[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[maskedzebra]

Dear Mark,

Put it this way: whatever you took in to yourself that was Maharishi was such 
as to be the means for 'God' or reality to transfer this knowledge directly to 
me.

This transference, and what was transferred goes beyond, I think, whatever you 
could consciously know about what you had received into your consciousness and 
being that constituted who Maharishi was.

Not only this, what was put into me because of you went beyond anything I could 
conceive or experience through any kind of intention.

There is something about you Mark that enabled what I needed to know about 
Maharishi to be put inside of me such as to create this tremendous and 
definitive liberation.

Maharishi, almost as God would know him, was, through your own vulnerability 
and sensitivity and objectivity and intelligence, formed inside of me such that 
I immediately knew that I finally 'knew' who Maharishi was.

In other words Maharishi has been incarnated inside of my intelligence through 
a kind of supernatural objectivity. It is entirely an event beyond the 
capabilities of either you or me.

But the key thing here is: You (and this would be true even if you had no 
conscious knowledge of this—at least fully conscious knowledge of it) possess a 
certain singular sensibility when it comes to spiritual reality—and more 
specifically Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.

My anxiety, my trauma, my perplexity, my obsession, my searching just suddenly 
ended in an instant: And I recognized that I was apprehending who Maharishi 
really was. And what I was apprehending *had nothing to do with anything I had 
previously known or experienced.* I had virtually got nowhere in this 
quest—until you came along.

Although, as I have already related to you, listening to your comments on David 
Sieveking's film riveted me like nothing else in that film, and perhaps like 
nothing else I had ever heard about Maharishi.

Then your three posts.

The cause and effect principle here transcends both of us, but the essential 
requirement was for you to be the particular human being that you are. And I 
would have to believe, based upon what has happened to me, that it is your 
unique destiny to carry inside of you—regardless, as I say, of how much of this 
you consciously can access, much less articulate—more of the reality of what 
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi really was as a man and a human being than anyone else 
who has ever known him.

Recollect: I did not say that any particular *content* of your three posts did 
it for me. It was a much more subtle process than this. It was the created 
being named Mark Landau who, in the presence of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, acquired 
certain impressions; these impressions went deep down into yourself. And then 
when the need was there inside of me
 to *know* who Maharishi was in a way that I did not and could not know him up 
until then, God or reality—the simple intelligence of loving goodness which is 
behind all of this creation (and you, and me, and Maharishi)—took this perfect 
data off of your nervous system and transferred it to me—not just the 
information, but the information organized into a definitive form that 
constituted the exact reality of the individual person Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.

As to your questions about reincarnation, the role of the Vedic gods in my 
enlightenment, and my current state of consciousness I can only refer you to 
some of my previous posts—I began posting near the end of June. I am not 
entirely familiar with how to track down threads to which I made a 
contribution, but I know that my conversations with authfriend dealt quite 
explicitly with some themes germane to the specific interest your express here. 
And of course in my exchanges with the redoubtable Curtisdeltablues.

I consider what you have done for me, Mark, truly an act of God. Even though 
what was brought about through you was not in any way your direct intention. 
It—what has happened to me—nevertheless has left me with a sense of gratitude 
to you. So, I hope you stay around. FFL has done a lot for me since I first 
took up Rick's invitation to post here.

Meanwhile, should you have any specific questions along the lines of what you 
say near the end of your post here, I will try to answer them as best I can. 
But I have already said a lot about my enlightenment and de-enlightenment in 
those conversations with authfriend and Curtis.

I am sure there is something quite remarkable in the connection between us, 
Mark.

Robin 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mark Landau m@... wrote:

 Yes, I fully understand, at least the part about your getting M from me.
 
  but with this last post of yours *I discovered Maharishi was there*, inside 
  of me, before me, objectified, solid, individuated as the actual person, 
  human being he is and was.
  
  No, he came into focus *as a gift gratuitously and accidentally given to me 
  by you*, by your personal nervous system.
 
 And perhaps direct transference was also involved.  I 

[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

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

 My puzzlement about the unique claims of Robin Carlson continues. Here's a 
 new thought. 
 
 Premise: waking state consciousness is derivative of unity consciousness, 
 which is to say that unity is a natural state from which man has fallen. If 
 that is true, and if Robin indeed attained unity, perhaps his later 
 intellectual conviction that unity falsely represented reality set up a 
 fascinating, if improbable, sequence of events. If unity can accidentally, if 
 you will, forget its own status and fragment into waking state, then would it 
 be impossible for a person in unity to *intentionally* deconstruct unity and 
 reestablish, artificially, waking state? If so, such an event could be 
 predicated on an intellectual mistake, which surely could befall even those 
 in unity.
 
 Perhaps nobody else gives a shit, but I'm still chewing on this one. I do 
 hope he eventually tries to answer my question about UTs 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0. 
 That should be interesting.
 
 He appears to be lurking, so the bait is tossed.


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

 My puzzlement about the unique claims of Robin Carlson continues. Here's a 
 new thought. 
 
 Premise: waking state consciousness is derivative of unity consciousness, 
 which is to say that unity is a natural state from which man has fallen. If 
 that is true, and if Robin indeed attained unity, perhaps his later 
 intellectual conviction that unity falsely represented reality set up a 
 fascinating, if improbable, sequence of events. If unity can accidentally, if 
 you will, forget its own status and fragment into waking state, then would it 
 be impossible for a person in unity to *intentionally* deconstruct unity and 
 reestablish, artificially, waking state? If so, such an event could be 
 predicated on an intellectual mistake, which surely could befall even those 
 in unity.
 
 Perhaps nobody else gives a shit, but I'm still chewing on this one. I do 
 hope he eventually tries to answer my question about UTs 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0. 
 That should be interesting.
 
 He appears to be lurking, so the bait is tossed.


What you have written here is exactly the case. Unity is always before us, but 
there is like a fog that obscures the view. Whatever its cause, and whatever we 
call that cause is not that important, though in the TMO it is called 'stress'. 
What I say here presupposes the common view that this 'stress' is completely 
gone by the state called cosmic consciousness is false. Maharishi is supposed 
to have said 'you gain fulfilment in Brahman consciousness but the unstressing 
goes on forever', so we might conclude from this the 'stress free' state of CC 
was basically a come-on to get people to keep up spiritual progress. Perhaps 
what it really means is that one can experience oneself, even in CC, as 
separate from the stress, but the stress is still there, it still has an effect 
on the experience of the outer world, which includes all 'relative' perception, 
even the most subtle thought. 

Others' experiences as related to me, and my own indicate that many see through 
the fog, not necessarily permanently at first, but clearly, and yet some small 
amount of fog or stress remains unnoticed. And so some might experience unity 
for some time, and then that hidden bit of stress is dislodged, perhaps 
triggered by some event in experience, and the person suddenly finds the unity 
is obscured to a lesser or greater extent, never to the extent one had before 
starting the spiritual journey, but the 'fall' can be quite dramatic.

On the level of the mind, of the intellect, this fog takes the shape of our 
symbolisation of experience; it is the way we remember our experiences as 
concepts. When we are 'fallen' those concepts are our reality; we have 
subsituted them for the direct perception of unity. We have been distracted by 
them, and lost the innocence of direct experience. As you said they 
de-construct unity by fragmenting unity into the 'mere' waking state. There is 
no way to explain what this is like, the Indians use the word 'Maya', and it is 
really mysterious that such a thing could even happen, or even be undone. Maya 
is like a ghost of a ghost. That it has been given a name is misleading, 
because it does not exist. Rather our conceptualisations of experience divert 
our attention from the container of experience which is the unity, as when a 
moving bright light pulls our visual apparatus toward it and we ignore the 
space around the light.

Robin Carlson appears to have a complex mind, with a very adept ability to 
apply symbols, to conceptualise, and manipulate these properties that provide a 
description of our mental world. Like a chess master, he can probably 
outmanoeuvre most in an argument using these tools of the mind. That his 
conceptualisations are so involved and intricate indicate 

[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ

[at_man_and_brahman]

I appreciate this thought, and agree this his actions and intentions while in 
unity appear askew. However, given that, in the TM Universe, Maharishi himself 
defined unity consciousness and to my understanding initially agreed that Robin 
was in it, to conclude independently of Maharishi that Robin was not in u.c. is 
troublesome. It adds too many complications to the story. 

As I stated in one of my initial posts on the matter, one of three things must 
be the case:

* RC is an impostor who can convincingly appear to be RC (who rumor had it had
committed suicide, anyway) and who wants to mess with TB's minds by making
claims on his behalf

or

* RC is still in unity, but wants to claim otherwise for some cosmic purpose
(how could it not be cosmic, if he's in unity?) [As an aside, a friend of mine 
attended one of his meetings in Fairfield back when. He heard Robin utter 
profanity and asked why a man in unity would do such a thing. Robin responded 
that he didn't remember doing it, but the universe must have had a need for him 
to speak profanely.]

or

* RC was in a temporary false unity (per your theory), rather than THE WHOLE 
THING, THE REAL THING, and Maharishi was incapable of distinguishing between 
the two, which raises its own questions

Having read a lot of RC's writing since that posting, I now feel the need to 
add a fourth.

* RC was in unity consciousness but acquired a false belief intellectually that 
impelled him to intentionally deconstruct unity to waking consciousness; his 
writings indicate that he is still partly under the spell of unity, which 
would make sense if he artificially forced himself back into waking state

I don't accept his twin hypotheses that Aquinas held Ultimate Truth 3.0 and 
that unity consciousness is a false representation of reality. The fourth 
option appears to provide a way to preserve Maharishi's ability to determine 
whether or not someone else had attained unity while providing a means for 
Robin to have reverted, mostly, to waking state.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote:

 (If you are looking only for a response from MZ, please disregard this post, 
 but it is a subject I do care about and have devoted some thought to, so FWIW 
 I am throwing my two cents' worth in.) 
 
 IMO and IME, Unity as MZ has described it is *not* Reality, not Brahman -- 
 not even true Unity, insofar as he has described identifying with a separate 
 self or Self which was invested in demonstrating it was better, smarter, 
 clearer than everyone else -- *what* everyone else? Where is the true Unity 
 in that? In Unity, at least we understand that we and our object of 
 perception are One. There is no other, as far as the immediate object of 
 perception is concerned. 
 
 However, in so-called Unity there is or may still be a subtly separate self 
 who thinks it has reached the pinnacle of evolution, thinks it is enlightened 
 (unlike most others), but this is *not* Reality. This is an intellect lost 
 in its own creation, its own beliefs. Reality is not really attainable by a 
 separate Self; Reality only quickens to ItSelf and remembers ItSelf when we 
 Awaken from our intellect's dream of separation and comparison and 
 competition to remember we are *not* that separate Self, not the Witness, not 
 pure consciousness, not in Ignorance or C.C. or G.C. or U.C. or in any 
 thing, and never have been. 
 
 We are the indescribable, the ungraspable. We are literally beyond belief. 
 Beyond ideas. Beyond stories. And yet we contain and embrace and enjoy all 
 beliefs, ideas and stories, for entertainment purposes only. We are the 
 devatas and the rakshasas; we are the divine and the demonic. What is there 
 to fear? Fear is born of duality, of projecting one's power or shadows 
 outside oneself, and there is only Us here.
 
 Personal enlightenment or ignorance or any specific state of consciousness or 
 quality of being is not really applicable; those are descriptions of a 
 separate self, and meaningful only to a separate self, stuck in an 
 intellect's illusion of separation, comparison, spacetime and evolution. Not 
 that there is anything whatsoever wrong with that! As we said earlier, it's 
 all fun and games until someone loses an I. 
 
 The point is, when Reality slaps or tickles itself Awake, and we cease 
 primarily identifying with our I, we may begin to see we are no more and no 
 less enlightened than every one of us who is in Us, and that is every one in 
 creation. As others see themselves and see Us, that is indeed how we are ... 
 in them and for them, in Us. 
 
 And in Reality, we may gleefully investigate and throw ourselves into any 
 particular state(s) of consciousness we please. In fact, from one POV we are 
 continually cycling between ignorance and enlightenment, as we love our 
 I-points from ignorance -- when we are unconsciously lost in them and 
 identified with them -- into enlightenment, when they are consciously 
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ

[at_man_and_brahman]

I don't think he fell from unity. Though he refuses to describe his 
methodology, he has made it clear that he intentionally forced his 
consciousness into waking state. I hypothesize that a person in true, 
card-carrying unity--THE WHOLE THING, THE REAL THING--can intentionally shift 
his frame of reference back into waking state, though it must be horrendous to 
do so, not unlike dying and then intentionally pushing your soul back into your 
slimy, disgusting dead body, reanimating it. Though extremely improbable, it 
seems theoretically possible. I contend that this is what Robin has done, and 
that he has done this in response to a mistaken confidence in the Aquinas 
paradigm.

Several people who've answered my questions, now and in the past, regarding RC 
seem to have not read his posts very effectively. I appreciate your thoughts, 
but I don't think you understand what he's been trying to communicate to FFL.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
anartaxius@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, at_man_and_brahman 
 at_man_and_brahman@ wrote:
 
  My puzzlement about the unique claims of Robin Carlson continues. Here's a 
  new thought. 
  
  Premise: waking state consciousness is derivative of unity consciousness, 
  which is to say that unity is a natural state from which man has fallen. 
  If that is true, and if Robin indeed attained unity, perhaps his later 
  intellectual conviction that unity falsely represented reality set up a 
  fascinating, if improbable, sequence of events. If unity can accidentally, 
  if you will, forget its own status and fragment into waking state, then 
  would it be impossible for a person in unity to *intentionally* deconstruct 
  unity and reestablish, artificially, waking state? If so, such an event 
  could be predicated on an intellectual mistake, which surely could befall 
  even those in unity.
  
  Perhaps nobody else gives a shit, but I'm still chewing on this one. I do 
  hope he eventually tries to answer my question about UTs 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0. 
  That should be interesting.
  
  He appears to be lurking, so the bait is tossed.
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, at_man_and_brahman 
 at_man_and_brahman@ wrote:
 
  My puzzlement about the unique claims of Robin Carlson continues. Here's a 
  new thought. 
  
  Premise: waking state consciousness is derivative of unity consciousness, 
  which is to say that unity is a natural state from which man has fallen. 
  If that is true, and if Robin indeed attained unity, perhaps his later 
  intellectual conviction that unity falsely represented reality set up a 
  fascinating, if improbable, sequence of events. If unity can accidentally, 
  if you will, forget its own status and fragment into waking state, then 
  would it be impossible for a person in unity to *intentionally* deconstruct 
  unity and reestablish, artificially, waking state? If so, such an event 
  could be predicated on an intellectual mistake, which surely could befall 
  even those in unity.
  
  Perhaps nobody else gives a shit, but I'm still chewing on this one. I do 
  hope he eventually tries to answer my question about UTs 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0. 
  That should be interesting.
  
  He appears to be lurking, so the bait is tossed.
 
 
 What you have written here is exactly the case. Unity is always before us, 
 but there is like a fog that obscures the view. Whatever its cause, and 
 whatever we call that cause is not that important, though in the TMO it is 
 called 'stress'. What I say here presupposes the common view that this 
 'stress' is completely gone by the state called cosmic consciousness is 
 false. Maharishi is supposed to have said 'you gain fulfilment in Brahman 
 consciousness but the unstressing goes on forever', so we might conclude from 
 this the 'stress free' state of CC was basically a come-on to get people to 
 keep up spiritual progress. Perhaps what it really means is that one can 
 experience oneself, even in CC, as separate from the stress, but the stress 
 is still there, it still has an effect on the experience of the outer world, 
 which includes all 'relative' perception, even the most subtle thought. 
 
 Others' experiences as related to me, and my own indicate that many see 
 through the fog, not necessarily permanently at first, but clearly, and yet 
 some small amount of fog or stress remains unnoticed. And so some might 
 experience unity for some time, and then that hidden bit of stress is 
 dislodged, perhaps triggered by some event in experience, and the person 
 suddenly finds the unity is obscured to a lesser or greater extent, never to 
 the extent one had before starting the spiritual journey, but the 'fall' can 
 be quite dramatic.
 
 On the level of the mind, of the intellect, this fog takes the shape of our 
 symbolisation of experience; it is the way we remember our experiences as 
 concepts. When we are 'fallen' those concepts are our reality; we have 

[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ

[Ravi Yogi]

Well the only logical thing that you missed was there could have been a
purpose behind why MMY would have declared RC in Unity and then out of
it. I believe the latter would be the right one based upon RC's postings
here, and I don't buy that you can come out of Unity. RC's postings here
and his relating of the actual experience is a good illustration that
his so called Unity was nothing but an intellectual deception.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, at_man_and_brahman
at_man_and_brahman@... wrote:

 I appreciate this thought, and agree this his actions and intentions
while in unity appear askew. However, given that, in the TM Universe,
Maharishi himself defined unity consciousness and to my understanding
initially agreed that Robin was in it, to conclude independently of
Maharishi that Robin was not in u.c. is troublesome. It adds too many
complications to the story.

 As I stated in one of my initial posts on the matter, one of three
things must be the case:

 * RC is an impostor who can convincingly appear to be RC (who rumor
had it had
 committed suicide, anyway) and who wants to mess with TB's minds by
making
 claims on his behalf

 or

 * RC is still in unity, but wants to claim otherwise for some cosmic
purpose
 (how could it not be cosmic, if he's in unity?) [As an aside, a friend
of mine attended one of his meetings in Fairfield back when. He heard
Robin utter profanity and asked why a man in unity would do such a
thing. Robin responded that he didn't remember doing it, but the
universe must have had a need for him to speak profanely.]

 or

 * RC was in a temporary false unity (per your theory), rather than THE
WHOLE THING, THE REAL THING, and Maharishi was incapable of
distinguishing between the two, which raises its own questions

 Having read a lot of RC's writing since that posting, I now feel the
need to add a fourth.

 * RC was in unity consciousness but acquired a false belief
intellectually that impelled him to intentionally deconstruct unity to
waking consciousness; his writings indicate that he is still partly
under the spell of unity, which would make sense if he artificially
forced himself back into waking state

 I don't accept his twin hypotheses that Aquinas held Ultimate Truth
3.0 and that unity consciousness is a false representation of reality.
The fourth option appears to provide a way to preserve Maharishi's
ability to determine whether or not someone else had attained unity
while providing a means for Robin to have reverted, mostly, to waking
state.

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote:
 
  (If you are looking only for a response from MZ, please disregard
this post, but it is a subject I do care about and have devoted some
thought to, so FWIW I am throwing my two cents' worth in.)
 
  IMO and IME, Unity as MZ has described it is *not* Reality, not
Brahman -- not even true Unity, insofar as he has described
identifying with a separate self or Self which was invested in
demonstrating it was better, smarter, clearer than everyone else --
*what* everyone else? Where is the true Unity in that? In Unity, at
least we understand that we and our object of perception are One. There
is no other, as far as the immediate object of perception is concerned.
 
  However, in so-called Unity there is or may still be a subtly
separate self who thinks it has reached the pinnacle of evolution,
thinks it is enlightened (unlike most others), but this is *not*
Reality. This is an intellect lost in its own creation, its own beliefs.
Reality is not really attainable by a separate Self; Reality only
quickens to ItSelf and remembers ItSelf when we Awaken from our
intellect's dream of separation and comparison and competition to
remember we are *not* that separate Self, not the Witness, not pure
consciousness, not in Ignorance or C.C. or G.C. or U.C. or in any
thing, and never have been.
 
  We are the indescribable, the ungraspable. We are literally beyond
belief. Beyond ideas. Beyond stories. And yet we contain and embrace and
enjoy all beliefs, ideas and stories, for entertainment purposes only.
We are the devatas and the rakshasas; we are the divine and the demonic.
What is there to fear? Fear is born of duality, of projecting one's
power or shadows outside oneself, and there is only Us here.
 
  Personal enlightenment or ignorance or any specific state of
consciousness or quality of being is not really applicable; those are
descriptions of a separate self, and meaningful only to a separate self,
stuck in an intellect's illusion of separation, comparison, spacetime
and evolution. Not that there is anything whatsoever wrong with that! As
we said earlier, it's all fun and games until someone loses an I.
 
  The point is, when Reality slaps or tickles itself Awake, and we
cease primarily identifying with our I, we may begin to see we are no
more and no less enlightened than every one of us who is in Us, and that
is every one in creation. As others see themselves and see 

[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ

[Ravi Yogi]

Thanks Rory - I wonder why you waited this long to state this, is it
because of your affection, respect for him?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote:

 (If you are looking only for a response from MZ, please disregard this
post, but it is a subject I do care about and have devoted some thought
to, so FWIW I am throwing my two cents' worth in.)

 IMO and IME, Unity as MZ has described it is *not* Reality, not
Brahman -- not even true Unity, insofar as he has described
identifying with a separate self or Self which was invested in
demonstrating it was better, smarter, clearer than everyone else --
*what* everyone else? Where is the true Unity in that? In Unity, at
least we understand that we and our object of perception are One. There
is no other, as far as the immediate object of perception is concerned.

 However, in so-called Unity there is or may still be a subtly separate
self who thinks it has reached the pinnacle of evolution, thinks it is
enlightened (unlike most others), but this is *not* Reality. This is
an intellect lost in its own creation, its own beliefs. Reality is not
really attainable by a separate Self; Reality only quickens to ItSelf
and remembers ItSelf when we Awaken from our intellect's dream of
separation and comparison and competition to remember we are *not* that
separate Self, not the Witness, not pure consciousness, not in
Ignorance or C.C. or G.C. or U.C. or in any thing, and never have
been.

 We are the indescribable, the ungraspable. We are literally beyond
belief. Beyond ideas. Beyond stories. And yet we contain and embrace and
enjoy all beliefs, ideas and stories, for entertainment purposes only.
We are the devatas and the rakshasas; we are the divine and the demonic.
What is there to fear? Fear is born of duality, of projecting one's
power or shadows outside oneself, and there is only Us here.

 Personal enlightenment or ignorance or any specific state of
consciousness or quality of being is not really applicable; those are
descriptions of a separate self, and meaningful only to a separate self,
stuck in an intellect's illusion of separation, comparison, spacetime
and evolution. Not that there is anything whatsoever wrong with that! As
we said earlier, it's all fun and games until someone loses an I.

 The point is, when Reality slaps or tickles itself Awake, and we cease
primarily identifying with our I, we may begin to see we are no more and
no less enlightened than every one of us who is in Us, and that is every
one in creation. As others see themselves and see Us, that is indeed how
we are ... in them and for them, in Us.

 And in Reality, we may gleefully investigate and throw ourselves into
any particular state(s) of consciousness we please. In fact, from one
POV we are continually cycling between ignorance and enlightenment, as
we love our I-points from ignorance -- when we are unconsciously lost
in them and identified with them -- into enlightenment, when they are
consciously aligned with and identified with Us.

 But again, that's just a game we play, to pass the time :-)


 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, at_man_and_brahman
at_man_and_brahman@ wrote:
 
  My puzzlement about the unique claims of Robin Carlson continues.
Here's a new thought.
 
