man I will miss most...his greatness remains undiminished by his death...it is the little things, the human things.. Many of you will share with me the exquisite human pain of the loss of a beloved one. If you take a moment to quietly look at it you may see in the pain the wonder of Life itself. If so, it will truly be the Grace of The Guru. With much love, Wayne
[FairfieldLife] Is Israel being taken over by religious extremists?
A hostile takeover of Zionism [An armed ultra-orthodox Jewish settler walks in the mountains overlooking the Palestinian village of Burin in the West Bank.] An armed ultra-orthodox Jewish settler walks in the mountains overlooking the Palestinian village of Burin in the West Bank. AFP Israel is teetering toward theocracy, with the rise of the Haredim by Patrick Martin - Jerusalem From Saturday's Globe and Mail Last updated on Saturday, Sep. 26, 2009 Israel's ultra-Orthodox Jewish community has come a long way. No longer are they the inward-looking anti-Zionists who only cared that the government provide them with money for their separate schools, welfare and exemptions from military service. These days, many of the Haredim the word means those who tremble in awe of God have joined with right-wing religious Zionists to become a powerful political force. They now are equipped to redefine the country's politics and to set a new agenda. Two decades ago, they were confined mostly to a few neighbourhoods in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Today, they have spread throughout the country, in substantial numbers in several major communities, as well as building completely new towns only for their followers. One Haredi leader who almost won Jerusalem's mayoralty race last fall, boasts that, within 20 years, the ultra-Orthodox will control the municipal government of every city in the country. And why not? Of the Jewish Israeli children entering primary school for the first time this month, more than 25 per cent are Haredi, and that proportion will keep growing. There are between 600,000 and 700,000 Haredim in Israel, and they average 8.8 children a family. A decade ago, there were almost no Haredim in the West Bank settlements. Today, the two largest settlements are entirely ultra-Orthodox, and the Haredim are about a third of the almost 300,000 settlers. Now that they have tightened the rules on who can be a Jew and have forced the public bus company to provide gender-segregated buses in many communities, a discouraged secular community is starting to emigrate. Nehemia Shtrasler, a business and political columnist for the Haaretz newspaper, wrote this summer that the country is risking destruction. We will survive the conflict with the Palestinians and even the nuclear threats from Iran, he wrote. But the increasing rupture between the secular and ultra-Orthodox communities in Israel will be the end of us. Mr. Shtrasler said: It's a struggle between two contradictory worldviews that cannot exist side by side. Will Israel adhere to its founding secular values or will it become a theocratic Jewish state? Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu has been toiling for decades to make Israel a Halachic state (one that adheres to Jewish religious law). The former chief Sephardi rabbi (from 1983 to 1993) was one of five men who founded the Brit Hakanaim the Covenant of Zealots an underground organization of the early 1950s that attacked non-kosher butcher shops and torched cars that were driven on the Sabbath. Rabbi Eliyahu was imprisoned for 10 months after an apparent plot to attack the Knesset was uncovered. He said at his trial that Israel was turning against God's will when it proposed a law to draft women into the military. Their place is in the home, he insisted, and still insists. He was the spiritual adviser to Meir Kahane, founder of the racist Kach Party that was banned from the Knesset, and later outlawed completely when one of its members murdered 29 Muslims at prayer in Hebron in 1994. He has long urged the release from prison of Yigal Amir, who assassinated Yitzhak Rabin in 1995. Rabbi Eliyahu had his greatest impact as spiritual leader of Israel's National Religious Party. He believed that the line separating the Orthodox from the Haredim was artificial and that many Haredim could be brought into the nationalist camp. The rabbi has an exclusive view of who really is a Jew, having denounced Reform and Conservative synagogues as reeking of hell. And he has often said that democracy has no place in Judaism. SURPRISING MERGER Rabbi Eliyahu and his followers have succeeded in tying the knot between Haredim and religious nationalists. There is even a new name for the new group, the Hardal, derived from Haredim and Mafdal (the acronym for the National Religious Party). While the NRP has disappeared, the ideas and the name have grown. The powerful Shas Party, of Sephardi and Haredi disciples, is the best example. Together, the Hardal are 20 per cent of the Jewish population, says Nachman Ben Yehuda, a sociologist at Hebrew University whose book on the Haredim, Theocratic Democracy , is to be published next year. Such a merger is quite a feat, considering the anti-Zionist origins of the Haredim. During the age of enlightenment in the 18th century, the first Haredi communities took shape, as an attempt to maintain distinctive Jewish communities when many Jews were being lured into liberal European culture.
