[FairfieldLife] Re: Apsara or Dakini?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfiend"  wrote:
> 
> > Considering the extraordinarily mean-spirited viciousness
> > the usual suspects have been gratuitously directing at her,
> > she's been quite restrained.
> 
> You must be joking.
> 
> Right?

Wrong. THE CORRECTOR doesn't have enough ability
to self-assess to joke. She's deadly serious in
the *INTENT* of this post. And that *INTENT*
is to Bash Barry and the other "usual suspects"
on her personal enemies list. Bhakti Barbie has 
nothing to do with it.

This Bash -- as with so many others -- has 
nothing whatsoever to do with the person she
is supposedly "defending," just as her supposed
defense of Chopra in her latest Bashing Curtis
exercise has nothing to do with Chopra. She 
has bashed Chopra herself mercilessly in the
past, and will do so again. She *loathes*
Chopra, and has made that loathing clear in
the past, both here and on a.m.t.

She doesn't IMO give a flying fuck about *any*
of the people she poses as "defending." They 
are nothing to her but *excuses* to let out the 
simmering hatred she continues to nurture for 
her "enemines" here on FFL -- the "usual
suspects."

Letting that hatred out is pretty much her 
entire act. It's her only form of release. She'
s really got no other chops, except to repost 
something that someone else said and pass it 
off as if she invented it because she found 
it by Googling.

Haven't you figure this *out* yet? Almost
everyone else here has. You can tell by how
few people bother to respond to any of her
Bashes any more, even the Bashees.

The "mean-spirited viciousness" she is really
referring to in her "usual suspects" is that
they have written her off as not worth their
time to interact with. The only way she can 
think of to *make* herself worth their time 
is to Bash Them, hoping to taunt them into 
a head-to-head argument. At this point only
Curtis falls for it, and he does so because
IMO he still finds it entertaining.

It's the exact same act as Willytex's, and
run for exactly the same reason. She's trying
to provoke an argument and get someone to focus
their attention on her and argue with her so 
she can feel "whole" again. The irony of her 
pretending to "defend" someone called on 
"desperately seeking attention" is that THE 
CORRECTOR's whole *act* on FFL is itself 
about desperately seeking attention.

Deprived of the attention she feels she deserves,
she'll try to turn *this* into an argument, too,
and attempt to suck both of us (and Curtis or
Sal or do.rflex or bystanders not on her enemies
list yet) into "debating" the Bash with her. 

But it's Just Another Bash. Not a "defense," 
unless you consider defending one's own attachment
to one's own hatreds a defense. IMO it's a big,
angry, desperate "Fuck you" shouted to the people 
who have committed the unpardonable sin of Not 
Taking Her Seriously, or worse, actually 
laughing at her. 

So have pity. Getting off by screaming "Fuck 
you!" at her long-term enemies while pretending 
to be "defending" someone else by doing so is 
the only form of sex THE CORRECTOR gets 
these days. We on the "enemies list" act as her 
blow-up sex dolls, and Bashing us and trying to 
taunt us into arguing with her is the only
form of "intercourse" left to her since her
vibrator Burt committed suicide by hurling
itself off her night table.  :-)

Watch the *INTENT* of the posts, people, not
the content. 

If there is *no other reason* for a person to 
intrude into a discussion between two other 
people *except* to Bash one of those people -- 
one whom she has a long, long history of Bashing 
-- then it's not *about* the supposed "content" 
of the intrusion. It's about the Bash.

As an exercise in perception, watch closely over 
the next few weeks to see how many of THE 
CORRECTOR's posts fall into this category. 
I think you'll be surprised at how pathetically
repetitious her act is.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra Blames Own Meditation for Baja Quake - AOL News

[Hugo]

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


> > Do you share this belief about yourself,is that why you
> > are so quick to defend him?
> 
> BREAKING NEWS: You don't have to share a person's beliefs
> to defend them from unfair attack.

But using them as an excuse to launch and attack of your own 
is OK.



> That said, I don't know whether one's state of mind can
> affect "the world" (depending on what you mean by "world"),
> and *neither do you*.

Given that we know what causes earthquakes and there is no
evidence that the mind can affect the physical world I 
can't see what there is to gain from continually speculating
that ancient beliefs invented to explain unpleasant occurences
have any sort of place outside of selling "spiritual" nonsense.
Something Chopra does rather well out of.

 
> But like Chopra, I don't believe one person's meditation
> can bring about an earthquake.

How about 5000 people?



 
> > Now if he wants to retract all his statements about his
> > power over the world with the state of his mind I will
> > happily retract my accusation of hubris.
> 
> And I don't think you should be making accusations when
> you can't tell the difference between what he believes
> and what he doesn't believe.
> 
> > > And how *dare* he have a sense of humor about himself?
> > > That's the *ultimate* in hubris.
> > 
> > If he didn't actually believe that his state of mind
> > affects the world you might have a point.
> 
> He doesn't actually believe his meditation caused the
> earthquake. That's why his tweets were funny.
> 
> > But the fact is he does. I wasn't saying how dare he
> > anything.  I was just showing how people with wacky
> > beliefs about their place in the world sometimes mask
> > them with humor about a straw man wacky belief.
> 
> You were asserting that this is what he was doing. You
> were, in other words, mind-reading. You get *really*
> upset when folks do that to you, but you have no
> problem doing it to others.
> 
> > It seems to have worked on you among many others. That
> > old Chopra is so full of common sense wisdom how could
> > we doubt his claim that his mind is working on the
> > "quantum mechanical" level!
> 
> We can certainly doubt it, but it's probably not real
> smart to rule it out.
> 
> > I point my finger at him as a charlatan because I paid
> > $700 in his doctor's office to get the magic word
> > "amrita" to repeat to cure physical conditions.  Medical
> > conditions.  Health related issues that he discussed
> > with me in his doctor's office before "prescribing" me a
> > magical word to repeat to cure medical physical, health
> > conditions. 
> > 
> > So when I view him as a con man it is after having him
> > con out of actual money me a long time ago.
> 
> Charlatan, maybe, in the sense of being deluded about 
> the validity of his claims. But not a con man.
>

[FairfieldLife] Occultism 101

[TurquoiseB]

Or, The Science of Sucking Energy and the Art of
Pretending You're Not Doing It

I have some rare time in my work schedule to sit in a cafe
and rap this morning, so I'm going to rap about something
that doesn't get discussed here much, and almost never got
discussed in Maharishi's teachings -- occultism.

I see occultism as the study of subtle energies, the exchange
of those energies among sentient beings, and how they can
be manipulated by those who know how. Thus it is very *much*
a subject based in duality; energy can only be exchanged
between entities that are separate, or consider themselves
separate. Occultism would be a view of existence irrelevant
if your 24/7 perception of the world was Unity. But since I
don't think anyone on this forum actually lives in Unity
24/7. it might be of interest to some.

Since this rap is delivered to people who for the most part
studied with Maharishi, as a tribute to him I have subtitled
it above "The Science of Sucking Energy and the Art of
Pretending You're Not Doing It."  :-)

The Basics

Occult energy is not the same thing as shakti. Apples and
oranges. You've seen many on this forum who have had
experience with both point out the difference.

Real shakti is IMO devoid of intent or intention. If it seems
to "flow," that is because you're perceiving something that
has always already been present and you're just noticing
and, out of habit, assuming that it was "beamed" at you or
"aimed" at you.

Occult energy flows because someone *wants* it to flow. There
is very definitely an *intent* behind it. Even if that intent
is benevolent, the energy is to some extent colored by the
presence of intent. Them's the basics.

The Nature Of Attention

Attention is a drug. Seeking attention is an addiction. The
techniques *for* seeking and attracting attention are occult
in nature. Those who seek attention "feed" off of it to some
extent. Them's the basics of trolling for attention.

Many, if not most, of the people who in my opinion troll for
attention on a regular basis don't know that they are doing
it. For them it is an unconscious or subconscious process.
They just know that *the more people they can get to focus
on them and thus give them their attention, the better and
more energetic they feel*.

Those who have not yet figured out how to generate those
feelings of betterness and heightened energy themselves,
from within, often take the spiritual "low road" and get
them by trolling for attention, and sucking it from others.

I once had occasion to chat with an actress once nominated
for an Academy Award. In person she was *not* all that
beautiful or attractive, but sitting with her I could not help
but notice that *every* eye in the room was watching her,
and not necessarily male, and not necessarily because they
recognized her. I called her on this and she laughed and
said, "Oh that...that's my 'magnet' thing. I do it whenever
I'm out in public." When I tried to delve into it further,
she admitted that she had no idea *how* she could do this,
only that she could, and that *she got off on it*. She
described it as a bigger rush than sex.

That's the WHY of trolling for attention. Those who do it
on a regular basis -- as different as they might be from
each other physically or in other ways -- all have a similar
"energy signature" that anyone who has been around
the occult block can recognize. We tend to call such
people "attention vampires."

The Case In Point

A certain individual who for a short time two years ago
chatted with us here on FFL had such an "energy signature,"
as far as I could tell. It was so noticeable that I was
curious enough to Google her ID and found that FFL was
only one of the many sites on which she was trolling for
attention. The others were dating or romance sites, on
which I could still read (at the time) many of her conver-
sations there. They did *not* seem to be oriented towards
finding love or finding sex; they were clearly more about
finding attention. She reacted more positively the more
that people focused on her and praised her, and reacted
badly when they did not. Her experience on FFL fell into
the latter category. She was unable to "make a lot of
friends" here or capture much attention, so she bailed.

Cut to present day. This person has now set themselves
up as a spiritual teacher of sorts, marketing her business
via the Internet. And, as far as I can tell, she's still in
the business of trolling for attention. She seems to *collect*
attention. On Facebook she has almost 3,000 "friends,"
keeps herself in their attention constantly by sending them
pretty Newagey graphics, and brags about the number of
friends she has when she's on other forums.

Call me crazy, but given my studies in the past, I think
what we have here is an occultist in it for the attention.
I may be wrong about this, but this post gives you a few
reasons WHY I feel this way.

I don't particularly dislike this woman, any more than
I disliked the actress or dislike man

[FairfieldLife] Put your attention on this!

[Hugo]

Psychiatrist's Research Finds You Really Can Feel a Person's Stare Paper
by Dr. Colin A. Ross Explains How to Measure the Eye's Electromagnetic
Energy
 

Press Release Source: Colin A. Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma
On Monday April 5, 2010, 9:23 am EDT

DALLAS, TX--(Marketwire - 04/05/10) - Noted psychiatrist and author
Colin A. Ross, M.D., has published experimental data that supports his
scientific hypothesis that the eyes emit energy that can be captured and
measured. Dr. Ross' paper, "The Electrophysiological Basis of Evil Eye
Belief," is published in the current issue of Anthropology of
Consciousness, a journal of the American Anthropological Association.
The full paper is available at
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123310535/PDFSTART

.

Although nearly everyone has experienced the sense of being stared at
only to find that a person or animal really was looking, Western science
has long rejected that the human eye can emit any form of energy. Dr.
Ross says his findings move "human ocular extramission," which he also
refers to as an "eyebeam," from the realm of superstition to science.

"We used our patent pending Electromagnetic Beam Detection System, which
includes modified EEG neurofeedback equipment, to prove that the human
eye emits an electromagnetic signal that can be measured
scientifically," said Dr. Ross. "I hope that future experiments will
determine why energy emitted from the eye is so strong and whether it
can be harnessed through focused attention."

A series of videos in which Dr. Ross discusses the paper can be viewed
at http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=78E31282619EEF4D
 .

Dr. Ross has been researching a new science and medicine focused on the
human body's electromagnetic field, which he detailed in his 2009 book,
Human Energy Fields (ISBN-13: 978-0-9821851-0-0).

Dr. Ross previously made headlines by applying to the $1 Million Dollar
Paranormal Challenge administered by the James Randi Educational
Foundation (JREF) (http://www.randi.org/  ).
Although Dr. Ross can prove that his eyebeam can make a tone sound out
of a computer, JREF insists that no energy can be emitted from the eyes
and mocked Dr. Ross with its Pigasus Award. JREF has not responded to
Dr. Ross' test protocol.

Dr. Ross is the author of 140 papers in professional journals and 23
books. He has lectured widely in North America, Europe, China, New
Zealand and Australia, has reviewed for many different psychiatry
journals, and received a number of research grants. His writing also
includes short stories, poems, aphorisms, plays and essays on a wide
range of topics. For more information about Dr. Ross and the Colin A.
Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma, visit http://www.rossinst.com/
 .

From:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Psychiatrists-Research-Finds-iw-2733973438\
.html?x=0&.v=1

Re: [FairfieldLife] Brahmasthan of India Update

[Vaj]

I love the smell of poured concrete in the morning.

On Apr 6, 2010, at 9:22 PM, Yifu Xero wrote:




--- On Tue, 3/30/10, Brahmananda Saraswati Foundation  
 wrote:


From: Brahmananda Saraswati Foundation 

[FairfieldLife] Why do many "gurus" shun siddhis? Part 1

[cardemaister]

I think there are at least two possible basic reasons, why
many modern Indian "gurus" despise paatañjala-yoga-siddhis:

1. The negative influence of Islam and Christianity

2. Many "gurus" might not be that fluent in Sanskrit...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Occultism 101

[WillyTex]

TurquoiseB:
> Occult energy is not the same thing as shakti...
>
You have employed circular logic. In logic, you cannot 
define a term by using another, undefined term. In this 
case, you have said that 'the 'occult' is not the 
'shakti', neither of which has been defined. 

You seem to have a propensity for doing this (soul, 
self, enlightenment, spiritual, self, etc.).

> Real shakti is IMO devoid of intent or intention...
>
Your rap goes rapidly down hill from here, because you 
tell us nothing about what the occult is, but instead 
launch into a rant about 'shakti', which is in your 
opinion, not the same as the occult. 



So, your information is next to worthless, as serves as 
nothing much about the occult or the shakti. it is 
really nothing than another excuse for a Maharishi-bash 
- it's all about Judy.  

So what, exactly, is the 'occult'?

First a definition:

The 'occult' is the study and practice of *hidden* or 
*esoteric* knowledge or wisdom. For example, Theosophy, 
Kaballah, or Tantra.

Tantra is an occult practice which originated in India 
during the Gupta Age. Indian Tantra includes ritual 
practices such as visualizations, incantations, chanting 
of mantras, sex-magic, and sacrifice.

Occultism:

oc·cult adj.
1. Of, relating to, or dealing with supernatural 
influences, agencies, or phenomena.
2. Beyond the realm of human comprehension; inscrutable.
3. Available only to the initiate; secret: occult lore. 
4. Hidden from view; concealed...

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/occult

[FairfieldLife] Great Britain: Maharishi Peace Palace update - Construction start

[nablusoss1008]

  [News]
WORLD NEWS

Positive Trends 

Success Stories 

Flops 

Agriculture 

Business 

Culture 

Education 

Government 

Health 

Science 

World Peace 

News by Country 

Maharishi in the
World Today


Excellence
in Action 

Ideal Society
Index 

Invincible World


Action for
Achievement
  

Announcements 

WATCH LIVE 

Maharishi Channel 

Maharishi's Great
Global Events  

ULTIMATE GIFTS 

Maharishi's
Programmes 

Maharishi's
Courses


Maharishi's
Publications


Scintillating
Intelligence 


Worldwide Links 

Transcendental
Meditation 

RESEARCH 

Album of Events 

Celebration
Calendars 

Musicmall ♬ 

* More to Enjoy

* What's New 
* About Global
Good News

* SEND GOOD NEWS

* GGN TV Ads 
* RSS 
* Comments 


Search 

http://www.globalgoodnews.com/world-peace-a.html?art=127057311836290030

Great Britain: Maharishi Peace Palace update - Construction start
planned for early summer
by Global Good News staff writer

Global Good NewsTranslate This Article

6 April 2010

In Great Britain, architects have been completing the design of the
Maharishi Peace Palace   to be
built at Maharishi Garden Village   at
Rendlesham in Suffolk. Work has also been progressing with engineers:
'There are many considerations to be taken into account, for fire safety
and so on,' said Raja Peter Warburton, Raja

of Great Britain for the Global Country of World Peace
 *. 'A few
changes were also made to the design which involved the local planners,'
he said.

The whole building will be filled with light that enters the Brahmasthan
 
(silent central area) through a large cupola in the roof, Raja Peter
explained. The central part of the building, a very large exhibition
hall, is open to the roof to let light flood in, and both the ground
floor and first floor will have very high windows, with Vedic
ornamentation, so that light fills the building from east to west.

Showing slides of the plans for the Maharishi Peace Palace, Raja Peter
gave a progress report on the latest developments with the design. The
very large central hall on the ground floor has been maintained, and on
the north side will be a large area for group practice of the
Transcendental Meditation   Programme and Yogic
Flying  . A dining hall
and kitchen with separate entrance will be on the south side; on the
west side will be a large meeting room, again with high windows to le

[FairfieldLife] Re: So-called patriotic Republicans have for over 40 years been the enemies of a

[WillyTex]

> > > You must be joking! Conservatives don't have a voice in 
> > > California politics. All the state offices are in the 
> > > hands of the pro-union Democrats that you helped elect.
> > >
> > Wrong. We even have a conservative governor...
> >
Joe:
> Indeed he does! He's just not making sense today...
>
What would it take to get you two 'yokels' to learn how to 
read? You are supposed to read the report BEFORE you post
your comments!

"Yet conservatives today have little voice in California with 
every statewide office in the hands of pro-union Democrats 
except for governor Schwarzenegger, who is just a figurehead 
liberal Republican with no real power and a propensity to 
agree with Democrats..."

Full report:

'California Debt Crisis Explained'
http://tinyurl.com/y8o3ax9

> > > 'California Debt Crisis Explained'
> > > http://tinyurl.com/y8o3ax9

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why do many "gurus" shun siddhis? Part 1

[TurquoiseB]

Card, with all due respect, a more relevant question
might be, "Why would anyone *want* siddhis?"

I pose this as a question for those on this forum who
might fall into that category, and look forward to 
their answers.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>
> 
> I think there are at least two possible basic reasons, why
> many modern Indian "gurus" despise paatañjala-yoga-siddhis:
> 
> 1. The negative influence of Islam and Christianity
> 
> 2. Many "gurus" might not be that fluent in Sanskrit...
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Why do many "gurus" shun siddhis? Part 1

[Vaj]

On Apr 7, 2010, at 9:23 AM, cardemaister wrote:


I think there are at least two possible basic reasons, why
many modern Indian "gurus" despise paatañjala-yoga-siddhis:

1. The negative influence of Islam and Christianity

2. Many "gurus" might not be that fluent in Sanskrit...


One of the reasons the Hindu scriptures almost universally rail  
against siddhis (Patanjali, Vyasa, etc.) is that they are considered  
inimical to jivan-mukti or Liberation in this Life. There are a lot  
of technical reasons why that is so. The short answer is they get you  
stuck by strengthening the outward stroke (vyutthana-samskara). Keeps  
you locked into the I-Maker, the ego or Ahamkara.


But not everyone is interested in Liberation, so some follow yogic- 
siddhis. It's a great way to control your students too.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra Blames Own Meditation for Baja Quake - AOL News

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo"  wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> 
> > > Do you share this belief about yourself,is that why you
> > > are so quick to defend him?
> > 
> > BREAKING NEWS: You don't have to share a person's beliefs
> > to defend them from unfair attack.
> 
> But using them as an excuse to launch and attack of your own 
> is OK.

Maybe you'd want to review what I said to Curtis and
see whether it could actually be classified as an
"attack," as opposed to disagreement. If one is
defending somebody from what one considers an unfair
attack, it's kind of hard to avoid expressing
disagreement.