  Premise: waking state consciousness is derivative of unity
consciousness, which is to say that unity is a natural state from which
man has fallen. If that is true, and if Robin indeed attained unity,
perhaps his later intellectual conviction that unity falsely represented
reality set up a fascinating, if improbable, sequence of events. If
unity can accidentally, if you will, forget its own status and fragment
into waking state, then would it be impossible for a person in unity to
*intentionally* deconstruct unity and reestablish, artificially, waking
state? If so, such an event could be predicated on an intellectual
mistake, which surely could befall even those in unity.
 
  Perhaps nobody else gives a shit, but I'm still chewing on this one.
I do hope he eventually tries to answer my question about UTs 1.0, 2.0,
and 3.0. That should be interesting.
 
  He appears to be lurking, so the bait is tossed.
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ

[Ravi Yogi]

Your premise IME seems highly improbable. A poor comparison but It's
like you found a key and opened the door to a hidden room with
treasures, sure you can close it and come back to where you where but
the knowledge of the room and the ability to enter this room and use the
treasures remain whether you choose to do it or not.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, at_man_and_brahman
at_man_and_brahman@... wrote:

 My puzzlement about the unique claims of Robin Carlson continues.
Here's a new thought.

 Premise: waking state consciousness is derivative of unity
consciousness, which is to say that unity is a natural state from which
man has fallen. If that is true, and if Robin indeed attained unity,
perhaps his later intellectual conviction that unity falsely represented
reality set up a fascinating, if improbable, sequence of events. If
unity can accidentally, if you will, forget its own status and fragment
into waking state, then would it be impossible for a person in unity to
*intentionally* deconstruct unity and reestablish, artificially, waking
state? If so, such an event could be predicated on an intellectual
mistake, which surely could befall even those in unity.

 Perhaps nobody else gives a shit, but I'm still chewing on this one. I
do hope he eventually tries to answer my question about UTs 1.0, 2.0,
and 3.0. That should be interesting.

 He appears to be lurking, so the bait is tossed.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Visit with Amma

[Ravi Yogi]

I don't consider Amma as an avatar or divine mother, IMO most who do are
just engaging in an intellectual concept. Not that there's anything
wrong with it, since the very faith, trust transforms. However IME she
is definitely a Satguru and a very very rare and a special person, not
considering her as an avatar or divine mother is not at all a handicap
by any means. The key is not outside of you, it's just that with her
grace it so much easier.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Denise Evans dmevans365@...
wrote:

 That explains itI knew there was a reason were were praying to
Amma as God - Â or God and Goddess as the case may be!
 What about Jesus? Â Does he qualify as an avatar? Â

 Interestingly, I met a woman who travels extensively to follow both
Amma and Mother Meera. Â She's lower key at this point, but so was
Amma at one point before celebrity hit.

 --- On Sun, 7/24/11, fflmod fflmod@... wrote:

 From: fflmod fflmod@...
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Visit with Amma
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Sunday, July 24, 2011, 2:26 PM
















 Â













 Amma is an avatar, an incarnation of the divine. Not a karmic human at
all. That is why the name of Amma is prevalent throughout the bhajans
and elsewhere. There is no difference between praying to God and praying
to an avatar. A familiar example of this is how in MMY's Gita, Krishna
is referred to as the Lord.



 An interesting case is that of Mother Meera. Mother Meera is also an
avatar and recommends that seekers do japa (repeating the name of the
divine as often during the day as possible) to Mother Meera. Yet, Mother
Meera is as far from being a guru-led organization  and/or a cult as can
be.



 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dmevans365 dmevans365@ wrote:

 

  I am writing this as an account of my and my children's
participation in a recent Amma retreat. As background: I was laid off a
stressful job in corporate america in January after many years in a
deadline-driven career.  We were invited by a friend to attend the
retreat. I was curious and interested in meeting a saint who
supposedly embodies the concepts of love and compassion. I have no
background in the Hindu religion, Indian culture, or guru philosophy.
I am not religious but believe in God, as the universe and nature, and
our ability to access and receive personal guidance and help from the
source energy. I believe that God is love. I attended with my heart
wide open to possibilities and encouraged my kids to do the same.

 

  I attended the free program on Friday around 3 in the afternoon to
introduce myself to the environment I had signed us up for the following
3 days. Loud Indian chant music was playing, many things were being
sold, people were standing in line, the energy in the room was apparent.
I purchased white clothing and a book and a cute little tiny Amma doll
for myself and the kids. I had little idea what to expect, having never
attended anything quite like this, but stayed in place of
non-judgement and was excited.

 

  Over the next three days, I followed the program plan schedule.  
Receiving a hug from Amma was not like any hug I've ever received in
that we were all physically positioned, but it seemed understandable
that with so many people, a procedure needed to be in place. (I asked
many about this and heard that this is because of the time involved in
darshan - many apparently get spaced out seeing her and need to be
physically moved away and when hugging thousands, every second counts). 
I did not feel an intimacy or personal connection or feeling of love and
compassion. Something was repeated in monotone in my ear that I didn't
understand. Shortly after receiving our hugs, however, we were all
completely wired. I told the kids I felt like I had received an energy
transfer or hit during the exchange. It didn't feel bad, but not good
either, and we could sense that Amma seemed to be a powerful person
energetically.

 

  Saturday morning we were up early for breakfast and to stand in
line. One of my daughters and I were signed up to attend the IAM
meditation courses - hers being the youth one - and so wanted to get our
hugs in early.  We were in line starting at 8 AM, listened to the Swami
from 9 to 10, sat and waited for Amma to arrive at 10 AM, and then
waited and moved up through the heavily orchestrated and controlled
process. This time we went individually and brought our questions that
we kept in our minds, as Amma could supposedly intuit and respond.
Again, a manhandled hug routine (hands placed particularly, head
pushed forward on chest, with a monotone repetition of a word in the
right ear).

 

  I attended the IAM meditation course and enjoyed it, but was put off
by the requirement to sign a confidentiality agreement. It was at this
point I began to feel like I was being encouraged to pray to Amma -
based on the Swami lectures, instruction and visualization received
during the meditation. Amma was continually 

[FairfieldLife] Dome Exclusion was Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Ravi Yogi]

BTW - I have never practiced IAM, this was just started a few years
back, I'm sure to target an audience obsessed with meditation
techniques, not that there's anything wrong with it. IMO, All meditation
techniques are just tools to transcend. I wouldn't worry too much about
the legal stuff, part of the game that needs to be played in the West.
I'm sure if they didn't do that there would be idiots trying to profit
using Amma's name. I don't know about the part about 20-30 minutes a day
to achieve Self(realization?), I wish it were that easy, it's a long
process for the majority.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Denise Evans dmevans365@...
wrote:

 Amma's IAM meditation (which one has to sign a legal confidentiality
agreement to learn) also takes one to Self in a mere 20 to 30 minutes a
day.
 Why is the path to Self and Enlightenment taught by these (and I'm
sure many other gurus) in the spirit of love and compassion for the
purpose of uplifting the planet rife with so many exclusionary
procedures?Â



 --- On Sun, 7/24/11, tedadams108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:

 From: tedadams108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Dome Exclusion was Re: Maharishi's Sandals
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Sunday, July 24, 2011, 6:26 PM
















 Â











 Yoga-lite?  What could be more effective than a technique

 that takes the mind to the Self in and easy and effective way?



 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u wgm4u@ wrote:

 

 

 

  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@ wrote:

  

   On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 8:40 PM, wgm4u wgm4u@ wrote:

   

   

Yet, no matter how you cut it, TM still works, as Tex would say,
Go figure!

   

  

   And it's the only version of meditation, mantra japa, devotion
that

   does work, right?Maharishi was not only a great seer (as his
title

   implies), he delivered to the world the only way to get in contact

   with the Self and God.And the only householder way to

   enlightenment, as evidence by RC, Rory, Ravi and other
contributors

   to FFL.   So TM works, praise be to Maharishi and His legacy.

 

  NO, you've got to read between the lines, TM is Yoga-lite for
modernity. MMY never taught Patanjali's Ashtanga Yoga per-se, he
modified/tailored it for modern man/and Judy.

 

  According to the great Paramahansa Yogananda there are two basic
forms of meditation, one is passive (like TM) and the other is active
(concentration or Dharana, probably what Maharishi Patanjali actually
taught). He (Paramahansa) believed that Hong-sau concentration and Kriya
was superior.

 

  See The Science of Religion which was his first lecture given in
these United States...

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ

[RoryGoff]

* * Thank you for your most thoughtful response, AAB. I am not actually saying 
that Robin was in a temporary, false Unity -- I am saying that to be in Unity 
Consciousness is itself by definition temporary and false, as to be in any 
state of consciousness is temporary, time-bound, and hence ultimately false. If 
an experience -- or a state of consciousness -- comes, it will most certainly 
also go. Only what has always been and is now, shall ever remain.

To think oneself in a specific state of consciousness is to be identified 
with and lost in the intellect, and hence not identified with Reality, with 
Wholeness, with Brahman, which is subtler than the intellect, and of course 
subtler than any intellectual idea or belief or model of Reality. Any belief or 
model is ultimately straw or false -- the seven states of consciousness are 
false; Aquinas is false; idealism is false; materialism is false; monism is 
false; dualism is false; polytheism is false; theism is false; atheism is false 
-- any belief or model may well be provisionally useful but they are all 
ultimately false. 

All beliefs and models are secondary, a-posteriori creatures of the intellect, 
which is itself a creature secondary to Reality, and so they all ultimately 
fail along with the intellect itself to capture or describe the primary, 
a-priori Reality. The best the intellect can do is to recognize its own 
superimposing, complicating, divisive nature, and surrender into the pristinely 
simple a-priori perfection of IS.

I would suggest that insofar as anyone has abjured his belief that he is in 
Unity, he is closer to Reality now, but IMO and IME any intellectual belief -- 
whether it be in MMY or Aquinas or anything else -- is in the end yet another 
subtle or not-so-subtle overlay upon and departure from Reality. Put another 
way, we may perhaps say God IS (or Reality IS or We ARE), but to add an 
adjective to that IS or ARE, is blasphemy, or taking the Name in vain. 

But then again, we are often blasphemous and even downright profane -- even 
here and now, for example :-)


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

 I appreciate this thought, and agree this his actions and intentions while in 
 unity appear askew. However, given that, in the TM Universe, Maharishi 
 himself defined unity consciousness and to my understanding initially agreed 
 that Robin was in it, to conclude independently of Maharishi that Robin was 
 not in u.c. is troublesome. It adds too many complications to the story. 

 As I stated in one of my initial posts on the matter, one of three things 
 must be the case:
 
 * RC is an impostor who can convincingly appear to be RC (who rumor had it had
 committed suicide, anyway) and who wants to mess with TB's minds by making
 claims on his behalf
 
 or
 
 * RC is still in unity, but wants to claim otherwise for some cosmic purpose
 (how could it not be cosmic, if he's in unity?) [As an aside, a friend of 
 mine attended one of his meetings in Fairfield back when. He heard Robin 
 utter profanity and asked why a man in unity would do such a thing. Robin 
 responded that he didn't remember doing it, but the universe must have had a 
 need for him to speak profanely.]
 
 or
 
 * RC was in a temporary false unity (per your theory), rather than THE WHOLE 
 THING, THE REAL THING, and Maharishi was incapable of distinguishing between 
 the two, which raises its own questions
 
 Having read a lot of RC's writing since that posting, I now feel the need to 
 add a fourth.
 
 * RC was in unity consciousness but acquired a false belief intellectually 
 that impelled him to intentionally deconstruct unity to waking consciousness; 
 his writings indicate that he is still partly under the spell of unity, 
 which would make sense if he artificially forced himself back into waking 
 state
 
 I don't accept his twin hypotheses that Aquinas held Ultimate Truth 3.0 and 
 that unity consciousness is a false representation of reality. The fourth 
 option appears to provide a way to preserve Maharishi's ability to determine 
 whether or not someone else had attained unity while providing a means for 
 Robin to have reverted, mostly, to waking state.
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote:
 
  (If you are looking only for a response from MZ, please disregard this 
  post, but it is a subject I do care about and have devoted some thought to, 
  so FWIW I am throwing my two cents' worth in.) 
  
  IMO and IME, Unity as MZ has described it is *not* Reality, not Brahman 
  -- not even true Unity, insofar as he has described identifying with a 
  separate self or Self which was invested in demonstrating it was better, 
  smarter, clearer than everyone else -- *what* everyone else? Where is the 
  true Unity in that? In Unity, at least we understand that we and our object 
  of perception are One. There is no other, as far as the immediate object of 
  perception is 

[FairfieldLife] Nokia's swan song model?

[cardemaister]

http://technodom.kz/actions/discount/69669/

This Meego crap should compete with iPhone and e.g.
Samsung Galaxy? No way! :/


Introducing a unique smartphone with a display of the entire body. 
Scratch-resistant glass screen forms a harmonious whole, with a sleek solid 
body phone. In each part there is something new. On the surface bright 
AMOLED-display, everything looks realistic and rounded edges of the glass 
transition easier between applications by touching the touch screen.

[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ

[Ravi Yogi]

Beautiful post, thanks Rory.
BTW, IMO it's laughable when someone says they were in UC for 15 odd
years.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote:

 * * Thank you for your most thoughtful response, AAB. I am not
actually saying that Robin was in a temporary, false Unity -- I am
saying that to be in Unity Consciousness is itself by definition
temporary and false, as to be in any state of consciousness is
temporary, time-bound, and hence ultimately false. If an experience --
or a state of consciousness -- comes, it will most certainly also go.
Only what has always been and is now, shall ever remain.

 To think oneself in a specific state of consciousness is to be
identified with and lost in the intellect, and hence not identified with
Reality, with Wholeness, with Brahman, which is subtler than the
intellect, and of course subtler than any intellectual idea or belief or
model of Reality. Any belief or model is ultimately straw or false --
the seven states of consciousness are false; Aquinas is false; idealism
is false; materialism is false; monism is false; dualism is false;
polytheism is false; theism is false; atheism is false -- any belief or
model may well be provisionally useful but they are all ultimately
false.

 All beliefs and models are secondary, a-posteriori creatures of the
intellect, which is itself a creature secondary to Reality, and so they
all ultimately fail along with the intellect itself to capture or
describe the primary, a-priori Reality. The best the intellect can do is
to recognize its own superimposing, complicating, divisive nature, and
surrender into the pristinely simple a-priori perfection of IS.

 I would suggest that insofar as anyone has abjured his belief that he
is in Unity, he is closer to Reality now, but IMO and IME any
intellectual belief -- whether it be in MMY or Aquinas or anything else
-- is in the end yet another subtle or not-so-subtle overlay upon and
departure from Reality. Put another way, we may perhaps say God IS (or
Reality IS or We ARE), but to add an adjective to that IS or ARE, is
blasphemy, or taking the Name in vain.

 But then again, we are often blasphemous and even downright profane --
even here and now, for example :-)


 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, at_man_and_brahman
at_man_and_brahman@ wrote:
 
  I appreciate this thought, and agree this his actions and intentions
while in unity appear askew. However, given that, in the TM Universe,
Maharishi himself defined unity consciousness and to my understanding
initially agreed that Robin was in it, to conclude independently of
Maharishi that Robin was not in u.c. is troublesome. It adds too many
complications to the story.

  As I stated in one of my initial posts on the matter, one of three
things must be the case:
 
  * RC is an impostor who can convincingly appear to be RC (who rumor
had it had
  committed suicide, anyway) and who wants to mess with TB's minds by
making
  claims on his behalf
 
  or
 
  * RC is still in unity, but wants to claim otherwise for some cosmic
purpose
  (how could it not be cosmic, if he's in unity?) [As an aside, a
friend of mine attended one of his meetings in Fairfield back when. He
heard Robin utter profanity and asked why a man in unity would do such a
thing. Robin responded that he didn't remember doing it, but the
universe must have had a need for him to speak profanely.]
 
  or
 
  * RC was in a temporary false unity (per your theory), rather than
THE WHOLE THING, THE REAL THING, and Maharishi was incapable of
distinguishing between the two, which raises its own questions
 
  Having read a lot of RC's writing since that posting, I now feel the
need to add a fourth.
 
  * RC was in unity consciousness but acquired a false belief
intellectually that impelled him to intentionally deconstruct unity to
waking consciousness; his writings indicate that he is still partly
under the spell of unity, which would make sense if he artificially
forced himself back into waking state
 
  I don't accept his twin hypotheses that Aquinas held Ultimate Truth
3.0 and that unity consciousness is a false representation of reality.
The fourth option appears to provide a way to preserve Maharishi's
ability to determine whether or not someone else had attained unity
while providing a means for Robin to have reverted, mostly, to waking
state.
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[turquoiseb]

  On Jul 24, 2011, at 11:27 PM, Mark Landau wrote:
  
  Thank you, Judy.  There are quite a lot of things that get 
  communicated here that hold no meaning for me whatsoever.  
  I think my participation here has peaked.  I'll need to 
  start investing more of my time on survival...

Mark, I can certainly understand your interest peaking
after only a few days here. Good luck with everything if 
you choose to move on.

If it makes you feel any better about missing anything,
take the following blurb by Judy and multiply it times 50,
ever week, forever. It's really all she has to say, or 
seemingly ever will have to say.

For many years it's been the same THESE PEOPLE 
ARE BAD AND I AM GOOD and THESE PEOPLE 
LIE AND I NEVER DO and I CAN DOCUMENT 
EVERYTHING, screamed at the same uncaring readers, 
day after day, week after week, and year after year. 

You'll notice that no one ever takes her up on her offer
to document everything. The readers don't care because 
1) they've heard it all before, 2) because her obsession 
with these enemies never mattered to them in the first 
place, and 3) because they have lives. 

The only thing you'd be missing from FFL if you moved on
is watching Judy repeating variants of the following rant
over and over and over, in a seemingly never-ending quest 
to demonstrate to the world that she *doesn't* have a life.
 

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

 Sorry, but I can document everything I've said about Vaj;
 he can't document or even cite a single example of a lie
 from me, nor can anyone else here. I simply don't lie;
 I have no need to.
 
 Anyone who knows the players here can see the intentional
 deception in Vaj's comment at the end of his current post
 about initiators being brainwashed; three of the TM
 teachers who doubt Vaj's claimed TM status are disaffected
 in one respect or another and haven't been part of the
 movement in some years. They're all on record in the
 archives of this forum as suspecting Vaj has not told
 the truth about his experience with TM, not because he's
 a TM critic but because he's said a number of things
 about the technique and how it's taught that are grossly
 factually inaccurate and easily revealed as such by
 reference to the TM checking notes.
 
 Again, all this is very well documented.
 
 With regard to Poor Barry and Curtis, yes, Curtis is
 relatively innocent compared to Vaj. But Poor Barry
 isn't; he's worse. I could document from the archives
 literally *hundreds* of falsehoods from him.
 
 The Web site Vaj mentions, as he well knows, is not mine.
 It's a site put up by Andrew Skolnick, author of the
 infamous JAMA article on TM, in revenge for having been
 repeatedly outed as a liar on the Usenet newsgroup alt.m.t
 by me and several other TMers.
 
 As for many of Mahesh's closest inside men agreeing with
 Vaj, that's a truly pathetic claim just on its face.
 
 Mark, it's a pity we have a few deeply malicious people on
 this forum. Most of us have been enjoying your reminiscences
 and reflections. I hope you don't let the conflicts between
 the former and the latter groups drive you away. There's no
 need for you to get involved in them.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Ravi Yogi]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:

   On Jul 24, 2011, at 11:27 PM, Mark Landau wrote:
  
   Thank you, Judy.  There are quite a lot of things that get
   communicated here that hold no meaning for me whatsoever.
   I think my participation here has peaked.  I'll need to
   start investing more of my time on survival...

 Mark, I can certainly understand your interest peaking
 after only a few days here. Good luck with everything if
 you choose to move on.

 If it makes you feel any better about missing anything,
 take the following blurb by Judy and multiply it times 50,
 ever week, forever. It's really all she has to say, or
 seemingly ever will have to say.

Barry - I think she will be around as long as you, Vaj and other low
vibe, slime ball posters (your own words) continue to indulge in your
lies and deception. It seems you would like to wish she disappear, it's
not pleasant for her deal with low vibe, slime ball posters, it's
not pleasant for others, sure she does come on strong but I'm glad she
does what she does.
Thanks Judy !!

[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ

[at_man_and_brahman]

Well...it happened to everyone/the universe once, didn't it? If unity is the 
primordial state, somehow Average Joe got out of it through the course of 
innumerable incarnations and landed in the mud of waking. If that is possible, 
then why couldn't a person force this to happen in one lifetime? Isn't the 
lesser (waking) contained in the greater (unity), and consequently something 
that can be reestablished through an act of will?

Robin, even in posts from this evening, indicates that ~25 years of 
metatherapy, or whatever he calls it, have imperfectly erased the foothold of 
unity (which he ascribes to fallen angels acting through him) in his mind and 
body. I'll leave it to Robin to address, but that sounds pretty much like what 
you're describing below. 

*If* this is possible, it seems like it could happen as the result of a 
mistaken belief entering into the picture. Robin won't accept, of course, this 
his new paradigm is mistaken, but if it is, it seems like unity could be 
intentionally dismantled as a result. What a shame that would be.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote:

 Your premise IME seems highly improbable. A poor comparison but It's
 like you found a key and opened the door to a hidden room with
 treasures, sure you can close it and come back to where you where but
 the knowledge of the room and the ability to enter this room and use the
 treasures remain whether you choose to do it or not.
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, at_man_and_brahman
 at_man_and_brahman@ wrote:
 
  My puzzlement about the unique claims of Robin Carlson continues.
 Here's a new thought.
 
  Premise: waking state consciousness is derivative of unity
 consciousness, which is to say that unity is a natural state from which
 man has fallen. If that is true, and if Robin indeed attained unity,
 perhaps his later intellectual conviction that unity falsely represented
 reality set up a fascinating, if improbable, sequence of events. If
 unity can accidentally, if you will, forget its own status and fragment
 into waking state, then would it be impossible for a person in unity to
 *intentionally* deconstruct unity and reestablish, artificially, waking
 state? If so, such an event could be predicated on an intellectual
 mistake, which surely could befall even those in unity.
 
  Perhaps nobody else gives a shit, but I'm still chewing on this one. I
 do hope he eventually tries to answer my question about UTs 1.0, 2.0,
 and 3.0. That should be interesting.
 
  He appears to be lurking, so the bait is tossed.
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ

[RoryGoff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote:

 Beautiful post, thanks Rory.
 BTW, IMO it's laughable when someone says they were in UC for 15 odd
 years.

* * IMO our intellect is always laughable when we see through it :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ

[Ravi Yogi]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote:



 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote:
 
  Thanks Rory - I wonder why you waited this long to state this, is it
  because of your affection, respect for him?

 * * I do love and respect Robin, and I wholeheartedly support his
realization that his Unity was not actually Reality. He expresses a
sincere and beautiful soul, and of course he was and is somewhere in the
layers of Reality or Wholeness, as we all are. As to Unity, it may come
and go, like every state. Ultimately, we always choose what state we
wish to experience. As I mentioned earlier, MMY himself heartily
endorsed Jay Latham's realization that the seven states of consciousness
were all ultimately a lie and that Reality alone IS.

