[FairfieldLife] Edg finds God at 34 m.p.h.

[Duveyoung]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KUuKhaBkJvY

My first runs on the Trikke Skki.

Enjoy.  

Edg

[FairfieldLife] Re: So what AREall those people listening to on their Ipods as they walk by?

[Buck]

Om yes, the life not lived!  Walden by Thoreau 
Any and all the real transcendentalists here should read it to be really
on FFL.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
> >
> > Buck, where do these statistics come from?  The census states there are 
> > around 312 million people in the US.  Is my math wrong or does that equate 
> > to 3 people awake enough for a poetic or divine life?
> >
> 
> Dear Em, seems the odds are a lot better than that.  The country was a lot 
> smaller place back in the 1840's when that estimate was crafted.  However, 
> there is a lot of truth in it.
> Best,
> -Buck
> 
> 
> >  I think those three people are right here on FFL :)   The majority of 
> > the rest of us are apparently wasting our time living an illusion of being 
> > an intellectual (there's that ego again).  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: Buck 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 8:16 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: So what AREall those people listening to on 
> > their Ipods as they walk by?
> >  
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
> > >
> > > ...where are the bhajans?
> > >
> > 
> > They needed to make a larger sample.
> > The millions are awake enough for physical labor; but only one in a million 
> > is awake enough for effective intellectual exertion, only one in a hundred 
> > million to a poetic or divine life.  To be awake is to be alive.
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  From: curtisdeltablues 
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 6:54 AM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] So what AREall those people listening to on 
> > > their Ipods as they walk by?
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   
> > > Great concept.  I have always wondered about this but never took the 
> > > brilliant jump this guy did.  Take the time and effort and ask them!
> > > 
> > > http://kottke.org/11/05/what-song-are-you-listening-to
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: So what AREall those people listening to on their Ipods as they walk by?

[Buck]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> Buck, where do these statistics come from?  The census states there are 
> around 312 million people in the US.  Is my math wrong or does that equate 
> to 3 people awake enough for a poetic or divine life?
>

Dear Em, seems the odds are a lot better than that.  The country was a lot 
smaller place back in the 1840's when that estimate was crafted.  However, 
there is a lot of truth in it.
Best,
-Buck


>  I think those three people are right here on FFL :)   The majority of the 
> rest of us are apparently wasting our time living an illusion of being an 
> intellectual (there's that ego again).  
> 
> 
> 
>  From: Buck 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 8:16 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: So what AREall those people listening to on 
> their Ipods as they walk by?
>  
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
> >
> > ...where are the bhajans?
> >
> 
> They needed to make a larger sample.
> The millions are awake enough for physical labor; but only one in a million 
> is awake enough for effective intellectual exertion, only one in a hundred 
> million to a poetic or divine life.  To be awake is to be alive.
> 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: curtisdeltablues 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 6:54 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] So what AREall those people listening to on their 
> > Ipods as they walk by?
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > Great concept.  I have always wondered about this but never took the 
> > brilliant jump this guy did.  Take the time and effort and ask them!
> > 
> > http://kottke.org/11/05/what-song-are-you-listening-to
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: So what AREall those people listening to on their Ipods as they walk by?

[Emily Reyn]

Buck, where do these statistics come from?  The census states there are around 
312 million people in the US.  Is my math wrong or does that equate to 3 people 
awake enough for a poetic or divine life?  I think those three people are right 
here on FFL :)   The majority of the rest of us are apparently wasting our time 
living an illusion of being an intellectual (there's that ego again).  



 From: Buck 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 8:16 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: So what AREall those people listening to on their 
Ipods as they walk by?
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> ...where are the bhajans?
>

They needed to make a larger sample.
The millions are awake enough for physical labor; but only one in a million is 
awake enough for effective intellectual exertion, only one in a hundred million 
to a poetic or divine life.  To be awake is to be alive.

> 
> 
>  From: curtisdeltablues 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 6:54 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] So what AREall those people listening to on their 
> Ipods as they walk by?
> 
> 
>   
> Great concept.  I have always wondered about this but never took the 
> brilliant jump this guy did.  Take the time and effort and ask them!
> 
> http://kottke.org/11/05/what-song-are-you-listening-to
>


 

[FairfieldLife] The Earth Does Not Revolve Around the Sun

[John]

This guy's observation has merits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NH5yK3ZN54&feature=related

[FairfieldLife] Re: So what AREall those people listening to on their Ipods as they walk by?

[Buck]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> ...where are the bhajans?
>

They needed to make a larger sample.
The millions are awake enough for physical labor; but only one in a million is 
awake enough for effective intellectual exertion, only one in a hundred million 
to a poetic or divine life.  To be awake is to be alive.
 
> 
> 
>  From: curtisdeltablues 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 6:54 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] So what AREall those people listening to on their 
> Ipods as they walk by?
>  
> 
>   
> Great concept.  I have always wondered about this but never took the 
> brilliant jump this guy did.  Take the time and effort and ask them!
> 
> http://kottke.org/11/05/what-song-are-you-listening-to
>

[FairfieldLife] How to keep Google from tracking your searches

[Bhairitu]

If you are using Firefox this addon will strip everything but the actual 
URL address on a Google search:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/google-search-link-fix/

I think Google is making a big mistake with this as they will be 
creating business for alternate search sites.  We probably need an 
Internet privacy law that forbids such tracking.  They do only because 
there currently is no such law.

[FairfieldLife] Occupy Oakland Hemmed In by Malefics

[Bhairitu]

Oakland police have the Occupy Protesters cornered in front on the YMCA.
http://www.livestream.com/occupyoakland

(Jyotishis will appreciate the subject line).

[FairfieldLife] Re: The After-Death Experience.

[futur.musik]

Certainly. Paradoxically, the absence of any preconception makes the creation 
here on earth and all of its inhabitants all the more fascinating and deeply 
interesting. :-)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
> >
> > snap that silver cord TODAY; now. Live the deathless universe.
> 
> Yes, why carry the burden of thinking one has, or is a soul? Life is much 
> more fascinating without that confining thought that makes it seem we are 
> something that acts, or is acted upon by something else.
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wgm4u"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Once the 'silver cord' snaps there is no returning to earth life, the 
> > > soul slips into silence. After a period of time the soul awakens to 
> > > his/her 'rewards' and 'punishments' in the astral world; this is heaven 
> > > and hell. Though there is no eternal hell there may be hellish 
> > > experiences in the after life depending upon the karma.
> > > 
> > > The 'punishments' are the pain the soul feels he/she subjected others to 
> > > including the ramifications of his/her violations of the 'laws of nature' 
> > > subjected him/her to, the purpose (everything in God's kingdom has a 
> > > purpose) is to build into the soul *conscience*, else wise what use would 
> > > earth life be??
> > > 
> > > The 'rewards' are the beauty and happiness that soul subjected other to 
> > > and the rewards for living in harmony with natural law.  These 'rewards' 
> > > build into the soul's conscience 'right behavior', for future lives.
> > > 
> > > Conscience (intuition) is that quality of the soul that survives the 
> > > grave, life-time to life-time, building character, ultimately leading to 
> > > God Realization and the fulfillment of the 'Divine Plan'. (That's why 
> > > Re-Incarnation works).
> > > 
> > > Since all souls (Jivas) are made in the image of God, all souls are 
> > > guaranteed to return to God, "none will be lost", unlike what some 
> > > fundamentalist Christians might believe.
> > > 
> > > Sources: Theosophy, Rosicrucian, Eastern Religion.
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The After-Death Experience.

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
>
> snap that silver cord TODAY; now. Live the deathless universe.

