[FairfieldLife] Re: George Dubya Bush in a Dream

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> >
> > In my dream, I submitted a short paper to Bush about my analysis 
> > of a small town called Sausalito in California.  He read it and 
> > appeared to approve the contents of the report.  But he soon 
> > rewrote the paper to include his own thoughts using words that 
> > came from prior reports, using typical government phrases and 
> > presentation. In the end, the report became a thick analysis of 
> > what was supposed to be an informal paper.
> > 
> > I then found out that he actually had bought a piece of land 
> > several miles north of the town. He was farming the land for 
> > his own interest.
> > 
> > This is an interesting dream in that I'm not a registered 
> > Republican nor have I voted for him when he was running for 
> > president.
> > 
> > Does anyone know what the symbolism of this dream means?
> 
> You clearly have unresolved sexual issues with 
> George W. Bush. The "paper" being "rewritten" by
> Bush echoes similar issues expressed often by 
> THE CORRECTOR on this forum, who seems to believe
> as you do that anyone having a different opinion
> of one of your opuses than you do is a not only
> "attacking" you, but also making a veiled comment 
> on the diminutive stature of your penis. (This fear, 
> as far as I can tell, is shared equally by you and 
> THE CORRECTOR.) 
> 
> Bush wishing to turn your deep, spiritual insights 
> into cold, hard profit reveals your latent fear
> and distrust of Maharishi. Long suppressed, this
> fear cannot come out overtly because of decades of
> cult conditioning, and must be expressed covertly 
> by picking some other public figure who lacked any 
> sense of ethics and would do anything for a buck.
> 
> "Buying up land near to the town you like" is just
> as clearly a veiled desire to have either Maharishi
> or Bush cozy up next to you and fondle your buttocks. 
> Just sayin'.
> 
> Hey...you asked.  :-)
>

Barry, as usual, you continue to follow your modus operendi.  It appears that 
your analysis reflect your own state of consciousness.  Let's leave it at that 
for the time being.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Swami Nithyananda Sex Scandal (Watch Video) | India

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
> 
> > > > "When Man ceases to worship God he does not worship
> > > > nothing but worships everything".
> > > 
> > > What a fantastic quote!
> 
> FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote: 
> > You do realize the quote is not recommending that one
> > stop worshiping God, but rather the opposite, right?--- In 
> 
> I didn't have any context for the intention of the author
> but found it fit my experience of dropping theism pretty
> well. I guess I had it all wrong. Doing a bit of research
> and finding this version: "The first effect of not believing
> in God is to believe in anything."

Although the sentiment is Chesterton's, the various versions
of the quotation seem to have been derived from someone
else's paraphrase of the sentiment, which Chesterton had
expressed quite differently.

> I disagree with this statement and will have to do a bit
> more digging to see what was meant.  I don't see how
> seeing God as a man made myth makes you more gullible,
> it made me less.
> 
> What I found appealing in my mistaken impression of the
> first quote was that appreciating the world more was one
> of the results of me dropping out of theism.  Life itself
> became holy in a naturalistic sense of the word.

In the Christian sense, the first version would refer to
idolatry, worship of the material world (including science).

The second version, the one you found, is probably closer
to what Chesterton had in mind that the quote was
paraphrasing, exemplified in New Age-type beliefs (including,
for some who had already dropped out of theism, TM).




> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In this day and age why would anyone follow a guru? 
> > > > Enlightenment? Liberation? Burn Karma? Not likely folks,
> > > > wake up and smell the chai
> > > > 
> > > > To quote the great GK Chesterton-
> > > > 
> > > > "When Man ceases to worship God he does not worship
> > > > nothing but worships everything".
> > > 
> > > What a fantastic quote!
> > 
> > You do realize the quote is not recommending that one
> > stop worshiping God, but rather the opposite, right?
> > 
> > (Also, it's not actually from Chesterton, but that's 
> > another story.)
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Swami Nithyananda Sex Scandal (Watch Video) | India

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge  wrote:
>
> He rocks because he's wise, something that's very refreshing
> around here. Maybe he represents an adult level of Christianity
> that is rarely seen or reported, only Sunday school jibberish
> that seems to resonant with the the cultural creatives who
> couldn't be bothered by all matters serious or again dare I say 
> Adult.

I don't think most nonreligious people have a clue how
profound Christianity can be. I gave it a try for several
years at one point, and while it didn't really work for 
me, I ended up with a tremendous respect for it, at least
the liberal social-justice version I was exposed to. And
it wasn't just the "works" part; that was pretty
impressive, but the *theology* was vastly more thoughtful
and demanding than I had realized.

Although Chesterton isn't actually responsible for the
quote you posted, he made another weighty observation:
"Christianity hasn't been tried and found wanting, it's
been tried and found difficult."

[FairfieldLife] Re: Swami Nithyananda Sex Scandal (Watch Video) | India

[curtisdeltablues]

> > > "When Man ceases to worship God he does not worship
> > > nothing but worships everything".
> > 
> > What a fantastic quote!
>

FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote: 
> You do realize the quote is not recommending that one
> stop worshiping God, but rather the opposite, right?--- In 

I didn't have any context for the intention of the author but found it fit my 
experience of dropping theism pretty well. I guess I had it all wrong. Doing a 
bit of research and finding this version: "The first effect of not believing in 
God is to believe in anything."

I disagree with this statement and will have to do a bit more digging to see 
what was meant.  I don't see how seeing God as a man made myth makes you more 
gullible, it made me less.

What I found appealing in my mistaken impression of the first quote was that 
appreciating the world more was one of the results of me dropping out of 
theism.  Life itself became holy in a naturalistic sense of the word.





>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge  wrote:
> > >
> > > In this day and age why would anyone follow a guru? 
> > > Enlightenment? Liberation? Burn Karma? Not likely folks,
> > > wake up and smell the chai
> > > 
> > > To quote the great GK Chesterton-
> > > 
> > > "When Man ceases to worship God he does not worship
> > > nothing but worships everything".
> > 
> > What a fantastic quote!
> 
> You do realize the quote is not recommending that one
> stop worshiping God, but rather the opposite, right?
> 
> (Also, it's not actually from Chesterton, but that's 
> another story.)
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: George Dubya Bush in a Dream

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> In my dream, I submitted a short paper to Bush about my
> analysis of a small town called Sausalito in California.  
> He read it and appeared to approve the contents of the 
> report.  But he soon rewrote the paper to include his own 
> thoughts using words that came from prior reports, using 
> typical government phrases and presentation.  In the end, 
> the report became a thick analysis of what was supposed 
> to be an informal paper.
> 
> I then found out that he actually had bought a piece of 
> land several miles north of the town.  He was farming the 
> land for his own interest.
> 
> This is an interesting dream in that I'm not a registered 
> Republican nor have I voted for him when he was running 
> for president.
> 
> Does anyone know what the symbolism of this dream means?

Going with the often-cited principle that any character
in a dream (other than a member of your immediate family
or a very close friend) represents an aspect of yourself,
is there anything about yourself that you can see in the
Bush character in your dream? (Not necessarily Bush as
he was as president, but as he was in your dream.)

Is there any relatively minor event or situation or
scenario or project in your life that you've inflated or
padded or made more of than was really warranted (to 
others, or just in your own mind), in a way that
furthered your self-interest or self-regard?

Try to abstract what went on in the dream; state the
events of the dream as nonspecifically as possible (as
I've taken a stab at above). Then see if they fit
anything going on in your life.

Also, are there any associations you can come up with
to Sausalito--either the actual town, or its name as a
sequence of sounds? The word "sauce" comes to my mind,
but I don't know if that would have any resonance for
you.

Were there any prominent objects in the dream, or
prominent features of the setting? Often the mind uses
the words for such objects or features as puns to give
you clues as to what the dream is about.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Swami Nithyananda Sex Scandal (Watch Video) | India

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge  wrote:
> >
> > In this day and age why would anyone follow a guru? 
> > Enlightenment? Liberation? Burn Karma? Not likely folks,
> > wake up and smell the chai
> > 
> > To quote the great GK Chesterton-
> > 
> > "When Man ceases to worship God he does not worship
> > nothing but worships everything".
> 
> What a fantastic quote!

You do realize the quote is not recommending that one
stop worshiping God, but rather the opposite, right?

(Also, it's not actually from Chesterton, but that's 
another story.)

[FairfieldLife] This is what I've been saying all along

[ShempMcGurk]

For those who think that we don't already have socialized medicine in
the United States, think again.

We already have humungous spending by government in the healthcare
field...and this article confirms it. Half of every healthcare dollar
spent in the United States is by the government.

From: http://www.slate.com/id/2247393/

What "Government Takeover"?The bogus Republican claim that Obamacare is
a government takeover of one-sixth of the economy.
By Daniel GrossPosted Tuesday, March 9, 2010, at 5:37 PM ET

There have been lots of absurdities in the debate—such as it
is—about health care reform. There's the hypocrisy
  of people dependent on
government-run health care complaining about government-run health care.
And now comes the Republican canard that the current health care reform
proposal constitutes a government takeover of one-sixth of the economy.
Here are Rep. Steve Buyer

of Indiana, Rep. John Fleming
  of Louisiana, and Sen. Jim DeMint
  of South Carolina making
precisely that argument.
First, the proposed health care reform does not take over the system in
any sense. Much to the chagrin of progressives, the bills under
consideration don't contain a public option and don't provide for a
single payer. In fact, they provide subsidies for millions of people to
purchase private insurance.
Second, such statements reveal how pathetically little many of our
policymakers and pundits understand American health care spending. We're
already halfway toward socialized medicine, but not because of
Obamacare. (Here's a column I wrote about this in December 2006
 .)
Over the last couple of decades, as the private sector has done a
miserable job controlling costs, as employers have felt less and less
compelled to offer health care benefits as a condition of employment, as
the population has aged, and as the government created new health care
entitlements, the government has been slowly assuming a higher portion
of health care spending in the United States—or "taking it over."

Check out Table 123 in the CDC's big annual report
 . In 1990, health care
expenditures in the United States were split, 60-40, between the private
and public sectors. By 2000, the ratio had fallen to 55.9-44.1. In other
words, in the 1990s, a period in which Republicans controlled the House
for six years, the share of health spending controlled by the government
rose by 10 percent. The trend continued in the period from 2000 to 2008,
when Republicans controlled the White House and largely controlled
Congress. The recession boosted the poverty rate, making more people
eligible for Medicaid, and led to the reduction of millions of payroll
jobs, which led to losses in job-related insurance.* <#Correction>  By
2008, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
 ,
private health care expenditures had fallen to 52.7 percent and public
had risen to 47.3 percent. In pretty much every year of the Bush
administration, the government "took over" a greater chunk of the health
care sector. And many of the Republicans who are complaining about
reform proposals today didn't utter a peep. In fact, they helped the
process along by voting for the Medicare prescription drug benefit in
2003. (Hat tip to Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic for the references
 .)

CMS also notes

that thanks to these trends, public spending will soon outpace private
spending—even in the absence of significant reform. "As a result of
more rapid growth in public spending, the public share of total health
care spending is expected to rise from 47 percent in 2008, exceed 50
percent by 2012, and then reach nearly 52 percent by 2019."

So, to reiterate, we're already half way toward fully socialized
medicine. The government has already taken over one-twelfth of the
economy—and more every day. That's the status quo the opponents of
reform are defending.

Correction, March 10, 2010: The original sentence mistakenly referred to
Medicare instead of Medicaid. (Return <#Return>  to the corrected
sentence.)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama Defies Pessimists as Rising Economy Converges With Stocks

[tartbrain]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
>
> 
> Obama Defies Pessimists as Rising Economy Converges With Stocks
> 
> 
> By Mike Dorning
>   [220]
> March 10 (Bloomberg) -- The political consensus may be that President
> Barack Obama
>  ws&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&ge\
> tfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1> 's handling of the economy has been
> weak. The judgment of money in all its forms has been overwhelmingly
> positive, and that may be the more lasting appraisal.

While it lasts. Until the new asset bubbles burst -- stemming from the sudden 
huge burst of free money banks and the savvy can borrow at near 0 interest and 
buy into the next bubble before it tanks. Already it looks like China is in a 
housing bubble. And if that collapses, the 2008 US housing collapse, and 
shakeout in financial markets, will look like springtime in Paris. And when 
people sober up to the massive debt the bailout and stimulus have created. 