 So I am not really one to try to pigeonhole anyone into this or that
state of consciousness, because they are all ultimately illusory,
products of the intellect, like any belief. If some of us wish to lose
ourselves in this or that belief or state of consciousness, then all to
the good! Everything any of us does has our entire blessing, as no
matter what we do, everyone always brings us more and more
self-expression, self-discovery, and self-delight :-)


Thanks for that Rory, you have mentioned Jay before and I would totally
agree. Do you really think that the state of consciousness are illusory,
at least at the relative level? IME I would say they were temporary,
transient and served a valid purpose, as in propelling me forward at the
relative level. I would say I spent about 9 weeks in this state, however
any more and it would have probably killed me. If you believe it can be
a transient state, would it be possible for one to be in it for a long
time such as 15 years?

[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ

[at_man_and_brahman]

...in which case, there's no reason to discuss anything...with anyone...at any 
time

Even Reality itself is just another unreal belief.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote:

 * * Thank you for your most thoughtful response, AAB. I am not actually 
 saying that Robin was in a temporary, false Unity -- I am saying that to be 
 in Unity Consciousness is itself by definition temporary and false, as to 
 be in any state of consciousness is temporary, time-bound, and hence 
 ultimately false. If an experience -- or a state of consciousness -- comes, 
 it will most certainly also go. Only what has always been and is now, shall 
 ever remain.
 
 To think oneself in a specific state of consciousness is to be identified 
 with and lost in the intellect, and hence not identified with Reality, with 
 Wholeness, with Brahman, which is subtler than the intellect, and of course 
 subtler than any intellectual idea or belief or model of Reality. Any belief 
 or model is ultimately straw or false -- the seven states of consciousness 
 are false; Aquinas is false; idealism is false; materialism is false; monism 
 is false; dualism is false; polytheism is false; theism is false; atheism is 
 false -- any belief or model may well be provisionally useful but they are 
 all ultimately false. 
 
 All beliefs and models are secondary, a-posteriori creatures of the 
 intellect, which is itself a creature secondary to Reality, and so they all 
 ultimately fail along with the intellect itself to capture or describe the 
 primary, a-priori Reality. The best the intellect can do is to recognize its 
 own superimposing, complicating, divisive nature, and surrender into the 
 pristinely simple a-priori perfection of IS.
 
 I would suggest that insofar as anyone has abjured his belief that he is in 
 Unity, he is closer to Reality now, but IMO and IME any intellectual belief 
 -- whether it be in MMY or Aquinas or anything else -- is in the end yet 
 another subtle or not-so-subtle overlay upon and departure from Reality. Put 
 another way, we may perhaps say God IS (or Reality IS or We ARE), but 
 to add an adjective to that IS or ARE, is blasphemy, or taking the Name in 
 vain. 
 
 But then again, we are often blasphemous and even downright profane -- even 
 here and now, for example :-)
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, at_man_and_brahman 
 at_man_and_brahman@ wrote:
 
  I appreciate this thought, and agree this his actions and intentions while 
  in unity appear askew. However, given that, in the TM Universe, Maharishi 
  himself defined unity consciousness and to my understanding initially 
  agreed that Robin was in it, to conclude independently of Maharishi that 
  Robin was not in u.c. is troublesome. It adds too many complications to the 
  story. 
 
  As I stated in one of my initial posts on the matter, one of three things 
  must be the case:
  
  * RC is an impostor who can convincingly appear to be RC (who rumor had it 
  had
  committed suicide, anyway) and who wants to mess with TB's minds by making
  claims on his behalf
  
  or
  
  * RC is still in unity, but wants to claim otherwise for some cosmic purpose
  (how could it not be cosmic, if he's in unity?) [As an aside, a friend of 
  mine attended one of his meetings in Fairfield back when. He heard Robin 
  utter profanity and asked why a man in unity would do such a thing. Robin 
  responded that he didn't remember doing it, but the universe must have had 
  a need for him to speak profanely.]
  
  or
  
  * RC was in a temporary false unity (per your theory), rather than THE 
  WHOLE THING, THE REAL THING, and Maharishi was incapable of distinguishing 
  between the two, which raises its own questions
  
  Having read a lot of RC's writing since that posting, I now feel the need 
  to add a fourth.
  
  * RC was in unity consciousness but acquired a false belief intellectually 
  that impelled him to intentionally deconstruct unity to waking 
  consciousness; his writings indicate that he is still partly under the 
  spell of unity, which would make sense if he artificially forced himself 
  back into waking state
  
  I don't accept his twin hypotheses that Aquinas held Ultimate Truth 3.0 and 
  that unity consciousness is a false representation of reality. The fourth 
  option appears to provide a way to preserve Maharishi's ability to 
  determine whether or not someone else had attained unity while providing a 
  means for Robin to have reverted, mostly, to waking state.
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote:
  
   (If you are looking only for a response from MZ, please disregard this 
   post, but it is a subject I do care about and have devoted some thought 
   to, so FWIW I am throwing my two cents' worth in.) 
   
   IMO and IME, Unity as MZ has described it is *not* Reality, not Brahman 
   -- not even true Unity, insofar as he has described identifying with a 
   separate self or 

[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ

[RoryGoff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote:
 
 Thanks for that Rory, you have mentioned Jay before and I would totally
 agree. Do you really think that the state of consciousness are illusory,
 at least at the relative level? 

* * My pleasure, Ravi! From the viewpoint of a separate self, ego, or 
intellect, no, states of consciousness are quite real. States of 
consciousness dictate the quality of our ego's relationship with Reality or Us 
-- or more accurately, the quality of Our relationship with our egos or 
I-points, as the responsibility for that relationship ultimately rests with Us. 
Or better still, our egos' responsibility lies in having faith enough in Us to 
contact Us, and in being truthful enough about their needs to get Our 
attention, and Our responsibility lies in giving them Our attention and Our 
unconditional Love, and in giving them the fulfillment of whatever they need, 
Here and Now. 

IME I would say they were temporary,
 transient and served a valid purpose, as in propelling me forward at the
 relative level. 

* * Yes, absolutely! :-)

I would say I spent about 9 weeks in this state, however
 any more and it would have probably killed me. If you believe it can be a 
 transient state, would it be possible for one to be in it for a long
 time such as 15 years?

* * Theoretically, yes. Why not? Anything is possible. We thought we were in 
ignorance for even longer than that! :-)

[FairfieldLife] Only for a short while?

[cardemaister]

Hitopadesha:

The shadow of a cloud, a villain's kindness, freshly
harvested crops and women can be enjoyed only for 
a short while - just like youth and wealth.

abhracaayaa, khalapriitir, navasasyaani, yoSitaH,
kiMcitkaalopabhogyaani -- yauvanaani dhanaani ca.

abhra-caayaa (cloud-shadow), khala-priitiH (villain-kindness);
nava-sasyaani (new-crops), yoSitaH (women), 
kimcit-kaala-upabhogyaani (some-time-enjoyables) -
yauvanaani (youths) dhanaani (wealths) ca (and).

[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ

[Ravi Yogi]

Sure anything's possible but like you said - What a shame that would
be. For me you dug up a perennial source of water to quench your
thirst, I guess you can go back and cover it again - that possibility
remains. However I haven't seen anything anyone share it before, I have
read instances of people forgetting that self-knowledge temporarily like
when Lord Vishnu captivated Sage Narada with maaya (illusion). That
story really touched me when I was young.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, at_man_and_brahman
at_man_and_brahman@... wrote:

 Well...it happened to everyone/the universe once, didn't it? If unity
is the primordial state, somehow Average Joe got out of it through the
course of innumerable incarnations and landed in the mud of waking. If
that is possible, then why couldn't a person force this to happen in one
lifetime? Isn't the lesser (waking) contained in the greater (unity),
and consequently something that can be reestablished through an act of
will?

 Robin, even in posts from this evening, indicates that ~25 years of
metatherapy, or whatever he calls it, have imperfectly erased the
foothold of unity (which he ascribes to fallen angels acting through
him) in his mind and body. I'll leave it to Robin to address, but that
sounds pretty much like what you're describing below.

 *If* this is possible, it seems like it could happen as the result of
a mistaken belief entering into the picture. Robin won't accept, of
course, this his new paradigm is mistaken, but if it is, it seems like
unity could be intentionally dismantled as a result. What a shame that
would be.

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote:
 
  Your premise IME seems highly improbable. A poor comparison but It's
  like you found a key and opened the door to a hidden room with
  treasures, sure you can close it and come back to where you where
but
  the knowledge of the room and the ability to enter this room and use
the
  treasures remain whether you choose to do it or not.
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, at_man_and_brahman
  at_man_and_brahman@ wrote:
  
   My puzzlement about the unique claims of Robin Carlson continues.
  Here's a new thought.
  
   Premise: waking state consciousness is derivative of unity
  consciousness, which is to say that unity is a natural state from
which
  man has fallen. If that is true, and if Robin indeed attained
unity,
  perhaps his later intellectual conviction that unity falsely
represented
  reality set up a fascinating, if improbable, sequence of events. If
  unity can accidentally, if you will, forget its own status and
fragment
  into waking state, then would it be impossible for a person in unity
to
  *intentionally* deconstruct unity and reestablish, artificially,
waking
  state? If so, such an event could be predicated on an intellectual
  mistake, which surely could befall even those in unity.
  
   Perhaps nobody else gives a shit, but I'm still chewing on this
one. I
  do hope he eventually tries to answer my question about UTs 1.0,
2.0,
  and 3.0. That should be interesting.
  
   He appears to be lurking, so the bait is tossed.
  
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ

[Ravi Yogi]

Thanks Rory, sounds good !!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote:



 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote:
 
  Thanks for that Rory, you have mentioned Jay before and I would
totally
  agree. Do you really think that the state of consciousness are
illusory,
  at least at the relative level?

 * * My pleasure, Ravi! From the viewpoint of a separate self, ego, or
intellect, no, states of consciousness are quite real. States of
consciousness dictate the quality of our ego's relationship with Reality
or Us -- or more accurately, the quality of Our relationship with our
egos or I-points, as the responsibility for that relationship ultimately
rests with Us. Or better still, our egos' responsibility lies in having
faith enough in Us to contact Us, and in being truthful enough about
their needs to get Our attention, and Our responsibility lies in giving
them Our attention and Our unconditional Love, and in giving them the
fulfillment of whatever they need, Here and Now.

 IME I would say they were temporary,
  transient and served a valid purpose, as in propelling me forward at
the
  relative level.

 * * Yes, absolutely! :-)

 I would say I spent about 9 weeks in this state, however
  any more and it would have probably killed me. If you believe it can
be a transient state, would it be possible for one to be in it for a
long
  time such as 15 years?

 * * Theoretically, yes. Why not? Anything is possible. We thought we
were in ignorance for even longer than that! :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ

[RoryGoff]

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

 ...in which case, there's no reason to discuss anything...with anyone...at 
 any time

* * Oh, I wouldn't say that. We're having fun, aren't we? And when ripe enough, 
the intellect can be drawn via dialogue to see through its own nature to what 
IS, what always has been and always will be. When the translucent intellect 
becomes as clear as the Self, and all That.
 
 Even Reality itself is just another unreal belief.

* * Reality is simply what IS or what WE ARE. That will indeed appear to be 
simply another concept or unreal belief as long as we are lost in our 
intellect. Words cannot describe Us, but on occasion they can tickle Us enough 
to wake Us up from identifying with the intellect, and we do like a good 
tickling from time to time :-)
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Visit with Amma

[nablusoss1008]

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

 
 
 
 Amma is an avatar, an incarnation of the divine. Not a karmic human at all. 
 That is why the name of Amma is prevalent throughout the bhajans and 
 elsewhere. There is no difference between praying to God and praying to an 
 avatar. A familiar example of this is how in MMY's Gita, Krishna is referred 
 to as the Lord.
 
 An interesting case is that of Mother Meera. Mother Meera is also an avatar 
 and recommends that seekers do japa (repeating the name of the divine as 
 often during the day as possible) to Mother Meera. Yet, Mother Meera is as 
 far from being a guru-led organization  and/or a cult as can be.   


According to Mr. Creme there are no female Avatars on earth at this time. 
Anananda Mayi Ma was so far the last.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[whynotnow7]

True, though such deals exist, especially with amounts above 100K. Gold is 
another possibility, since I see that going up steadily for awhile - Where is 
that million when you need it?

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

 Unfortunately, it's nearly impossible to get even 2 percent on a CD these 
 days. 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote:
 
  If you invested $1M at 3% that will give you $30,000 in interest income 
  annually. Not a lavish lifestyle, but something that will keep you 
  comfortable in many parts of the US. 
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mark Landau m@... wrote:
  
   Thank you, n, this is more along the lines of what I was originally 
   thinking, though, I'm beginning to wonder if it could be possible.
   I've looked into India.  They do not allow emigration unless you have 
   Indian descent.
   I could probably live OK in the US with a million and SS, though there 
   would probably be significant tax consequences...
   5 mill would be an unbelievably wonderful boon and would certainly set me 
   up for the next 20 years.
   God knows what, if anything, I actually will get for them.
   
   On Jul 19, 2011, at 2:38 AM, nablusoss1008 wrote:
   


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ 
 wrote:
 
  
  I'd pay $1,000.00 right now. But I suspect they'll go for a lot more
  than that.
 
 
 I had a drawing for years, A3 size on his stationary that Maharishis 
 did, probably the only one he did on official stationary. Sent it to 
 the Movement. 
 Why sell his sandals when you can simply ask Maharishi for a boon ?

Hello Mark,

One could think Maharishi left them for you as a boon in advance. 
That's very possible. In which case I would not depart with them for a 
sum of less than 1 mill $. 

But that is not very much either unless you want to live the rest of 
your life in India. With 5 mill $ you would be alright for the rest of 
your life in the USA, no ?

With the right buyer 5 mill is peanuts for those sandals. Whatever you 
do, don't sell them in an auction; someone will just pick them up for 
close to nothing and resell them for a fortune.

Jai Guru Dev

   
  
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
 
On Jul 24, 2011, at 11:27 PM, Mark Landau wrote:
   
Thank you, Judy.  There are quite a lot of things that get
communicated here that hold no meaning for me whatsoever.
I think my participation here has peaked.  I'll need to
start investing more of my time on survival...
 
  Mark, I can certainly understand your interest peaking
  after only a few days here. Good luck with everything if
  you choose to move on.
 
  If it makes you feel any better about missing anything,
  take the following blurb by Judy and multiply it times 50,
  ever week, forever. It's really all she has to say, or
  seemingly ever will have to say.
 
 Barry - I think she will be around as long as you, Vaj and 
 other lowvibe, slime ball posters (your own words) 
 continue to indulge in your lies and deception. It seems 
 you would like to wish she disappear...

There is no possibility of her disappearing (leaving
FFL), Ravi. She has nothing else.

 ...it's not pleasant for her deal with low vibe, slime 
 ball posters, it's not pleasant for others, sure she does 
 come on strong but I'm glad she does what she does.
 Thanks Judy !!

Ravi, let's review a little bit, shall we? YOU are 
the person with the most egregious history of lying
on this forum. You came to *as the result of a lie*,
having conned Rick into thinking you were awakened.
You have since admitted many times that this was the
case. You, in fact, have no history with TM or MMY
at all, never having learned TM. But here you are,
week after week, sucking energy on FFL because (IMO)
it's the only attention you've ever gotten in your
entire life, and now you're addicted to it.

Judy never busts you on your *admitted* lies because
you're in her posse. She can count on you to pile
on to the same people she tries to demonize, as part
of her ongoing obsessive behavior.

You like Judy IMO *because* she's a classic example 
of obsession, and that enables you to pile on to 
the people on her Enemies List. If she weren't doing
this, I don't think I'm alone here in believing that 
you wouldn't have anything else to say.

Unlike Judy, I'm not trying to convince anyone of
anything or get them to act the way they should.
I merely present opinions, and allow people to react
to them (or not) as they choose. I stopped interfacing
with Judy directly some time ago, and it's as if she
never noticed. She keeps writing to me, but IMO 
only because that gives her an opportunity to rag on
one of her enemies *for the lurkers*. It's people like
YOU she's writing to, not me. She's hoping to suck you
into her obsession, and get you to obsess on it as 
well. 

For most people on this forum, that has not worked. 
They have lives. 

It's worked on you, and based on what you post here you 
don't seem to have much of one, other than to pile on 
to Other People's Obsessions and Other People's Enemies, 
in a kind of continual, needy Look at me...look at me 
act. 

My suggestion is that the people who ignore Judy's 
obsession and her continual (a minimum of 50% of her
posts every week devoted to trying to get either Vaj,
Curtis or myself) attempts to suck other people into
it have somewhat strong minds, and lives. The only
people she's managed to suck into this obsession so
far don't strike me as either having very strong minds,
or much going on for them in terms of having a life.

The preceding was opinion. I don't ask that anyone
agree with it, and I don't care whether they believe
it. Now run that same test against Judy's rants. Seems
to me that she cares VERY MUCH that other people not
only agree with her, but act out the way she does,
and join her in her obsession. It's probably a good
thing that you and maybe three others on this forum
do so, or she'd have to come to grips with the fact 
that her whole multi-year vendetta on this forum was 
a waste of time, and a waste of life.

[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ

[turquoiseb]

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

 ...in which case, there's no reason to discuss anything...with 
 anyone...at any time
 
 Even Reality itself is just another unreal belief.

I knew you'd get it if you spent enough time 
with the koan.  :-)

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote:
 
  * * Thank you for your most thoughtful response, AAB. I am not actually 
  saying that Robin was in a temporary, false Unity -- I am saying that to be 
  in Unity Consciousness is itself by definition temporary and false, as to 
  be in any state of consciousness is temporary, time-bound, and hence 
  ultimately false. If an experience -- or a state of consciousness -- comes, 
  it will most certainly also go. Only what has always been and is now, shall 
  ever remain.
  
  To think oneself in a specific state of consciousness is to be identified 
  with and lost in the intellect, and hence not identified with Reality, with 
  Wholeness, with Brahman, which is subtler than the intellect, and of 
  course subtler than any intellectual idea or belief or model of Reality. 
  Any belief or model is ultimately straw or false -- the seven states of 
  consciousness are false; Aquinas is false; idealism is false; materialism 
  is false; monism is false; dualism is false; polytheism is false; theism is 
  false; atheism is false -- any belief or model may well be provisionally 
  useful but they are all ultimately false. 
  
  All beliefs and models are secondary, a-posteriori creatures of the 
  intellect, which is itself a creature secondary to Reality, and so they all 
  ultimately fail along with the intellect itself to capture or describe the 
  primary, a-priori Reality. The best the intellect can do is to recognize 
  its own superimposing, complicating, divisive nature, and surrender into 
  the pristinely simple a-priori perfection of IS.
  
  I would suggest that insofar as anyone has abjured his belief that he is in 
  Unity, he is closer to Reality now, but IMO and IME any intellectual belief 
  -- whether it be in MMY or Aquinas or anything else -- is in the end yet 
  another subtle or not-so-subtle overlay upon and departure from Reality. 
  Put another way, we may perhaps say God IS (or Reality IS or We ARE), 
  but to add an adjective to that IS or ARE, is blasphemy, or taking the Name 
  in vain. 
  
  But then again, we are often blasphemous and even downright profane -- even 
  here and now, for example :-)
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, at_man_and_brahman 
  at_man_and_brahman@ wrote:
  
   I appreciate this thought, and agree this his actions and intentions 
   while in unity appear askew. However, given that, in the TM Universe, 
   Maharishi himself defined unity consciousness and to my understanding 
   initially agreed that Robin was in it, to conclude independently of 
   Maharishi that Robin was not in u.c. is troublesome. It adds too many 
   complications to the story. 
  
   As I stated in one of my initial posts on the matter, one of three things 
   must be the case:
   
   * RC is an impostor who can convincingly appear to be RC (who rumor had 
   it had
   committed suicide, anyway) and who wants to mess with TB's minds by making
   claims on his behalf
   
   or
   
   * RC is still in unity, but wants to claim otherwise for some cosmic 
   purpose
   (how could it not be cosmic, if he's in unity?) [As an aside, a friend of 
   mine attended one of his meetings in Fairfield back when. He heard Robin 
   utter profanity and asked why a man in unity would do such a thing. Robin 
   responded that he didn't remember doing it, but the universe must have 
   had a need for him to speak profanely.]
   
   or
   
   * RC was in a temporary false unity (per your theory), rather than THE 
   WHOLE THING, THE REAL THING, and Maharishi was incapable of 
   distinguishing between the two, which raises its own questions
   
   Having read a lot of RC's writing since that posting, I now feel the need 
   to add a fourth.
   
   * RC was in unity consciousness but acquired a false belief 
   intellectually that impelled him to intentionally deconstruct unity to 
   waking consciousness; his writings indicate that he is still partly under 
   the spell of unity, which would make sense if he artificially forced 
   himself back into waking state
   
   I don't accept his twin hypotheses that Aquinas held Ultimate Truth 3.0 
   and that unity consciousness is a false representation of reality. The 
   fourth option appears to provide a way to preserve Maharishi's ability to 
   determine whether or not someone else had attained unity while providing 
   a means for Robin to have reverted, mostly, to waking state.
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote:
   
(If you are looking only for a response from MZ, please disregard this 
post, but it is a subject I do care about and have 

[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ

[whynotnow7]

All this thinking here almost gives me a headache. Just BE, and if you cannot, 
that reveals everything. MZ tells wonderful stories, though none of it appears 
genuine to me. There is some figment of 'I' that feels a need to rationalize 
and justify its existence, go off on tangents, surround itself with imagination 
to ensure that its falseness feels more real. Entertaining perhaps, but absent 
of wisdom. 

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

 I appreciate this thought, and agree this his actions and intentions while in 
 unity appear askew. However, given that, in the TM Universe, Maharishi 
 himself defined unity consciousness and to my understanding initially agreed 
 that Robin was in it, to conclude independently of Maharishi that Robin was 
 not in u.c. is troublesome. It adds too many complications to the story. 
 
 As I stated in one of my initial posts on the matter, one of three things 
 must be the case:
 
 * RC is an impostor who can convincingly appear to be RC (who rumor had it had
 committed suicide, anyway) and who wants to mess with TB's minds by making
 claims on his behalf
 
 or
 
 * RC is still in unity, but wants to claim otherwise for some cosmic purpose
 (how could it not be cosmic, if he's in unity?) [As an aside, a friend of 
 mine attended one of his meetings in Fairfield back when. He heard Robin 
 utter profanity and asked why a man in unity would do such a thing. Robin 
 responded that he didn't remember doing it, but the universe must have had a 
 need for him to speak profanely.]
 
 or
 
 * RC was in a temporary false unity (per your theory), rather than THE WHOLE 
 THING, THE REAL THING, and Maharishi was incapable of distinguishing between 
 the two, which raises its own questions
 
 Having read a lot of RC's writing since that posting, I now feel the need to 
 add a fourth.
 
 * RC was in unity consciousness but acquired a false belief intellectually 
 that impelled him to intentionally deconstruct unity to waking consciousness; 
 his writings indicate that he is still partly under the spell of unity, 
 which would make sense if he artificially forced himself back into waking 
 state
 
 I don't accept his twin hypotheses that Aquinas held Ultimate Truth 3.0 and 
 that unity consciousness is a false representation of reality. The fourth 
 option appears to provide a way to preserve Maharishi's ability to determine 
 whether or not someone else had attained unity while providing a means for 
 Robin to have reverted, mostly, to waking state.
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote:
 
  (If you are looking only for a response from MZ, please disregard this 
  post, but it is a subject I do care about and have devoted some thought to, 
  so FWIW I am throwing my two cents' worth in.) 
  