> > That said, I don't know whether one's state of mind can
> > affect "the world" (depending on what you mean by "world"),
> > and *neither do you*.
> 
> Given that we know what causes earthquakes and there is no
> evidence that the mind can affect the physical world I 
> can't see what there is to gain from continually speculating
> that ancient beliefs invented to explain unpleasant occurences
> have any sort of place outside of selling "spiritual" nonsense.
> Something Chopra does rather well out of.

> > But like Chopra, I don't believe one person's meditation
> > can bring about an earthquake.
> 
> How about 5000 people?

Most likely not, but I wouldn't rule it out entirely.

Curtis says that if the mind *could* affect the
physical world, it would have to be "some new thing,"
because at this point we don't know of any way it
could happen.

But we still haven't figured out what consciousness is
or how it operates, so I think we should leave a bit of
room for "some new thing."

Yes, that's an "argument from ignorance," at least in
terms of whether the possibility of such a phenomenon
should be ruled out (as opposed to claiming it's true,
which I'm not doing).

But you and Curtis are countering it with an "argument
from personal incredulity" as to whether such a "new
thing" is possible, so I figure we're even.

And then there's always "absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence." Seems to me it makes sense to
hold open, even if only ever-so-slightly, the
possibility that evidence is absent because we *don't
know how to test for it*.

You and I were discussing awhile back Lawrence LeShan's
recent book about researching telepathy, in which he
makes the point that we can't prove it doesn't exist,
all we can prove is that it doesn't show up reliably
in controlled laboratory experiments. He says we should
focus instead on studying instances of purported
telepathy to see whether we can get a better idea of
the characteristics of such instances, their parameters,
which might help us figure out better ways to test for it.

You ask above "what there is to gain from continually
speculating that ancient beliefs invented to explain
unpleasant occurences have any sort of place outside of 
selling 'spiritual' nonsense." Couple of big assumptions
there, and they may well be valid--but gee, seems to me
there'd be quite a few potential real-world benefits if
we could nail down that "mental states" *can* affect
the physical world, and how this occurs.

[FairfieldLife] Re: So-called patriotic Republicans have for over 40 years been the enemies of a democratic USA

[WillyTex]

> > All the state offices are in the hands of the pro-union 
> > Democrats that you helped elect.
> >
Bhairitu:
> Wrong...
>
So, you didn't vote in California elections - I thought so.

Maybe you should get out more! Get smart and read some reports;
vote in national and state elections, or something. You're not
accomplishing anything here but making yourself look like an 
unread, non-voter, that likes to bitch a lot. 

Most of your ideas are crack-pot schemes and are totally 
unsustainable. With ideas like yours, it's no wonder your
state is on the verge of bankruptcy!

At least you could join a 'Tea Party' protest to show that 
you're opposed to the high taxes and the way things are going 
in your state with the finances. 

Or, maybe you're the one that wants the state to fail, so it 
can be bailed out by the federal government. 

If, so then I'd vote against it - no more government bailouts!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Occultism 101

[tartbrain]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> Or, The Science of Sucking Energy and the Art of
> Pretending You're Not Doing It
> 
 

> The Basics
> 
> Occult energy is not the same thing as shakti. Apples and
> oranges. You've seen many on this forum who have had
> experience with both point out the difference.
> 
> Real shakti is IMO devoid of intent or intention. If it seems
> to "flow," that is because you're perceiving something that
> has always already been present and you're just noticing
> and, out of habit, assuming that it was "beamed" at you or
> "aimed" at you.
> 
> Occult energy flows because someone *wants* it to flow. There
> is very definitely an *intent* behind it. Even if that intent
> is benevolent, the energy is to some extent colored by the
> presence of intent. Them's the basics.
> 
> The Nature Of Attention
> 
> Attention is a drug. Seeking attention is an addiction. The
> techniques *for* seeking and attracting attention are occult
> in nature. Those who seek attention "feed" off of it to some
> extent. Them's the basics of trolling for attention.
> 
> Many, if not most, of the people who in my opinion troll for
> attention on a regular basis don't know that they are doing
> it. For them it is an unconscious or subconscious process.
> They just know that *the more people they can get to focus
> on them and thus give them their attention, the better and
> more energetic they feel*.

In my experience, there is also an alternative dynamic -- people not wanting 
attention. And in some ways, attention being less pleasant than non-attention 
(on themselves). And some, myself -- at least at times -- can become socially 
invisible. Not socially dead. But can be part of group interactions, yet few 
recall the "invisible" person. They don't leave a mark -- mo or low attention 
"marks". 

This is a spur of the moment example, it may not hold up upon furhter scrutiny. 
But using a popular TV show as an example -- 30 Rock -- Alec Baldwin (and more 
so the Jenna character) are attention grabbers. the Tina Fey character, on the 
other hand, is more attention invisible. 


> Those who have not yet figured out how to generate those
> feelings of betterness and heightened energy themselves,
> from within, often take the spiritual "low road" and get
> them by trolling for attention, and sucking it from others.
> 
> I once had occasion to chat with an actress once nominated
> for an Academy Award. In person she was *not* all that
> beautiful or attractive, but sitting with her I could not help
> but notice that *every* eye in the room was watching her,
> and not necessarily male, and not necessarily because they
> recognized her. I called her on this and she laughed and
> said, "Oh that...that's my 'magnet' thing. I do it whenever
> I'm out in public." When I tried to delve into it further,
> she admitted that she had no idea *how* she could do this,
> only that she could, and that *she got off on it*. She
> described it as a bigger rush than sex.

There is a "beaming" thing. I can turn my beam on or off. People and groups do 
appear to react differently when its on or off. I usually leave it off. Others 
I think naturally leave it on. I am (as a temporary idea to explore) thinking 
Beam on is akin, but perhaps not the same as charisma -- a personal charm and 
"magnetism". not necessarily a good quality. Alec's character can be a total 
ashole -- but charismatic. Tina's can be cerebral, sensitive, caring, but 
non-charismatic.  
 
> That's the WHY of trolling for attention. Those who do it
> on a regular basis -- as different as they might be from
> each other physically or in other ways -- all have a similar
> "energy signature" that anyone who has been around
> the occult block can recognize. We tend to call such
> people "attention vampires."
> 
 
 
> Call me crazy, but given my studies in the past, I think
> what we have here is an occultist in it for the attention.
> I may be wrong about this, but this post gives you a few
> reasons WHY I feel this way.
> 
> I don't particularly dislike this woman, any more than
> I disliked the actress or dislike many of the other
> attention vampires I run into. In fact, I'm being kind
> to this particular attention vampire in this post by
> never mentioning her name. Thus it won't show up
> on the "hit list" when someone Googles her.
> 
> The Bottom Line
> 
> But maybe it should. Because in the study of occultism
> there is a "bottom line" to trolling for attention. It
> flows *from* one person *to* another, and along with
> it flows one's life energy.
> 
> In occult studies, there is a tried and true method for
> telling the difference between occult flash and real
> shakti. If when you are with the person you think is
> "radiating shakti" physically or talking with them over
> the phone or the Internet you feel a "hit" of energy ,
> that could be IMO either real shakti or occult energy.
> If you find the energy hit "flashy" or very noticeabl

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra Blames Own Meditation for Baja Quake - AOL News

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
snip
> > > > > > true beliefs.  He almost sounds like he has some common
> > > > > > sense about the limits of his personal power.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Actually, I think he was mocking people like you, Curtis,
> > > > > right down to your propensity to make something sinister
> > > > > out of a self-deprecating gag.
> > > > 
> > > > Yeah Judy he was mocking people who call him on his
> > > > fantasy that his state of mind affects the world.
> > > > Really got me!
> > > 
> > > Here you are huffing and puffing, and he's chortling.
> > 
> > My opinions are "huffing and puffing?"  What an odd 
> > characterization.
> 
> Oh, I don't think so.
> 
> > Is that what you are doing here by communicating your
> > opinions, huffing and puffing?
> 
> Sometimes I huff and puff, sure.
> 
> > Or were you trying to characterize opinions this way
> > to diminish them?
> 
> Just pointing out the contrast. He made a joke, and
> you're having a tizzy *because he made a joke*.

I used it as a platform to express my views.  The term "tizzy" is another 
mischaractorization mean to diminish my post.  The intent of my post seems to 
have been missed by you but concerns a technique of cold readers to make their 
other outrageously unsupported statements seem more plausible. I find those 
techniques fascinating as I do your inability to even get the point.  It worked 
on you.
> 
> > > > > If he says he believes he can cause an earthquake by
> > > > > meditating, that's hubris.
> > > > > 
> > > > > If he says he *doesn't* believe he can cause an earthquake
> > > > > by meditating--why, that's hubris too!
> > > > 
> > > > The reason the joke works is because part of his teaching
> > > > actually states that his state of mind affects the world.
> > > > It isn't hubris to make the joke, it is hubris to believe
> > > > that your state of mind affects the world.
> > > 
> > > It would be hubris if he believed he could cause an
> > > earthquake with his meditation.
> > 
> > You are welcome to your opinion.  I think people believing
> > their meditation causes world peace also qualifies.
> 
> Yeah, seems to me there's a pretty gigantic difference
> between somebody thinking their meditation causes
> earthquakes and thinking a lot of people meditating
> together might facilitate world peace.

Not at all.  None in fact.  A whole group of people with no effect is no more 
anything than one person with no effect.  This is a common mental fallacy that 
draws on our natural tendency to believe that more of something will produce a 
bigger effect.  The problem here is that there is no proven mechanism that is 
being multiplied, it was just asserted by an authority figure.  One whom you 
claim you do not take at face value, and yet here you have.  You have fallen 
for his routine as effectively as any Purusha.

More of nothing is still nothing.  You might want to write that down.

> 
> > > But he doesn't believe that, you see. Hhe has some
> > > common sense about the limits of his personal power.
> > 
> > Pretty low bar. Some limits.  Amazing, I'm so proud of him.
> 
> Those were your words, toots.
> 
> > > > Do you share this belief about yourself,is that why you
> > > > are so quick to defend him?
> > > 
> > > BREAKING NEWS: You don't have to share a person's beliefs
> > > to defend them from unfair attack.
> > 
> > BREAKING NEWS:  I know that.  But you aren't defending
> > any "unfair" attack here you and we both know it.
> 
> If I hadn't thought it was unfair, I wouldn't have
> spoken up. And if you'd known that one doesn't have to
> share a person's beliefs to defend them from unfair
> attack, you wouldn't have suggested I was defending
> him because I thought he could cause an earthquake
> with his meditation.

This twist wont work.  I never asked you if you believed he could cause an 
earthquake with his mind and you know it.  I was asking yo to clarify your own 
position on his teaching about the influence of our minds on the world and you 
dodged it. But you answered that you wouldn't rule it out (it wouldn't be 
smart) showing me that you did actually understand the question even though you 
are mischaractorizing it now to make it seem as if I was suggesting that I 
thought you believed in his ability to cause earhquakes which I have never done.

It is your straw man, your pretending I don't understand his joke.  But is is s 
silly ruse because my understanding it lies at the basis of my point.  One you 
have either missed or are pretending to miss.
> 
> > > That said, I don't know whether one's state of mind can
> > > affect "the world" (depending on what you mean by "world"),
> > > and *neither do you*.
> > 
> > Yeah well I'll give it a very low probability OK?  We
> > know quite a bit about how powerful thoughts are on the
> > outside of our skulls because we can measure the
> > electrical energy of our brains.
> 
> Low probability is fine, but I wouldn't make up
> idiotic reas

[FairfieldLife] Re: Apsara or Dakini?

[WillyTex]

bill:
> The designation Dakini is also found in Hindu
> tradition...
>
Maybe so, but the term 'dakini' is a Tibetan Buddhist 
designation. A dakini pertains to the 'Wisdom' aspect 
of Buddhadharma, which ontologicaly is *passive* in 
nature. From what I've read, there are no passive 
aspects to any Hindu female deities. Dakini in Tibetan 
Buddhism is the *active*, feminine embodiment of 
enlightenment.

> but here it is applied only to very minor goddesses, 
> resembling more what we would call witches in our 
> Western tradition. They appear as wild female spirits 
> in the retinue accompanying the great goddess Durga.
>
In Hinduism, the female aspect of the Godhead is
termed 'shakti', and pertains to the *dynamic* aspect 
of the cosmos. 

Note:

Apparently the Hindus were often observed overhearing 
the Buddhist Tantric secrets at yoga camp meetings, 
and in their confusion, turned the whole cosmic 
metaphysic upside-down, making the shakti to be active
and the Purusha to be passive; and mistaking the 
esoteric seed-sound 'hum' and thinking it was 'om'. 

Go figure.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra Blames Own Meditation for Baja Quake - AOL News

[curtisdeltablues]

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

> But you and Curtis are countering it with an "argument
> from personal incredulity" as to whether such a "new
> thing" is possible, so I figure we're even.

This mischaractorization would have worked better if you had not already 
conceded that we currently know of no mechanism. My position is just stating 
the state of science today and has nothing to do with my personal credulity.


>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo"  wrote:
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > 
> > > > Do you share this belief about yourself,is that why you
> > > > are so quick to defend him?
> > > 
> > > BREAKING NEWS: You don't have to share a person's beliefs
> > > to defend them from unfair attack.
> > 
> > But using them as an excuse to launch and attack of your own 
> > is OK.
> 
> Maybe you'd want to review what I said to Curtis and
> see whether it could actually be classified as an
> "attack," as opposed to disagreement. If one is
> defending somebody from what one considers an unfair
> attack, it's kind of hard to avoid expressing
> disagreement.
> 
> > > That said, I don't know whether one's state of mind can
> > > affect "the world" (depending on what you mean by "world"),
> > > and *neither do you*.
> > 
> > Given that we know what causes earthquakes and there is no
> > evidence that the mind can affect the physical world I 
> > can't see what there is to gain from continually speculating
> > that ancient beliefs invented to explain unpleasant occurences
> > have any sort of place outside of selling "spiritual" nonsense.
> > Something Chopra does rather well out of.
> 
> > > But like Chopra, I don't believe one person's meditation
> > > can bring about an earthquake.
> > 
> > How about 5000 people?
> 
> Most likely not, but I wouldn't rule it out entirely.
> 
> Curtis says that if the mind *could* affect the
> physical world, it would have to be "some new thing,"
> because at this point we don't know of any way it
> could happen.
> 
> But we still haven't figured out what consciousness is
> or how it operates, so I think we should leave a bit of
> room for "some new thing."
> 
> Yes, that's an "argument from ignorance," at least in
> terms of whether the possibility of such a phenomenon
> should be ruled out (as opposed to claiming it's true,
> which I'm not doing).
> 
> But you and Curtis are countering it with an "argument
> from personal incredulity" as to whether such a "new
> thing" is possible, so I figure we're even.
> 
> And then there's always "absence of evidence is not
> evidence of absence." Seems to me it makes sense to
> hold open, even if only ever-so-slightly, the
> possibility that evidence is absent because we *don't
> know how to test for it*.
> 
> You and I were discussing awhile back Lawrence LeShan's
> recent book about researching telepathy, in which he
> makes the point that we can't prove it doesn't exist,
> all we can prove is that it doesn't show up reliably
> in controlled laboratory experiments. He says we should
> focus instead on studying instances of purported
> telepathy to see whether we can get a better idea of
> the characteristics of such instances, their parameters,
> which might help us figure out better ways to test for it.
> 
> You ask above "what there is to gain from continually
> speculating that ancient beliefs invented to explain
> unpleasant occurences have any sort of place outside of 
> selling 'spiritual' nonsense." Couple of big assumptions
> there, and they may well be valid--but gee, seems to me
> there'd be quite a few potential real-world benefits if
> we could nail down that "mental states" *can* affect
> the physical world, and how this occurs.
>

RE: [FairfieldLife] Why do many "gurus" shun siddhis? Part 1

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Vaj
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 8:49 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why do many "gurus" shun siddhis? Part 1
 
 
On Apr 7, 2010, at 9:23 AM, cardemaister wrote:



I think there are at least two possible basic reasons, why
many modern Indian "gurus" despise paatañjala-yoga-siddhis:

1. The negative influence of Islam and Christianity

2. Many "gurus" might not be that fluent in Sanskrit...
 
One of the reasons the Hindu scriptures almost universally rail against
siddhis (Patanjali, Vyasa, etc.) is that they are considered inimical to
jivan-mukti or Liberation in this Life
 
Just to play devil's advocate, if Patanjali had been against siddhis, why
would he have devoted one chapter of a four chapter book on how to perform
them?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Brahmasthan of India Update

[It's just a ride]

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Vaj  wrote:

>
>
> I love the smell of poured concrete in the morning.
>
> On Apr 6, 2010, at 9:22 PM, Yifu Xero wrote:
>
>
>
> --- On *Tue, 3/30/10, Brahmananda Saraswati Foundation
> * wrote:
>
>
> From: Brahmananda Saraswati Foundation 
>
>
>
>
Just as Jimmy Hoffa will forever be part of the foundation of the Teamsters
Headquarters, perhaps the books showing where all the USD BILLION$ USD
donated for the pundit project over the years and the plans for the many
villages of pundits along the Ganges (many of the villages actually built,
according to TMO accounts of days gone by) connected by a light rail system
will become part of the foundation of the buildings being erected in this
little patch of nothingness in the middle of nowhere.


A Montana rancher got in his pickup and drove to a neighboring ranch and
knocked at the door. A young boy, about 9, opened the door "Is your Dad
home?" the rancher asked.
"No sir, he isn't," the boy replied. "He went into town."
"Well," said the rancher, "Is your Mother here?"
"No sir, she's not here either. She went into town with Dad."
"How about your brother, Howard? Is he here?"
"No sir, He went with Mom and Dad."
The rancher stood there for a few minutes, shifting from one foot to the
other and mumbling to himself.

"Is there anything I can do for you?" the boy asked politely. "I know where
all the tools are, if you want to borrow one. Or maybe I could take a
message for Dad."
"Well," said the rancher uncomfortably, "I really wanted to talk to your
Dad. It's about your brother Howard getting my daughter, Suzie, pregnant."'
The boy considered for a moment. "You would have to talk to Pa about that",
he finally conceded. "If it helps you any, I know that Pa charges $500 for
the bull and $50 for the hog, but I really don't know how much he gets for
Howard."

[FairfieldLife] Re: Apsara or Dakini?

[authfriend]

Bar, if you're going to spend your precious free time
writing fiction, don't you think it would be more
productive to use it trying to finish your novel? I
mean, at least in that case you'd be more likely to
obtain the "willing suspension of disbelief" that's
required for fiction to be appreciated.

I'll just make one comment, because it involves an
interesting issue:

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

> This Bash -- as with so many others -- has 
> nothing whatsoever to do with the person she
> is supposedly "defending," just as her supposed
> defense of Chopra in her latest Bashing Curtis
> exercise has nothing to do with Chopra. She 
> has bashed Chopra herself mercilessly in the
> past, and will do so again. She *loathes*
> Chopra, and has made that loathing clear in
> the past, both here and on a.m.t.

The above exemplifies a major difference between
Barry's ethical principles (such as they are) and
mine--i.e., that Barry thinks there's no reason to
defend from unfair attack a person one doesn't like,
and his corrollary, that any such defense isn't
really "about" defending that person but is solely
a matter of "bashing" the person who made the unfair
attack.

As far as Barry is concerned, if he doesn't like a
person, the person therefore *deserves* to be attacked
unfairly, and the attacker should be immune from any
criticism.

I don't believe that. I think unfairness needs to be
criticized wherever it's found. I think the tendency
to *be* unfair is, along with the tendency to tell
outright falsehoods, the biggest social problem we
face in the world today, the one with the most 
devastating consequences.

> She doesn't IMO give a flying fuck about *any*
> of the people she poses as "defending." They 
> are nothing to her but *excuses* to let out the 
> simmering hatred she continues to nurture for 
> her "enemines" here on FFL -- the "usual
> suspects."

Here I'll just note again for the record that
"enemies" (or, in Barry's orthography when he's
suffering from a particularly bad bout of angst,
"enemines") is Barry's term, not mine, even though
he uses quote marks to give the impression that
he's quoting me.