Wall street has blinders on. They did not see or get the housing bubble, or the 
internet bubble. Until they crashed.

And the party will really get going when California, Florida, along with 
Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain etc and choice other nations and states 
default on their debt. US could loose its draw as a save haven, with 2-4 
trillions of dollars being dumped, sinking bond prices and causing interest 
rates  to soar (like above 20%). This will tank both Wall St and the economy. 
And make the obese US debt difficult if impossible to continue to finance -- 
and vastly expanding the deficits and national debt beyond comprehensive -- 
raising the possibility of US default on its debt. With no more borrowing, Govt 
services will tank. Unemployment will hit above 30%, and the underemployment 
rate will break 50%. There will be riots in the streets. 

But pot growers will thrive, selling openly and unhindered as police and NARC 
dollars are decimated. They will buy up cheap choice real estate and becomes 
the landed gentry of the next several decades.

The Crash of 2012. If only Paul Erdman was around to work through and elaborate 
in the details -- with ample does of amongst babes, booze and bongs, weaving in 
and out of the story.

But after that bubble burst heals, things will be very cool.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Pitta and samaadhi?

[tartbrain]

> >
> > But, just because your guru had a mistress doesn't prove
> > that ...

I would tend to choose the guru with the mistress. He/She became fully 
Liberated while bonking their brains out -- and their liberation is stable even 
amongst the bright sun of all out sex. Thus their methods are powerful. 

On the other hand, the teacher that are celibate, and.or request or expect that 
of their students, clearly have weaker methods since you have to give up life 
to get liberated. 100% of life. Wimpy methods for those who shun, or get 
shunned, from celestialistic union.  

I would tend towards the real 200% gurus, not the wimpy ones. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Swami Nithyananda Sex Scandal (Watch Video) | India

[sgrayatlarge]

He rocks because he's wise, something that's very refreshing around here. Maybe 
he represents an adult level of Christianity that is rarely seen or reported, 
only Sunday school jibberish that seems to resonant with the the cultural 
creatives who couldn't be bothered by all matters serious or again dare I say 
Adult.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge  wrote:
> > >
> > > In this day and age why would anyone follow a guru? 
> > > Enlightenment? Liberation? Burn Karma? Not likely folks, 
> > > wake up and smell the chai
> > > 
> > > To quote the great GK Chesterton-
> > > 
> > > "When Man ceases to worship God he does not worship nothing 
> > > but worships everything".
> > 
> > What a fantastic quote!
> 
> G,K. Chesterton rocks! I was first turned on to him by
> Christians on a Bruce Cockburn mailing list (which kinda
> qualifies them as being a bit Not Yer Ordinary Christians).
> One of them used to sign his posts with a .sig file from
> Chesterton, which knocked my socks off the first time I
> read it and does still today:
> 
> "Seriousness is not a virtue."
> 
> Chesterton is FUNNY. How many Christian philosophers can
> you say that about? The man had a level of *mirth* about
> him that made his deep faith in Christ and his teachings
> almost lovable.
>

[FairfieldLife] The myth of 'green' jobs.....

[BillyG]

http://www.youtube.com/user/thedailybeck?blend=3&ob=4#p/u/12/H6IY0UK9O2k

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): Sat Mar 06 00:00:00 2010
End Date (UTC): Sat Mar 13 00:00:00 2010
466 messages as of (UTC) Wed Mar 10 22:49:57 2010

47 nablusoss1008 
45 ShempMcGurk 
40 authfriend 
38 WillyTex 
34 TurquoiseB 
28 off_world_beings 
26 Vaj 
24 lurkernomore20002000 
23 curtisdeltablues 
20 Bhairitu 
18 tartbrain 
18 Buck 
16 "do.rflex" 
 9 merudanda 
 8 Mike Dixon 
 7 Rick Archer 
 7 It's just a ride 
 7 AnkhAton 
 6 metoostill 
 6 cardemaister 
 6 Alex Stanley 
 4 sgrayatlarge 
 4 scienceofabundance 
 4 Sal Sunshine 
 4 John 
 3 Joe 
 2 uns_tressor 
 2 Dick Mays 
 1 shukra69 
 1 merlin 
 1 mainstream20016 
 1 fillosofree 
 1 azgrey 
 1 Zoran Krneta 
 1 Pamela Paradowski 
 1 PaliGap 
 1 Duveyoung 
 1 BillyG 

Posters: 38
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] And the lucky country is El Salvidore

[It's just a ride]

Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:28:52 +
Subject: Good TM News From South America
From: john4bu...@gmail.com

Good TM News From South America

In Mexico, Sidhi instruction continues in the schools, and corporate
projects are beginning. In Guatemala the project to instruct the prison
population is going ahead and now the department of education has requested
TM for all the schools. *The department of education of El Salvador has also
requested TM for the 1.1 million students of the private and public schools,
and the first schools are now beginning.*

Paraguay is in the same position. Dr Julio Pereira is developing the project
in his city as a model neighbourhood with two schools, Maharishi Tower of
Invincibility, and groups of yogic flyers for invincibility of Argentina –
this is creating wide interest amongst the other mayors of Latin America.

In Ecuador, the project for national invincibility is being expanded with
500 students, and invincibility programmes are starting this week in
Nicaragua, Guyana and Colombia.

Brazil is planning the implementation of TM in the schools of Rio, and
Venezuela is finishing the last preparations to construct the Maharishi
Tower of Invincibility.
 --
Handle every stressful situation like a dog. If can't eat or hump it, piss
on it and walk away.

[FairfieldLife] Maharishi: The immense value of being on a long-rounding program

[Dick Mays]

Poster in the Maharishi Patanjali Golden Dome
March 8-10, 2010






Speaking to a rounding course, Maharishi emphasized the immense value 
of being on a long rounding program.


"It's such a great opportunity.  It's such a great opportunity to 
start living this knowledge.  That is why I'm emphasizing every day:  
Be with the routine.  Be with the routine.  Every moment is so 
precious.  One would not know at what moment what big block can slide 
away, and leave one absolutely free.  One would not know.  There is 
no way to know that this is the last stroke and it's going to finish 
next moment.


"It's not necessary to linger on.  Any time it could just flash, and 
done with it.  Finished.|"


Maharishi, 1971

Maharishi ended this lecture by saying:

"Nothing would distract us from one-pointedness of our daily 
routine.  And then we'll see how bright we come out.  Very great.  
Absolutely very, very precious; most fortunate.  And great, in every 
way."<>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Swami Nithyananda Sex Scandal (Watch Video) | India

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge  wrote:
> >
> > In this day and age why would anyone follow a guru? 
> > Enlightenment? Liberation? Burn Karma? Not likely folks, 
> > wake up and smell the chai
> > 
> > To quote the great GK Chesterton-
> > 
> > "When Man ceases to worship God he does not worship nothing 
> > but worships everything".
> 
> What a fantastic quote!

G,K. Chesterton rocks! I was first turned on to him by
Christians on a Bruce Cockburn mailing list (which kinda
qualifies them as being a bit Not Yer Ordinary Christians).
One of them used to sign his posts with a .sig file from
Chesterton, which knocked my socks off the first time I
read it and does still today:

"Seriousness is not a virtue."

Chesterton is FUNNY. How many Christian philosophers can
you say that about? The man had a level of *mirth* about
him that made his deep faith in Christ and his teachings
almost lovable. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Swami Nithyananda Sex Scandal (Watch Video) | India

[sgrayatlarge]

Yes Curtis, how about everyone in the west to grow up, start acting like 
adults, stop wearing the loin cloth diapers, stupid beads, amulets that protect 
you from nothing,chant childish love songs to false gods, stop worshipping 
rocks and mountains, the ganges is a polluted stream of water that needs 
western recusitation and pollution controls. I have nothing against Indians 
practising Hinduism, but when soon to be medicared baby boomers who haven't 
grown up spend 40 years and think they know something, well it comes across as 
frankly silly.

I know, I've been there and realized that I was going nowhere, it's a cycle 
where you end up in the same place. You think you have really grown spiritually 
after 40 years?  If you want to meditate to reduce stress, fine, but don't try 
to make it more that what it is. The movement and all this raja garbage started 
to believe in their own bullshit and now look what happens. I'm embarassed to 
have the same birthday as Beven. 

But on the other hand, Fairfield Life does bring me great amusement, so it's a 
free country, do what you like, at least at this time, things may change in the 
future, your choices may become more limited as time goes by

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge  wrote:
> >
> > In this day and age why would anyone follow a guru? Enlightenment? 
> > Liberation? Burn Karma? Not likely folks, wake up and smell the chai
> > 
> > To quote the great GK Chesterton-
> > 
> > "When Man ceases to worship God he does not worship nothing but worships 
> > everything".
> 
> What a fantastic quote!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> > >
> > > http://thefastertimes.com/india/2010/03/08/sex-and-the-single-swami-why-indi
> > > as-gurus-cant-keep-it-in-their-loincloths/
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Swami Nithyananda Sex Scandal (Watch Video) | India

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> On Mar 10, 2010, at 3:37 PM, Mike Dixon wrote:
> >
> > Didn't get to see the link, but didn't Satya Sai Baba like 
> > to suck the bad karma out of cute little boys?
> 
> Yes, but he never swallowed.

OK, *this* is the answer to Nabby's and others'
oft-asked question: "Why does someone who bailed
on the whole Maharishi trip decades ago still 
hang out here?"

This is FUNNY.

Funny in a way that only-once-around-the-block
spiritual seekers just don't get. 

There are folks here who have been around the block
more than once. And they've ventured into different
blocks, different spiritual 'hoods. Doing that 
loosens one up a bit in my humble opinion, and makes 
for a higher, funnier quality of conversation.

Me, I love Fairfield Life because it is such a *mix*
of once-around-the-block-ers and been-there-done-that-
wanna-buy-the-T-shirt-so-you-can-say-that-you've-
been-there-done-that-too'ers. 

You get the perspective of those who have never known
any other spiritual teacher than Maharishi, and have
never known any other spiritual path. I learn much
from these people. About their perspective, about how
much of it I used to share, and about aspects of it
I no longer share. This place simply would not be
as interesting without Nabby, or JohnR, or even Off
in his "peer review rules" moments. 

At the same time, this place would not be nearly as
interesting without the perspectives of those who have
moved on to other formal spiritual teachers and paths.
I learn much from them. Or without the perspective of
folks like Curtis, who espouses no spiritual path but
whose lifestyle I view as far more spiritual than many
spiritual seekers' lifestyles, including my own. 

If you haven't been around the spiritual block more 
than once, here's a free clue for you. You know how
"Shit happens?" Fact of life. Nothing inherently bad
or good about shit happening. Shit just happens. Taking
a dump doth not connote a Big Scandal. Similarly, in
spiritual movements "Sexual scandals happen." This
seems to be a phenomenon almost as common as "Shit
happening," but seems to get more attention.

So why is that? 

What IS it about sex that makes so many spiritual seekers
so uptight? This Nityananda guy just knocked off a piece
of nookie. And not just *any* nookie. He managed to hook
up with the modern counterpart of a Vedic goddess, a TV
or movie star (I've never been able to tell which from
the news reports). 

If this was George Clooney, you wouldn't bat an eyelash.
But if it's Nityananda? Or Satya Sai Baba? Or Chogyam 
Trungpa? Or Maharishi? Or King Tony?

I'd really like to have someone who bristles at the thought
of one of those dudes other than George Clooney being *guy*
enough to knock off a little nookie when he thought no one
was looking and who finds that thought shocking, or heretical, 
or disrespectful in some way to explain to me why you think 
this.

I give all of these guys the ability to be *guys*, and to
get stupid every so often about the places they choose to 
put their dicks. Lord knows I've made some questionable
choices in that regard in my life. What about "enlighten-
ment" (if you believe that any or all of the aforementioned
are/were enlightened) would make any of them less susceptible 
to such bouts of pheromonal folly than George Clooney? 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Swami Nithyananda Sex Scandal (Watch Video) | India

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge  wrote:
>
> In this day and age why would anyone follow a guru? Enlightenment? 
> Liberation? Burn Karma? Not likely folks, wake up and smell the chai
> 
> To quote the great GK Chesterton-
> 
> "When Man ceases to worship God he does not worship nothing but worships 
> everything".

What a fantastic quote!




> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > http://thefastertimes.com/india/2010/03/08/sex-and-the-single-swami-why-indi
> > as-gurus-cant-keep-it-in-their-loincloths/
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Swami Nithyananda Sex Scandal (Watch Video) | India

[Vaj]

On Mar 10, 2010, at 3:37 PM, Mike Dixon wrote:

> Didn't get to see the link, but didn't Satya Sai Baba like to suck the bad 
> karma out of cute little boys?


Yes, but he never swallowed.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A proud day for Democrats

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge  wrote:
>
> 
> Why can't Obama clearly explain what the hell is trying to shove down our 
> throats, because he can't 
>


You haven't been paying attention. Did you miss the recent publicly broadcast 7 
hour meeting Obama had with the Republicans on Health Care Reform???

Have you missed the whole last year during which both the Senate and House 
bills were debated and passed???


>
and that's why each day the polls to support this garbage legislation keeps 
going down the ol' drain
> 


That's simply not true:

Poll: 2/3 of Voters Say Pass Comprehensive Health Care Reform

Americans spread the blame when it comes to the lack of cooperation in
Washington, and, in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, most want the
two sides to keep working to pass comprehensive health-care reform...

As party leaders tussle over the proposed bipartisan health care summit, nearly 
two-thirds of Americans say they want Congress to keep working to pass 
comprehensive health-care reform. 

Democrats overwhelmingly support continued action on this front, as do 56 
percent of independents and 42 percent of Republicans.

See Chart: 
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/Poll1.gif

More at link:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2010/02/americans_spread_the_blame_whe.html


[snip to end]

[FairfieldLife] Re: A proud day for Democrats

[sgrayatlarge]

Why can't Obama clearly explain what the hell is trying to shove down our 
throats, because he can't and that's why each day the polls to support this 
garbage legislation keeps going down the ol' drain

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge  wrote:
> >
> > Perfect transparency
> > 
> > " We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it"
> > 
> > -House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
> >
> 
> 
> It was a poor choice of wording, although you DID leave off the rest of the 
> sentence. Here is the COMPLETE sentence: "But we have to pass the bill so 
> that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."
> 
> This isolated quote "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in 
> it" is being broadcast all over the Obama/Pelosi/Reid hating fringe wingnut 
> world as if to suggest that the the Democrats are hiding something nefarious 
> in the bill. 
> 
> It's another lame-ass attempt by the right wingers to make a major issue out 
> of a non-issue. It's that kind of nonsense that continues to show the 
> wingnuts for the sorry losers that they are.
> 
> Transparency?
> 
> Both the Senate and House health bills that were passed have been scrutinized 
> in detail and are publicly available along with the White House's own recent 
> proposal. Whatever comes to be finally voted on will no doubt fall within the 
> parameters already outlined in those documents.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Swami Nithyananda Sex Scandal (Watch Video) | India

[sgrayatlarge]

In this day and age why would anyone follow a guru? Enlightenment? Liberation? 
Burn Karma? Not likely folks, wake up and smell the chai

To quote the great GK Chesterton-

"When Man ceases to worship God he does not worship nothing but worships 
everything".



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> http://thefastertimes.com/india/2010/03/08/sex-and-the-single-swami-why-indi
> as-gurus-cant-keep-it-in-their-loincloths/
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Turq: Does the snow in Spain....

[Bhairitu]

TurquoiseB wrote:
> -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>   
>> also fall in Sitges?  :-D
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/09/spain-snowstorms-wreak-havoc
>> 
>
> Yup, it did. Pretty surprising. I looked up from
> work and big snowflakes the size of mothballs 
> were floating down. They say it was the biggest
> snowfall in Barcelona in 20 years or so. Here in
> Sitges it didn't stick on the ground much, but
> it was fun while it lasted.
>
> The next day was sunny and clear skies. Go figure.

We're getting weather like that in the Bay Area.  One day last weekend 
was very spring like sunny, shorts and t-shirt weather.  The next day 
icy cold and rainy.   Not enough to snow but down into the 30s.   We're 
starting to go into four seasons in one day weather.  Some days I'm over 
dressed for my walk.  I have three kinds of outfits to wear: 1) flanner 
workouts for cold winter, 2) windbreaker light ones for spring and fall 
and the rest of the time it's shorts and t-shirt.   Last year the 
windbreaker outfits got used little as we seemed to go from winter to 
summer with nothing much in between.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Swami Nithyananda Sex Scandal (Watch Video) | India

[Mike Dixon]

Didn't get to see the link, but didn't Satya Sai Baba like to suck the bad 
karma out of cute little boys?





From: BillyG 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, March 10, 2010 11:52:23 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Swami Nithyananda Sex Scandal (Watch Video) | India

  


--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> http://thefastertimes.com/india/2010/03/08/sex-and-the-single-swami-why-indi
> as-gurus-cant- keep-it-in- their-loincloths /

I always thought he looked kind of hokey! He is apparently taking advantage of 
gullible people and sincere people looking for answers. It looks like his 
'mistress' set him up, nice job if she did and good for her!!





  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Swami Nithyananda Sex Scandal (Watch Video) | India

[BillyG]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> http://thefastertimes.com/india/2010/03/08/sex-and-the-single-swami-why-indi
> as-gurus-cant-keep-it-in-their-loincloths/


I always thought he looked kind of hokey! He is apparently taking advantage of 
gullible people and sincere people looking for answers. It looks like his 
'mistress' set him up, nice job if she did and good for her!!

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Turq: Does the snow in Spain....

[Bhairitu]

ShempMcGurk wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>   
>> Nah.  It's just Mother Earth trying to rid herself of an outbreak of 
>> humanus. ;-)
>>
>> 
>
>
>
> Humanus...is that hummous made with human flesh instead of chick peas?

You're such a falafel.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: George Dubya Bush in a Dream

[Sal Sunshine]

On Mar 10, 2010, at 1:00 PM, mainstream20016 wrote:

> Does anyone know what the symbolism of this dream means?
>> 
> 
> Sausalito has a new village idiot. 

LOL

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
 wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > I think going after the religion rather than the behavior
> > > > > risks becoming a crusade and even a pogrom (figuratively
> > > > > speaking), and it doesn't affect the behavior.
> > > > 
> > > > I missed this first time through.  This is a legitimate
> > > > point to consider.
> > > 
> > > Even though the point you go on to consider is not 
> > > at all the one I was making...O-K.

That is the point of going back and forth, to understand what points are being 
made.

> > > 
> > > > I believe that religions have used this extreme use
> > > > and application of the concept of challenging unproven
> > > > claims (pogrom}
> > > 
> > > Not what I meant by pogrom. I was referring to the
> > > potential to portray everyone who shares a specific
> > > religious heritage as Bad Guys (the way some here
> > > do with Christians and many right-wingers do with
> > > Muslims) pretty much regardless of behavior.
> > 
> > That is a different discussion from whether or not their
> > claims of how the world works have merit.
> 
> Uh, right. And...? (This is a *third* discussion, BTW.)

OK we are discussing different aspects of complex issues. Since I don't portray 
everyone who shares a specific religious heritage as bad guys it doesn't apply 
to me.  But I can think that they are wrong about what they are asserting or 
that there is little evidence for fantastic claims.  And that the people who 
make less fantastic claims are shielding the ones who do while still 
maintaining the absurd premise that they have a unique insight into the mind of 
the creator of the universe and his desires concerning this world.

> 
> 
> > > > If a person today claims the holocaust never happened
> > > > we challenge the idea with facts.  If people claim
> > > > Jesus rose from the dead we have a right to say "what
> > > > is your proof?"
> > > 
> > > Do you see any significant differences between 
> > > these two claims?
> > 
> > Sure, among them that the claim that Jesus physically
> > rose from the dead is among the protected ideas in our
> > culture that is felt is beyond challenge despite it
> > being asserted as a fact.
> 
> Any other differences?

This is annoying.  There are many which one is important to you?  The claims 
about both Jesus and the holocaust are based on historical evidence.  One has 
good evidence and one has bad evidence.  But they are both asserted as physical 
history about something that happened in this world, not the afterlife. the 
Bible uses accounts of people at the time as evidence for what they claim 
historically happened.

> 
> 
> > > > But we have created a ban on bringing into discussion
> > > > these claims as if they are exempt from the challenge:
> > > > "what is your proof?"  And this is hurting us as a
> > > > species trying to rise above superstitious tribal
> > > > beliefs about one group of humans being intrinsically
> > > > superior to another in a predetermined way. And they
> > > > have earned their lower status by being bad in some way
> > > > that the scripture, that God wrote or approves of,
> > > > describes in detail. 
> > > 
> > > You sound as religious here about your perspective
> > > as the most fundamentalist Christian, Curtis.
> > 
> > That claim is bogus.  I am doing the exact opposite of
> > a person who uses scriptural authority.  I am saying
> > that every claim religious or not is up for discussion.
> > This is not my perspective, it is the basis for Western 
> > civilization.
> 
> And therefore not up for discussion, right?

We are discussing it. Are there topics that should not be discussed?

> 
> What's so fundamentalist-sounding about your spiel is
> your conviction as to the superiority of your views,
> as well as your propensity to slay straw men (e.g.,
> "exempt," "protected," "shielded").
> 
> > > To me, it's not a matter of whether religious belief
> > > is exempt from challenge; it's a matter of whether
> > > indulging in such challenge is a distraction from
> > > focusing on the *behavior*. I really don't care
> > > whether someone believes Jesus rose from the dead
> > > as long as they behave humanely. I don't even
> > > especially care whether someone who holds this belief
> > > thinks of themselves as better than me as long as
> > > they don't allow that belief to affect their behavior
> > > toward me (or anyone else).
> > 
> > You are taking a wack-a-mole approach.  I am addressing
> > the root of the problem.  Expecting people not to have
> > their religious convictions effect their behavior seems
> > unlikely.
> 
> For good or ill. But I think the root of the problem is
> failure of compassion, which hijacks religious beliefs
> as justification.

Our application of compassion is often shaped by our religious beliefs.  I 
remember Diane Sawyer interviewing a man who had murdered his sister who had 
sex to regain the honor of their family.  For him it was an act of comp

Re: [FairfieldLife] A proud day for Democrats

[Mike Dixon]

Curiosity killed the cat.





From: sgrayatlarge 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, March 10, 2010 9:21:35 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] A proud day for Democrats

  
Perfect transparency

" We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it"

-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi





  

[FairfieldLife] Re: George Dubya Bush in a Dream

[mainstream20016]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> In my dream, I submitted a short paper to Bush about my analysis of a small 
> town called Sausalito in California.  He read it and appeared to approve the 
> contents of the report.  But he soon rewrote the paper to include his own 
> thoughts using words that came from prior reports, using typical government 
> phrases and presentation.  In the end, the report became a thick analysis of 
> what was supposed to be an informal paper.
> 
> I then found out that he actually had bought a piece of land several miles 
> north of the town.  He was farming the land for his own interest.
> 
> This is an interesting dream in that I'm not a registered Republican nor have 
> I voted for him when he was running for president.
> 
> Does anyone know what the symbolism of this dream means?
>


Sausalito has a new village idiot. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: A proud day for Democrats

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge  wrote:
>
> Perfect transparency
> 
> " We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it"
> 
> -House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
>


It was a poor choice of wording, although you DID leave off the rest of the 
sentence. Here is the COMPLETE sentence: "But we have to pass the bill so that 
you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

This isolated quote "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it" 
is being broadcast all over the Obama/Pelosi/Reid hating fringe wingnut world 
as if to suggest that the the Democrats are hiding something nefarious in the 
bill. 

It's another lame-ass attempt by the right wingers to make a major issue out of 
a non-issue. It's that kind of nonsense that continues to show the wingnuts for 
the sorry losers that they are.

Transparency?

Both the Senate and House health bills that were passed have been scrutinized 
in detail and are publicly available along with the White House's own recent 
proposal. Whatever comes to be finally voted on will no doubt fall within the 
parameters already outlined in those documents. 

[FairfieldLife] George Dubya Bush in a Dream

[John]

In my dream, I submitted a short paper to Bush about my analysis of a small 
town called Sausalito in California.  He read it and appeared to approve the 
contents of the report.  But he soon rewrote the paper to include his own 
thoughts using words that came from prior reports, using typical government 
phrases and presentation.  In the end, the report became a thick analysis of 
what was supposed to be an informal paper.

I then found out that he actually had bought a piece of land several miles 
north of the town.  He was farming the land for his own interest.

This is an interesting dream in that I'm not a registered Republican nor have I 
voted for him when he was running for president.

