[FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy]
Thanks Steve - Yes I do know that :-), it takes a special man to make that phone call and there weren't many who did that, some who emailed. I do remember all of them. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: Ravi, you only inspire affection in me. That's the truth. Good luck with the move. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: Okay, I'll give you Robin, but Ravi, I don't think so. He's got a real problem with the divine vodka. I think what Bob has been trying to do is entice Ravi to join a 12 step program, but Ravi seems to be having none of it. Steve, you are kidding right? Like Rory says I'm Absolut-ly drunk on the divine vodka. I have already walked the seven steps with the divine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saat_phera --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: Damn Rory, when you choose to stay in one lane, or should I say one plane, you can make a darn funny post. Fun stuff. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: Very laudable indeed, Sir! Your most economical choice of only three nails, albeit almost certainly less comfortable, would represent a savings of XXV per centum to the Empire. Since you so clearly uphold the greater good, you could not possibly be the selfish, narcissistic insurrectionist your detractors have claimed you to be. Enough Pontificating -- I wash my hands of the entire affair, and declare you now and forever a Free Man. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Three works, and right side up please! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: * * Don't mind if I do, Jim! Which would you prefer -- three nails or four? :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Damn Rory - Nail me to a cross! :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Denise Evans dmevans365@ wrote: Ravi, not to worryI am well-aware that I do not have the IQ or creative skill-set needed to maintain a heady riff with the experts on this site..I disassociate when necessary. This should be fairly evident by now.  I jump in here and there when my neurons connect in a moment of spontaneous thought - not original thought, just spontaneous. Mostly, the posts on this forum (those that I actually fathom on any level) entertain and inform me greatly - and for this I am grateful, as I see myself as a bit of an energy vampire at this moment in my life, and I know that I really don't belong here amongst the shining stars of enlightened diction. * * Well said, Denise; being without the three gunas, we really don't belong anywhere. The foxes have holes, and the birds of the sky have nests, but the [Daughter] of [Wo]Man has no place to lay [Her] head. For the heartbreaking beauty of it all is this: when the rug is yanked out from beneath our feet once and for all, we hang in freefall forever here and now, suspended alone, all-one, forever amidst the ever-singing stars. And so in apparently belonging nowhere, we really belong now here, and now here belongs heartfully to us, for we are not of them, but they are of us. And those galaxies of ever-murmuring shining stars are nothing but our childish thoughts, who nourished by our soma-milk, feed vampire-like upon our love, and hang a-tremble on our softest breath -- the beauty of our body and our blood. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tat Wale Baba/Discourse on Self-Realization
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: I put this in quotes because I have attained absolutely nothing -- consists only in stripping away all of my beliefs and stories, deconstructing them all... I don't even believe that for one quadrillionth of a second, Rory! * * As you well know, Jim: That is not to be believed, only understood and lived :-)
[FairfieldLife] For Robin - Lady Gaga quotes Osho
Something I saw on Facebook tonight. http://www.oshonews.com/2011/09/lady-gaga-quotes-osho/ http://www.oshonews.com/2011/09/lady-gaga-quotes-osho/ http://entertainment.xin.msn.com/en/celebrity/blogs/hollywood/Lady-Gaga.\ aspx?cp-documentid=5209432 http://entertainment.xin.msn.com/en/celebrity/blogs/hollywood/Lady-Gaga\ .aspx?cp-documentid=5209432 Her latest public declaration during the acceptance of the MTV Video Music award was her sharing a quote by Osho with her fans through her Twitter account: Creativity is the greatest rebellion in existence.
[FairfieldLife] [sorry] Super slim and sexy??
We'll go ahead and say it: the Nokia 700 is a looker of a phone. Super slim and sexy, it's got what it takes to be a crowd pleaser. There's a lot for it to prove and this preview is but a glimpse of what the Nokia 700 has to offer. Let's not keep it waiting. http://www.gsmarena.com/nokia_700-review-643.php
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tat Wale Baba/Discourse on Self-Realization
Dear Robin, RG: It is always -- and I mean *always* -- a pleasure to commune with you, RC, and I wholeheartedly appreciate your living presence here as fully (as far as I can tell) as you do mine. I agree with you that to a certain (pretty farflung) extent, the universe will happily support whatever we choose to believe. My attainment -- such as it is; I put this in quotes because I have attained absolutely nothing -- consists only in stripping away all of my beliefs and stories, deconstructing them all, much as Curtis believes he has done with and to TWB's. RESPONSE: Consider this, Rory: Curtis goes into your state of consciousness (or subjective experience which produces your perspective on reality and forms your philosophy); you, on the other hand, go into his state of consciousness (or subjective experience which produces his perspective on reality and forms his philosophy). For me, Rory, there would be a inexpressible loss in the case of Curtis becoming a believer and exponent of the Rory view of the cosmosbecause, as far as I can tell, everything that is wonderfully poignant and audacious and humble and warlike about Curtis would be flattened outthe glory of God is found in a personality such as Curtis's. On the other hand, contemplating you re-individuating yourself as a Curtis type of person (in principle honouring your intense individualism, the singularity and self-containment of your ego self), would be a marvellous surprise and something I for one would pay money to see. Rory becoming only Rory, jettisoning the entire mystical context of his life, and becoming in his own Rory-way, just as feisty and bold and skeptical as Curtis. As a thought experiment, it seems, to me at least, to prove my point. I would love to know Rory as a purely Western Civilization person. Without a trace of the East touching his personal consciousnessjust to feel and experience what this Rory would be like. Curtis to abandon who he is to merge into the wholeness of it all, that would be, let me be candid here, tragic, a terrible loss of something so distinct and noble and stubbornly beautiful. If one thinks about what is the secret of lifesupposing there is onethe personal vitality and danger that is represented in the individuality of Curtis seems so much more likely to be going towards that secret than the cosmic tranquility and emptying of self that is the obsession and achievement of Tat Wale Baba. RG: So I don't believe TWB is telling it like it is in some objective sense; this would be impossible for me, anyway, as I can find no truly objective sense; I can only know anything though my subjectivity. I only know he touches me (no, Curtis, not like that) where I AM; he expresses the naked IT IS in me. RESPONSE: I don't doubt you here, Rory, but you see the whole point of my response to the extraordinarily real analysis of Curtis (of TWB's lecture) is that there is more intelligence, beauty, fight, truth, humour, playfulness, multi-facetedness in all that Curtis says; whereas juxtaposed to Curtis's inspired critique, what Tat Wale Baba says seems blissful, imagined, mystical, even hallucinatory: *TWB doesn't connect to life as life wishes to be known inside the experience of individual created beings*. Curtis, atheist that he is, represents the personal history of every human being who has ever livedit is a kind of universal perspective on Hinduism (Maharishi-ism) that, just in what it commands in its articulation wins the day. If Tat Wale Baba is talking about something ultimately real, how is it that Curtis can get away with condemning him so convincingly? If life, the universe, reality is embodied in Tat Wale Baba *there should some resistance and blow-back when someone like Curtis attempts to do away with this truth, making it seem inimical to the truly flourishing human life. Whereas when I read the brilliant rebuttal of Curtis, I hear the universe singing: Thank you, Curtis. Thank you, Curtis. And Tat Wal Baba, he has no reply to Curtis. If, Rory, he had a reply, he would have to surround what Curtis has said, and demonstrate that his perspective was not only larger than Curtis's, contained more reality, but actually put what Curtis says *inside his own perspective* such as to allow us to see its intrinsic inferiority. For Tat Wale Baba to have any come-back to Curtis means that his own state of consciousness has to contain the smaller perspective of Curtis. Does it? I don't think so. In fact I think it the reverse of this: Curtis understands Tat Wale Baba perfectly. Tat Wale Baba could not say anything in defence of his cosmic status which would even begin to answer to Curtis indictment of TWB. Indictment here means: the deprivation of individual experience and life that necessarily is implied in holding to the view of TWB. What this gets to, RoryIMOis where the objective does indeed intersect with the subjective. TWB *has* to be articulating
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tat Wale Baba/Discourse on Self-Realization
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: Rory, Well one truth I have to get over is this: that there is someone out there (you) who is espousing a philosophyand self-mediated experiencewhich still makes you come off as a loving, intelligent, positive, and generous human being. This definitely does not add up for me, since I would have assumed, since your personal metaphysic is false (according to meand I think, to Curtis), this will be revealed in the context within which you present yourselfoblivious as you would have to be to this. But you are such a winning person that, I guess, I must simply ignore what you say (by way of your strict self-orthodoxy of enlightenment), and just enjoy everything else about you. Because life, it seems, doesn't care to set you straight. No, more than this: life evidently approves of your notion of oneness of yourself with all of creation. Else it (life) would tend (at least in my belief system) to confront you, and it would not be pretty. Look, for example, what happened to Maharishi. I think, despite a mystical philosophy that coincides with Tat Wale Baba's (which I, like Curtis, consider, in opposition to realityperhaps Curtis, though, would not put it that way), it is the quality of the person that you are which nature, God, reality approves of. You are just extremely likeable and live an honest and sincere and sacrificial life. At least this is the only way I can add it up, Rory; else, because of the discrepancy (as marked out by myself) between what you experience to be true, and what actually is true (Aquinas versus Tat Wale Baba), there tend to negative consequencesbecause of your not apprehending life in an objective way. But this doesn't matter. You are thriving. And I like feeling the presence of you in the universe. I know there are many others (perhaps not quite so committed to the living truthfulness of their spiritual attainment) on FFL who have the same essential beliefs as yourself: e.g. that Tat Wale Baba is telling it like it really is.And they don't suffer because of this either. I agree with Rory and Tatwale Baba and I'm also a mean fucking enlightened SOB, I also enjoy and suffer with equal intensity. Does that help the members of the COC (Church of Curtis or was it Christ?) refine their POV? COC - is it just 2 members so far - a pimp and a prodigal pimp? I suppose I have to chalk all this up to the fact that: since God has gone out of his universe, everything is up for grabs. God hasn't gone out, he is a real tricky bastard, he is masquerading and enjoying life in its fullest through you, me and everyone else. And as long as you are sincere and live in some sense an ethical life (sense of honour, justice, truth), you can afford to believe almost anything. Huh? It's not a question of belief or ethics. Because the Outside of the Church there is no salvation idea is metaphysically defunct. Always a shining heart there, Rory. Thanks. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: * * All kulturkampf and kidding aside, TWB shows me that he understands, appreciates, makes love to, IS the unspeakable and unthinkable core of who I AM in a radically fundamental way that you and Curtis at this moment, as lovable and charming and delightful and sincere and appreciative and psychologically mature as you certainly are, do not.
[FairfieldLife] Re: For Robin - Lady Gaga quotes Osho
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: Something I saw on Facebook tonight. http://www.oshonews.com/2011/09/lady-gaga-quotes-osho/ http://www.oshonews.com/2011/09/lady-gaga-quotes-osho/ http://entertainment.xin.msn.com/en/celebrity/blogs/hollywood/Lady-Gaga.\ aspx?cp-documentid=5209432 http://entertainment.xin.msn.com/en/celebrity/blogs/hollywood/Lady-Gaga\ .aspx?cp-documentid=5209432 Her latest public declaration during the acceptance of the MTV Video Music award was her sharing a quote by Osho with her fans through her Twitter account: Creativity is the greatest rebellion in existence. RESPONSE: I never have viewed LG as *knowing* what life is all about. I have only loved her (and still love her) *for who she is* and for her art. That she quotes Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh just shows she is confused somewhere. But, if you will permit me, 'God' is protecting LG from being corrupted or sullied by lifeat least in some fatal way. She can say all kinds of things (in terms of enunciating some derivative mystical philosophy. But how she comes off in person in speaking from her own experience, she is wonderful and charming and innocent and true. Someday I hope I can set her straight about Osho. (I hope he is not viewed by yourself as a Guru to be revered. But if so, so be it. I have known very personally someone who spend a great deal of time with Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, so I am inclined to think I know the manwhat he was like, his influence, his schtick.) But I appreciate learning this. Lady Gaga doesn't know herself (even as she thinks she does). But she has a special destiny. As Tony Bennett has recently declared: She is going to be more famous than Elvis. I don't think it's an argument against vegetarianism (although I am no longer one) that Hitler insisted on a meat-free diet. Nor, allowing for the mystical arrogance and pride and self-satisfaction that somehow I get off of this quote, that this idea of Osho's is devoid of meaning. But he was one mega BSer, that Osho guy. Lady Gaga for me is all about being a lovely girlwith incredible talent. Without any inner distortion. And she is as serious in her mission (which is all good) as anyone I have ever seen. Thus her concentration as Jo Calderone.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Credos: the will to believe vs. the wish to find out
I feel gratitude to the Buddha for pointing out that what we struggle against all our lives can be acknowledged as ordinary experience - Pema Chodren, The Places that Scare You --- On Tue, 9/13/11, turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Credos: the will to believe vs. the wish to find out To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2011, 8:50 AM I've always loved one of the quotes that Rick chose to include on the FFL home page. It's become one of my credos in life. The quote is from Bertrand Russell: What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite. I think Bert just nailed it. The distinction he draws between those whose allegiance is to existing belief and those whose allegiance is to finding out -- no matter what belief may say -- is pretty fundamental. Not just in the spiritual world, but in the outside world as well. Think about the clash between Muslim society and more secular Western society. Think about the Neoconservatives and their war against science. Think about fundamentalists of any stripe vs. pretty much everybody else. :-) I think Rick was wise to include this quote on the Fairfield Life home page. It really *captures* the spirit of the place. This is a place where the wish to find out is as valued as highly as the will to believe. Almost no belief is off limits here, elevated to such a lofty pedestal as to be considered Truth. Not that this would be any real protection if it were. I mean, you've got a few people here who have been arrested for pissing on pedestals in public more times than we want to mention. :-) Fairfield Life is IMO one of those rarest of phenomena on the Internet, a spiritual free speech zone that allows its members to talk about pretty much whatever they want to, with a minimum of moderation or censorship. As a result, FFL displays the very polarity that Russell talked about, believers exerting their will to believe in seemingly eternal conflict with critical wish-to-find-out-ers, seeking primarily to find out. I find that an interesting and challenging environment. As you may have guessed, my allegiance is more with the wish-to-find-out-ers than it is with the will-to-believers. I think I'm in good company. Consider another of Rick's quotes from the home page, this one from the Buddha: Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. That's another good quote, a worthy candidate for becoming someone's credo in life. Another one I like is from the Japanese poet Basho: I do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; I seek what they sought. That kinda nails it, too. What about you guys? Got any cool credo lines you want to share, quotes that nail it so well for you that you would consider them one of your credos in life?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Credos: the will to believe vs. the wish to find out
That would be Pema Chodron with umlauts over the o :). Just a little light reading for tonight - she keeps it simple for us simpletons. --- On Tue, 9/13/11, Denise Evans dmevans...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Denise Evans dmevans...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Credos: the will to believe vs. the wish to find out To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2011, 11:49 PM I feel gratitude to the Buddha for pointing out that what we struggle against all our lives can be acknowledged as ordinary experience - Pema Chodren, The Places that Scare You --- On Tue, 9/13/11, turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Credos: the will to believe vs. the wish to find out To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2011, 8:50 AM I've always loved one of the quotes that Rick chose to include on the FFL home page. It's become one of my credos in life. The quote is from Bertrand Russell: What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite. I think Bert just nailed it. The distinction he draws between those whose allegiance is to existing belief and those whose allegiance is to finding out -- no matter what belief may say -- is pretty fundamental. Not just in the spiritual world, but in the outside world as well. Think about the clash between Muslim society and more secular Western society. Think about the Neoconservatives and their war against science. Think about fundamentalists of any stripe vs. pretty much everybody else. :-) I think Rick was wise to include this quote on the Fairfield Life home page. It really *captures* the spirit of the place. This is a place where the wish to find out is as valued as highly as the will to believe. Almost no belief is off limits here, elevated to such a lofty pedestal as to be considered Truth. Not that this would be any real protection if it were. I mean, you've got a few people here who have been arrested for pissing on pedestals in public more times than we want to mention. :-) Fairfield Life is IMO one of those rarest of phenomena on the Internet, a spiritual free speech zone that allows its members to talk about pretty much whatever they want to, with a minimum of moderation or censorship. As a result, FFL displays the very polarity that Russell talked about, believers exerting their will to believe in seemingly eternal conflict with critical wish-to-find-out-ers, seeking primarily to find out. I find that an interesting and challenging environment. As you may have guessed, my allegiance is more with the wish-to-find-out-ers than it is with the will-to-believers. I think I'm in good company. Consider another of Rick's quotes from the home page, this one from the Buddha: Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. That's another good quote, a worthy candidate for becoming someone's credo in life. Another one I like is from the Japanese poet Basho: I do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; I seek what they sought. That kinda nails it, too. What about you guys? Got any cool credo lines you want to share, quotes that nail it so well for you that you would consider them one of your credos in life?
[FairfieldLife] Churning the Ocean of Milk
This vedic myth describes the process of creation at the planck time after the Big Bang. At that point in time, matter and antimatter were created only to annihilate each other in a tremendous ball of fire. In the end, only a tiny fraction of matter remained (the amrita) which became the source of who we are today. Watch these series of clips and find out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1v=EtyCP8hEruM
[FairfieldLife] Re: For Robin - Lady Gaga quotes Osho
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote: Something I saw on Facebook tonight. http://www.oshonews.com/2011/09/lady-gaga-quotes-osho/ http://www.oshonews.com/2011/09/lady-gaga-quotes-osho/ http://entertainment.xin.msn.com/en/celebrity/blogs/hollywood/Lady-Gaga.\ \ aspx?cp-documentid=5209432 http://entertainment.xin.msn.com/en/celebrity/blogs/hollywood/Lady-Gaga\ \ .aspx?cp-documentid=5209432 Her latest public declaration during the acceptance of the MTV Video Music award was her sharing a quote by Osho with her fans through her Twitter account: Creativity is the greatest rebellion in existence. RESPONSE: I never have viewed LG as *knowing* what life is all about. I have only loved her (and still love her) *for who she is* and for her art. That she quotes Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh just shows she is confused somewhere. But, if you will permit me, 'God' is protecting LG from being corrupted or sullied by lifeat least in some fatal way. She can say all kinds of things (in terms of enunciating some derivative mystical philosophy. But how she comes off in person in speaking from her own experience, she is wonderful and charming and innocent and true. Someday I hope I can set her straight about Osho. (I hope he is not viewed by yourself as a Guru to be revered. But if so, so be it. I have known very personally someone who spend a great deal of time with Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, so I am inclined to think I know the manwhat he was like, his influence, his schtick.) Yes he is a man that I revere as my Guru. Good luck protecting LG from Osho :-). I agree old man, Osho and all Gurus are full of BS, bunch of liars. But I appreciate learning this. Lady Gaga doesn't know herself (even as she thinks she does). But she has a special destiny. As Tony Bennett has recently declared: She is going to be more famous than Elvis. I don't think it's an argument against vegetarianism (although I am no longer one) that Hitler insisted on a meat-free diet. Nor, allowing for the mystical arrogance and pride and self-satisfaction that somehow I get off of this quote, that this idea of Osho's is devoid of meaning. But he was one mega BSer, that Osho guy. Lady Gaga for me is all about being a lovely girlwith incredible talent. Without any inner distortion. And she is as serious in her mission (which is all good) as anyone I have ever seen. Thus her concentration as Jo Calderone.