Re: [FairfieldLife] TM-induced psychosis
On Sep 27, 2009, at 1:59 PM, Rick Archer wrote: NOT to work on the emotional level, but ONLY medications So it's difficult to tell what exactly you're advocating Joerg. It sounds like you may be suggesting work on the so-called emotional body. This was once a big trend in TMers and sidhas. The theory was that TM was a dry meditation technique that transcended the emotional body and thus left a lot of unresolved material in this supposed emotional body. Plus the TM Org had a strong dogma against mood-making which further caused people to repress emotion, out of fear of being seen as off-the-program or, well, mood-makers. So for a time this was a big deal. People were going and getting their emotional bodies cleared. They had all sorts of breakthrough, cathartic experiences. Many felt it helped them. Of course the danger was that you could become an flat, unemotional, dry zombie of a person--and that at any time this held-back emotion could decide to break through, causing a break down. IIRC correctly, the techniques seemed to be a combination of rebirthing and massage. But I could be confusing this with some other trend sidhas were getting into in the late 80's. Is this something similar to what you are advocating?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can a movie be a good film or even a great film and not be Art?
Martin Scorcese took a lot of flack when he made Casino because it was, virtually, a template of Goodfellas, even duplicating the Joe Pesci character essentially. Well, that's true. But if the formula is a good one and the director is so damn good at making the formula, I say he should make hundreds that way! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: I had been thinking about this before the subject arose with Dollhouse, so I'll rap about it a bit more. Call me elitist, but I think that there is a difference between good movies (or even great movies) and those films I would call Art. Yes, this is pure opinion on my part, and as such purely subjective, but I have my reasons for drawing such a distinction. It has to do with formulas and templates. *Dan Brown* writes using formulas and templates. He even *taught* writing. And he makes a gazillion dollars writing stuff that people think is good. Some probably think it's great. But I doubt that anyone considers it Art. A *great deal* of filmmaking and television is is based on templates. Three acts. X happens in Act One, Y happens in Act Two, and Z happens in Act Three. Boy meets girl, boy and girl fall in love, boy loses girl, boy finds girl again and everybody lives happily ever after. Stranger rides into River City and finds Trouble with a capital T there, so the stranger kicks ass, cleans up all the loose karma, and rides off into the sunset. Someone can make a good movie -- or even a great movie -- by following templates. Case in point: Sergio Leone. His schooling as a filmmaker was to watch the films of the masters of his era. He then stole from each of them and put them together into movies of his own, some of which can be truly called great. But were they Art? I don't know. I'm just speculating and expressing personal preference here. But my feeling is that the thing that turns a great movie into Art is *breaking* the templates and fucking with them, not following them. Case in point: Quentin Tarantino. Nothing could *be* more formulaic and template-driven than the tale of a bunch of misfit soldiers who form into an elite band of warriors and do noble things. I mean, we're talkin' The Wild Bunch, or The Dirty Dozen, or even Seven Samurai. The whole idea just *reeks* of cliches. But somehow Inglorious Basterds wasn't a cliche. It took all of the formulas and all of the templates and paid homage to them, but them *twisted* them and fucked with them as much as possible. Maybe it's because I'm more than a little twisted myself, but I like that. :-) Once Upon A Time In The West might be a great movie, but I don't think it's Art. Inglorious Basterds, on the other hand, just may be Art.