Does anyone know what the symbolism of this dream means?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Pitta and samaadhi?

[Vaj]

On Mar 10, 2010, at 9:56 AM, WillyTex wrote:




Vaj:
> I never mentioned anyone other than your guru-neighbor.
>
It's just that many of your comments seem to imply that
your gurus are better than mine, and that you're a better
person for it. As I pointed out, some of your gurus have
been anything but role models.


Who are your gurus?



But, just because your guru had a mistress doesn't prove
that all Tibetan lamas are scoundrels.


He did?

News to me.




Your comments just seem prejudiced against Hindus and
Texans. In Texas, those charged with crimes are assumed
to innocent until proven guilty, *in a trial*.


I see. Interesting opinion.

Maybe you have an inferiority complex?


> Are there more?
>
Who knows, but I'm not trying to defend the Swami next
door. In fact, I've spent years refuting the Swami on
Usenet. He could be guilty, but there' been no trial.

Why didn't you tell us that three of your gurus have
been charged with being deviates? That would have been
more honest, I think, than implying that Hindu Swamis
in Texas are all sex criminals.


They have?

News to me.

[FairfieldLife] "The Crazies" part 2

[Bhairitu]

As I mentioned in my recent brief review of "The Crazies" a remake of 
the George Romero 1973 film of the same name and some of it shot about 
150 miles due west of Fairfield in Lenox and Winterset, I felt the 
remake lacked edge so went in search of the original 1973 version.  To 
my dismay (and no I don't have an active Netflix account but more on 
that later) I couldn't find it at local rental places even though the 
film was released on DVD just a few years ago.  The reason might be that 
it is considered a "cult" film and the company who has the rights 
specializes in that and may specifically be doing limited editions to 
keep the collector value up.  

The 1973 version to coincide with the remake  was rereleased on both DVD 
and Bluray.  Yesterday I decided to trundle over to Rasputin's, a Bay 
Area used CD/DVD store that has an outlet nearby.  Looking through the 
new releases I didn't see it and I did as best I could look through used 
DVDs but to no available.  I then decided to see what they had in their 
used Bluray section and there to my surprise were new copies of the 
Bluray and discounted!  The latter is something rare for that store as 
their Bluray prices were often more than the suggested retail for some 
reason.  So I decided to snap it up figuring I could resell it if I 
didn't like it.

The 1973 version is of course a B-movie.  As some of us may remember 
back then most theaters showed two features, one a big Hollywood 
blockbuster and cheap B-movie that most people would walk out on after 
10 minutes (and at drive-ins start doing something else).   The film was 
commissioned by a small studio who had some soft core porn hits and 
wanted to branch out into other projects.  It was also Romero's first 
union film.  The script came from one that someone had written and he 
used about the first 10 pages as an idea.  It was a story about a 
military plane crash that results in a biological weapon going into a 
towns water supply and making the residents go crazy and how the 
military goes into "damage control" resulting in them invading the 
town.  The rest of the original script involved studying how both the 
military and the residents went crazy and could one tell the 
difference.  It was also too verbal and the studio wanted an action film 
(he settled on something in between).

Romero took those fragments to make the 1973 version and Brett Eisner 
likewise took concepts from that version for the remake.  As I suspected 
the 1973 had a little more edge though it was a little less effective as 
the production quality (made on a $270K budget) was not that good.  It 
was also less kind to the military given we were in the Vietnam era.  
Eisner apparently didn't want to go there in this post 9-11 age which is 
too bad (it is more subtext).

The Bluray version is a nice transfer however I guess they didn't want 
to touch the soundtrack present in stunning DTS-Mono.  It unfortunately 
seemed to be equalized for small drive-in speakers making it a bit 
trebley.  I may have some high rolloff setting on my AV Receiver but I 
didn't go looking for it.   One hilarious thing is that blood looked 
like someone had spilled a bunch of red poster paint.  The Bluray also 
comes with commentary which I began listened to last night.  It appears 
to have been done in 2002 to for the DVD version released back then.  
There is also a 14 minute featurette with cult actress Lynn Lowry who 
appears in the film.

As for Netflix, yesterday I went to my local Hollywood Video to see what 
new release Blurays I might want to rent.  Amazingly there were no new 
releases either Bluray or DVD.  The clerk told me they didn't get a 
shipment and suggested that does not bode well.  Hollywood Video owned 
by Movie Gallery declared bankruptcy for the second time last month.  
They closed stores in the area but the local one was profitable so they 
kept it open.  My bet it will be gone soon.  So it may be time to 
re-activate my Netflix account which was probably deleted anyway.  In 
the meantime Redbox is very handy and they did get the new releases I 
was interested in but on DVD only (with an occasional Bluray).

[FairfieldLife] Swami Nithyananda Sex Scandal (Watch Video) | India

[Rick Archer]

http://thefastertimes.com/india/2010/03/08/sex-and-the-single-swami-why-indi
as-gurus-cant-keep-it-in-their-loincloths/ 

[FairfieldLife] Obama Defies Pessimists as Rising Economy Converges With Stocks

[do.rflex]

Obama Defies Pessimists as Rising Economy Converges With Stocks


By Mike Dorning
  [220]
March 10 (Bloomberg) -- The political consensus may be that President
Barack Obama
 's handling of the economy has been
weak. The judgment of money in all its forms has been overwhelmingly
positive, and that may be the more lasting appraisal.

One year after U.S stocks hit their post-financial-crisis low on March
9, 2009, the benchmark Standard & Poor's 500 Index
  has risen more
than 68 percent, and it's up more than 41 percent since Obama took
office. Credit spreads have narrowed. Commodity prices have surged.
Housing prices have stabilized.

"We've had a phenomenal run in asset classes across the
board," said Dan Greenhaus
 , chief economic strategist for Miller
Tabak & Co. in New York. "If he was a Republican, we would hear a
never-ending drumbeat of news stories about markets voting in favor of
the president."

The economy has also strengthened beyond expectations at the time Obama
took office. The gross domestic product grew at a 5.9 percent annual
pace in the fourth quarter, compared with a median forecast of 2.0
percent in a Bloomberg survey of economists a week before Obama's
Jan. 20, 2009, inauguration. The median forecast for GDP growth this
year is 3.0 percent, according to Bloomberg's February survey of
economists, versus 2.1 percent for 2010 in the survey taken 13 months
earlier.

"You have to give them -- along with the Federal Reserve - - a lot
of credit," said Joseph Carson
 , director of economic research at
AllianceBernstein LP in New York. "A year ago, there was panic, as
well as concern. And a lot of the expectations were not only that we
were going to have declines in activity but they would stretch all the
way to 2010, if not 2011."

Job Losses Ease

Since then, monthly job losses have abated, from 779,000 during the
month Obama took office to 36,000 last month. Corporate profits have
grown; among 491 companies in the S&P 500 that reported fourth-quarter
earnings, profits rose 180 percent from a year ago, according to
Bloomberg data. Durable goods
  orders in
January were up 9.3 percent from a year earlier. Inflation is tame, and
long-term interest rates remain low.

Still, the economy has become a political burden for Obama. Voters give
his administration little credit for its performance, while the
unemployment rate remains high, at 9.7 percent in February.

Public opinion of Obama's handling of the economy has gone from 59
percent approval in February 2009 to 61 percent disapproval this
February, according to Gallup polls.

Critical of Deficit

The budget deficits
  the
administration has run up have stirred criticism from investment
managers and economists, as well as voters. The Congressional Budget
Office projects
  Obama's
spending proposals would produce a record $1.5 trillion budget deficit
this year and a $1.3 trillion deficit
  in 2011.

The investment returns and economic data don't impress some Obama
critics.

"Coming off a level that was ridiculously low isn't much to
boast about," said Dean Baker
 , co-director of the Washington-based
Center for Economic and Policy Research. "What most people care
about is the economy creating jobs. It's still not."

Mark Zandi
 , chief economist at Moody's
Economy.com  , said the public's
opinion of the economy is likely to improve as the gains companies have
made begin to translate into more jobs and higher wages.

"Businesses are doing very well but households have yet to
benefit," Zandi said. "Households will eventually benefit, but
they'll have to see it before they believe it."

300,000 Jobs Seen

The U.S. may add as many as 300,000 jobs in March, the most in four
years, David Greenlaw

[FairfieldLife] A proud day for Democrats

[sgrayatlarge]

Perfect transparency

" We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it"

-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > 
> > > I think going after the religion rather than the behavior
> > > > risks becoming a crusade and even a pogrom (figuratively
> > > > speaking), and it doesn't affect the behavior.
> > > 
> > > I missed this first time through.  This is a legitimate
> > > point to consider.
> > 
> > Even though the point you go on to consider is not 
> > at all the one I was making...O-K.
> > 
> > > I believe that religions have used this extreme use
> > > and application of the concept of challenging unproven
> > > claims (pogrom}
> > 
> > Not what I meant by pogrom. I was referring to the
> > potential to portray everyone who shares a specific
> > religious heritage as Bad Guys (the way some here
> > do with Christians and many right-wingers do with
> > Muslims) pretty much regardless of behavior.
> 
> That is a different discussion from whether or not their
> claims of how the world works have merit.

Uh, right. And...? (This is a *third* discussion, BTW.)


> > > If a person today claims the holocaust never happened
> > > we challenge the idea with facts.  If people claim
> > > Jesus rose from the dead we have a right to say "what
> > > is your proof?"
> > 
> > Do you see any significant differences between 
> > these two claims?
> 
> Sure, among them that the claim that Jesus physically
> rose from the dead is among the protected ideas in our
> culture that is felt is beyond challenge despite it
> being asserted as a fact.

Any other differences?


> > > But we have created a ban on bringing into discussion
> > > these claims as if they are exempt from the challenge:
> > > "what is your proof?"  And this is hurting us as a
> > > species trying to rise above superstitious tribal
> > > beliefs about one group of humans being intrinsically
> > > superior to another in a predetermined way. And they
> > > have earned their lower status by being bad in some way
> > > that the scripture, that God wrote or approves of,
> > > describes in detail. 
> > 
> > You sound as religious here about your perspective
> > as the most fundamentalist Christian, Curtis.
> 
> That claim is bogus.  I am doing the exact opposite of
> a person who uses scriptural authority.  I am saying
> that every claim religious or not is up for discussion.
> This is not my perspective, it is the basis for Western 
> civilization.

And therefore not up for discussion, right?

What's so fundamentalist-sounding about your spiel is
your conviction as to the superiority of your views,
as well as your propensity to slay straw men (e.g.,
"exempt," "protected," "shielded").

> > To me, it's not a matter of whether religious belief
> > is exempt from challenge; it's a matter of whether
> > indulging in such challenge is a distraction from
> > focusing on the *behavior*. I really don't care
> > whether someone believes Jesus rose from the dead
> > as long as they behave humanely. I don't even
> > especially care whether someone who holds this belief
> > thinks of themselves as better than me as long as
> > they don't allow that belief to affect their behavior
> > toward me (or anyone else).
> 
> You are taking a wack-a-mole approach.  I am addressing
> the root of the problem.  Expecting people not to have
> their religious convictions effect their behavior seems
> unlikely.

For good or ill. But I think the root of the problem is
failure of compassion, which hijacks religious beliefs
as justification.


> > In any case, many Christians who believe Jesus rose
> > from the dead use their faith in that event to 
> > motivate them to behave as Jesus prescribed. We could
> > all do a lot worse, behavior-wise, than adhering to
> > Jesus's principles.
> 
> The ones they pick and choose from out faulty records
> through translation you mean.  So is it Ok to believe
> that Lincoln was not assassinated? Which historical
> assertions are exempt from normal questioning?

Huh?? Is the belief that Lincoln was not assassinated
a religious one that can't be either proved or
disproved but is held on the basis of scriptural
authority? What bad behavior does it generate?

And please stop attributing to me the view that beliefs
are somehow inherently "exempt" from questioning. Again,
you're putting words in my mouth.

> > And I doubt there are very many such people who think
> > of themselves as "intrinsically superior to another
> > in a predetemined way," or that others have "earned
> > their lower status by being bad" in some way
> > described in Scripture.
> 
> I can't believe you would say that.  Are you really
> unaware of what life is like in India?