[FairfieldLife] Re: For Robin - Lady Gaga quotes Osho
Now don't you be a naughty boy, Ravi. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote: Something I saw on Facebook tonight. http://www.oshonews.com/2011/09/lady-gaga-quotes-osho/ http://www.oshonews.com/2011/09/lady-gaga-quotes-osho/ http://entertainment.xin.msn.com/en/celebrity/blogs/hollywood/Lady-Gaga.\ \ aspx?cp-documentid=5209432 http://entertainment.xin.msn.com/en/celebrity/blogs/hollywood/Lady-Gaga\ \ .aspx?cp-documentid=5209432 Her latest public declaration during the acceptance of the MTV Video Music award was her sharing a quote by Osho with her fans through her Twitter account: Creativity is the greatest rebellion in existence. RESPONSE: I never have viewed LG as *knowing* what life is all about. I have only loved her (and still love her) *for who she is* and for her art. That she quotes Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh just shows she is confused somewhere. But, if you will permit me, 'God' is protecting LG from being corrupted or sullied by lifeat least in some fatal way. She can say all kinds of things (in terms of enunciating some derivative mystical philosophy. But how she comes off in person in speaking from her own experience, she is wonderful and charming and innocent and true. Someday I hope I can set her straight about Osho. (I hope he is not viewed by yourself as a Guru to be revered. But if so, so be it. I have known very personally someone who spend a great deal of time with Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, so I am inclined to think I know the manwhat he was like, his influence, his schtick.) Yes he is a man that I revere as my Guru. Good luck protecting LG from Osho :-). I agree old man, Osho and all Gurus are full of BS, bunch of liars. But I appreciate learning this. Lady Gaga doesn't know herself (even as she thinks she does). But she has a special destiny. As Tony Bennett has recently declared: She is going to be more famous than Elvis. I don't think it's an argument against vegetarianism (although I am no longer one) that Hitler insisted on a meat-free diet. Nor, allowing for the mystical arrogance and pride and self-satisfaction that somehow I get off of this quote, that this idea of Osho's is devoid of meaning. But he was one mega BSer, that Osho guy. Lady Gaga for me is all about being a lovely girlwith incredible talent. Without any inner distortion. And she is as serious in her mission (which is all good) as anyone I have ever seen. Thus her concentration as Jo Calderone.
[FairfieldLife] Know yourself and you will be wise
Maharishi: http://tinyurl.com/5s9t7wt
[FairfieldLife] Attention
I've been informed via Lurkermail :-) that some don't understand what I'm talking about when I rap about people feeding on the attention of others. So I'll explain. It's a Rama thang, probably stolen by him from Castaneda and from spiritual traditions that focused more on the occult. He spent a lot of his time teaching us about the world of attention, at least as he saw it. In his view, when one focuses on another person (gives them one's attention), there is often a subtle energy transfer. Think of it like a kind of mini-darshan. Very mini. Just not in the same ballpark as real, Class A hot spiritual teacher darshan, and usually flowing in the opposite direction. But it's still an energy boost. Ever stood in front of a large (200-1000 people) crowd for a while, giving a talk or leading a course? Remember how HIGH and full of energy that used to make you? Or, on a more everyday level, have you ever spent all Spring working out and then wandered out onto the beach with a newly-buff bod, and noticed the glances you get when people of the opposite (or, depending on the beach, same) sex check you out and decide you're lookin' hot? That's a high, too. Or even when someone appreciates something you do, and heaps praise on you for doing it? Cheap high. In Rama's view, there was nothing wrong with this. Unless you were a spiritual seeker whose goal in life was enlightenment, that is. For those seekers, he said, this ability to steal small amounts of energy from others (in the form of capturing their attention) was problematic, for several reasons. First, it's a form of theft, and thus karmically problematic. Second, it's lazy making, in that those who are good at pushing it out occultly and capturing the attention of others often come to rely on that mechanism for upping their energy levels, and thus don't develop other methods for doing so. Like meditating, or practicing selfless service. Third, in his opinion there was a down side to capturing the attention of others, because in doing so we picked up some of the other person's aura or state of attention, which was not always as high or shiny as our own. He tended to see the down side of fame as picking up the shitty mindstates of those you've gotten to focus their attention on you and what those shitty mindstates can do to you; think Marilyn Monroe, or any other celebrity who flames out in the wake of sudden fame. The down side of being attractive, in his view, was the kind of stuff you're likely to *attract*. His theory was that men and women (especially women) who most people would describe as charismatic or hot or attractive were -- if you learned to see psychically and watched their auric energy transactions -- in many cases using occult means TO capture the attention (and thus energy) of others. Many of them were doing this unconsciously, in his opinion, but it was still lazy making. He tried to teach us how to psychically recognize pushing it out when other people did it to us, and when we were doing it to others. In the former case, being able to see when someone is trying to wrap you occultly and capture your attention enables you to step back a bit and not fall for it, and thus possibly put that attention on more productive things than the blonde in the corner in the tight sweater stretching seductively to make it even tighter than usual. :-) In the latter case, he singled out some of us and busted us publicly on having done this pushing it out thang so often and for so long that we were riding on it and relying on it to steal an occasional cheap high by stealing attention. I was definitely in the busted group. :-) I've been able to rely on charisma and the ability to wrap people most of my life, and freely admit to having gotten lazy behind it. Since my (in my case unconscious) tendency to push it out occultly was pointed out to me, I've been working consciously on developing its opposite -- pulling it in, and relying for my highs in life on the energy I get from meditation, performing whatever selfless service I can manage, and trekking to occasional places of power. I've found it more productive. So that's the Attention rap. It's not everyone's cuppa tea, spiritually, but I've found it useful information. I hope it explains to those who wrote to me what I mean by attention and the sucking thereof. I tend to notice when someone is trying to wrap me (or, on Internet forums or in group situations like parties, a lot of people) and get me to focus my attention on them, and I mentally Step away from the wrap. Even if the whole stealing energy thang is a lot of hooey, I find that doing this saves me a lot of time. :-) YMMV. As usual, I am neither touting this as the way that the world works, or as anything that anyone else should believe in or pay...uh...attention to. I'm just explaining, because a couple of people asked me to.
[FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy]
Nay, it takes a more special person who's not afraid to put it all out there during good times and bad, knowing that by doing so can help facilitate change to a better place. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: Thanks Steve - Yes I do know that :-), it takes a special man to make that phone call and there weren't many who did that, some who emailed. I do remember all of them. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: Ravi, you only inspire affection in me. That's the truth. Good luck with the move. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: Okay, I'll give you Robin, but Ravi, I don't think so. He's got a real problem with the divine vodka. I think what Bob has been trying to do is entice Ravi to join a 12 step program, but Ravi seems to be having none of it. Steve, you are kidding right? Like Rory says I'm Absolut-ly drunk on the divine vodka. I have already walked the seven steps with the divine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saat_phera --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: Damn Rory, when you choose to stay in one lane, or should I say one plane, you can make a darn funny post. Fun stuff. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: Very laudable indeed, Sir! Your most economical choice of only three nails, albeit almost certainly less comfortable, would represent a savings of XXV per centum to the Empire. Since you so clearly uphold the greater good, you could not possibly be the selfish, narcissistic insurrectionist your detractors have claimed you to be. Enough Pontificating -- I wash my hands of the entire affair, and declare you now and forever a Free Man. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Three works, and right side up please! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: * * Don't mind if I do, Jim! Which would you prefer -- three nails or four? :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Damn Rory - Nail me to a cross! :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Denise Evans dmevans365@ wrote: Ravi, not to worryI am well-aware that I do not have the IQ or creative skill-set needed to maintain a heady riff with the experts on this site..I disassociate when necessary. This should be fairly evident by now.  I jump in here and there when my neurons connect in a moment of spontaneous thought - not original thought, just spontaneous. Mostly, the posts on this forum (those that I actually fathom on any level) entertain and inform me greatly - and for this I am grateful, as I see myself as a bit of an energy vampire at this moment in my life, and I know that I really don't belong here amongst the shining stars of enlightened diction. * * Well said, Denise; being without the three gunas, we really don't belong anywhere. The foxes have holes, and the birds of the sky have nests, but the [Daughter] of [Wo]Man has no place to lay [Her] head. For the heartbreaking beauty of it all is this: when the rug is yanked out from beneath our feet once and for all, we hang in freefall forever here and now, suspended alone, all-one, forever amidst the ever-singing stars. And so in apparently belonging nowhere, we really belong now here, and now here belongs heartfully to us, for we are not of them, but they are of us. And those galaxies of ever-murmuring shining stars are nothing but our childish thoughts, who nourished by our soma-milk, feed vampire-like upon our love, and hang a-tremble on our softest breath -- the beauty of our body and our blood. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Attention
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSJ_k49ITUY --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: I've been informed via Lurkermail :-) that some don't understand what I'm talking about when I rap about people feeding on the attention of others. So I'll explain. It's a Rama thang, probably stolen by him from Castaneda and from spiritual traditions that focused more on the occult. He spent a lot of his time teaching us about the world of attention, at least as he saw it. In his view, when one focuses on another person (gives them one's attention), there is often a subtle energy transfer. Think of it like a kind of mini-darshan. Very mini. Just not in the same ballpark as real, Class A hot spiritual teacher darshan, and usually flowing in the opposite direction. But it's still an energy boost. Ever stood in front of a large (200-1000 people) crowd for a while, giving a talk or leading a course? Remember how HIGH and full of energy that used to make you? Or, on a more everyday level, have you ever spent all Spring working out and then wandered out onto the beach with a newly-buff bod, and noticed the glances you get when people of the opposite (or, depending on the beach, same) sex check you out and decide you're lookin' hot? That's a high, too. Or even when someone appreciates something you do, and heaps praise on you for doing it? Cheap high. In Rama's view, there was nothing wrong with this. Unless you were a spiritual seeker whose goal in life was enlightenment, that is. For those seekers, he said, this ability to steal small amounts of energy from others (in the form of capturing their attention) was problematic, for several reasons. First, it's a form of theft, and thus karmically problematic. Second, it's lazy making, in that those who are good at pushing it out occultly and capturing the attention of others often come to rely on that mechanism for upping their energy levels, and thus don't develop other methods for doing so. Like meditating, or practicing selfless service. Third, in his opinion there was a down side to capturing the attention of others, because in doing so we picked up some of the other person's aura or state of attention, which was not always as high or shiny as our own. He tended to see the down side of fame as picking up the shitty mindstates of those you've gotten to focus their attention on you and what those shitty mindstates can do to you; think Marilyn Monroe, or any other celebrity who flames out in the wake of sudden fame. The down side of being attractive, in his view, was the kind of stuff you're likely to *attract*. His theory was that men and women (especially women) who most people would describe as charismatic or hot or attractive were -- if you learned to see psychically and watched their auric energy transactions -- in many cases using occult means TO capture the attention (and thus energy) of others. Many of them were doing this unconsciously, in his opinion, but it was still lazy making. He tried to teach us how to psychically recognize pushing it out when other people did it to us, and when we were doing it to others. In the former case, being able to see when someone is trying to wrap you occultly and capture your attention enables you to step back a bit and not fall for it, and thus possibly put that attention on more productive things than the blonde in the corner in the tight sweater stretching seductively to make it even tighter than usual. :-) In the latter case, he singled out some of us and busted us publicly on having done this pushing it out thang so often and for so long that we were riding on it and relying on it to steal an occasional cheap high by stealing attention. I was definitely in the busted group. :-) I've been able to rely on charisma and the ability to wrap people most of my life, and freely admit to having gotten lazy behind it. Since my (in my case unconscious) tendency to push it out occultly was pointed out to me, I've been working consciously on developing its opposite -- pulling it in, and relying for my highs in life on the energy I get from meditation, performing whatever selfless service I can manage, and trekking to occasional places of power. I've found it more productive. So that's the Attention rap. It's not everyone's cuppa tea, spiritually, but I've found it useful information. I hope it explains to those who wrote to me what I mean by attention and the sucking thereof. I tend to notice when someone is trying to wrap me (or, on Internet forums or in group situations like parties, a lot of people) and get me to focus my attention on them, and I mentally Step away from the wrap. Even if the whole stealing energy thang is a lot of hooey, I find that doing this saves me a lot of time. :-) YMMV. As usual, I am neither touting this as the way that the world works, or as anything that anyone else should believe in or
[FairfieldLife] Re: Attention
turquoiseb: I've been informed via Lurkermail :-) that some don't understand what I'm talking about when I rap about people feeding on the attention of others. So, you want some more attention! I nearly killed myself by accepting your Negative Occult Energy, he said, and now you are going to have to pay for it. http://www.ex-cult.org/Groups/Rama/14.epil-3
[FairfieldLife] Re: Churning the Ocean of Milk
John jr_esq: Churning the Ocean of Milk The most popular version of the Indian myth 'Churning the milk Ocean' is found in the Eighth Canto of the Bhagavata Purana. In Buddhist mythology, 'Amrita' is the drink of the gods, which grants them immortality. According to Terrence McKenna in his book The Food Of Gods, the psilocybin-containing Stropharia cubensis mushroom is a likely soma candidate. Psilocybin, the active psychoactive component in Stropharia Cubensis has a strong hallucinogenic nature. The Ninth Mandala of the Rigveda is known as the Soma Mandala. Soma (Sanskrit), or Haoma (Avestan) was a ritual drink of importance among the early Indo-Iranians, and the later Vedic and Iranian cultures. It is frequently mentioned in the Rigveda, which contains many hymns praising its energizing or intoxicating qualities. Read more: Subject: Soma: The primary ingredient in TM Author: Willytex Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: February 23, 2005 http://tinyurl.com/639zxy6
[FairfieldLife] Re: Churning the Ocean of Milk
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: This vedic myth describes the process of creation at the planck time after the Big Bang. At that point in time, matter and antimatter were created only to annihilate each other in a tremendous ball of fire. In the end, only a tiny fraction of matter remained (the amrita) which became the source of who we are today. Watch these series of clips and find out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1v=EtyCP8hEruM RESPONSE: Wonderful! This Gothic cathedral of the 21st century however, is missing one thing: MOTIVE. Thrilling, the whole adventurewhat was that FIRST SECOND of the BIG BANG like?but it's like replicating the entire neurobiological conditions when someone first fell in love: you get the objective correlatesperhaps [they haven't found the HB particle yet]but what is absent (and will be forever) is the first person experience of the Creator; just like the first person perspective of the lover. The LHC can't get to the ROMANCE behind that first second. But this experiment, to replicate that moment, is absolutely fascinating to me. But can science over pry open the subjectivity of God? I doubt it. In my judgment it is a heroic endeavour (the LHC), but it (like science taken to the infinite degree) can't account for the personal decision of the Creator to create the universe. Thanks for posting this magnificent video.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Credos: the will to believe vs. the wish to find out
turquoiseb: Consider another of Rick's quotes from the home page, this one from the Buddha: So, you believe in 'Buddhas', because you read it on Rick's home page. LoL Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
[FairfieldLife] Unlocking your Soul's Purpose, This weekend! [1 Attachment]
To see the circumstances of life through the lens of the Esoteric Philosophy is to recognize the beauty of the Grand Design and one's purpose and role in its unfoldment. William Meader Dear Fairfield Friends, Please accept this invitation to the free talk, Humanity's Dawning Hour, with William Meader, internationally renowned author and teacher of the esoteric philosophy, this coming Friday at 7:45pm. RSVP at danabre...@gmail.com. so we know whether to convene at the Fairfield Public Library or have it in my small Temple Room. William will be offering 2 workshops this coming weekend, The Soul and its Imposter and Unlocking the Soul's Purpose (The Seven Rays). For the Seven Rays workshop you will want to fill out the attached questionnaire. For more information click on the titles below. William is also offering private Esoteric Astrological Consultations on Monday September 19th. Please phone to reserve time on Monday for your consultation. Dana Brekke 641-469-5233 EVENTS http://meader.org/assets/images/events_logo.gif http://meader.org/2011/Iowa_Trip_1.html Close Window Fairfield, Iowa September 16 - 18, 2011 __ Free Public Talk September 16, 2011 http://meader.org/2011/Iowa_Trip_1.html#dawning Humanity's Dawning Hour Public Workshop September 17, 2011 http://meader.org/2011/Iowa_Trip_1.html#Imposter The Soul and its Imposter Public Workshop September 18, 2011 http://meader.org/2011/Iowa_Trip_1.html#keys Unlocking the Soul's Purpose (The Seven Rays)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Credos: the will to believe vs. the wish to find out
Denise Evans: I feel gratitude to the Buddha... Which one? for pointing out that what we struggle against all our lives can be acknowledged as ordinary experience - Pema Chodren, The Places that Scare You
[FairfieldLife] Re: Attention
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardwillytexwilliams willytex@... wrote: turquoiseb: I've been informed via Lurkermail :-) that some don't understand what I'm talking about when I rap about people feeding on the attention of others. So, you want some more attention! I nearly killed myself by accepting your Negative Occult Energy, he said, and now you are going to have to pay for it. http://www.ex-cult.org/Groups/Rama/14.epil-3 RESPONSE: Seems to me this explains quite a lot. It created a context of understanding in me for what's been going on here at FFL. Dr FL makes MMY seem like Jesus compared to Charlie Manson. I think the disciple still doesn't know what hit him when he surrendered himself to Dr FL. This is not a conceptual statement; it is intuitively felt such as to give me, for the first timequite spontaneously, guilelessly,a built-in perspective for the data I have been trying to process. It's Dr FL coming through, however refracted. I suddenly feel a sense of compassion. Just based upon what I read here, I can't conceive of someone more subtly f***ed up than Dr FL. And his mental influence, it's still coming towards us from Holland. That is, there was a preternatural link between all the posts at FFL and what is contained in this biography. But I refuse to testify.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unlocking your Soul's Purpose, This weekend!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote: To see the circumstances of life through the lens of the Esoteric Philosophy is to recognize the beauty of the Grand Design and one's purpose and role in its unfoldment. William Meader Dear Fairfield Friends, Please accept this invitation to the free talk, Humanity's Dawning Hour, with William Meader, internationally renowned author and teacher of the esoteric philosophy, this coming Friday at 7:45pm. RSVP at danabrekke@... so we know whether to convene at the Fairfield Public Library or have it in my small Temple Room. William will be offering 2 workshops this coming weekend, The Soul and its Imposter and Unlocking the Soul's Purpose (The Seven Rays). For the Seven Rays workshop you will want to fill out the attached questionnaire. For more information click on the titles below. William is also offering private Esoteric Astrological Consultations on Monday September 19th. Please phone to reserve time on Monday for your consultation. Dana Brekke 641-469-5233 EVENTS http://meader.org/assets/images/events_logo.gif http://meader.org/2011/Iowa_Trip_1.html Close Window Fairfield, Iowa September 16 - 18, 2011 __ Free Public Talk September 16, 2011 http://meader.org/2011/Iowa_Trip_1.html#dawning Humanity's Dawning Hour Public Workshop September 17, 2011 http://meader.org/2011/Iowa_Trip_1.html#Imposter The Soul and its Imposter Public Workshop September 18, 2011 http://meader.org/2011/Iowa_Trip_1.html#keys Unlocking the Soul's Purpose (The Seven Rays) RESPONSE: I have booked my flight. See you there.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unlocking your Soul's Purpose, This weekend!
I already know my soul's purpose: to be the world's greatest guru, serving up the best enlightenment that money can buy. Now all I have to do is get up off my ass and actually do it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tat Wale Baba/Discourse on Self-Realization
Like we used to say as kids playing cops and robbers, Ah, you got me! :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: I put this in quotes because I have attained absolutely nothing -- consists only in stripping away all of my beliefs and stories, deconstructing them all... I don't even believe that for one quadrillionth of a second, Rory! * * As you well know, Jim: That is not to be believed, only understood and lived :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unlocking your Soul's Purpose, This weekend!