  IMO and IME, Unity as MZ has described it is *not* Reality, not Brahman 
  -- not even true Unity, insofar as he has described identifying with a 
  separate self or Self which was invested in demonstrating it was better, 
  smarter, clearer than everyone else -- *what* everyone else? Where is the 
  true Unity in that? In Unity, at least we understand that we and our object 
  of perception are One. There is no other, as far as the immediate object of 
  perception is concerned. 
  
  However, in so-called Unity there is or may still be a subtly separate self 
  who thinks it has reached the pinnacle of evolution, thinks it is 
  enlightened (unlike most others), but this is *not* Reality. This is an 
  intellect lost in its own creation, its own beliefs. Reality is not really 
  attainable by a separate Self; Reality only quickens to ItSelf and 
  remembers ItSelf when we Awaken from our intellect's dream of separation 
  and comparison and competition to remember we are *not* that separate Self, 
  not the Witness, not pure consciousness, not in Ignorance or C.C. or G.C. 
  or U.C. or in any thing, and never have been. 
  
  We are the indescribable, the ungraspable. We are literally beyond belief. 
  Beyond ideas. Beyond stories. And yet we contain and embrace and enjoy all 
  beliefs, ideas and stories, for entertainment purposes only. We are the 
  devatas and the rakshasas; we are the divine and the demonic. What is there 
  to fear? Fear is born of duality, of projecting one's power or shadows 
  outside oneself, and there is only Us here.
  
  Personal enlightenment or ignorance or any specific state of consciousness 
  or quality of being is not really applicable; those are descriptions of a 
  separate self, and meaningful only to a separate self, stuck in an 
  intellect's illusion of separation, comparison, spacetime and evolution. 
  Not that there is anything whatsoever wrong with that! As we said earlier, 
  it's all fun and games until someone loses an I. 
  
  The point is, when Reality slaps or tickles itself Awake, and we cease 
  primarily identifying with our I, we may begin to see we are no 

[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ

[whynotnow7]

Depends how deficient the coordination and integration is between heart and 
intellect. If sufficiently dysfunctional, one could spend an entire lifetime in 
UC and never progress past it. Prior to waking up, getting lost in fantasy is 
the only option.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote:

 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote:
 
 
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote:
  
   Thanks Rory - I wonder why you waited this long to state this, is it
   because of your affection, respect for him?
 
  * * I do love and respect Robin, and I wholeheartedly support his
 realization that his Unity was not actually Reality. He expresses a
 sincere and beautiful soul, and of course he was and is somewhere in the
 layers of Reality or Wholeness, as we all are. As to Unity, it may come
 and go, like every state. Ultimately, we always choose what state we
 wish to experience. As I mentioned earlier, MMY himself heartily
 endorsed Jay Latham's realization that the seven states of consciousness
 were all ultimately a lie and that Reality alone IS.
 
  So I am not really one to try to pigeonhole anyone into this or that
 state of consciousness, because they are all ultimately illusory,
 products of the intellect, like any belief. If some of us wish to lose
 ourselves in this or that belief or state of consciousness, then all to
 the good! Everything any of us does has our entire blessing, as no
 matter what we do, everyone always brings us more and more
 self-expression, self-discovery, and self-delight :-)
 
 
 Thanks for that Rory, you have mentioned Jay before and I would totally
 agree. Do you really think that the state of consciousness are illusory,
 at least at the relative level? IME I would say they were temporary,
 transient and served a valid purpose, as in propelling me forward at the
 relative level. I would say I spent about 9 weeks in this state, however
 any more and it would have probably killed me. If you believe it can be
 a transient state, would it be possible for one to be in it for a long
 time such as 15 years?

[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ

[RoryGoff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote:

 Thanks Rory - I wonder why you waited this long to state this, is it
 because of your affection, respect for him?

* * I do love and respect Robin, and I wholeheartedly support his realization 
that his Unity was not actually Reality. He expresses a sincere and beautiful 
soul, and of course he was and is somewhere in the layers of Reality or 
Wholeness, as we all are. As to Unity, it may come and go, like every state. 
Ultimately, we always choose what state we wish to experience. As I mentioned 
earlier, MMY himself heartily endorsed Jay Latham's realization that the seven 
states of consciousness were all ultimately a lie and that Reality alone IS. 

So I am not really one to try to pigeonhole anyone into this or that state of 
consciousness, because they are all ultimately illusory, products of the 
intellect, like any belief. If some of us wish to lose ourselves in this or 
that belief or state of consciousness, then all to the good! Everything any of 
us does has our entire blessing, as no matter what we do, everyone always 
brings us more and more self-expression, self-discovery, and self-delight :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote:

 Well the only logical thing that you missed was there could have been a
 purpose behind why MMY would have declared RC in Unity and then out of
 it. I believe the latter would be the right one based upon RC's postings
 here, and I don't buy that you can come out of Unity. RC's postings here
 and his relating of the actual experience is a good illustration that
 his so called Unity was nothing but an intellectual deception.


That's been my position also since he started posting here. I don't think he 
ever was in any other Unity than we all are (did you notice how I've learned 
from Rory ? :-))

I also doubt Maharishi ever comfirmed his unity, if anyone except Robin 
actually heard him confirm, this person has certainly not come forward as far 
as I know. Which only strengthens the suspision that his socalled unity was a 
creation by his intellect only.

[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ

[whynotnow7]

I also doubt Maharishi ever comfirmed his unity

It could've gone like this:

MZ: Greetings Maharishi.

Maharishi: What's up, Robin?

MZ: I have an experience to relate...blah, blah, blah, 100 pages and two hours 
later...so therefore, I think I am in Unity Consciousness. Whaddya think 
Maharishi?

Maharishi: (shaking his head and rubbing his face to wake up) Huh?...oh yeah, 
sure. We'll talk more later...

Maharishi to skinboy, sotto voce: Don't EVER let that guy in here again, 
capice? 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote:
 
  Well the only logical thing that you missed was there could have been a
  purpose behind why MMY would have declared RC in Unity and then out of
  it. I believe the latter would be the right one based upon RC's postings
  here, and I don't buy that you can come out of Unity. RC's postings here
  and his relating of the actual experience is a good illustration that
  his so called Unity was nothing but an intellectual deception.
 
 
 That's been my position also since he started posting here. I don't think he 
 ever was in any other Unity than we all are (did you notice how I've learned 
 from Rory ? :-))
 
 I also doubt Maharishi ever comfirmed his unity, if anyone except Robin 
 actually heard him confirm, this person has certainly not come forward as far 
 as I know. Which only strengthens the suspision that his socalled unity was 
 a creation by his intellect only.

[FairfieldLife] Swing in music?

[cardemaister]

I've often heard that swing is rather hard to define.
How would youse define it?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Mark Landau]

On Jul 24, 2011, at 10:51 PM, authfriend wrote:

 Sorry, but I can document everything I've said about Vaj;
 he can't document or even cite a single example of a lie
 from me, nor can anyone else here. I simply don't lie;
 I have no need to.
 
 Anyone who knows the players here can see the intentional
 deception in Vaj's comment at the end of his current post
 about initiators being brainwashed; three of the TM
 teachers who doubt Vaj's claimed TM status are disaffected
 in one respect or another and haven't been part of the
 movement in some years. They're all on record in the
 archives of this forum as suspecting Vaj has not told
 the truth about his experience with TM, not because he's
 a TM critic but because he's said a number of things
 about the technique and how it's taught that are grossly
 factually inaccurate and easily revealed as such by
 reference to the TM checking notes.
 
 Again, all this is very well documented.
 
 With regard to Poor Barry and Curtis, yes, Curtis is
 relatively innocent compared to Vaj. But Poor Barry
 isn't; he's worse. I could document from the archives
 literally *hundreds* of falsehoods from him.
 
 The Web site Vaj mentions, as he well knows, is not mine.
 It's a site put up by Andrew Skolnick, author of the
 infamous JAMA article on TM, in revenge for having been
 repeatedly outed as a liar on the Usenet newsgroup alt.m.t
 by me and several other TMers.
 
 As for many of Mahesh's closest inside men agreeing with
 Vaj, that's a truly pathetic claim just on its face.
 
 Mark, it's a pity we have a few deeply malicious people on
 this forum. Most of us have been enjoying your reminiscences
 and reflections. I hope you don't let the conflicts between
 the former and the latter groups drive you away. There's no
 need for you to get involved in them.
 
Thank you, again, Judy, and don't worry about this.  I didn't really understand 
that 2 Vags email so I just deleted it.  If I fall away it's because I must 
focus on other things or because my usefulness here seems to be dwindling.  But 
I really did have resistance to the flying.  I think I was the last one in my 
group to start.  I remember saying something like Can you imagine angels doing 
this?  This seems like it's more for monkeys.  It seemed very undignified to 
me.  But once I started I did have a lot of thrilling bliss with it. 

 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote:
 
  
  On Jul 24, 2011, at 11:27 PM, Mark Landau wrote:
  
   Thank you, Judy. There are quite a lot of things that get communicated 
   here that hold no meaning for me whatsoever. I think my participation 
   here has peaked. I'll need to start investing more of my time on 
   survival...
  
  
  Please keep in mind Mark, Judy has a long-standing reputation as a chronic 
  liar (all the while obsessing about others words, and how she might edit 
  them). She's still constantly - and obsessively - barking about Poor Barry 
  and Curtis, despite their relative innocence.
  
  Please refer to her (now outdated) website, The Junkyard Dog.
  
  So sad.
  
  Many of Mahesh's closest inside men agree with me. Quite sad, but quite 
  true.
  
  Initiators were - and many still are - the most thoroughly brainwashed of 
  Mahesh's followers. They'll defend their vedic anthill till the end. This 
  is true, even in the most objective.
 
 
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Swing in music?

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote:

 
 I've often heard that swing is rather hard to define.
 How would youse define it?

I would define it as something I'd rather not listen to.

[FairfieldLife] One in five American men don't work: Where's the outrage?

[Tom Pall]

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/25/unemployment-job-skills-training/?iid=HP_LN

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Vaj]

On Jul 25, 2011, at 3:43 AM, turquoiseb wrote:


You'll notice that no one ever takes her up on her offer
to document everything. The readers don't care because
1) they've heard it all before, 2) because her obsession
with these enemies never mattered to them in the first
place, and 3) because they have lives.


bell sounds That is the correct answer! You win a chain of  
insulting email messages from J. Stein, editor at large! ;-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Vaj]

On Jul 25, 2011, at 12:40 AM, emptybill wrote:


Vag - you are a fool who cannot provide
your sources because you have none. You
just read this stuff and make believe. This is
why you bullshit everyone here.



My source was Paul Mason you idiot. We've talked about it in  
considerable detail.

RE: [FairfieldLife] alternative theory regarding MZ

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of at_man_and_brahman
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 11:31 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] alternative theory regarding MZ

 

  

My puzzlement about the unique claims of Robin Carlson continues. Here's a
new thought. 

Premise: waking state consciousness is derivative of unity consciousness,
which is to say that unity is a natural state from which man has fallen.
If that is true, and if Robin indeed attained unity, perhaps his later
intellectual conviction that unity falsely represented reality set up a
fascinating, if improbable, sequence of events. If unity can accidentally,
if you will, forget its own status and fragment into waking state, then
would it be impossible for a person in unity to *intentionally* deconstruct
unity and reestablish, artificially, waking state? If so, such an event
could be predicated on an intellectual mistake, which surely could befall
even those in unity.

Perhaps nobody else gives a shit, but I'm still chewing on this one. I do
hope he eventually tries to answer my question about UTs 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0.
That should be interesting.

He appears to be lurking, so the bait is tossed.

--

Do not mistake understanding for realization. Do not mistake realization
for Liberation. - Tibetan Proverb

 

In interviewing many people and listening to many more whom I might
interview, I observe that both mistakes are closer to the norm than the
exception. There are many people in so-called non-dual circles who commit
the first. And it's very common for people to have a profound realization
and become completely convinced that it is ultimate and final. They may
retain that conviction for years before eventually either losing the
realization or having a deeper one which convinces them that the previous
one wasn't ultimate.

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[whynotnow7]

The only folks on FFL who ever talk about her are you two. Sounds like you 
care, A LOT, about what she says.

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

 
 On Jul 25, 2011, at 3:43 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
 
  You'll notice that no one ever takes her up on her offer
  to document everything. The readers don't care because
  1) they've heard it all before, 2) because her obsession
  with these enemies never mattered to them in the first
  place, and 3) because they have lives.
 
 bell sounds That is the correct answer! You win a chain of  
 insulting email messages from J. Stein, editor at large! ;-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] alternative theory regarding MZ

[Vaj]

On Jul 25, 2011, at 12:31 AM, at_man_and_brahman wrote:

My puzzlement about the unique claims of Robin Carlson continues.  
Here's a new thought.


Premise: waking state consciousness is derivative of unity  
consciousness, which is to say that unity is a natural state from  
which man has fallen. If that is true, and if Robin indeed  
attained unity, perhaps his later intellectual conviction that  
unity falsely represented reality set up a fascinating, if  
improbable, sequence of events. If unity can accidentally, if you  
will, forget its own status and fragment into waking state, then  
would it be impossible for a person in unity to *intentionally*  
deconstruct unity and reestablish, artificially, waking state? If  
so, such an event could be predicated on an intellectual mistake,  
which surely could befall even those in unity.


Perhaps nobody else gives a shit, but I'm still chewing on this  
one. I do hope he eventually tries to answer my question about UTs  
1.0, 2.0, and 3.0. That should be interesting.


He appears to be lurking, so the bait is tossed.



I would propose that MZ experienced Maharishi Unity Consciousness,   
a state different from videha-mukti or brahma-chetana, traditional  
UC. Maharishi Unity Consciousness (MUC) more resembles hypomania,  
and is often coupled with Narcissistic Personalty Disorder (and other  
Axis II disorders) and can be seen in an unfortunate number of FFL  
posters.


I fully suspect that one of the outcomes of the Neo- and Pseudo-  
advaita movements will be an eventual classification in the DSM for  
these disorders.

Re: [FairfieldLife] alternative theory regarding MZ

[Vaj]

On Jul 25, 2011, at 7:55 AM, Rick Archer wrote:

“Do not mistake understanding for realization. Do not mistake  
realization for Liberation.” – Tibetan Proverb


 In interviewing many people and listening to many more whom I  
might interview, I observe that both mistakes are closer to the  
norm than the exception. There are many people in so-called non- 
dual circles who commit the first. And it’s very common for people  
to have a profound realization and become completely convinced that  
it is ultimate and final. They may retain that conviction for years  
before eventually either losing the realization or having a deeper  
one which convinces them that the previous one wasn’t ultimate.


Great quote, and a very important point. One piece and part that I'd  
add is also advice from Tibetan teachers which is don't take your  
self too seriously and when you have a realization, keep in mind  
you'll have hundreds of such realizations. Also, see point one.

Re: [FairfieldLife] alternative theory regarding MZ

[Tom Pall]

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net wrote:






 I would propose that MZ experienced Maharishi Unity Consciousness,  a
 state different from videha-mukti or brahma-chetana, traditional UC.
 Maharishi Unity Consciousness (MUC) more resembles *hypomania*, and is
 often coupled with Narcissistic Personalty Disorder (and other Axis II
 disorders) and can be seen in an unfortunate number of FFL posters.

 I fully suspect that one of the outcomes of the Neo- and Pseudo- advaita
 movements will be an eventual classification in the DSM for these disorders.


Vaj, and you're suggesting that our self-proclaimed and Maharishi-proclaimed
enlightened/formerly enlightened individuals here have gotten over their
Narcissistic Personality Disorder?   Some of them here proclaim how special
they are by trying to act like Mr. Humble, seeming to lap up any criticism
as something coming from Themselves and/or as cosmic gifts of learning
situations.  This is always announced with a flourish.Hypomania sure
describes the requirement to fill pages with $5 words strung together to
make no coherent sense at all.

RC?  I like the phrase Maharishi Unity Consciousness.   Seems so much like a
case of me me me me me.  Of course people would describe their experiences
in terms used by Maharishi because he gave us words to peg experiences on.
But it goes beyond that.   Interesting that the Holy Spirit speaks the same
language those speaking in tongues speak.   What sounds like babble from
beyond when analyzed actually follows the same rules of cadence and syntax
as the native language of the person speaking in tongues.   Interesting.
Almost like being filled with the spirit means being inspired to convince
oneself and others that they've arrived.**

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[obbajeeba]

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

 
 On Jul 25, 2011, at 3:43 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
 
  You'll notice that no one ever takes her up on her offer
  to document everything. The readers don't care because
  1) they've heard it all before, 2) because her obsession
  with these enemies never mattered to them in the first
  place, and 3) because they have lives.
 
 bell sounds That is the correct answer! You win a chain of  
 insulting email messages from J. Stein, editor at large! ;-)


 
Reads like a Danielle Steel novel or lawsuit. lol.  You men love Judy and you 
know it. I do not personally know any of you dudes, but from what I read, a 
love affair of the heart is all over these threads. : )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UDGiaiHCgY

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mark Landau m@... wrote:

 On Jul 24, 2011, at 10:51 PM, authfriend wrote:
snip
  Mark, it's a pity we have a few deeply malicious people on
  this forum. Most of us have been enjoying your reminiscences
  and reflections. I hope you don't let the conflicts between
  the former and the latter groups drive you away. There's no
  need for you to get involved in them.
  
 Thank you, again, Judy, and don't worry about this.  I didn't
 really understand that 2 Vags email so I just deleted it.
 If I fall away it's because I must focus on other things or
 because my usefulness here seems to be dwindling.

I suspect your usefulness to others here has a long way to
go before it dwindles, but it's certainly your call. More
important is whether it's useful to yourself.

 But I really did have resistance to the flying.  I think I
 was the last one in my group to start.  I remember saying
 something like Can you imagine angels doing this?  This
 seems like it's more for monkeys.  It seemed very
 undignified to me.

Very unlikely on its face as a means to development of
consciousness, but obviously what happens inside is
of more significance than the outward appearance.

 But once I started I did have a lot of thrilling bliss with it. 

I took the flying block at MUM with my then-boyfriend.
Shortly after we began the actual practice, my boyfriend
started feeling utterly miserable physically and 
psychically. He was told to stay in his room and given a
special program; his meals were brought to him. He never
told me what the program involved. The second day of this,
I paid him a (strictly verboten) visit. He looked
frighteningly haggard; he looked *dark*. I was worried
that the special program wasn't doing him any good. He
did tell me he hadn't done any hopping in the flying hall.

But he stuck with it, and a few days later emerged
seemingly transformed. He went back to the flying hall,
started hopping almost immediately, and glowed with bliss
for the remainder of the course.

Me, I started hopping the third or fourth day, with a
bit of insomnia the first couple of nights my only
negative experience. I certainly enjoyed it, but I
didn't have any bliss until years of regular practice
later. For me the benefits were and still are more in
daily life than in program.

I suppose the bottom line is that we all get what we
need, one way or the other, and that it's folly to
judge our experiences by comparing them with those of
others.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[curtisdeltablues]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   Curtis, you keep *proving my point*. When you get angry,
   you go blind. I can't count the number of misreadings
   of what I've said in what you write below. You're
   responding to posts you wrote in your own mind and
   attributed to me, not to my actual posts. How much of
   that is willful and how much is due to the red spots
   in front of your eyes, I couldn't say.
  
  The burden of clear communication is on the writer Judy,
  as an editor you should know that.
 
 Total bullshit in this context. The writer can't be blamed
 for not being able to overcome a reader's hostile 
 determination to misunderstand.

That is certainly a novel way to avoid the responsibility to make yourself 
clear Judy.  Does that really work for you?  I wonder if that works both ways 
and if you yourself have demonstrated a hostile determination to 
misunderstand what I have written.  You may have provided a key for me to 
understand the clusterfuck morass we end up in more often than not.  Yes I 
think this is a useful concept.  It does not, however, apply to me.  I am good 
understander and apply those skills to what you write with no hostile 
determination to misunderstand.
 
 Gonna give you just one example from your previous post
 (don't have time now to fisk the whole collection of
 misreadings):
 

But of course.  The reader is left to assume that you have lots of them.   
Terms like a boatload would be helpful in enhancing the impression of your 
misleading assertion.

 snip
 Two hints: (1) Not looking for a guru in Curtis; and
 (2) anger *per se* isn't the problem. It's the Hulk-
 like transformation the anger triggers that's the
 problem. Or maybe Jekyll/Hyde is a better analogy.

Off my schtick for a moment here.  Your complaint is 
ridiculously pointed at me for the most human quality of
reacting angrily to hostility and (what seems to me)
unfair attack.
 
 I say anger *per se* isn't the problem, and you respond
 that I'm complaining about your anger. 

Let me stop you there.  Despite your lip service to it not being anger, you 
compare my transformation to the Hulk, the personification of anger so 
intense that he threw cars around to emphasize his point and another murderous 
monster.  Since I do not transform into a hideous creature when confronted with 
your hostile accusations but respond with my POV which differs from yours, I 
will assume that this mischaractorization is one a  long history of ad hominem 
characterizations meant to distract from your inability to answer my responses 
with reasoned argument.  And because you claim that I become a murderous 
monster, you believe you are conveniently let off the hook of responding.  Does 
that really work for you, because from this end it seems pretty transparently 
lame.

Yet above you said,
 I am usually pretty close in understanding what is being
 conveyed. Sure, if understanding the direct opposite of
 what is being conveyed is what you call pretty close!

Yeah, so it isn't the anger per se, it is the fact that I become a murderous 
monster under its influence.  Got it.

 
 And I've already been very specific a number of times
 about what I mean by transformation. In my last post
 in our previous exchange, I put it this way:

You have made that point abundantly clear from the dramatic characters you 
chose to illustrate your point.  Both of whom have homicidal rages used to 
illustrate a cartoon image for out of control ANGER, which of course you do not 
mean because you said so.  
 
 The thing is, when you get pissed, you lose all sense
 of proportion and fairness, and you too often become
 actively dishonest, hauling out one straw man after
 another, as you just did above. You pull out your
 sophist debating tricks and make it impossible to
 discuss misunderstandings and grievances on either
 side.

Yeah sounds to me as if when I confront your BS with reasoned argument you 
can't respond effectively so you pull the old ad hominem out of your very tiny 
bag of tricks and hope I wont notice.  Newsflash, I do.

 
 Or, as I said several posts back, you're a dirty
 fighter.

Another ad hominem in such a short space.  Now you are just giving yourself 
away here Judy. You are making this too easy.  I guess it allows your ego a bit 
of space from the reality that you are not up to the challenge. If a person 
exposes your BS they MUST be fighting dirty.  Got it.  Hope that works for you. 
Sounds a bit denial shielding for my taste though.

 
 Anger *per se* isn't the problem. As you say, reacting
 angrily to hostility and perceived unfairness is a most
 human quality. You wouldn't be human if you didn't.
 You *could*, however, do so without feeling you have to
 fight dirty. That is not an unavoidable 

[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote:

 I also doubt Maharishi ever comfirmed his unity
 
 It could've gone like this:
 
 MZ: Greetings Maharishi.
 