"Such" is a referent word, Curtis. "Such people" refers
back to "Christians who believe Jesus rose from the dead
[who] use their faith in that 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > First of all if we want to talk about having a simplistic 
> > understanding of the Hindu religious beliefs I have to 
> > object to your using Krishna's statement about the 
> > unfathomable nature of Karma out of context. He is 
> > referring to the future effect of an action and all its 
> > implications for a group of people and an individual 
> > trying to make a decision.  
> 
> Exactly. One of the things that always amuses me
> is that the very people who tend to trot out the
> olde "Unfathomable are the ways of karma" saw are
> the very ones who seem to get up on their high
> horses the most when they perceive something as
> "unfair" and feel the need to "correct" it. Some-
> how the ways of karma suddenly become not only
> fathomable to them but self-evident when this
> magical whatever-it-is-that-allows-them-to-fight-
> on-the-side-of-right happens. :-)

Friendship means never having to tell a friend he's
full of it, right, Curtis?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
>
> TurquoiseB:
> > I *DARE* anyone here to try to come up with an 
> > idea so holy that it cannot be challenged. Or a 
> > book. I'll wait...
> >
> So, that's your *idea* of a strawman argument?

If he didn't believe in strawman arguments, he'd have
about 75 percent less to say. ;-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > 
> > I think going after the religion rather than the behavior
> > > risks becoming a crusade and even a pogrom (figuratively
> > > speaking), and it doesn't affect the behavior.
> > 
> > I missed this first time through.  This is a legitimate
> > point to consider.
> 
> Even though the point you go on to consider is not 
> at all the one I was making...O-K.
> 
> > I believe that religions have used this extreme use
> > and application of the concept of challenging unproven
> > claims (pogrom}
> 
> Not what I meant by pogrom. I was referring to the
> potential to portray everyone who shares a specific
> religious heritage as Bad Guys (the way some here
> do with Christians and many right-wingers do with
> Muslims) pretty much regardless of behavior.

That is a different discussion from whether or not their claims of how the 
world works have merit.

 
> > to shield them from the normal discourse we expect
> > with any other ideas.
> > 
> > If a person today claims the holocaust never happened
> > we challenge the idea with facts.  If people claim
> > Jesus rose from the dead we have a right to say "what
> > is your proof?"
> 
> Do you see any significant differences between 
> these two claims?

Sure, among them that the claim that Jesus physically rose from the dead is 
among the protected ideas in our culture that is felt is beyond challenge 
despite it being asserted as a fact.

> 
> > So I believe that we have erred on the side of allowing 
> > unchallenged beliefs about how life works rather than 
> > suppressing them or acting uncivilly to religious people
> > in this country in the last few decades.
> 
> "Erred"? My goodness, I hope that's a figure of
> speech.
> 
> > But we have created a ban on bringing into discussion
> > these claims as if they are exempt from the challenge:
> > "what is your proof?"  And this is hurting us as a
> > species trying to rise above superstitious tribal
> > beliefs about one group of humans being intrinsically
> > superior to another in a predetermined way. And they
> > have earned their lower status by being bad in some way
> > that the scripture, that God wrote or approves of,
> > describes in detail. 
> 
> You sound as religious here about your perspective
> as the most fundamentalist Christian, Curtis.

That claim is bogus.  I am doing the exact opposite of a person who uses 
scriptural authority.  I am saying that every claim religious or not is up for 
discussion.  This is not my perspective, it is the basis for Western 
civilization.  

> 
> To me, it's not a matter of whether religious belief
> is exempt from challenge; it's a matter of whether
> indulging in such challenge is a distraction from
> focusing on the *behavior*. I really don't care
> whether someone believes Jesus rose from the dead
> as long as they behave humanely. I don't even
> especially care whether someone who holds this belief
> thinks of themselves as better than me as long as
> they don't allow that belief to affect their behavior
> toward me (or anyone else).

You are taking a wack-a-mole approach.  I am addressing the root of the 
problem.  Expecting people not to have their religious convictions effect their 
behavior seems unlikely.  And we are not just dealing with Jesus.  We also have 
a guy who demands that followers kill non believers. And the source for that 
absolute truth makes no modern distinction that he doesn'e really really mean 
it.  He repeats it to make sure you get the point.

> 
> In any case, many Christians who believe Jesus rose
> from the dead use their faith in that event to 
> motivate them to behave as Jesus prescribed. We could
> all do a lot worse, behavior-wise, than adhering to
> Jesus's principles.

The ones they pick and choose from out faulty records through translation you 
mean.  So is it Ok to believe that Lincoln was not assassinated? Which 
historical assertions are exempt from normal questioning?

> 
> And I doubt there are very many such people who think
> of themselves as "intrinsically superior to another
> in a predetemined way," or that others have "earned
> their lower status by being bad" in some way
> described in Scripture.

I can't believe you would say that.  Are you really unaware of what life is 
like in India?

> 
> Maybe that's what *you* were taught to believe once
> upon a time (although "predetermined" sounds more
> Calvinist than Catholic!), but it certainly doesn't
> characterize Christians across the board.

We are confusing mythologies here. That point concerns Hindus. Christians have 
other issues.  But one uniting belief for most Christian groups is the physical 
resurrection of Jesus and the authority of the Bible as an accurate statement 
of how the world works.  And just happening to be born into Catholicism which 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India? If so how did it influence you ?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> I'm really glad you replied to this, Curtis. And so well.
> I simply couldn't believe that someone could suggest that
> ideas shouldn't be challenged unless someone takes the
> idea and does something wrong with it.
> 
> If that were true, someone could defend Sarah Palin's
> belief that she can see Russia from her house and her
> absolute right to hold such a belief until she starts
> throwing grenades into Russian territory.  :-)

And the religion whose scriptures say Sarah Palin can
see Russia from her house is...?



For the record, the beliefs in question (at least, the
ones I'm discussing) are inherently unprovable (and
undisprovable) religious beliefs.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
[snip]
> But in the case of the karmic thoery and its social manifestation in the 
> caste system the numbers are reversed.  We have millions of people who 
> believe in this thoery outside India who may not be using it for repression.  
> But we have close to a billion people in India whose lives are oppressed by 
> this belief.
[snip]

But not the SAME belief?

Trying to follow this conversation...

Seems to me that you are confusing a doctrine of 
fatalism with the doctrine of karma. You can be
a fatalist without believing in karma - and vice
versa.

Karma is the idea that the world is a "just" system
(as you said before). And the justice is believed to
to consist in (essentially) "as you sow shall ye reap".

That doctrine in itself carries no implication as to
how one should act towards those more unfortunate than
ourselves. That needs OTHER beliefs. 

The truth is that it is karma + fatalism that has produced
the unfortunate "quietism" that has caused so much trouble
in, say, India. As MMY often pointed out.

Fatalism is the idea that how we find ourselves is 
somehow "how we are meant to be". And it fatally (!)
lends itself to the thought that "if this is how it's
meant to be, who am I to think I should do anything to
change it?". It seems to me that that should be the 
correct target of your frustration?

Belief in karma is something else. It is just the
universalisation of a principle we use all the time
(of responsibility). If I choose to take my sailboat
out in appalling weather, I have myself to blame if
I get into difficulties (my "karma"). Fortunately
for me, seeing it that way is not enough to stop most
folks from considering trying to rescue me if they can! 

Or, take a child born with deformities. If I believe
in karma and reincarnation, then I am led to believe
that, yes, this is the consequence of past actions. 
(or, another way of saying the same thing, there is 
in reality no such thing as "luck"). But to get
the unpleasant attitude you are hostile to, we need
to add an additional component into the mix: That 
this a "punishment" from *God* with which I must
not interfere. And that's the fatalism, which in no
way follows from the theory of karma. 

(And perhaps the real villain is not "fatalism", but
something that lies behind that: religious hubris, the
idea we can know the intentions of God. But personally
I wouldn't think we moderns should get too smug about
that, as hubris seems to be the sin of our age too!)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[WillyTex]

TurquoiseB:
> I *DARE* anyone here to try to come up with an 
> idea so holy that it cannot be challenged. Or a 
> book. I'll wait...
>
So, that's your *idea* of a strawman argument?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> > I don't think it makes any sense to object to ideas
> > *unless* they are the cause of bad actions. The thing
> > is, certain ideas can lead to good actions as well as
> > bad ones, depending on the interpretation and 
> > inclinations of the actor.
> 
> I must be missing something here.  It would be wrong to
> challenge a person's view that the world is flat if the
> person doesn't do bad things?

Not "wrong," just pointless from a practical standpoint;
not the first order of business. Please don't put words
in my mouth.


> > The biblical story of Sodom, for example, leads some
> > people to condemn homosexuality; it leads others to
> > practice hospitality and charity.
> 
> The reason it is wrong to persecute gay people has nothing
> to do with the scripture.  The reason people practice
> hospitality and charity has nothing to do with the scripture.
> These are values we hold as a society or at least try to
> impose laws to disallow the worst violations.  Linking these 
> behaviors good or bad to the authority of scripture rather
> than the process of reasonable discourse about what kind of
> world we want to live in is the problem in my view.  Because
> there is nothing intrinsic in the system of authority that
> guides one person to use it for good and another to use it
> for evil.

Seems to me that's an excellent argument for focusing
on the behavior rather than the beliefs!

> So I say let all human ideas stand on their own merit
> and don't shield spiritual claims with claims of bigotry
> just because someone challenges the idea as a bad one,
> held for bad reasons.

That isn't where the bigotry comes in, as I thought I'd
already explained. And nobody is trying to "shield
spiritual claims" from challenge; that's a straw man.

Dealing with behavior and dealing with beliefs are two
different agendas. Going after the latter in an attempt
to change the former is problematic, IMHO, for all the
reasons you just stated above.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Pitta and samaadhi?

[WillyTex]

> > Your comments just seem prejudiced against 
> > Hindus and Texans. In Texas, those charged 
> > with crimes are assumed to innocent until 
> > proven guilty, *in a trial*...
> >
Curtis:
> I've seen a lot of westerns that were set in 
> Texas. From what I've seen the process is to 
> swarm someone accused of a crime in a mob and 
> put them on a horse with a rope around their 
> neck tied to a tree... 
>
This is a set-up troll post, right?

Most of the westerns I've seen that were set in 
Texas don't support lynching, Curtis. Most of 
them have a moral point to make. I don't think
I've ever seen a John Wayne movie set in Texas
where Wayne hangs a guy. I haven't seen every
movie set in Texas, so can you be more specific?

There's a Cenotaph in front of the Alamo, but I
don't think any of the defenders were hanged by
the invading forces. There have been six flags 
flying over Texas.

Why would you be prejudiced against Tejanos?
 
Demographics indicate that there are many more 
Hispanics in Texas than Caucasians and this has 
been the case for over 250 years.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> 
> Many excellent points.
> 
> > If the people who claim to "know" are few and have no
> > social power or status, they are merely cultists. But
> > if the people who claim to "know" happen to be the
> > ruling class of a country, what they "know" tends to
> > become formalized not only in religious "laws" but in
> > social ones as well. Then you get laws like being able
> > to kill an untouchable for looking askance at a Brahmin.
> 
> Scary and true.  It is the protected class of religious beliefs 
> that I am arguing against.  

As am I. 
 
> People think we shouldn't criticize a whole class of beliefs 
> that include some of the most horrific and repugnant humans 
> have devised just because they are not currently acting on 
> them. It is moderate religious people who shield extremists 
> but they both share the same faulty epistemology. Calling 
> some books written by men "scripture" has caused a lot of 
> problems that people could sort out quickly if they were 
> discussed as we do any other book's ideas, on their own merit.

That's the way they should be discussed IMO. BTW,
Curtis, a little while back I recommended a film
called "The Man From Earth." I think you'd really
like it. Especially when the close friends of the
guy who has just revealed to them that he has been
alive on planet Earth for 14,000 years responds
to the questions, "Did you ever meet any of the
great spiritual figures in history? *Were* you 
any of the great spiritual figures in history?"
To see one woman's reaction when he answers the
second question honestly is worth the price of
a rental just in itself.

> > > What you believe in your self determined life in your free 
> > > society has nothing to do with my objection. You have the 
> > > luxury of believing anything you want precisely because our 
> > > society has rejected the Vedic claim ...
> > 
> > And the Christian claim, and the Jewish claim, and...
> 
> Good point.  I am pro secular!  People can believe whatever 
> they want but they don't get to cry foul if anyone points 
> their finger and call bullshit. 

But they do. Every day. They issue fatwas on 
cartoonists for drawing Mohammed comically,
or on writers for writing about Satan with
compassion. They claim *very loudly* that
some ideas are "off limits" and cannot be
challenged. 