[FairfieldLife] FlashForward: the series
I would like to second Turq's recommendation to watch the series. The first episode was an interesting stake-out of the possibilities for seeing and/or changing the future. It is on ABC. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: LOTs of good plot material here, if it's done right. The actors seem competent, the writing seems pretty good, and the potential is there to create a very interesting scifi series. Hope they do. I'll be watching. Damnit.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The FFL Posting Limit Get Out Of Jail Free Card (Was: Post Count)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: Bhairitu wrote: Just say the free week expires with the six-month period. No rollover... Screw you and your silly TMO rules. I can go to Usenet and post anything I want to as many times as I want to. snip Please, would you mind posting non-stop on Usenet ?
[FairfieldLife] Guru Dev [photo]- The physical body and the subtle body
- Guru Dev - Shankaracharya Swami Brahmananda Saraswati The senses and the body work only in accordance with man's mind. For this reason it is a necessity to take care of the mind. In man's life the sthula sharir (gross body) is not the most important, the sukshma sharir (subtle body) is more important. The gross body is merely the frame, managing it is the subtle body, the mind and intelligence. The senses and the body work only in accordance with man's mind. For this reason it is a necessity to take care of the mind. To make the mind pure, the author of the Yoga-Shastra has instructed this method:- `You should keep in mind these four conditions, maitri (friendship), karuna (compassion), mudita (delight) upeksha (indifference).' [Yogadarshanam 1:33] A feeling of friendship amongst those people equal to oneself and a feeling of compassion for subordinates or those people that are sick. With those who are more happy, more wise or more learned, or surpass you to some degree, make sure you look at them with a feeling of happiness. And with those who have a feeling of malice and hostility with you, apply an attitude of indifference, so that you will not copy this feeling of enmity and hatred. In this manner, by keeping in mind these four vrittiyon (mental conditions, of friendship, compassion, delight indifference), then envy, malice and jealousy etc. will not arise in the mind and the mind's innate spirituality grows. By so doing, no obstruction appears in everyday affairs and with the disappearance of mental filth the instinctive longing for sensual experiences becomes less and on this account the mind becomes opened inside, praising and worshipping Bhagwan. [Shri Shankaracharya UpadeshAmrita kaNa 34 of 108] http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/UA_Hindi.htm#kaNa_34 translation Paul Mason © 2007, 2009 http://www.paulmason.info/paulmason/contactdetails.htm http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/upadesh.htm#kaNa34 http://www.paulmason.info/paulmason/contactdetails.htm http://www.paulmason.info/paulmason/contactdetails.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can a movie be a good film or even a great film and not be Art?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: Some of the great composers took their melodies from bar songs of the day. Some so bawdy they wouldn't publish them for us to read in college music history. ;-) Early Renaissance composers took the melody of a bawdy song and made it the cantus firmus of their sacred choral pieces, extending each note of the melody over several bars in one voice--often the bass--with elaborate polyphony in the other voices. All in Latin, of course. Also, The Star-Spangled Banner was originally an English drinking song called To Anacreon from Heaven. You can tell it was a drinking song if you sing the tune of the anthem fast, emphasizing the three-quarter time and visualizing people holding up their glasses and swinging them back and forth in rhythm.
Re: [FairfieldLife] FlashForward: the series
Actually I mentioned the series back on the 22nd in my post about the Heroes season premiere and pointed to the abc.com web site where the first 17 minutes of the show could be previewed. They certainly put on a show for 17 minutes but I got concerned about it sounding like just another video game set to TV. One where you spend five seasons (what the producers have mapped out) to find who and why dunnit. For me that gets a little tiresome. We'll see if they can make it worth the viewer's time. Apparently the series does not follow the book other than concept so the reason given in the book may not be the same. emptybill wrote: I would like to second Turq's recommendation to watch the series. The first episode was an interesting stake-out of the possibilities for seeing and/or changing the future. It is on ABC. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: LOTs of good plot material here, if it's done right. The actors seem competent, the writing seems pretty good, and the potential is there to create a very interesting scifi series. Hope they do. I'll be watching. Damnit.