 Maharishi: What's up, Robin?
 
 MZ: I have an experience to relate...blah, blah, blah, 100 pages and two 
 hours later...so therefore, I think I am in Unity Consciousness. Whaddya 
 think Maharishi?
 
 Maharishi: (shaking his head and rubbing his face to wake up) Huh?...oh yeah, 
 sure. We'll talk more later...



HaHa, that's very funny Jim, can't stop laughing. I needed that today 
! :-)




  That's been my position also since he started posting here. I don't think 
  he ever was in any other Unity than we all are (did you notice how I've 
  learned from Rory ? :-))
  
  I also doubt Maharishi ever comfirmed his unity, if anyone except Robin 
  actually heard him confirm, this person has certainly not come forward as 
  far as I know. Which only strengthens the suspision that his socalled 
  unity was a creation by his intellect only.
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Mark Landau]

Yes, but how does one live on less than 900 a month?

On Jul 24, 2011, at 11:08 PM, fflmod wrote:

 You should read up on social security, Mark. Last I looked, retiring early 
 would net more money in the long run if the retiree lived long enough. 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mark Landau m@... wrote:
 
  Thank you, Sal. My main reason for posting it here is in the hopes that 
  readers might know appropriate people and let them know.
  No, I never tried to sell them here. They were featured in David Wants To 
  Fly, if anyone saw that.
  To me, for these, $1,000 is one of those small amounts I wouldn't consider.
  Do you really think anyone would be searching ebay for a pair of M's 
  sandals? Perhaps I don't understand how ebay works.
  My age group is eligible for full retirement at 66. The more years I wait, 
  the more I would get per month.
  I hope to secure another job, but could very much use a significant influx 
  of cash in the not too distant future...
  I hope not to have to resort to state sponsored programs, but one never 
  knows...
  
  On Jul 18, 2011, at 9:19 PM, Sal Sunshine wrote:
  
   
   On Jul 18, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Mark Landau wrote:
   
   At sixty-five, I have very little savings and have lost my job. I was 
   planning to work into my seventies. My predicament forces me to attempt 
   to sell them. I am hoping that the person they are meant to go to will 
   have the wherewithal and will to honor their value. As 108 for over four 
   years, I spent around $100K working for the movement pretty much seven 
   days a week (when not rounding). As 108s, we weren't paid, paid $1000 a 
   month so as not to be a financial drain on the movement, and paid all 
   our own travel (and sometimes other) expenses. Small amounts will not be 
   considered.
   
   Another possibility is donating to me so I can donate them to the 
   movement.
   
   Mark, this sounds familiar. Didn't you try 
   
   selling them here a few years back? Did 
   
   you ever try the suggestions about ebay? Sorry
   to hear you're in such dire circumstances, but I 
   am failing to see what the sale of the sandals, even
   if they were to bring in, say, $1000, is going to do
   for you in the long run, not to mention that 
   trying to sell MMY memorabilia on a forum filled with
   disillusioned former TMers is a serious losing battle.
   You're 65? Then you're eligible
   for SS. You don't say what your predicament is, 
   but there are various programs in most states for seniors on
   fixed incomes, or no income. 
   
   Sal
   
   
  
 
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] alternative theory regarding MZ

[Vaj]

On Jul 25, 2011, at 9:01 AM, Tom Pall wrote:


On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net wrote:



I would propose that MZ experienced Maharishi Unity  
Consciousness,  a state different from videha-mukti or brahma- 
chetana, traditional UC. Maharishi Unity Consciousness (MUC) more  
resembles hypomania, and is often coupled with Narcissistic  
Personalty Disorder (and other Axis II disorders) and can be seen  
in an unfortunate number of FFL posters.


I fully suspect that one of the outcomes of the Neo- and Pseudo-  
advaita movements will be an eventual classification in the DSM for  
these disorders.



Vaj, and you're suggesting that our self-proclaimed and Maharishi- 
proclaimed enlightened/formerly enlightened individuals here have  
gotten over their Narcissistic Personality Disorder?


Well it's hard to say. In MZ's case I'd hasten to add that my  
impression of him is that he's actually a good person at heart, very  
intelligent and probably was raised in a balanced, loving home. In  
his case, that made all the difference in the world, and it also (for  
me) makes him very interesting to listen to, even if I don't agree  
with everything he says (or how long he takes to say it). I always  
saw MZ as a frustrated Shakespearian actor, who had a natural gift  
for teaching and being up in front of others. He has a natural gift  
for teaching in general and loves being center stage. I'm sure his  
students benefitted greatly from those gifts. I cannot honestly say  
he has NPD, after all so many of us have one or two criteria as a  
part of our unique personalities without them adversely impacting our  
lives or the lives of others.


I recently talked to one of his old students for several hours on the  
phone and his feeling was that those were great times, I had a blast.


  Some of them here proclaim how special they are by trying to act  
like Mr. Humble, seeming to lap up any criticism as something  
coming from Themselves and/or as cosmic gifts of learning  
situations.  This is always announced with a flourish.Hypomania  
sure describes the requirement to fill pages with $5 words strung  
together to make no coherent sense at all.


Yes, I've noticed that as well.


RC?  I like the phrase Maharishi Unity Consciousness.


It only seems appropriate given such phrases as Maharishi Ayurveda  
or Maharishi Vedic Science, esp. since it's an obvious variant.


  Seems so much like a case of me me me me me.  Of course people  
would describe their experiences in terms used by Maharishi because  
he gave us words to peg experiences on.  But it goes beyond that.
Interesting that the Holy Spirit speaks the same language those  
speaking in tongues speak.   What sounds like babble from beyond  
when analyzed actually follows the same rules of cadence and syntax  
as the native language of the person speaking in tongues.
Interesting.   Almost like being filled with the spirit means being  
inspired to convince oneself and others that they've arrived.


LOL.

You've always had a great sense of humor Tom. I always imagined you  
could be fun to be around for that very reason.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Vaj]

On Jul 25, 2011, at 9:54 AM, obbajeeba wrote:

Reads like a Danielle Steel novel or lawsuit. lol. You men love  
Judy and you know it. I do not personally know any of you dudes,  
but from what I read, a love affair of the heart is all over these  
threads. : )



I would agree that Judy does have many lovable qualities.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Vaj]

On Jul 25, 2011, at 10:31 AM, Mark Landau wrote:


Yes, but how does one live on less than 900 a month?



Outsource your retirement to India or Indonesia?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling

[Mark Landau]

Sarasvati came to me, several times, in all her glory.  I wondered why her in 
particular and decided it was because of GD, his name and thus the lineage's 
connection to her.  Later, of course, I found out that I had been repeating her 
name a million times.

On Jul 24, 2011, at 11:36 PM, maskedzebra wrote:

 Dear Buck,
 
 Regrettably I cannot offer a substitute for TM (and Maharishi).
 
 For me, it was either TM or nothing (as a method of acquiring an objective 
 religious experience: i.e. to know what is reality).
 
 Same goes for Maharishi. It was him as the would-be Christ, or it was no one.
 
 Now I was absolutely dependent upon TM (and, in a certain classic 
 disciple-to-master sense, Maharishi: he was always my beacon, my ideal). I 
 could not conceive of getting through one morning of my life without 
 meditating. Then came Unity; I didn't really have to meditate after that—but 
 I still did. But just to feel good, not to prepare myself for activity.
 
 Now it's a complicated story, but I determined that my Enlightenment was a 
 lie—Not that I was *not* enlightened. I was. But this kind of 'state of 
 consciousness' is not natural, and is not DNA or otherwise intended. We can 
 (I proved this for myself) 'enter into' Unity Consciousness and experience 
 our actions as originating in some intelligence outside of ourselves and 
 seemingly intimately connected to what is behind the universe itself. This, 
 plus apprehending that one is unified with the cosmos.
 
 Unity is everything Maharishi said it is. And the Science of Being and the 
 Art of Living is all about Unity Consciousness.
 
 But this too is a lie. If Unity Consciousness is not true (false to reality 
 as reality conceived of in terms of what God has put there), then the 
 experience of having one's actions transformed by the context of UC is also a 
 lie. It happens and it is convincing: after all the most sophisticated of 
 initiators—some with direct connections to MMY—came to utterly believe in my 
 Enlightenment—for ten years. But providence would have it that I came into 
 contact with another form of truth (Thomas Aquinas) which contradicted my TM 
 experiences, my Enlightenment, Maharishi, and Maharishi's Teachings.
 
 I knew that I had been deceived, but this deception had been perpetrated upon 
 me by forces, intelligences, more powerful and knowing than I could ever be.
 
 These were the Vedic gods, the devas (and I include my mantras in this too: 
 these were living invisible beings—what I now believe to be fallen angels; on 
 my Two Week Extension there was an initiator there (I think April 1975) who 
 had his mantra appear to him and speak to him: he related this experience to 
 Maharishi and all of us who had just completed our ATR; Maharishi endorsed 
 his experience—and he made a believer out of all of us who were present: 
 hundreds of initiators).
 
 Now it took me nearly 24 years to get out of Unity Consciousness. I became 
 enlightened in September 1976; I became convinced my enlightenment was a form 
 of subtle madness near the beginning of 1987. This year (2011) I am able to 
 experience that most of the dynamic causality of my enlightenment has been 
 eliminated from my life, and from my consciousness. But barring a miracle, I 
 will enter my death experience with the effects of TM, Maharishi, and my 
 Unity Consciousness, still influencing my physiology, including all its 
 functions.
 
 I have determined there is no source of spiritual truth out there anymore. 
 There once *was* (and I have written about this in previous posts) and that 
 was the Roman Catholic Church. But in some mind-breaking mystery, God seems 
 to have withdrawn from his Church, and therefore this supernatural 
 institution which he set up to organize his revelations [arising out of the 
 Incarnation] and to teach the supernatural truths necessary for the salvation 
 of the soul can no longer deliver up any evidence of the living presence of 
 the Holy Trinity.
 
 Once the Roman Catholic Church dies, there can be no source of truth faithful 
 to the Creator. And I believe this is the case at the present moment in 
 time-space-causation.
 
 The only source of spiritual truth or wisdom or even grace comes out of this 
 experience and understanding. Therefore this is all that I can offer: the 
 conviction, and perhaps the argument, that TM and Maharishi are metaphysical 
 false, and that at the present time *there is no way to know God* or to make 
 contact with Truth.
 
 This is the only truth I know. Although there is more to it than this, but 
 this is all that it is prudent for me to say.
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote:
 
  Robin, this is old argument here with the deniers. You've offered this by 
  way of your experience before here but they don't touch it. They've been 
  doing this with spirituality ever since they showed up on FFL. It evidently 
  is not their experience and makes no way for them 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[emptybill]

These are the sources the poet-pandit used -
and that which was demanded be discarded
by HH Swami Brahmananda  Saraswati.
He found it vile and demanded it's destruction.

Mahesh, lying to his own guru, kept it and repurposed
it for fun and $ and to fool westerners enamored with the east

So you claim this is on Paul Mason's website? Where?

Where/When did you learn TM. Who was your initiator?
You claim to have learned the TM-Sidhis program.
Where/When?

You claim to be a Mason, a Nath, a Dzogchen-pa.
What is your sampradaya, both Hindu and Buddhist?.
You have none.


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


 On Jul 25, 2011, at 12:40 AM, emptybill wrote:

  Vag - you are a fool who cannot provide
  your sources because you have none. You
  just read this stuff and make believe. This is
  why you bullshit everyone here.


 My source was Paul Mason you idiot. We've talked about it in
 considerable detail.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:
snip
 Judy never busts you on your *admitted* lies

Um, why should I need to when he's admitted them
himself?

Plus which, I never saw the BatGap interview, so I have
no idea what the lies he admits to were all about. I
couldn't bust him if I wanted to.

 because
 you're in her posse. She can count on you to pile
 on to the same people she tries to demonize, as part
 of her ongoing obsessive behavior.

No, Barry, that's your fantasy. My criticisms of you
stand on their own regardless of whether anybody piles
on or comes to similar conclusions entirely independently
of anything I've said.

 You like Judy IMO *because* she's a classic example 
 of obsession, and that enables you to pile on to 
 the people on her Enemies List. If she weren't doing
 this, I don't think I'm alone here in believing that 
 you wouldn't have anything else to say.

Barry, you discredit yourself. Anybody who's been
reading Ravi's posts has seen that he has plenty to
say besides criticizing folks I've criticized.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Vaj]

On Jul 25, 2011, at 10:43 AM, emptybill wrote:


These are the sources the poet-pandit used -
and that which was demanded be discarded
by HH Swami Brahmananda Saraswati.
He found it vile and demanded it's destruction.

Mahesh, lying to his own guru, kept it and repurposed
it for fun and $ and to fool westerners enamored with the east

So you claim this is on Paul Mason's website? Where?


No I didn't claim that.

Read it again.




Where/When did you learn TM. Who was your initiator?
You claim to have learned the TM-Sidhis program.
Where/When?

You claim to be a Mason, a Nath, a Dzogchen-pa.
What is your sampradaya, both Hindu and Buddhist?.
You have none.


That's not true either. Stop making up lies and mind your own  
business, I'm not your teacher. You sure do seem to be a slow learner.

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Mark Landau
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 9:32 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

 

  

Yes, but how does one live on less than 900 a month?

Move to India! I know people who were barely scraping by in the US who are
living like kings in Pondicherry.

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Mark Landau]

Do they have to leave every six months?

On Jul 25, 2011, at 9:10 AM, Rick Archer wrote:

 
 From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On 
 Behalf Of Mark Landau
 Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 9:32 AM
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals
 
  
 
  
 
 Yes, but how does one live on less than 900 a month?
 
 Move to India! I know people who were barely scraping by in the US who are 
 living like kings in Pondicherry.
 
  
 
 
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ

[turquoiseb]

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

 On Jul 25, 2011, at 7:55 AM, Rick Archer wrote:
 
  Do not mistake understanding for realization. Do not mistake  
  realization for Liberation. – Tibetan Proverb
 
   In interviewing many people and listening to many more whom I  
  might interview, I observe that both mistakes are closer to the  
  norm than the exception. There are many people in so-called non- 
  dual circles who commit the first. And it's very common for 
  people to have a profound realization and become completely 
  convinced that it is ultimate and final. They may retain that 
  conviction for years before eventually either losing the 
  realization or having a deeper one which convinces them that 
  the previous one wasn't ultimate.
 
 Great quote, and a very important point. One piece and part 
 that I'd add is also advice from Tibetan teachers which is 
 don't take your self too seriously and when you have a 
 realization, keep in mind you'll have hundreds of such 
 realizations. Also, see point one.

The road goes ever on. - Bilbo Baggins

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Vaj]

On Jul 25, 2011, at 11:10 AM, Rick Archer wrote:

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com  
[mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark Landau

Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 9:32 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals





Yes, but how does one live on less than 900 a month?

Move to India! I know people who were barely scraping by in the US  
who are living like kings in Pondicherry.


I know people who are living in a rented house with servants on the  
interest off of 100,000 USD in northern India.

[FairfieldLife] Sucking Others Into One's Obsession

[turquoiseb]

No, this is NOT a post about Judy. :-)

It's a post about spiritual teachers.

I'm of the opinion that one valid way of viewing spiritual teachers is
as people who have a strong set of beliefs, or have had some (to them)
profound experience, or both, and who were so overshadowed by those
beliefs or those experiences that they became obsessed with them, and
decided that they are the most important thing in life. Then, not
content with just feeling that they are the most important thing in life
*for them*, they dedicate their lives to convincing others to make them
the most important thing in life for them, too.

I would suggest that this generalization is so widespread that it can
legitimately be called a truism. If you disagree, name me a spiritual
teacher to whom it does not apply. I'll wait.

I've always liked William Peter Blatty's film The Ninth Configuration.
What it's about (no spoilers) is a charismatic psychiatrist who is
transferred to a hospital for severely-traumatized US soldiers. Once
there, confronted with what he perceives as the madness around him, he
tries his best to draw these soldiers into preferring *his* view of both
them and reality over their own, to hopefully cure them of their PTSD.
I'm also a fan of books and films in which a charismatic person,
sometimes the polar opposite of what we think of as a spiritual teacher
and in fact a villain, manages to suck large numbers of people into his
or her inner world, and into believing that they are the most important
thing in life. Suffice it to say that this phenomenon is not limited to
fiction; the rise of Hitler or the Dick Cheney presidency come to mind.

It seems to me that there are two ways of sucking another person into
one's obsession -- intellectually, and via charisma. The former appeals
to people who are predominantly lost in the intellect already, and
gravitate to those who appeal to it. Present such people with enough pat
answers we have already prepared ideas and concepts, and they'll
follow you anywhere, and over time they'll not only come to believe
them, they'll forget that they're not even their *own* ideas and
concepts. They'll present them to others (trying to suck them into the
now-group obsession) as if they were self-evident, or as if they'd
always believed them.

The latter method of sucking someone into one's obsession is to
broadcast it to the world, via charisma. Such teachers bypass the
intellect entirely, and count on just being so charismatic that others
feel their vibe and want some of it for themselves. Interestingly
enough, this approach has a spillover into the intellect in that
people who have been flashed out by a charismatic teacher will
subsequently believe pretty much anything he or she tells them, whether
it makes any sense to the intellect or not. Contradictions don't matter,
and inconsistencies such as the teacher not really walking his or her
talk don't matter; they'll rationalize both away, because all that
really matters is the charisma they feel.

The bottom line, however, is that both types of teachers manage to suck
other people into their obsessions, and get them over time to believe
that they are as important to them as the teachers think they are to
them.

I'm not suggesting that there is anything particularly wrong or bad
about this phenomenon; it's just What Is. But I might suggest every so
often taking a mental step back from the ideas, concepts, and
experiences that you believe are the most important in life, and doing a
little analysis as to where these beliefs *came from*. If they came from
a spiritual teacher, aren't you kinda living his or her idea of what is
most important in life, and not your own?

What *happened* along the Way that convinced you to start seeing the
world through someone else's eyes, and believing the things that they
do? Do you still *believe* these things, or do you just take it for
granted that you do, and never go there and analyze the beliefs
themselves?

I think that there is a value in such analysis. But I'm not going to try
to convince you of the value of such an approach, because that would
just be trying to suck you into my obsession.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... 
wrote:
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
snip
  Gonna give you just one example from your previous post
  (don't have time now to fisk the whole collection of
  misreadings):
 
 But of course.  The reader is left to assume that you have
 lots of them.   Terms like a boatload would be helpful 
n enhancing the impression of your misleading assertion.

Boatload is good, especially when we add the new ones
in the post I'm responding to. I still don't have time,
though. I'm working on a deadline, and I'm behind.

What will you say, I wonder, when I'm able to get around
to it and make good on my claim?

In the meantime, I'll nail one assertion in this post that
isn't just a misreading but a deliberate falsehood:

snip
 Since I do not transform into a hideous creature when
 confronted with your hostile accusations but respond with
 my POV which differs from yours,

You do become a hideous creature, though, in
comparison with your Mr. Wonderful presentation. That
was the whole point of the Hulk and Jekyll/Hyde analogy.
But I suspect you knew that.

 I will assume that this 
 mischaractorization is one a  long history of ad hominem 
 characterizations meant to distract from your inability
 to answer my responses with reasoned argument.  And
 because you claim that I become a murderous monster, you
 believe you are conveniently let off the hook of responding.
 Does that really work for you, because from this end it
 seems pretty transparently lame.

If you were honest, you'd acknowledge that in most of our
hostile exchanges, you're the one to back out, not me. The
most recent example was our exchange immediately previous
to this one, where you failed to respond to this post:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/282863

What's your excuse for letting yourself off the hook of
responding?

I rarely do ad hominem without having *first* responded
with reasoned argument. I don't use the former as a
substitute for the latter. I know you're aware of that,
so why are you pretending otherwise?

  The thing is, when you get pissed, you lose all sense
  of proportion and fairness, and you too often become
  actively dishonest, hauling out one straw man after
  another, as you just did above. You pull out your
  sophist debating tricks and make it impossible to
  discuss misunderstandings and grievances on either
  side.
 
 Yeah sounds to me as if when I confront your BS with
 reasoned argument you can't respond effectively so you
 pull the old ad hominem out of your very tiny bag of
 tricks

The post quoted above was an example of the falsity of
your assertion. The ad hominem came at the end, after
I'd thoroughly fisked your previous post. It was you who
couldn't respond with reasoned argument.

 and hope I wont notice.  Newsflash, I do.

Hmm, I expected you to claim you'd somehow managed to
miss the post. You've just neatly disposed of that
potential excuse for not responding to it.

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Mark Landau
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 10:12 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

 

  

Do they have to leave every six months?

I don't think so. This is an article about a friend of mine who moved his
parents there:
http://www.itsabouttimebpp.com/Announcements/Man_takes_his_elderly_ill_paren
ts_overseas_for_lower_bills.html. 

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[authfriend]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ 
 wrote:
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
snip
 In the meantime, I'll nail one assertion in this post that
 isn't just a misreading but a deliberate falsehood:

Before Curtis tries to muddy things still further by
making a huge deal of the fact that my first comment below
isn't about a deliberate falsehood: That's true, it's
about another misreading. I added it after I'd written the
second comment, which *is* about a deliberate falsehood
and was all I had intended to deal with in this post at
first.
 
 snip
  Since I do not transform into a hideous creature when
  confronted with your hostile accusations but respond with
  my POV which differs from yours,
 
 You do become a hideous creature, though, in
 comparison with your Mr. Wonderful presentation. That
 was the whole point of the Hulk and Jekyll/Hyde analogy.
 But I suspect you knew that.
 
  I will assume that this 
  mischaractorization is one a  long history of ad hominem 
  characterizations meant to distract from your inability
  to answer my responses with reasoned argument.  And
  because you claim that I become a murderous monster, you
  believe you are conveniently let off the hook of responding.
  Does that really work for you, because from this end it
  seems pretty transparently lame.
 
 If you were honest, you'd acknowledge that in most of our
 hostile exchanges, you're the one to back out, not me. The
 most recent example was our exchange immediately previous
 to this one, where you failed to respond to this post:
 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/282863
 
 What's your excuse for letting yourself off the hook of
 responding?
 
 I rarely do ad hominem without having *first* responded
 with reasoned argument. I don't use the former as a
 substitute for the latter. I know you're aware of that,
 so why are you pretending otherwise?
 
   The thing is, when you get pissed, you lose all sense
   of proportion and fairness, and you too often become
   actively dishonest, hauling out one straw man after
   another, as you just did above. You pull out your
   sophist debating tricks and make it impossible to
   discuss misunderstandings and grievances on either
   side.
  
  Yeah sounds to me as if when I confront your BS with
  reasoned argument you can't respond effectively so you
  pull the old ad hominem out of your very tiny bag of
  tricks
 
 The post quoted above was an example of the falsity of
 your assertion. The ad hominem came at the end, after
 I'd thoroughly fisked your previous post. It was you who
 couldn't respond with reasoned argument.
 
  and hope I wont notice.  Newsflash, I do.
 