Yes, why carry the burden of thinking one has, or is a soul? Life is much more 
fascinating without that confining thought that makes it seem we are something 
that acts, or is acted upon by something else.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wgm4u"  wrote:
> >
> > Once the 'silver cord' snaps there is no returning to earth life, the soul 
> > slips into silence. After a period of time the soul awakens to his/her 
> > 'rewards' and 'punishments' in the astral world; this is heaven and hell. 
> > Though there is no eternal hell there may be hellish experiences in the 
> > after life depending upon the karma.
> > 
> > The 'punishments' are the pain the soul feels he/she subjected others to 
> > including the ramifications of his/her violations of the 'laws of nature' 
> > subjected him/her to, the purpose (everything in God's kingdom has a 
> > purpose) is to build into the soul *conscience*, else wise what use would 
> > earth life be??
> > 
> > The 'rewards' are the beauty and happiness that soul subjected other to and 
> > the rewards for living in harmony with natural law.  These 'rewards' build 
> > into the soul's conscience 'right behavior', for future lives.
> > 
> > Conscience (intuition) is that quality of the soul that survives the grave, 
> > life-time to life-time, building character, ultimately leading to God 
> > Realization and the fulfillment of the 'Divine Plan'. (That's why 
> > Re-Incarnation works).
> > 
> > Since all souls (Jivas) are made in the image of God, all souls are 
> > guaranteed to return to God, "none will be lost", unlike what some 
> > fundamentalist Christians might believe.
> > 
> > Sources: Theosophy, Rosicrucian, Eastern Religion.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The After-Death Experience.

[futur.musik]

snap that silver cord TODAY; now. Live the deathless universe.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wgm4u"  wrote:
>
> Once the 'silver cord' snaps there is no returning to earth life, the soul 
> slips into silence. After a period of time the soul awakens to his/her 
> 'rewards' and 'punishments' in the astral world; this is heaven and hell. 
> Though there is no eternal hell there may be hellish experiences in the after 
> life depending upon the karma.
> 
> The 'punishments' are the pain the soul feels he/she subjected others to 
> including the ramifications of his/her violations of the 'laws of nature' 
> subjected him/her to, the purpose (everything in God's kingdom has a purpose) 
> is to build into the soul *conscience*, else wise what use would earth life 
> be??
> 
> The 'rewards' are the beauty and happiness that soul subjected other to and 
> the rewards for living in harmony with natural law.  These 'rewards' build 
> into the soul's conscience 'right behavior', for future lives.
> 
> Conscience (intuition) is that quality of the soul that survives the grave, 
> life-time to life-time, building character, ultimately leading to God 
> Realization and the fulfillment of the 'Divine Plan'. (That's why 
> Re-Incarnation works).
> 
> Since all souls (Jivas) are made in the image of God, all souls are 
> guaranteed to return to God, "none will be lost", unlike what some 
> fundamentalist Christians might believe.
> 
> Sources: Theosophy, Rosicrucian, Eastern Religion.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[futur.musik]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
> >
> > Based on your reply and some other "evidence" - lol, I am
> > beginning to think Sistahs generally awaken more quietly than
> > Dudes? Probably related to your direct link to the creation 
> > process, aka babies, and our making a bigger deal out of any 
> > analogues to that we can find. :-)
> 
> Well, I wasn't going to mention it, but... ;-)

 ** LOL

> One is either pregnant or not pregnant, but once one
> *becomes* pregnant, it does take awhile for the
> pregnancy to bear fruit, as it were. Perhaps for men
> it's more like being born.
> 
> I've said here before that my own progress, while
> lacking flashy experiences and distinct transitions,
> has seemed to be one of gradually increasing
> transparency. That's why your two-way mirror metaphor
> appealed to me: it's as if I'm increasingly able to 
> see through the one-way side of the mirror.
> 
** Its interesting - because my experience of waking up was much more dramatic, 
literally like giving birth to myself. There has been and continues to be 
certainly mucho integration after the fact, however the transition itself was 
more abrupt than I suppose it may be for a woman. I have heard about the 
gradual awakening, which is more my wife's style, and couldn't understand it, 
until I had gained some distance from my own initial Sunset Boulevard 
experience.

Yes, the ability to see right through others is gained; clarity, what a 
concept. However, by seeing the now obvious, I have learned that it never gives 
me the right to state such a thing about someone else, unless it is with the 
other's permission. Funny how that works. I worked out the power/responsibility 
direct relationship awhile ago, and am learning that it scales...  
> 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > yeah it is an all or nothing scenario. No one is ever a little bit 
> > > > awake, just as no one is a little bit pregnant. Once the curtain goes 
> > > > up, or falls down, the reality experienced from that moment on is as 
> > > > different from the previously ego based justification, as day is from 
> > > > night. 
> > > > 
> > > > Even though I might have sensory experiences outside my ordinary
> > > > spectrum as a result of meditation, they are not really spiritual 
> > > > experiences, because the ego will always see them in terms of
> > > > itself. As long as the ego is running the show, there is no
> > > > chance of comprehending a spiritual existence. It is like being
> > > > on the wrong side of a two way mirror.
> > > 
> > > Oh, that's a great metaphor!
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] David Lynch - I know

[nablusoss1008]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAW75VnUj5E&feature=related

[FairfieldLife] David Lynch - Strange and Unproductive Thinking

[nablusoss1008]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-uwLho9n34

[FairfieldLife] Humour

[nablusoss1008]

[FairfieldLife] Spiritual 'sex', and the marriage of Shiva and Shakti.

[wgm4u]

What's up with this sex thing?, Shiva Lingam and Yoni?, what's up with that?? 
(I.E. **Carnal sex has NOTHING to do with 'Spiritual sex'**).

Spiritual 'sex' has to do with awakening the sleeping serpent fire Kundalini 
within your own soul constitution, in the Muladara Chakra and raising this 
prana/shakti to the 7th chakra/Shiva, this is what the Hindus (and Maharishi 
too) celebrate when you see them pouring milk over the Shiva lingam.

Folks, (and fellow long time TM'ers), this is what TM is all about, awakening 
the sleeping serpent fire in the spine, kundalini!!!

Watch:  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HHkXoH97r0&feature=g-all-u&context=G2e9ddc4FJAA

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
>
> Based on your reply and some other "evidence" - lol, I am
> beginning to think Sistahs generally awaken more quietly than
> Dudes? Probably related to your direct link to the creation 
> process, aka babies, and our making a bigger deal out of any 
> analogues to that we can find. :-)

Well, I wasn't going to mention it, but... ;-)

One is either pregnant or not pregnant, but once one
*becomes* pregnant, it does take awhile for the
pregnancy to bear fruit, as it were. Perhaps for men
it's more like being born.

I've said here before that my own progress, while
lacking flashy experiences and distinct transitions,
has seemed to be one of gradually increasing
transparency. That's why your two-way mirror metaphor
appealed to me: it's as if I'm increasingly able to 
see through the one-way side of the mirror.



> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
> > >
> > > yeah it is an all or nothing scenario. No one is ever a little bit awake, 
> > > just as no one is a little bit pregnant. Once the curtain goes up, or 
> > > falls down, the reality experienced from that moment on is as different 
> > > from the previously ego based justification, as day is from night. 
> > > 
> > > Even though I might have sensory experiences outside my ordinary
> > > spectrum as a result of meditation, they are not really spiritual 
> > > experiences, because the ego will always see them in terms of
> > > itself. As long as the ego is running the show, there is no
> > > chance of comprehending a spiritual existence. It is like being
> > > on the wrong side of a two way mirror.
> > 
> > Oh, that's a great metaphor!
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] The After-Death Experience.

[wgm4u]

Once the 'silver cord' snaps there is no returning to earth life, the soul 
slips into silence. After a period of time the soul awakens to his/her 
'rewards' and 'punishments' in the astral world; this is heaven and hell. 
Though there is no eternal hell there may be hellish experiences in the after 
life depending upon the karma.

The 'punishments' are the pain the soul feels he/she subjected others to 
including the ramifications of his/her violations of the 'laws of nature' 
subjected him/her to, the purpose (everything in God's kingdom has a purpose) 
is to build into the soul *conscience*, else wise what use would earth life be??

The 'rewards' are the beauty and happiness that soul subjected other to and the 
rewards for living in harmony with natural law.  These 'rewards' build into the 
soul's conscience 'right behavior', for future lives.

Conscience (intuition) is that quality of the soul that survives the grave, 
life-time to life-time, building character, ultimately leading to God 
Realization and the fulfillment of the 'Divine Plan'. (That's why 
Re-Incarnation works).