[FairfieldLife] Post Count
Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): Sat Sep 26 00:00:00 2009 End Date (UTC): Sat Oct 03 00:00:00 2009 100 messages as of (UTC) Mon Sep 28 00:11:40 2009 18 TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com 13 Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net 11 do.rflex do.rf...@yahoo.com 10 WillyTex willy...@yahoo.com 7 Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net 6 authfriend jst...@panix.com 5 Rick Archer r...@searchsummit.com 3 raunchydog raunchy...@yahoo.com 3 cardemaister no_re...@yahoogroups.com 3 ShempMcGurk shempmcg...@netscape.net 3 Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com 2 yifuxero yifux...@yahoo.com 2 nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 2 lurkernomore20002000 steve.sun...@sbcglobal.net 2 dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony...@yahoo.com 2 anatol_zinc anatol_z...@yahoo.com 2 Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@lisco.com 1 michael vedamer...@yahoo.de 1 mainstream20016 mainstream20...@yahoo.com 1 emptybill emptyb...@yahoo.com 1 Premanand premanandp...@yahoo.co.uk 1 Michael Dean Goodman tan...@cheerful.com 1 It's just a ride bill.hicks.all.a.r...@gmail.com Posters: 23 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: Ramesh S. Balsekar May 25, 1917 - September 27, 2009
Balsekar made statements most Westerners cannot accept, such as everything that happens is the the will of Ishvara. If you accept the declaration that the three gunas interact among themselves and that there is no doer then we must accept the logic of his assertion. If you declare that Ishvara/Ishvari (the cosmic ruler and lord of the gunas) is the sole doer then the same conclusion applies. Read it and weep. ** Balsekar: (...)Chapter 4: God's Will and Man's Free Will. My experience has been that most visitors are able to accept the concept of God's will prevailing most of the time because they not only see the logic of it but, more importantly, they experience a feeling of tremendous relief and freedom: freedom from guilt and responsibility. But the problem arises because the concept of personal doership and the corresponding responsibility for their actions is so deeply ingrained that they feel that the spirit of relief and freedom which they have felt may not be practical. What the problem boils down to is this: 'Thy will be done is a very fine concept, but I have to live my life in a society which in practice does not accept this concept and holds me responsible for my actions. How do I live my life? What do I do every moment that I have to make a decision?' This is a very valid argument. My answer to this problem is simple: do whatever you feel like doing; do whatever you think you should do according to your own standards of what is right and wrong. In other words, you have the free will to do whatever you choose to decide. Having decided to do whatever you choose to do, thereafter what is your own personal experience? Have all your decisions turned into actual actions? Supposing some of your decisions have indeed turned into actions, have all those actions always produced the results that you have anticipated and for which you have held yourself responsible? The answer is obvious: some of your decisions have turned into actions, some have not; some of your actions have produced the anticipated results, some have not; indeed quite a few of 'your' actions have produced results quite contrary to your expectations. Therefore, it is your own experience that your free will extends merely to making a decision. What happens thereafter is, from your own experience, not in your control because various other factors come into play over which you have no control. Now, let us investigate the supposed free will you have to make a decision. What is 'your' decision based on? If you investigate this point you will find out that you always base your decision on your 'programming', i.e. the genes or DNA and your conditioning which includes your education and practical experience, over which you truly have had no control. Recent research has brought out the fact that many of your actions - both good and bad, positive and negative - can be traced to your genes. So consider for yourself: how genuine is my 'free will'?! (...) (...) The final question that remains at this stage is: How does one acquire this total unconditional acceptance that all action is a divine happening and not the action of any individual person? The obvious answer is that no one can acquire or achieve this kind of acceptance about God's Will unless that itself is God's will! But one can take considerable solace from the fact that seeking this peace of mind has already happened in one's case through God's grace and it is truly God's responsibility to further promote the process. In the words of Ramana Maharshi, 'Your head is already in the tiger's mouth, and there is no escape.' But, as has been said before, this fact that nothing can happen unless it is God's will does not prevent you from doing whatever you think you should do. You do have that apparent free will. The only spiritual practice I usually recommend for the intellectual acceptance to go deeper into its finality is to experience the truth of this concept from personal experience. The ego may accept this concept of God's will intellectually, but the acceptance cannot reach the stage of finality unless the ego finds from its own investigation of its own personal experience that this concept is the truth as far as he or she is concerned. If only one thinks of one's own past experience, one is bound to come to the conclusion that all of the more significant events in one's life were not one's own actions, but happenings over which one had hardly any control and which were the result of circumstances over which one had no control. But that is not enough to convert the concept into actual fact. This must be proved from personal experience from day to day. There must be an honest and thorough investigation into what you think are 'your' actions from day to day. This investigation is really one step further from Ramana Maharshi's famous 'Who am I?'. This investigation that I suggest is
[FairfieldLife] Interesting Polanski debate....