> Letting that hatred out is pretty much her 
> entire act. It's her only form of release. She'
> s really got no other chops, except to repost 
> something that someone else said and pass it 
> off as if she invented it because she found 
> it by Googling.

This is an example of an unfair attack by Barry,
one he knows is entirely factually false. But
because he loathes me, he feels I *deserve* it.

Unfortunately for him, the only people here who
will be willing to engage in the massive
suspension of disbelief necessary to go along with
it are Barry's dittoheads.

> Haven't you figure this *out* yet? Almost
> everyone else here has. You can tell by how
> few people bother to respond to any of her
> Bashes any more, even the Bashees.

Oh, this too--same category. Also an example
of Barry's solipsism.


> But it's Just Another Bash. Not a "defense," 
> unless you consider defending one's own attachment
> to one's own hatreds a defense. IMO it's a big,
> angry, desperate "Fuck you" shouted to the people 
> who have committed the unpardonable sin of Not 
> Taking Her Seriously, or worse, actually 
> laughing at her.

>From a few days ago:

Barry:
> > > What part of I DON'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT YOU BELIEVE
> > > or I AM NOT TRYING TO SELL YOU ANYTHING do
> > > you not get?
> >
Judy:
> > The part where you feel the need to USE CAPITAL
> > LETTERS REPEATEDLY to insist that what Lurk
> > believes doesn't affect you in any way?
>
Barry:
> fuck you, cunt

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why do many "gurus" shun siddhis? Part 1

[Vaj]

On Apr 7, 2010, at 9:47 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:


Card, with all due respect, a more relevant question
might be, "Why would anyone *want* siddhis?"



So you can imagine your ego is connected to world events, like  
earthquakes, hurricanes, the stock market and stuff like that. It's  
expansion of consciousness baby!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra Blames Own Meditation for Baja Quake - AOL News

[tartbrain]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> 
> 
> > > Do you share this belief about yourself,is that why you
> > > are so quick to defend him?
> > 
> > BREAKING NEWS: You don't have to share a person's beliefs
> > to defend them from unfair attack.
> 
> But using them as an excuse to launch and attack of your own 
> is OK.
> 
> 
> 
> > That said, I don't know whether one's state of mind can
> > affect "the world" (depending on what you mean by "world"),
> > and *neither do you*.
> 
> Given that we know what causes earthquakes and there is no
> evidence that the mind can affect the physical world I 
> can't see what there is to gain from continually speculating
> that ancient beliefs invented to explain unpleasant occurences
> have any sort of place outside of selling "spiritual" nonsense.
> Something Chopra does rather well out of.
> 
>  
> > But like Chopra, I don't believe one person's meditation
> > can bring about an earthquake.
> 
> How about 5000 people?
> 

Thinking about this just having dwelled on and posted (comments on a Turquoise 
post) )my interpretation of what I term interaction with a high-shakti person 
-- I offer up the possiblility -- in my experience - that such a person can 
make you tangibly feel their presence -- and that "thing" can get transfered to 
others / me.  The experience makes quite credible (to me, one person, not 
exactly science) the "lion lay down with the lamb" thing. That some people can 
radiate a universal love shakti thing that does rub off on the environment and 
people and animals are affected by it. 

(when I started mediation I had a dog who would lie down outside my door and 
calmly wait for me to finish my med. Maybe it was simply a natural dog 
affection thing.  But my dog didn't sit outside my door at other times. Again, 
not science, but an anecdotal dot.) 

Even if this experience is only cognized by humans and animals (and my 
experience hardly proves that such occurs) -- my sense is that it could affect 
inanimate physical things too.
  
Continuing on this woo woo ray tangent (I am generally quite rational and 
skeptical), in these universal love states i can sense the personality of trees 
and plants. Quite distinct entities. And my love for them seems felt -- and 
they seem responsive. (to be more specific, its like a lake of universal love, 
undirected, that is then directed at them. There is a focus on them. An 
adorational devotion kind of focus. But its not at all like the charismatic 
beaming discussed in my comments tot the Turquoise post.) Like they would 
protect me in their "enchanted forest". (I know, lock me up, we can't have 
people walking the streets thinking they can talk to trees).
  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why do many "gurus" shun siddhis? Part 1

[WillyTex]

> > I think there are at least two possible basic 
> > reasons, why many modern Indian "gurus" despise 
> > paatañjala-yoga-siddhis:
> >
TurquoiseB:
>
> Card, with all due respect, a more relevant 
> question might be, "Why would anyone *want* 
> siddhis?"
> 
> I pose this as a question for those on this 
> forum who might fall into that category, and 
> look forward to their answers.
> 
> "Why would anyone *want* siddhis?"
>
So, with all due respect, why did the Rama Lenz 
like to display the 'siddhis', if in fact, they 
are detrimental to spiritual progress on the 
path to enlightenment?

My answer: Rama was able to pass out LSD in the
desert at night, and then brainwash ordinary 
folks into believing that their drug-induced 
illusions of levitation were real. 

As for the 'golden' light, obviously someone 
just turned on the house lights.

"I studied with a guy who could turn huge rooms
in convention centers gold, to the point where
even the security guards saw it, but that never
made me think he was enlightened, only that he
could do cool things with light..."

From: Uncle Tantra
Subject: Re: Two simple questions
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: March 16, 2003

> > 1. The negative influence of Islam and Christianity
> > 
> > 2. Many "gurus" might not be that fluent in Sanskrit...
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Why do many "gurus" shun siddhis? Part 1

[Vaj]

On Apr 7, 2010, at 10:28 AM, Rick Archer wrote:

Just to play devil's advocate, if Patanjali had been against  
siddhis, why would he have devoted one chapter of a four chapter  
book on how to perform them?



First of all, it's a compilation of what was known in his time. Since  
yogic texts contained details of the yogic siddhis, he mentions them,  
but gives no details--and it's not meant to, they're given orally.  
The sutras are sketches, that's all. It takes a good teacher to  
explain them. For example the levitation sutra involves a difficult  
process of raising kundalini via a certain path into the skull, which  
can result in insanity (it's believed).


Some traditions are interested in liberation and therefore don't find  
siddhis valuable. Some will learn siddhis to make a living.


Patanjali actually states "These experiences resulting from samyama  
are obstacles to samadhi, but appear to be attainments or powers to  
the worldly mind." No samadhi = no yogic liberation, sorry Charlie. :-(


The oral tradition of Patanjali skips the siddhis and follows the  
text in it's own sequence. So does the Shankaracharya order, in fact  
their text on enlightenment follows the yoga-sutras verse by verse,  
until the siddhis and skips ALL the verses on siddhis, except  
Patanjali's warning.


Some Naths even consider chapter four a later forgery inserted by  
those sneaky Buddhists.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra Blames Own Meditation for Baja Quake - AOL News

[Hugo]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo"  wrote:
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > 
> > > > Do you share this belief about yourself,is that why you
> > > > are so quick to defend him?
> > > 
> > > BREAKING NEWS: You don't have to share a person's beliefs
> > > to defend them from unfair attack.
> > 
> > But using them as an excuse to launch and attack of your own 
> > is OK.
> 
> Maybe you'd want to review what I said to Curtis and
> see whether it could actually be classified as an
> "attack," as opposed to disagreement. If one is
> defending somebody from what one considers an unfair
> attack, it's kind of hard to avoid expressing
> disagreement.

I'm just calling it how I see it. I see Curtis has
already resonded to that better than I could.
 

> > > That said, I don't know whether one's state of mind can
> > > affect "the world" (depending on what you mean by "world"),
> > > and *neither do you*.
> > 
> > Given that we know what causes earthquakes and there is no
> > evidence that the mind can affect the physical world I 
> > can't see what there is to gain from continually speculating
> > that ancient beliefs invented to explain unpleasant occurences
> > have any sort of place outside of selling "spiritual" nonsense.
> > Something Chopra does rather well out of.
> 
> > > But like Chopra, I don't believe one person's meditation
> > > can bring about an earthquake.
> > 
> > How about 5000 people?
> 
> Most likely not, but I wouldn't rule it out entirely.
> 
> Curtis says that if the mind *could* affect the
> physical world, it would have to be "some new thing,"
> because at this point we don't know of any way it
> could happen.
> 
> But we still haven't figured out what consciousness is
> or how it operates, so I think we should leave a bit of
> room for "some new thing."

It would really be some "Old Thing" and we can see where 
the belief comes from and it isn't experience. We can't 
tell at all whether the mind can affect things so why the
big hoo-ha in the TMO about the marshy effect? Because you
can't have a belief in consciousness as the unified field
without accepting that outcomes like earthquakes and 
political upheaval are somehow connected with people sitting
around with their eyes closed. 

Which is why I always say a completely non-snarky thankyou
to the TMO for the IA course and pundit programme because 
they convincingly demonstrated once and for all that it's a
load of old toss and should be abandoned to save a lot of 
people a lot of money. That's one advantage of science 
over belief, helping us work out the best way to improve
our lot. It turns out praying to the gods and hopping up and 
down turned out not to be a hugely reliable way of doing that.

I know I sound like a scratched record but it has to be said.

 
> Yes, that's an "argument from ignorance," at least in
> terms of whether the possibility of such a phenomenon
> should be ruled out (as opposed to claiming it's true,
> which I'm not doing).
> 
> But you and Curtis are countering it with an "argument
> from personal incredulity" as to whether such a "new
> thing" is possible, so I figure we're even.

I wouldn't say incredulity, I have given it a lot of 
thought, a chance to work in my life and observed how it 
fails to demonstrably fails to affect world as predicted.

Suppose we didn't know about plate tectonics, then you 
might be able to say things are happening for reasons
unknown and search about for mystical reasons which is
how we got here in the first place I'll wager. 

The thing is if it's consciousness affecting the earths
crust then there can't have been any earthquakes before 
man evolved and started meditating. This is something
the vedas (and most other religious texts I know of)
are confusing about because they claim was always 
man here. Knowledge moves on.

But perhaps consciousness affects earthquakes as well as
general shifting about due to a spinning core surrounded 
by molten rock? That'll be the one to test for! Good luck 
I say.

 
> And then there's always "absence of evidence is not
> evidence of absence." Seems to me it makes sense to
> hold open, even if only ever-so-slightly, the
> possibility that evidence is absent because we *don't
> know how to test for it*.

> You and I were discussing awhile back Lawrence LeShan's
> recent book about researching telepathy, in which he
> makes the point that we can't prove it doesn't exist,
> all we can prove is that it doesn't show up reliably
> in controlled laboratory experiments. He says we should
> focus instead on studying instances of purported
> telepathy to see whether we can get a better idea of
> the characteristics of such instances, their parameters,
> which might help us figure out better ways to test for it.

I'm all for it.
 
> You ask above "what there 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Occultism 101

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > Or, The Science of Sucking Energy and the Art of
> > Pretending You're Not Doing It
> > 
>  
> 
> > The Basics
> > 
> > Occult energy is not the same thing as shakti. Apples and
> > oranges. You've seen many on this forum who have had
> > experience with both point out the difference.
> > 
> > Real shakti is IMO devoid of intent or intention. If it seems
> > to "flow," that is because you're perceiving something that
> > has always already been present and you're just noticing
> > and, out of habit, assuming that it was "beamed" at you or
> > "aimed" at you.
> > 
> > Occult energy flows because someone *wants* it to flow. There
> > is very definitely an *intent* behind it. Even if that intent
> > is benevolent, the energy is to some extent colored by the
> > presence of intent. Them's the basics.
> > 
> > The Nature Of Attention
> > 
> > Attention is a drug. Seeking attention is an addiction. The
> > techniques *for* seeking and attracting attention are occult
> > in nature. Those who seek attention "feed" off of it to some
> > extent. Them's the basics of trolling for attention.
> > 
> > Many, if not most, of the people who in my opinion troll for
> > attention on a regular basis don't know that they are doing
> > it. For them it is an unconscious or subconscious process.
> > They just know that *the more people they can get to focus
> > on them and thus give them their attention, the better and
> > more energetic they feel*.
> 
> In my experience, there is also an alternative dynamic -- 
> people not wanting attention. And in some ways, attention 
> being less pleasant than non-attention (on themselves). And 
> some, myself -- at least at times -- can become socially 
> invisible. Not socially dead. But can be part of group 
> interactions, yet few recall the "invisible" person. They 
> don't leave a mark -- mo or low attention "marks". 

I completely agree, and consider "being invisible to
attention" (or as Castandea would phrase it, "inaccess-
ibility") to be a much more useful and much higher skill
than "pushing it out" to become *more* visible. If you
are at all interested, one of my stories in Road Trip
Mind deals with this very phenomenon, and relates the
story of a movie star who was IMO very skilled at this:
http://www.ramalila.net/RoadTripMind/rtm33.html

> This is a spur of the moment example, it may not hold up upon 
> furhter scrutiny. But using a popular TV show as an example -- 
> 30 Rock -- Alec Baldwin (and more so the Jenna character) are 
> attention grabbers. the Tina Fey character, on the other hand, 
> is more attention invisible. 

Exactly. A more telling (and occult) example is found
in Issac Asimov's "Fountdation" trilogy, in which the
people who really run the society work as janitors. No
one ever suspects who they are, so they get to keep
doing what they do. Inaccessibility personified.

> > Those who have not yet figured out how to generate those
> > feelings of betterness and heightened energy themselves,
> > from within, often take the spiritual "low road" and get
> > them by trolling for attention, and sucking it from others.
> > 
> > I once had occasion to chat with an actress once nominated
> > for an Academy Award. In person she was *not* all that
> > beautiful or attractive, but sitting with her I could not help
> > but notice that *every* eye in the room was watching her,
> > and not necessarily male, and not necessarily because they
> > recognized her. I called her on this and she laughed and
> > said, "Oh that...that's my 'magnet' thing. I do it whenever
> > I'm out in public." When I tried to delve into it further,
> > she admitted that she had no idea *how* she could do this,
> > only that she could, and that *she got off on it*. She
> > described it as a bigger rush than sex.
> 
> There is a "beaming" thing. I can turn my beam on or off. 

Me, too. I tend to keep it off, because as I have mentioned
here before, the thing no one ever thinks about when think-
ing about the word "attractive" is WHAT you are attracting.
In the occult studies I have done, one warning issued to
people who find it easy to, as you say, "beam it out," is
that when they do so, and attract another person's attention,
they are establishing a psychic link between that person's
attention and their own. While the energy that the "attention
vampire" is feeding off of flows from the victim to them,
*SO* do attributes of that person's overall state of attention
or consciousness.

Think about Marilyn Monroe, or other stars obviously skilled
at "pushing it out." Now think about millions of guys whose
attention they have captured, sitting at home looking at
photos of the person who has captured their attention and
whacking off, or worse, thinking of other weird, perverse
stuff they want to do to them. THAT flows across the psychic
connection, too.

> People and groups do appear t

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra Blames Own Meditation for Baja Quake - AOL News

[Hugo]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > > Do you share this belief about yourself,is that why you
> > > > are so quick to defend him?
> > > 
> > > BREAKING NEWS: You don't have to share a person's beliefs
> > > to defend them from unfair attack.
> > 
> > But using them as an excuse to launch and attack of your own 
> > is OK.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > That said, I don't know whether one's state of mind can
> > > affect "the world" (depending on what you mean by "world"),
> > > and *neither do you*.
> > 
> > Given that we know what causes earthquakes and there is no
> > evidence that the mind can affect the physical world I 
> > can't see what there is to gain from continually speculating
> > that ancient beliefs invented to explain unpleasant occurences
> > have any sort of place outside of selling "spiritual" nonsense.
> > Something Chopra does rather well out of.
> > 
> >  
> > > But like Chopra, I don't believe one person's meditation
> > > can bring about an earthquake.
> > 
> > How about 5000 people?
> > 
> 
> Thinking about this just having dwelled on and posted (comments on a 
> Turquoise post) )my interpretation of what I term interaction with a 
> high-shakti person -- I offer up the possiblility -- in my experience - that 
> such a person can make you tangibly feel their presence -- and that "thing" 
> can get transfered to others / me.  The experience makes quite credible (to 
> me, one person, not exactly science) the "lion lay down with the lamb" thing. 
> That some people can radiate a universal love shakti thing that does rub off 
> on the environment and people and animals are affected by it. 
> 
> (when I started mediation I had a dog who would lie down outside my door and 
> calmly wait for me to finish my med. Maybe it was simply a natural dog 
> affection thing.  But my dog didn't sit outside my door at other times. 
> Again, not science, but an anecdotal dot.) 
> 
> Even if this experience is only cognized by humans and animals (and my 
> experience hardly proves that such occurs) -- my sense is that it could 
> affect inanimate physical things too.
>   
> Continuing on this woo woo ray tangent (I am generally quite rational and 
> skeptical), in these universal love states i can sense the personality of 
> trees and plants. Quite distinct entities. And my love for them seems felt -- 
> and they seem responsive. (to be more specific, its like a lake of universal 
> love, undirected, that is then directed at them. There is a focus on them. An 
> adorational devotion kind of focus. But its not at all like the charismatic 
> beaming discussed in my comments tot the Turquoise post.) Like they would 
> protect me in their "enchanted forest". (I know, lock me up, we can't have 
> people walking the streets thinking they can talk to trees).
>


I won't lock you up. I've been there, it's a good trip.

A positive mood changes your day completely, people look at
you in the street and smile, doors open. All of a sudden
it's a beautiful world, nothing goes wrong all day. Sigh.

Amazing how much stress and anger can cloud how we see and 
think about things. I'm sure all the understanding trees 
and animals bit is a projection but at the time it never 
feels right to get critical and dissect it as it robs the 
sensation of its wonder.

Spring is coming to England, joy of joys. I'm sure I'll do 
much wandering through enchanted forests full of bluebells 
with my happy little dog. Might even send in a photo coz
there is few sights as perfect as a beechwood in spring IMHO.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Occultism 101

[tartbrain]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> 
> I once had occasion to chat with an actress once nominated
> for an Academy Award. In person she was *not* all that
> beautiful or attractive, but sitting with her I could not help
> but notice that *every* eye in the room was watching her,
> and not necessarily male, and not necessarily because they
> recognized her. I called her on this and she laughed and
> said, "Oh that...that's my 'magnet' thing. I do it whenever
> I'm out in public." When I tried to delve into it further,
> she admitted that she had no idea *how* she could do this,
> only that she could, and that *she got off on it*. She
> described it as a bigger rush than sex.

That got me wondering (I am either curious or nosy) who the actress was. Or 
more so, various actresses and their energy signiture / accoult energy / 
charisma / shakti. So some random thoughts and examples.

Marissa Tomei came to mind. While she can beam it out wit the best of them, I 
sense her natural, at rest state is a gentle sort of happiness radiating 
person. 

Michelle Pheiffer (sp)  -- can turn on that deep silent siren vibe -- a rfined 
sort of charisma. But when she turns off the beam, i snes she is more of a 
socially  invisible person (see my adjacent post on this thread) who enjys 
"non-attention".

Zoey Dechinelle -- I don't think she ever turns on the beam -- she just is who 
she is. Kind of goofy, but smart, and just comfortable with herself. No need to 
beam it on. Similar, though distinct) from her sister Emily (of Bones). Kind of 
a "WTF -- why would I waste my time and energy on beaming"

Sandra Bullock -- Can definatly turn on the beam -- but then sort of plays with 
it in a self-effacing, good-naturedly mocking sort of way. And in personal life 
doesn't use it that much -- but can do so at times to great effect.

Sophia Loren -- in her prime, even now, can turn on a beam seen a 100 miles 
away. A silent serene sort of beaming. But I sense in her personal life -- she 
doesn't use it at all -- and is happy, more naturally a non-beamer. (but may 
turn it on in a compassionate sort of way, on occasion)

But probably these impressions have little to do with reality -- more my 
filters on things.