Since all souls (Jivas) are made in the image of God, all souls are guaranteed 
to return to God, "none will be lost", unlike what some fundamentalist 
Christians might believe.

Sources: Theosophy, Rosicrucian, Eastern Religion.

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): Sat Jan 28 00:00:00 2012
End Date (UTC): Sat Feb 04 00:00:00 2012
111 messages as of (UTC) Sun Jan 29 00:08:02 2012

20 "futur.musik" 
16 nablusoss1008 
 9 marekreavis 
 9 authfriend 
 9 Buck 
 7 obbajeeba 
 7 curtisdeltablues 
 7 Emily Reyn 
 5 turquoiseb 
 4 merudanda 
 4 cardemaister 
 3 Bhairitu 
 2 seventhray1 
 2 raunchydog 
 2 Yifu 
 1 ynorthr 
 1 Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
 1 Susan 
 1 Alex Stanley 
 1 "Richard J. Williams" 

Posters: 20
Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
=
Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
Standard Time (Winter):
US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[futur.musik]

Based on your reply and some other "evidence" - lol, I am beginning to think 
Sistahs generally awaken more quietly than Dudes? Probably related to your 
direct link to the creation process, aka babies, and our making a bigger deal 
out of any analogues to that we can find. :-)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
> >
> > yeah it is an all or nothing scenario. No one is ever a little bit awake, 
> > just as no one is a little bit pregnant. Once the curtain goes up, or falls 
> > down, the reality experienced from that moment on is as different from the 
> > previously ego based justification, as day is from night. 
> > 
> > Even though I might have sensory experiences outside my ordinary
> > spectrum as a result of meditation, they are not really spiritual 
> > experiences, because the ego will always see them in terms of
> > itself. As long as the ego is running the show, there is no
> > chance of comprehending a spiritual existence. It is like being
> > on the wrong side of a two way mirror.
> 
> Oh, that's a great metaphor!
>

[FairfieldLife] USA - Russia

[nablusoss1008]

[http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/401203_2577522240905_133\
9855088_32085451_477165847_n.jpg]

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: You heard it here first: "Touch" is a very interesting TV show

[Bhairitu]

On 01/27/2012 01:38 PM, Bhairitu wrote:
> On 01/27/2012 11:27 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb   wrote:
>>> Kiefer Sutherland as the father of a kid who suffers from
>>> mutism and has never spoken a word, but who knows how
>>> everything fits together and how to make everything that
>>> is supposed to happen happen. Created by Tim Kring, for
>>> those of you who remember that name. This is a very sweet
>>> and -- for mainstream TV -- uplifting television show.
>>> Who knew they could still make those?
>> I was being dragged away to dinner earlier, and thus
>> the typo in the Subject line and the short shrift done
>> to this mini-review. Call me a sucker for synchronicity,
>> but I really liked the premise of this series, and its
>> execution. I knew nothing about it going into it, but
>> it sucked me right in and captured my attention to the
>> last moment. I'm thinking it's going to become a real
>> cult classic among fans, and cancelled after one season.
>> And if you think about all the great TV series that
>> description applies to, that's a bit of a compliment.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvQ_qJYZ-7A
> I just finished watching on fox.com, albeit with commercials but in HD.
> They often repeat a show usually Saturday evening even if it is a promo
> as this pilot was but there is a football game that takes precedence.
> Nice pilot but lets hope that they can keep the arc up during the season
> that starts in March.  And Tim Kring has a record of bending to the
> executives at the networks as he did with "Heroes" and it went downhill.
>
> I like the premise too and do think we are just living out a pattern.
> But you can't prove either way so you might as well live as if you have
> free will.

And if you want to watch on the big screen from the comfort of your 
couch or easy chair and have Amazon on your player they have it for free 
but at 51 minutes means with commercials.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[futur.musik]

I calls em as I sees em.:-)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
> >
> > yeah it is an all or nothing scenario. No one is ever a little bit awake, 
> > just as no one is a little bit pregnant. Once the curtain goes up, or falls 
> > down, the reality experienced from that moment on is as different from the 
> > previously ego based justification, as day is from night. 
> > 
> > Even though I might have sensory experiences outside my ordinary
> > spectrum as a result of meditation, they are not really spiritual 
> > experiences, because the ego will always see them in terms of
> > itself. As long as the ego is running the show, there is no
> > chance of comprehending a spiritual existence. It is like being
> > on the wrong side of a two way mirror.
> 
> Oh, that's a great metaphor!
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
>
> yeah it is an all or nothing scenario. No one is ever a little bit awake, 
> just as no one is a little bit pregnant. Once the curtain goes up, or falls 
> down, the reality experienced from that moment on is as different from the 
> previously ego based justification, as day is from night. 
> 
> Even though I might have sensory experiences outside my ordinary
> spectrum as a result of meditation, they are not really spiritual 
> experiences, because the ego will always see them in terms of
> itself. As long as the ego is running the show, there is no
> chance of comprehending a spiritual existence. It is like being
> on the wrong side of a two way mirror.

Oh, that's a great metaphor!

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[futur.musik]

yeah it is an all or nothing scenario. No one is ever a little bit awake, just 
as no one is a little bit pregnant. Once the curtain goes up, or falls down, 
the reality experienced from that moment on is as different from the previously 
ego based justification, as day is from night. 

Even though I might have sensory experiences outside my ordinary spectrum as a 
result of meditation, they are not really spiritual experiences, because the 
ego will always see them in terms of itself. As long as the ego is running the 
show, there is no chance of comprehending a spiritual existence. It is like 
being on the wrong side of a two way mirror.  

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
>
> Yep, two completely different worlds, one clear and transparent, the other 
> twisted externally to satisfy an internal need. Never the twain shall meet. 
> :-)
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
> > >
> > > "I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely differences in 
> > > awareness account for whether a person believes there is *justification* 
> > > for saying something they know to be false, but you really can't make 
> > > much of a case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others."
> > > 
> > > Thanks Judy. Yes, of course you are right about deliberate deception 
> > > being a reality. However, the thing I have been thinking about is how if 
> > > someone is ignorant of their true nature, their attempts to deceive 
> > > others are based on an attempt to find peace within themselves, 
> > > strengthening a reality that substitutes for true self knowledge. Even 
> > > though the deception appears designed for others, it is really an attempt 
> > > to compensate for a lack of comprehension of one's motives, feelings and 
> > > reactions. 
> > > 
> > > The edifice for others is purposefully built, but not primarily for the 
> > > others. It is built to reflect a comfortable story that substitutes for 
> > > self-knowledge. 
> > > 
> > > This being the case, until someone knows themselves, the only other 
> > > choice is to be what you are calling dishonest. Everything is done in 
> > > support of the ego. It is the nature of the beast. How can someone be 
> > > true to a part of themselves they know little to nothing about?
> > 
> > I tend to agree with this. The ego is a kind of mis-perception of 
> > experience, it really is not some kind of entity, it is more like a bad 
> > habit that has to be untrained, but seeing through the ego requires waking 
> > up, seeing that our whole conceptual world is a fabrication, a lie we never 
> > knew existed, a lie whose depth can take the breath away when exposed. One 
> > does not really suspect how twisted one's thought and action is until one 
> > sees through this. And seeing through this is for most just the beginning 
> > of being able to unravel self-deception. Being 'spiritual' often results in 
> > one set of self-deceptive lies being substituted for former ones. Not a big 
> > difference.
> > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding being true to one's nature on here, is there any other 
> > > > > choice?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I was thinking about what the difference in self-structure is, 
> > > > > between the person full of thoughts about who they are, and the 
> > > > > person with a rested mind.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I can picture my own experience as previously living within a sphere 
> > > > > of totality of myself, with a big impenetrable nucleus at the center. 
> > > > > So I was aware of everything around the nucleus, except the nucleus 
> > > > > itself (which was a completely unsustainable state). Then, once it 
> > > > > began to develop cracks and rapidly break apart, there became nothing 
> > > > > left to hold onto.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This distinction regarding our awareness is a crucial one in 
> > > > > determining our personal truth, and that of others. I find that once 
> > > > > the nucleus becomes known to us, it becomes easy to spot it in 
> > > > > others, whether they are aware of it or not.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The difference between having exploded one's nucleus and not is in 
> > > > > the former case, we are oneness within. However if the tight nucleus 
> > > > > of ego remains, we are constantly in a state of duality within 
> > > > > ourselves, the known and the unknown, or the comfortable and 
> > > > > uncomfortable.
> > > > > 
> > > > > If someone is in a state of ignorance wrt their inner nature, then 
> > > > > that person will see the world as completely different than someone 
> > > > > with full knowledge of themselves. Two completely different worlds, 
> > > > > even though outer experience may appear similar.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So if someone appears dishones