...going on at HuffingtonPost. There's actually three different articles/commentaries with accompanying comments but here's one: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-farr/leniency-for-polanski_b_301269.html As you may have heard, the Swiss arrested Roman Polanski on a warrant to be extradicted to the States for the drugging and rape of a 13-year-old back in the '70s, from which Polanski fleed prosecution.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ramesh S. Balsekar May 25, 1917 - September 27, 2009
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptyb...@... wrote: Balsekar made statements most Westerners cannot accept, such as everything that happens is the the will of Ishvara. If you accept the declaration that the three gunas interact among themselves and that there is no doer then we must accept the logic of his assertion. If you declare that Ishvara/Ishvari (the cosmic ruler and lord of the gunas) is the sole doer then the same conclusion applies. Read it and weep. Fortunately, with our free will, we can believe it or not. ** Balsekar: (...)Chapter 4: God's Will and Man's Free Will. My experience has been that most visitors are able to accept the concept of God's will prevailing most of the time because they not only see the logic of it but, more importantly, they experience a feeling of tremendous relief and freedom: freedom from guilt and responsibility. But the problem arises because the concept of personal doership and the corresponding responsibility for their actions is so deeply ingrained that they feel that the spirit of relief and freedom which they have felt may not be practical. What the problem boils down to is this: 'Thy will be done is a very fine concept, but I have to live my life in a society which in practice does not accept this concept and holds me responsible for my actions. How do I live my life? What do I do every moment that I have to make a decision?' This is a very valid argument. My answer to this problem is simple: do whatever you feel like doing; do whatever you think you should do according to your own standards of what is right and wrong. In other words, you have the free will to do whatever you choose to decide. Having decided to do whatever you choose to do, thereafter what is your own personal experience? Have all your decisions turned into actual actions? Supposing some of your decisions have indeed turned into actions, have all those actions always produced the results that you have anticipated and for which you have held yourself responsible? The answer is obvious: some of your decisions have turned into actions, some have not; some of your actions have produced the anticipated results, some have not; indeed quite a few of 'your' actions have produced results quite contrary to your expectations. Therefore, it is your own experience that your free will extends merely to making a decision. What happens thereafter is, from your own experience, not in your control because various other factors come into play over which you have no control. Now, let us investigate the supposed free will you have to make a decision. What is 'your' decision based on? If you investigate this point you will find out that you always base your decision on your 'programming', i.e. the genes or DNA and your conditioning which includes your education and practical experience, over which you truly have had no control. Recent research has brought out the fact that many of your actions - both good and bad, positive and negative - can be traced to your genes. So consider for yourself: how genuine is my 'free will'?! (...) (...) The final question that remains at this stage is: How does one acquire this total unconditional acceptance that all action is a divine happening and not the action of any individual person? The obvious answer is that no one can acquire or achieve this kind of acceptance about God's Will unless that itself is God's will! But one can take considerable solace from the fact that seeking this peace of mind has already happened in one's case through God's grace and it is truly God's responsibility to further promote the process. In the words of Ramana Maharshi, 'Your head is already in the tiger's mouth, and there is no escape.' But, as has been said before, this fact that nothing can happen unless it is God's will does not prevent you from doing whatever you think you should do. You do have that apparent free will. The only spiritual practice I usually recommend for the intellectual acceptance to go deeper into its finality is to experience the truth of this concept from personal experience. The ego may accept this concept of God's will intellectually, but the acceptance cannot reach the stage of finality unless the ego finds from its own investigation of its own personal experience that this concept is the truth as far as he or she is concerned. If only one thinks of one's own past experience, one is bound to come to the conclusion that all of the more significant events in one's life were not one's own actions, but happenings over which one had hardly any control and which were the result of circumstances over which one had no control. But that is not enough to convert the concept into actual fact. This must be proved from personal experience from day to day. There must be