 Hmm, I expected you to claim you'd somehow managed to
 miss the post. You've just neatly disposed of that
 potential excuse for not responding to it.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[curtisdeltablues]

Only you would even be able to dig up posts I have dropped for lack of interest 
in pursuing it beyond making our points and realizing it was going nowhere.

Judy:

snip
 If you were honest, you'd acknowledge that in most of our
 hostile exchanges, you're the one to back out, not me. The
 most recent example was our exchange immediately previous
 to this one, where you failed to respond to this post:

snip
What's your excuse for letting yourself off the hook of
responding?


Because you wear me down Judy as you have here.  We both make our points, 
disagree and then you continue to post as if answering your hostile assertions 
is endlessly entertaining.

It is not. It is boring.  And as I mentioned before, you are pissing away 
opportunities for discussion on your endless rancorous mission to make me look 
bad.

It is boring.  No, you have become boring.  I am not interested in your making 
a case that I am something different from your own Mr. Wonderful fantasy.  It 
is a false impression you have created and endlessly try to make me buy into, 
as if this could even be possible. Both version of me are your own fantasy. 

This mission consumes you with an intensity that I find distasteful.  You are 
an ill-wisher, a malevolent person toward me. You do not wish me well, you wish 
me ill.  Your agenda is unfriendly.  You are the sourest of...Goddam I wish I 
had not taken that off the table so quickly, now I am going to have to come up 
with something else...you are not nice Judy.  A sand thrower in the sandbox of 
FFL. And because all the neighborhood cats use the park's sandbox for their 
litter, your thrown sand stinks.  And the sand is boring...oh hell now I've 
gone too far and lost it again.  OK here goes:

I rebuke thee, I rebuke the, I rebuke thee.  Get thee behind me.

(I've heard that works.) 




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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ 
 wrote:
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
 snip
   Gonna give you just one example from your previous post
   (don't have time now to fisk the whole collection of
   misreadings):
  
  But of course.  The reader is left to assume that you have
  lots of them.   Terms like a boatload would be helpful 
 n enhancing the impression of your misleading assertion.
 
 Boatload is good, especially when we add the new ones
 in the post I'm responding to. I still don't have time,
 though. I'm working on a deadline, and I'm behind.
 
 What will you say, I wonder, when I'm able to get around
 to it and make good on my claim?
 
 In the meantime, I'll nail one assertion in this post that
 isn't just a misreading but a deliberate falsehood:
 
 snip
  Since I do not transform into a hideous creature when
  confronted with your hostile accusations but respond with
  my POV which differs from yours,
 
 You do become a hideous creature, though, in
 comparison with your Mr. Wonderful presentation. That
 was the whole point of the Hulk and Jekyll/Hyde analogy.
 But I suspect you knew that.
 
  I will assume that this 
  mischaractorization is one a  long history of ad hominem 
  characterizations meant to distract from your inability
  to answer my responses with reasoned argument.  And
  because you claim that I become a murderous monster, you
  believe you are conveniently let off the hook of responding.
  Does that really work for you, because from this end it
  seems pretty transparently lame.
 
 If you were honest, you'd acknowledge that in most of our
 hostile exchanges, you're the one to back out, not me. The
 most recent example was our exchange immediately previous
 to this one, where you failed to respond to this post:
 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/282863
 
 What's your excuse for letting yourself off the hook of
 responding?
 
 I rarely do ad hominem without having *first* responded
 with reasoned argument. I don't use the former as a
 substitute for the latter. I know you're aware of that,
 so why are you pretending otherwise?
 
   The thing is, when you get pissed, you lose all sense
   of proportion and fairness, and you too often become
   actively dishonest, hauling out one straw man after
   another, as you just did above. You pull out your
   sophist debating tricks and make it impossible to
   discuss misunderstandings and grievances on either
   side.
  
  Yeah sounds to me as if when I confront your BS with
  reasoned argument you can't respond effectively so you
  pull the old ad hominem out of your very tiny bag of
  tricks
 
 The post quoted above was an example of the falsity of
 your assertion. The ad hominem came at the end, after
 I'd thoroughly fisked your previous post. It was you who
 couldn't respond with reasoned argument.
 
  and hope I wont notice.  Newsflash, I do.
 
 Hmm, I expected you to claim you'd somehow managed to
 miss the post. You've just neatly disposed of that
 potential 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Sucking Others Into One's Obsession

[Bhairitu]

On 07/25/2011 08:28 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
 No, this is NOT a post about Judy. :-)

 It's a post about spiritual teachers.

 I'm of the opinion that one valid way of viewing spiritual teachers is
 as people who have a strong set of beliefs, or have had some (to them)
 profound experience, or both, and who were so overshadowed by those
 beliefs or those experiences that they became obsessed with them, and
 decided that they are the most important thing in life. Then, not
 content with just feeling that they are the most important thing in life
 *for them*, they dedicate their lives to convincing others to make them
 the most important thing in life for them, too.

 I would suggest that this generalization is so widespread that it can
 legitimately be called a truism. If you disagree, name me a spiritual
 teacher to whom it does not apply. I'll wait.

 I've always liked William Peter Blatty's film The Ninth Configuration.
 What it's about (no spoilers) is a charismatic psychiatrist who is
 transferred to a hospital for severely-traumatized US soldiers. Once
 there, confronted with what he perceives as the madness around him, he
 tries his best to draw these soldiers into preferring *his* view of both
 them and reality over their own, to hopefully cure them of their PTSD.
 I'm also a fan of books and films in which a charismatic person,
 sometimes the polar opposite of what we think of as a spiritual teacher
 and in fact a villain, manages to suck large numbers of people into his
 or her inner world, and into believing that they are the most important
 thing in life. Suffice it to say that this phenomenon is not limited to
 fiction; the rise of Hitler or the Dick Cheney presidency come to mind.

 It seems to me that there are two ways of sucking another person into
 one's obsession -- intellectually, and via charisma. The former appeals
 to people who are predominantly lost in the intellect already, and
 gravitate to those who appeal to it. Present such people with enough pat
 answers we have already prepared ideas and concepts, and they'll
 follow you anywhere, and over time they'll not only come to believe
 them, they'll forget that they're not even their *own* ideas and
 concepts. They'll present them to others (trying to suck them into the
 now-group obsession) as if they were self-evident, or as if they'd
 always believed them.

 The latter method of sucking someone into one's obsession is to
 broadcast it to the world, via charisma. Such teachers bypass the
 intellect entirely, and count on just being so charismatic that others
 feel their vibe and want some of it for themselves. Interestingly
 enough, this approach has a spillover into the intellect in that
 people who have been flashed out by a charismatic teacher will
 subsequently believe pretty much anything he or she tells them, whether
 it makes any sense to the intellect or not. Contradictions don't matter,
 and inconsistencies such as the teacher not really walking his or her
 talk don't matter; they'll rationalize both away, because all that
 really matters is the charisma they feel.

 The bottom line, however, is that both types of teachers manage to suck
 other people into their obsessions, and get them over time to believe
 that they are as important to them as the teachers think they are to
 them.

 I'm not suggesting that there is anything particularly wrong or bad
 about this phenomenon; it's just What Is. But I might suggest every so
 often taking a mental step back from the ideas, concepts, and
 experiences that you believe are the most important in life, and doing a
 little analysis as to where these beliefs *came from*. If they came from
 a spiritual teacher, aren't you kinda living his or her idea of what is
 most important in life, and not your own?

 What *happened* along the Way that convinced you to start seeing the
 world through someone else's eyes, and believing the things that they
 do? Do you still *believe* these things, or do you just take it for
 granted that you do, and never go there and analyze the beliefs
 themselves?

 I think that there is a value in such analysis. But I'm not going to try
 to convince you of the value of such an approach, because that would
 just be trying to suck you into my obsession.  :-)

You might try looking at a spiritual teacher as if they were a guitar or 
piano teacher.  They are there to teach you an instrument they 
mastered.  So therefore a spiritual teacher would be one who has 
mastered some spiritual tradition and can teach it to you.  I people 
were to look at them that way instead of someone who is going to take 
them over and run their lives for them there wouldn't be so many 
disappointed aspirants on the path.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[authfriend]

Note Curtis's inability to respond with reasoned argument
to my post, and his use of ad hominem as a substitute--
exactly what he had just got done falsely accusing *me*
of doing.

More later.

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

 Only you would even be able to dig up posts I have dropped for lack of 
 interest in pursuing it beyond making our points and realizing it was going 
 nowhere.
 
 Judy:
 
 snip
  If you were honest, you'd acknowledge that in most of our
  hostile exchanges, you're the one to back out, not me. The
  most recent example was our exchange immediately previous
  to this one, where you failed to respond to this post:
 
 snip
 What's your excuse for letting yourself off the hook of
 responding?
 
 
 Because you wear me down Judy as you have here.  We both make our points, 
 disagree and then you continue to post as if answering your hostile 
 assertions is endlessly entertaining.
 
 It is not. It is boring.  And as I mentioned before, you are pissing away 
 opportunities for discussion on your endless rancorous mission to make me 
 look bad.
 
 It is boring.  No, you have become boring.  I am not interested in your 
 making a case that I am something different from your own Mr. Wonderful 
 fantasy.  It is a false impression you have created and endlessly try to make 
 me buy into, as if this could even be possible. Both version of me are your 
 own fantasy. 
 
 This mission consumes you with an intensity that I find distasteful.  You are 
 an ill-wisher, a malevolent person toward me. You do not wish me well, you 
 wish me ill.  Your agenda is unfriendly.  You are the sourest of...Goddam I 
 wish I had not taken that off the table so quickly, now I am going to have to 
 come up with something else...you are not nice Judy.  A sand thrower in the 
 sandbox of FFL. And because all the neighborhood cats use the park's sandbox 
 for their litter, your thrown sand stinks.  And the sand is boring...oh hell 
 now I've gone too far and lost it again.  OK here goes:
 
 I rebuke thee, I rebuke the, I rebuke thee.  Get thee behind me.
 
 (I've heard that works.) 
 
 
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
   
  snip
Gonna give you just one example from your previous post
(don't have time now to fisk the whole collection of
misreadings):
   
   But of course.  The reader is left to assume that you have
   lots of them.   Terms like a boatload would be helpful 
  n enhancing the impression of your misleading assertion.
  
  Boatload is good, especially when we add the new ones
  in the post I'm responding to. I still don't have time,
  though. I'm working on a deadline, and I'm behind.
  
  What will you say, I wonder, when I'm able to get around
  to it and make good on my claim?
  
  In the meantime, I'll nail one assertion in this post that
  isn't just a misreading but a deliberate falsehood:
  
  snip
   Since I do not transform into a hideous creature when
   confronted with your hostile accusations but respond with
   my POV which differs from yours,
  
  You do become a hideous creature, though, in
  comparison with your Mr. Wonderful presentation. That
  was the whole point of the Hulk and Jekyll/Hyde analogy.
  But I suspect you knew that.
  
   I will assume that this 
   mischaractorization is one a  long history of ad hominem 
   characterizations meant to distract from your inability
   to answer my responses with reasoned argument.  And
   because you claim that I become a murderous monster, you
   believe you are conveniently let off the hook of responding.
   Does that really work for you, because from this end it
   seems pretty transparently lame.
  
  If you were honest, you'd acknowledge that in most of our
  hostile exchanges, you're the one to back out, not me. The
  most recent example was our exchange immediately previous
  to this one, where you failed to respond to this post:
  
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/282863
  
  What's your excuse for letting yourself off the hook of
  responding?
  
  I rarely do ad hominem without having *first* responded
  with reasoned argument. I don't use the former as a
  substitute for the latter. I know you're aware of that,
  so why are you pretending otherwise?
  
The thing is, when you get pissed, you lose all sense
of proportion and fairness, and you too often become
actively dishonest, hauling out one straw man after
another, as you just did above. You pull out your
sophist debating tricks and make it impossible to
discuss misunderstandings and grievances on either
side.
   
   Yeah sounds to me as if when I confront your BS with
   reasoned argument you can't respond effectively so you
   pull the old ad hominem out of your very tiny bag 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Swing in music?

[Bhairitu]

On 07/25/2011 03:11 AM, cardemaister wrote:
 I've often heard that swing is rather hard to define.
 How would youse define it?

Instead of straight eights it's shuffle rhythm feel of triplet eights 
with a triplet eighth rest in the middle.  Then a little bit of a laid 
back feel to it.  IOW, unlike a march which might do the same thing the 
last eighth may be played a little later than it normally would be.  
This usually has to be done by feel though swing quantization in MIDI 
programs can do it quite well but someone may have just recorded a swing 
rhythm and used it as template.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Will our Affirmative Action non-leading president get the US shut down?

[Denise Evans]

The FDR clip is priceless and completely pertinent to today's situation...I 
wouldn't call it a rant.  

--- On Sun, 7/24/11, Tom Pall thomas.p...@gmail.com wrote:

From: Tom Pall thomas.p...@gmail.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Will our Affirmative Action non-leading president get 
the US shut down?
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, July 24, 2011, 7:57 PM















 
 



  



  
  
  We've had impasses on the US budget and debt ceiling before.   Those

were games of brinkmanship, IMO.  This time, our non-leader president

looks like he's helplessly taking us on the brink of disaster.



I didn't bother to watch the FDR rant against the Republicans on

Youtube someone posted here a few days ago.   Blame what's happening

on the Republicans all you want.   FDR was a leader.  A man with

backbone, not a teleprompter slave.  FDR stood up for what he believed

in, even to the point of trying to pack the Supreme Court.   Don't

dare use FDR's words to describe or indict the Republicans or members

of any other party to explain the current state of affairs.   Obama

and his wife got into college and law school because of Affirmative

Action.  Got hired because of Affirmative Action.  Now we see just

where the good intentions of /that/ program got us.   Just what did

Obama promise gays?   What did he promise other groups?   What about

GITMO?   It's said that Democrats start wars and Republicans finish

them.   Under Obama our civil liberties, like with the TSA and no

warrant search and tapping, haven't been eroded.  They've been

sandblasted.   Sandblasted in ways GWBush never thought possible.



We voted for Hope and Change.   We're about to get the change and

fast. Got any spare change, Sir?




 





 



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sucking Others Into One's Obsession

[curtisdeltablues]

This was one of your best post for me Barry.  Genuinely profound. It is amazing 
how explicitly Maharishi taught the value of attuning your mind to the Masters. 
 It was such a liberation when I freed myself from his priories which placed 
long periods of time with my eyes closed instead of mastering the guitar.  When 
I put my own priorities into effect so many wonderful things opened up in my 
life and I was able to enjoy all the values (except the magical crap) that his 
higher states promised.

Really excellent, thanks for posting this.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:

 No, this is NOT a post about Judy. :-)
 
 It's a post about spiritual teachers.
 
 I'm of the opinion that one valid way of viewing spiritual teachers is
 as people who have a strong set of beliefs, or have had some (to them)
 profound experience, or both, and who were so overshadowed by those
 beliefs or those experiences that they became obsessed with them, and
 decided that they are the most important thing in life. Then, not
 content with just feeling that they are the most important thing in life
 *for them*, they dedicate their lives to convincing others to make them
 the most important thing in life for them, too.
 
 I would suggest that this generalization is so widespread that it can
 legitimately be called a truism. If you disagree, name me a spiritual
 teacher to whom it does not apply. I'll wait.
 
 I've always liked William Peter Blatty's film The Ninth Configuration.
 What it's about (no spoilers) is a charismatic psychiatrist who is
 transferred to a hospital for severely-traumatized US soldiers. Once
 there, confronted with what he perceives as the madness around him, he
 tries his best to draw these soldiers into preferring *his* view of both
 them and reality over their own, to hopefully cure them of their PTSD.
 I'm also a fan of books and films in which a charismatic person,
 sometimes the polar opposite of what we think of as a spiritual teacher
 and in fact a villain, manages to suck large numbers of people into his
 or her inner world, and into believing that they are the most important
 thing in life. Suffice it to say that this phenomenon is not limited to
 fiction; the rise of Hitler or the Dick Cheney presidency come to mind.
 
 It seems to me that there are two ways of sucking another person into
 one's obsession -- intellectually, and via charisma. The former appeals
 to people who are predominantly lost in the intellect already, and
 gravitate to those who appeal to it. Present such people with enough pat
 answers we have already prepared ideas and concepts, and they'll
 follow you anywhere, and over time they'll not only come to believe
 them, they'll forget that they're not even their *own* ideas and
 concepts. They'll present them to others (trying to suck them into the
 now-group obsession) as if they were self-evident, or as if they'd
 always believed them.
 
 The latter method of sucking someone into one's obsession is to
 broadcast it to the world, via charisma. Such teachers bypass the
 intellect entirely, and count on just being so charismatic that others
 feel their vibe and want some of it for themselves. Interestingly
 enough, this approach has a spillover into the intellect in that
 people who have been flashed out by a charismatic teacher will
 subsequently believe pretty much anything he or she tells them, whether
 it makes any sense to the intellect or not. Contradictions don't matter,
 and inconsistencies such as the teacher not really walking his or her
 talk don't matter; they'll rationalize both away, because all that
 really matters is the charisma they feel.
 
 The bottom line, however, is that both types of teachers manage to suck
 other people into their obsessions, and get them over time to believe
 that they are as important to them as the teachers think they are to
 them.
 
 I'm not suggesting that there is anything particularly wrong or bad
 about this phenomenon; it's just What Is. But I might suggest every so
 often taking a mental step back from the ideas, concepts, and
 experiences that you believe are the most important in life, and doing a
 little analysis as to where these beliefs *came from*. If they came from
 a spiritual teacher, aren't you kinda living his or her idea of what is
 most important in life, and not your own?
 
 What *happened* along the Way that convinced you to start seeing the
 world through someone else's eyes, and believing the things that they
 do? Do you still *believe* these things, or do you just take it for
 granted that you do, and never go there and analyze the beliefs
 themselves?
 
 I think that there is a value in such analysis. But I'm not going to try
 to convince you of the value of such an approach, because that would
 just be trying to suck you into my obsession.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[curtisdeltablues]

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

 Note Curtis's inability to respond with reasoned argument
 to my post, and his use of ad hominem as a substitute--
 exactly what he had just got done falsely accusing *me*
 of doing.
 

How would Mr. Wonderful respond...I know, guilty as charged Judy.  You got me 
there, that is exactly what I was doing.  


 More later.


You may have to go this thread alone from here on Judy because I am running out 
of ways to amuse myself.  Chalk it up as another win in your I'm gunna wear 
you down strategy.  



 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ 
 wrote:
 
  Only you would even be able to dig up posts I have dropped for lack of 
  interest in pursuing it beyond making our points and realizing it was going 
  nowhere.
  
  Judy:
  
  snip
   If you were honest, you'd acknowledge that in most of our
   hostile exchanges, you're the one to back out, not me. The
   most recent example was our exchange immediately previous
   to this one, where you failed to respond to this post:
  
  snip
  What's your excuse for letting yourself off the hook of
  responding?
  
  
  Because you wear me down Judy as you have here.  We both make our points, 
  disagree and then you continue to post as if answering your hostile 
  assertions is endlessly entertaining.
  
  It is not. It is boring.  And as I mentioned before, you are pissing away 
  opportunities for discussion on your endless rancorous mission to make me 
  look bad.
  
  It is boring.  No, you have become boring.  I am not interested in your 
  making a case that I am something different from your own Mr. Wonderful 
  fantasy.  It is a false impression you have created and endlessly try to 
  make me buy into, as if this could even be possible. Both version of me are 
  your own fantasy. 
  
  This mission consumes you with an intensity that I find distasteful.  You 
  are an ill-wisher, a malevolent person toward me. You do not wish me well, 
  you wish me ill.  Your agenda is unfriendly.  You are the sourest 
  of...Goddam I wish I had not taken that off the table so quickly, now I am 
  going to have to come up with something else...you are not nice Judy.  A 
  sand thrower in the sandbox of FFL. And because all the neighborhood cats 
  use the park's sandbox for their litter, your thrown sand stinks.  And the 
  sand is boring...oh hell now I've gone too far and lost it again.  OK here 
  goes:
  
  I rebuke thee, I rebuke the, I rebuke thee.  Get thee behind me.
  
  (I've heard that works.) 
  
  
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
   curtisdeltablues@ wrote:

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

   snip
 Gonna give you just one example from your previous post
 (don't have time now to fisk the whole collection of
 misreadings):

But of course.  The reader is left to assume that you have
lots of them.   Terms like a boatload would be helpful 
   n enhancing the impression of your misleading assertion.
   
   Boatload is good, especially when we add the new ones
   in the post I'm responding to. I still don't have time,
   though. I'm working on a deadline, and I'm behind.
   
   What will you say, I wonder, when I'm able to get around
   to it and make good on my claim?
   
   In the meantime, I'll nail one assertion in this post that
   isn't just a misreading but a deliberate falsehood:
   
   snip
Since I do not transform into a hideous creature when
confronted with your hostile accusations but respond with
my POV which differs from yours,
   
   You do become a hideous creature, though, in
   comparison with your Mr. Wonderful presentation. That
   was the whole point of the Hulk and Jekyll/Hyde analogy.
   But I suspect you knew that.
   
I will assume that this 
mischaractorization is one a  long history of ad hominem 
characterizations meant to distract from your inability
to answer my responses with reasoned argument.  And
because you claim that I become a murderous monster, you
believe you are conveniently let off the hook of responding.
Does that really work for you, because from this end it
seems pretty transparently lame.
   
   If you were honest, you'd acknowledge that in most of our
   hostile exchanges, you're the one to back out, not me. The
   most recent example was our exchange immediately previous
   to this one, where you failed to respond to this post:
   
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/282863
   
   What's your excuse for letting yourself off the hook of
   responding?
   
   I rarely do ad hominem without having *first* responded
   with reasoned argument. I don't use the former as a
   substitute for the latter. I know you're aware of that,
   so why are you pretending otherwise?
   
 The thing is, 

Re: [FairfieldLife] One in five American men don't work: Where's the outrage?

[Bhairitu]

On 07/25/2011 04:07 AM, Tom Pall wrote:
 http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/25/unemployment-job-skills-training/?iid=HP_LN


Welcome to the new leisure society, Thom.  You're working too hard. ;-)

 From the article:

The longer a worker is unemployed, the farther he or she falls behind 
in sellable skills in a fast-paced global economy.  The term sellable 
skils (probably should be salable skills) tells it all.  In a 
capitalist society everyone has to have something to sell.  IOW, we're 
all basically a prostitute.  The trick is to find something you enjoy 
doing that someone or everyone wants.  Either buying your time or your 
product.

As for any old job we're probably running out of those with a world 
population of 7 billion people. Apparently the majority aren't bright 
enough to figure that out so they'll just keep pounding their heads 
against the wall.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling

[John]

Hey MZ,

This is an interesting post.  One of my questions is:  How do you know that 
your enlightenment was different from the experience of Aquinas?  I will ask 
the others after you answer this.

JR

  

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote:

 Dear Buck,
 
 Regrettably I cannot offer a substitute for TM (and Maharishi).
 
 For me, it was either TM or nothing (as a method of acquiring an objective 
 religious experience: i.e. to know what is reality).
 
 Same goes for Maharishi. It was him as the would-be Christ, or it was no one.
 