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[futur.musik]

Yep, two completely different worlds, one clear and transparent, the other 
twisted externally to satisfy an internal need. Never the twain shall meet. :-)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
> >
> > "I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely differences in 
> > awareness account for whether a person believes there is *justification* 
> > for saying something they know to be false, but you really can't make much 
> > of a case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others."
> > 
> > Thanks Judy. Yes, of course you are right about deliberate deception being 
> > a reality. However, the thing I have been thinking about is how if someone 
> > is ignorant of their true nature, their attempts to deceive others are 
> > based on an attempt to find peace within themselves, strengthening a 
> > reality that substitutes for true self knowledge. Even though the deception 
> > appears designed for others, it is really an attempt to compensate for a 
> > lack of comprehension of one's motives, feelings and reactions. 
> > 
> > The edifice for others is purposefully built, but not primarily for the 
> > others. It is built to reflect a comfortable story that substitutes for 
> > self-knowledge. 
> > 
> > This being the case, until someone knows themselves, the only other choice 
> > is to be what you are calling dishonest. Everything is done in support of 
> > the ego. It is the nature of the beast. How can someone be true to a part 
> > of themselves they know little to nothing about?
> 
> I tend to agree with this. The ego is a kind of mis-perception of experience, 
> it really is not some kind of entity, it is more like a bad habit that has to 
> be untrained, but seeing through the ego requires waking up, seeing that our 
> whole conceptual world is a fabrication, a lie we never knew existed, a lie 
> whose depth can take the breath away when exposed. One does not really 
> suspect how twisted one's thought and action is until one sees through this. 
> And seeing through this is for most just the beginning of being able to 
> unravel self-deception. Being 'spiritual' often results in one set of 
> self-deceptive lies being substituted for former ones. Not a big difference.
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Regarding being true to one's nature on here, is there any other choice?
> > > > 
> > > > I was thinking about what the difference in self-structure is, between 
> > > > the person full of thoughts about who they are, and the person with a 
> > > > rested mind.
> > > > 
> > > > I can picture my own experience as previously living within a sphere of 
> > > > totality of myself, with a big impenetrable nucleus at the center. So I 
> > > > was aware of everything around the nucleus, except the nucleus itself 
> > > > (which was a completely unsustainable state). Then, once it began to 
> > > > develop cracks and rapidly break apart, there became nothing left to 
> > > > hold onto.
> > > > 
> > > > This distinction regarding our awareness is a crucial one in 
> > > > determining our personal truth, and that of others. I find that once 
> > > > the nucleus becomes known to us, it becomes easy to spot it in others, 
> > > > whether they are aware of it or not.
> > > > 
> > > > The difference between having exploded one's nucleus and not is in the 
> > > > former case, we are oneness within. However if the tight nucleus of ego 
> > > > remains, we are constantly in a state of duality within ourselves, the 
> > > > known and the unknown, or the comfortable and uncomfortable.
> > > > 
> > > > If someone is in a state of ignorance wrt their inner nature, then that 
> > > > person will see the world as completely different than someone with 
> > > > full knowledge of themselves. Two completely different worlds, even 
> > > > though outer experience may appear similar.
> > > > 
> > > > So if someone appears dishonest, or contrary or fearful to us,
> > > > it is merely a difference in awareness, and no deliberate
> > > > attempt at deception or obfuscation.
> > > 
> > > I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely
> > > differences in awareness account for whether a person
> > > believes there is *justification* for saying something
> > > they know to be false, but you really can't make much
> > > of a case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others.
>  
> > >  Each type of person has their own awareness, one is complete and one is 
> > > incomplete. Comparing the two is a futile exercise in apples and oranges.
> > > >  
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was mulling over a few versions of this post myself Barry,
> > > > > > but since you 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[futur.musik]

"Well, yes, but even among those who don't know themselves in the sense you're 
talking about, some are more prone to deliberate deceit than others, no?"

I see a parallel relationship between the amount of deception a person 
perpetuates and the cynical nature of their being. Someone who has essentially 
given up on any further development for themselves will practice more self 
deception.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
> >
> > "I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely 
> > differences in awareness account for whether a person believes
> > there is *justification* for saying something they know to be
> > false, but you really can't make much of a case that nobody
> > ever attempts to deceive others."
> > 
> > Thanks Judy. Yes, of course you are right about deliberate
> > deception being a reality. However, the thing I have been
> > thinking about is how if someone is ignorant of their true
> > nature, their attempts to deceive others are based on an
> > attempt to find peace within themselves, strengthening a
> > reality that substitutes for true self knowledge.
> 
> Maybe this is what I had in mind with regard to
> justification of deceit, but in different words?
> IOW, deceit may enable one to find a measure of
> peace (short-lived though it may be), as long as
> one is able to justify it to oneself.
> 
> > Even though the deception appears designed for others, it
> > is really an attempt to compensate for a lack of
> > comprehension of one's motives, feelings and reactions.
> > 
> > The edifice for others is purposefully built, but not
> > primarily for the others. It is built to reflect a
> > comfortable story that substitutes for self-knowledge.
> 
> I can buy this. 
> 
> > This being the case, until someone knows themselves, the
> > only other choice is to be what you are calling dishonest.
> > Everything is done in support of the ego. It is the nature
> > of the beast. How can someone be true to a part of themselves
> > they know little to nothing about?
> 
> Well, yes, but even among those who don't know 
> themselves in the sense you're talking about, some
> are more prone to deliberate deceit than others, no?
> 
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Regarding being true to one's nature on here, is there any other choice?
> > > > 
> > > > I was thinking about what the difference in self-structure is, between 
> > > > the person full of thoughts about who they are, and the person with a 
> > > > rested mind.
> > > > 
> > > > I can picture my own experience as previously living within a sphere of 
> > > > totality of myself, with a big impenetrable nucleus at the center. So I 
> > > > was aware of everything around the nucleus, except the nucleus itself 
> > > > (which was a completely unsustainable state). Then, once it began to 
> > > > develop cracks and rapidly break apart, there became nothing left to 
> > > > hold onto.
> > > > 
> > > > This distinction regarding our awareness is a crucial one in 
> > > > determining our personal truth, and that of others. I find that once 
> > > > the nucleus becomes known to us, it becomes easy to spot it in others, 
> > > > whether they are aware of it or not.
> > > > 
> > > > The difference between having exploded one's nucleus and not is in the 
> > > > former case, we are oneness within. However if the tight nucleus of ego 
> > > > remains, we are constantly in a state of duality within ourselves, the 
> > > > known and the unknown, or the comfortable and uncomfortable.
> > > > 
> > > > If someone is in a state of ignorance wrt their inner nature, then that 
> > > > person will see the world as completely different than someone with 
> > > > full knowledge of themselves. Two completely different worlds, even 
> > > > though outer experience may appear similar.
> > > > 
> > > > So if someone appears dishonest, or contrary or fearful to us,
> > > > it is merely a difference in awareness, and no deliberate
> > > > attempt at deception or obfuscation.
> > > 
> > > I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely
> > > differences in awareness account for whether a person
> > > believes there is *justification* for saying something
> > > they know to be false, but you really can't make much
> > > of a case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  Each type of person has their own awareness, one is complete and one is 
> > > incomplete. Comparing the two is a futile exercise in apples and oranges.
> > > >  
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was mulling over a few versions of this post myself Barry,
> > > > > > but since you nailed it I

[FairfieldLife] Doodling in math class with Vi Hart

[marekreavis]

This woman is great.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14-NdQwKz9w&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Six-minute video.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Christian Reflection on the New Age