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ramesh S. Balsekar May 25, 1917 - September 27, 2009
-Right, having elements in common with other Neo-Advaitins, many of his statements are circular tautologies and contain no meaningful information other than such nonsensical platitudes as What will be, will be. He was another of the techniqueless Gurus. His teacher was Nisargadatta Maharaj, a favorite of Jerry J's. R- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptyb...@... wrote: Balsekar made statements most Westerners cannot accept, such as everything that happens is the the will of Ishvara. If you accept the declaration that the three gunas interact among themselves and that there is no doer then we must accept the logic of his assertion. If you declare that Ishvara/Ishvari (the cosmic ruler and lord of the gunas) is the sole doer then the same conclusion applies. Read it and weep. ** Balsekar: (...)Chapter 4: God's Will and Man's Free Will. My experience has been that most visitors are able to accept the concept of God's will prevailing most of the time because they not only see the logic of it but, more importantly, they experience a feeling of tremendous relief and freedom: freedom from guilt and responsibility. But the problem arises because the concept of personal doership and the corresponding responsibility for their actions is so deeply ingrained that they feel that the spirit of relief and freedom which they have felt may not be practical. What the problem boils down to is this: 'Thy will be done is a very fine concept, but I have to live my life in a society which in practice does not accept this concept and holds me responsible for my actions. How do I live my life? What do I do every moment that I have to make a decision?' This is a very valid argument. My answer to this problem is simple: do whatever you feel like doing; do whatever you think you should do according to your own standards of what is right and wrong. In other words, you have the free will to do whatever you choose to decide. Having decided to do whatever you choose to do, thereafter what is your own personal experience? Have all your decisions turned into actual actions? Supposing some of your decisions have indeed turned into actions, have all those actions always produced the results that you have anticipated and for which you have held yourself responsible? The answer is obvious: some of your decisions have turned into actions, some have not; some of your actions have produced the anticipated results, some have not; indeed quite a few of 'your' actions have produced results quite contrary to your expectations. Therefore, it is your own experience that your free will extends merely to making a decision. What happens thereafter is, from your own experience, not in your control because various other factors come into play over which you have no control. Now, let us investigate the supposed free will you have to make a decision. What is 'your' decision based on? If you investigate this point you will find out that you always base your decision on your 'programming', i.e. the genes or DNA and your conditioning which includes your education and practical experience, over which you truly have had no control. Recent research has brought out the fact that many of your actions - both good and bad, positive and negative - can be traced to your genes. So consider for yourself: how genuine is my 'free will'?! (...) (...) The final question that remains at this stage is: How does one acquire this total unconditional acceptance that all action is a divine happening and not the action of any individual person? The obvious answer is that no one can acquire or achieve this kind of acceptance about God's Will unless that itself is God's will! But one can take considerable solace from the fact that seeking this peace of mind has already happened in one's case through God's grace and it is truly God's responsibility to further promote the process. In the words of Ramana Maharshi, 'Your head is already in the tiger's mouth, and there is no escape.' But, as has been said before, this fact that nothing can happen unless it is God's will does not prevent you from doing whatever you think you should do. You do have that apparent free will. The only spiritual practice I usually recommend for the intellectual acceptance to go deeper into its finality is to experience the truth of this concept from personal experience. The ego may accept this concept of God's will intellectually, but the acceptance cannot reach the stage of finality unless the ego finds from its own investigation of its own personal experience that this concept is the truth as far as he or she is concerned. If only one thinks of one's own past experience, one is bound to come to the conclusion that all of the more significant events in one's life were not one's own actions, but happenings