 
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Apsara or Dakini?

[WillyTex]

TurquoiseB:
> It's the exact same act as Willytex's, and
> run for exactly the same reason...
> 
Not exactly. 

Actually, the purpose of my posts are to get people 
thinking about what they believe, or not. Most of 
the time, their epistemological and metaphysical
statements will be found to be false or contradictory, 
because any theory, when taken to extremes, will be 
found to be self-contradictory. 

This dialectical method was used very effectively by 
Socrates. The idea is to identifying and eliminate 
those hypothesis that lead to obvious contradictions.

In other words, get your debating opponent to say 
what he believes, without him really thinking about 
it, and then to ask a series of questions that make 
those ideas appear to be unsupportable by logic; to 
show that their reasoning is metaphysical, and to 
demonstrate the logical fallacy of clinging to false 
views.

> She's trying to provoke an argument and get 
> someone to focus their attention on her and 
> argue with her...

Maybe so, it seems to work in your case! But what
you call 'argument' is to Judy a 'debate', which
you are obviously losing.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bret Stephens asks what's the next panic ? Any ideas?

[WillyTex]

sgray: 
> Herewith, then, I propose a readers' contest 
> to invent the next panic...
>
"This year, the debt will reach 63 percent of 
GDP, a ratio that has ignited crises in smaller 
wealthy nations. Fiscal crises gripped Canada, 
Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Ireland when their 
debts were below where the United States is 
shortly headed..."

Read more:

'National debt seen heading for crisis level'
By Carolyn Lochhead
San Francisco Chronicle, April 5, 2010
http://tinyurl.com/y8m4lzd
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why do many "gurus" shun siddhis? Part 1

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> Card, with all due respect, a more relevant question
> might be, "Why would anyone *want* siddhis?"

Well, according to Maadhava VidyaaraNya's Shankara-dig-
vijaya, the Great Shankara himself utilized "cittasya
para-shariiraaveshaH" (entering another's body, III 39)
to get "kaama-suutric" knowledge (in the body of a 
recently deceased king, "abusing" his harem). 

I seem to recall Shankara also flew yogicly with his pupils 
over some mountains to a near-by village. But I'm not absolutely
sure about that.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Occultism 101

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > 
> > I once had occasion to chat with an actress once nominated
> > for an Academy Award. In person she was *not* all that
> > beautiful or attractive, but sitting with her I could not help
> > but notice that *every* eye in the room was watching her,
> > and not necessarily male, and not necessarily because they
> > recognized her. I called her on this and she laughed and
> > said, "Oh that...that's my 'magnet' thing. I do it whenever
> > I'm out in public." When I tried to delve into it further,
> > she admitted that she had no idea *how* she could do this,
> > only that she could, and that *she got off on it*. She
> > described it as a bigger rush than sex.
> 
> That got me wondering (I am either curious or nosy) who the 
> actress was. 

We lived in the same neighborhood in Malibu and I ran
into her while running along the beach and afterwards
shared a coffee with her at a restaurant. When she found
out I was a writer she made me swear that everything she
said was Off The Record, and I will still respect that.
Since I have mentioned some of those things she said 
without mentioning her name, I will keep it that way.
She's not either of the actresses mentioned in the Road
Trip Mind story I cited earlier. 

> Or more so, various actresses and their energy signiture / 
> accoult energy / charisma / shakti. So some random thoughts 
> and examples.
> 
> Marissa Tomei came to mind. While she can beam it out wit the 
> best of them, I sense her natural, at rest state is a gentle 
> sort of happiness radiating person. 

Haven't ever met her, and thus can't say. Onscreen she
certainly has a "naturalistic" presence.

> Michelle Pheiffer (sp)  -- can turn on that deep silent siren 
> vibe -- a rfined sort of charisma. But when she turns off the 
> beam, i snes she is more of a socially  invisible person (see 
> my adjacent post on this thread) who enjys "non-attention".

Again, have never run into her. Can't say.

> Zoey Dechinelle -- I don't think she ever turns on the beam -- 
> she just is who she is. Kind of goofy, but smart, and just 
> comfortable with herself. No need to beam it on. Similar, 
> though distinct) from her sister Emily (of Bones). Kind of 
> a "WTF -- why would I waste my time and energy on beaming"

I would tend to agree, based on their onscreen personas.
As much as I think Zooey is cute as a button, I also think
that her sister is the better actress.

> Sandra Bullock -- Can definatly turn on the beam -- but then 
> sort of plays with it in a self-effacing, good-naturedly 
> mocking sort of way. And in personal life doesn't use it 
> that much -- but can do so at times to great effect.

Looks as if she should have used the "Beam" a bit more
with Jesse. :-)

> Sophia Loren -- in her prime, even now, can turn on a beam 
> seen a 100 miles away. A silent serene sort of beaming. But 
> I sense in her personal life -- she doesn't use it at all -- 
> and is happy, more naturally a non-beamer. (but may turn it 
> on in a compassionate sort of way, on occasion)

I suspect you are correct about this.

> But probably these impressions have little to do with reality -- 
> more my filters on things.

Plus, all of these actresses gets *multiple takes* to 
craft the images of them we see in their movies or on
TV. It's not as if they are "winging" the impression
that they want us to walk away with, or that their
performances aren't crafted by directors.

A friend of mine in Paris pissed me off once by running
into the actress I have for much of my life considered
the most beautiful woman on the planet, Isabel Adjani.
And the thing is, my friend was sitting right next to
her and didn't notice her for half an hour, while wait-
ing for her date to arrive. The date noticed Ms. Adjani,
and whispered it to my friend, at which point she 
realized who she was. 

If you know the woman in question, the idea of her being
able to remain *invisible* in a public place is FAR 
more impressive than someone who can merely "push it out."

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra Blames Own Meditation for Baja Quake - AOL News

[curtisdeltablues]

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

> Continuing on this woo woo ray tangent (I am generally quite rational and 
> skeptical), in these universal love states i can sense the personality of 
> trees and plants. Quite distinct entities. And my love for them seems felt -- 
> and they seem responsive. (to be more specific, its like a lake of universal 
> love, undirected, that is then directed at them. There is a focus on them. An 
> adorational devotion kind of focus. But its not at all like the charismatic 
> beaming discussed in my comments tot the Turquoise post.) Like they would 
> protect me in their "enchanted forest". (I know, lock me up, we can't have 
> people walking the streets thinking they can talk to trees).

I believe these mental states do have a value (even if it is just for 
entertainment) but that value is not in the content of the beliefs that are 
spontaneously generated such as, trees are reflecting my love.  Taking their 
content seriously is the mistake the ancients made. 

We don't have to take the content of these states of awareness literally and 
seriously (trees actually do love us) to enjoy the state of union through love 
or your being or whatever else you want to call it.  In fact trying to draw 
literal conclusions diminishes the potential value for our creativity and 
artistic expression from having these experiences.

If you talk to a tree you are a poet, if it talks back you are a nutter in 
society!  But being able to drift into the states of mind where you can have 
conversations with trees is a wonderful tool for creativity that gets squashed 
when someone claims that this experience is evidence for the highly developed 
sentient nature of trees.

We can and should visit the holy tree in the Avatar movie but we shouldn't 
forget that it is a movie and once the 3-D glasses come off, what we have 
gained is not definite ontological information about how the world really is.  
We have gained a shift of perspective that we can then use to spark actual 
tests on the world if we are scientists or expressions of art if we are an 
artist. 

I am an advocate of people having more of this type of experiences through many 
different means including psychedelics and meditation but hope we can not make 
the mistake our religiously minded and bound ancestors did concerning what they 
mean.  We need to approach that with the starting point that we do no already 
know what they mean.  But to assume that they serve as a self-evident source of 
knowledge about the world is the lamest choice of all.  It discards a whole 
body of knowledge and perspective that has served us well in building human 
knowledge to this point.  Artistically and creatively inspired altered states 
of mind have a place.  But they aren't remotely close to being the source of 
man's deepest knowledge yet.  Historically they have led us astray as much as 
they have inspired us.




>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > > Do you share this belief about yourself,is that why you
> > > > are so quick to defend him?
> > > 
> > > BREAKING NEWS: You don't have to share a person's beliefs
> > > to defend them from unfair attack.
> > 
> > But using them as an excuse to launch and attack of your own 
> > is OK.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > That said, I don't know whether one's state of mind can
> > > affect "the world" (depending on what you mean by "world"),
> > > and *neither do you*.
> > 
> > Given that we know what causes earthquakes and there is no
> > evidence that the mind can affect the physical world I 
> > can't see what there is to gain from continually speculating
> > that ancient beliefs invented to explain unpleasant occurences
> > have any sort of place outside of selling "spiritual" nonsense.
> > Something Chopra does rather well out of.
> > 
> >  
> > > But like Chopra, I don't believe one person's meditation
> > > can bring about an earthquake.
> > 
> > How about 5000 people?
> > 
> 
> Thinking about this just having dwelled on and posted (comments on a 
> Turquoise post) )my interpretation of what I term interaction with a 
> high-shakti person -- I offer up the possiblility -- in my experience - that 
> such a person can make you tangibly feel their presence -- and that "thing" 
> can get transfered to others / me.  The experience makes quite credible (to 
> me, one person, not exactly science) the "lion lay down with the lamb" thing. 
> That some people can radiate a universal love shakti thing that does rub off 
> on the environment and people and animals are affected by it. 
> 
> (when I started mediation I had a dog who would lie down outside my door and 
> calmly wait for me to finish my med. Maybe it was simply a natural dog 
> affection thing.  But my dog didn't sit outside my door at othe

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why do many "gurus" shun siddhis? Part 1

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > Card, with all due respect, a more relevant question
> > might be, "Why would anyone *want* siddhis?"
> 
> Well, according to Maadhava VidyaaraNya's Shankara-dig-
> vijaya, the Great Shankara himself utilized "cittasya
> para-shariiraaveshaH" (entering another's body, III 39)
> to get "kaama-suutric" knowledge (in the body of a 
> recently deceased king, "abusing" his harem). 
> 
> I seem to recall Shankara also flew yogicly with his pupils 
> over some mountains to a near-by village. But I'm not absolutely
> sure about that.

So you're saying that the reason you would want to
learn to perform siddhis is that a dead person who
we are told wrote some stuff claimed that he 
performed them. Cool, I guess.

I would have thought that you might have more well-
thought out reasons for wanting to learn them.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Occultism 101

[emptybill]

Why bother saying *Tantra* when the
associations with the word are so numerous.

J.S.G - Jesus says 'Gupta' ...
... because it's so succinct

Gupta! Gupta!


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
>
>
>
> TurquoiseB:
> > Occult energy is not the same thing as shakti...
> >
> You have employed circular logic. In logic, you cannot
> define a term by using another, undefined term. In this
> case, you have said that 'the 'occult' is not the
> 'shakti', neither of which has been defined.
>
> You seem to have a propensity for doing this (soul,
> self, enlightenment, spiritual, self, etc.).
>
> > Real shakti is IMO devoid of intent or intention...
> >
> Your rap goes rapidly down hill from here, because you
> tell us nothing about what the occult is, but instead
> launch into a rant about 'shakti', which is in your
> opinion, not the same as the occult.
>
> 
>
> So, your information is next to worthless, as serves as
> nothing much about the occult or the shakti. it is
> really nothing than another excuse for a Maharishi-bash
> - it's all about Judy.
>
> So what, exactly, is the 'occult'?
>
> First a definition:
>
> The 'occult' is the study and practice of *hidden* or
> *esoteric* knowledge or wisdom. For example, Theosophy,
> Kaballah, or Tantra.
>
> Tantra is an occult practice which originated in India
> during the Gupta Age. Indian Tantra includes ritual
> practices such as visualizations, incantations, chanting
> of mantras, sex-magic, and sacrifice.
>
> Occultism:
>
> oc·cult adj.
> 1. Of, relating to, or dealing with supernatural
> influences, agencies, or phenomena.
> 2. Beyond the realm of human comprehension; inscrutable.
> 3. Available only to the initiate; secret: occult lore.
> 4. Hidden from view; concealed...
>
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/occult
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Occultism 101

[tartbrain]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > > 
> > > I once had occasion to chat with an actress once nominated
> > > for an Academy Award. In person she was *not* all that
> > > beautiful or attractive, but sitting with her I could not help
> > > but notice that *every* eye in the room was watching her,
> > > and not necessarily male, and not necessarily because they
> > > recognized her. I called her on this and she laughed and
> > > said, "Oh that...that's my 'magnet' thing. I do it whenever
> > > I'm out in public." When I tried to delve into it further,
> > > she admitted that she had no idea *how* she could do this,
> > > only that she could, and that *she got off on it*. She
> > > described it as a bigger rush than sex.
> > 
> > That got me wondering (I am either curious or nosy) who the 
> > actress was. 
> 
> We lived in the same neighborhood in Malibu and I ran
> into her while running along the beach and afterwards
> shared a coffee with her at a restaurant. When she found
> out I was a writer she made me swear that everything she
> said was Off The Record, and I will still respect that.
> Since I have mentioned some of those things she said 
> without mentioning her name, I will keep it that way.
> She's not either of the actresses mentioned in the Road
> Trip Mind story I cited earlier. 

And just to clarify, I was not seeking for yu to reveal who it was. I 
implicitly understood and respect privacy or the situation. But it go me 
thinking about actresses and the energy (as I perceive it through many personal 
filters)

> > Or more so, various actresses and their energy signiture / 
> > accoult energy / charisma / shakti. So some random thoughts 
> > and examples.
> > 
> > Marissa Tomei came to mind. While she can beam it out wit the 
> > best of them, I sense her natural, at rest state is a gentle 
> > sort of happiness radiating person. 
> 
> Haven't ever met her, and thus can't say. Onscreen she
> certainly has a "naturalistic" presence.
> 
> > Michelle Pheiffer (sp)  -- can turn on that deep silent siren 
> > vibe -- a rfined sort of charisma. But when she turns off the 
> > beam, i snes she is more of a socially  invisible person (see 
> > my adjacent post on this thread) who enjys "non-attention".
> 
> Again, have never run into her. Can't say.
> 
> > Zoey Dechinelle -- I don't think she ever turns on the beam -- 
> > she just is who she is. Kind of goofy, but smart, and just 
> > comfortable with herself. No need to beam it on. Similar, 
> > though distinct) from her sister Emily (of Bones). Kind of 
> > a "WTF -- why would I waste my time and energy on beaming"
> 
> I would tend to agree, based on their onscreen personas.
> As much as I think Zooey is cute as a button, I also think
> that her sister is the better actress.
> 
> > Sandra Bullock -- Can definatly turn on the beam -- but then 
> > sort of plays with it in a self-effacing, good-naturedly 
> > mocking sort of way. And in personal life doesn't use it 
> > that much -- but can do so at times to great effect.
> 
> Looks as if she should have used the "Beam" a bit more
> with Jesse. :-)
> 
> > Sophia Loren -- in her prime, even now, can turn on a beam 
> > seen a 100 miles away. A silent serene sort of beaming. But 
> > I sense in her personal life -- she doesn't use it at all -- 
> > and is happy, more naturally a non-beamer. (but may turn it 
> > on in a compassionate sort of way, on occasion)
> 
> I suspect you are correct about this.
> 
> > But probably these impressions have little to do with reality -- 
> > more my filters on things.
> 
> Plus, all of these actresses gets *multiple takes* to 
> craft the images of them we see in their movies or on
> TV. It's not as if they are "winging" the impression
> that they want us to walk away with, or that their
> performances aren't crafted by directors.
> 
> A friend of mine in Paris pissed me off once by running
> into the actress I have for much of my life considered
> the most beautiful woman on the planet, Isabel Adjani.
> And the thing is, my friend was sitting right next to
> her and didn't notice her for half an hour, while wait-
> ing for her date to arrive. The date noticed Ms. Adjani,
> and whispered it to my friend, at which point she 
> realized who she was. 
> 
> If you know the woman in question, the idea of her being
> able to remain *invisible* in a public place is FAR 
> more impressive than someone who can merely "push it out."
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra Blames Own Meditation for Baja Quake - AOL News

[authfriend]

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

> > > > Here you are huffing and puffing, and he's chortling.
> > > 
> > > My opinions are "huffing and puffing?"  What an odd 
> > > characterization.
> > 
> > Oh, I don't think so.
> > 
> > > Is that what you are doing here by communicating your
> > > opinions, huffing and puffing?
> > 
> > Sometimes I huff and puff, sure.
> > 
> > > Or were you trying to characterize opinions this way
> > > to diminish them?
> > 
> > Just pointing out the contrast. He made a joke, and
> > you're having a tizzy *because he made a joke*.
> 
> I used it as a platform to express my views.  The term
> "tizzy" is another mischaractorization mean to diminish
> my post.

Oooh, you're so *sensitive*. Sorry you don't like the term.
Again, my point was the *contrast*. Chopra makes a wisecrack,
and you immediately start lecturing about how his making
a joke is evidence of his duplicity.

> The intent of my post seems to have been missed by you
> but concerns a technique of cold readers to make their
> other outrageously unsupported statements seem more
> plausible.

No, Curtis, I got your point. It wasn't that complicated.
I'm suggesting it's not well founded and just plain unfair
as applied to Chopra.

> I find those techniques fascinating as I do your inability
> to even get the point.  It worked on you.

It "worked on me" only if your point is *valid*, Curtis.
But that's just what we're disagreeing about.

BTW, here again you're asserting *intention* on Chopra's
part, after having said in your previous post that your
point *didn't* depend on his intention.


> > > > It would be hubris if he believed he could cause an
> > > > earthquake with his meditation.
> > > 
> > > You are welcome to your opinion.  I think people believing
> > > their meditation causes world peace also qualifies.
> > 
> > Yeah, seems to me there's a pretty gigantic difference
> > between somebody thinking their meditation causes
> > earthquakes and thinking a lot of people meditating
> > together might facilitate world peace.
> 
> Not at all.  None in fact.



> A whole group of people with no effect is no more anything
> than one person with no effect.

Circular argument. Now you're really hauling out the
sophist tricks.

> This is a common mental fallacy that draws on our
> natural tendency to believe that more of something will
> produce a bigger effect.  The problem here is that
> there is no proven mechanism that is being multiplied,
> it was just asserted by an authority figure.  One whom
> you claim you do not take at face value, and yet here
> you have.  You have fallen for his routine as
> effectively as any Purusha.

Not sure if you're referring to MMY or Chopra. You seem
to be saying that not taking someone at face value means
one can't possibly entertain any of their ideas as
possibilities, but that's obviously not the case.

Plus which, you got all upset because I used the words
"huffing and puffing" and "tizzy," but look at how
you're using the phrase "fallen for his routine" to
diminish my opinions. Practice what you preach!

> More of nothing is still nothing.  You might want to
> write that down.

ROTFL!

As to "no proven mechanisms," see my post in response to
Hugo in this thread.


> > > > BREAKING NEWS: You don't have to share a person's beliefs
> > > > to defend them from unfair attack.
> > > 
> > > BREAKING NEWS:  I know that.  But you aren't defending
> > > any "unfair" attack here you and we both know it.
> > 
> > If I hadn't thought it was unfair, I wouldn't have
> > spoken up. And if you'd known that one doesn't have to
> > share a person's beliefs to defend them from unfair
> > attack, you wouldn't have suggested I was defending
> > him because I thought he could cause an earthquake
> > with his meditation.
> 
> This twist wont work.  I never asked you if you believed
> he could cause an earthquake with his mind and you know it.
> I was asking yo to clarify your own position on his
> teaching about the influence of our minds on the world

Except that you just got done insisting there was no
difference between these two. Ooopsie!

> and you dodged it. But you answered that you wouldn't rule
> it out

How is that "dodging" it??

Two sophist tricks, one right after the other. (Note that
my main point wasn't addressed at all.)

And here comes another one:


> It is your straw man, your pretending I don't understand
> his joke.