* * I think maybe you mean, get up off my ass and actually non-do it. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... wrote: I already know my soul's purpose: to be the world's greatest guru, serving up the best enlightenment that money can buy. Now all I have to do is get up off my ass and actually do it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Attention
Sounds like pure BS from a crazy man; something only the weak, insecure and unstable would have an interest in. Maharishi taught us about invincibility, which in part means not being swayed by the senses.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: I've been informed via Lurkermail :-) that some don't understand what I'm talking about when I rap about people feeding on the attention of others. So I'll explain. It's a Rama thang, probably stolen by him from Castaneda and from spiritual traditions that focused more on the occult. He spent a lot of his time teaching us about the world of attention, at least as he saw it. In his view, when one focuses on another person (gives them one's attention), there is often a subtle energy transfer. Think of it like a kind of mini-darshan. Very mini. Just not in the same ballpark as real, Class A hot spiritual teacher darshan, and usually flowing in the opposite direction. But it's still an energy boost. Ever stood in front of a large (200-1000 people) crowd for a while, giving a talk or leading a course? Remember how HIGH and full of energy that used to make you? Or, on a more everyday level, have you ever spent all Spring working out and then wandered out onto the beach with a newly-buff bod, and noticed the glances you get when people of the opposite (or, depending on the beach, same) sex check you out and decide you're lookin' hot? That's a high, too. Or even when someone appreciates something you do, and heaps praise on you for doing it? Cheap high. In Rama's view, there was nothing wrong with this. Unless you were a spiritual seeker whose goal in life was enlightenment, that is. For those seekers, he said, this ability to steal small amounts of energy from others (in the form of capturing their attention) was problematic, for several reasons. First, it's a form of theft, and thus karmically problematic. Second, it's lazy making, in that those who are good at pushing it out occultly and capturing the attention of others often come to rely on that mechanism for upping their energy levels, and thus don't develop other methods for doing so. Like meditating, or practicing selfless service. Third, in his opinion there was a down side to capturing the attention of others, because in doing so we picked up some of the other person's aura or state of attention, which was not always as high or shiny as our own. He tended to see the down side of fame as picking up the shitty mindstates of those you've gotten to focus their attention on you and what those shitty mindstates can do to you; think Marilyn Monroe, or any other celebrity who flames out in the wake of sudden fame. The down side of being attractive, in his view, was the kind of stuff you're likely to *attract*. His theory was that men and women (especially women) who most people would describe as charismatic or hot or attractive were -- if you learned to see psychically and watched their auric energy transactions -- in many cases using occult means TO capture the attention (and thus energy) of others. Many of them were doing this unconsciously, in his opinion, but it was still lazy making. He tried to teach us how to psychically recognize pushing it out when other people did it to us, and when we were doing it to others. In the former case, being able to see when someone is trying to wrap you occultly and capture your attention enables you to step back a bit and not fall for it, and thus possibly put that attention on more productive things than the blonde in the corner in the tight sweater stretching seductively to make it even tighter than usual. :-) In the latter case, he singled out some of us and busted us publicly on having done this pushing it out thang so often and for so long that we were riding on it and relying on it to steal an occasional cheap high by stealing attention. I was definitely in the busted group. :-) I've been able to rely on charisma and the ability to wrap people most of my life, and freely admit to having gotten lazy behind it. Since my (in my case unconscious) tendency to push it out occultly was pointed out to me, I've been working consciously on developing its opposite -- pulling it in, and relying for my highs in life on the energy I get from meditation, performing whatever selfless service I can manage, and trekking to occasional places of power. I've found it more productive. So that's the Attention rap. It's not everyone's cuppa tea, spiritually, but I've found it useful information. I hope it explains to those who wrote to me what I mean by attention and the sucking thereof. I tend to notice when someone is trying to wrap me (or, on Internet forums or in group situations like parties, a lot of people) and get me to focus my attention on them, and I mentally Step away from the wrap. Even if the whole stealing energy thang is a lot of hooey, I find that doing this saves me
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tat Wale Baba/Discourse on Self-Realization
* * Yes, we do! :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: Like we used to say as kids playing cops and robbers, Ah, you got me! :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: I put this in quotes because I have attained absolutely nothing -- consists only in stripping away all of my beliefs and stories, deconstructing them all... I don't even believe that for one quadrillionth of a second, Rory! * * As you well know, Jim: That is not to be believed, only understood and lived :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unlocking your Soul's Purpose, This weekend!
Can we send a proxy to pick up the key for us? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... wrote: I already know my soul's purpose: to be the world's greatest guru, serving up the best enlightenment that money can buy. Now all I have to do is get up off my ass and actually do it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tat Wale Baba/Discourse on Self-Realization
* * Yes, Robin, I totally agree! As She says, if someone who can't take his gaze off my tits actually looks fully into my eyes for a single heart-stopping moment, he will experience a horrific loss as he dies utterly into them, and this death of one's boyhood appears to be a fearful and lamentable thing, something to be avoided at all costs. Using one's intellect to compare what IS to some imaginary alternative, is like relating to a Woman through Playboy Consciousness, and allows one to indulge in endless fantasies while completely avoiding the naked intimacy of a true Lover. And again, this has nothing to do with East or West, and everything to do with simple humanity, with finishing what we start. So please let me apologize for doing just that to you and Curtis; even though you both may appear to be most comfortable staring only at my tits, I do appreciate you wholeheartedly, just as you are, and wish only the best for you -- that you both obtain your deepest heart's desires -- turiyatits, perhaps? -- if and when you most want them. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: Dear Robin, RG: It is always -- and I mean *always* -- a pleasure to commune with you, RC, and I wholeheartedly appreciate your living presence here as fully (as far as I can tell) as you do mine. I agree with you that to a certain (pretty farflung) extent, the universe will happily support whatever we choose to believe. My attainment -- such as it is; I put this in quotes because I have attained absolutely nothing -- consists only in stripping away all of my beliefs and stories, deconstructing them all, much as Curtis believes he has done with and to TWB's. RESPONSE: Consider this, Rory: Curtis goes into your state of consciousness (or subjective experience which produces your perspective on reality and forms your philosophy); you, on the other hand, go into his state of consciousness (or subjective experience which produces his perspective on reality and forms his philosophy). For me, Rory, there would be a inexpressible loss in the case of Curtis becoming a believer and exponent of the Rory view of the cosmosbecause, as far as I can tell, everything that is wonderfully poignant and audacious and humble and warlike about Curtis would be flattened outthe glory of God is found in a personality such as Curtis's. On the other hand, contemplating you re-individuating yourself as a Curtis type of person (in principle honouring your intense individualism, the singularity and self-containment of your ego self), would be a marvellous surprise and something I for one would pay money to see. Rory becoming only Rory, jettisoning the entire mystical context of his life, and becoming in his own Rory-way, just as feisty and bold and skeptical as Curtis. As a thought experiment, it seems, to me at least, to prove my point. I would love to know Rory as a purely Western Civilization person. Without a trace of the East touching his personal consciousnessjust to feel and experience what this Rory would be like. Curtis to abandon who he is to merge into the wholeness of it all, that would be, let me be candid here, tragic, a terrible loss of something so distinct and noble and stubbornly beautiful. If one thinks about what is the secret of lifesupposing there is onethe personal vitality and danger that is represented in the individuality of Curtis seems so much more likely to be going towards that secret than the cosmic tranquility and emptying of self that is the obsession and achievement of Tat Wale Baba. RG: So I don't believe TWB is telling it like it is in some objective sense; this would be impossible for me, anyway, as I can find no truly objective sense; I can only know anything though my subjectivity. I only know he touches me (no, Curtis, not like that) where I AM; he expresses the naked IT IS in me. RESPONSE: I don't doubt you here, Rory, but you see the whole point of my response to the extraordinarily real analysis of Curtis (of TWB's lecture) is that there is more intelligence, beauty, fight, truth, humour, playfulness, multi-facetedness in all that Curtis says; whereas juxtaposed to Curtis's inspired critique, what Tat Wale Baba says seems blissful, imagined, mystical, even hallucinatory: *TWB doesn't connect to life as life wishes to be known inside the experience of individual created beings*. Curtis, atheist that he is, represents the personal history of every human being who has ever livedit is a kind of universal perspective on Hinduism (Maharishi-ism) that, just in what it commands in its articulation wins the day. If Tat Wale Baba is talking about something ultimately real, how is it that Curtis can get away with condemning him so convincingly? If life, the universe, reality is embodied in Tat Wale Baba *there should some resistance and blow-back when someone like
[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis
Robin, You sent me on quite a mission here my friend. I had an initial response when I read this quote, but took some time to be sure that I just wasn't missing something. And Of course I still may be. But after reviewing information on ID and getting more familiar with Thomas Nagel's POV I am reasonably confident that I can answer in a specific enough from that will invite you to provide the what I am missing if you have it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: Curtis, here is what one the greatest philosophers in the world says about evolutionhe a determined and committed atheist: My own situation is that of an atheist who, in spite of being an avid consumer of popular science, has for a long time been skeptical of the claims of traditional evolutionary theory to be the whole story about the history of life. I have a lot of issues with how he phrases things. This is a straw man since I can't imagine why any scientist would refer to evolutionary theory this way. He is starting with this misleading phrasing because he is heading for an argument based on gaps in knowledge as a reason to insert whatever by mere assertion without foundational reasons. We will get there soon enough. But first I mark my objection to this as an accurate claim about how scientists use evolutionary theory as the basis for all modern biological studies. I have never heard it referred to as the whole story... The theory does not claim to explain the origin of life, which remains a complete scientific mystery at this point. Here he refutes his phrase above with the fact of the limits of scientific knowledge concerning the origin of life on earth. He overstates his claim by a long shot since there has been remarkable work done in this area to discover possible mechanisms. None are definitive, but all are suggestive of the possibility in principle that this mechanism may at some point be discovered. Here are a few in a nutshell: http://www.livescience.com/13363-7-theories-origin-life.html What they suggest is that this gap might someday be filled with an understanding of precise mechanisms with predictive ability. This is key because it is this ability that distinguishes the science of evolution with the the fundamentally religious assertions of ID. Before we knew the details we know today about genetics, evolutionary theory could have predicted what we have since found. That each progressively more complex life form carries the history of its connction to previous ones, including the short sequences that arise all the time through mutations, that do not affect the organism's life. These are basically meaningless worthless sequences, that have been preserved because they do no harm. But they also do no good. And we carry the same ones that arose in mice and are not found in species more primitive than mice. These are historical genetic markers. Evolutionary thoery accounts for this specific fact. This is the hallmark of a useful theory and also serves as a distinction between a scientific theory and a religious assertion. Opponents of ID, however, normally assume that that too must have a purely chemical explanation. The idea is that life arose and evolved to its present form solely because of the laws of chemistry, and ultimately of particle physics. In the prevailing naturalistic worldview, evolutionary theory plays the crucial role in showing how physics can be the theory of everything. He is ignoring the progress made in this area and has also been accused of making misleading statements about how selection took place for millions of years in chemical compounds before life started. Check out the critters living near the oceans volcanos to see how this line gets very blurry when dealing with odd bacterias. It is not only physics that may provide this insight someday, it is all the branches of science together. He is correctly defining the object of science as the natural rather than a supernatural world. Sophisticated members of the contemporary culture have been so thoroughly indoctrinated that they easily lose sight of the fact that evolutionary reductionism defies common sense. I have a few problems with this statement. I have written before about the uselessness of common sense when dealing with any knowledge that goes beyond our common sensory scale. We have no common sense for the eons of time that evolution has occurred in. We have no common sense concerning how electromagnetic particles act at the molecular level of chemistry. So he makes no case at all if any aspect of scientific theory does not comply with the ridiculously limited factors that shape our common sense. In fact it is the counterintuitive nature of physics at subatomic levels that makes it so difficult to understand. A theory that defies common sense can be true, but doubts about its truth should be sup- pressed
[FairfieldLife] Re: Attention
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardwillytexwilliams willytex@... wrote: turquoiseb: I've been informed via Lurkermail :-) that some don't understand what I'm talking about when I rap about people feeding on the attention of others. So, you want some more attention! BINGO ! :-) I nearly killed myself by accepting your Negative Occult Energy, he said, and now you are going to have to pay for it. http://www.ex-cult.org/Groups/Rama/14.epil-3
Re: [FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy]
Friends--- self-interest or censorship? Robin, As your friend and admirer, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to some of your recent statements about my choice in friends. For starters, I need to state categorically that---unlike Britain in its hour of need---Turqo has never asked or, it seems, needed anyone's help with the blitzkrieg of criticism recently directed his way. He is like The Borg---he gets stronger the more he is attacked. Further, describing the objections, of a number of us, to this onslaught; as one friend protecting the flank of another friend---is facile and at best a canard. Turqo and I could hardly be called friends; we've never actually met. If anything we're competitors that collaborate when the situation makes commercial sense. Not unlike Warner Bros. and Paramount who collaborate on projects when it suits both their economic interests but remain competitors for the finite attention span of many FFL posters. That said, what has recently driven us into to full collaboration is this not so subtle attempt at censorship. This is not one friend standing up for another. This is one writer standing up for the free speech rights of another writer, because frankly; today Turqo, tomorrow me, the next day Xeno, and heaven forbid the road to you and Curtis is wide open. So dear friend I must in all conscience implore you to reconsider your present alliance and remember Churchill was not the only great writer of the greatest endeavor of the greatest generation---Mussolini was one too. And never forget what our great FDR told us about one of the great functions of garden hoses. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixNh5wrBxTo PS: I'm still mulling over your Hamlet, an exciting prospect to say the least, but in the pantheon of great performances you've always reminded me most of Gabriel. I don't think Jeremy could hold a candle to your grip on suffering---my dear Man of La Mancha. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m9Hz_0hu5kfeature=related From: maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 7:39:33 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy] Dear Bob, My feelings about Turqo are not influenced by anyone else's. That Judy's comments converge with my own (to a certain extent) is an accident. If she were defending your friend as intensely as she criticizes him, that would make no difference to me. I have an *experience* of your friend, and that experience is true to my soul. Your own regard for him does not go to where the problem is (for me). I have nothing but a totally positive orientation to this person. However, he sticks people in the eye with his—this is largely unconscious—cruel and sneering comments, and this, always, for me, reacts back upon him (seen sub specie aeternitatis). He is so shockingly non-objective *about his own self* that I can only understand his hostility as entirely innocent (innocent because of this incapacity to see himself as he really is). Now either your friend is playing a game (Andy Kaufman-like), or else he is genuinely alienated from a normal (and *living*) perspective on himself. There can be no other conclusion, Bob—I won't even attempt to prove my point. I assure you, I have not gone the route of logic or argument or confrontation: there he would be dead in the water. With the criteria I am applying to the reading of this situation, Bob, I am comprehending what your friend is doing—psychologically, and even metaphysically. And I won't respond to the taunt to prove this. Where I am coming from in my approach to your friend, it is equable, flexible, versatile,—and even loving. He just doesn't get it. And to repeat: I don't fault him in this. But he is, no matter what you say in his defence (and if *you* attempt a defence of him, then I *will* subject this issue to the analysis which in some ultimate form of determination of truth it deserves), obnoxious and ill-humoured—in the extreme. If you know another side of him, then I am very disappointed that you are unable to draw this out from him. From his posts to yourself it does not seem he believes you possess any kind of credibility that is germane to this issue of him and his imagined critics (obsessed as they are with him: attention vampires). As for Judy, without knowing much about her other than what I have read since I came on FFL (and yes, there have been lacunae in my reading of FFL, so I missed whatever you are referring to below), I find (like your wife does, according to some earlier post of yours) her to be the most objective and disinterested writer on FFL. When I track her analyses of your friend, I am sensitive to the least sign of subjective first person bias. I find none. This does not mean (of course) that Judy is beyond criticism herself—I don't know her at all. But one thing that is
[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: Curtis: Then how about *this* quote (TN): I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning and design as fundamental features of the world. I think it proves my suspicions about his reasons for being atheist. I arrived at it by default, from having no compelling reasons to believe any of the specific God ideas proposed that I have studied. I really have no preference about there being a God or not. If there was a good enough case to support it, I would believe. I do find peace in believing that random events cause suffering I guess. I would have some ethical questions for any God who could help but doesn't. But if that was the reality that held up like other well supported ideas,, I would just suck it up. And evolutionary theory has not eliminated any meaning from my life. Let the people who believe they have reasons to support their belief in an intrinsic purpose for the world make their case like the rest of us. Oh yeah, they have been doing so for thousands of years in man's history. Funny how easy it is for Christians to discard gods revered in the past isn't it? Gods that previous humans sometimes gave their life to preserve the belief. I have just read too many authoritative scriptures that contract each other to take one as definitive about reality. I wonder how you view the Bible Robin? Is it literature created by humans, or more than that for you? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Hey Robin, Thanks for turning me on to Thomas Nagel. I am doing some research for my reply. This is fun and good research for me to integrate into my POV. Curtis --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: Curtis, here is what one the greatest philosophers in the world says about evolutionhe a determined and committed atheist: My own situation is that of an atheist who, in spite of being an avid consumer of popular science, has for a long time been skeptical of the claims of traditional evolutionary theory to be the whole story about the history of life. The theory does not claim to explain the origin of life, which remains a complete scientific mystery at this point. Opponents of ID, however, normally assume that that too must have a purely chemical explanation. The idea is that life arose and evolved to its present form solely because of the laws of chemistry, and ultimately of particle physics. In the prevailing naturalistic worldview, evolutionary theory plays the crucial role in showing how physics can be the theory of everything. Sophisticated members of the contemporary culture have been so thoroughly indoctrinated that they easily lose sight of the fact that evolutionary reductionism defies common sense. A theory that defies common sense can be true, but doubts about its truth should be sup- pressed only in the face of exceptionally strong evidence. I do not regard divine intervention as a possibility, even though I have no other candidates. Yet I recognize that this is because of an aspect of my overall worldview that does not rest on empirical grounds or any other kind of rational grounds. I do not think the existence of God can be disproved. So someone who can offer serious scientific reasons to doubt the adequacy of the theory of evolution, and who believes in God, in the same immediate way that I believe there is no god, can quite reasonably conclude that the hypothesis of design should be taken seriously. If reasons to doubt the adequacy of evolutionary theory can be legitimately admitted to the curriculum, it is hard to see why they cannot legitimately be described as reasons in support of design, for those who believe in God, and reasons to believe that some as yet undiscovered, purely naturalistic theory must account for the evidence, for those who do not. That, after all, is the real epistemological situation. Thomas Nagel P.S. I have urged him to run for office in
[FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy]