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi speaks on Karma (1962)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anatol_zinc anatol_z...@... wrote: excellent talk by Maharishi given in 1962, but here is my comment 2009: it is hard to follow Maharishi's advice( last few paragraphs ) during these extremely difficult times ; and it seems it was hard for Maharishi to follow his own advice; this was given in 1962, so for a few decades, he did really well focusing only on positivity, it seemed to me, but then he started to call President Bush a rakshasa( a demon ); so these are truly difficult times for everyone but the advice Maharishi gave is still excellent and wise to try ones best That to which one gives one's attention grows stronger in one's life, therefore, speaking ill of someone makes the influence of evil stronger in one's life, which retards evolution. Maharishi's advice about speaking well of others (found throughout the Vedic literature: http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=10806621169topic=7189 )is only an aid to the ignorant -- for an ignorant person, it's dangerous to spiritual growth to speak ill of others, because it necessitates bringing in that impurity from others and situating it in one's brain, in order to speak ill of others. But for MMY and other enlightened people, there is no danger of their minds becoming contaminated, since they are stationed in total awareness that cannot be contaminated or overcome by anything, so there is no need to avoid speaking ill of others because of a concern about impeding spiritual growth for themselves. What enlightened people say is just the voice of nature responding to the needs of the time -- the earth is terribly burdened now by wrongdoing, and MMY's harsh criticism is just the cry of nature to stop mucking things up. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From an audio (No 8) recorded in Hochgurgel in 1962 (Thanks to Jörg Schenk) Maharishi speaks about Karma Some selected points: Maharishi: Who is the doer (of the Karma)? The doer is the ego, the mind. Although the senses perform the action, but the senses are not the doer. The doer is the thinker within. So the thinker, as long as it is associated with the body, it is associated with the body. But the doer is that thinker, that subtle body, that Jiva. If he casts away this body, goes to the other body, he will be caught by that action in the other body. Body doesn't matter. What matters is the doer and what he has done As I was saying, the vibrations (of the Karma) return from the wall, from the sun, from millions of miles. There are galaxies in the world from where the light takes millions of years to reach the earth. When the vibrations reach so far and strike against that and then will be rebound and come back, millions of years have passed already. So the effect of the Karma done now is not received all at once. It keeps on being received from time to time, for (?) all eternity. The effect in the vicinity of the doer is maximum, but the effect is created throughout the universe, whatever little effect at far distances, but it is created and all this effect has to come back Every second that we are producing some Karma, we are storing the fruit of that Karma to be born for millions of years Thoughts are the seed of Karma, very powerful seed. The seed in its seed status is very potent. If you have thoughts of injuring a man, you have injured the whole creation, already injured in the subtle state Future after death depends on what a man has done throughout life. But the next goal, where he will be born, mainly depends on the desire at the time of death, the desire at the time of death Question: Is there a difference of a bad Karma done intentionally or unintentionally? Maharishi: Intentionally, because his attention was there, then the effect will be more intensive. But the effect will be on the same line Question: If I have a bad son and have to beat him, is this bad Karma? Maharishi: It is the Karma of the son that brings him beating and it is the Karma of the father that makes him sorry If I do some sin and in this room there is no one, I think nobody has seen it. But it has been exposed to the whole universe. Everyone in the universe knows it. And somehow that will be delivered to us back by all the agencies in the universe, knowing or unknowing. You can't stop the evolution. If you commit sin in the room, then you are creating sinful vibrations. And sinful vibrations means, wherever they go they damage the evolution of that thing. Someone speaks ill of the other and plans damaging him, very underknees plan, nothing on the surface, damaging the entire creation by his mischief. Because the agency of thought is just vibration. That is why scriptures forbid us speaking ill of others, or