[Buck]

Whoa, I got to come back to this.
This is special.
I got to go do chores before meditation
 -B

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
>
> Published in 2003, & follows a 1989 document engineered by the current Pope 
> when he was the Grand Inquisitor; which warns against New Age and/or Eastern 
> types of meditation.  TM of course would be included though I don't know if 
> it was specifically mentioned.
> ...
> The TMO's proponents seem to have a propensity to appropriate the teachings 
> of various non-TM forms of meditation by including the latter in the guise of 
> the quest for "Pure Consciousness". This won't work since: (a) a brief search 
> in Wiki under "Christian Meditation" makes it clear that Jesus Christ is the 
> focus of such meditation, not the realization of the impersonal Absolute. Of 
> course, this could be a fatal flaw in the Grand Inquisitor's viewpoint since 
> a reading of the works of such people as Aquinas, St. John of the Cross, and 
> others; appears to include a recognition of the impersonal Self along with 
> devotion to Jesus.
> ...
> More specifically, wrt LEVITATION, a reading of the works of famous 
> levitators such as St. Francis, St. John of the Cross, and St. Teresa of 
> Avila points to their Mystical Union with Jesus as the key ingredient in 
> Ecstatic states of Rapture in which the Soul becomes elevated above the 
> physical body, at times pulling the body upward off of the ground, resulting 
> in physical levitation.  The bottom line: it appears that successful true 
> levitation may require other ingredients besides realization of "Pure 
> Consciousness"; and it's typical of the ongoing dispicable dishonesty of 
> various authors associated with the TMO to compare TM with SOC's associated 
> with the famous levitating Catholic Saints. In short, the latter universally 
> practiced Christocentric meditation on the Person of Jesus, being the key 
> ingredient that catapaulted their "Souls" above the physical, at times 
> physically elevating the physical body above the ground, as if pulled up by a 
> Supernatural Force. Thus, levitators should look to the source of this Sidhi 
> in a Supernatural Force, not the unmanifest Absolute. If mere Self 
> Realization were a sufficient cause for true levitation, then we would see 
> the many Advaitins such as Adyashanti, Gangaji, Eckhart Tolle and others in 
> numerous Youtube presentations elevated in mid air, notwithstanding Hagelin, 
> Jerry, Bevan, and MMY himself.
> ...
> Here's part of the Wiki entry:
> 
> The document has 6 main sections, as well as an appendix, and glossary of New 
> Age terms.[2] The main sections are:
> 
> 1. What sort of reflection. This section discusses the context and timing of 
> the document. It states that the Third Millennium, two thousand years after 
> the birth of Christ, is a time when astrologers believe that the Age of 
> Pisces is drawing to a close. Hence a time when the public is bombarded with 
> the New Age message may be the right moment to offer an assessment of why it 
> is not consistent with the Christian message.
> 
> 2. New Age spirituality: an overview. This section provides an overview of 
> the New Age Movement and its history. Referring to Harmony and Good 
> Vibrations, it criticizes the approach of being in tune with nature or the 
> cosmos, claiming that it blurs the distinction between good and evil and 
> creates the mindset that "we cannot condemn anyone, and nobody needs 
> forgiveness". 
> [my comment...this part on forgiveness is of course incorrect since New Agers 
> don't claim any such thing].
> 
> Golden living: The document claims that New Age practices can be associated 
> with other practices, listing acupuncture, biofeedback, kinesiology, 
> homeopathy, iridology and various kinds of bodywork, polarity massage, 
> meditation and visualisation, psychic healing, healing by crystals, metals, 
> music or colors, and twelve-step programs.
> Wholeness and dualism: The document states that the New Age encourages that 
> we should overcome dualisms, such as Creator and creation, the distinction 
> between man and nature, or spirit and matter.
> 
> Central themes of the New Age. The document claims that the New Age is not a 
> religion, but is interested in what is called "divine". Some common points in 
> the New Age movement are: 
> The cosmos is seen as an organic whole, animated by an energy, soul or spirit
> Credence is given to the mediation of various spiritual entities
> Humans are assumed capable of ascending to invisible higher spheres
> A "perennial knowledge" pre-dates and is superior to all religions and 
> cultures
> People are encouraged to follow enlightened masters.
> 
> 3. New Age and Christian faith. The document states that for Christians, the 
> spiritual life is a relationship with God.[i.e. the Personal God, Jesus as 
> part of the Trinity,...not "Brahman"] It criticizes Eastern meditation and 
> states that all meditation t

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
>
> "I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely 
> differences in awareness account for whether a person believes
> there is *justification* for saying something they know to be
> false, but you really can't make much of a case that nobody
> ever attempts to deceive others."
> 
> Thanks Judy. Yes, of course you are right about deliberate
> deception being a reality. However, the thing I have been
> thinking about is how if someone is ignorant of their true
> nature, their attempts to deceive others are based on an
> attempt to find peace within themselves, strengthening a
> reality that substitutes for true self knowledge.

Maybe this is what I had in mind with regard to
justification of deceit, but in different words?
IOW, deceit may enable one to find a measure of
peace (short-lived though it may be), as long as
one is able to justify it to oneself.

> Even though the deception appears designed for others, it
> is really an attempt to compensate for a lack of
> comprehension of one's motives, feelings and reactions.
> 
> The edifice for others is purposefully built, but not
> primarily for the others. It is built to reflect a
> comfortable story that substitutes for self-knowledge.

I can buy this. 

> This being the case, until someone knows themselves, the
> only other choice is to be what you are calling dishonest.
> Everything is done in support of the ego. It is the nature
> of the beast. How can someone be true to a part of themselves
> they know little to nothing about?

Well, yes, but even among those who don't know 
themselves in the sense you're talking about, some
are more prone to deliberate deceit than others, no?


> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Regarding being true to one's nature on here, is there any other choice?
> > > 
> > > I was thinking about what the difference in self-structure is, between 
> > > the person full of thoughts about who they are, and the person with a 
> > > rested mind.
> > > 
> > > I can picture my own experience as previously living within a sphere of 
> > > totality of myself, with a big impenetrable nucleus at the center. So I 
> > > was aware of everything around the nucleus, except the nucleus itself 
> > > (which was a completely unsustainable state). Then, once it began to 
> > > develop cracks and rapidly break apart, there became nothing left to hold 
> > > onto.
> > > 
> > > This distinction regarding our awareness is a crucial one in determining 
> > > our personal truth, and that of others. I find that once the nucleus 
> > > becomes known to us, it becomes easy to spot it in others, whether they 
> > > are aware of it or not.
> > > 
> > > The difference between having exploded one's nucleus and not is in the 
> > > former case, we are oneness within. However if the tight nucleus of ego 
> > > remains, we are constantly in a state of duality within ourselves, the 
> > > known and the unknown, or the comfortable and uncomfortable.
> > > 
> > > If someone is in a state of ignorance wrt their inner nature, then that 
> > > person will see the world as completely different than someone with full 
> > > knowledge of themselves. Two completely different worlds, even though 
> > > outer experience may appear similar.
> > > 
> > > So if someone appears dishonest, or contrary or fearful to us,
> > > it is merely a difference in awareness, and no deliberate
> > > attempt at deception or obfuscation.
> > 
> > I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely
> > differences in awareness account for whether a person
> > believes there is *justification* for saying something
> > they know to be false, but you really can't make much
> > of a case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  Each type of person has their own awareness, one is complete and one is 
> > incomplete. Comparing the two is a futile exercise in apples and oranges.
> > >  
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I was mulling over a few versions of this post myself Barry,
> > > > > but since you nailed it I can get off with just a:
> > > > > 
> > > > > what he said.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Favorite line:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Call the media. "Buck" has just suggested that Fairfield
> > > > > > Life be run the way the TMO is.  :-)
> > > > 
> > > > You sure that's what Buck means?
> > > > 
> > > > I wouldn't be in favor of legislating it, but IMHO FFL
> > > > would be a better, more enjoyable place, and its
> > > > discussions more interesting and productive, if we all
> > > > would refrain from personal attacks against each other,
> > > > if we could express our disagreements without being
> > > > disagreeable, in Obama's phrase.
> > > > 
> > > > Woul

[FairfieldLife] Androida-cuuDa-maNi!