 Now I was absolutely dependent upon TM (and, in a certain classic 
 disciple-to-master sense, Maharishi: he was always my beacon, my ideal). I 
 could not conceive of getting through one morning of my life without 
 meditating. Then came Unity; I didn't really have to meditate after that—but 
 I still did. But just to feel good, not to prepare myself for activity.
 
 Now it's a complicated story, but I determined that my Enlightenment was a 
 lie—Not that I was *not* enlightened. I was. But this kind of 'state of 
 consciousness' is not natural, and is not DNA or otherwise intended. We can 
 (I proved this for myself) 'enter into' Unity Consciousness and experience 
 our actions as originating in some intelligence outside of ourselves and 
 seemingly intimately connected to what is behind the universe itself. This, 
 plus apprehending that one is unified with the cosmos.
 
 Unity is everything Maharishi said it is. And the Science of Being and the 
 Art of Living is all about Unity Consciousness.
 
 But this too is a lie. If Unity Consciousness is not true (false to reality 
 as reality conceived of in terms of what God has put there), then the 
 experience of having one's actions transformed by the context of UC is also a 
 lie. It happens and it is convincing: after all the most sophisticated of 
 initiators—some with direct connections to MMY—came to utterly believe in my 
 Enlightenment—for ten years. But providence would have it that I came into 
 contact with another form of truth (Thomas Aquinas) which contradicted my TM 
 experiences, my Enlightenment, Maharishi, and Maharishi's Teachings.
 
 I knew that I had been deceived, but this deception had been perpetrated upon 
 me by forces, intelligences, more powerful and knowing than I could ever be.
 
 These were the Vedic gods, the devas (and I include my mantras in this too: 
 these were living invisible beings—what I now believe to be fallen angels; on 
 my Two Week Extension there was an initiator there (I think April 1975) who 
 had his mantra appear to him and speak to him: he related this experience to 
 Maharishi and all of us who had just completed our ATR; Maharishi endorsed 
 his experience—and he made a believer out of all of us who were present: 
 hundreds of initiators).
 
 Now it took me nearly 24 years to get out of Unity Consciousness. I became 
 enlightened in September 1976; I became convinced my enlightenment was a form 
 of subtle madness near the beginning of 1987. This year (2011) I am able to 
 experience that most of the dynamic causality of my enlightenment has been 
 eliminated from my life, and from my consciousness. But barring a miracle, I 
 will enter my death experience with the effects of TM, Maharishi, and my 
 Unity Consciousness, still influencing my physiology, including all its 
 functions.
 
 I have determined there is no source of spiritual truth out there anymore. 
 There once *was* (and I have written about this in previous posts) and that 
 was the Roman Catholic Church. But in some mind-breaking mystery, God seems 
 to have withdrawn from his Church, and therefore this supernatural 
 institution which he set up to organize his revelations [arising out of the 
 Incarnation] and to teach the supernatural truths necessary for the salvation 
 of the soul can no longer deliver up any evidence of the living presence of 
 the Holy Trinity.
 
 Once the Roman Catholic Church dies, there can be no source of truth faithful 
 to the Creator. And I believe this is the case at the present moment in 
 time-space-causation.
 
 The only source of spiritual truth or wisdom or even grace comes out of this 
 experience and understanding. Therefore this is all that I can offer: the 
 conviction, and perhaps the argument, that TM and Maharishi are metaphysical 
 false, and that at the present time *there is no way to know God* or to make 
 contact with Truth.
 
 This is the only truth I know. Although there is more to it than this, but 
 this is all that it is prudent for me to say.
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote:
 
  Robin, this is old argument here with the deniers. You've offered this by 
  way of your experience before here but they don't touch it.  They've been 
  doing this with spirituality ever since they showed up on FFL.  It 
  evidently is not their experience and makes no way for them so in sophistry 
  they drop it, 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Mark Landau]

Dear Robin,

I fully understand everything you say here and agree and can give you a partial 
reason for my uniqueness in this.  In so doing, of course, I open myself to 
thorough ridicule and dismissal, but perhaps this is good.  I might as well 
give the best possible reason for dismissal to those who have the inclination.  
And I do love transparency, oftentimes and still, far more than seems good for 
me.  Is this one of those times?  Should I send this as a private email to 
Robin?  Perhaps.  Maybe probably or even definitely.  But knowing me...  Who 
knows, it may even have some value for someone here or posterity.  And, of 
course, it's the truth, which I also do love.

In early '69, two years before learning TM, I had a psychotic reaction to a 
massive dose of LSD.  I was institutionalized, given massive doses of Thorazine 
and released.  For me, the experience was very spiritual.  But I definitely 
lost all grounding and appreciation for the rules of normal behavior.

This, of course, had many repercussions in my life, but one of the consequences 
was that, seemingly, many of the innate filters that surround our perceptual 
apparatus and, IME, our very soul, were stripped away leaving me far more open 
than previously to that which was before me.  It also led to my spiritual 
awakenings in Australia that ultimately brought me to TM.  So when I saw, in M, 
something I really wanted to take in, I had, perhaps, more of the means to do 
so than most and didn't hold back.

You probably did answer this in previous posts, but I would appreciate your 
saving me the time and effort.

1.  Did you never have any past life memories come up?  And, if you did, do you 
now hold them to be mystical lies?  and

2. Do you hold that M is frozen as he is somewhere until judgement day?

Thank you,

m

On Jul 25, 2011, at 12:27 AM, maskedzebra wrote:

 Dear Mark,
 
 Put it this way: whatever you took in to yourself that was Maharishi was such 
 as to be the means for 'God' or reality to transfer this knowledge directly 
 to me.
 
 This transference, and what was transferred goes beyond, I think, whatever 
 you could consciously know about what you had received into your 
 consciousness and being that constituted who Maharishi was.
 
 Not only this, what was put into me because of you went beyond anything I 
 could conceive or experience through any kind of intention.
 
 There is something about you Mark that enabled what I needed to know about 
 Maharishi to be put inside of me such as to create this tremendous and 
 definitive liberation.
 
 Maharishi, almost as God would know him, was, through your own vulnerability 
 and sensitivity and objectivity and intelligence, formed inside of me such 
 that I immediately knew that I finally 'knew' who Maharishi was.
 
 In other words Maharishi has been incarnated inside of my intelligence 
 through a kind of supernatural objectivity. It is entirely an event beyond 
 the capabilities of either you or me.
 
 But the key thing here is: You (and this would be true even if you had no 
 conscious knowledge of this—at least fully conscious knowledge of it) possess 
 a certain singular sensibility when it comes to spiritual reality—and more 
 specifically Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.
 
 My anxiety, my trauma, my perplexity, my obsession, my searching just 
 suddenly ended in an instant: And I recognized that I was apprehending who 
 Maharishi really was. And what I was apprehending *had nothing to do with 
 anything I had previously known or experienced.* I had virtually got nowhere 
 in this quest—until you came along.
 
 Although, as I have already related to you, listening to your comments on 
 David Sieveking's film riveted me like nothing else in that film, and perhaps 
 like nothing else I had ever heard about Maharishi.
 
 Then your three posts.
 
 The cause and effect principle here transcends both of us, but the essential 
 requirement was for you to be the particular human being that you are. And I 
 would have to believe, based upon what has happened to me, that it is your 
 unique destiny to carry inside of you—regardless, as I say, of how much of 
 this you consciously can access, much less articulate—more of the reality of 
 what Maharishi Mahesh Yogi really was as a man and a human being than anyone 
 else who has ever known him.
 
 Recollect: I did not say that any particular *content* of your three posts 
 did it for me. It was a much more subtle process than this. It was the 
 created being named Mark Landau who, in the presence of Maharishi Mahesh 
 Yogi, acquired certain impressions; these impressions went deep down into 
 yourself. And then when the need was there inside of me
 to *know* who Maharishi was in a way that I did not and could not know him up 
 until then, God or reality—the simple intelligence of loving goodness which 
 is behind all of this creation (and you, and me, and Maharishi)—took this 
 perfect data off of your nervous system and transferred it to 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Vaj]

On Jul 25, 2011, at 11:54 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:

It is not. It is boring. And as I mentioned before, you are pissing  
away opportunities for discussion on your endless rancorous mission  
to make me look bad.



Fortunately for you, these back-and-forths actually end up making you  
look better, and Judy seem strangely obsessed. There's a movie  
waiting to be made about a Personality Disordered chick who leaves  
her support group and withdraws into her interweb world, unleashing  
her unknowing victims with her wounded inner child. Someone should  
invent a Judy computer virus that forces her computer to shut down  
and makes her have to go OUTSIDE (yes Judy, that strange environment  
with the blue and white top, with the greenish looking bottom. Watch  
out for the moving objects on those black stripy things).

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[turquoiseb]

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

 I rebuke thee, I rebuke the, I rebuke thee.  Get thee behind me.
 
 (I've heard that works.) 

Curtis, this whole exchange, and the concerted attempt
to keep you in it and continually replying, never to
escape, reminds me of an interesting song by Sarah 
McLachlan. 

There is an interesting story behind it. She wrote it
to exorcise a guy who had been stalking her, somewhat
dangerously. He kept writing her letters, sending her
things, and telling her details of a love life between
the two of them that he only imagined existed. He imag-
ined that her song lyrics were written directly to him,
and gave him secret messages that she returned his
affections. When she ignored him, he persisted. When 
she told him to get lost, he turned nasty, and started 
to send her rape fantasies instead of roses. and she 
had to call in the police. After they steered the sick 
fuck to the enforced psychiatric help he'd needed for 
some time, Sarah wrote this song to get the bad taste 
of it all out of her mind. Many of the lyrics are 
directly from the stalker's letters.

The song became one of her biggest hits. Living well 
is the best revenge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucdnm8iU-5cob=av2e

Listen as the wind blows
From across the great divide
Voices trapped in yearning
Memories trapped in time
The night is my companion
And solitude my guide
Would I spend forever here
And not be satisfied

And I would be the one
To hold you down
Kiss you so hard
I'll take your breath away
And after I'd wipe away the tears
Just close your eyes dear

Through this world I've stumbled
So many times betrayed
Trying to find an honest word
To find the truth enslaved
Oh you speak to me in riddles and
You speak to me in rhymes
My body aches to breathe your breath
You words keep me alive

And I would be the one
To hold you down
Kiss you so hard
I'll take your breath away
And after I'd wipe away the tears
Just close your eyes dear

Into this night I wander
It's morning that I dread
Another day of knowing of
The path I fear to tread
Oh into the sea of waking dreams
I follow without pride
Nothing stands between us here
And I won't be denied

And I would be the one
To hold you down
Kiss you so hard
I'll take your breath away
And after I'd wipe away the tears
Just close your eyes dear 

[FairfieldLife] In Praise of Vagueness

[Bhairitu]

An article for those FFL'ers obsessed with exactitude:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/07/in-praise-of-vagueness/

Is the eternal quest for precise information always worthwhile? Our 
research suggests that, at times, vagueness has its merits. Not knowing 
precisely how they are progressing lets people generate positive 
expectancies that allow them to perform better. The fuzzy boundaries 
afforded by vague information allow people to distort that information 
in a favorable manner.

IOW, there's some merit to saying things off the top of our head.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[curtisdeltablues]

Thanks Vaj, that made me feel...well...wonderful!



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

 
 On Jul 25, 2011, at 11:54 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
 
  It is not. It is boring. And as I mentioned before, you are pissing  
  away opportunities for discussion on your endless rancorous mission  
  to make me look bad.
 
 
 Fortunately for you, these back-and-forths actually end up making you  
 look better, and Judy seem strangely obsessed. There's a movie  
 waiting to be made about a Personality Disordered chick who leaves  
 her support group and withdraws into her interweb world, unleashing  
 her unknowing victims with her wounded inner child. Someone should  
 invent a Judy computer virus that forces her computer to shut down  
 and makes her have to go OUTSIDE (yes Judy, that strange environment  
 with the blue and white top, with the greenish looking bottom. Watch  
 out for the moving objects on those black stripy things).

[FairfieldLife] maskedzebra

[johnt]

Check out the Eastern Orthodox Church


On Jul 24, 2011, at 11:36 PM, maskedzebra wrote:

 
Dear Buck,

Regrettably I cannot offer a substitute for TM (and Maharishi).

For me, it was either TM or nothing (as a method of acquiring an objective 
religious experience: i.e. to know what is reality).

Same goes for Maharishi. It was him as the would-be Christ, or it was no one.

Now I was absolutely dependent upon TM (and, in a certain classic 
disciple-to-master sense, Maharishi: he was always my beacon, my ideal). I 
could not conceive of getting through one morning of my life without 
meditating. Then came Unity; I didn't really have to meditate after that—but I 
still did. But just to feel good, not to prepare myself for activity.

Now it's a complicated story, but I determined that my Enlightenment was a 
lie—Not that I was *not* enlightened. I was. But this kind of 'state of 
consciousness' is not natural, and is not DNA or otherwise intended. We can (I 
proved this for myself) 'enter into' Unity Consciousness and experience our 
actions as originating in some intelligence outside of ourselves and seemingly 
intimately connected to what is behind the universe itself. This, plus 
apprehending that one is unified with the cosmos.

Unity is everything Maharishi said it is. And the Science of Being and the Art 
of Living is all about Unity Consciousness.

But this too is a lie. If Unity Consciousness is not true (false to reality as 
reality conceived of in terms of what God has put there), then the experience 
of having one's actions transformed by the context of UC is also a lie. It 
happens and it is convincing: after all the most sophisticated of 
initiators—some with direct connections to MMY—came to utterly believe in my 
Enlightenment—for ten years. But providence would have it that I came into 
contact with another form of truth (Thomas Aquinas) which contradicted my TM 
experiences, my Enlightenment, Maharishi, and Maharishi's Teachings.

I knew that I had been deceived, but this deception had been perpetrated upon 
me by forces, intelligences, more powerful and knowing than I could ever be.

These were the Vedic gods, the devas (and I include my mantras in this too: 
these were living invisible beings—what I now believe to be fallen angels; on 
my Two Week Extension there was an initiator there (I think April 1975) who had 
his mantra appear to him and speak to him: he related this experience to 
Maharishi and all of us who had just completed our ATR; Maharishi endorsed his 
experience—and he made a believer out of all of us who were present: hundreds 
of initiators).

Now it took me nearly 24 years to get out of Unity Consciousness. I became 
enlightened in September 1976; I became convinced my enlightenment was a form 
of subtle madness near the beginning of 1987. This year (2011) I am able to 
experience that most of the dynamic causality of my enlightenment has been 
eliminated from my life, and from my consciousness. But barring a miracle, I 
will enter my death experience with the effects of TM, Maharishi, and my Unity 
Consciousness, still influencing my physiology, including all its functions.

I have determined there is no source of spiritual truth out there anymore. 
There once *was* (and I have written about this in previous posts) and that was 
the Roman Catholic Church. But in some mind-breaking mystery, God seems to have 
withdrawn from his Church, and therefore this supernatural institution which he 
set up to organize his revelations [arising out of the Incarnation] and to 
teach the supernatural truths necessary for the salvation of the soul can no 
longer deliver up any evidence of the living presence of the Holy Trinity.

Once the Roman Catholic Church dies, there can be no source of truth faithful 
to the Creator. And I believe this is the case at the present moment in 
time-space-causation.

The only source of spiritual truth or wisdom or even grace comes out of this 
experience and understanding. Therefore this is all that I can offer: the 
conviction, and perhaps the argument, that TM and Maharishi are metaphysical 
false, and that at the present time *there is no way to know God* or to make 
contact with Truth.

This is the only truth I know. Although there is more to it than this, but this 
is all that it is prudent for me to say.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[turquoiseb]

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

 Thanks Vaj, that made me feel...well...wonderful!

Good luck, Curtis. You've made your position clear,
and that as far as you are concerned the conversation
has surpassed your threshold of boringnessitude, and
thus is over.

A sane person, told this, would let it drop.

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
 
  On Jul 25, 2011, at 11:54 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
  
   It is not. It is boring. And as I mentioned before, you are 
   pissing away opportunities for discussion on your endless 
   rancorous mission to make me look bad.
  
  Fortunately for you, these back-and-forths actually end up 
  making you look better, and Judy seem strangely obsessed. 
  There's a movie waiting to be made about a Personality 
  Disordered chick who leaves her support group and withdraws 
  into her interweb world, unleashing her unknowing victims 
  with her wounded inner child. Someone should invent a Judy 
  computer virus that forces her computer to shut down and 
  makes her have to go OUTSIDE (yes Judy, that strange 
  environment with the blue and white top, with the greenish 
  looking bottom. Watch out for the moving objects on those 
  black stripy things).
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[curtisdeltablues]

Very spooky images, thanks for the back story on the song.

It isn't that I feel stalked but there is a definite I am an excellent driver, 
I am an excellent driver Rainman quality to the exchanges. There is something 
off about it all.  Combined with the ill-wishing it makes for a creepy combo.

I think the contempt she has for what she calls the Mr. Wonderful persona is 
her aversion to genuinely showing up authentically without all bravado and 
bullshittery of having to maintain her self-imagined superiority, her much 
touted higher ethical standards and need to win casual discussions. 

She does not believe she is one of the bozos on this bus. 


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ 
 wrote:
 
  I rebuke thee, I rebuke the, I rebuke thee.  Get thee behind me.
  
  (I've heard that works.) 
 
 Curtis, this whole exchange, and the concerted attempt
 to keep you in it and continually replying, never to
 escape, reminds me of an interesting song by Sarah 
 McLachlan. 
 
 There is an interesting story behind it. She wrote it
 to exorcise a guy who had been stalking her, somewhat
 dangerously. He kept writing her letters, sending her
 things, and telling her details of a love life between
 the two of them that he only imagined existed. He imag-
 ined that her song lyrics were written directly to him,
 and gave him secret messages that she returned his
 affections. When she ignored him, he persisted. When 
 she told him to get lost, he turned nasty, and started 
 to send her rape fantasies instead of roses. and she 
 had to call in the police. After they steered the sick 
 fuck to the enforced psychiatric help he'd needed for 
 some time, Sarah wrote this song to get the bad taste 
 of it all out of her mind. Many of the lyrics are 
 directly from the stalker's letters.
 
 The song became one of her biggest hits. Living well 
 is the best revenge.
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucdnm8iU-5cob=av2e
 
 Listen as the wind blows
 From across the great divide
 Voices trapped in yearning
 Memories trapped in time
 The night is my companion
 And solitude my guide
 Would I spend forever here
 And not be satisfied
 
 And I would be the one
 To hold you down
 Kiss you so hard
 I'll take your breath away
 And after I'd wipe away the tears
 Just close your eyes dear
 
 Through this world I've stumbled
 So many times betrayed
 Trying to find an honest word
 To find the truth enslaved
 Oh you speak to me in riddles and
 You speak to me in rhymes
 My body aches to breathe your breath
 You words keep me alive
 
 And I would be the one
 To hold you down
 Kiss you so hard
 I'll take your breath away
 And after I'd wipe away the tears
 Just close your eyes dear
 
 Into this night I wander
 It's morning that I dread
 Another day of knowing of
 The path I fear to tread
 Oh into the sea of waking dreams
 I follow without pride
 Nothing stands between us here
 And I won't be denied
 
 And I would be the one
 To hold you down
 Kiss you so hard
 I'll take your breath away
 And after I'd wipe away the tears
 Just close your eyes dear

Re: [FairfieldLife] One in five American men don't work: Where's the outrage?

[Denise Evans]

This article does a poor job at trying to blame unemployment and disability 
programs for exacerbating our economic situation. There are always those that 
get into the system and stay there - those are sad situations - but they do not 
represent what is going on today.  
For the large majority of the unemployed today, thank god for unemployment is 
all I can say - and it doesn't come close to paying the bills.  Unemployment is 
keeping us from full on collapse.  I have never been laid off in my life and 
have worked since the age of 14.  Most professional people I know are finding 
it takes 1-2 years to find a job and many of those are at lower levels or lower 
pay (which may not be an all bad thing - we need to reset our lifestyles). 
Those of us who are middle age are absolutely experiencing ageism...why hire 
us?  Who cares about experience in the ever- and faster- evolving and 
innovative tech industries for example?   
Yes, for many that have been laid off and who are hitting middle agea 
skills upgrade is necessary.  Technology has evolved tremendously and is 
evolving ever faster..for those of us in different lines of work, we are eons 
behind.  The manufacturing sector has been given to other countries, the 
service sector which is where many millions of jobs resided (and I mean all 
services) and which sold many intangibles is dependent on consumerism (in all 
forms).  No jobs, no consumerism, no consumerism, no jobs.  This foundational 
piece of our economy is no more, in my view.  
I was very good at what I didhowever, by becoming good I was given projects 
in my specialty and I was a senior level employee...I didn't need to diversify 
and join the tech revolution that started after I graduated from college...I 
needed to become good at my career so that I could buy a house and support my 
children in the American Dream. 
Now, until the economy returns, my specialty is not in demand - it was tied to 
the housing industry and commercial development and infrastructure.  I am 
competing with younger, more attractive people when I do look.  I'm no longer 
willing to work unlimited hours. I no longer can. Corporate america has laid 
off thousands of us middle-aging, experienced workers.  Yes, we need a skills 
upgrade, we need to shift careerswho is going to pay for that...corporate 
america?


--- On Mon, 7/25/11, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net wrote:

From: Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] One in five American men don't work: Where's the 
outrage?
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, July 25, 2011, 9:17 AM















 
 



  



  
  
  On 07/25/2011 04:07 AM, Tom Pall wrote:

 http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/25/unemployment-job-skills-training/?iid=HP_LN





Welcome to the new leisure society, Thom.  You're working too hard. ;-)



From the article:



The longer a worker is unemployed, the farther he or she falls behind 

in sellable skills in a fast-paced global economy.  The term sellable 

skils (probably should be salable skills) tells it all.  In a 

capitalist society everyone has to have something to sell.  IOW, we're 

all basically a prostitute.  The trick is to find something you enjoy 

doing that someone or everyone wants.  Either buying your time or your 

product.



As for any old job we're probably running out of those with a world 

population of 7 billion people. Apparently the majority aren't bright 

enough to figure that out so they'll just keep pounding their heads 

against the wall.






 





 



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

at_man_and_brahman,

It may well be that I have mistaken what RC is going through. 'Falling' from 
unity is metaphorical. It is just a shift in perspective. Have you noticed the 
strong emotional content of RC's writing? There seems to be a substantial 
emotional attachment to something here (the memory of Maharishi?), and to some 
other ideas. Perhaps he is in purgatory, something that may happen if awakening 
is not complete.

You are correct in my not reading his posts in their entirety, I just scan 
them; their actual content, as Barry pointed out, is rather brief, but like 
Bevan Morris can talk for hours saying the same thing over and over, it is 
usually not necessary to spend time with the entire output. But then one can 
certainly miss something. And RC's mode of exposition is very complex. 
Sometimes I just want to eat a sandwich, and not eat a ten course meal, each 
course of which is the same sandwich, with a slightly different sauce.

With regard to unity and waking state, they are not actually different from one 
another. This is the mystery of enlightenment, the mystery of Maya. There is a 
complete simplicity in life, and RC does not breathe simplicity.