Bob, Extremely disappointing responsenot because I hate being refuted, but because you utterly fail to go to the issue. It breaks my heart you so misunderstand meand my response to this individual. You've got me (and my motives) all wrong, Bob. I am amazed at your failure of sensitivity here. I have no bloody goddamn opinions. My soul senses misanthropy of the sneering kind, and I respond out of the logic and sincerity of my soul. I may be objectively mistaken in all that I say about Turkand by way of implication, therefore, Judy; but with this reply you have made it even more unlikely I can maneuver myself into a position which would let some of the California sunshine in. Let me put it to you this way, Bobbie boy: If you really think this issue deserves a debate, and you want to hear my rationale in all its detailed elucidation, then present some form of real argument: this isn't a defence, it isn't even a rebuttal. It is just subjective loyalty and decontextualized sermonizing. Yeah, you heard right, Bobbie Boy. And your angelic vibration (which I doubt you are consciously aware of) failed to connect up to the celestial intelligence which must be there somewhere. Do I want to see things a certain way, Bob? NO. Am I willing to have your construal of this affair supplant my own construal. You bet. Your argument is entirely disconnected from any kind of discrete, minute particulars of EXPERIENCEor rather is is *just* experience without an kind of disciplined, hard thinking and sacrifice. No Negative Capability for you, Bob, when it comes to this person. Can I eviscerate this [your] argument (if we grant it this status) comprehensively, definitively? Yes I can. But I won't attempt to do this until you challenge me meaningfully from within your supernaturally-commerce-inspired soul. You are a dreamer, Bob, and you are (without knowing this of course) fleeing the scene. Full of bullshit am I, Bob? Make your case. Because for anything that you have said here to be psychologically valid requires you to ferret out the motive for my prejudice against this person. I do not have prejudicesagainst anyone. But for your thesis to be right, there must be prejudice and bias and bitterness and intolerance in me. You have the satisfaction of having felt the right feelings here, Bob, but those feelings are seriously misplaced, because you assume one thing which is very doubtful: viz. that my response to this person lacks the moral and intellectual coherence and justification that your protest against my response does. If you were right in any way whatsoever, Bob, your didacticism here would aesthetically trump my commentary on this person. It doesn't even come close. No, this is a big fat zero as in its ultimate appositeness. But I still love you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: Friends--- self-interest or censorship? Robin, As your friend and admirer, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to some of your recent statements about my choice in friends. For starters, I need to state categorically that---unlike Britain in its hour of need---Turqo has never asked or, it seems, needed anyone's help with the blitzkrieg of criticism recently directed his way. He is like The Borg---he gets stronger the more he is attacked. Further, describing the objections, of a number of us, to this onslaught; as one friend protecting the flank of another friend---is facile and at best a canard. Turqo and I could hardly be called friends; we've never actually met. If anything we're competitors that collaborate when the situation makes commercial sense. Not unlike Warner Bros. and Paramount who collaborate on projects when it suits both their economic interests but remain competitors for the finite attention span of many FFL posters. That said, what has recently driven us into to full collaboration is this not so subtle attempt at censorship. This is not one friend standing up for another. This is one writer standing up for the free speech rights of another writer, because frankly; today Turqo, tomorrow me, the next day Xeno, and heaven forbid the road to you and Curtis is wide open. So dear friend I must in all conscience implore you to reconsider your present alliance and remember Churchill was not the only great writer of the greatest endeavor of the greatest generation---Mussolini was one too. And never forget what our great FDR told us about one of the great functions of garden hoses. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixNh5wrBxTo PS: I'm still mulling over your Hamlet, an exciting prospect to say the least, but in the pantheon of great performances you've always reminded me most of Gabriel. I don't think Jeremy could hold a candle to your grip on suffering---my dear Man of La Mancha. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m9Hz_0hu5kfeature=related
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Credos: the will to believe vs. the wish to find out
You'd have to ask PemaI simply translated Buddha as Source or God or Jesus or whatever Hindu god representshere is the rest of it... Life does continually go up and down. People and situations are unpredictable and so is everything else. Everybody knows the pain of getting what we don't want: saints, sinners, winners, losers. I feel gratitude that someone saw the truth and pointed out that we don't suffer this kind of pain because of our personal inability to get things right. - Pema Chodron It's life, man, life. I think this statement below by Tat Wale Baba is complete BS...a life free from suffering? Pleasethis sounds like a call to commit suicide to me. What I'm going for is acceptance, understanding, love and compassion. I need my suffering...it provides wisdom and the impetus to grow emotionally, mentally, and spiritually. What is the aim of all the beings? It is the attainment of infinite happiness. A life free from suffering, and the attainment of eternal happiness is what we want. --- On Wed, 9/14/11, richardwillytexwilliams willy...@yahoo.com wrote: From: richardwillytexwilliams willy...@yahoo.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Credos: the will to believe vs. the wish to find out To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2011, 7:20 AM Denise Evans: I feel gratitude to the Buddha... Which one? for pointing out that what we struggle against all our lives can be acknowledged as ordinary experience - Pema Chodren, The Places that Scare You
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tat Wale Baba/Discourse on Self-Realization
Rory, I gotta keep up with these threads I guess. How exactly have I ended up characterized as being fascinated with your man boobs? I've been so deep in brushing up on ID that I missed the trail that lead to this odd, odd place. I was caught last year on the boardwalk where women sometimes wear white fabric which beams their headlights on high. Having seen woman about 1,000 checking themselves out from every angle in a mirror before going into public, I know I am not dealing with an innocent here and assume my gaze is by invitation. Anyhoo the beams were on high and even a non T oriented man like myself can fall under the spell of an set of errant nipples proudly parading themselves side by side. It was so immediate that my attention was engulfed so I didn't even have the cognitive gap to realize my entrancement for a moment. But once I emerged from my lizard brain I backed off my rude stare to take in the whole picture. They were proudly leading the way for a heavily made-up transvestite who was more Tony Curtis in drag than I'm sure he wished. The shock was immediate and we both gave each other a wry greeting acknowledging our little moment. If things like that happened to me every day, I would never get tired of it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: * * Yes, Robin, I totally agree! As She says, if someone who can't take his gaze off my tits actually looks fully into my eyes for a single heart-stopping moment, he will experience a horrific loss as he dies utterly into them, and this death of one's boyhood appears to be a fearful and lamentable thing, something to be avoided at all costs. Using one's intellect to compare what IS to some imaginary alternative, is like relating to a Woman through Playboy Consciousness, and allows one to indulge in endless fantasies while completely avoiding the naked intimacy of a true Lover. And again, this has nothing to do with East or West, and everything to do with simple humanity, with finishing what we start. So please let me apologize for doing just that to you and Curtis; even though you both may appear to be most comfortable staring only at my tits, I do appreciate you wholeheartedly, just as you are, and wish only the best for you -- that you both obtain your deepest heart's desires -- turiyatits, perhaps? -- if and when you most want them. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: Dear Robin, RG: It is always -- and I mean *always* -- a pleasure to commune with you, RC, and I wholeheartedly appreciate your living presence here as fully (as far as I can tell) as you do mine. I agree with you that to a certain (pretty farflung) extent, the universe will happily support whatever we choose to believe. My attainment -- such as it is; I put this in quotes because I have attained absolutely nothing -- consists only in stripping away all of my beliefs and stories, deconstructing them all, much as Curtis believes he has done with and to TWB's. RESPONSE: Consider this, Rory: Curtis goes into your state of consciousness (or subjective experience which produces your perspective on reality and forms your philosophy); you, on the other hand, go into his state of consciousness (or subjective experience which produces his perspective on reality and forms his philosophy). For me, Rory, there would be a inexpressible loss in the case of Curtis becoming a believer and exponent of the Rory view of the cosmosbecause, as far as I can tell, everything that is wonderfully poignant and audacious and humble and warlike about Curtis would be flattened outthe glory of God is found in a personality such as Curtis's. On the other hand, contemplating you re-individuating yourself as a Curtis type of person (in principle honouring your intense individualism, the singularity and self-containment of your ego self), would be a marvellous surprise and something I for one would pay money to see. Rory becoming only Rory, jettisoning the entire mystical context of his life, and becoming in his own Rory-way, just as feisty and bold and skeptical as Curtis. As a thought experiment, it seems, to me at least, to prove my point. I would love to know Rory as a purely Western Civilization person. Without a trace of the East touching his personal consciousnessjust to feel and experience what this Rory would be like. Curtis to abandon who he is to merge into the wholeness of it all, that would be, let me be candid here, tragic, a terrible loss of something so distinct and noble and stubbornly beautiful. If one thinks about what is the secret of lifesupposing there is onethe personal vitality and danger that is represented in the individuality of Curtis seems so much more likely to be going towards that secret than the cosmic tranquility and emptying of self
[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis
Curtis, Before I even begin to think about the implication of these two penetrating posts, you should know two things: Firstly: I do not hold to the paradigm of Intelligent Designmore about that later. Secondly: I feel intuitively the escapism from reality that is contained in a categorical rejection of The Theory of Evolution. I look forward to giving your posts the kind of close reading and intense consideration that they merit. My motive will be very simple: to see where you are right (according to my own lights), and where you create within me the sense of having transgressed against my own feeling for how things hang together in the universe. Of course I hope to apply the searching reason and rigour you have here in these posts. Thank you, Curtis. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: Curtis: Then how about *this* quote (TN): I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning and design as fundamental features of the world. I think it proves my suspicions about his reasons for being atheist. I arrived at it by default, from having no compelling reasons to believe any of the specific God ideas proposed that I have studied. I really have no preference about there being a God or not. If there was a good enough case to support it, I would believe. I do find peace in believing that random events cause suffering I guess. I would have some ethical questions for any God who could help but doesn't. But if that was the reality that held up like other well supported ideas,, I would just suck it up. And evolutionary theory has not eliminated any meaning from my life. Let the people who believe they have reasons to support their belief in an intrinsic purpose for the world make their case like the rest of us. Oh yeah, they have been doing so for thousands of years in man's history. Funny how easy it is for Christians to discard gods revered in the past isn't it? Gods that previous humans sometimes gave their life to preserve the belief. I have just read too many authoritative scriptures that contract each other to take one as definitive about reality. I wonder how you view the Bible Robin? Is it literature created by humans, or more than that for you? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Hey Robin, Thanks for turning me on to Thomas Nagel. I am doing some research for my reply. This is fun and good research for me to integrate into my POV. Curtis --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: Curtis, here is what one the greatest philosophers in the world says about evolutionhe a determined and committed atheist: My own situation is that of an atheist who, in spite of being an avid consumer of popular science, has for a long time been skeptical of the claims of traditional evolutionary theory to be the whole story about the history of life. The theory does not claim to explain the origin of life, which remains a complete scientific mystery at this point. Opponents of ID, however, normally assume that that too must have a purely chemical explanation. The idea is that life arose and evolved to its present form solely because of the laws of chemistry, and ultimately of particle physics. In the prevailing naturalistic worldview, evolutionary theory plays the crucial role in showing how physics can be the theory of everything. Sophisticated members of the contemporary culture have been so thoroughly indoctrinated that they easily lose sight of the fact that evolutionary reductionism defies common sense. A theory that defies common sense can be true, but doubts about its truth should be sup- pressed only in the face of exceptionally strong evidence. I do not regard divine intervention as a possibility, even though I have no other candidates. Yet I recognize that this is because of an aspect of my overall
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unlocking your Soul's Purpose, This weekend!
If anyone here still thinks that they can start a movement, well . . . Hey, start without me, I'll catch up if I see you doing anything different than, well, what EVERY GURU what ever wuz did. I'll be watching your posts and seeing how you handle the money, the trade secrets, and the fuck-ups of your punk-ass followers who'll bust every value you proffer to smithereens and yet argue that they're good modelers for your philosophy and its technique(s.) Who here can honestly claim that they follow, are following, or at least once gave it a good go to try to follow the precepts of a good TM Teacher? On the Teacher Training courses, who held back and resisted all the sex urges, the food urges, and the calls to wallow in all the indecencies of profligates? I was on Teacher Training for nine months, and I never met a single saint-to-be who didn't break the rules of purity some of the timeif only that they'd go to lunch with the course sinners and osmotically dwell with them. And back in the real world, every teacher I knew had an ego equal to my ownthat isthe size of a planetoid in the Ort Cloud. Purity in daily life was merely a mask we all wore well enough not to get reported to the higher ups. All of us went to violent movies, read crap news-of-the-world, scurried after the few pleasures allowed to us to an excessive degree and soaked in the negativity of the world like hogs in a sty. The sheer pettiness of my fellow teachers was astounding when it came to movement politics and the small bureaucratic powers we coveted. Where was all the huge changes in personality promised in me and them? I had to pretend them into existence. Imagine the damage to our brains to foster such cognitive dissonance for decades? Jerry Jarvis told us all it was our faults, right? Our impurity in daily life was the reason for the downfall of the movement, right? That was Maharishi's right hand man spelling it out for us, right? Our ashram stunk of hypocrisy, vile profiteering, egoic strutting, certainty in the face of unfathomable karma, and on and on. Looking back, even though I now think Maharishi was as corrupt as George Bush, I have to admit to my own lack of upholding the purity of the tradition in a thousand ways however so slight they may have been. The movement was dead on arrival -- given the fact that if the means formed around sattwa -- then Maharishi's vibe gathered unto itself a hoard of the same ilk.that would be..US! Yeah, whatever you're telling yourselves out there, you had a resonance with Maharishi that included all his criminal tendencies whether you were able to see it in him or not. Vibe doesn't lie and we all knew the guy's vibe and gave up and gave him our personal powers by denying what he really felt like or at least denying that we were not sensitive enough to really have conceptual clarity about that vibe of his. I knew shit was happening in the movement right from the get-go, but I ignored it or rationalized it instantly. Right at the very first lecture. And, then, when I got behind the curtains and saw the Wizard of Ahs feloniously shuttling money and people across international borders, well, my bad for lying to myself about the movement's dark side and staying with it and merely redoubling my denials. So good luck, gurus-to-be. This forum's hundreds of thousands of posts attests to the fact that each and all of us BLEW IT when it came to picking who we'd be riding the coattails of to get enlightened and all we got was a world class scam artist. Own that! Look at our pitiful states now.bitching here and chewing off our own paws from the traps of the movement we willingly stomped on and said, Hold us forever, beloved Guru! 29 years times 365 days times 4 hours a day in program equals 42,000+ hours -- that's my time totalhow much of your life did you toss into waiting for Godot? And that's just the money cost...think of the social costs to all of us for abandoning our parents' diets, lifestyles, religions, etc. I gave the MINDS OF MY CHILDREN to this crap. And what did I get? The right to be at Rick's party and wonder why the fuck I'm here with the likes of most of you with no life's attainments worthy of pointing to that could even begin to prove that the TM technique bettered uswhen every one of us knows many non-TMer others who didn't throw their lives away and got on with making money and careers etc. And who are the movement's great successes that could be the ideals for us to hope to one day also enjoy? Let's see, we got 1. a serial rapist in prison, 2. we got a New York Times best selling psychiatrist who drugged and raped patients, 3. we have guys who PURCHASED movement leadership by signing a million dollar check and wearing tin hats, 4. we've got war mongers like Willy, 5. we've got a get-rich-quick guy who did prison time for lying to whom?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: There is so much that I don't know about your version of God. I hope you fill in some details. I really appreciate the impetus to write such a long ass post Robin. Especially one that makes me do some homework before replying. (shoddy though it may be.) I spent some time yesterday in the fading star of a dying Borders Books. Damn I will miss that library resource! But I accept that I am one of the assholes that drove it out of business by checking out books there and buying them on Amazon. I came away with a pile for pennies on the dollar since this was the last 3 days for this store. I picked up a book by a guy I heard on NPR: The Spiritual Doorway in the Brain: A neurologist's search for the God experience. Should be interesting. I also picked up Paul Kurtz's Exuberant Skepticism on the fantastic title alone! His book the Transcendental Temptation was foundational for my rebuild on my epistemology when I opted out of Maharishi's. Much thanks for keeping the ball rolling. I will only accept sports analogies where we are on the same team in the scrum. Our purpose is common despite the different places we may be on the field right now. Curtis, Before I even begin to think about the implication of these two penetrating posts, you should know two things: Firstly: I do not hold to the paradigm of Intelligent Designmore about that later. Secondly: I feel intuitively the escapism from reality that is contained in a categorical rejection of The Theory of Evolution. I look forward to giving your posts the kind of close reading and intense consideration that they merit. My motive will be very simple: to see where you are right (according to my own lights), and where you create within me the sense of having transgressed against my own feeling for how things hang together in the universe. Of course I hope to apply the searching reason and rigour you have here in these posts. Thank you, Curtis. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: Curtis: Then how about *this* quote (TN): I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning and design as fundamental features of the world. I think it proves my suspicions about his reasons for being atheist. I arrived at it by default, from having no compelling reasons to believe any of the specific God ideas proposed that I have studied. I really have no preference about there being a God or not. If there was a good enough case to support it, I would believe. I do find peace in believing that random events cause suffering I guess. I would have some ethical questions for any God who could help but doesn't. But if that was the reality that held up like other well supported ideas,, I would just suck it up. And evolutionary theory has not eliminated any meaning from my life. Let the people who believe they have reasons to support their belief in an intrinsic purpose for the world make their case like the rest of us. Oh yeah, they have been doing so for thousands of years in man's history. Funny how easy it is for Christians to discard gods revered in the past isn't it? Gods that previous humans sometimes gave their life to preserve the belief. I have just read too many authoritative scriptures that contract each other to take one as definitive about reality. I wonder how you view the Bible Robin? Is it literature created by humans, or more than that for you? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Hey Robin, Thanks for turning me on to Thomas Nagel. I am doing some research for my reply. This is fun and good research for me to integrate into my POV. Curtis --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: Curtis, here is what one the greatest philosophers in the world says about evolutionhe a
[FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy]