[cardemaister]

https://market.android.com/search?q=sanskrit&c=apps

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
>
> "I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely differences in 
> awareness account for whether a person believes there is *justification* for 
> saying something they know to be false, but you really can't make much of a 
> case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others."
> 
> Thanks Judy. Yes, of course you are right about deliberate deception being a 
> reality. However, the thing I have been thinking about is how if someone is 
> ignorant of their true nature, their attempts to deceive others are based on 
> an attempt to find peace within themselves, strengthening a reality that 
> substitutes for true self knowledge. Even though the deception appears 
> designed for others, it is really an attempt to compensate for a lack of 
> comprehension of one's motives, feelings and reactions. 
> 
> The edifice for others is purposefully built, but not primarily for the 
> others. It is built to reflect a comfortable story that substitutes for 
> self-knowledge. 
> 
> This being the case, until someone knows themselves, the only other choice is 
> to be what you are calling dishonest. Everything is done in support of the 
> ego. It is the nature of the beast. How can someone be true to a part of 
> themselves they know little to nothing about?

I tend to agree with this. The ego is a kind of mis-perception of experience, 
it really is not some kind of entity, it is more like a bad habit that has to 
be untrained, but seeing through the ego requires waking up, seeing that our 
whole conceptual world is a fabrication, a lie we never knew existed, a lie 
whose depth can take the breath away when exposed. One does not really suspect 
how twisted one's thought and action is until one sees through this. And seeing 
through this is for most just the beginning of being able to unravel 
self-deception. Being 'spiritual' often results in one set of self-deceptive 
lies being substituted for former ones. Not a big difference.

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Regarding being true to one's nature on here, is there any other choice?
> > > 
> > > I was thinking about what the difference in self-structure is, between 
> > > the person full of thoughts about who they are, and the person with a 
> > > rested mind.
> > > 
> > > I can picture my own experience as previously living within a sphere of 
> > > totality of myself, with a big impenetrable nucleus at the center. So I 
> > > was aware of everything around the nucleus, except the nucleus itself 
> > > (which was a completely unsustainable state). Then, once it began to 
> > > develop cracks and rapidly break apart, there became nothing left to hold 
> > > onto.
> > > 
> > > This distinction regarding our awareness is a crucial one in determining 
> > > our personal truth, and that of others. I find that once the nucleus 
> > > becomes known to us, it becomes easy to spot it in others, whether they 
> > > are aware of it or not.
> > > 
> > > The difference between having exploded one's nucleus and not is in the 
> > > former case, we are oneness within. However if the tight nucleus of ego 
> > > remains, we are constantly in a state of duality within ourselves, the 
> > > known and the unknown, or the comfortable and uncomfortable.
> > > 
> > > If someone is in a state of ignorance wrt their inner nature, then that 
> > > person will see the world as completely different than someone with full 
> > > knowledge of themselves. Two completely different worlds, even though 
> > > outer experience may appear similar.
> > > 
> > > So if someone appears dishonest, or contrary or fearful to us,
> > > it is merely a difference in awareness, and no deliberate
> > > attempt at deception or obfuscation.
> > 
> > I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely
> > differences in awareness account for whether a person
> > believes there is *justification* for saying something
> > they know to be false, but you really can't make much
> > of a case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others.
 
> >  Each type of person has their own awareness, one is complete and one is 
> > incomplete. Comparing the two is a futile exercise in apples and oranges.
> > >  
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I was mulling over a few versions of this post myself Barry,
> > > > > but since you nailed it I can get off with just a:
> > > > > 
> > > > > what he said.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Favorite line:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Call the media. "Buck" has just suggested that Fairfield
> > > > > > Life be run the way the TMO is.  :-)
> > > > 
> > > > You sure that's what Buck means?
> > > > 
> > > > I wouldn't be in favor of legislating it, but IMHO FFL
> > > > would be a better, more enjoyable p

Re: [FairfieldLife] So what AREall those people listening to on their Ipods as they walk by?

[Bhairitu]

On 01/28/2012 10:49 AM, Emily Reyn wrote:
> This was a trip..what a crazy mix this makes...all these different sound 
> worlds people are moving to and in...where are the bhajans?
>
>
> 
>   From: curtisdeltablues
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 6:54 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] So what AREall those people listening to on their 
> Ipods as they walk by?
>
>
>   
> Great concept.  I have always wondered about this but never took the 
> brilliant jump this guy did.  Take the time and effort and ask them!
>
> http://kottke.org/11/05/what-song-are-you-listening-to

I listen to progressive talk radio on my Android phone during my walks.  
I was expecting someone to walk up and ask "are you listening to Rush" 
with a big grin?  Good thing no one has.

That said one thing I'm looking for and seem to only find online are 
single earphone buds. Remember that back in the 1970s we only had mono 
earphones that came with radios.  I may have one or two of those in some 
damn box around here but it won't mix the stereo audio.  I found some on 
Amazon for $20 (argh).  Why do I want one?  Because sometimes I want to 
continue listening to an interview but don't want to wear either my 
earmuff (cheap $2 Coby) headset or any of my earbuds.  It's talk radio 
and not music after all.

[FairfieldLife] A film from Cardland

[Bhairitu]

This film would have gone over better in December because it is a 
Christmas film but it's a horror/comedy very well done called "Rare 
Exports" from Finland.  Currently only available on Netflix via DVD but 
I watched it last night and enjoyed it.  Be sure if you order the DVD to 
check out the extras.  It's a story about an excavation of a mountain 
which turned out to be a burial mound of the original Santa.  Seems he 
wasn't that much of a nice guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RQlikX4vvw

http://movies.netflix.com/Movie/Rare_Exports_A_Christmas_Tale/70153296

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1401143/

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Om Jeezus X-mas, they've been chanting it wrong all this time!
> > > Well then, no wonder.
> > > 
> > > saha nau avatu . 
> > > saha nau bhunaktu . 
> > > saha viiryaM karavaavahai .
> > > tejasvi nau; 
> > > adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . 
> > > 
> > 

Just for "fun", 'karavaavahai' - if we got it right - seems
to be the 1st person *dual* (the two of us) aatmanepada (~ intransitive?) 
subjunctive mode form from the root 'kR' (karma, shaM-kara, yogasthaH *kuru 
karmaaNi*, etc.).

 According to Whitney, subjunctive was rather common
in the Vedic Sanskrit, but became rare in the later Classical
 Sanskrit, and was mainly used as the so called first person
imperative form (let's?).

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
> 
> > > > So if someone appears dishonest, or contrary or fearful to us,
> > > > it is merely a difference in awareness, and no deliberate
> > > > attempt at deception or obfuscation.
> > > 
> > > I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely
> > > differences in awareness account for whether a person
> > > believes there is *justification* for saying something
> > > they know to be false, but you really can't make much
> > > of a case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others.
> > 
> > So true:
> > 
> > Judy:(In a post where she repeatedly accused me of being
> > unethical!)
> > 
> > The only ploy Curtis has to
> > > rebut this uncomfortable fact is the claim, which he's
> > > made in other posts, that I brainwashed all of them into
> > > concurring with me, >
> > 
> > Definitely more of a consciously lying thing than just a
> > difference in awareness.
> 
> Right. I think you were consciously attempting to deceive
> and believed it was justified (just as Barry does when *he*
> attempts to perpetrate that deception):
> 
> "I agree that Judy has set the agenda for this angle and I
> have to give credit for her forceful personality that so
> many have taken up this perspective. (And yes I know it is
> possible that everyone just came to this conclusion 
> independently, but I don't find this as likely.)"
> 
> That's Curtis, responding to a post in which Barry said:
> 
>  *No one else* ever had
> > any doubts about Vaj's TM "pedigree" until she started
> > her "Gotta find a way to demonize Vaj so no one will
> > believe him when he makes valid points" campaign.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/302040

I should add: Yes, I know it is possible that Curtis just
*forgot* what he'd said to Barry (in which case he wasn't
attempting to deceive here by insinuating that *I* had
been lying when I wrote the post he quotes), but I don't
find this as likely. He made that post to Barry on January
17, only a little over 10 days ago.