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

 I don't think he fell from unity. Though he refuses to describe his 
 methodology, he has made it clear that he intentionally forced his 
 consciousness into waking state. I hypothesize that a person in true, 
 card-carrying unity--THE WHOLE THING, THE REAL THING--can intentionally shift 
 his frame of reference back into waking state, though it must be horrendous 
 to do so, not unlike dying and then intentionally pushing your soul back into 
 your slimy, disgusting dead body, reanimating it. Though extremely 
 improbable, it seems theoretically possible. I contend that this is what 
 Robin has done, and that he has done this in response to a mistaken 
 confidence in the Aquinas paradigm.
 
 Several people who've answered my questions, now and in the past, regarding 
 RC seem to have not read his posts very effectively. I appreciate your 
 thoughts, but I don't think you understand what he's been trying to 
 communicate to FFL.
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ 
 wrote:
 
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, at_man_and_brahman 
  at_man_and_brahman@ wrote:
  
   My puzzlement about the unique claims of Robin Carlson continues. Here's 
   a new thought. 
   
   Premise: waking state consciousness is derivative of unity consciousness, 
   which is to say that unity is a natural state from which man has 
   fallen. If that is true, and if Robin indeed attained unity, perhaps 
   his later intellectual conviction that unity falsely represented reality 
   set up a fascinating, if improbable, sequence of events. If unity can 
   accidentally, if you will, forget its own status and fragment into waking 
   state, then would it be impossible for a person in unity to 
   *intentionally* deconstruct unity and reestablish, artificially, waking 
   state? If so, such an event could be predicated on an intellectual 
   mistake, which surely could befall even those in unity.
   
   Perhaps nobody else gives a shit, but I'm still chewing on this one. I do 
   hope he eventually tries to answer my question about UTs 1.0, 2.0, and 
   3.0. That should be interesting.
   
   He appears to be lurking, so the bait is tossed.
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, at_man_and_brahman 
  at_man_and_brahman@ wrote:
  
   My puzzlement about the unique claims of Robin Carlson continues. Here's 
   a new thought. 
   
   Premise: waking state consciousness is derivative of unity consciousness, 
   which is to say that unity is a natural state from which man has 
   fallen. If that is true, and if Robin indeed attained unity, perhaps 
   his later intellectual conviction that unity falsely represented reality 
   set up a fascinating, if improbable, sequence of events. If unity can 
   accidentally, if you will, forget its own status and fragment into waking 
   state, then would it be impossible for a person in unity to 
   *intentionally* deconstruct unity and reestablish, artificially, waking 
   state? If so, such an event could be predicated on an intellectual 
   mistake, which surely could befall even those in unity.
   
   Perhaps nobody else gives a shit, but I'm still chewing on this one. I do 
   hope he eventually tries to answer my question about UTs 1.0, 2.0, and 
   3.0. That should be interesting.
   
   He appears to be lurking, so the bait is tossed.
  
  
  What you have written here is exactly the case. Unity is always before us, 
  but there is like a fog that obscures the view. Whatever its cause, and 
  whatever we call that cause is not that important, though in the TMO it is 
  called 'stress'. What I say here presupposes the common view that this 
  'stress' is completely gone by the state 

[FairfieldLife] Dome Exclusion was Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Buck]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@... wrote:

 On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 12:01 PM, wayback71 wayback71@... wrote:
 
 
 
  Me,too.  Bevan and John did not invent the dome badge rules or the whole 
  set of TMO rules.  The rajas and higher ups are simply following 
  Maharishi's very clear and long standing policies.  I am sure that they 
  believe that adjusting these rules would be the beginning of a slippery 
  slide into all sorts of impurity of the teaching challenges.  They are 
  devotees doing their  very best to honor their Master. These are MMYs 
  wishes and rules, and things will not change as long as this generation of 
  devotees - who actually spent time with MMY - are in charge.  It is 
  possible that if MMY were alive now, he would loosen things up, but no one 
  in charge now will make that decision in Maharishi's place.  It is the way 
  it is and will stay the same and Bevan and John can not be blamed for this. 
   Maharishi did this.
 
 Hey, everybody, notice how I snipped 4 levels of posts on top of
 posts?   Notice how I changed the subject to something more germane to
 where the thread has gone?   We have world class gurus (in their own
 mind) and scholars of every sort (in their own mind) yet few have
 grasped onto the reality that this is not a bridge where you just
 spray paint your sentiments.
 
 Indeed, Maharishi's rules are being followed.   To keep the domes
 pure?   Doubtful.  Maharishi believed he had the one and only true
 technique.  At least that's the way he peddled it.  That's the way he
 taught his teachers to peddle it.   Indeed, why would someone in his
 right mind want to learn something else from another saint or vary
 their practice?  He cognized or pulled out of his ass the true way of
 doing everything:  Ayurveda, Vastu, Jyotish, Yagyas, making honey,
 music?   His version was the right version, which is why he (TM)ed or
 (SM)ed it.   Would Maharishi be loosening the rules now?  Maybe, maybe
 not.   If you had some bad marks against you in the past, you could
 get your slate wiped clean by signing up for one of Maharishi's
 endless SAVE THE WORLD WPAs.   Once you got your slate wiped clean by
 attending that WPA, you we home free.  In the good graces of the TMO
 again.   Would he be freeing things up now?   I doubt it?   He was
 delusional for at least a decade before he died.   Paranoid before
 that.   Note the heavy security which protected Maharishi when his
 former minion Deepak and his wife went to visit him in Vloodrup.
 
 Right now there's yet another true believer check going on with DEVCO.
   People on IA are being called in for review of their loyalty and
 right thinking.   Is this just DEVCO being extra cautious?  IMO, no.
 This is DEVCO responding to instructions they've received from the
 Bardo.

[FairfieldLife] Dome Exclusion was Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Buck]

 
  On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 12:01 PM, wayback71 wayback71@ wrote:
  
  
  
   Me,too.  Bevan and John did not invent the dome badge rules or the whole 
   set of TMO rules.  The rajas and higher ups are simply following 
   Maharishi's very clear and long standing policies.  I am sure that they 
   believe that adjusting these rules would be the beginning of a slippery 
   slide into all sorts of impurity of the teaching challenges.  They are 
   devotees doing their  very best to honor their Master. These are MMYs 
   wishes and rules, and things will not change as long as this generation 
   of devotees - who actually spent time with MMY - are in charge.  It is 
   possible that if MMY were alive now, he would loosen things up, but no 
   one in charge now will make that decision in Maharishi's place.  It is 
   the way it is and will stay the same and Bevan and John can not be blamed 
   for this.  Maharishi did this.
  

That is true. This is also their choice, and look where the meditating dome 
numbers are.  At the time of M's death they were given responsibility  and 
authority to manage as they see best.  Last summer the more conservative 
elements inside won out over more progressive elements in re-affirming the old 
guidelines as Maharishi had them and stiffening them some.  Substantially not a 
lot has changed other than things like the students can wear bluejeans.
  
In more recent weeks they had to augment the apparent 'meditating' dome numbers 
again by bringing another group of 200 Indian pandit boys over.  The criteria 
for success is now shifted over to how many pandits they have chanting in Vedic 
City from more strictly looking at the combined dome numbers that include the 
pandits.  The fundamental problem evidently is in retaining meditators. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[emptybill]

So do you say that you never claimed to be a ,
Mason, a Nath, a Dzogchen-pa on this forum?

What is your Hindu sampradaya?
What is your Buddhist lineage?
So you claim to have none?

Where/When did you learn TM.
Who was your initiator?
You claim to have learned the TM-Sidhis program.
Where/When?


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


 On Jul 25, 2011, at 10:43 AM, emptybill wrote:

  These are the sources the poet-pandit used -
  and that which was demanded be discarded
  by HH Swami Brahmananda Saraswati.
  He found it vile and demanded it's destruction.
 
  Mahesh, lying to his own guru, kept it and repurposed
  it for fun and $ and to fool westerners enamored with the east
 
  So you claim this is on Paul Mason's website? Where?

 No I didn't claim that.

 Read it again.

 
 
  Where/When did you learn TM. Who was your initiator?
  You claim to have learned the TM-Sidhis program.
  Where/When?
 
  You claim to be a Mason, a Nath, a Dzogchen-pa.
  What is your sampradaya, both Hindu and Buddhist?.
  You have none.

 That's not true either. Stop making up lies and mind your own
 business, I'm not your teacher. You sure do seem to be a slow learner.

[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ

[sparaig]

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

 I appreciate this thought, and agree this his actions and intentions while in 
 unity appear askew. However, given that, in the TM Universe, Maharishi 
 himself defined unity consciousness and to my understanding initially agreed 
 that Robin was in it, to conclude independently of Maharishi that Robin was 
 not in u.c. is troublesome. It adds too many complications to the story. 


Saying that someone's experiences of Unity is not the same as saying someone is 
fully in Unity.

BTW, MMY definitely said that a test of Unity is if you can perform any and all 
of the sidhis to perfection. Robin and every other person proclaiming 
themselves in Unity on this forum rejects this claim (I presume because they 
can't pass the test).

I mention this to my non-meditating friends and they laugh long and hard 
because it is obvious. the reason WHY this test is rejected as being valid.


L.

[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ

[sparaig]

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

 I don't think he fell from unity. Though he refuses to describe his 
 methodology, he has made it clear that he intentionally forced his 
 consciousness into waking state. I hypothesize that a person in true, 
 card-carrying unity--THE WHOLE THING, THE REAL THING--can intentionally shift 
 his frame of reference back into waking state, though it must be horrendous 
 to do so, not unlike dying and then intentionally pushing your soul back into 
 your slimy, disgusting dead body, reanimating it. Though extremely 
 improbable, it seems theoretically possible. I contend that this is what 
 Robin has done, and that he has done this in response to a mistaken 
 confidence in the Aquinas paradigm.
 
 Several people who've answered my questions, now and in the past, regarding 
 RC seem to have not read his posts very effectively. I appreciate your 
 thoughts, but I don't think you understand what he's been trying to 
 communicate to FFL.


The reason why he rejects his Unity as being real is because he fails MMY's 
test. However, he is convinced that his was/is the true Unity, so MMY's test 
can't be valid.

Great paradoxical thinking.


L.

[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote:

 Well the only logical thing that you missed was there could have been a
 purpose behind why MMY would have declared RC in Unity and then out of
 it. I believe the latter would be the right one based upon RC's postings
 here, and I don't buy that you can come out of Unity. RC's postings here
 and his relating of the actual experience is a good illustration that
 his so called Unity was nothing but an intellectual deception.


I have never heard that MMY declared Robin to be fully enlightened with no more 
growth possible. only that his experiences were sufficiently valid to have him 
describe them to other TM teachers.


Not THAT subtle a distinction, you know?


L.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Visit with Amma

[Denise Evans]

You do appear to take what you like and leave the restshe absolutely 
asserts herself as the divine mother and is uniformly referred to as such by 
everyone I attended the retreat with.  Doesn't Amma mean mother?  Many of the 
devotees I met had some far off, spaced out look - what is up with that look in 
the eye?  I felt like.where are you? was the appropriate question.
If you believe that with her grace, life is easier, than so it is.  For me, 
grace is a very comforting thing as well.  If I keep it simple, it works.
I appreciate her big picture message of love and compassion - the concept of 
spreading this message is a good thing and she reaches millions.  However, her 
energy appears to desire and elicit worship - the message to pray to Amma was 
embedded in all aspects of the retreat. But then, in the Hindu tradition, one 
does subjugate oneself to one's guru.  I was just raised without an emotional 
attachment to any religion - it isn't a natural thing for me to worship a 
guruor Jesus either for that matter.  I have never believed that he was 
God, yet I do believe he was also a very very special person with a similar 
message of love and compassion (that was corrupted through interpretation).  
When people get confused and start giving their life force over to someone 
elsedangerous things can happen.

--- On Mon, 7/25/11, Ravi Yogi raviy...@att.net wrote:

From: Ravi Yogi raviy...@att.net
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Visit with Amma
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, July 25, 2011, 12:24 AM















 
 



  



  
  
  
I don't consider Amma as an avatar or divine mother, IMO most who do are just 
engaging in an intellectual concept. Not that there's anything wrong with it, 
since the very faith, trust transforms. However IME she is definitely a Satguru 
and a very very rare and a special person, not considering her as an avatar or 
divine mother is not at all a handicap by any means. The key is not outside of 
you, it's just that with her grace it so much easier.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Denise Evans dmevans365@... wrote:

 That explains itI knew there was a reason were were praying to Amma as 
 God -  or God and Goddess as the case may be!
 What about Jesus?  Does he qualify as an avatar?  
 
 Interestingly, I met a woman who travels extensively to follow both Amma and 
 Mother Meera.  She's lower key at this point, but so was Amma at one point 
 before celebrity hit.
 
 --- On Sun, 7/24/11, fflmod fflmod@... wrote:
 
 From: fflmod fflmod@...
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Visit with Amma
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Sunday, July 24, 2011, 2:26 PM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
   
   
   
 
 
 
 Amma is an avatar, an incarnation of the divine. Not a karmic human at all. 
 That is why the name of Amma is prevalent throughout the bhajans and 
 elsewhere. There is no difference between praying to God and praying to an 
 avatar. A familiar example of this is how in MMY's Gita, Krishna is referred 
 to as the Lord.
 
 
 
 An interesting case is that of Mother Meera. Mother Meera is also an avatar 
 and recommends that seekers do japa (repeating the name of the divine as 
 often during the day as possible) to Mother Meera. Yet, Mother Meera is as 
 far from being a guru-led organization  and/or a cult as can be.   
 
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dmevans365 dmevans365@ wrote:
 
 
 
  I am writing this as an account of my and my children's participation in a 
  recent Amma retreat. As background: I was laid off a stressful job in 
  corporate america in January after many years in a deadline-driven career.  
  We were invited by a friend to attend the retreat. I was curious and 
  interested in meeting a saint who supposedly embodies the concepts of 
  love and compassion. I have no background in the Hindu religion, Indian 
  culture, or guru philosophy. I am not religious but believe in God, as 
  the universe and nature, and our ability to access and receive personal 
  guidance and help from the source energy. I believe that God is love. I 
  attended with my heart wide open to possibilities and encouraged my kids to 
  do the same.
 
  
 
  I attended the free program on Friday around 3 in the afternoon to 
  introduce myself to the environment I had signed us up for the following 3 
  days. Loud Indian chant music was playing, many things were being sold, 
  people were standing in line, the energy in the room was apparent. I 
  purchased white clothing and a book and a cute little tiny Amma doll for 
  myself and the kids. I had little idea what to expect, having never 
  attended anything quite like this, but stayed in place of non-judgement 
  and was excited.
 
  
 
  Over the next three days, I followed the program plan schedule.   Receiving 
  a hug from Amma was not like any hug I've ever received in that we were all 
  physically positioned, but 

[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote:
 
  Well the only logical thing that you missed was there could have been a
  purpose behind why MMY would have declared RC in Unity and then out of
  it. I believe the latter would be the right one based upon RC's postings
  here, and I don't buy that you can come out of Unity. RC's postings here
  and his relating of the actual experience is a good illustration that
  his so called Unity was nothing but an intellectual deception.
 
 
 That's been my position also since he started posting here. I don't think he 
 ever was in any other Unity than we all are (did you notice how I've learned 
 from Rory ? :-))
 
 I also doubt Maharishi ever comfirmed his unity, if anyone except Robin 
 actually heard him confirm, this person has certainly not come forward as far 
 as I know. Which only strengthens the suspision that his socalled unity was 
 a creation by his intellect only.


What I heard was that MMY asked RC to address the TM teachers on his course 
about his experiences in Unity. But this is no more full-blown Unity than 
having experiences of witnessing, dreaming and sleeping for years at a time is 
full-blown Cosmic Consciousness.

There are further signs of full CC that no-one has had so far (like 
transcending for their entire meditation period), and likewise signs of full 
Unity that no-one has had so far (like being able to do any and all siddhis at 
will).

An experience on the path may be valid, but it isn't the end of the path...

L

[FairfieldLife] Re: Swing in music?

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... 
wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote:
 
  
  I've often heard that swing is rather hard to define.
  How would youse define it?
 
 I would define it as something I'd rather not listen to.


Isn't Swing purely dancing music?

Most square dance music isn't all that great to listen to but if you're caught 
up in the dance itself, its fun.


L.

[FairfieldLife] The Quote of the Decade

[Mike Dixon]

 
The Quote of the Decade
 
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a 
sign of leadership failure.  It is a sign that the US Government can not pay 
its own bills.  It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial 
assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal 
policies.  Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and 
internationally.  Leadership means that, the buck stops here.'  Instead, 
Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our 
children and grandchildren.   America has a debt problem and a failure of 
leadership. Americans deserve better.”
 
WHO COULD HAVE SAID THAT???
 
 
-- Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006 

[FairfieldLife] The character arch of Elmer Gantry

[Bob Price]

For the unenlightened.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8FaDaTD_hAfeature=related


When I was a child, I spake as a child, I felt as a child, 
I thought as a child: now that I am become a man, 
I have put away childish things.


Paul the Apostle
1 Corinthians 13:11

I understand character arch as the way a character changes 
as it overcomes or falls back from obstacles presented
throughout a narrative.

As has been previously posted, characters are generally flat
(limited or no change) or round (change with an arch that 
satisfies the audience). I think the original poster was implying
 that FFL is also populated by flat and round characters.   

I believe, the character arch of ELMER GANTRY is undeniable
and the reason the ending works so well, as with all good 
endings, is that it encourages the audience to make up their 
own minds about the nature of Elmer's arch.

Two of many interpretations of the ending might be:

'Elmer will change careers and stop selling people fairy tales that
allow them to avoid the fear and hopelessness they feel in their lives.'

or

'Elmer realized he needs to deal with his own fears of being
independent and will establish his own following, increase his
prices and stop leaving so much profit on the table.

Since life imitates art I prefer the second option. IMO,
it takes into account his audience which as we see on FFL
has no interest in changing.

RE: [FairfieldLife] The Quote of the Decade

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf Of Mike Dixon
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 1:11 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] The Quote of the Decade

 

  


The Quote of the Decade

 

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a 
sign of leadership failure.  It is a sign that the US Government can not pay 
its own bills.  It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance 
from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.  
Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally.  
Leadership means that, the buck stops here.'  Instead, Washington is shifting 
the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and 
grandchildren.   America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. 
Americans deserve better.”

 

WHO COULD HAVE SAID THAT???

 

 

-- Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

 



Obama: I think that it's important to understand the vantage point of a 
senator versus the vantage point of a president. When you're a senator, 
traditionally what's happened is, this is always a lousy vote. Nobody likes to 
be tagged as having increased the debt limit - for the United States by a 
trillion dollars. As president, you start realizing, you know what, we, we 
can't play around with this stuff. This is the full faith and credit of the 
United States. And so that was just an example of a new senator making what is 
a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country. And 
I'm the first one to acknowledge it.
From 
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/29/barack-obama/obama-regrets-2006-vote-against-raising-debt-limit/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Mark Landau]

On Jul 25, 2011, at 8:14 AM, authfriend wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mark Landau m@... wrote
 
 I suspect your usefulness to others here has a long way to
 go before it dwindles, but it's certainly your call. More
 important is whether it's useful to yourself.
 
Thank you, we'll see.  It definitely has been helpful, though it's taking far 
more of my time and energy than may be good for me.
 
  But I really did have resistance to the flying. I think I
  was the last one in my group to start. I remember saying
  something like Can you imagine angels doing this? This
  seems like it's more for monkeys. It seemed very
  undignified to me.
 
 Very unlikely on its face as a means to development of
 consciousness, but obviously what happens inside is
 of more significance than the outward appearance.
 
 
Of course

  But once I started I did have a lot of thrilling bliss with it. 
 
 I took the flying block at MUM with my then-boyfriend.
 Shortly after we began the actual practice, my boyfriend
 started feeling utterly miserable physically and 
 psychically. He was told to stay in his room and given a
 special program; his meals were brought to him. He never
 told me what the program involved. The second day of this,
 I paid him a (strictly verboten) visit. He looked
 frighteningly haggard; he looked *dark*. I was worried
 that the special program wasn't doing him any good. He
 did tell me he hadn't done any hopping in the flying hall.
 
 But he stuck with it, and a few days later emerged
 seemingly transformed. He went back to the flying hall,
 started hopping almost immediately, and glowed with bliss
 for the remainder of the course.
 
 Me, I started hopping the third or fourth day, with a
 bit of insomnia the first couple of nights my only
 negative experience. I certainly enjoyed it, but I
 didn't have any bliss until years of regular practice
 later. For me the benefits were and still are more in
 daily life than in program.
 
 I suppose the bottom line is that we all get what we
 need, one way or the other, and that it's folly to
 judge our experiences by comparing them with those of
 others.
 
 
Thanks for this.  I didn't have any symptoms.  Just no impulse to hop and 
resistance to the outer seeming absurdity.
 

[FairfieldLife] Dome Exclusion was Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[Buck]

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@ wrote:
 
  Right now there's yet another true believer check going on with DEVCO.
People on IA are being called in for review of their loyalty and
  right thinking.   Is this just DEVCO being extra cautious?  IMO, no.
  This is DEVCO responding to instructions they've received from the
  Bardo.
 


Yep they work at it, collecting information like police work.  They figured out 
their policy last month a little more relative to not supporting other saints 
and being able to 'see saints, but don't bring anything back'.
They are more strictly after people who may have 'brought things back' from 
visiting the other saints, they are after people who support other spiritual 
teachers, and after those who use or employ joytish services other than the TM 
offered programs.

[FairfieldLife] Re: One in five American men don't work: Where's the outrage?

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@... wrote:

 http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/25/unemployment-job-skills-training/?iid=HP_LN


Gee, one in 2 African American men don't work, where's the outrage?
On some reservations, its like 2/3 during parts of the year.

L.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[sparaig]

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

 
 On Jul 25, 2011, at 3:43 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
 
  You'll notice that no one ever takes her up on her offer
  to document everything. The readers don't care because
  1) they've heard it all before, 2) because her obsession
  with these enemies never mattered to them in the first
  place, and 3) because they have lives.
 
 bell sounds That is the correct answer! You win a chain of  
 insulting email messages from J. Stein, editor at large! ;-)



But neither of you are claiming #4: she's lying.

Why is that, I wonder...


L.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[sparaig]

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

 
 On Jul 25, 2011, at 12:40 AM, emptybill wrote:
 
  Vag - you are a fool who cannot provide
  your sources because you have none. You
  just read this stuff and make believe. This is
  why you bullshit everyone here.
 
 
 My source was Paul Mason you idiot. We've talked about it in  
 considerable detail.


Paul Mason interviews people with an ax to grind. THis is called one side of 
the story.

L.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Quote of the Decade

[John]

I'm voting for a third party candidate in the next Congressional election.  A 
third party official would check the ideological stalemate in Congress today.  



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... wrote:

 
 
 
 
 
  
 The Quote of the Decade
  
 “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit 
 is a sign of leadership failure.  It is a sign that the US Government can 
 not pay its own bills.  It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing 
 financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's 
 reckless fiscal policies.  Increasing America 's debt weakens us 
 domestically and internationally.  Leadership means that, the buck stops 
 here.'  Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today 
 onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.   America has a debt 
 problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
  
 WHO COULD HAVE SAID THAT???
  
  
 -- Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006