> They can justify the reasons for their beliefs just as I 
> have to. As a secular person I don't have a magic book that 
> I can run to and claim it is unfair to criticize any of these 
> ideas because they are special and above challenge.

Lucky you. Think about the level of idiot
you would be if you had such a book, and
had spent a lifetime using it to avoid 
examining the ideas in it. 

ALL books are candidates for "crying bullshit"
on them. ALL ideas are candidates for the bull-
shit certification process. 

I *DARE* anyone here to try to come up with an 
idea so holy that it cannot be challenged. Or a 
book. I'll wait.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India? If so how did it influence you ?

[TurquoiseB]

I'm really glad you replied to this, Curtis. And so well.
I simply couldn't believe that someone could suggest that
ideas shouldn't be challenged unless someone takes the
idea and does something wrong with it.

If that were true, someone could defend Sarah Palin's
belief that she can see Russia from her house and her
absolute right to hold such a belief until she starts
throwing grenades into Russian territory.  :-)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> > I don't think it makes any sense to object to ideas
> > *unless* they are the cause of bad actions. The thing
> > is, certain ideas can lead to good actions as well as
> > bad ones, depending on the interpretation and
> > inclinations of the actor.
>
> I must be missing something here.  It would be wrong to challenge a
person's view that the world is flat if the person doesn't do bad
things?  That reduces the whole field of intellectual discourse to a
pretty low level doesn't it?
>
> This view is used to protect the Muslim's right to believe in a holy
book with absolute authority whose prophet condones the killing of
infidels.  The argument is that only a small number of Muslims take him
at his word and go out and kill infidels.
>
> But in the case of the karmic thoery and its social manifestation in
the caste system the numbers are reversed.  We have millions of people
who believe in this thoery outside India who may not be using it for
repression.  But we have close to a billion people in India whose lives
are oppressed by this belief.
>
> If a person lived in England during our legal slavery era didn't own
slaves but believed in the divinely sanctioned right to own them, would
his idea be any less wrong?
>
> I am proposing that karmic thoery is not just the basis for cruelty in
the vast majority of its believer's lives. I am saying further that it
is a belief with poor evidence.  And that it deserves to be subjected to
the same analysis we give any other bad idea.  Every area of our
intellectual discourse is governed by laws of reason and evidence based
criteria for evaluating the worthiness of the idea.
>
> Shielding spiritual beliefs from this process itself is a bad idea. 
Because the source of the idea comes from a system of authority, the
argument that is often used by religious moderates that they don't take
it all literally doesn't solve the problem of people who do.  Your
example of a Biblical saying being used in a good an bad way is an
excellent illustration.
>
> > The biblical story of Sodom, for example, leads some
> > people to condemn homosexuality; it leads others to
> > practice hospitality and charity.
>
> The reason it is wrong to persecute gay people has nothing to do with
the scripture.  The reason people practice hospitality and charity has
nothing to do with the scripture.  These are values we hold as a society
or at least try to impose laws to disallow the worst violations. 
Linking these behaviors good or bad to the authority of scripture rather
than the process of reasonable discourse about what kind of world we
want to live in is the problem in my view.  Because there is nothing
intrinsic in the system of authority that guides one person to use it
for good and another to use it for evil.
>
> So I say let all human ideas stand on their own merit and don't shield
spiritual claims with claims of bigotry just because someone challenges
the idea as a bad one, held for bad reasons.  You would be right to tell
a holocaust denier that his idea was wrong by the evidence even if he
didn't use it to do bad things to Jews today. And a person who
challenges them to provide evidence to support their outrageous belief
is not a bigot for asking them to prove it.
>
> People will always believe things that are false.  Myself included. 
The issue for me is how we discuss ideas, with freedom of the right to
challenge bad evidence, or in a protected class of beliefs that are
considered too special to be subjected to the same process that we use
for every other idea in our society.  No one would claim that a person
is being a bigot for telling a member of the the other political party
that their ideas have no merit.  And no one would get away with a bad
idea with the excuse that they haven't hurt anyone with it yet. The
freedom to challenge ideas is a very good thing.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[WillyTex]

Curtis:
> I am proposing that karmic thoery is not 
> just the basis for cruelty in the vast
> majority of its believer's lives...
>
You didn't state what is the 'karmic theory'.

The karmic theory in South Asia is the law
of action-reaction. It's just like the theory
of causation. Karma means action: if we perform 
an action, there will be a corresponding 
reaction. In the karmic theory there is nothing
in existence that can avoid causation.

The question is, does a mental thought cause
another coresponding re-action now, or in the 
future? In other words, is there such a thing 
as moral reciprocity? You alluded to one in 
your message, but what really makes acts right 
or wrong?

You also didn't define 'caste system', and you
may have assumed, falsely, that the Indian 
caste sytem is based on the color of an 
individual's skin. 

Caste doesn't refer to race, but to the birth 
circumstances of a person, such as gender and 
profession. In India 'caste' means 'class', 
and there are classes in almost every society. 

The question is, are there intrinsic, different 
classes in society or not? And if so, on what
basis is a person classed?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> I think going after the religion rather than the behavior
> > risks becoming a crusade and even a pogrom (figuratively
> > speaking), and it doesn't affect the behavior.
> 
> I missed this first time through.  This is a legitimate
> point to consider.

Even though the point you go on to consider is not 
at all the one I was making...O-K.

> I believe that religions have used this extreme use
> and application of the concept of challenging unproven
> claims (pogrom}

Not what I meant by pogrom. I was referring to the
potential to portray everyone who shares a specific
religious heritage as Bad Guys (the way some here
do with Christians and many right-wingers do with
Muslims) pretty much regardless of behavior.

> to shield them from the normal discourse we expect
> with any other ideas.
> 
> If a person today claims the holocaust never happened
> we challenge the idea with facts.  If people claim
> Jesus rose from the dead we have a right to say "what
> is your proof?"

Do you see any significant differences between 
these two claims?

> So I believe that we have erred on the side of allowing 
> unchallenged beliefs about how life works rather than 
> suppressing them or acting uncivilly to religious people
> in this country in the last few decades.

"Erred"? My goodness, I hope that's a figure of
speech.

> But we have created a ban on bringing into discussion
> these claims as if they are exempt from the challenge:
> "what is your proof?"  And this is hurting us as a
> species trying to rise above superstitious tribal
> beliefs about one group of humans being intrinsically
> superior to another in a predetermined way. And they
> have earned their lower status by being bad in some way
> that the scripture, that God wrote or approves of,
> describes in detail. 

You sound as religious here about your perspective
as the most fundamentalist Christian, Curtis.

To me, it's not a matter of whether religious belief
is exempt from challenge; it's a matter of whether
indulging in such challenge is a distraction from
focusing on the *behavior*. I really don't care
whether someone believes Jesus rose from the dead
as long as they behave humanely. I don't even
especially care whether someone who holds this belief
thinks of themselves as better than me as long as
they don't allow that belief to affect their behavior
toward me (or anyone else).

In any case, many Christians who believe Jesus rose
from the dead use their faith in that event to 
motivate them to behave as Jesus prescribed. We could
all do a lot worse, behavior-wise, than adhering to
Jesus's principles.

And I doubt there are very many such people who think
of themselves as "intrinsically superior to another
in a predetemined way," or that others have "earned
their lower status by being bad" in some way
described in Scripture.

Maybe that's what *you* were taught to believe once
upon a time (although "predetermined" sounds more
Calvinist than Catholic!), but it certainly doesn't
characterize Christians across the board.

Painting with that kind of broad, simplistic brush
is pretty much what I meant by *pogrom*.

It strikes me that the objection to *ideas* simply
because you find them "superstitious," rather than
evaluating people in terms of their *behavior*, is
akin to condemning gay people for what they do in
their bedrooms instead of evaluating how they behave
in society.

I also think the demand to "prove" Jesus rose from
the dead is idiotic on its face, from several
different angles.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Pitta and samaadhi?

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:

> Your comments just seem prejudiced against Hindus and 
> Texans. In Texas, those charged with crimes are assumed 
> to innocent until proven guilty, *in a trial*. 

I've seen a lot of westerns that were set in Texas.  From what I've seen the 
process is to swarm someone accused of a crime in a mob and put them on a horse 
with a rope around their neck tied to a tree.  Then their girlfriend tries to 
run to save the person but is held back by the crowd and she falls to the 
ground crying.  Then someone who is obviously intoxicated slaps the horse on 
the rear end sending it running but before the rope tightens the accused man's 
friend shoots the rope freeing the man who rides by the girlfriend and lifts 
her to the back of the horse.  All three end up in Mexico in a cantina tossing 
back tequila shots to mariachi music.

This is how the legal system works in Texas.





>
> 
> 
> Vaj:
> > I never mentioned anyone other than your guru-neighbor.
> > 
> It's just that many of your comments seem to imply that
> your gurus are better than mine, and that you're a better
> person for it. As I pointed out, some of your gurus have
> been anything but role models.
> 
> But, just because your guru had a mistress doesn't prove 
> that all Tibetan lamas are scoundrels. 
> 
> Your comments just seem prejudiced against Hindus and 
> Texans. In Texas, those charged with crimes are assumed 
> to innocent until proven guilty, *in a trial*. 
> 
> > Are there more?
> >
> Who knows, but I'm not trying to defend the Swami next
> door. In fact, I've spent years refuting the Swami on
> Usenet. He could be guilty, but there' been no trial.
> 
> Why didn't you tell us that three of your gurus have
> been charged with being deviates? That would have been 
> more honest, I think, than implying that Hindu Swamis 
> in Texas are all sex criminals.
> 
> Vaj:
> 
> "According to Swami Prakashananda Saraswati, fingering 
> little girls is where it's at. Apparently, it's just 
> like fingering the goddess. After all, this is Texas! 
> Yee ha! Jai Guru Dev!"
> 
> /FairfieldLife/message/243062
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:

Many excellent points.


> If the people who claim to "know" are few and have no
> social power or status, they are merely cultists. But
> if the people who claim to "know" happen to be the
> ruling class of a country, what they "know" tends to
> become formalized not only in religious "laws" but in
> social ones as well. Then you get laws like being able
> to kill an untouchable for looking askance at a Brahmin.

Scary and true.  It is the protected class of religious beliefs that I am 
arguing against.  People think we shouldn't criticize a whole class of beliefs 
that include some of the most horrific and repugnant humans have devised just 
because they are not currently acting on them.  It is moderate religious people 
who shield extremists but they both share the same faulty epistemology. Calling 
some books written by men "scripture" has caused a lot of problems that people 
could sort out quickly if they were discussed as we do any other book's ideas, 
one their own merit.
> 
> > What you believe in your self determined life in your free 
> > society has nothing to do with my objection. You have the 
> > luxury of believing anything you want precisely because our 
> > society has rejected the Vedic claim ...
> 
> And the Christian claim, and the Jewish claim, and...
> 

Good point.  I am pro secular!  People can believe whatever they want but they 
don't get to cry foul if anyone points their finger and call bullshit.  They 
can justify the reasons for their beliefs just as I have to.  As a secular 
person I don't have a magic book that I can run to and claim it is unfair to 
criticize any of these ideas because they are special and above challenge.