Three other things, Bob: 1. The MIssion was one of the stupidest, most sentimental, Vatican II-driven, ironically sacrilegious movies I have ever seen. 2. When you take a stern moral attitude towards someoneand address them personally so as to rebuke them for their behaviourthat person (who in this case is being gently chastised) must either (a) feel the truth of this judgment or else (b) feel the need to be defensive and deny the truth of this judgment. But there is a third option: I felt your post to be not just primarily an expression of your own subjectivityhaving little to do with me whatsoever; I felt it to be only thisand therefore nothing to do with me. 3. Turk has nothing but contempt for your defence of him (at least the form it has assumed here in this post). Hold it! I have an idea: I shall go to Confession this afternoon. If I experience a sense of real absolution (after telling the priest my sin against Turk), I shall know you were right. which will mean I will have to go back to the priestand confess a second sin. This sound like a reasonable course of action, Bob? Goddamn it. I wait to make contact with the asshole in you, and I just can't. Write to Turk directly, Bob, and just get him to post this: No, the assholeness is in you, Robin. That should do it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: Friends--- self-interest or censorship? Robin, As your friend and admirer, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to some of your recent statements about my choice in friends. For starters, I need to state categorically that---unlike Britain in its hour of need---Turqo has never asked or, it seems, needed anyone's help with the blitzkrieg of criticism recently directed his way. He is like The Borg---he gets stronger the more he is attacked. Further, describing the objections, of a number of us, to this onslaught; as one friend protecting the flank of another friend---is facile and at best a canard. Turqo and I could hardly be called friends; we've never actually met. If anything we're competitors that collaborate when the situation makes commercial sense. Not unlike Warner Bros. and Paramount who collaborate on projects when it suits both their economic interests but remain competitors for the finite attention span of many FFL posters. That said, what has recently driven us into to full collaboration is this not so subtle attempt at censorship. This is not one friend standing up for another. This is one writer standing up for the free speech rights of another writer, because frankly; today Turqo, tomorrow me, the next day Xeno, and heaven forbid the road to you and Curtis is wide open. So dear friend I must in all conscience implore you to reconsider your present alliance and remember Churchill was not the only great writer of the greatest endeavor of the greatest generation---Mussolini was one too. And never forget what our great FDR told us about one of the great functions of garden hoses. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixNh5wrBxTo PS: I'm still mulling over your Hamlet, an exciting prospect to say the least, but in the pantheon of great performances you've always reminded me most of Gabriel. I don't think Jeremy could hold a candle to your grip on suffering---my dear Man of La Mancha. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m9Hz_0hu5kfeature=related From: maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 7:39:33 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy] Dear Bob, My feelings about Turqo are not influenced by anyone else's. That Judy's comments converge with my own (to a certain extent) is an accident. If she were defending your friend as intensely as she criticizes him, that would make no difference to me. I have an *experience* of your friend, and that experience is true to my soul. Your own regard for him does not go to where the problem is (for me). I have nothing but a totally positive orientation to this person. However, he sticks people in the eye with hisâthis is largely unconsciousâcruel and sneering comments, and this, always, for me, reacts back upon him (seen sub specie aeternitatis). He is so shockingly non-objective *about his own self* that I can only understand his hostility as entirely innocent (innocent because of this incapacity to see himself as he really is). Now either your friend is playing a game (Andy Kaufman-like), or else he is genuinely alienated from a normal (and *living*) perspective on himself. There can be no other conclusion, BobâI won't even attempt to prove my point. I assure you, I have not gone the route of logic or argument or confrontation: there he would be dead in the water. With the criteria I am applying to
[FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: snip For starters, I need to state categorically that---unlike Britain in its hour of need---Turqo has never asked or, it seems, needed anyone's help with the blitzkrieg of criticism recently directed his way. He is like The Borg---he gets stronger the more he is attacked. This last is a matter of opinion. Some of us-- especially those who have known him for a while--see a steady downward slide. snip what has recently driven us into to full collaboration is this not so subtle attempt at censorship. Um, bullshit. There is NO attempt at censorship going on-- at least no attempt by Barry's critics. Attempted censorship is his game, not ours (specifics on request). This is not one friend standing up for another. This is one writer standing up for the free speech rights of another writer, because frankly; today Turqo, tomorrow me, the next day Xeno, and heaven forbid the road to you and Curtis is wide open. I really would have thought you were smarter than this. Criticism amounts to censorship?? Sounds like you're trying to censor the criticism by slapping that loaded label on it. So dear friend I must in all conscience implore you to reconsider your present alliance and remember Churchill was not the only great writer of the greatest endeavor of the greatest generation---Mussolini was one too. Spit it out, Bob, don't pussyfoot around. Be brave and just call me a fascist.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Unlocking your Soul's Purpose, This weekend!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@... wrote: In the desert I saw a creature, naked, bestial, Who, squatting upon the ground, Held his heart in his hands, And ate of it. I said, Is it good, friend? It is bitter bitter, he answered, But I like it Because it is bitter, And because it is my heart. Edg Hello Edg, nice to have you back ! Did you have a checking lately ? :-) Your friend Nablusoss
[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis
RESPONSE: http://archives.newyorker.com/?i=2011-09-19email-analytics=newsletter110919p062#folio=068 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: There is so much that I don't know about your version of God. I hope you fill in some details. I really appreciate the impetus to write such a long ass post Robin. Especially one that makes me do some homework before replying. (shoddy though it may be.) I spent some time yesterday in the fading star of a dying Borders Books. Damn I will miss that library resource! But I accept that I am one of the assholes that drove it out of business by checking out books there and buying them on Amazon. I came away with a pile for pennies on the dollar since this was the last 3 days for this store. I picked up a book by a guy I heard on NPR: The Spiritual Doorway in the Brain: A neurologist's search for the God experience. Should be interesting. I also picked up Paul Kurtz's Exuberant Skepticism on the fantastic title alone! His book the Transcendental Temptation was foundational for my rebuild on my epistemology when I opted out of Maharishi's. Much thanks for keeping the ball rolling. I will only accept sports analogies where we are on the same team in the scrum. Our purpose is common despite the different places we may be on the field right now. Curtis, Before I even begin to think about the implication of these two penetrating posts, you should know two things: Firstly: I do not hold to the paradigm of Intelligent Designmore about that later. Secondly: I feel intuitively the escapism from reality that is contained in a categorical rejection of The Theory of Evolution. I look forward to giving your posts the kind of close reading and intense consideration that they merit. My motive will be very simple: to see where you are right (according to my own lights), and where you create within me the sense of having transgressed against my own feeling for how things hang together in the universe. Of course I hope to apply the searching reason and rigour you have here in these posts. Thank you, Curtis. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: Curtis: Then how about *this* quote (TN): I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning and design as fundamental features of the world. I think it proves my suspicions about his reasons for being atheist. I arrived at it by default, from having no compelling reasons to believe any of the specific God ideas proposed that I have studied. I really have no preference about there being a God or not. If there was a good enough case to support it, I would believe. I do find peace in believing that random events cause suffering I guess. I would have some ethical questions for any God who could help but doesn't. But if that was the reality that held up like other well supported ideas,, I would just suck it up. And evolutionary theory has not eliminated any meaning from my life. Let the people who believe they have reasons to support their belief in an intrinsic purpose for the world make their case like the rest of us. Oh yeah, they have been doing so for thousands of years in man's history. Funny how easy it is for Christians to discard gods revered in the past isn't it? Gods that previous humans sometimes gave their life to preserve the belief. I have just read too many authoritative scriptures that contract each other to take one as definitive about reality. I wonder how you view the Bible Robin? Is it literature created by humans, or more than that for you? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Hey Robin, Thanks for turning me on to Thomas Nagel. I am doing some research
[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis
Curtis: Sorry. It's locked. You have to have a subscription (online) like I do. But I highly recommend your reading the articleyou can skip to the entrance of LG. After that, it's all delicious. That woman. So loveable. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: RESPONSE: http://archives.newyorker.com/?i=2011-09-19email-analytics=newsletter110919p062#folio=068 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: There is so much that I don't know about your version of God. I hope you fill in some details. I really appreciate the impetus to write such a long ass post Robin. Especially one that makes me do some homework before replying. (shoddy though it may be.) I spent some time yesterday in the fading star of a dying Borders Books. Damn I will miss that library resource! But I accept that I am one of the assholes that drove it out of business by checking out books there and buying them on Amazon. I came away with a pile for pennies on the dollar since this was the last 3 days for this store. I picked up a book by a guy I heard on NPR: The Spiritual Doorway in the Brain: A neurologist's search for the God experience. Should be interesting. I also picked up Paul Kurtz's Exuberant Skepticism on the fantastic title alone! His book the Transcendental Temptation was foundational for my rebuild on my epistemology when I opted out of Maharishi's. Much thanks for keeping the ball rolling. I will only accept sports analogies where we are on the same team in the scrum. Our purpose is common despite the different places we may be on the field right now. Curtis, Before I even begin to think about the implication of these two penetrating posts, you should know two things: Firstly: I do not hold to the paradigm of Intelligent Designmore about that later. Secondly: I feel intuitively the escapism from reality that is contained in a categorical rejection of The Theory of Evolution. I look forward to giving your posts the kind of close reading and intense consideration that they merit. My motive will be very simple: to see where you are right (according to my own lights), and where you create within me the sense of having transgressed against my own feeling for how things hang together in the universe. Of course I hope to apply the searching reason and rigour you have here in these posts. Thank you, Curtis. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: Curtis: Then how about *this* quote (TN): I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning and design as fundamental features of the world. I think it proves my suspicions about his reasons for being atheist. I arrived at it by default, from having no compelling reasons to believe any of the specific God ideas proposed that I have studied. I really have no preference about there being a God or not. If there was a good enough case to support it, I would believe. I do find peace in believing that random events cause suffering I guess. I would have some ethical questions for any God who could help but doesn't. But if that was the reality that held up like other well supported ideas,, I would just suck it up. And evolutionary theory has not eliminated any meaning from my life. Let the people who believe they have reasons to support their belief in an intrinsic purpose for the world make their case like the rest of us. Oh yeah, they have been doing so for thousands of years in man's history. Funny how easy it is for Christians to discard gods revered in the past isn't it? Gods that previous humans sometimes gave their life to preserve the belief. I have just read too many authoritative scriptures that
[FairfieldLife] Re: Attention
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: Sounds like pure BS from a crazy man; something only the weak, insecure and unstable would have an interest in. Maharishi taught us about invincibility, which in part means not being swayed by the senses.:-) Sounds to me like Rama wanting to suppress what he perceived as competition for attention: snip In the latter case, he singled out some of us and busted us publicly on having done this pushing it out thang so often and for so long that we were riding on it and relying on it to steal an occasional cheap high by stealing attention. I was definitely in the busted group. :-) Some of my followers stealing attention that should be going to *me*? Can't have that... Since my (in my case unconscious) tendency to push it out occultly was pointed out to me, I've been working consciously on developing its opposite -- pulling it in, and relying for my highs in life on the energy I get from meditation, performing whatever selfless service I can manage, and trekking to occasional places of power. I've found it more productive. Given his constant compulsive plays for attention here, and his open admissions--boasts, actually--that he gets off on the reactions to his provocations, the above is pretty funny. His obliviousness to his own behavior knows no boundaries.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy]
Below From: maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 9:13:21 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy] Bob, Extremely disappointing response—not because I hate being refuted, but because you utterly fail to go to the issue. ***Backatcha bro It breaks my heart you so misunderstand me—and my response to this individual. ***Me too You've got me (and my motives) all wrong, Bob. ***Ditto I am amazed at your failure of sensitivity here. ***With nothing but love and affection, it seems there has been no failure of sensitivity in this exchange--- I apologize, I should have know a WWII metaphor might bring up some issues for you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylrzf42LTWo ***But frankly, the arms streaming across the oceans brought tears to my eyes---not that kind of tears---and I wanted to share. I apologize. I have no bloody goddamn opinions. My soul senses misanthropy of the sneering kind, and I respond out of the logic and sincerity of my soul. I may be objectively mistaken in all that I say about Turk—and by way of implication, therefore, Judy; but with this reply you have made it even more unlikely I can maneuver myself into a position which would let some of the California sunshine in. ***I don't question your right to respond in kind to Barry. If Barry body slammed me, the way he has you, my responses to him would not be as measured as yours---by a long shot. Please recall what brought me out my role as lurker. And please show me what in my posts criticized you defending yourself. My post is obviously about your choice of friends and if memory serves it was your call to arms, on behalf of your new found friends that got the choice of friends ball rolling? Let me put it to you this way, Bobbie boy: If you really think this issue deserves a debate, and you want to hear my rationale in all its detailed elucidation, then present some form of real argument: this isn't a defence, it isn't even a rebuttal. It is just subjective loyalty and decontextualized sermonizing. ***BS. I don't need to be as articulate as Xeno has been to point out the obvious nature of the attack on Turq. I believe any thinking person, who has read anything on the subject, knows the company you're keeping are born again censors and the reason they want to get rid of Barry is the same reason they would like me to piss off and I believe their mentality will be directed at you and Curtis once the little house keeping item (aka the dutch underground) is attended to. This is not about you having an opinion or Barry being offensive, this is about censorship. So if you and your buds want to have a debate about censorship I'm your man. Your friends believe people who don' agree with them should be censored and as a card carrying member of PEN (plan to join as soon as I post this) I completely reject all forms of censorship. Yeah, you heard right, Bobbie Boy. And your angelic vibration (which I doubt you are consciously aware of) failed to connect up to the celestial intelligence which must be there somewhere. Do I want to see things a certain way, Bob? NO. Am I willing to have your construal of this affair supplant my own construal. You bet. ***I don't disagree, that's why I love you---and Ravi too for that matter---I'm just questioning who you're hanging with. Your argument is entirely disconnected from any kind of discrete, minute particulars of EXPERIENCE—or rather is is *just* experience without an kind of disciplined, hard thinking and sacrifice. No Negative Capability for you, Bob, when it comes to this person. ***This one really hurt. Disconnected from reality---no problem, but disconnected from EXPERIENCE, those are fighting words. I'll put my CV up against any wanker on this site, I've lived and worked in 50+ countries. EXPERIENCE IS ALL I AM. Can I eviscerate this [your] argument (if we grant it this status) comprehensively, definitively? ***If you agree its an issue of censorship, than have at her! Yes I can. But I won't attempt to do this until you challenge me meaningfully from within your supernaturally-commerce-inspired soul. You are a dreamer, Bob, and you are (without knowing this of course) fleeing the scene. ***Of course, that is always an option. This is a 90 day program. Full of bullshit am I, Bob? Make your case. Because for anything that you have said here to be psychologically valid requires you to ferret out the motive for my prejudice against this person. I do not have prejudices—against anyone. ***Another reason I love you. But for your thesis to be right, there must be prejudice and bias and bitterness and intolerance in me. ***I agree, I'd have a better chance of finding water in The Kingdom's empty quarter. You have the satisfaction of having
[FairfieldLife] Re: Churning the Ocean of Milk
Richard, Your interpretation of this myth has validity. By most accounts, amrita is interpreted to be the soma of ancient times. But soma can also be interpreted as the bliss gained during meditation, TM in particular. Nonetheless, it is interesting to see how this myth also can be interpreted as the ancient coded message for the Big Bang Theory in modern cosmology. JR --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardwillytexwilliams willytex@... wrote: John jr_esq: Churning the Ocean of Milk The most popular version of the Indian myth 'Churning the milk Ocean' is found in the Eighth Canto of the Bhagavata Purana. In Buddhist mythology, 'Amrita' is the drink of the gods, which grants them immortality. According to Terrence McKenna in his book The Food Of Gods, the psilocybin-containing Stropharia cubensis mushroom is a likely soma candidate. Psilocybin, the active psychoactive component in Stropharia Cubensis has a strong hallucinogenic nature. The Ninth Mandala of the Rigveda is known as the Soma Mandala. Soma (Sanskrit), or Haoma (Avestan) was a ritual drink of importance among the early Indo-Iranians, and the later Vedic and Iranian cultures. It is frequently mentioned in the Rigveda, which contains many hymns praising its energizing or intoxicating qualities. Read more: Subject: Soma: The primary ingredient in TM Author: Willytex Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: February 23, 2005 http://tinyurl.com/639zxy6
[FairfieldLife] Re: Attention
I nearly killed myself by accepting your Negative Occult Energy, he said, and now you are going to have to pay for it. http://www.ex-cult.org/Groups/Rama/14.epil-3 maskedzebra That is, there was a preternatural link between all the posts at FFL and what is contained in this biography. But I refuse to testify... http://www.ex-cult.org/Groups/Rama/wired
Re: [FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy]
Disclaimer: Anything said below or in future posts refers to the voice you use on FFL since I've never met you. From: authfriend jst...@panix.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 10:12:42 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy] --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: snip For starters, I need to state categorically that---unlike Britain in its hour of need---Turqo has never asked or, it seems, needed anyone's help with the blitzkrieg of criticism recently directed his way. He is like The Borg---he gets stronger the more he is attacked. This last is a matter of opinion. Some of us-- especially those who have known him for a while--see a steady downward slide. ***Obviously, I guess I'm addicted to the future. snip what has recently driven us into to full collaboration is this not so subtle attempt at censorship. Um, bullshit. There is NO attempt at censorship going on-- at least no attempt by Barry's critics. Attempted censorship is his game, not ours (specifics on request). ***Bullshit yourself. How about 60% of your posts, if that's specific enough. You do everything you accuse Barry of doing, but he does not censor like you do. And unlike Curtis, you're also a hypocrite. This is not one friend standing up for another. This is one writer standing up for the free speech rights of another writer, because frankly; today Turqo, tomorrow me, the next day Xeno, and heaven forbid the road to you and Curtis is wide open. I really would have thought you were smarter than this. Criticism amounts to censorship?? Sounds like you're trying to censor the criticism by slapping that loaded label on it. *** no cigar here Judy, but typical of your way of calling the kettle black. I'll give you a B for subtext. So dear friend I must in all conscience implore you to reconsider your present alliance and remember Churchill was not the only great writer of the greatest endeavor of the greatest generation---Mussolini was one too. Spit it out, Bob, don't pussyfoot around. Be brave and just call me a fascist. ***Calling you a censor seems to have done the trick, as you know that's not a new label I've mailed your way. If I wanted to call you a fascist I would have used a French example since they invented it. ***I apologize in advance if my responses are tardy, I'm trying to wind down my other responsibilities so I can devote myself full time to FFL. I also should warn you I don't have Curtis's stamina. ***Happy Robin, or should I call you MZ? I have a feeling we may be talking settlement here.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Credos: the will to believe vs. the wish to find out
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: I find I do not do much research, but I am in the will to find out group. If it seems critical, I will look something up. But writing on a forum is not necessarily the height of seriousness. I predict that Barry will heartily agree with you on this great insight, and quite possibly also claim he made the mistake on purpose to elicit a correction from me so he could make that very point himself. Watch. Judy, do you really have to anticipate everything Barry does? You posted during the expectation of Irene that you lived near the beach. Why not after say making half your posts for the week, go for some walks on the beach and just stay off the forum for say, two days, and then save the rest of your quota for the end of the week when otherwise you usually run out? This assumes that beach is open to the public or you have rights to tread thereupon.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Churning the Ocean of Milk
Johnjr_esq: Your interpretation of this myth has validity According to Maharishi, Soma is produced in the human body when Cosmic Consciousness is attained. The purpose of Soma thus engendered is to enable the individual to see everything as one's infinite self. Maharishi says that the Gods are not enlightened, so they need to get Soma by means of certain rituals performed by humans. In Deepak Chopra's book, The Return of the Rishi, Soma is described as ...a very rare plant that grows in the Himalayas. (unfortunately for the rishis, the Soma plant doesn't grow in the Himalayas)... Read more: 'Nectar of the Gods?' http://www.rwilliams.us/archives/nectar.htm
Re: [FairfieldLife] Credos: the will to believe vs. the wish to find out
On Sep 14, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Denise Evans wrote: It's life, man, life. http://bit.ly/pYOI8r Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Attention
The whole subject strikes me as a form of mental masturbation. I can't see any practical value in its indulgence whatsoever. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Sounds like pure BS from a crazy man; something only the weak, insecure and unstable would have an interest in. Maharishi taught us about invincibility, which in part means not being swayed by the senses.:-) Sounds to me like Rama wanting to suppress what he perceived as competition for attention: snip In the latter case, he singled out some of us and busted us publicly on having done this pushing it out thang so often and for so long that we were riding on it and relying on it to steal an occasional cheap high by stealing attention. I was definitely in the busted group. :-) Some of my followers stealing attention that should be going to *me*? Can't have that... Since my (in my case unconscious) tendency to push it out occultly was pointed out to me, I've been working consciously on developing its opposite -- pulling it in, and relying for my highs in life on the energy I get from meditation, performing whatever selfless service I can manage, and trekking to occasional places of power. I've found it more productive. Given his constant compulsive plays for attention here, and his open admissions--boasts, actually--that he gets off on the reactions to his provocations, the above is pretty funny. His obliviousness to his own behavior knows no boundaries.
[FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: snip ***BS. I don't need to be as articulate as Xeno has been to point out the obvious nature of the attack on Turq. I believe any thinking person, who has read anything on the subject, knows the company you're keeping are born again censors and the reason they want to get rid of Barry NO, I DON'T WANT TO GET RID OF BARRY. I would be happier if he weren't here, granted, but if there were ever a move to throw him off FFL because of his views, I'd be leading the opposition. This is not about you having an opinion or Barry being offensive, this is about censorship. So if you and your buds want to have a debate about censorship I'm your man. Yes, let's have a debate about censorship, by all means. Why don't you start with some quotes from my posts that you believe suggest I'm in favor of censoring Barry? I'll wait. Your friends believe people who don' agree with them should be censored BULLSHIT. Somehow you've managed to get your head screwed on backwards. You haven't the FOGGIEST idea of what you're talking about.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Churning the Ocean of Milk
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: This vedic myth describes the process of creation at the planck time after the Big Bang. At that point in time, matter and antimatter were created only to annihilate each other in a tremendous ball of fire. In the end, only a tiny fraction of matter remained (the amrita) which became the source of who we are today. Watch these series of clips and find out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1v=EtyCP8hEruM RESPONSE: Wonderful! This Gothic cathedral of the 21st century however, is missing one thing: MOTIVE. Thrilling, the whole adventurewhat was that FIRST SECOND of the BIG BANG like?but it's like replicating the entire neurobiological conditions when someone first fell in love: you get the objective correlatesperhaps [they haven't found the HB particle yet]but what is absent (and will be forever) is the first person experience of the Creator; just like the first person perspective of the lover. The LHC can't get to the ROMANCE behind that first second. But this experiment, to replicate that moment, is absolutely fascinating to me. But can science over pry open the subjectivity of God? I doubt it. In my judgment it is a heroic endeavour (the LHC), but it (like science taken to the infinite degree) can't account for the personal decision of the Creator to create the universe. Thanks for posting this magnificent video. I agree with most of what you've stated. But scientists are by nature not willing to accept the invocation of Infinity or the Creator. They are now even asking, What happened before the Big Bang? Two days ago I posted a video, under the subject heading, Hidden Reality. The video was a discussion with Dr. Green, a popular physicist from Columbia University. He has proposed that our universe could just be one of an infinite amount of universes, commonly known as the Multiverse. The video clip is rather long. But it gives a good overview of the current thinking in scientific cosmology.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tat Wale Baba/Discourse on Self-Realization
What is the aim of all the beings? It is the attainment of infinite happiness. A life free from suffering, and the attainment of eternal happiness is what we want... curtisdeltablues: No, no and no. This is the dream of an idiot or a young person who has not lived enough to know how to get the most out of life. Infinite happiness is as stupid as a goal as having infinite sunshine. I dig the sun. I really do. But it was the setting of the sun that allowed me to watch the moon rise tonight... Uh,oh - sounds like Curtis had a bad case of the 'Moondays' om Monday, September 12. Go figure. snip Maybe we should keep in mind that it was Curtis that flew all the way to India to see the Baba. LoL! Tat Wale Baba Translated from Hindi by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi http://www.yogiphotos.com/chap5d.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy]
Below From: maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 10:12:37 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy] Three other things, Bob: ***Not sure I can manage three more on this one. 1. The MIssion was one of the stupidest, most sentimental, Vatican II-driven, ironically sacrilegious movies I have ever seen. ***I apologize. What would you prefer, the stuffed popes on display in the Vatican? BTW, when was the last time you visited the Vatican? For me it was 2007. 2. When you take a stern moral attitude towards someone—and address them personally so as to rebuke them for their behaviour—that person (who in this case is being gently chastised) must either (a) feel the truth of this judgment or else (b) feel the need to be defensive and deny the truth of this judgment. But there is a third option: I felt your post to be not just primarily an expression of your own subjectivity—having little to do with me whatsoever; I felt it to be only this—and therefore nothing to do with me. ***This Mount Sinai way you have with words can be tiring at times. 3. Turk has nothing but contempt for your defence of him (at least the form it has assumed here in this post). Hold it! I have an idea: I shall go to Confession this afternoon. If I experience a sense of real absolution (after telling the priest my sin against Turk), I shall know you were right. which will mean I will have to go back to the priest—and confess a second sin. This sound like a reasonable course of action, Bob? Goddamn it. I wait to make contact with the asshole in you, and I just can't. Write to Turk directly, Bob, and just get him to post this: No, the assholeness is in you, Robin. That should do it. ***We all know I'm an asshole, I have my doubts you're much on that front. For the third time this argument (if you'll grant me that ) is about censorship and the blatantly co-dependent and passive agressive behavior of your new friends. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: Friends--- self-interest or censorship? Robin, As your friend and admirer, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to some of your recent statements about my choice in friends. For starters, I need to state categorically that---unlike Britain in its hour of need---Turqo has never asked or, it seems, needed anyone's help with the blitzkrieg of criticism recently directed his way. He is like The Borg---he gets stronger the more he is attacked. Further, describing the objections, of a number of us, to this onslaught; as one friend protecting the flank of another friend---is facile and at best a canard. Turqo and I could hardly be called friends; we've never actually met. If anything we're competitors that collaborate when the situation makes commercial sense. Not unlike Warner Bros. and Paramount who collaborate on projects when it suits both their economic interests but remain competitors for the finite attention span of many FFL posters. That said, what has recently driven us into to full collaboration is this not so subtle attempt at censorship. This is not one friend standing up for another. This is one writer standing up for the free speech rights of another writer, because frankly; today Turqo, tomorrow me, the next day Xeno, and heaven forbid the road to you and Curtis is wide open. So dear friend I must in all conscience implore you to reconsider your present alliance and remember Churchill was not the only great writer of the greatest endeavor of the greatest generation---Mussolini was one too. And never forget what our great FDR told us about one of the great functions of garden hoses. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixNh5wrBxTo PS: I'm still mulling over your Hamlet, an exciting prospect to say the least, but in the pantheon of great performances you've always reminded me most of Gabriel. I don't think Jeremy could hold a candle to your grip on suffering---my dear Man of La Mancha. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m9Hz_0hu5kfeature=related From: maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 7:39:33 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy] Dear Bob, My feelings about Turqo are not influenced by anyone else's. That Judy's comments converge with my own (to a certain extent) is an accident. If she were defending your friend as intensely as she criticizes him, that would make no difference to me. I have an *experience* of your friend, and that experience is true to my soul. Your own regard for him does not go to where the problem is (for me). I have nothing but a totally positive orientation to
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tat Wale Baba/Discourse on Self-Realization
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Rory, I gotta keep up with these threads I guess. How exactly have I ended up characterized as being fascinated with your man boobs? * * In your sweetly funny treatment of TWB, you appeared to me to exhibit a somewhat boyish fascination with his body-of-appearance -- Life's surface value, or tits, as it were -- accompanied by a steadfast refusal to lose yourself and die into TWB's actual understanding -- Life's eyes, in my analogy -- with the intimacy of a true Lover. I had no problem with this, or you, and responded only to Robin's assertion to the effect that your treatment of him was unanswerably profound. I begged to differ. Again, I apologize for inadvertently comparing you to some imaginary more-mature-Curtis which self-evidently doesn't exist, nor should he. Where it counts, you are indeed unanswerably and profoundly perfect, just as you are: just as Robin is, just as we all are. I've been so deep in brushing up on ID that I missed the trail that lead to this odd, odd place. I was caught last year on the boardwalk where women sometimes wear white fabric which beams their headlights on high. Having seen woman about 1,000 checking themselves out from every angle in a mirror before going into public, I know I am not dealing with an innocent here and assume my gaze is by invitation. Anyhoo the beams were on high and even a non T oriented man like myself can fall under the spell of an set of errant nipples proudly parading themselves side by side. It was so immediate that my attention was engulfed so I didn't even have the cognitive gap to realize my entrancement for a moment. But once I emerged from my lizard brain I backed off my rude stare to take in the whole picture. They were proudly leading the way for a heavily made-up transvestite who was more Tony Curtis in drag than I'm sure he wished. The shock was immediate and we both gave each other a wry greeting acknowledging our little moment. If things like that happened to me every day, I would never get tired of it. * * A great story, and very much to the point!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tat Wale Baba/Discourse on Self-Realization
The silent part of my mind is not the interesting part, to me or to others... sparaig: How could it be interesting? It simply is. The point of enlightenment isn't to ignore the interesting stuff, but to simply not lose sight of the simplicity behind the diversity. Does this have anything to do with Curtis nixing your application to take TTC?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Churning the Ocean of Milk
In Paul Mason's book, MMY is quoted to have stated that Soma can be found in the belly of a person in cosmic consciousness. This suggests that soma could be some form of a chemical ingredient produced by the human physiology. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardwillytexwilliams willytex@... wrote: Johnjr_esq: Your interpretation of this myth has validity According to Maharishi, Soma is produced in the human body when Cosmic Consciousness is attained. The purpose of Soma thus engendered is to enable the individual to see everything as one's infinite self. Maharishi says that the Gods are not enlightened, so they need to get Soma by means of certain rituals performed by humans. In Deepak Chopra's book, The Return of the Rishi, Soma is described as ...a very rare plant that grows in the Himalayas. (unfortunately for the rishis, the Soma plant doesn't grow in the Himalayas)... Read more: 'Nectar of the Gods?' http://www.rwilliams.us/archives/nectar.htm
[FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: snip what has recently driven us into to full collaboration is this not so subtle attempt at censorship. Um, bullshit. There is NO attempt at censorship going on-- at least no attempt by Barry's critics. Attempted censorship is his game, not ours (specifics on request). ***Bullshit yourself. How about 60% of your posts, if that's specific enough. Not specific enough. Cite some posts, please. You do everything you accuse Barry of doing, but he does not censor like you do. ??? Cites, please, of my censoring anything. And unlike Curtis, you're also a hypocrite. Cites, please. This is not one friend standing up for another. This is one writer standing up for the free speech rights of another writer, because frankly; today Turqo, tomorrow me, the next day Xeno, and heaven forbid the road to you and Curtis is wide open. I really would have thought you were smarter than this. Criticism amounts to censorship?? Sounds like you're trying to censor the criticism by slapping that loaded label on it. *** no cigar here Judy, but typical of your way of calling the kettle black. I'll give you a B for subtext. You aren't making much sense here. I've criticized Barry plenty, but I've never censored him or called for censoring him or suggested or hinted or implied that he should be censored, nor do I believe he should be censored, and I would fight vigorously against his being censored. Only thing I can figure out is that you don't know what censorship means, and you're erroneously applying it to criticism. But let's see what you got. Cite (by number) or quote posts of mine that have engaged in censorship or recommended it, overtly or by implication. So dear friend I must in all conscience implore you to reconsider your present alliance and remember Churchill was not the only great writer of the greatest endeavor of the greatest generation---Mussolini was one too. Spit it out, Bob, don't pussyfoot around. Be brave and just call me a fascist. ***Calling you a censor seems to have done the trick, as you know that's not a new label I've mailed your way. I don't believe you've ever called me a fascist. If you have, please quote the post in which you did so. I must have missed it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Unlocking your Soul's Purpose, This weekend!
On 09/14/2011 09:29 AM, Duveyoung wrote: If anyone here still thinks that they can start a movement, well . . . Hey, start without me, I'll catch up if I see you doing anything different than, well, what EVERY GURU what ever wuz did. I'll be watching your posts and seeing how you handle the money, the trade secrets, and the fuck-ups of your punk-ass followers who'll bust every value you proffer to smithereens and yet argue that they're good modelers for your philosophy and its technique(s.) Who here can honestly claim that they follow, are following, or at least once gave it a good go to try to follow the precepts of a good TM Teacher? On the Teacher Training courses, who held back and resisted all the sex urges, the food urges, and the calls to wallow in all the indecencies of profligates? I was on Teacher Training for nine months, and I never met a single saint-to-be who didn't break the rules of purity some of the timeif only that they'd go to lunch with the course sinners and osmotically dwell with them. And back in the real world, every teacher I knew had an ego equal to my ownthat isthe size of a planetoid in the Ort Cloud. Purity in daily life was merely a mask we all wore well enough not to get reported to the higher ups. All of us went to violent movies, read crap news-of-the-world, scurried after the few pleasures allowed to us to an excessive degree and soaked in the negativity of the world like hogs in a sty. The sheer pettiness of my fellow teachers was astounding when it came to movement politics and the small bureaucratic powers we coveted. Where was all the huge changes in personality promised in me and them? I had to pretend them into existence. Imagine the damage to our brains to foster such cognitive dissonance for decades? Jerry Jarvis told us all it was our faults, right? Our impurity in daily life was the reason for the downfall of the movement, right? That was Maharishi's right hand man spelling it out for us, right? Our ashram stunk of hypocrisy, vile profiteering, egoic strutting, certainty in the face of unfathomable karma, and on and on. Looking back, even though I now think Maharishi was as corrupt as George Bush, I have to admit to my own lack of upholding the purity of the tradition in a thousand ways however so slight they may have been. The movement was dead on arrival -- given the fact that if the means formed around sattwa -- then Maharishi's vibe gathered unto itself a hoard of the same ilk.that would be..US! Yeah, whatever you're telling yourselves out there, you had a resonance with Maharishi that included all his criminal tendencies whether you were able to see it in him or not. Vibe doesn't lie and we all knew the guy's vibe and gave up and gave him our personal powers by denying what he really felt like or at least denying that we were not sensitive enough to really have conceptual clarity about that vibe of his. I knew shit was happening in the movement right from the get-go, but I ignored it or rationalized it instantly. Right at the very first lecture. And, then, when I got behind the curtains and saw the Wizard of Ahs feloniously shuttling money and people across international borders, well, my bad for lying to myself about the movement's dark side and staying with it and merely redoubling my denials. So good luck, gurus-to-be. This forum's hundreds of thousands of posts attests to the fact that each and all of us BLEW IT when it came to picking who we'd be riding the coattails of to get enlightened and all we got was a world class scam artist. Own that! Look at our pitiful states now.bitching here and chewing off our own paws from the traps of the movement we willingly stomped on and said, Hold us forever, beloved Guru! 29 years times 365 days times 4 hours a day in program equals 42,000+ hours -- that's my time totalhow much of your life did you toss into waiting for Godot? And that's just the money cost...think of the social costs to all of us for abandoning our parents' diets, lifestyles, religions, etc. I gave the MINDS OF MY CHILDREN to this crap. And what did I get? The right to be at Rick's party and wonder why the fuck I'm here with the likes of most of you with no life's attainments worthy of pointing to that could even begin to prove that the TM technique bettered uswhen every one of us knows many non-TMer others who didn't throw their lives away and got on with making money and careers etc. And who are the movement's great successes that could be the ideals for us to hope to one day also enjoy? Let's see, we got 1. a serial rapist in prison, 2. we got a New York Times best selling psychiatrist who drugged and raped patients, 3. we have guys who PURCHASED movement leadership by signing a million dollar check and wearing tin hats, 4. we've got war mongers
[FairfieldLife] Re: Credos: the will to believe vs. the wish to find out
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: I find I do not do much research, but I am in the will to find out group. If it seems critical, I will look something up. But writing on a forum is not necessarily the height of seriousness. I predict that Barry will heartily agree with you on this great insight, and quite possibly also claim he made the mistake on purpose to elicit a correction from me so he could make that very point himself. Watch. Judy, do you really have to anticipate everything Barry does? Um, no, actually it's rare that I predict he'll do something. You posted during the expectation of Irene that you lived near the beach. Why not after say making half your posts for the week, go for some walks on the beach and just stay off the forum for say, two days, and then save the rest of your quota for the end of the week when otherwise you usually run out? If I were Bob Price, I'd be screaming Censorship! Why do you want me off the forum for two days a week? (Free clue: If I cared about my posts running out by the end of the week, I'd post less in the earlier part of the week.)
[FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Neuroscientists have found that we seem to be hard wired with some sense of 'fair play'. Presumably something to do with primate evolution, and our species in particular. That just means our perception is diverted along such a track. The universe as a whole may not have any such idea at all. I don't believe anybody was talking about the universe as a whole having rules of fair play, and in any case I explicitly discounted any such claim above. All rules exist in the context of the universe as a whole. I tend to think of rules like natural laws, which in science one must think of as being universal; otherwise one is creating ad hoc rules trying to get some consistency across disparate domains. Suppose we live in different domains in which the rules by which I consider things differ from the rules by which you consider things, how do we harmonise that? As if we are speaking different languages, or have different cultures, or 'different state of consciousness'. How do we overcome the typical desire that people have to want to play by their rules as opposed to others' rules? When one person monopolises the rule book, the others have the deck stacked against them. As an example: FFL is a forum concerning enlightenment and such related primarily to the practice of spiritually oriented techniques taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. (you can change this if you like) If a discussion takes place on the forum, is there a rule that states that it must be constructed from the POV of a specific state of consciousness, and if so which one?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy]
below From: authfriend jst...@panix.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:25:52 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy] --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: snip ***BS. I don't need to be as articulate as Xeno has been to point out the obvious nature of the attack on Turq. I believe any thinking person, who has read anything on the subject, knows the company you're keeping are born again censors and the reason they want to get rid of Barry NO, I DON'T WANT TO GET RID OF BARRY. I would be happier if he weren't here, granted, but if there were ever a move to throw him off FFL because of his views, I'd be leading the opposition. *Putting something in upper case doesn't make it true Judy. What you've said above is nonsense. Obviously you want to censor Barry. You also want to control him, that's what co-dependance is all about---look it up. You're more than obsessed with him---you're identified with him---as if the voice you use on FFL can't exist without him. It's a kind of cyber stalking that I find a bit creepy. This is not about you having an opinion or Barry being offensive, this is about censorship. So if you and your buds want to have a debate about censorship I'm your man. Yes, let's have a debate about censorship, by all means. Why don't you start with some quotes from my posts that you believe suggest I'm in favor of censoring Barry? I'll wait. *Sounds good. But at my hourly rate it would be a bit silly for me to start archive diving so I'll have to get someone to do it for me---which might take a little more time. So please keep waiting, because; I shall return. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjMN-3aceLI Your friends believe people who don' agree with them should be censored BULLSHIT. Somehow you've managed to get your head screwed on backwards. You haven't the FOGGIEST idea of what you're talking about. ***I won't argue that I'm a bit foggy at times---ask my best bud Ravi, but as sure as peaches go with cream you're ECHO to Turqo's NARCISSUS and he loves every minute of it. AND everything about the behavior of your FFL voice screams censor. PS: One of the reasons I have to hire someone else for research is that I'm here to learn how to write and need to say I learn as much from you as I do from Turk although not as much as I do from MZ and Ravi. Xeno, Curtis, Atman, Empybill and many others are just cream on the peaches.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Credos: the will to believe vs. the wish to find out
I was not suggesting censorship. You are actually off the forum for several days a week anyway because you use up your quota. I did not suggest that *I* wanted you off the forum. I was merely suggesting redistributing your responses more evenly across the week, or varying your post times to get in when you normally are shut out. I have ignored your free hint. Why do you seem to take everything so personally? You appear extraordinarily combative. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: I find I do not do much research, but I am in the will to find out group. If it seems critical, I will look something up. But writing on a forum is not necessarily the height of seriousness. I predict that Barry will heartily agree with you on this great insight, and quite possibly also claim he made the mistake on purpose to elicit a correction from me so he could make that very point himself. Watch. Judy, do you really have to anticipate everything Barry does? Um, no, actually it's rare that I predict he'll do something. You posted during the expectation of Irene that you lived near the beach. Why not after say making half your posts for the week, go for some walks on the beach and just stay off the forum for say, two days, and then save the rest of your quota for the end of the week when otherwise you usually run out? If I were Bob Price, I'd be screaming Censorship! Why do you want me off the forum for two days a week? (Free clue: If I cared about my posts running out by the end of the week, I'd post less in the earlier part of the week.)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy]
Judy, I plan to get back to you with the answers you so richly deserve. But before I run (not he way MZ seems to be have been implying), I need to clarify what seems to be a miscommunication. I would never, ever, ever call you a fascist. I save that for for the really dumb people I don't like and I like you a lot---and everyone knows you're not dumb, and calling me too dumb to know what the meaning of censorship is, or how its different from criticism, well, that's just silly. I called you a censor and you used a rather obvious ploy to imply I called you a fascist. If you have leanings that way I have not seen them. I promise to pay top dollar for my researcher, you deserve no less. From: authfriend jst...@panix.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:38:11 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy] --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: snip what has recently driven us into to full collaboration is this not so subtle attempt at censorship. Um, bullshit. There is NO attempt at censorship going on-- at least no attempt by Barry's critics. Attempted censorship is his game, not ours (specifics on request). ***Bullshit yourself. How about 60% of your posts, if that's specific enough. Not specific enough. Cite some posts, please. You do everything you accuse Barry of doing, but he does not censor like you do. ??? Cites, please, of my censoring anything. And unlike Curtis, you're also a hypocrite. Cites, please. This is not one friend standing up for another. This is one writer standing up for the free speech rights of another writer, because frankly; today Turqo, tomorrow me, the next day Xeno, and heaven forbid the road to you and Curtis is wide open. I really would have thought you were smarter than this. Criticism amounts to censorship?? Sounds like you're trying to censor the criticism by slapping that loaded label on it. *** no cigar here Judy, but typical of your way of calling the kettle black. I'll give you a B for subtext. You aren't making much sense here. I've criticized Barry plenty, but I've never censored him or called for censoring him or suggested or hinted or implied that he should be censored, nor do I believe he should be censored, and I would fight vigorously against his being censored. Only thing I can figure out is that you don't know what censorship means, and you're erroneously applying it to criticism. But let's see what you got. Cite (by number) or quote posts of mine that have engaged in censorship or recommended it, overtly or by implication. So dear friend I must in all conscience implore you to reconsider your present alliance and remember Churchill was not the only great writer of the greatest endeavor of the greatest generation---Mussolini was one too. Spit it out, Bob, don't pussyfoot around. Be brave and just call me a fascist. ***Calling you a censor seems to have done the trick, as you know that's not a new label I've mailed your way. I don't believe you've ever called me a fascist. If you have, please quote the post in which you did so. I must have missed it.
[FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy]
He is like The Borg---he gets stronger the more he is attacked. authfriend: This last is a matter of opinion. Some of us-- especially those who have known him for a while-- see a steady downward slide... snip A slow steady decline into almost total irrelevance. It's like he never got over being attacked by Andrew Skolnick - instead he sort of became a slightly different type of Assholenick - quick with the personal put-down. It's almost like a contagion - now it seems to have affected Curtis. Thankfully we have some new insights from Robin and Rory to counter the negativity! It's like the Turq burned hisself out sometime after 2003 - we can only specualte what happened to the poor guy - some people just feel better when they have someone to talk to, I guess. Now, it's just a sad case, sort of like Rama's slow slide. What happened? Even though Turq now thinks I'm not in the same class as himself, or anyone else for that matter, this was one of Turq's finest posts: Subject: Mr. Natural Is Alive and Well and Living in France Author: Uncle Tantra Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: October 28, 2003 http://tinyurl.com/3lowqs5
[FairfieldLife] FW: Spiritual Center Auction News
From: Dick Mays [mailto:dickm...@lisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 2:11 PM To: dickm...@lisco.com Subject: Fwd: Spiritual Center Auction News Forwarded from a friend: This just in from a friend who lives near Heavenly Mountain Resort near Boone, NC ~~ Hi Guys, Just now got back from the auction at Heavenly Mountain. It was held under a tent down below the flying hall. There were about fifty people and the whole thing lasted about 20 minutes. The bidding started at $2.2 million and went up in increments of $100,000. Sold after around 20 minutes of bidding at $10.5 million. I asked a number of people who the buyer was and no one seemed to know anything about him other than he is from Pennsylvania and has a bunch of wells.
[FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: PS: One of the reasons I have to hire someone else for research is that I'm here to learn how to write and need to say I learn as much from you as I do from Turk although not as much as I do from MZ and Ravi. Xeno, Curtis, Atman, Empybill and many others are just cream on the peaches. This place is a veritable writer's goldmine of characters and character voices, dude. I've been mining this place and the things said here for my fiction for years. Names and actual verbiage changed to protect the guilty, of course, but hopefully preserving the tone and the intent. Bob, did you like Pulp Fiction? I have an unhealthy love for that film that dates back to my first visits to Amsterdam. I was on those road trips searching for the perfect cafe in which to do some writing. I scoured Amsterdam up one side and down the other looking for that perfect cafe. It turned out not to be a cafe but a coffeehouse, one that sold...uh... hemp products. But it had this wonderful window table, with a power outlet right beside it for my laptop, and the owners didn't mind in the least if I sat there all day writing. After a few weeks of this, the owner came up to me and said, What are you writing? I told him, and he said, You're not the first writer to sit at that table and write something. Quentin Tarantino sat at that very table while he was writing 'Cult Fiction.' I was jazzed. Made me feel as if the concept of seeing weren't just bullshit. :-) Partly because of this, I love the story that Tarantino tells about where he came up with the dialogue that Vincent and Jules toss about during the first scene of Cult Fiction. He didn't come up with it. He overheard it. He says that he got rounded up by the police for something (he was non-specific as to what) and thrown into the drunk tank with about half a dozen other guys overnight. Ever seen or heard Alice's Restaurant? He discovered that he was sharing a cell with thieves, possible murderers, mother rapers, and possibly father rapers. After the first few moments of panic, he started listening to what they were saying, and after a few minutes of listening, started to write it down because it was just so fucking AWESOME. All that he had on him was one letter-sized envelope, on which he says he wrote down everything he heard in the smallest print known to man, because he had only the front, back, and inside of that envelope to write on. According to Tarantino himself, much of what you hear in that opening Vincent And Jules Waste The Big Kahuna Burger-Eating Amateurs scene came from stuff he overheard that night. Fairfield Life, dude. Just sayin'... :-)
[FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: snip ***BS. I don't need to be as articulate as Xeno has been to point out the obvious nature of the attack on Turq. I believe any thinking person, who has read anything on the subject, knows the company you're keeping are born again censors and the reason they want to get rid of Barry NO, I DON'T WANT TO GET RID OF BARRY. I would be happier if he weren't here, granted, but if there were ever a move to throw him off FFL because of his views, I'd be leading the opposition. *Putting something in upper case doesn't make it true Judy. What you've said above is nonsense. Obviously you want to censor Barry. Putting obviously in front of an assertion doesn't make it true either. But you're in a position to back up your assertion, if it's true; whereas I can't prove a negative. The caps are for emphasizing my reaction to your accusation, not for trying to make what I put in caps true. Also note that the more important part of what I wrote above is *not* in caps. You also want to control him, Jeez, that's hilarious. No, I don't want to control him either. that's what co-dependance is all about---look it up. You're more than obsessed with him---you're identified with him---as if the voice you use on FFL can't exist without him. You might want to have a look at the voice I use on FFL on those occasions when he's taken off for a while. It exists just fine without him. It's a kind of cyber stalking that I find a bit creepy. Has Barry been emailing you talking points, or what? *People get to criticize each other's posts on a forum like this*. That isn't *any* kind of cyberstalking. Did you know he was insulting me on FFL before I ever joined? That's a lot closer to cyberstalking. This is not about you having an opinion or Barry being offensive, this is about censorship. So if you and your buds want to have a debate about censorship I'm your man. Yes, let's have a debate about censorship, by all means. Why don't you start with some quotes from my posts that you believe suggest I'm in favor of censoring Barry? I'll wait. *Sounds good. But at my hourly rate it would be a bit silly for me to start archive diving so I'll have to get someone to do it for me---which might take a little more time. So please keep waiting, because; I shall return. Uh-huh. Gonna take a little more time than you think, I'm afraid. snip AND everything about the behavior of your FFL voice screams censor. Examples, please. PS: One of the reasons I have to hire someone else for research is that I'm here to learn how to write The first thing you need to do is look up censor. I don't think it means what you think it means. Here's what my dictionary says it means: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable *censor the news*; also: to suppress or delete as objectionable *censor out indecent passages* I couldn't do any censoring on this forum if I wanted to. Seriously, Bob, I have absolutely no idea what the basis of your accusation is (unless Barry's been coaching you behind the scenes), so I'm really at a loss to address it. It makes no sense to me whatsoever, censorship is so antithetical to my way of thinking. And you've provided *zero* reasons for the accusation; all you've done is make nonspecific assertions with nothing to back them up. That's really a pretty crappy tactic. Let me just run a couple of things by you: Have I ever urged people not to read Barry's posts? Nope. Has Barry ever urged people not to read my posts? Yup, many times. Do I censor Barry's posts from my awareness by not reading them? Nope. Does he censor my posts from is awareness by not reading them? Yup. Do I try to intimidate my critics into not criticizing me? Nope. I usually address their criticisms directly, as I'm doing with you. Does Barry try to intimidate his critics into not criticizing him? Let me count the ways. Does he ever address the criticisms? Once in a blue moon. Bottom line, if you want to cry Censorship! you're howling at the wrong person.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Credos: the will to believe vs. the wish to find out
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: I was not suggesting censorship. You are actually off the forum for several days a week anyway because you use up your quota. Sometimes I am, sometimes I'm not. Depends on what's going on. I did not suggest that *I* wanted you off the forum. I was merely suggesting redistributing your responses more evenly across the week, or varying your post times to get in when you normally are shut out. Why should I? I have ignored your free hint. Yeah, convenient. If you'd paid attention to it, you'd know why your little sally isn't working. Why do you seem to take everything so personally? You suggest I should stay off the forum two days a week, and I shouldn't take it personally? On whose behalf should I take it? You appear extraordinarily combative. And you appear extraordinarily passive-aggressive.
[FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: Judy, I plan to get back to you with the answers you so richly deserve. But before I run (not he way MZ seems to be have been implying), I need to clarify what seems to be a miscommunication. I would never, ever, ever call you a fascist. I save that for for the really dumb people I don't like and I like you a lot Not if you're accusing me of censorship, you don't. ---and everyone knows you're not dumb, and calling me too dumb to know what the meaning of censorship is, or how its different from criticism, well, that's just silly. I can't come up with any other plausible explanation for why you'd accuse me of censorship. I called you a censor and you used a rather obvious ploy to imply I called you a fascist. I guess you've forgotten that you analogized me to Mussolini, who *invented* fascism. And censorship, of course, is one of fascism's primary tools of preserving its power. So it really wasn't much of a stretch.
[FairfieldLife] Clint Eastwood on Gay Marraige
These people who are making a big deal out of gay marriage? Eastwood opined. I don't give a fuck about who wants to get married to anybody else! Why not?! We're making a big deal out of things we shouldn't be making a deal out of. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/09/14/clint-eastwood-i-dont-give-a-fck-if-gays-marry/ Clint is probably NOT a Tea Partier. Bet he even voted (but doesn't want to admit it) for Obama. He started out an Eisenhower Republican and probably would also have no issues with the rich getting taxed more since Eisenhower had the max tax rate at 91%.
[FairfieldLife] Merudanda/Sandals
Hi everyone, I have decided to go the route below. Thank you, ob. I have already turned down 10K. Ted thinks my reserve price of $70K or better is quite doable. They take 15%. If I weren't in this predicament of my own making, I would probably keep them. Merudanda, they request two letters of authentication. You are the only person I have yet found with a direct experience of the incident. If you would be so kind as to write one, I would be deeply grateful. Simply say that you were there in the room with he and me when the new sandals arrived, my role and confirm that when he tried them on he asked us if they were too big, or felt slippery, or whatever you remember. Of course, if you would be willing to say anything about who you are, why you were there and that you're sure these sandals are authentic, that would be wonderful. But whatever, if anything, you would agree to write would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, m Begin forwarded message: From: obbajeeba no_re...@yahoogroups.com Date: July 19, 2011 6:09:46 AM MDT To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals Reply-To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Talk to Ted Owen, of http://www.famebureau.com/ Ted has a long history of finding a home for precious items that are priced out of reach for many. I believe he could give you the best quote of possibilities when it comes to the memorabilia that you have. Good Luck.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Merudanda/Sandals
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mark Landau m@... wrote: Hi everyone, I have decided to go the route below. Thank you, ob. I have already turned down 10K. Ted thinks my reserve price of $70K or better is quite doable. Attaboy. Let us know how it turns out, and good luck!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Merudanda/Sandals
Thank you, Judith :-) m On Sep 14, 2011, at 2:12 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mark Landau m@... wrote: Hi everyone, I have decided to go the route below. Thank you, ob. I have already turned down 10K. Ted thinks my reserve price of $70K or better is quite doable. Attaboy. Let us know how it turns out, and good luck!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Merudanda/Sandals
Hi Mark! What an amazing continuation of the soul of the sandals sale story! I hope you get your price.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mark Landau m@... wrote: Hi everyone, I have decided to go the route below. Thank you, ob. I have already turned down 10K. Ted thinks my reserve price of $70K or better is quite doable. They take 15%. If I weren't in this predicament of my own making, I would probably keep them. Merudanda, they request two letters of authentication. You are the only person I have yet found with a direct experience of the incident. If you would be so kind as to write one, I would be deeply grateful. Simply say that you were there in the room with he and me when the new sandals arrived, my role and confirm that when he tried them on he asked us if they were too big, or felt slippery, or whatever you remember. Of course, if you would be willing to say anything about who you are, why you were there and that you're sure these sandals are authentic, that would be wonderful. But whatever, if anything, you would agree to write would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, m Begin forwarded message: From: obbajeeba no_re...@yahoogroups.com Date: July 19, 2011 6:09:46 AM MDT To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals Reply-To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Talk to Ted Owen, of http://www.famebureau.com/ Ted has a long history of finding a home for precious items that are priced out of reach for many. I believe he could give you the best quote of possibilities when it comes to the memorabilia that you have. Good Luck.
[FairfieldLife] Movie Review: The Debt
I will admit that I watched this film almost entirely because of Helen Mirren. OK, the fact that the consistently-excellent Tom Wilkinson and the recently-excellent in the otherwise dismal The Tree Of Life Jessica Chastain were in it didn't hurt. It's a spy story, but one dealing with ethics, and the karma of having violated them, coming back to haunt you, decades later. The story jumps back and forth between present day, as three former Mossad agents (played by Helen Mirren, Tom Wilkinson and Ciaran Hinds) flash back to the mission that made them famous, and their collective past. In 1966, they tracked down the butcher of Birkenau, a former Nazi war criminal, and attempted to extract him from East Berlin to stand trial. Things went bad, and he was shot. Fast Forward into the past, as the same trio are played by Jessica Chastain, Marton Csokas, and Sam Worthington, acting out the events of 1966. The mission doesn't seem to be working out exactly the same way its PR says it worked out. Revisionist history is having a problem reconciling itself with real history. The result is a strikingly well-done thriller, with many lessons in it for those who feel that ethics are something one should live, rather than just talk about.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Merudanda/Sandals
Thank you! Is this Jim? Sorry, my shaky connection between email address and name has deteriorated even more... On Sep 14, 2011, at 2:16 PM, whynotnow7 wrote: Hi Mark! What an amazing continuation of the soul of the sandals sale story! I hope you get your price.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mark Landau m@... wrote: Hi everyone, I have decided to go the route below. Thank you, ob. I have already turned down 10K. Ted thinks my reserve price of $70K or better is quite doable. They take 15%. If I weren't in this predicament of my own making, I would probably keep them. Merudanda, they request two letters of authentication. You are the only person I have yet found with a direct experience of the incident. If you would be so kind as to write one, I would be deeply grateful. Simply say that you were there in the room with he and me when the new sandals arrived, my role and confirm that when he tried them on he asked us if they were too big, or felt slippery, or whatever you remember. Of course, if you would be willing to say anything about who you are, why you were there and that you're sure these sandals are authentic, that would be wonderful. But whatever, if anything, you would agree to write would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, m Begin forwarded message: From: obbajeeba no_re...@yahoogroups.com Date: July 19, 2011 6:09:46 AM MDT To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals Reply-To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Talk to Ted Owen, of http://www.famebureau.com/ Ted has a long history of finding a home for precious items that are priced out of reach for many. I believe he could give you the best quote of possibilities when it comes to the memorabilia that you have. Good Luck.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Credos: the will to believe vs. the wish to find out
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: I was not suggesting censorship. You are actually off the forum for several days a week anyway because you use up your quota. Sometimes I am, sometimes I'm not. Depends on what's going on. I did not suggest that *I* wanted you off the forum. I was merely suggesting redistributing your responses more evenly across the week, or varying your post times to get in when you normally are shut out. Why should I? A suggestion is not a 'should'. It is an idea to consider or not consider. The word 'should' seems to imply the concept of compulsion. A suggestion may be read, but it is not a command; there is no compulsion in this. I have ignored your free hint. Yeah, convenient. If you'd paid attention to it, you'd know why your little sally isn't working. Why do you seem to take everything so personally? You suggest I should stay off the forum two days a week, and I shouldn't take it personally? On whose behalf should I take it? As I implied, you misunderstood this. A suggestion is not a command, it is not an attack. You appear extraordinarily combative. And you appear extraordinarily passive-aggressive. Passive-aggressive implies covert abuse. I was just making suggestions. You seem to respond as if everything is some kind of assault which must be fended off. What are you defending?
[FairfieldLife] 'If you love me...'
Obama: 'If you love me, you've got to help me pass this bill' By Alicia M. Cohn - 09/14/11 01:20 PM ET Obama promoted his jobs bill in North Carolina on Wednesday, the third stop on what White House press secretary Jay Carney has called a campaign for jobs. Not for the first time, Obama called back to an audience member who shouted I love you with I love you back. On Wednesday he added, But if you love me you've got to help me pass this bill. The Obama administration isn't holding back in its full-court campaign to pass the American Jobs Act. Obama's speech at North Carolina State University in Raleigh is his third stop, following similar speeches in Virginia and Ohio, and the WhiteHouse.gov website now includes a banner that links to the bill. Obama used a copy of the America's Jobs Act as a prop, as he's done before, holding it up as he assigned homework to a crowd composed largely of college students, urging them to contact Congress and push them to pass his bill. Yes, we can, he said, a return to his 2008 campaign slogan that brought loud cheers from the audience. Obama added, We can pass this thing but we need Congress to do it. Obama blasted Republicans in Congress, qualifying not all Republicans; there are some who get it, for resisting supporting the bill because they are afraid of handing a win to Obama. Give me a win? Give me a break, Obama said. I get fed up with that kind of game playing and we've been seeing it for too long, he said. We've been grappling with a crisis for three years. Instead of getting people to rise up against bipartisanship in the spirit of working together, we've got people who are purposely dividing.
[FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy]
Buffalo Bill's defunct who used to ride a watersmooth-silver stallion and break onetwothreefourfive pigeonsjustlikethat Jesus he was a handsome man and what i want to know is how do you like your blueeyed boy Mister Death (eec) P.S. Look for the one word attaboy in JS's most recent post. That use of that word inside the context it appears, defeats everything you have to say, Bob. You should look at this whole imbroglio as a Sherlock Holmes murder mystery. It's not the Pink Panther. P.P.S. I saw Pius X lying inside the Vatican in 1986. Nice man. And I saw Bernadette in Nevers. Nice girl. Now you be a good man or I'll have to come there and Gaga the crap out of you. Where are your wings, Bob? Hell has an odour you know. Don't try to steal the Febreze. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: Below From: maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 10:12:37 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy] Three other things, Bob: ***Not sure I can manage three more on this one. 1. The MIssion was one of the stupidest, most sentimental, Vatican II-driven, ironically sacrilegious movies I have ever seen. ***I apologize. What would you prefer, the stuffed popes on display in the Vatican? BTW, when was the last time you visited the Vatican? For me it was 2007. 2. When you take a stern moral attitude towards someoneâand address them personally so as to rebuke them for their behaviourâthat person (who in this case is being gently chastised) must either (a) feel the truth of this judgment or else (b) feel the need to be defensive and deny the truth of this judgment. But there is a third option: I felt your post to be not just primarily an expression of your own subjectivityâhaving little to do with me whatsoever; I felt it to be only thisâand therefore nothing to do with me. ***This Mount Sinai way you have with words can be tiring at times. 3. Turk has nothing but contempt for your defence of him (at least the form it has assumed here in this post). Hold it! I have an idea: I shall go to Confession this afternoon. If I experience a sense of real absolution (after telling the priest my sin against Turk), I shall know you were right. which will mean I will have to go back to the priestâand confess a second sin. This sound like a reasonable course of action, Bob? Goddamn it. I wait to make contact with the asshole in you, and I just can't. Write to Turk directly, Bob, and just get him to post this: No, the assholeness is in you, Robin. That should do it. ***We all know I'm an asshole, I have my doubts you're much on that front. For the third time this argument (if you'll grant me that ) is about censorship and the blatantly co-dependent and passive agressive behavior of your new friends. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@ wrote: Friends--- self-interest or censorship? Robin, As your friend and admirer, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to some of your recent statements about my choice in friends. For starters, I need to state categorically that---unlike Britain in its hour of need---Turqo has never asked or, it seems, needed anyone's help with the blitzkrieg of criticism recently directed his way. He is like The Borg---he gets stronger the more he is attacked.ÃÂ Further, describing the objections, of a number of us, to this onslaught; as one friend protecting the flank of another friend---is facile and at best a canard. Turqo and I could hardly be called friends; we've never actually met. If anything we're competitors that collaborate when the situation makes commercial sense. Not unlike Warner Bros. and Paramount who collaborate on projects when it suits both their economic interests but remain competitors for the finite attention span of many FFL posters. That said, what has recently driven us into to full collaboration is this not so subtle attempt at censorship.ÃÂ This is not one friend standing up for another. This is one writer standing up for the free speech rights of another writer, because frankly; today Turqo, tomorrow me, the next day Xeno, and heaven forbid the road to you and Curtis is wide open. So dear friend I must in all conscience implore you to reconsider your present alliance and remember Churchill was not the only great writer of the greatest endeavor of the greatest generation---Mussolini was one too. And never forget what our great FDR told us about one of the great functions of garden hoses.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Merudanda/Sandals
Yep! No problem. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mark Landau m@... wrote: Thank you! Is this Jim? Sorry, my shaky connection between email address and name has deteriorated even more... On Sep 14, 2011, at 2:16 PM, whynotnow7 wrote: Hi Mark! What an amazing continuation of the soul of the sandals sale story! I hope you get your price.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mark Landau m@... wrote: Hi everyone, I have decided to go the route below. Thank you, ob. I have already turned down 10K. Ted thinks my reserve price of $70K or better is quite doable. They take 15%. If I weren't in this predicament of my own making, I would probably keep them. Merudanda, they request two letters of authentication. You are the only person I have yet found with a direct experience of the incident. If you would be so kind as to write one, I would be deeply grateful. Simply say that you were there in the room with he and me when the new sandals arrived, my role and confirm that when he tried them on he asked us if they were too big, or felt slippery, or whatever you remember. Of course, if you would be willing to say anything about who you are, why you were there and that you're sure these sandals are authentic, that would be wonderful. But whatever, if anything, you would agree to write would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, m Begin forwarded message: From: obbajeeba no_re...@yahoogroups.com Date: July 19, 2011 6:09:46 AM MDT To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals Reply-To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Talk to Ted Owen, of http://www.famebureau.com/ Ted has a long history of finding a home for precious items that are priced out of reach for many. I believe he could give you the best quote of possibilities when it comes to the memorabilia that you have. Good Luck.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Churning the Ocean of Milk
Johnjr_esq: In Paul Mason's book, MMY is quoted to have stated that Soma can be found in the belly of a person in cosmic consciousness... The primary ingredient in TM's bio-chemical labratory is seratonin, according to TMO research conducted by R.K. Wallace. Serotonin, according to MMY, is the chemical produced by TM. In contrast, Veic Soma was a decoction from various plant ingredients and was consumed at the Vedic ritual ceremony. The substance serotonin has been shown, in scientific studies, to be connected with alterations of mood in the human brain. For example, serotonin factors in the condition called 'migrain syndrome', that is, acute or chronic headache. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serotonin Since serotonin occurs naturaly it has been difficult to regulate. With TM the practioner is able to alter, at will, physiological functions in the human body, specificaly the chemical serotonin. Work cited: 'Victory Before War' By Robert Keith Wallace, Ph.D., and Jay Marcus MUM Press, 2005 http://mumpress.com/p_k08.html Read more: Subject: Serotonin: A chemical, 5-hydroxytryptamine Author: Willytex Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: April 20, 2004 http://tinyurl.com/ltp3y2
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tat Wale Baba/Discourse on Self-Realization
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Rory, I gotta keep up with these threads I guess. How exactly have I ended up characterized as being fascinated with your man boobs? * * In your sweetly funny treatment of TWB, you appeared to me to exhibit a somewhat boyish fascination with his body-of-appearance -- Life's surface value, or tits, as it were -- accompanied by a steadfast refusal to lose yourself and die into TWB's actual understanding -- Life's eyes, in my analogy -- with the intimacy of a true Lover. I had no problem with this, or you, and responded only to Robin's assertion to the effect that your treatment of him was unanswerably profound. I begged to differ. Again, I apologize for inadvertently comparing you to some imaginary more-mature-Curtis which self-evidently doesn't exist, nor should he. Where it counts, you are indeed unanswerably and profoundly perfect, just as you are: just as Robin is, just as we all are. Oddly enough, in my actual boyhood, I did share TWB's view of the world. I've been so deep in brushing up on ID that I missed the trail that lead to this odd, odd place. I was caught last year on the boardwalk where women sometimes wear white fabric which beams their headlights on high. Having seen woman about 1,000 checking themselves out from every angle in a mirror before going into public, I know I am not dealing with an innocent here and assume my gaze is by invitation. Anyhoo the beams were on high and even a non T oriented man like myself can fall under the spell of an set of errant nipples proudly parading themselves side by side. It was so immediate that my attention was engulfed so I didn't even have the cognitive gap to realize my entrancement for a moment. But once I emerged from my lizard brain I backed off my rude stare to take in the whole picture. They were proudly leading the way for a heavily made-up transvestite who was more Tony Curtis in drag than I'm sure he wished. The shock was immediate and we both gave each other a wry greeting acknowledging our little moment. If things like that happened to me every day, I would never get tired of it. * * A great story, and very much to the point!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tat Wale Baba/Discourse on Self-Realization
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Rory, I gotta keep up with these threads I guess. How exactly have I ended up characterized as being fascinated with your man boobs? * * In your sweetly funny treatment of TWB, you appeared to me to exhibit a somewhat boyish fascination with his body-of-appearance -- Life's surface value, or tits, as it were -- accompanied by a steadfast refusal to lose yourself and die into TWB's actual understanding -- Life's eyes, in my analogy -- with the intimacy of a true Lover. I had no problem with this, or you, and responded only to Robin's assertion to the effect that your treatment of him was unanswerably profound. I begged to differ. Again, I apologize for inadvertently comparing you to some imaginary more-mature-Curtis which self-evidently doesn't exist, nor should he. Where it counts, you are indeed unanswerably and profoundly perfect, just as you are: just as Robin is, just as we all are. Oddly enough, in my actual boyhood, I did share TWB's view of the world. How about his actual experiences, did you share them too ? If not you are just making baseless claims exposing your ignorance. Not that there is anything wrong with that :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tat Wale Baba/Discourse on Self-Realization
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: How about his actual experiences, did you share them too ? If not you are just making baseless claims exposing your ignorance. Not that there is anything wrong with that :-) I lack your confidence in knowing what his actual experiences were and how they might relate to my own subjective experiences in the movement. The language used in these systems is too imprecise to determine that for me now. At the time I assumed he was talking about experiences I was having. I assume most people who rounded for a number of years related to his poetic descriptions from their experiences. But my criticism really had nothing to do with his experiences. I was challenging his worldview. You don't have to share someone's internal experiences to know if they are saying something you don't agree with. I assume he had the kind of experiences that made us all talk that way. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Rory, I gotta keep up with these threads I guess. How exactly have I ended up characterized as being fascinated with your man boobs? * * In your sweetly funny treatment of TWB, you appeared to me to exhibit a somewhat boyish fascination with his body-of-appearance -- Life's surface value, or tits, as it were -- accompanied by a steadfast refusal to lose yourself and die into TWB's actual understanding -- Life's eyes, in my analogy -- with the intimacy of a true Lover. I had no problem with this, or you, and responded only to Robin's assertion to the effect that your treatment of him was unanswerably profound. I begged to differ. Again, I apologize for inadvertently comparing you to some imaginary more-mature-Curtis which self-evidently doesn't exist, nor should he. Where it counts, you are indeed unanswerably and profoundly perfect, just as you are: just as Robin is, just as we all are. Oddly enough, in my actual boyhood, I did share TWB's view of the world. How about his actual experiences, did you share them too ? If not you are just making baseless claims exposing your ignorance. Not that there is anything wrong with that :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Credos: the will to believe vs. the wish to find out
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: snip What are you defending? Xeno, it's not working. This isn't your thing. Drop it, please.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Credos: the will to believe vs. the wish to find out
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: snip What are you defending? Xeno, it's not working. This isn't your thing. Drop it, please. Sure.
[FairfieldLife] Chomsky Explains One of The Main reasons for the attack on Social Security
The whole article is well worth reading. But I think, myself, that there’s a more subtle reason why they're opposed to it, and I think it’s rather similar to the reason for the effort to pretty much dismantle the public education system. Social Security is based on a principle. It’s based on the principle that you care about other people. You care whether the widow across town, a disabled widow, is going to be able to have food to eat. And that’s a notion you have to drive out of people’s heads. The idea of solidarity, sympathy, mutual support, that’s doctrinally dangerous. The preferred doctrines are just care about yourself, don't care about anyone else. That’s a very good way to trap and control people. And the very idea that we're in it together, that we care about each other, that we have responsibility for one another, that’s sort of frightening to those who want a society which is dominated by power, authority, wealth, in which people are passive and obedient. And I suspect—I don’t know how to measure it exactly, but I think that that’s a considerable part of the drive on the part of small, privileged sectors to undermine a very efficient, very effective system on which a large part of the population relies, actually relies more than ever, because wealth, personal wealth, was very much tied up in the housing market. That was people’s personal wealth. Well, OK, that, quite predictably, totally collapsed. People aren't destitute by the standards of, say, slums in India or southern Africa, but very many are suffering severely. And they have nothing else to rely on, but the pittance that they're getting from Social Security. To take that away would be just disastrous. © 2011 Democracy Now! All rights reserved. View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/152398/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Merudanda/Sandals
* * Hey, Mark! It's good to see you again; may everything work out perfectly! *L*L*L* --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mark Landau m@... wrote: Hi everyone, I have decided to go the route below. Thank you, ob. I have already turned down 10K. Ted thinks my reserve price of $70K or better is quite doable. They take 15%. If I weren't in this predicament of my own making, I would probably keep them. Merudanda, they request two letters of authentication. You are the only person I have yet found with a direct experience of the incident. If you would be so kind as to write one, I would be deeply grateful. Simply say that you were there in the room with he and me when the new sandals arrived, my role and confirm that when he tried them on he asked us if they were too big, or felt slippery, or whatever you remember. Of course, if you would be willing to say anything about who you are, why you were there and that you're sure these sandals are authentic, that would be wonderful. But whatever, if anything, you would agree to write would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, m Begin forwarded message: From: obbajeeba no_re...@yahoogroups.com Date: July 19, 2011 6:09:46 AM MDT To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals Reply-To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Talk to Ted Owen, of http://www.famebureau.com/ Ted has a long history of finding a home for precious items that are priced out of reach for many. I believe he could give you the best quote of possibilities when it comes to the memorabilia that you have. Good Luck.
[FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: I promise to pay top dollar for my researcher, you deserve no less. You aren't going to pay anybody anything. You're not going to ask somebody to do it for free either. You aren't stupid. Look, I don't know what's motivating you to engage in this farce, but you have something going on that's ungood, and it's likely to take you places you don't want to be. Some professional advice might be in order, see if you can get hold of things before they run away with you. Not just talking about your little experiment with me but what you've been at in general on FFL. It's just *off*. Some funny stuff but also some stuff that's pretty twisted. You got a rise out of me. Good for you. But a very strange way to go about it. Not sure what you thought you were trying to prove.
[FairfieldLife] Time to start drilling in Anwar, Alaska. Jobs Energy independence!
We're going to use oil anyway, why not drill here where we can keep an eye on it? We have much higher environmental standards. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiwZzj_z7yEfeature=related
[FairfieldLife] Re: Chomsky Explains One of The Main reasons for the attack on Social Security
That's why most Republicans want to reform it to keep it viable, (even the Democrats realize that). Romney would be an excellent choice in November 2012! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: The whole article is well worth reading. But I think, myself, that there's a more subtle reason why they're opposed to it, and I think it's rather similar to the reason for the effort to pretty much dismantle the public education system. Social Security is based on a principle. It's based on the principle that you care about other people. You care whether the widow across town, a disabled widow, is going to be able to have food to eat. And that's a notion you have to drive out of people's heads. The idea of solidarity, sympathy, mutual support, that's doctrinally dangerous. The preferred doctrines are just care about yourself, don't care about anyone else. That's a very good way to trap and control people. And the very idea that we're in it together, that we care about each other, that we have responsibility for one another, that's sort of frightening to those who want a society which is dominated by power, authority, wealth, in which people are passive and obedient. And I suspectI don't know how to measure it exactly, but I think that that's a considerable part of the drive on the part of small, privileged sectors to undermine a very efficient, very effective system on which a large part of the population relies, actually relies more than ever, because wealth, personal wealth, was very much tied up in the housing market. That was people's personal wealth. Well, OK, that, quite predictably, totally collapsed. People aren't destitute by the standards of, say, slums in India or southern Africa, but very many are suffering severely. And they have nothing else to rely on, but the pittance that they're getting from Social Security. To take that away would be just disastrous. © 2011 Democracy Now! All rights reserved. View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/152398/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Tat Wale Baba/Discourse on Self-Realization
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Rory, I gotta keep up with these threads I guess. How exactly have I ended up characterized as being fascinated with your man boobs? * * In your sweetly funny treatment of TWB, you appeared to me to exhibit a somewhat boyish fascination with his body-of-appearance -- Life's surface value, or tits, as it were -- accompanied by a steadfast refusal to lose yourself and die into TWB's actual understanding -- Life's eyes, in my analogy -- with the intimacy of a true Lover. I had no problem with this, or you, and responded only to Robin's assertion to the effect that your treatment of him was unanswerably profound. I begged to differ. Again, I apologize for inadvertently comparing you to some imaginary more-mature-Curtis which self-evidently doesn't exist, nor should he. Where it counts, you are indeed unanswerably and profoundly perfect, just as you are: just as Robin is, just as we all are. Oddly enough, in my actual boyhood, I did share TWB's view of the world. * * Yes, Curtis; that certainly makes sense if you were attracted to the whole TM shtick. I don't think that's so very odd -- when we are (or were) young, many of us tend(ed) to be drawn to the ascetic/mystical/world-denying POV he appears to represent. But that's not exactly what I mean... Just out of curiosity, did you ever read Jed McKenna's books? He elucidates the Via Negativa autolysis process of mercilessly destroying all of one's beliefs, perhaps better than anyone else I have ever met. I bet you'd enjoy him; he has a wicked eye for spiritual self-delusion :-)
[FairfieldLife] Elixir of the Gods ( was Re: Churning the Ocean of Milk)
Here's an interesting assumption using MMY's logic: if a person in cosmic consciousness produces this soma or seratonin, then the vedic gods would like to get a taste of it as well. Thus, the gods would like live in his or her physiology. Thus, the person is protected by the gods to make sure that the supply of soma is continuous. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardwillytexwilliams willytex@... wrote: Johnjr_esq: In Paul Mason's book, MMY is quoted to have stated that Soma can be found in the belly of a person in cosmic consciousness... The primary ingredient in TM's bio-chemical labratory is seratonin, according to TMO research conducted by R.K. Wallace. Serotonin, according to MMY, is the chemical produced by TM. In contrast, Veic Soma was a decoction from various plant ingredients and was consumed at the Vedic ritual ceremony. The substance serotonin has been shown, in scientific studies, to be connected with alterations of mood in the human brain. For example, serotonin factors in the condition called 'migrain syndrome', that is, acute or chronic headache. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serotonin Since serotonin occurs naturaly it has been difficult to regulate. With TM the practioner is able to alter, at will, physiological functions in the human body, specificaly the chemical serotonin. Work cited: 'Victory Before War' By Robert Keith Wallace, Ph.D., and Jay Marcus MUM Press, 2005 http://mumpress.com/p_k08.html Read more: Subject: Serotonin: A chemical, 5-hydroxytryptamine Author: Willytex Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: April 20, 2004 http://tinyurl.com/ltp3y2
[FairfieldLife] Re: Credos: the will to believe vs. the wish to find out
Many of the statements of Pema Chödron are based upon confusing the practices of real life (householder responsibilities) with the artificial life of monasticism. Indian Mahayana monks and Tibetans were notorious confusers of these two different realms and Pema Chödron articulates these same confusions. She does so in an uncritical manner, showing that she is unable or unwilling to differentiate what she says from mindless Eastern Buddhaspeak. The author below discusses a few of the problems: http://www.spiritualcritiques.com/author-criticisms/pema-chodron/ http://www.spiritualcritiques.com/author-criticisms/pema-chodron/ .. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Denise Evans dmevans365@... wrote: That would be Pema Chodron with umlauts over the o :).  Just a little light reading for tonight - she keeps it simple for us simpletons. --- On Tue, 9/13/11, Denise Evans dmevans365@... wrote: From: Denise Evans dmevans365@... Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Credos: the will to believe vs. the wish to find out To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2011, 11:49 PM  I feel gratitude to the Buddha for pointing out that what we struggle against all our lives can be acknowledged as ordinary experience  - Pema Chodren, The Places that Scare You --- On Tue, 9/13/11, turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Credos: the will to believe vs. the wish to find out To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2011, 8:50 AM  I've always loved one of the quotes that Rick chose to include on the FFL home page. It's become one of my credos in life. The quote is from Bertrand Russell: What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite. I think Bert just nailed it. The distinction he draws between those whose allegiance is to existing belief and those whose allegiance is to finding out -- no matter what belief may say -- is pretty fundamental. Not just in the spiritual world, but in the outside world as well. Think about the clash between Muslim society and more secular Western society. Think about the Neoconservatives and their war against science. Think about fundamentalists of any stripe vs. pretty much everybody else. :-) I think Rick was wise to include this quote on the Fairfield Life home page. It really *captures* the spirit of the place. This is a place where the wish to find out is as valued as highly as the will to believe. Almost no belief is off limits here, elevated to such a lofty pedestal as to be considered Truth. Not that this would be any real protection if it were. I mean, you've got a few people here who have been arrested for pissing on pedestals in public more times than we want to mention. :-) Fairfield Life is IMO one of those rarest of phenomena on the Internet, a spiritual free speech zone that allows its members to talk about pretty much whatever they want to, with a minimum of moderation or censorship. As a result, FFL displays the very polarity that Russell talked about, believers exerting their will to believe in seemingly eternal conflict with critical wish-to-find-out-ers, seeking primarily to find out. I find that an interesting and challenging environment. As you may have guessed, my allegiance is more with the wish-to-find-out-ers than it is with the will-to-believers. I think I'm in good company. Consider another of Rick's quotes from the home page, this one from the Buddha: Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. That's another good quote, a worthy candidate for becoming someone's credo in life. Another one I like is from the Japanese poet Basho: I do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; I seek what they sought. That kinda nails it, too. What about you guys? Got any cool credo lines you want to share, quotes that nail it so well for you that you would consider them one of your credos in life?