Never even *vaguely* suggested you didn't understand his
joke. You just think there's something sinister behind it,
and I don't.

Sometimes a joke is just a joke, as Freud might say.

 
> > > BREAKING NEWS: It doesn't go into the environment.
> > 
> > We don't know that.
> 
> We do know that it has no measurable effect on the
> environment.

What we know is that if it has any effect on the
environment, we haven't been able to measure it.

> You are buying into woo woo speculation and 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra Blames Own Meditation for Baja Quake - AOL News

[tartbrain]

Thanks for the reply. More later. But I do classify such experiences in the 
realm of poetry and art. its like is a simile -- like that -- not a metaphor 
(is that). But I am open to the possibility that it is metaphor. (sorry if I 
hosed the use of these words, simile an metaphor)


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain  wrote:
> 
> > Continuing on this woo woo ray tangent (I am generally quite rational and 
> > skeptical), in these universal love states i can sense the personality of 
> > trees and plants. Quite distinct entities. And my love for them seems felt 
> > -- and they seem responsive. (to be more specific, its like a lake of 
> > universal love, undirected, that is then directed at them. There is a focus 
> > on them. An adorational devotion kind of focus. But its not at all like the 
> > charismatic beaming discussed in my comments tot the Turquoise post.) Like 
> > they would protect me in their "enchanted forest". (I know, lock me up, we 
> > can't have people walking the streets thinking they can talk to trees).
> 
> I believe these mental states do have a value (even if it is just for 
> entertainment) but that value is not in the content of the beliefs that are 
> spontaneously generated such as, trees are reflecting my love.  Taking their 
> content seriously is the mistake the ancients made. 
> 
> We don't have to take the content of these states of awareness literally and 
> seriously (trees actually do love us) to enjoy the state of union through 
> love or your being or whatever else you want to call it.  In fact trying to 
> draw literal conclusions diminishes the potential value for our creativity 
> and artistic expression from having these experiences.
> 
> If you talk to a tree you are a poet, if it talks back you are a nutter in 
> society!  But being able to drift into the states of mind where you can have 
> conversations with trees is a wonderful tool for creativity that gets 
> squashed when someone claims that this experience is evidence for the highly 
> developed sentient nature of trees.
> 
> We can and should visit the holy tree in the Avatar movie but we shouldn't 
> forget that it is a movie and once the 3-D glasses come off, what we have 
> gained is not definite ontological information about how the world really is. 
>  We have gained a shift of perspective that we can then use to spark actual 
> tests on the world if we are scientists or expressions of art if we are an 
> artist. 
> 
> I am an advocate of people having more of this type of experiences through 
> many different means including psychedelics and meditation but hope we can 
> not make the mistake our religiously minded and bound ancestors did 
> concerning what they mean.  We need to approach that with the starting point 
> that we do no already know what they mean.  But to assume that they serve as 
> a self-evident source of knowledge about the world is the lamest choice of 
> all.  It discards a whole body of knowledge and perspective that has served 
> us well in building human knowledge to this point.  Artistically and 
> creatively inspired altered states of mind have a place.  But they aren't 
> remotely close to being the source of man's deepest knowledge yet.  
> Historically they have led us astray as much as they have inspired us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > >  wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > > Do you share this belief about yourself,is that why you
> > > > > are so quick to defend him?
> > > > 
> > > > BREAKING NEWS: You don't have to share a person's beliefs
> > > > to defend them from unfair attack.
> > > 
> > > But using them as an excuse to launch and attack of your own 
> > > is OK.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > That said, I don't know whether one's state of mind can
> > > > affect "the world" (depending on what you mean by "world"),
> > > > and *neither do you*.
> > > 
> > > Given that we know what causes earthquakes and there is no
> > > evidence that the mind can affect the physical world I 
> > > can't see what there is to gain from continually speculating
> > > that ancient beliefs invented to explain unpleasant occurences
> > > have any sort of place outside of selling "spiritual" nonsense.
> > > Something Chopra does rather well out of.
> > > 
> > >  
> > > > But like Chopra, I don't believe one person's meditation
> > > > can bring about an earthquake.
> > > 
> > > How about 5000 people?
> > > 
> > 
> > Thinking about this just having dwelled on and posted (comments on a 
> > Turquoise post) )my interpretation of what I term interaction with a 
> > high-shakti person -- I offer up the possiblility -- in my experience - 
> > that such a person can make you tangibly feel their presence -

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra Blames Own Meditation for Baja Quake - AOL News

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> > But you and Curtis are countering it with an "argument
> > from personal incredulity" as to whether such a "new
> > thing" is possible, so I figure we're even.
> 
> This mischaractorization would have worked better if
> you had not already conceded that we currently know of
> no mechanism.

Sophist trick. There's no contradiction there, sorry.

 My position is just stating the state of
> science today and has nothing to do with my personal
> credulity.

Oh, Curtis, have some self-respect! You've stated
over and over in this exchange that there *is* no
effect, not just that we haven't measured any effect.

E.g.:

"You say you are agnostic but you have already bought
in to the biggest bogus jump, the fallacy that a lot
of people will have a bigger *effect of nothing* than
one person" (emphasis added).

More where that came from.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Occultism 101

[tartbrain]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > > Sophia Loren -- in her prime, even now, can turn on a beam 
> > > seen a 100 miles away. A silent serene sort of beaming. But 
> > > I sense in her personal life -- she doesn't use it at all -- 
> > > and is happy, more naturally a non-beamer. (but may turn it 
> > > on in a compassionate sort of way, on occasion)
> > 
> > I suspect you are correct about this.
> > 
> > > But probably these impressions have little to do with reality -- 
> > > more my filters on things.
> > 
> > Plus, all of these actresses gets *multiple takes* to 
> > craft the images of them we see in their movies or on
> > TV. It's not as if they are "winging" the impression
> > that they want us to walk away with, or that their
> > performances aren't crafted by directors.
> > 

Again, heading out to woo woo land, my impressions about these actresses was 
not so much screen moments, but my "intuition" about them. I put my attention 
on them, and I "see" "feel" something about them. Does this have any 
epistimological validity? I don't know. It feels real, it feels truthful, but 
how would one establish its validity? 

In some matters, like he universal love thing, I feel that I just know. I know 
that I know. A huge tautology, but thats what I "feel" that I "know". 

And I know, huge horrors throughout the ages of others having perhaps similar 
feelings. 

[FairfieldLife] All the rage - Where all this right-wing paranoia is heading

[do.rflex]

  [This Modern World by Tom Tomorrow]
Cartoon:
http://www.salon.com/ent/comics/this_modern_world/2010/04/06/this_modern\
_world/story.jpg

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why do many "gurus" shun siddhis? Part 1

[authfriend]

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

> Patanjali actually states "These experiences resulting
> from samyama are obstacles to samadhi, but appear to be
> attainments or powers to the worldly mind."

>From the perspective of MMY's teaching on how to
practice the sutras, that's a technical instruction,
not a warning.

> Some Naths even consider chapter four a later forgery 
> inserted by those sneaky Buddhists.

Correct, but that isn't the siddhis chapter, of course 
(as if Vaj didn't know!).

[FairfieldLife] Re: Apsara or Dakini?

[emptybill]

Yep, a real american nath explanation of yogic history.

I believe they call their West pond lineage -
*'Merika Nathing Ness* to distinguish it from
the Buddhists.


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

> Note:
>
> Apparently the Hindus were often observed overhearing
> the Buddhist Tantric secrets at yoga camp meetings,
> and in their confusion, turned the whole cosmic
> metaphysic upside-down, making the shakti to be active
> and the Purusha to be passive; and mistaking the
> esoteric seed-sound 'hum' and thinking it was 'om'.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Why do many "gurus" shun siddhis? Part 1

[Bhairitu]

cardemaister wrote:
> I think there are at least two possible basic reasons, why
> many modern Indian "gurus" despise paatañjala-yoga-siddhis:
>
> 1. The negative influence of Islam and Christianity
>
> 2. Many "gurus" might not be that fluent in Sanskrit...

It's simple because siddhis are not part of the teachings you give the 
general public.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: So-called patriotic Republicans have for over 40 years been the enemies of a democratic USA

[Bhairitu]

WillyTex wrote:
>   
>>> All the state offices are in the hands of the pro-union 
>>> Democrats that you helped elect.
>>>
>>>   
> Bhairitu:
>   
>> Wrong...
>>
>> 
> So, you didn't vote in California elections - I thought so.
>
> Maybe you should get out more! Get smart and read some reports;
> vote in national and state elections, or something. You're not
> accomplishing anything here but making yourself look like an 
> unread, non-voter, that likes to bitch a lot. 
>
> Most of your ideas are crack-pot schemes and are totally 
> unsustainable. With ideas like yours, it's no wonder your
> state is on the verge of bankruptcy!
>
> At least you could join a 'Tea Party' protest to show that 
> you're opposed to the high taxes and the way things are going 
> in your state with the finances. 
>
> Or, maybe you're the one that wants the state to fail, so it 
> can be bailed out by the federal government. 
>
> If, so then I'd vote against it - no more government bailouts!

So Willy,  what are you going to do when the banksters steal your 
retirement fund?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why do many "gurus" shun siddhis? Part 1

[Bhairitu]

Something more interesting  to do other than chop wood and carry water.  
  :-D

TurquoiseB wrote:
> Card, with all due respect, a more relevant question
> might be, "Why would anyone *want* siddhis?"
>
> I pose this as a question for those on this forum who
> might fall into that category, and look forward to 
> their answers.
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>   
>> I think there are at least two possible basic reasons, why
>> many modern Indian "gurus" despise paatañjala-yoga-siddhis:
>>
>> 1. The negative influence of Islam and Christianity
>>
>> 2. Many "gurus" might not be that fluent in Sanskrit...
>>
>> 
>
>
>
>   

[FairfieldLife] Request from a friend to my sister forwarded to me

[Rick Archer]

Hi Carol, 
 
I know you have an extensive email list, I was wondering if you could
forward something on for me, attached is a link to a friends art
project/music video that they entered into a contest. They used me for a lot
of the film and it would really help them to win the contest, the more
votes, the better! So if you feel like it, we would be so grateful for it to
get out there to as many people as possible. 
Here's the link:
http://genero.tv/watch-video/6786/
 
Thanks so much,
 
Phoebe
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Occultism 101

[WillyTex]

bill:  
> Gupta! Gupta!
> 
History in India begins with the historical 
Buddha - everything before that is considered 
to be pre-history, and is almost entirely 
specualative.

"The Gupta Empire was an Ancient Indian empire 
which existed approximately from 320 to 550 CE 
and covered much of the Indian Subcontinent. 

Founded by Maharaja Sri-Gupta, the dynasty was 
the model of a classical civilization. The peace 
and prosperity created under leadership of 
Guptas enabled the pursuit of scientific and 
artistic endeavors. 

This period is called the Golden Age of India 
and was marked by extensive achievements in 
science, technology, engineering, art, dialectic, 
literature, logic, mathematics, astronomy, 
religion and philosophy that crystallized the 
elements of what is generally known as Hindu 
culture..."

Source:

Gupta Empire:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gupta_Empire

General titles of interest:

'Philosophical foundations of India'
By Theos Bernard
Rider, 1945

'The Story of Civilization'
By Will Durant
Volume I: Our Oriental Heritage
Simon and Schuster, 1968

'Early India'
>From the Origins to AD 1300
By Romila Thapar
University of California Press, 2004

'The Wonder that was India'
A Survey of the Culture of the Indian Sub-Continent 
Before the Coming of the Muslims 
By A. L. Basham 
Grove Press, 1959

[FairfieldLife] Re: Brahmasthan of India Update

[WillyTex]

> > I love the smell of poured concrete in the morning.
> >
Tom:
> ...plans for the many villages of pundits along 
> the Ganges (many of the villages actually built,
>
Jabalpur is bordered on the east by the Narmada River, 
(not the Ganges), upon which the Acharya Gaudapada once 
dwelt and where he apparently composed the Gaudapada 
Karika. 

The 'Brahmasthan' of India is near Jabalpur in Madhya 
Pradesh, located in the Mahakaushal region in the 
geographic center of India. 

> ...according to TMO accounts of days gone by) 
> connected by a light rail system will become part 
> of the foundation of the buildings being erected 
> in this little patch of nothingness in the middle 
> of nowhere.
> 
"Jabalpur is one of the largest cities in Madhya 
Pradesh. It was the 27th largest urban agglomeration 
in India in 2001..."

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

[FairfieldLife] Interviews needed: Your Two Selves

[jpgillam]

I'm doing some research for a book. Perhaps people here would have stories to 
contribute.

I'm looking for stories that illustrate the presence of the non-changing self. 
For example, I had a coworker who said, upon hearing a cancer diagnosis, that 
she felt as if the news was being told to someone else, and that she was apart 
from the news, listening in. That was her non-changing self, which is nothing 
other than awareness, realizing its separateness from her body.

The most common illustration of the presence of a non-changing self is the 
persistent awareness of I-ness that sticks with us as we change and age. One 
hears people say all the time, "Here I am 50 (or 60 or 70) years old, but 
inside I feel no different than I did at 20."

What I'd really like to identify are actions that arise from the non-changing 
self. For example, I've noticed I act more efficiently when I'm present in the 
moment, which has the effect of centering me in the non-changing self. I 
imagine that's what athletes talk about when they talk about playing "in the 
zone." I'd like to hear more experiences of people acting in the zone, whether 
they're building a spreadsheet or teaching a class or playing a sport.

I would hypothesize that heroic and selfless actions arise from the 
non-changing self, as opposed to the changing self. Perhaps some people in your 
network can describe an action that would qualify as heroic or selfless, and 
contrast it with actions that clearly arose from the changing self.

By "changing self," I'm referring to what we commonly call the ego or identity. 
I'd also like to hear experiences that illustrate the voracious nature of the 
changing self. For example, every now and then I'll say something that's 
gratuitously self-serving. I'll realize right away I only spoke to to feed my 
ego. Maybe some of your friends have funny or embarrassing stories that 
illustrate specific instances of the changing self seeking sustenance.

The book I'm developing is under the working title of "Your Two Selves." It'll 
contain experiences that illustrate the different flavors of action that result 
from the two selves: the changing self, which acts to nourish itself, and the 
non-changing self, which acts - when it does act - to do what needs to be done.

I'd like to write the book in the style such Malcolm Gladwell books as The 
Tipping Point and Blink: interesting narratives supplemented by a little 
scientific research, all to the purpose of explaining social and cognitive 
phenomena.

My hypothesis is that having two selves explains why human beings are capable 
of good and evil. On the one hand, we have a changing self that requires 
continual sustenance such that we'll put others down in order to build 
ourselves up, and on the other hand, we have a non-changing self that's capable 
of great feats of heroism, selflessness and achievement.

I'm not able to pay for stories. The purpose of the book would be to inspire 
readers and help people identify these two selves in themselves and society. 
Interviewees would share their stories to further that goal. I can present 
tales anonymously if people prefer to protect their identities.

Finally, I'll be looking for stories that illustrate the unification or 
reconciliation of the two selves. For example, an MIU classmate posted at 
Facebook, "I'm noticing there are two of me." When I asked for a clarification, 
he replied, "I was feeling that the one I was familiar with was the one in 
charge and the other one was shiny jewelry that made the first one look great. 
But that take on it was rubbing me the wrong way after a while. So then I let 
the quiet one be in charge and let the familiar one relax and just let it be. 
I'm much happier now."

If anyone reading this email can reinforce, refute or otherwise respond to my 
classmate's experience, I'd love to talk to you!

Thanks for reading.

-- 
Patrick Gillam

Lyndeborough, New Hampshire

mobile (603) 370-0046
(603) 654-6562

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why do many "gurus" shun siddhis? Part 1

[yifuxero]

One of my Teachers - Hsuan Hua - stated that when he was living in Hong Kong 
(10 years?...I've forgotten); no typhoons hit the City due to the fact that he 
was using siddhis to block or dissipate the typhoons.  Although he rarely used 
siddhis to directly impact the physical world; he regularly used them to offset 
subtle negative influences, such as evil spirits and elementals.
http://www.cttbusa.org/founder.asp

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> Something more interesting  to do other than chop wood and carry water.  
>   :-D
> 
> TurquoiseB wrote:
> > Card, with all due respect, a more relevant question
> > might be, "Why would anyone *want* siddhis?"
> >
> > I pose this as a question for those on this forum who
> > might fall into that category, and look forward to 
> > their answers.
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> >   
> >> I think there are at least two possible basic reasons, why
> >> many modern Indian "gurus" despise paatañjala-yoga-siddhis:
> >>
> >> 1. The negative influence of Islam and Christianity
> >>
> >> 2. Many "gurus" might not be that fluent in Sanskrit...
> >>
> >> 
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Interviews needed: Your Two Selves

[yifuxero]

Right...but the actor is Shakti (refer to the dancing Kali on the immobile body 
of Shiva).

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jpgillam"  wrote:
>
> I'm doing some research for a book. Perhaps people here would have stories to 
> contribute.
> 
> I'm looking for stories that illustrate the presence of the non-changing 
> self. For example, I had a coworker who said, upon hearing a cancer 
> diagnosis, that she felt as if the news was being told to someone else, and 
> that she was apart from the news, listening in. That was her non-changing 
> self, which is nothing other than awareness, realizing its separateness from 
> her body.
> 
> The most common illustration of the presence of a non-changing self is the 
> persistent awareness of I-ness that sticks with us as we change and age. One 
> hears people say all the time, "Here I am 50 (or 60 or 70) years old, but 
> inside I feel no different than I did at 20."
> 
> What I'd really like to identify are actions that arise from the non-changing 
> self. For example, I've noticed I act more efficiently when I'm present in 
> the moment, which has the effect of centering me in the non-changing self. I 
> imagine that's what athletes talk about when they talk about playing "in the 
> zone." I'd like to hear more experiences of people acting in the zone, 
> whether they're building a spreadsheet or teaching a class or playing a sport.
> 
> I would hypothesize that heroic and selfless actions arise from the 
> non-changing self, as opposed to the changing self. Perhaps some people in 
> your network can describe an action that would qualify as heroic or selfless, 
> and contrast it with actions that clearly arose from the changing self.
> 
> By "changing self," I'm referring to what we commonly call the ego or 
> identity. I'd also like to hear experiences that illustrate the voracious 
> nature of the changing self. For example, every now and then I'll say 
> something that's gratuitously self-serving. I'll realize right away I only 
> spoke to to feed my ego. Maybe some of your friends have funny or 
> embarrassing stories that illustrate specific instances of the changing self 
> seeking sustenance.
> 
> The book I'm developing is under the working title of "Your Two Selves." 
> It'll contain experiences that illustrate the different flavors of action 
> that result from the two selves: the changing self, which acts to nourish 
> itself, and the non-changing self, which acts - when it does act - to do what 
> needs to be done.
> 
> I'd like to write the book in the style such Malcolm Gladwell books as The 
> Tipping Point and Blink: interesting narratives supplemented by a little 
> scientific research, all to the purpose of explaining social and cognitive 
> phenomena.
> 
> My hypothesis is that having two selves explains why human beings are capable 
> of good and evil. On the one hand, we have a changing self that requires 
> continual sustenance such that we'll put others down in order to build 
> ourselves up, and on the other hand, we have a non-changing self that's 
> capable of great feats of heroism, selflessness and achievement.
> 
> I'm not able to pay for stories. The purpose of the book would be to inspire 
> readers and help people identify these two selves in themselves and society. 
> Interviewees would share their stories to further that goal. I can present 
> tales anonymously if people prefer to protect their identities.
> 
> Finally, I'll be looking for stories that illustrate the unification or 
> reconciliation of the two selves. For example, an MIU classmate posted at 
> Facebook, "I'm noticing there are two of me." When I asked for a 
> clarification, he replied, "I was feeling that the one I was familiar with 
> was the one in charge and the other one was shiny jewelry that made the first 
> one look great. But that take on it was rubbing me the wrong way after a 
> while. So then I let the quiet one be in charge and let the familiar one 
> relax and just let it be. I'm much happier now."
> 
> If anyone reading this email can reinforce, refute or otherwise respond to my 
> classmate's experience, I'd love to talk to you!
> 
> Thanks for reading.
> 
> -- 
> Patrick Gillam
> 
> Lyndeborough, New Hampshire
> 
> mobile (603) 370-0046
> (603) 654-6562
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why do many "gurus" shun siddhis? Part 1

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yifuxero"  wrote:
>
> One of my Teachers - Hsuan Hua - stated that when he was living 
> in Hong Kong (10 years?...I've forgotten); no typhoons hit the 
> City due to the fact that he was using siddhis to block or 
> dissipate the typhoons.  Although he rarely used siddhis to 
> directly impact the physical world; he regularly used them to 
> offset subtle negative influences, such as evil spirits and 
> elementals.
> http://www.cttbusa.org/founder.asp

I think you meant to say that he *believed* that he
was dispelling subtle negative influences. So did
Son of Sam.  :-)

If someone here is claiming that such a mindset is
not common in the TM movement, they're either crazy
or haven't spent any time in it. I mean, just here
on FFL we have examples of it. Think Card's many
posts about some TM-sidhis course in some area of
Europe affecting the weather. Think of Nabby. And
this is to say nothing about many of Doug's/Buck's
condescending posts about how "special" Fairfielders
or "meditators" are.