>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > First of all if we want to talk about having a simplistic 
> > understanding of the Hindu religious beliefs I have to 
> > object to your using Krishna's statement about the 
> > unfathomable nature of Karma out of context. He is 
> > referring to the future effect of an action and all its 
> > implications for a group of people and an individual 
> > trying to make a decision.  
> 
> Exactly. One of the things that always amuses me
> is that the very people who tend to trot out the
> olde "Unfathomable are the ways of karma" saw are
> the very ones who seem to get up on their high
> horses the most when they perceive something as
> "unfair" and feel the need to "correct" it. Some-
> how the ways of karma suddenly become not only
> fathomable to them but self-evident when this
> magical whatever-it-is-that-allows-them-to-fight-
> on-the-side-of-right happens. :-)
> 
> > As far as the specific punishments for various actions and the 
> > specific type of birth punishment meted out by  Karma the Hindu 
> > scriptures are very clear. If you read the Laws of Manu you will 
> > find very detailed descriptions of what happens for trying to 
> > buck the caste system. (and we have already dealt with Maharishi attempted 
> > dodge, it doesn't hold up if you actually read the book.)
> 
> The Laws of Manu has to be one of the most horrific
> texts ever created by human beings. WAY worse in its
> specificity than anything written by Hitler or the
> fundiest Christian Fundamentalist. The whole thing
> is about fostering an attitude of unblinking obeisance
> to The Law Of Preserving The Elite Status Of Those 
> Who Claim To Be Able To Perceive The Law. Icky.
> 
> > Here is where Sam Harris and I agree.  The absurdity of religious 
> > beliefs are being protected by people who are assuming a modified 
> > version that removes the most obviously antisocial elements. I am 
> > not arguing against your personal mix of ideas Judy. They are none 
> > of my business.
> > 
> > I am arguing against a system of beliefs that claims to know how 
> > the universe works after death. And a society that uses that 
> > system to oppress people for generations.  
> 
> Why limit it to "after death." Most of the "laws" that
> those who have oppressed people with have written are 
> dealing with what they (the oppressors) are allowed to 
> do to those who don't do what they want them to *before* 
> death. 
> 
> I think that you can edit your statement above, Curtis,
> and make it more accurate. The problem with religious
> beliefs is people who claim to "know," period.
> 
> If the people who claim to "know" are few and have no
> social power or status, they are merely cultists. But
> if the people who claim to "know" happen to be the
> ruling class of a country, what they "know" tends to
> become formalized not only in religious "laws" but in
> social ones as well. Then you get laws like being able
> to kill an untouchable for looking askance at a Brahmin.
> 
> > What you believe in your self determined life in your free 
> > society has nothing to do with my objection. You have the 
> > luxury of believing anything you want precisely because our 

[FairfieldLife] Re: I do

[WillyTex]

> > > Now I think a global collapse of the economy
> > > would actually be a good thing...
> > > 
> > So, you're in favor of mass starvation on a 
> > global scale, in order to elimnate most of the
> > population on the planet...
> >
Bhairitu:
> who said there would be mass starvation if 
> this happens?  
>
What do you think would happen if there was a 
"global collapse of the economy"? There must be 
millions of people out there now who are already 
starving. 

That's not a good thing! You said a very stupid 
thing which you probably didn't think about very 
much before you hit the send button!

> I'm not "worried" about my health insurance I'm
> pissed that  health care is overpriced including 
> my insurance...
>
So, in your economic system, you're worried about 
your own health insurance while everyone else on 
the planet starves to death. 

I can't believe you'd even make such a statement.

In my system, everyone on the planet would have a 
good paying job, so they could eat and take care of 
their health. Your system would lead to anarchy and 
worldwide starvation. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Pitta and samaadhi?

[WillyTex]

Vaj:
> I never mentioned anyone other than your guru-neighbor.
> 
It's just that many of your comments seem to imply that
your gurus are better than mine, and that you're a better
person for it. As I pointed out, some of your gurus have
been anything but role models.

But, just because your guru had a mistress doesn't prove 
that all Tibetan lamas are scoundrels. 

Your comments just seem prejudiced against Hindus and 
Texans. In Texas, those charged with crimes are assumed 
to innocent until proven guilty, *in a trial*. 

> Are there more?
>
Who knows, but I'm not trying to defend the Swami next
door. In fact, I've spent years refuting the Swami on
Usenet. He could be guilty, but there' been no trial.

Why didn't you tell us that three of your gurus have
been charged with being deviates? That would have been 
more honest, I think, than implying that Hindu Swamis 
in Texas are all sex criminals.

Vaj:

"According to Swami Prakashananda Saraswati, fingering 
little girls is where it's at. Apparently, it's just 
like fingering the goddess. After all, this is Texas! 
Yee ha! Jai Guru Dev!"

/FairfieldLife/message/243062

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:

> I don't think it makes any sense to object to ideas
> *unless* they are the cause of bad actions. The thing
> is, certain ideas can lead to good actions as well as
> bad ones, depending on the interpretation and 
> inclinations of the actor.

I must be missing something here.  It would be wrong to challenge a person's 
view that the world is flat if the person doesn't do bad things?  That reduces 
the whole field of intellectual discourse to a pretty low level doesn't it?

This view is used to protect the Muslim's right to believe in a holy book with 
absolute authority whose prophet condones the killing of infidels.  The 
argument is that only a small number of Muslims take him at his word and go out 
and kill infidels.

But in the case of the karmic thoery and its social manifestation in the caste 
system the numbers are reversed.  We have millions of people who believe in 
this thoery outside India who may not be using it for repression.  But we have 
close to a billion people in India whose lives are oppressed by this belief.

If a person lived in England during our legal slavery era didn't own slaves but 
believed in the divinely sanctioned right to own them, would his idea be any 
less wrong?

I am proposing that karmic thoery is not just the basis for cruelty in the vast 
majority of its believer's lives. I am saying further that it is a belief with 
poor evidence.  And that it deserves to be subjected to the same analysis we 
give any other bad idea.  Every area of our intellectual discourse is governed 
by laws of reason and evidence based criteria for evaluating the worthiness of 
the idea.  

Shielding spiritual beliefs from this process itself is a bad idea.  Because 
the source of the idea comes from a system of authority, the argument that is 
often used by religious moderates that they don't take it all literally doesn't 
solve the problem of people who do.  Your example of a Biblical saying being 
used in a good an bad way is an excellent illustration. 

> The biblical story of Sodom, for example, leads some
> people to condemn homosexuality; it leads others to
> practice hospitality and charity.
> 

The reason it is wrong to persecute gay people has nothing to do with the 
scripture.  The reason people practice hospitality and charity has nothing to 
do with the scripture.  These are values we hold as a society or at least try 
to impose laws to disallow the worst violations.  Linking these behaviors good 
or bad to the authority of scripture rather than the process of reasonable 
discourse about what kind of world we want to live in is the problem in my 
view.  Because there is nothing intrinsic in the system of authority that 
guides one person to use it for good and another to use it for evil.

So I say let all human ideas stand on their own merit and don't shield 
spiritual claims with claims of bigotry just because someone challenges the 
idea as a bad one, held for bad reasons.  You would be right to tell a 
holocaust denier that his idea was wrong by the evidence even if he didn't use 
it to do bad things to Jews today. And a person who challenges them to provide 
evidence to support their outrageous belief is not a bigot for asking them to 
prove it.

People will always believe things that are false.  Myself included.  The issue 
for me is how we discuss ideas, with freedom of the right to challenge bad 
evidence, or in a protected class of beliefs that are considered too special to 
be subjected to the same process that we use for every other idea in our 
society.  No one would claim that a person is being a bigot for telling a 
member of the the other political party that their ideas have no merit.  And no 
one would get away with a bad idea with the excuse that they haven't hurt 
anyone with it yet. The freedom to challenge ideas is a very good thing.


>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > - wrote:
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > It is his rejection of that cruel ideology that makes his
> > > > > > > > thinking so attractive to me.  He is saying something that
> > > > > > > > is the opposite view of the karmic belief system, "it's
> > > > > > > > not fair!"
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Well, let's say it's the opposite of the view of some
> > > > > > > who believe in karma.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The phrase "It's not fair" is the exact opposite of karmic
> > > > > > theory without any need to reference how people apply what
> > > > > > it means to their personal lives.
> > > > > 
> > > > > LOL! Sorry, but I think it's absurd to get all wrought
> > > > > up over belief in the abstract. How can it be "cruel"
> > > > > except in reference to h

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev - What do we say is a jagadguru?

[WillyTex]

> > ...in the world of the atheist there isn't any
> > guru.
> >
TurquoiseB:
> Not true. Buddhists are essentially atheists in that
> they have no need to postulate a sentient God of any
> kind... 
>
You are incorrect. Obviously you have not spent any 
time with practicing Buddhists, Turq. 

Traditional Tibetan Buddhists accept the notion that 
the universe contains many more beings in it than are 
normally visible to us humans. Buddhists the world 
over have no objection to the existence of the Hindu 
Gods.

You should have pointed out that Buddhists can't take 
refuge in the Gods because the gods are not Buddhas. 
That is, the Gods are not enlightened - there are no 
Buddhas in heaven. 

Buddhists believe that all the Hindu gods, for all 
their power, are not the final truth of things. Power 
does not necessarily entail insight, and for Buddhists 
the gods do not have the liberating insight that will
produce enlightenment. 

But, none of this entails that the gods do not exist 
or that the Gods cannot excert a powerful influence 
over our lives. There are millions of Buddhists in 
Southesat Asia that pay their respects to the Gods 
every single day in ritual performances and prayers. 

In Tibet, lamas invoke other-world beings every day. 
Thus, the Buddhist has no problem with the Gods like 
you seem to have. 

It would be a good thing for you to visit a Buddhist
country some day and observe Buddhism in practice. 
Sometimes philosophy books describing Buddhist beliefs
don't really reflect actual Buddhist practices on the
ground.

'Atheism' is an extreme view, not supported by Buddha.
'Blind faith' is another extreme. The Buddha taught 
the Middle Way: the avoidance of extremes. However,
do not attempt to extremely avoid extremes.

Read more: 

"Buddhism in Practice" 
ed. Donald S. Lopez, Jr. 
Princeton Readings in Religion, 1995

[FairfieldLife] When a Republican electoral victory is a good thing

[do.rflex]

When a Republican electoral victory is a good thing  by kos
  - Mar 09, 2010
Phew
 .

The top conservative activist on the powerful Texas Board of Education,
who rejects evolution and has pushed for a revisionist right-wing U.S.
history curriculum, is on the way out, after a moderate candidate
defeated him in a tight primary last week.

For months now, TPMmuckraker has been covering Don McLeroy as a major
player in the battle over the drafting of nationally influential history
textbook standards by the Texas board.

Lobbyist Thomas Ratliff edged out McLeroy 50.4%-49.6% in a GOP primary
for the seat McLeroy has held since 1999.

Close as it was, Ratliff's win is significant because he represented a
clear alternative to McLeroy, and he pulled through in a deeply
conservative district. McLeroy's home county went 64-35 for McCain in
'08, and no Democrat is even running for the board seat.

Ratliff is younger, moderate, and emphasized listening "to teachers and
superintendents in determining what students should know," according to
the endorsement column of the Dallas Morning News.

How bad was McLeroy?

*  In 2008, he objected to including Chinese literature in English
classes: "[Y]ou really don't want Chinese books with a bunch of crazy
Chinese words in them. Why should you take a child's time trying to
learn a word that they'll never ever use again?" He conceded some terms,
such as "chow mein," might be useful, the San Antonio Express-News
reported.


*  He said during a 2008 debate over science standards: "Is
understanding of evolution 'vital' to the understanding of biology? No."


*  Last year he instructed curriculum writers to "read the latest on
[Joseph] McCarthy -- he was basically vindicated."


*  He described his textbook evaluation process this way to the
Washington Monthly: "The way I evaluate history textbooks is first I see
how they cover Christianity and Israel. Then I see how they treat Ronald
Reagan--he needs to get credit for saving the world from communism and
for the good economy over the last twenty years because he lowered
taxes." [...]


*  Finally, McLeroy successfully offered an amendment to U.S. history
standards to require students to be able to "describe the causes and key
organizations and individuals of the conservative resurgence of the
1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schafly, the Contract with America,
the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority, and the National Rifle
Association." There is no liberal counterpart clause in the current
draft of the standards.

This guy was a full-fledged member of the American Taliban (and
certainly made my forthcoming book titled, fittingly, American Taliban).
His ouster, however narrow, suggests that there are still enough
Republicans uncomfortable with this kind of theocratic agenda. Still, I
don't doubt that given the dearth of hotly contested Democratic races in
the primary, that challenger Ratliffe wasn't boosted by crossover
Democratic and independent support in this open primary. Clearly, there
was no margin to spare.

Permalink

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev - What do we say is a jagadguru?

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> >
> > In samsara there are two sorts of people - astika (religious) and
> > nastika (unbeliever) - in the world of the atheist there isn't any
> > guru.
> 
> *Not* to get into debating "What Guru Dev believed
> or didn't believe" (because the guy means nothing 
> to me and I don't give a crap), I should point out 
> that the above "intro" to this talk makes a pretty 
> heavy assumption.
> 
> That is, that only those who believe in God can be
> spiritual seekers or appreciate a "guru."
> 
> Not true. Buddhists are essentially atheists in that
> they have no need to postulate a sentient God of any
> kind. That does not mean that they are not seekers
> of enlightenment, or that they wouldn't benefit from
> working with a "guru," if they encountered someone
> they chose to address by that name.
> 


Anyone can choose anyone they wish to be a 'guru' of just about anything. 
Generically, the word 'guru' simply means 'teacher.' Guru Dev was defining the 
meaning of a jagad-guru, not a generic 'guru.'