(Barry, if he were interested in his own credibility,
would also have to explain how I managed the feat he
describes of imbuing so many people with doubt about
Vaj's TM pedigree given Barry's repeated assertions
that hardly anyone reads my posts. Curtis is concerned
enough with his own credibility that he at least tries
to avoid having one of his attempted deceits
contradict another.)

My grandmother--not a religious person but a highly
ethical one--used to quote a Bible verse (Isaiah, I
think): "Be sure your sins will find you out."

[FairfieldLife] They wuz robbed, by Roger Ebert

[turquoiseb]

Great rap. I agree with almost every single word.
They wuz robbed
By Roger Ebert on January 26, 2012  5:02 PM
| 135 Comments

  [oscar_bandit.jpg] 
 Of  course, no nominee is really robbed of an Academy Award
nomination.  It's a gift; not a right. The balloting procedure is
conducted honestly  and reflects a collective opinion, which was
demonstrated this year when  the Academy voters had the curiosity to
seek out Demian Bichir for best  actor for his deeply convincing
performance as a Mexican gardener in  Los Angeles in "A Better Life." He
wasn't on my mental list of possible  candidates, but when I heard the
name, I thought, "Of course! Good  thinking!"
Does  it therefore follow that in the best actor category, Bichir
"robbed"  Michael Shannon of "Take Shelter," Ryan Gosling of "Drive" or
Michael  Fassbender of "Shame"? It does not, even though those
performances were  so good. There were no unworthy nominees for best
actor. But let me also  point out that none of the five nominees was as
electrifying as the  three who were "robbed." That's not a fault. Their
roles weren't of that  nature.

In the best actress category, those who were "robbed" included Tilda 
Swinton in "We Need to Talk About Kevin," Charlize Theron in "Young 
Adult" and Vera Farmiga in "Higher Ground." Here I will be bold and name
two nominees I didn't feel were worthy: Meryl Streep and Glenn Close.

Streep, of course, is a paragon. Her impersonation of Margaret  Thatcher
in "The Iron Lady" was so uncanny she could have given a speech  on the
BBC and fooled a lot of people. But it wasn't a very good film  and
didn't make adequate use of her as a resource. In my review, I used a 
happy turn of phrase: She was all dressed up with nowhere to go. 
Nominating Miss Streep seems to have become an annual ritual for the 
Academy, like bringing on the accountants with their briefcases.


  [fermiga.jpg] 



Vera Farmiga not only starred in "Higher Ground," but also directed it. 
In both tasks she shows complete clarity about what she wants to 
accomplish. The film follows three stages in a woman's journey through 
religion: childhood belief, mainstream Protestant, 40ish evangelical. 
(She plays the third.) The film never says she is making the right or 
wrong decision, only that what she does seems necessary at the time she 
does it. In a world where believers and agnostics are polarized and hold
simplified ideas about each other, it takes a step back and sees faith 
as a series of choices that should be freely made. She is intensely 
human at every stage.

Glenn Close's performance in "Albert Nobbs" was too limited, I  think.
Her female-to-male transition evoked a character paralyzed with  dread
of discovery. Except for one lovely scene of brief liberation,  there
was no range, simply a woman who hopes that by keeping a frozen  face
and blending into the wallpaper she can pass. Her Albert Nobbs  seems
monumentally clueless if she believes it's plausible the cute  little
chambermaid yearns for a sexless marriage running a tobacco shop.  Nobbs
seems not merely frightened and shy, but lacking a basic working 
knowledge of the facts of life. That isn't inappropriate for the 
character, perhaps, but it does little to make the film involving.

In her place I would rather have seen Tilda Swinton's devastating 
performance as the unwilling mother of a demonic son in "We Need to Talk
About Kevin," or Charlize Theron's self-destructive, vulnerable former 
prom queen in "Young Adult." Yes, her character was as clueless as 
Albert Nobbs in thinking her high school boyfriend would drop his wife 
and new baby to marry her. But it's the kind of thinking an alcoholic 
can drift into.


  [parron and theron.jpg] 


In the same film, Patton Oswalt's performance as the legendary nerd in 
Theron's high school class deserved a nomination. So certainly did the 
work of Albert Brooks in "Drive," as a gnarly old gangster a million 
miles distant from his previous characters. Both performers were acting.
Who were they "robbed" by? I think perhaps by Nick Nolte's work as the 
father in "Warrior." I wrote in my review that "he embodies, as only 
Nick Nolte can, the shaggy, weathered heroism of a man who is trying one
more time to pull himself together." Yes, but isn't that the role he's 
been playing routinely? To see him as the great actor he is, look again 
at his nominated leading performance in Paul Schrader's "Affliction" 
(1997). In "Warrior," he's typecast.

Here's a question I hate to ask. Why was Max von Sydow nominated for 
"Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close"? It was not a great movie, and 
the role of a young boy's wise old companion was not original nor did it
st

[FairfieldLife] Re: Apollo 13 remix

[futur.musik]

do you really want to hear them again? Lots of dogs in our neighborhood but 
thankfully none that bark all the time.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> I'm lovin the idea and will listen again...too bad I can't get you a tape of 
> the 3 barking dogs that wake me up every morning :)
> 
> 
> 
>  From: futur.musik 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 10:47 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Apollo 13 remix
>  
> 
>   
> Glad you enjoyed it - there is a lot of humor in it! The final sequence, 
> following Bogey, is a bathtub filling, an airport background, a busy signal, 
> then a garage door opening, a crowd cheering, a chainsaw and the garage door 
> closing, and water draining away. What fun! Can't wait to put together 
> another piece.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
> >
> > Loooved it.  I went to go answer the door :)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: futur.musik 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 8:03 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Apollo 13 remix
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > The other side of the space program. Contains the full introduction of the 
> > problem on Apollo 13, plus a lot of other stuff. 4:04.
> > 
> > http://www.box.com/s/utvakndtt3fvif4u0lzf
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Review: "The Artist"

[Emily Reyn]

Yep, both of these are on my list as well.



 From: turquoiseb 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 10:52 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Review: "The Artist"
 

  
OK, it's now official. My two favorite films of the year,
over which I would be torn if I had to vote for only one
of them for Oscar Best Film Of The Year, are throwbacks
to and homages to the early days of cinema. They are films
about film.

First came Martin Scorcese's masterful "Hugo," in which he
used cutting edge modern 3D film technology to make a movie 
about the beginnings of film. 

The opposite, in a way, is Michel Hazanavicius' "The Artist."
He, too, makes a film about the early days of cinema. It's 
just that he did it AS a silent movie. 

Think about this for a minute. If a film gets 10 Oscar nom-
inations, including two for Best Actor and Best Actress,
and it's a SILENT MOVIE, is there something going on there
or what? It's really a stunner of a movie. I did not miss
the lack of spoken dialogue for a moment.

This movie also throws askew my predictions for Best Actor
and Best Actress. Both Jean Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo (the
real-life wife of writer-director Michel Hazanavicius) are
WAY up there in the running. 

Do NOT let the (let's face it) near-stigma of it being a 
silent movie keep you from seeing this. Artists don't
always need words.


 

[FairfieldLife] Review: "The Artist"

[turquoiseb]

OK, it's now official. My two favorite films of the year,
over which I would be torn if I had to vote for only one
of them for Oscar Best Film Of The Year, are throwbacks
to and homages to the early days of cinema. They are films
about film.

First came Martin Scorcese's masterful "Hugo," in which he
used cutting edge modern 3D film technology to make a movie 
about the beginnings of film. 

The opposite, in a way, is Michel Hazanavicius' "The Artist."
He, too, makes a film about the early days of cinema. It's 
just that he did it AS a silent movie. 

Think about this for a minute. If a film gets 10 Oscar nom-
inations, including two for Best Actor and Best Actress,
and it's a SILENT MOVIE, is there something going on there
or what? It's really a stunner of a movie. I did not miss
the lack of spoken dialogue for a moment.