*Of course* the first thought that went through
Chopra's mind was that he "caused" the earthquake.
No one who has read his articles or books, or seen
him talk, could doubt this for a moment. 

On another subject entirely, I think Bhairitu's 
answer to the question I posed below is a good one, 
and possibly the *only* good one. 

The reason is that it's all about fun, not ego. 

Anyone who wants to learn siddhis to either 
"control nature" or convince other people that
they can is setting themselves up for some heavy-
duty karma, plus an incarnation or two spent in
ignorance. 


> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> >
> > Something more interesting  to do other than chop wood and 
> > carry water.  
> >   :-D
> > 
> > TurquoiseB wrote:
> > > Card, with all due respect, a more relevant question
> > > might be, "Why would anyone *want* siddhis?"
> > >
> > > I pose this as a question for those on this forum who
> > > might fall into that category, and look forward to 
> > > their answers.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> > >   
> > >> I think there are at least two possible basic reasons, why
> > >> many modern Indian "gurus" despise paatañjala-yoga-siddhis:
> > >>
> > >> 1. The negative influence of Islam and Christianity
> > >>
> > >> 2. Many "gurus" might not be that fluent in Sanskrit...

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra Blames Own Meditation for Baja Quake - AOL News

[Sal Sunshine]

On Apr 7, 2010, at 9:33 AM, tartbrain wrote:

> Continuing on this woo woo ray tangent (I am generally quite rational and 
> skeptical), in these universal love states i can sense the personality of 
> trees and plants. Quite distinct entities. And my love for them seems felt -- 
> and they seem responsive. (to be more specific, its like a lake of universal 
> love, undirected, that is then directed at them. There is a focus on them. An 
> adorational devotion kind of focus. But its not at all like the charismatic 
> beaming discussed in my comments tot the Turquoise post.) Like they would 
> protect me in their "enchanted forest". (I know, lock me up, we can't have 
> people walking the streets thinking they can talk to trees).

tart, there's a woman here in FF who supposedly
talks to stones--let me know if you're ever in the
area and I'll see what I can do about setting the 
two of you up.  Bet it would be quite a conversation. :)

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra Blames Own Meditation for Baja Quake - AOL News

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> > > > > Here you are huffing and puffing, and he's chortling.
> > > > 
> > > > My opinions are "huffing and puffing?"  What an odd 
> > > > characterization.
> > > 
> > > Oh, I don't think so.
> > > 
> > > > Is that what you are doing here by communicating your
> > > > opinions, huffing and puffing?
> > > 
> > > Sometimes I huff and puff, sure.
> > > 
> > > > Or were you trying to characterize opinions this way
> > > > to diminish them?
> > > 
> > > Just pointing out the contrast. He made a joke, and
> > > you're having a tizzy *because he made a joke*.
> > 
> > I used it as a platform to express my views.  The term
> > "tizzy" is another mischaractorization mean to diminish
> > my post.
> 
> Oooh, you're so *sensitive*. Sorry you don't like the term.

I call you on every personal slight just to underline your style of 
conversation here.

> Again, my point was the *contrast*. Chopra makes a wisecrack,
> and you immediately start lecturing about how his making
> a joke is evidence of his duplicity.

Sorry you missed my point, I have explained it enough times.

> 
> > The intent of my post seems to have been missed by you
> > but concerns a technique of cold readers to make their
> > other outrageously unsupported statements seem more
> > plausible.
> 
> No, Curtis, I got your point. It wasn't that complicated.
> I'm suggesting it's not well founded and just plain unfair
> as applied to Chopra.

If you had stated that without the obfuscation of your mischaractorizations it 
would have helped make this point.  So far all you have demonstrated is that 
you misunderstood what I was saying.

> 
> > I find those techniques fascinating as I do your inability
> > to even get the point.  It worked on you.
> 
> It "worked on me" only if your point is *valid*, Curtis.
> But that's just what we're disagreeing about.
> 
> BTW, here again you're asserting *intention* on Chopra's
> part, after having said in your previous post that your
> point *didn't* depend on his intention.

It doesn't but I can still speculate.  Maybe he is just completely whacked out 
and doesn't know what he is saying half the time.
> 
> 
> > > > > It would be hubris if he believed he could cause an
> > > > > earthquake with his meditation.
> > > > 
> > > > You are welcome to your opinion.  I think people believing
> > > > their meditation causes world peace also qualifies.
> > > 
> > > Yeah, seems to me there's a pretty gigantic difference
> > > between somebody thinking their meditation causes
> > > earthquakes and thinking a lot of people meditating
> > > together might facilitate world peace.
> > 
> > Not at all.  None in fact.
> 
> 

Interesting image you are invoking.  Doesn't take the place of a reasoned 
response.  Let's see if you can address my point...

> 
> > A whole group of people with no effect is no more anything
> > than one person with no effect.
> 
> Circular argument. Now you're really hauling out the
> sophist tricks.

So you think the term "sophist trick is a catch all term that replaces actual 
response huh?  It is not circular in any way it is a fact of nature and even 
math.  Zero times any number is still zero.

> 
> > This is a common mental fallacy that draws on our
> > natural tendency to believe that more of something will
> > produce a bigger effect.  The problem here is that
> > there is no proven mechanism that is being multiplied,
> > it was just asserted by an authority figure.  One whom
> > you claim you do not take at face value, and yet here
> > you have.  You have fallen for his routine as
> > effectively as any Purusha.
> 
> Not sure if you're referring to MMY or Chopra. You seem
> to be saying that not taking someone at face value means
> one can't possibly entertain any of their ideas as
> possibilities, but that's obviously not the case.
> 
> Plus which, you got all upset because I used the words
> "huffing and puffing" and "tizzy," but look at how
> you're using the phrase "fallen for his routine" to
> diminish my opinions. Practice what you preach!

I respond with parity.  I made the request and you ignored it.  And you do 
appear to have fallen for the fallacy I don't know how to sugar coat it.

> 
> > More of nothing is still nothing.  You might want to
> > write that down.
> 
> ROTFL!

So you have nothing to add, gotcha.


> 
> As to "no proven mechanisms," see my post in response to
> Hugo in this thread.
> 
> 
> > > > > BREAKING NEWS: You don't have to share a person's beliefs
> > > > > to defend them from unfair attack.
> > > > 
> > > > BREAKING NEWS:  I know that.  But you aren't defending
> > > > any "unfair" attack here you and we both know it.
> > > 
> > > If I hadn't thought it was unfair, I wouldn't have
> > > spoken up. And if you'd known that one doesn't have to
> > > share a person's belie

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra Blames Own Meditation for Baja Quake - AOL News

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > 
> > > But you and Curtis are countering it with an "argument
> > > from personal incredulity" as to whether such a "new
> > > thing" is possible, so I figure we're even.
> > 
> > This mischaractorization would have worked better if
> > you had not already conceded that we currently know of
> > no mechanism.
> 
> Sophist trick. There's no contradiction there, sorry.

You continue to use this term with the intellectual subtly of 
"poopy pants."  My argument has nothing to do with personal incredulity or 
anytime a person stated the state of scientific understanding in a field they 
could be challenged on this basis.

> 
>  My position is just stating the state of
> > science today and has nothing to do with my personal
> > credulity.
> 
> Oh, Curtis, have some self-respect! You've stated
> over and over in this exchange that there *is* no
> effect, not just that we haven't measured any effect.

Your attempt to parse language this way is absurd.  The difference between we 
have not measured it and it doesn't exist is important to researchers not to 
me.  When they find something they will let me know.  I don't have to keep the 
door open for every cockamamie assertion of guys like Chopra.  The fact is we 
have no evidence for such an assertion.
> E.g.:
> 
> "You say you are agnostic but you have already bought
> in to the biggest bogus jump, the fallacy that a lot
> of people will have a bigger *effect of nothing* than
> one person" (emphasis added).

There is no measurable effect of individuals or groups.  If you want to parse 
the language more carefully to keep you door open for Chopra claims be my guest.



> 
> More where that came from.
>

[FairfieldLife] Release the Kraken!

[Yifu Xero]

- Subject: Release the Kraken!


http://www.mediaite.com/online/release-the-kraken-the-internet-has-a-fun-new-media-meme/2/



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why do many "gurus" shun siddhis? Part 1

[yifuxero]

Quite true!  I had (and still do) some major differences of opinion with Hsuan 
Hua. I'm hoping to acquire Siddhis to be able to predict the future, especially 
the stocks, commodities and most important, the Forex markets.  
 Among the Gurus claiming or implying that they have Siddhis, I have difficulty 
fathoming why they would then beg for money from their followers. Manifesting 
$$ should be one of easiest of Siddhis to acquire; easier than perhaps - some 
of the Siddhis mentioned in Autobiography of a Yogi.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yifuxero"  wrote:
> >
> > One of my Teachers - Hsuan Hua - stated that when he was living 
> > in Hong Kong (10 years?...I've forgotten); no typhoons hit the 
> > City due to the fact that he was using siddhis to block or 
> > dissipate the typhoons.  Although he rarely used siddhis to 
> > directly impact the physical world; he regularly used them to 
> > offset subtle negative influences, such as evil spirits and 
> > elementals.
> > http://www.cttbusa.org/founder.asp
> 
> I think you meant to say that he *believed* that he
> was dispelling subtle negative influences. So did
> Son of Sam.  :-)
> 
> If someone here is claiming that such a mindset is
> not common in the TM movement, they're either crazy
> or haven't spent any time in it. I mean, just here
> on FFL we have examples of it. Think Card's many
> posts about some TM-sidhis course in some area of
> Europe affecting the weather. Think of Nabby. And
> this is to say nothing about many of Doug's/Buck's
> condescending posts about how "special" Fairfielders
> or "meditators" are.
> 
> *Of course* the first thought that went through
> Chopra's mind was that he "caused" the earthquake.
> No one who has read his articles or books, or seen
> him talk, could doubt this for a moment. 
> 
> On another subject entirely, I think Bhairitu's 
> answer to the question I posed below is a good one, 
> and possibly the *only* good one. 
> 
> The reason is that it's all about fun, not ego. 
> 
> Anyone who wants to learn siddhis to either 
> "control nature" or convince other people that
> they can is setting themselves up for some heavy-
> duty karma, plus an incarnation or two spent in
> ignorance. 
> 
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> > >
> > > Something more interesting  to do other than chop wood and 
> > > carry water.  
> > >   :-D
> > > 
> > > TurquoiseB wrote:
> > > > Card, with all due respect, a more relevant question
> > > > might be, "Why would anyone *want* siddhis?"
> > > >
> > > > I pose this as a question for those on this forum who
> > > > might fall into that category, and look forward to 
> > > > their answers.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> > > >   
> > > >> I think there are at least two possible basic reasons, why
> > > >> many modern Indian "gurus" despise paatañjala-yoga-siddhis:
> > > >>
> > > >> 1. The negative influence of Islam and Christianity
> > > >>
> > > >> 2. Many "gurus" might not be that fluent in Sanskrit...
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why do many "gurus" shun siddhis? Part 1

[Bhairitu]

This is how siddhis are used in my tantric tradition.  For example we 
learn the maran siddhis to help someone who has supposedly had a maran 
spell cast on them.

yifuxero wrote:
> One of my Teachers - Hsuan Hua - stated that when he was living in Hong Kong 
> (10 years?...I've forgotten); no typhoons hit the City due to the fact that 
> he was using siddhis to block or dissipate the typhoons.  Although he rarely 
> used siddhis to directly impact the physical world; he regularly used them to 
> offset subtle negative influences, such as evil spirits and elementals.
> http://www.cttbusa.org/founder.asp
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>   
>> Something more interesting  to do other than chop wood and carry water.  
>>   :-D
>>
>> TurquoiseB wrote:
>> 
>>> Card, with all due respect, a more relevant question
>>> might be, "Why would anyone *want* siddhis?"
>>>
>>> I pose this as a question for those on this forum who
>>> might fall into that category, and look forward to 
>>> their answers.
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>>>   
>>>   
 I think there are at least two possible basic reasons, why
 many modern Indian "gurus" despise paatañjala-yoga-siddhis:

 1. The negative influence of Islam and Christianity

 2. Many "gurus" might not be that fluent in Sanskrit...

 
 
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>
>
>
>   

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why do many "gurus" shun siddhis? Part 1

[Bhairitu]

TurquoiseB wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yifuxero"  wrote:
>   
>> One of my Teachers - Hsuan Hua - stated that when he was living 
>> in Hong Kong (10 years?...I've forgotten); no typhoons hit the 
>> City due to the fact that he was using siddhis to block or 
>> dissipate the typhoons.  Although he rarely used siddhis to 
>> directly impact the physical world; he regularly used them to 
>> offset subtle negative influences, such as evil spirits and 
>> elementals.
>> http://www.cttbusa.org/founder.asp
>> 
>
> I think you meant to say that he *believed* that he
> was dispelling subtle negative influences. So did
> Son of Sam.  :-)
>
> If someone here is claiming that such a mindset is
> not common in the TM movement, they're either crazy
> or haven't spent any time in it. I mean, just here
> on FFL we have examples of it. Think Card's many
> posts about some TM-sidhis course in some area of
> Europe affecting the weather. Think of Nabby. And
> this is to say nothing about many of Doug's/Buck's
> condescending posts about how "special" Fairfielders
> or "meditators" are.
>
> *Of course* the first thought that went through
> Chopra's mind was that he "caused" the earthquake.
> No one who has read his articles or books, or seen
> him talk, could doubt this for a moment. 
>
> On another subject entirely, I think Bhairitu's 
> answer to the question I posed below is a good one, 
> and possibly the *only* good one. 
>
> The reason is that it's all about fun, not ego. 
>
> Anyone who wants to learn siddhis to either 
> "control nature" or convince other people that
> they can is setting themselves up for some heavy-
> duty karma, plus an incarnation or two spent in
> ignorance. 

And that's why good teachers won't teach the siddhis to someone who has 
an ego driven reason to learn them.  As for them working I think they 
are beyond the current human level of understanding.  I wish I had saved 
a web site once by a westerner who  had studied tantra and had very good 
article on why he thought they worked.   I see human beings as something 
like mobile phones.  We can both transmit and receive either on the 
gross level through speech and direct action but also through 
transmitted thoughts.  The latter only works if one has a lot of 
concentrated shakti to direct.  It's like a 1 KW radio station doesn't 
broadcast very far compared with a 50,000 KW.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why do many "gurus" shun siddhis? Part 1

[WillyTex]

> > he regularly used them to offset subtle negative 
> > influences, such as evil spirits and elementals...
> >
TurquoiseB:
> I think you meant to say that he *believed* that he
> was dispelling subtle negative influences
>
You're a True Believer (TB) - nothing in your report 
below suggests that you did or did not not believe in 
Rama's 'supernatural powers' - these events that you
witnessed are reported by you as FACTS, not beliefs. 

What's up with that?



"This sounds like a pretty normal event, and it is, 
but you have to consider that standing next to me was 
the gentleman I had seen a few hours ago in the desert 
disappearing and walking several inches above the 
ground and making the stars move around..."

Road Trip Mind:
http://www.ramalila.net/RoadTripMind/

[FairfieldLife] Gov’t Mule — Beautifully Broken (When Doves Cry)

[do.rflex]

Bringing out my old inner hippie...  

Heart toucher with a ripper guitar break

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APpwPls-pMA


Why did you leave me here standing?
Stranded out in the cold?
Maybe I'm just 2 demanding
Maybe I'm just like my father 2 bold
Maybe you're just like my mother
She's never satisfied 
Why do we scream at each other
This is what it sounds like
When doves cry
--

Mysterious - blown in with the night
All this beauty captured in a frame
Visibly shaken but never stirred - drives them insane
I see the way she plays her men - and I know I've got to know her name

She's so beautifully broken - shaped by the wind
Dangerously twisted - Here I go again

I see the way she casts her spell - It's like drowning in moonlight
Discards them when she's done - they're lost in her twilight
I watch her move from star to star and I wonder why,
why it feels so right

She's so beautifully broken - you can hardly see the flaw
Especially from a distance - which is always how I fall

Why do I fall for the dangerous ones - the ones that never learned to let go
And why do I lie to myself and pretend that I can break her
When she's already been so beautifully broken

Why do I fall for the dangerous ones - the ones that
Don't know how to let go
And why do I lie to myself and pretend that I can break her
When she's already been so beautifully broken

She's so beautifully broken - shaped by the wind
Dangerously twisted - Here I go again
Here I go again
--
Why did you leave me here standing?
Stranded out in the cold?
Maybe I'm just 2 demanding
Maybe I'm just like my father 2 bold
Maybe you're just like my mother
She's never satisfied (She's never satisfied)
Why do we scream at each other
This is what it sounds like
When doves cry

Here I go again ---  Geeetar Brake  - - - -

[FairfieldLife] Ram Dass finds out that he is a father

[Rick Archer]

from a friend
Did you hear that Ram Dass, author of Be Here Now, who is 83 and gay just
found out through DNA testing that he has a 53 year old son.  I know that I
should not be gossiping but oy.  I heard it on the Wayne Dyer show, they are
friends and Ram said it was OK to tell everyone.  Be careful of that karma,
it will come back at anytime. Oy vay. 
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why do many "gurus" shun siddhis? Part 1

[WillyTex]

yifuxero:
> Among the Gurus claiming or implying that they have 
> Siddhis, I have difficulty fathoming why they would 
> then beg for money from their followers...
>
That's because manifesting $$$ and begging from your
followers are one and the same thing, but begging is
a little easier, if you're good at mind-control. 

The Zen Master Rama obtained hundreds of thousands of
dollars in this way. 

All you have to do is have some schmuck put up posters 
all over the place promising instant enlightenment. 

Then, you invite selected schweps to meet you in the 
desert at night, give them some LSD, play a few mind
games, and then brainwash them to give you thousands 
of dollars just to be in your presence. 

Turq calls this technique 'siddhis', but Curtis likes 
to call this kind of schtick, selling snake-oil; Hugo
says it is criminal. 

Apparently this works on some people like Turq, Curtis, 
and Hugo, who have given up thousands of dollars to 
the fakirs, over a very long period of time. 

>From what I've read, Curtis once gave Chopra $700 for 
medical advice, but all Curtis got was the word for 
water. Turq gave the Maharishi over $5,000 to learn
how to 'bum-hop', and all Turq got was a chance to be
a Marshy 'door-guard'. Not sure what Hugo got for his
money, probably nothing, but Hugo seems to have went
all the way, and paid for six-months of training in 
how to take a 'nap'.