> Just sayin' that when you're talking to a group of
> people who *assume* some mighty heavy-duty things
> about the nature of the universe (such as...uh...a
> belief in God), you might wanna spell that out right
> at the beginning, so that you're not excluding whole
> groups of spiritual seekers.  :-)
>


The snippet from Guru Dev suggests the concept that the non-differentiated 
formless Absolute is included as a theistic concept - as Guru Dev expounds in 
other discourses on the concept that Paramatma [God] is both manifest [with 
form] and unmanifest [without form] and can be realized either way.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev - What do we say is a jagadguru?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
>
> In samsara there are two sorts of people - astika (religious) and
> nastika (unbeliever) - in the world of the atheist there isn't any
> guru.

*Not* to get into debating "What Guru Dev believed
or didn't believe" (because the guy means nothing 
to me and I don't give a crap), I should point out 
that the above "intro" to this talk makes a pretty 
heavy assumption.

That is, that only those who believe in God can be
spiritual seekers or appreciate a "guru."

Not true. Buddhists are essentially atheists in that
they have no need to postulate a sentient God of any
kind. That does not mean that they are not seekers
of enlightenment, or that they wouldn't benefit from
working with a "guru," if they encountered someone
they chose to address by that name.

Just sayin' that when you're talking to a group of
people who *assume* some mighty heavy-duty things
about the nature of the universe (such as...uh...a
belief in God), you might wanna spell that out right
at the beginning, so that you're not excluding whole
groups of spiritual seekers.  :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Pitta and samaadhi?

[Vaj]

On Mar 9, 2010, at 8:32 PM, WillyTex wrote:


> > You're just too biased to sound
> > very convincing.
> >
Vaj:
> Love those straw men, don't you?
>
You mean, all those 'straw' girls that got
'fingered' by all those Hindu Swamis down
in Texas, just because one Swami was charged?



I never mentioned anyone other than your guru-neighbor.

Are there more?

[FairfieldLife] Guru Dev - What do we say is a jagadguru?

[do.rflex]

In samsara there are two sorts of people - astika (religious) and
nastika (unbeliever) - in the world of the atheist there isn't any
guru.

Of the world of the astika (religious) that guru should really be called
"jagadguru".

Amongst the religious there are two kinds of believers. Some folk are
setting their belief in a sakara (form) of Brahma and some in the
nirakara (formless). The one who holds the ability to be guru to both,
those who are speakers of the sakara (form) and those who are speakers
of the nirakara (formless), the very same can be called a jagadguru.

The meaning of this is that; of the sakara deities there are five Vedic
deities, that is to say; Bhagwan Vishnu, Shiva, Shakti, Surya and
Ganesha.

There are different instructions for worship of all of these and for
those who do not believe in the five deities he can also give
instruction, the same is really a jagadguru.

The person who instructs in the method of worship for devata (deities)
is similar to the lowly paid vaidya (physician) who sets phials of
medicine for all diseases, without also having the status of a
"compounder" but calls himself a "civil surgeon".

Anybody can name their own son Rama. Who can stop them then? But merely
from a name he does not become Rama. Then who stops anybody writing
jagadguru in front of his own name?

But when you ask the mark of the jagadguru then the proper indication
really is this that nobody with faith in any deity goes away from the
door disappointed.

Recently sampradaya (sects) have allotted a relationship of worshipping
Shiva, Shakti, Vishnu etc., this is improper.

In the five deities there is not any inferiority or superiority. Every
deity is similarly capable of dealing with the welfare of their own
devotees, however much a worshipper they are, all are vaishnava, since
all deities are parts of Bhagwan.

Bhagwan states that:-

" GYaanaM gaNesho mama chakShurarkaMaH ,
shivo mamaatmaa mamashaktiraadhya .
vibheda buddhayaa mayi ye bhajanti ,
mamaaN^gahiinaM kalayanti mandaaH .. "

That is, Ganesh ji is the head of Bhagwan, Surya are the eyes of
Bhagwan, Shiva is the atma of Bhagwan, Adya Bhagavati is the shakti of
Bhagwan.

Therefore these five gods are several equal parts, which cannot be
measured and split from one another, and they are to be worshiped as
equals. [If not] then worship is not being done but [instead] the
cutting off of parts is being done.

It is clear that denying Ganesha in desiring to be a devotee of Vishnu,
but he one who is cutting off Bhagwan Vishnu's head. If any devotee
of Vishnu denies Shiva then he is cutting off the atma (soul) of Bhagwan
Vishnu. This is really the manner of someone denying Devi (goddess)
making Bhagwan powerless.

Therefore, nowadays sectarian people have ill-will and malice towards
one another but call themselves vaishnava (devotees of Vishnu) or of
Bhagwan Shiva, has been calling himself shaiva (a devotee of Shiva),
denying Bhagwan Vishnu.

They are not really shaiva and not really vaishnava, they are merely
hypocrites. A vaishnava is really he who is a devotee of Bhagwan Vishnu

- "vishnauratah vaishnavah"
" uurdhvapuMD.hvatvaM vaishhNavatvam "

`Those who possess a urdhavapund (perpendicular marking on the
forehead) are said to be vaishnava.'

This is not a rule.

He who worships Bhagwan Vishnu, he then is really a vaishnava. But also
because all deities are different parts of Bhagwan, the worshipper of
any deity can be called a vaishnava. At the time one is worshipping any
deity, really at that time he is a vaishnava. The whole religious world
is vaishnava.

Those who say that only those who have perpendicular marking on the
forehead are vaishnava, and who call others non-vaishnava, are
unacquainted with reality. They are a disgrace to Bhagwan Vishnu.

Any devotee of Shiva or worshipper of Shakti, if they do not accept
themselves as vaishnava, then they are also in error. Anyone else in
samsara (worldly existence) after this manner he is not vaishnava. Those
sects who voice sectarian arguments do not achieve anything for
themselves nor for others either.

[Shri Shankaracharya UpadeshAmrita kaNa 78 of 108]

translation - Paul Mason © 2006, 2007, 2009


Full English text of Guru Dev's 108 Discourses here:
http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/upadesh.htm

[FairfieldLife] Dalai Lama to talk in Madison

[Buck]

 Dalai Lama's talk in Madison on May 16 is free

FW:
  
Dear friends:

 

His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Dr. Richard Davidson will appear for a public 
discussion on Sunday, May 16 at 2:15pm at the Overture Center, University of 
Wisconsin in Madison. Tickets are free, and will be available in the middle of 
April. This is part of the public opening of UW-Madison's Center for 
Investigating Healthy Minds, established by the renowned UW-Madison 
neuroscientist, Dr. Richard Davidson. Best selling authors, Daniel Goleman, 
author of "Emotional Intelligence" and "Ecological Intelligence" and Jon 
Kabat-Zinn, best selling author of "Wherever you go There you are", and the 
founding director of the Stress Reduction Clinic at the University of 
Massachusetts Medical School, will moderate the discussion.

Dr. Richard Davidson began exploring the intersection between Western science 
and Eastern philosophy after meeting the Dalai Lama in 1992. He studies how 
meditation changes people's brains to encourage happiness, compassion and 
kindness. 

For more information, go to http://www.investigatinghealthyminds.org.

To give you an advance information, please know that Dr. Richard Davidson has 
kindly agreed to give a talk to support TIBETcenter. When more material 
information are known, we will send out emails.

For the May 16 talk, it is good to get tickets immediately when made available, 
considering a large number of UW students, and the fact that the tickets are 
free. So, please check the organizer's web site.


 
Tashi T. Phuri
TIBETcenter
847-492-0809
Tue-Sat (1:00 to 6:30pm)
http://www.TIBETcenterchicago.org
http://www.support.TIBETcenterchicago.org

[FairfieldLife] Re: And now for something completely different

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > http://gimundo.com/videos/view/wonderful-guitar-music-from-botswana/
> > 
> > This is one of the most entertaining and sensual guitar styles I have ever 
> > seen.  This makes me happy in every way.
> >
> 
> 
> Seeing and hearing that video reminded me two things:
> 
> 1) that blind Canadian rock guitarist who recently died.  Like the player in 
> the video he too had unconventional fingering style.

Jeff Healey?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaaXQ6boLjQ


> 
> 2) Paul Simon's album from the '80s called Graceland that used a lot of south 
> African music (Ladysmith Black Mambasso?).  A lot of the same guitar sounds.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> First of all if we want to talk about having a simplistic 
> understanding of the Hindu religious beliefs I have to 
> object to your using Krishna's statement about the 
> unfathomable nature of Karma out of context. He is 
> referring to the future effect of an action and all its 
> implications for a group of people and an individual 
> trying to make a decision.  

Exactly. One of the things that always amuses me
is that the very people who tend to trot out the
olde "Unfathomable are the ways of karma" saw are
the very ones who seem to get up on their high
horses the most when they perceive something as
"unfair" and feel the need to "correct" it. Some-
how the ways of karma suddenly become not only
fathomable to them but self-evident when this
magical whatever-it-is-that-allows-them-to-fight-
on-the-side-of-right happens. :-)

> As far as the specific punishments for various actions and the 
> specific type of birth punishment meted out by  Karma the Hindu 
> scriptures are very clear. If you read the Laws of Manu you will 
> find very detailed descriptions of what happens for trying to 
> buck the caste system. (and we have already dealt with Maharishi attempted 
> dodge, it doesn't hold up if you actually read the book.)

The Laws of Manu has to be one of the most horrific
texts ever created by human beings. WAY worse in its
specificity than anything written by Hitler or the
fundiest Christian Fundamentalist. The whole thing
is about fostering an attitude of unblinking obeisance
to The Law Of Preserving The Elite Status Of Those 
Who Claim To Be Able To Perceive The Law. Icky.

> Here is where Sam Harris and I agree.  The absurdity of religious 
> beliefs are being protected by people who are assuming a modified 
> version that removes the most obviously antisocial elements. I am 
> not arguing against your personal mix of ideas Judy. They are none 
> of my business.
> 
> I am arguing against a system of beliefs that claims to know how 
> the universe works after death. And a society that uses that 
> system to oppress people for generations.  

Why limit it to "after death." Most of the "laws" that
those who have oppressed people with have written are 
dealing with what they (the oppressors) are allowed to 
do to those who don't do what they want them to *before* 
death. 

I think that you can edit your statement above, Curtis,
and make it more accurate. The problem with religious
beliefs is people who claim to "know," period.

If the people who claim to "know" are few and have no
social power or status, they are merely cultists. But
if the people who claim to "know" happen to be the
ruling class of a country, what they "know" tends to
become formalized not only in religious "laws" but in
social ones as well. Then you get laws like being able
to kill an untouchable for looking askance at a Brahmin.

> What you believe in your self determined life in your free 
> society has nothing to do with my objection. You have the 
> luxury of believing anything you want precisely because our 
> society has rejected the Vedic claim ...

And the Christian claim, and the Jewish claim, and...

> ...that they know everything about how life works based on 
> old books and a tradition that tells a child: "you will 
> never be good enough." 

I have *never* understood those who make excuses for the
Indian caste system merely because Maharishi did. I mean,
his whole *life* can be viewed as a form of rebellion
against the caste system he portrayed himself as believing
in. If he had really believed in it, he would never have
begun teaching *because his caste is not allowed to set
themselves up as teachers*. He would *certainly* never have
created a bunch of out-caste white people as "rajas" or
"kings" of an imaginary Vedic country if he had truly
believed in the caste system. 

Maharishi believed in the caste system when it allowed him
to get his way. As has everyone else in human history who
either invented it or used it to suppress others *to* get
their way. 

I think that anyone who *dares* to support the idea of
the caste system should get to live a little of the karma
of being ridiculed for doing so. The *only* reasons they
can ever seem to come with for defending it are 1) Maha-
rishi did, so it must have been right, or 2) it says so
in "the Vedic literature," which was written by People
Who Knew. 

I don't think any of them ever "knew." I don't think any
human being in history has ever "known." I think they only
pretended to know because that made it easier for them to
get their own way. As far as I know, not a single one of
the "holy tradition" of teachers whom TMers revere ever
paid their own way in life. Not one. Their lives were paid
for by others, whom they had convinced *to* pay for them
by convincing these others that they "knew" something.

I think that to be kind the only thing we can be certain 
that any of them ever "knew" was how to