Go figure.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why do many "gurus" shun siddhis? Part 1

[WillyTex]

Bhairitu:
> This is how siddhis are used in my tantric tradition.  
> For example we learn the maran siddhis to help someone 
> who has supposedly had a maran spell cast on them...
> 
That makes a lot of sense - casting a 'spell' on someone
who has had a spell cast upon them. A spell to get rid 
of a spell. Yes, that's the ticket. Now, if you could 
only learn to spell!

maran:

Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon: Search Results
No entries found.

http://webapps.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin/tamil/recherche

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra Blames Own Meditation for Baja Quake - AOL News

[authfriend]

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

> I call you on every personal slight just to underline
> your style of conversation here.

Oh, for pete's sake, Curtis, it's just as much your
"style of conversation" as it is mine.

> > Again, my point was the *contrast*. Chopra makes a wisecrack,
> > and you immediately start lecturing about how his making
> > a joke is evidence of his duplicity.
> 
> Sorry you missed my point, I have explained it enough times.

That was *exactly* your point, and I got it the first time.

> > > The intent of my post seems to have been missed by you
> > > but concerns a technique of cold readers to make their
> > > other outrageously unsupported statements seem more
> > > plausible.
> > 
> > No, Curtis, I got your point. It wasn't that complicated.
> > I'm suggesting it's not well founded and just plain unfair
> > as applied to Chopra.
> 
> If you had stated that without the obfuscation of your 
> mischaractorizations it would have helped make this point.

I neither mischaracterized nor obfuscated, Curtis.

Here's what I said to start with:

"Actually, I think he was mocking people like you, Curtis,
right down to your propensity to make something sinister
out of a self-deprecating gag."

> So far all you have demonstrated is that you misunderstood
> what I was saying.

You've asserted that over and over, but I'm pretty sure
you know it's false.

> > > I find those techniques fascinating as I do your inability
> > > to even get the point.  It worked on you.
> > 
> > It "worked on me" only if your point is *valid*, Curtis.
> > But that's just what we're disagreeing about.
> > 
> > BTW, here again you're asserting *intention* on Chopra's
> > part, after having said in your previous post that your
> > point *didn't* depend on his intention.
> 
> It doesn't but I can still speculate.

But you don't "speculate," you *assert*, e.g.:

"This is part of his game. He makes it seem as if he is
mocking the idea that his meditation could cause a quake
to attempt rapport with people who don't share his
actual belief that in fact his meditation does effect
the environment. It is a way to mask the hubris of his
true beliefs."


> > > > > > It would be hubris if he believed he could cause an
> > > > > > earthquake with his meditation.
> > > > > 
> > > > > You are welcome to your opinion.  I think people believing
> > > > > their meditation causes world peace also qualifies.
> > > > 
> > > > Yeah, seems to me there's a pretty gigantic difference
> > > > between somebody thinking their meditation causes
> > > > earthquakes and thinking a lot of people meditating
> > > > together might facilitate world peace.
> > > 
> > > Not at all.  None in fact.
> > 
> > 
> 
> Interesting image you are invoking.  Doesn't take the place
> of a reasoned response.

And didn't.

> Let's see if you can address my point...
> 
> > > A whole group of people with no effect is no more anything
> > > than one person with no effect.
> > 
> > Circular argument. Now you're really hauling out the
> > sophist tricks.
> 
> So you think the term "sophist trick is a catch all
> term that replaces actual response huh?

It didn't replace an actual response. The actual 
response was "Circular argument." "Sophist trick"
was a characterization of "Circular argument."

> It is not circular in any way it is a fact of nature
> and even math.  Zero times any number is still zero.

Sophist trick. As you know, the "circular" part is
the assumption that there is zero effect in either
case. If there were an effect with many people, but
no effect with a single individual, "zero times any
number is still zero" would be irrelevant.

And in any case, even if there *is* no effect, there's
still a big difference in the *degree of hubris* of
the respective beliefs. "Zero times any number is still
zero" doesn't apply at all.

> > > This is a common mental fallacy that draws on our
> > > natural tendency to believe that more of something will
> > > produce a bigger effect.  The problem here is that
> > > there is no proven mechanism that is being multiplied,
> > > it was just asserted by an authority figure.  One whom
> > > you claim you do not take at face value, and yet here
> > > you have.  You have fallen for his routine as
> > > effectively as any Purusha.
> > 
> > Not sure if you're referring to MMY or Chopra. You seem
> > to be saying that not taking someone at face value means
> > one can't possibly entertain any of their ideas as
> > possibilities, but that's obviously not the case.

(Curtis has no response to this.)

> > Plus which, you got all upset because I used the words
> > "huffing and puffing" and "tizzy," but look at how
> > you're using the phrase "fallen for his routine" to
> > diminish my opinions. Practice what you preach!
> 
> I respond with parity.  I made the request

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why do many "gurus" shun siddhis? Part 1

[Bhairitu]

WillyTex wrote:
> Bhairitu:
>   
>> This is how siddhis are used in my tantric tradition.  
>> For example we learn the maran siddhis to help someone 
>> who has supposedly had a maran spell cast on them...
>>
>> 
> That makes a lot of sense - casting a 'spell' on someone
> who has had a spell cast upon them. A spell to get rid 
> of a spell. Yes, that's the ticket. Now, if you could 
> only learn to spell!
>
> maran:
>
> Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon: Search Results
> No entries found.
>
> http://webapps.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin/tamil/recherche

Tamil?  ROTFL!  You need some smarts Willy.  It's in both my Hindi and 
Sanskrit dictionaries.  You must not know Devanagari.  You REALLY need 
to get some smarts but I don't know what you would do with them since 
you don't have a brain in your head.

Maran = kill.  And you don't cast a spell to get rid of the "spell."

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra Blames Own Meditation for Baja Quake - AOL News

[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:
> > > 
> > > > But you and Curtis are countering it with an "argument
> > > > from personal incredulity" as to whether such a "new
> > > > thing" is possible, so I figure we're even.
> > > 
> > > This mischaractorization would have worked better if
> > > you had not already conceded that we currently know of
> > > no mechanism.
> > 
> > Sophist trick. There's no contradiction there, sorry.
> 
> You continue to use this term with the intellectual subtly of 
> "poopy pants."

sophistry = subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation

Except, as I keep pointing out, your deception isn't
all that subtle.

> My argument has nothing to do with personal incredulity
> or anytime a person stated the state of scientific
> understanding in a field they could be challenged on this
> basis.

You're not making any sense. This isn't at all responsive.
You implied I was contradicting myself, but that was a
false accusation.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ram Dass finds out that he is a father

[John]

That goes to show he is not completely gay.  At best, he is bisexual, unless 
his son was conceived through in vitro fertilization.

But this is not so unusual.  There is vedic story stating that two rishis 
ejaculated their semen when they saw an apsara by the name of Urvasi.  They 
preserved their semen in a clay pot which eventually bore two outstanding men, 
one of them by the name of Vashista.

This story is open to interpretation.  Let us know what you think.

JR

  

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> 
> from a friend
> Did you hear that Ram Dass, author of Be Here Now, who is 83 and gay just
> found out through DNA testing that he has a 53 year old son.  I know that I
> should not be gossiping but oy.  I heard it on the Wayne Dyer show, they are
> friends and Ram said it was OK to tell everyone.  Be careful of that karma,
> it will come back at anytime. Oy vay.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ram Dass finds out that he is a father

[shukra69]

was this one born from a clay pot? or with another rishi?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> That goes to show he is not completely gay.  At best, he is bisexual, unless 
> his son was conceived through in vitro fertilization.
> 
> But this is not so unusual.  There is vedic story stating that two rishis 
> ejaculated their semen when they saw an apsara by the name of Urvasi.  They 
> preserved their semen in a clay pot which eventually bore two outstanding 
> men, one of them by the name of Vashista.
> 
> This story is open to interpretation.  Let us know what you think.
> 
> JR
> 
>   
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > from a friend
> > Did you hear that Ram Dass, author of Be Here Now, who is 83 and gay just
> > found out through DNA testing that he has a 53 year old son.  I know that I
> > should not be gossiping but oy.  I heard it on the Wayne Dyer show, they are
> > friends and Ram said it was OK to tell everyone.  Be careful of that karma,
> > it will come back at anytime. Oy vay.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ram Dass finds out that he is a father

[martyboi]

"That goes to show he is not completely gay.  At best, he is bisexual, unless 
his son was conceived through in vitro fertilization."


Jeesh, that's certainly a black and white may of looking at it. I happen to 
know a thing or two about gay people, and can tell you unequivocally that gay 
men are more than capable of having relations with the opposite gender ...it's 
just not their *preference*. 

P.S. I think it's wonderful that he had the great good karma of having made a 
baby and knows about it.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra Blames Own Meditation for Baja Quake - AOL News

[Sal Sunshine]

On Apr 7, 2010, at 1:06 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote:

> So unless you are proposing that the mechanism of what
> affects the world is some new thing
 
 If it affects the world, *of course* it's some new thing.
>>> 
>>> You and Chopra, masters of the innuendo.
>> 
>> Huh?? Innuendo of what?
> 
> Something "new."

Something borrowed, something blue? :)

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ram Dass finds out that he is a father

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "martyboi"  wrote:
> 
> > John R:
> > That goes to show he is not completely gay.  At best, he is 
> > bisexual, unless his son was conceived through in vitro 
> > fertilization.
> 
> Jeesh, that's certainly a black and white may of looking at it. 

Not to mention incredibly homophobic. 

> I happen to know a thing or two about gay people, and can tell 
> you unequivocally that gay men are more than capable of having 
> relations with the opposite gender ...it's just not their 
> *preference*. 

I live in a town that is one of the gay meccas
of Europe and many of my closest friends are gay.
ALL of them have had sex with women. Several of
them have kids, and have good relations with them.

What struck me about John's statement is "at best 
he is bisexual." One wonders what he conceives of 
as constituting "at worst."

> P.S. I think it's wonderful that he had the great good karma 
> of having made a baby and knows about it.

As do I. I have met Ram Dass twice -- once *as*
Ram Dass and once 'way back when' as Dr. Richard
Alpert, when LSD was still legal and he was one
of the gurus of it. In both incarnations he was
a remarkably *real* guy, one who handled things
with style and grace. I see no reason why he
wouldn't handle this situation the same way.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ram Dass finds out that he is a father

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> That goes to show he is not completely gay.  At best, he is
> bisexual, unless his son was conceived through in vitro
> fertilization.

Nonsense. Lots of gay men have fathered children, especially when they live in 
societies where homosexuality is strongly condemned and they're pressured into 
conforming to society's heterosexist expectations. Ram Das may or may not be 
bisexual, but that isn't defined by his having had sex with a woman. Similarly, 
just because straight men have sex with other men in prison doesn't mean 
they're gay or bi. A person's innate sexuality isn't determined by the nature 
of any situational sexual activity.


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ram Dass finds out that he is a father

[John]

> 
> What struck me about John's statement is "at best 
> he is bisexual." One wonders what he conceives of 
> as constituting "at worst."
> 

A "buy sexual"?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Ram Dass finds out that he is a father

[Bhairitu]

Rick Archer wrote:
> from a friend
> Did you hear that Ram Dass, author of Be Here Now, who is 83 and gay just
> found out through DNA testing that he has a 53 year old son.  I know that I
> should not be gossiping but oy.  I heard it on the Wayne Dyer show, they are
> friends and Ram said it was OK to tell everyone.  Be careful of that karma,
> it will come back at anytime. Oy vay. 

One wonders how many would-be 1960s rock and roll stars have a son or 
daughter or two or three they don't know about given that groupies 
tended to sleep around a bit and if they became pregnant would have no 
idea from whom. ;-)

[FairfieldLife] How the GOP Purged Me

[do.rflex]

How the GOP Purged Me

by Chris Currey


I am an old Republican. I am religious, yet not a fanatic.

I am a free-marketer; yet, I believe in the role of the government as a
fair evenhanded referee.

I am socially conservative; yet, I believe that my lesbian niece and my
gay grandchild should have the full protection of the law and live as
free Americans enjoying every aspect of our society with no prejudices
and/or restrictions. Nowadays, my political and socio-economic profile
would make me a Marxist, not a Republican.

I grew up in an era where William F. Buckley fought the John Birch
society and kicked them out of the Republican Party.

I grew up with -– in fact voted for the first time for –-
Eisenhower. In 1956, he ran a campaign of dignity. A campaign that
acknowledged that there are certain projects better suited to be handled
by the government. See, business thinks in the short term, as he said.
That's the imperative of the marketplace. I invest and I expect that
in a few quarters, I garner the fruits of my investment.

Government, on the other hand, has the luxury to wait a few years, maybe
decades, for a return on a given investment. As a former businessman, I
know that first hand. Am I a Marxist for thinking that?

I witnessed the fight for equal civil rights in the 1960s. And as a
proud American, I applauded the passage of the Civil Rights Act and
Voting Rights Act, and we became a better country because of them. 
Those acts made America stronger. Those acts, at their core, represented
and still represent all the values upon which the Republican Party was
founded.

Yet today, our GOP representatives and leaders are ashamed of them. When
they talk about them, you feel their discomfort, their clumsiness, and
sometimes their shame. That awkwardness is so strong that it crosses the
television screen and hits you in the face in your living room.

Why is that? What happened to this generation of Republicans? We are the
party of Abraham Lincoln, and yet we act and behave as if we are the
party of Nathan Bedford Forrest.

I did not like Medicaid and Medicare when they were passed. I was
opposed to them.

Maybe I was too young, too strong, and too ideologically confined. Yet,
over the years, I saw how Medicare helped millions of elderly Americans.
I saw how Medicare helped my mom in her final years battling emphysema
caused by years of smoking. You have to be blind to oppose those
programs. You have to be blind to wish for the suffering of millions of
Americans just because you believe in personal responsibility.

As a businessman, I was torn between my bottom line and providing health
coverage for my employees. I knew that if I provided them with that
coverage, their productivity increases. I did my best, but the riptide
of the health insurance market defeated me.

And with a heavy heart, I offered them gimmicky coverages that, deep
down, I knew did not provide a comprehensive and adequate coverage, but
it was the only coverage I could afford.

I voted for Nixon and for Reagan. Although I did not like the deficit
spending of the Reagan administration, I blamed it on and rationalized
it by the necessities of fighting the Cold War. I liked Reagan — who
didn't? Even my Democrat and liberal friends liked and respected
him.

I voted for Clinton, twice. I thought he was the best Republican
president since Ike.

No, I did not make a mistake. Bill Clinton was closer ideologically to
Eisenhower and Nixon than Bush I and II could ever be. I thought that
Clinton practiced and articulated true Republican ideology in his fiscal
discipline, job creation, smart tax cuts, and foreign policy better than
anyone since Ike.

Then something happened in the 1990s. The leaders of the GOP grew
belligerent. They became too religious, almost zealots. They became
intolerant. They began searching for purity in Republican thought and
doctrine. Ideology blinded them.

I continued to vote Republican, but with a certain unease. Deep down I
knew that a schism happened between the modern Republican Party and the
one I grew up with.

During the fight over the impeachment of President Clinton, the ugly
face of the Republican Party was brought to the surface. Empty rhetoric,
ideological intolerance, vengeance, and religious zealotry became the
common currency.

Suddenly, if you are pro-choice, you could not be a Republican. If you
are for smart and sensible taxes to balance out the budget, you could
not be a Republican. If you are pro-civil rights, you could not be a
Republican.

It started with minorities: they left the party. Then women; they
divorced the GOP and sent it to sleep on the couch. Then, the young
folks; they left and are leaving the Republican Party in droves.

Then, someone stood up and told my niece and my grandchild that they are
not fully Americans — just second class Americans because they are
homosexual. They wished hell and damnation upon my loved ones just
because they are different.

Are we led by priests or are w

[FairfieldLife] Tax cuts extended for regular Americans - Not for the Rich

[do.rflex]

Upper-income people would lose tax cuts in Obama plan

By Richard Wolf
 , USA
TODAY

WASHINGTON — Fresh from raising taxes on upper-income
Americans
  to help expand health insurance coverage, President Obama
  and Democratic
  lawmakers are targeting them again.
When Congress takes up Obama's proposed $3.8 trillion budget this year,
it will include extending President George W. Bush
 's tax cuts for
middle-income families enacted in 2001 and 2003. Tax cuts for
individuals with income above $200,000 and couples above $250,000 would
be eliminated.

The effective tax increase on the upper income would yield about $41
billion next year and $969 billion over the next decade, according to
the Treasury Department. The White House
  says that would help reduce the $1.5 trillion
budget deficit.


Before that debate unfolds, Obama picked up some unlikely allies
Tuesday. One group representing more than 700 wealthy Americans pledged
to donate members' 2010 tax cuts while lobbying for the cuts to be
eliminated next year. Another released a report showing that Americans
with incomes above $250,000 have reaped $700 billion in tax cuts in the
past decade.

"This is going to be a tough fight," said Jeffrey Hollender, a self-made
millionaire from Vermont
 . The goal is to show
that "there are significant numbers of wealthy people who, in fact,
support rolling back this tax cut."

Because Bush's tax cuts are set to expire at the end of this year,
Congress must vote to extend them. For that reason, raising the top two
income tax rates to 36% and 39.6%, as well as raising rates on capital
gains and dividends, requires no vote.

A recently enacted law requiring Congress to pay for tax cuts or
spending increases exempted Bush's tax cuts on the middle class —
but not those on the wealthy. Extending them would require spending cuts
or tax increases elsewhere.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Sandy Levin, D-Mich., said
Obama's tax plan is fair because middle-income Americans are struggling,
while wealthier Americans are not. "It's based on the realities of the
last 10 years," he said. "The decade for middle-income families has been
on the average a very difficult one, and much of the increase in income
and wealth went to the very wealthy."

The vote could prove difficult for Democrats
  from more conservative districts who also voted for
Obama's health care measure. The health law will raise Medicare payroll
taxes on upper-income Americans and tax the most generous health
insurance plans. "Small businesses are going to pay these higher taxes,
and that will only make it tougher to create jobs in this country," said
Rep. Dave Camp 
, R-Mich. "Raising taxes is the last thing we should do right now."

A March poll by Quinnipiac University
  in New York
  found 60% of
Americans support raising taxes on those earning more than $250,000, if
the money is used to reduce the deficit.

Andrew Roth of the anti-tax Club for Growth said letting taxes rise
would curtail job growth and send stocks tumbling. Obama and Democrats
probably will win the legislative battle this year, he said, but "we're
going to make it tough on them politically."

Taxing the rich

How upper-income taxpayers would be affected if President George W.
Bush's income and capital gains tax cuts expire.
Income level   Number of taxpayers   Average tax increase  
Percent tax increase   Average current tax rate   Average new
tax rate $200,000 - $500,000   5.93 million   $988
1.4%   24.4%   24.7% $500,000 - $1
million   1.05 million   $15,615   8.7%   25.5%  
27.7% More than $1 million   530,000  
$130,563   14.2%   29.6%   33.8% 
Source: Tax Policy Center
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-04-06-Obama-tax_N.htm

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ram Dass finds out that he is a father

[Duveyoung]

How gay can one be if one can still get an erection for a gender that they are 
not oriented towards?  Aren't homosexuals put off by the idea of hertosexuality 
to the same degree that heterosexuals are put off -- not speaking morals here 
-- merely trying to see how this really works.  

Seems to me that if one is "pure" then one cannot get it up for the "wrong 
gender."  If one can dally on both sides of the fence, what does this say about 
the concept that one is born with an orientation and thus it's natural and not 
deviant?  If one can be born "bi," then is that a third gender orientation, or 
is it a pathological sign that one is not harmonious with one's "birthright?"

Edg

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> >
> > That goes to show he is not completely gay.  At best, he is
> > bisexual, unless his son was conceived through in vitro
> > fertilization.
> 
> Nonsense. Lots of gay men have fathered children, especially when they live 
> in societies where homosexuality is strongly condemned and they're pressured 
> into conforming to society's heterosexist expectations. Ram Das may or may 
> not be bisexual, but that isn't defined by his having had sex with a woman. 
> Similarly, just because straight men have sex with other men in prison 
> doesn't mean they're gay or bi. A person's innate sexuality isn't determined 
> by the nature of any situational sexual activity.
>

[FairfieldLife] Ravi Shankar At 90: The Man And His Music : NPR

[Rick Archer]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125507150

&sc=emaf 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ram Dass finds out that he is a father

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> 
> How gay can one be if one can still get an erection for
> a gender that they are not oriented towards?  Aren't
> homosexuals put off by the idea of hertosexuality to the
> same degree that heterosexuals are put off

Some are, some aren't. But you need to remember that a
good part of straight guys' horror at the thought of
sex with another man is of social origin rather than a
function of their inherent sexual orientation. For gay
men, that's reversed--their orientation is *toward*
what society doesn't approve of. So it's not parallel.


> Seems to me that if one is "pure" then one cannot get it
> up for the "wrong gender."  If one can dally on both sides
> of the fence, what does this say about the concept that
> one is born with an orientation and thus it's natural and
> not deviant?

Nothing. One can be born with an orientation toward
both sexes, with no preference for either.

> If one can be born "bi," then is that a third gender
> orientation, or is it a pathological sign that one is not 
> harmonious with one's "birthright?"

Neither. Maybe you could think of it more like race.

Sexual orientation seems to be on a spectrum, from
"pure" homo- to "pure" hetero-, but including
everything in between (with "pure" bi-, I guess, right
in the middle). Actually, probably nobody is "pure"
anything, but some are closer than others. And of
course the distribution isn't even; there are more men
on the hetero- than the homo- side of the spectrum.

Again, though, this is seriously complicated by social
attitudes that can mask (or intensify) inherent
preference. Situation can also play a big role--as
Alex points out, a lot of straight men have sex with
each other in prison.

(Alex, please make any necessary corrections to any of
the above.)


> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > >
> > > That goes to show he is not completely gay.  At best, he is
> > > bisexual, unless his son was conceived through in vitro
> > > fertilization.
> > 
> > Nonsense. Lots of gay men have fathered children, especially when they live 
> > in societies where homosexuality is strongly condemned and they're 
> > pressured into conforming to society's heterosexist expectations. Ram Das 
> > may or may not be bisexual, but that isn't defined by his having had sex 
> > with a woman. Similarly, just because straight men have sex with other men 
> > in prison doesn't mean they're gay or bi. A person's innate sexuality isn't 
> > determined by the nature of any situational sexual activity.

[FairfieldLife] Conservative Coburn tells truth about Fox

[anatol_zinc]

Conservative Coburn tells truth about Fox that they lie

also, says Nancy is a nice person etc

  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#36203608

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why do many "gurus" shun siddhis? Part 1

[emptybill]

The word is marana  - death causing.

Hindi speakers like to drop the last syllable if it is an *a*.

Just remember it as *mrita/amrita*- mortal/immortal.

This word is contain in many mantras along with *phat*, the

so-called weapon bija, used to burn away dross and the armor

mantra *hum* (hoom/hoong).






--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
>
>
>
> Bhairitu:
> > This is how siddhis are used in my tantric tradition.
> > For example we learn the maran siddhis to help someone
> > who has supposedly had a maran spell cast on them...
> >
> That makes a lot of sense - casting a 'spell' on someone
> who has had a spell cast upon them. A spell to get rid
> of a spell. Yes, that's the ticket. Now, if you could
> only learn to spell!
>
> maran:
>
> Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon: Search Results
> No entries found.
>
> http://webapps.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin/tamil/recherche
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ram Dass finds out that he is a father

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> 
> How gay can one be if one can still get an erection for a gender
> that they are not oriented towards?  

Physical stimulation alone can create an erection, and one can close ones eyes 
and fantasize about the gender that one is attracted to. Don't assume that a 
gay man's erection when he's sexually intimate with a woman is evidence of 
heterosexual attraction to that woman.

[FairfieldLife] right wing violence

[anatol_zinc]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#36203756

[FairfieldLife] Raw Acorn tapes

[anatol_zinc]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#36204129 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ram Dass finds out that he is a father

[John]

> 
> What struck me about John's statement is "at best 
> he is bisexual." One wonders what he conceives of 
> as constituting "at worst."
> 

A "buy sexual"?

[FairfieldLife] Found: Life that doesn't need oxygen

[do.rflex]

Zoologger: The mud creature that lives without oxygen


New Scientist - 07 April 2010

Species name: Not yet assigned, but of the phylum Loricifera, genus
Spinoloricus

Habitat: Deep sediments lacking oxygen in the L'Atalante basin of the
Mediterranean Sea south of Greece – and who knows where else…

This tiny creature may not look spectacular, but it is one of the most
remarkable ever discovered: the first that can survive and reproduce
entirely without oxygen.

As well as proving that animals that don't have to breathe oxygen have
already evolved on Earth, it bolsters claims that complex animals can
evolve on other planets even if there's no oxygen. Some have speculated, for 
example, that sulphur-rich areas of Mars might support life.

On Earth, bacteria, viruses and ancient archaeaMovie Camera that survive 
without oxygen are well-known, but they are simple, single-celled organisms. 
What marks out the new animal is that it has millions of cells and functions 
independently.


PHOTO of newly discovered creature 'loriciferans':
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn18744/dn18744-1_300.jpg


Toxic depths

Roberto Danovaro of the Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy, led 
the team that discovered the creature, plus two others that live an oxygen-free 
existence, in sediments buried deep beneath the Mediterranean Sea. They've 
identified the creatures as loriciferans, tiny sediment-dwelling creatures so 
named from Greek because their abdomens resemble girdles.

Assigned the genus Spinoloricus, the animal is less than a millimetre
long. The other two new loriciferan species Danovaro found resemble
water fleas, one given the genus name Rugiloricus and the other
Pliciloricus. Some specimens contained an unfertilised egg.

The beasts live in conditions that would kill every other known animal. As well 
as lacking oxygen, the sediments are choked with salt and swamped with hydrogen 
sulphide gas.

Power supply

None of the animals has mitochondria, the "power stations" that generate energy 
from oxygen in the cells of all oxygen-using organisms. Instead, they rely on 
structures called hydrogenosomes, which generate energy from molecules other 
than oxygen, including hydrogen sulphide.

Hydrogenosomes are well known in protozoa that live in oxygen-free
environments, but the three new creatures are the first animals to be
found that rely completely on them. One possibility is that the
loriciferans acquired the hydrogenosomes from protozoa.

Detailed light microscopy images reveal that its abdomen "girdle"
consists of eight plates connected to form a cone, tipped with a
honeycomb structure of unknown function.

Lisa Levin of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla,
California, says that the discoveries offer the tantalising promise that animal 
life will be found in other environments devoid of oxygen,
including beyond our planet.

Perhaps, she speculates, there are animals on other planets with
atmospheres different from our own. More encouragement could come from
further exploration of our own "inner space", the deep ocean.

Journal reference: BMC Biology, DOI: 10.1186/1741-7007-8-3

http://snipurl.com/vb8q6   [www_newscientist_com]

[FairfieldLife] What is that buzzing?

[ultrarishi]

I have a friend who is a meditator and a fellow classmate in my thrice weekly 
yoga class.  She has developed a "buzzing" sensation in what we would consider 
the third eye area.  It comes up during yoga class when doing asanas.  It comes 
up when she hears chanting.  And, it comes up when she sits down to meditate 
and it stays present pretty much the whole time.  It's not uncomfortable and 
she manages quite well with it.  It goes away when she is not doing any 
spiritual practice, that is to say, secular activities do not seem to bring 
this on.  She got concerned about it 6 months ago and saw a neurologist who ran 
a battery of test, but medically she checks out fine.  Even her MRI was fine.

Any thoughts on this, good people?

Re: [FairfieldLife] What is that buzzing?

[Sal Sunshine]

On Apr 7, 2010, at 7:47 PM, ultrarishi wrote:

> I have a friend who is a meditator and a fellow classmate in my thrice weekly 
> yoga class.  She has developed a "buzzing" sensation in what we would 
> consider the third eye area.  It comes up during yoga class when doing 
> asanas.  It comes up when she hears chanting.  And, it comes up when she sits 
> down to meditate and it stays present pretty much the whole time.  It's not 
> uncomfortable and she manages quite well with it.  It goes away when she is 
> not doing any spiritual practice, that is to say, secular activities do not 
> seem to bring this on.  She got concerned about it 6 months ago and saw a 
> neurologist who ran a battery of test, but medically she checks out fine.  
> Even her MRI was fine.
> 
> Any thoughts on this, good people?

Yes.  Pay me $100,000 and I'll be glad to tell you 
exactly what it is.  It's a bargain--really!

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ram Dass finds out that he is a father

[tartbrain]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "martyboi"  wrote:
> > 
> > > John R:
> > > That goes to show he is not completely gay.  At best, he is 
> > > bisexual, unless his son was conceived through in vitro 
> > > fertilization.
> > 
> > Jeesh, that's certainly a black and white may of looking at it. 
> 
> Not to mention incredibly homophobic. 
> 
> > I happen to know a thing or two about gay people, and can tell 
> > you unequivocally that gay men are more than capable of having 
> > relations with the opposite gender ...it's just not their 
> > *preference*. 
> 
> I live in a town that is one of the gay meccas
> of Europe and many of my closest friends are gay.
> ALL of them have had sex with women. Several of
> them have kids, and have good relations with them.
> 
> What struck me about John's statement is "at best 
> he is bisexual." One wonders what he conceives of 
> as constituting "at worst."
> 
> > P.S. I think it's wonderful that he had the great good karma 
> > of having made a baby and knows about it.
 
Juxtaposing "liberation", reincarnation, church issues of celibacy, and this 
thread -- bear with me, this is not the simplest of juxtapositions -- one could 
hypothesize that gays may generally be  more liberated than straights. This is 
a counter thought to John's note which seems dismissive of gays -- or 
characterizing then as second class -- apparently from a "spiritual" view. 
Which is sort of ironic or contradictory if one views spirituality as breaking 
boundaries and increasingly appreciating unity of all people and things. 

First, I am not gay or celibate, and I am not advocating or ranking anything. 
(yeah, basically someone that knows nothing about nothing and thus feels 
qualified to speak in length about it. :) ) 

Let me start with celibacy. For real celibates that I have known, its not a 
giving up of anything -- its a natural "happening" as one person put it. I am 
not celibate -- but have experienced that "happening" state at times. Its not 
that one can't have sex with the opposite sex -- or the same sex -- its just 
one prefers not to have sex. I know some cannot comprehend this, and are 
shouting back -- "but its a natural part of life! taking away sex is taking 
away life"

One can, its not a struggle sort of thing (for real celibates)its that the 
binding influence of sex has diminished. Sort of like an old married couple :) 
One can have it -- but the being hot to trot is just not there.  So many other 
things to do. And as I think Socrates said, he really enjoyed older age when 
one wasn't driven, compelled, generally bound by his second head. With out the 
binding influence of sex, one can still enjoy sex, probably more so. More 
tantric perhaps (I know I am insulting, unintentionally, the tantric tradition 
by using the term in the westen sense of tantric sex, and not its full and vast 
meaning. 

Similar to the comment a about gay men -- they can and some do have  sex with 
women, but prefer men. The binding influence of sex with the opposite gender is 
not found. The celibate finds that the BI for all sex has diminished or 
evaporated. (And this does not imply higher or lower, The "happening celibate" 
may have way more BI's in other areas.) 
 
Now liberation. If one views liberation or its progression as characterized by 
less binding influence of everything, a similar dynamic is happening. Its not 
that one can't do anything -- one is no longer compelled and driven to do stuff 
due to "binding influence".  One is not attached to the desire sort of thing. 
Though one can still do anything, its just that which needs to be done is 
preferred over the compulsion of "gotta get my ya ya's. Got to. Tonight!"  

Now reincarnation. OK I have lost the rational and skeptical here (a club I am 
actually a member of) but if there is a process of reincarnation, it seems 
plausible that it may be a long cycle process of reducing binding influences -- 
a direction of liberation of all binding influences. One floats from life to 
life working stuff out -- shedding the binding influence of everything. Every 
single thing (a figure of speech - things don't bind us, its our unripe inner 
apparatus that does).

So, as a hypothesis. it occurred to me that some (some)gays may be naturally in 
the state, a path, where attraction to the opposite sex is no longer binding. 
One can do it, but its not preferred. Less binding influence, more liberation. 
its not a hierarchy. One can start anywhere.  With whipped cream, skydiving, 
IPA beers, or attraction to the opposite 0r same sex. The binding influence has 
to go. 
All of it. its not that if some one has lost the BI of A and another has lost 
the BI of B -- neither is per se, more liberated than the other.
 
In similar ways, a celibate -- when it is naturally a "happening", not a 
requirement or struggle, has transcended the binding influence of the opposite 
sex. And the sam

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra Blames Own Meditation for Baja Quake - AOL News

[tartbrain]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
>
> On Apr 7, 2010, at 9:33 AM, tartbrain wrote:
> 
> > Continuing on this woo woo ray tangent (I am generally quite rational and 
> > skeptical), in these universal love states i can sense the personality of 
> > trees and plants. Quite distinct entities. And my love for them seems felt 
> > -- and they seem responsive. (to be more specific, its like a lake of 
> > universal love, undirected, that is then directed at them. There is a focus 
> > on them. An adorational devotion kind of focus. But its not at all like the 
> > charismatic beaming discussed in my comments tot the Turquoise post.) Like 
> > they would protect me in their "enchanted forest". (I know, lock me up, we 
> > can't have people walking the streets thinking they can talk to trees).

I am reading this and thinking "what whack job wrote this gibberish". Its a 
matter of what "mode" one is in. I wrote the above in the morning, and reread 
it after a long somewhat intensely analytical day. Two very different modes. 

I can go to that mode -- responding to turquoises post got me thinking  along 
those lines -- but have not really "become one with" trees for some time.

> 
> tart, there's a woman here in FF who supposedly
> talks to stones

I am not rally talking about talking to trees. Its an appreciation at a deep 
level. Its almost a merger with the tree on one level, while appreciating its 
outward beauty similtaneously. 

--let me know if you're ever in the
> area and I'll see what I can do about setting the 
> two of you up.

Sort of a spiritual whack job Match.com. Interesting. 
That could be quite business opportunity in FF. 

  Bet it would be quite a conversation. :)

I am sure she is a lovely person and I am sure it would be a nice conversation. 
Particularly if what happens with her and stones is a similar non-verbal as 
what happens to me with trees (and its not limited to trees, but thats a good 
example) 
> 
> Sal
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra Blames Own Meditation for Baja Quake - AOL News

[authfriend]

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

> > > > BREAKING NEWS: You don't have to share a person's beliefs
> > > > to defend them from unfair attack.
> > > 
> > > But using them as an excuse to launch and attack of your own 
> > > is OK.
> > 
> > Maybe you'd want to review what I said to Curtis and
> > see whether it could actually be classified as an
> > "attack," as opposed to disagreement. If one is
> > defending somebody from what one considers an unfair
> > attack, it's kind of hard to avoid expressing
> > disagreement.
> 
> I'm just calling it how I see it. I see Curtis has
> already resonded to that better than I could.

Neither of you is very good at it, then.


> > Curtis says that if the mind *could* affect the
> > physical world, it would have to be "some new thing,"
> > because at this point we don't know of any way it
> > could happen.
> > 
> > But we still haven't figured out what consciousness is
> > or how it operates, so I think we should leave a bit of
> > room for "some new thing."
> 
> It would really be some "Old Thing"

It would be "new" from the scientific perspective.

 and we can see where 
> the belief comes from and it isn't experience.

We don't know that.

 We can't 
> tell at all whether the mind can affect things so why the
> big hoo-ha in the TMO about the marshy effect? Because you
> can't have a belief in consciousness as the unified field
> without accepting that outcomes like earthquakes and 
> political upheaval are somehow connected with people sitting
> around with their eyes closed.

Is it possible there would have been more and worse
earthquakes without people sitting around with their
eyes closed?

On that scale, it's unfalsifiable. And as to political
upheaval, one person's disastrous chaos is another
person's liberating revolution, so that's unfalsifiable
as well.

We just don't know what it is we're trying to measure
or how to go about it.


> > Yes, that's an "argument from ignorance," at least in
> > terms of whether the possibility of such a phenomenon
> > should be ruled out (as opposed to claiming it's true,
> > which I'm not doing).
> > 
> > But you and Curtis are countering it with an "argument
> > from personal incredulity" as to whether such a "new
> > thing" is possible, so I figure we're even.
> 
> I wouldn't say incredulity, I have given it a lot of 
> thought, a chance to work in my life and observed how it 
> fails to demonstrably fails to affect world as predicted.

Yeah, but it's still personal incredulity to believe
that because you haven't seen any evidence that
convinces you (even for very sound reasons), therefore
there *can* be no such evidence.

> Suppose we didn't know about plate tectonics, then you 
> might be able to say things are happening for reasons
> unknown and search about for mystical reasons which is
> how we got here in the first place I'll wager. 
> 
> The thing is if it's consciousness affecting the earths
> crust then there can't have been any earthquakes before 
> man evolved and started meditating.

Why couldn't earthquakes happen without human
participation? I'm not following you.


>  and they may well be valid--but gee, seems to me
> > there'd be quite a few potential real-world benefits if
> > we could nail down that "mental states" *can* affect
> > the physical world, and how this occurs.
> 
> Like preventing earthquakes or improving the stock exchange
> and preventing war? I shall remain happy sceptic until that 
> happy day.

You're entitled, but be a *skeptic*, not a skeptopath.

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that
we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there
are things that we now know we don't know. But there are
also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know
we don't know."--Donald Rumsfeld

[FairfieldLife] Re: What is that buzzing?

[shukra69]

its Shiva

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ultrarishi  wrote:
>
> I have a friend who is a meditator and a fellow classmate in my thrice weekly 
> yoga class.  She has developed a "buzzing" sensation in what we would 
> consider the third eye area.  It comes up during yoga class when doing 
> asanas.  It comes up when she hears chanting.  And, it comes up when she sits 
> down to meditate and it stays present pretty much the whole time.  It's not 
> uncomfortable and she manages quite well with it.  It goes away when she is 
> not doing any spiritual practice, that is to say, secular activities do not 
> seem to bring this on.  She got concerned about it 6 months ago and saw a 
> neurologist who ran a battery of test, but medically she checks out fine.  
> Even her MRI was fine.
> 
> Any thoughts on this, good people?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: What is that buzzing?

[lurkernomore20002000]

I believe it is called a pinealgasm, and occurs when the pineal gland
begins to pleasure itself.  The advice is pretty simple. "When the
pineal gland begins to pleasure itself, we do not mind. We take it as it
comes.  It is a  normal, natural process.  The pinealgasm may get weaker
or stronger, fainter or clearer. But in every case we just take it as it
comes, neither anticipating or resisting the sensation."  I believe
that's what it says to do.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ultrarishi  wrote:
>
> I have a friend who is a meditator and a fellow classmate in my thrice
weekly yoga class. She has developed a "buzzing" sensation in what we
would consider the third eye area. It comes up during yoga class when
doing asanas. It comes up when she hears chanting. And, it comes up when
she sits down to meditate and it stays present pretty much the whole
time. It's not uncomfortable and she manages quite well with it. It goes
away when she is not doing any spiritual practice, that is to say,
secular activities do not seem to bring this on. She got concerned about
it 6 months ago and saw a neurologist who ran a battery of test, but
medically she checks out fine. Even her MRI was fine.
>
> Any thoughts on this, good people?
>