This movie also throws askew my predictions for Best Actor
and Best Actress. Both Jean Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo (the
real-life wife of writer-director Michel Hazanavicius) are
WAY up there in the running. 

Do NOT let the (let's face it) near-stigma of it being a 
silent movie keep you from seeing this. Artists don't
always need words.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Apollo 13 remix

[Emily Reyn]

I'm lovin the idea and will listen again...too bad I can't get you a tape of 
the 3 barking dogs that wake me up every morning :)



 From: futur.musik 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 10:47 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Apollo 13 remix
 

  
Glad you enjoyed it - there is a lot of humor in it! The final sequence, 
following Bogey, is a bathtub filling, an airport background, a busy signal, 
then a garage door opening, a crowd cheering, a chainsaw and the garage door 
closing, and water draining away. What fun! Can't wait to put together another 
piece.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> Loooved it.  I went to go answer the door :)
> 
> 
> 
>  From: futur.musik 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 8:03 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Apollo 13 remix
> 
> 
>   
> The other side of the space program. Contains the full introduction of the 
> problem on Apollo 13, plus a lot of other stuff. 4:04.
> 
> http://www.box.com/s/utvakndtt3fvif4u0lzf
>


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] So what AREall those people listening to on their Ipods as they walk by?

[Emily Reyn]

This was a trip..what a crazy mix this makes...all these different sound worlds 
people are moving to and in...where are the bhajans?



 From: curtisdeltablues 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 6:54 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] So what AREall those people listening to on their 
Ipods as they walk by?
 

  
Great concept.  I have always wondered about this but never took the brilliant 
jump this guy did.  Take the time and effort and ask them!

http://kottke.org/11/05/what-song-are-you-listening-to


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Apollo 13 remix

[futur.musik]

Glad you enjoyed it - there is a lot of humor in it! The final sequence, 
following Bogey, is a bathtub filling, an airport background, a busy signal, 
then a garage door opening, a crowd cheering, a chainsaw and the garage door 
closing, and water draining away. What fun! Can't wait to put together another 
piece.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> Loooved it.  I went to go answer the door :)
> 
> 
> 
>  From: futur.musik 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 8:03 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Apollo 13 remix
>  
> 
>   
> The other side of the space program. Contains the full introduction of the 
> problem on Apollo 13, plus a lot of other stuff. 4:04.
> 
> http://www.box.com/s/utvakndtt3fvif4u0lzf
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  wrote:
>
> Aha Renie the  TMO songwriter beside Rick Archer have many nice innocent
> memories  of a long gone era- so cute -thanks
> 
> See how children in the K-2 kindergarten (4 years old!) chant Saha Nav
> Avatu at the MCEE Maharishi Centre for Educational Excellence in
> Lambakheda Bhopal India now
> 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6cjZYTei3Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6cjZYTei3Y>


Beautiful, thanks for posting this !

 
> MMY amusingly "with many  blissful giggles "likes to describe it as:
> 
> ” various degrees of happiness enjoyed by the different beings in
> creation”

Re: [FairfieldLife] Apollo 13 remix

[Emily Reyn]

Loooved it.  I went to go answer the door :)



 From: futur.musik 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 8:03 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Apollo 13 remix
 

  
The other side of the space program. Contains the full introduction of the 
problem on Apollo 13, plus a lot of other stuff. 4:04.

http://www.box.com/s/utvakndtt3fvif4u0lzf


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] 2-minute video

[Emily Reyn]

Fabulous..thanks for  posting.



 From: marekreavis 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 7:40 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] 2-minute video
 

  
David Attenborough's voiceover of Louie Armstrong's " A Wonderful World" 
accompanying some extraordinarily beautiful video images of sentience, both 
small and large scale.

http://www.flixxy.com/wonderful-world-david-attenborough.htm


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Lakshmi Gayatri Mantra

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
>
> Thanks - I remember back when MMY was on his TV channel and they had Vedic 
> chanting for the rajas' coronation. I got a lot of it on CD. Play about a 
> half hour of that stuff and I won't be able to find the front door of my 
> house.

HeHe :-)

> > Can't have enough of those powerful Vedic Coctails ! :-)
> > 

These versions is more complete:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJiwquzld8Q&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7NudEBgHlk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZeSqr_lWYE&feature=related

[FairfieldLife] Re: Damned Liberals!

[Richard J. Williams]

> > A reminder of what the word Liberal really means,
> > 
Oba:
> As apposed to libertarian...
>
This post is amusing, because everyone knows that the 
Turq could care less about American politics and probably 
never voted in his entire life. He's probably a 
'libertarian' and doesn't even know it. Go figure.

And apparently the use of the term 'liberal' in Europe 
and it's use in the U.S. is completely different. In 
Europe a 'liberal' means someone commited to limited 
government and free-market capitalism - libertarian.

One liberal party in The Neterlands is actually a 
conservative right-wing 'law and order' party. 

LoL!!!

The majority of American voters are conservatives - 41%.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[futur.musik]

"I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely differences in 
awareness account for whether a person believes there is *justification* for 
saying something they know to be false, but you really can't make much of a 
case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others."

Thanks Judy. Yes, of course you are right about deliberate deception being a 
reality. However, the thing I have been thinking about is how if someone is 
ignorant of their true nature, their attempts to deceive others are based on an 
attempt to find peace within themselves, strengthening a reality that 
substitutes for true self knowledge. Even though the deception appears designed 
for others, it is really an attempt to compensate for a lack of comprehension 
of one's motives, feelings and reactions. 

The edifice for others is purposefully built, but not primarily for the others. 
It is built to reflect a comfortable story that substitutes for self-knowledge. 

This being the case, until someone knows themselves, the only other choice is 
to be what you are calling dishonest. Everything is done in support of the ego. 
It is the nature of the beast. How can someone be true to a part of themselves 
they know little to nothing about?  

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
> >
> > Regarding being true to one's nature on here, is there any other choice?
> > 
> > I was thinking about what the difference in self-structure is, between the 
> > person full of thoughts about who they are, and the person with a rested 
> > mind.
> > 
> > I can picture my own experience as previously living within a sphere of 
> > totality of myself, with a big impenetrable nucleus at the center. So I was 
> > aware of everything around the nucleus, except the nucleus itself (which 
> > was a completely unsustainable state). Then, once it began to develop 
> > cracks and rapidly break apart, there became nothing left to hold onto.
> > 
> > This distinction regarding our awareness is a crucial one in determining 
> > our personal truth, and that of others. I find that once the nucleus 
> > becomes known to us, it becomes easy to spot it in others, whether they are 
> > aware of it or not.
> > 
> > The difference between having exploded one's nucleus and not is in the 
> > former case, we are oneness within. However if the tight nucleus of ego 
> > remains, we are constantly in a state of duality within ourselves, the 
> > known and the unknown, or the comfortable and uncomfortable.
> > 
> > If someone is in a state of ignorance wrt their inner nature, then that 
> > person will see the world as completely different than someone with full 
> > knowledge of themselves. Two completely different worlds, even though outer 
> > experience may appear similar.
> > 
> > So if someone appears dishonest, or contrary or fearful to us,
> > it is merely a difference in awareness, and no deliberate
> > attempt at deception or obfuscation.
> 
> I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely
> differences in awareness account for whether a person
> believes there is *justification* for saying something
> they know to be false, but you really can't make much
> of a case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Each type of person has their own awareness, one is complete and one is 
> incomplete. Comparing the two is a futile exercise in apples and oranges.
> >  
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I was mulling over a few versions of this post myself Barry,
> > > > but since you nailed it I can get off with just a:
> > > > 
> > > > what he said.
> > > > 
> > > > Favorite line:
> > > > 
> > > > > Call the media. "Buck" has just suggested that Fairfield
> > > > > Life be run the way the TMO is.  :-)
> > > 
> > > You sure that's what Buck means?
> > > 
> > > I wouldn't be in favor of legislating it, but IMHO FFL
> > > would be a better, more enjoyable place, and its
> > > discussions more interesting and productive, if we all
> > > would refrain from personal attacks against each other,
> > > if we could express our disagreements without being
> > > disagreeable, in Obama's phrase.
> > > 
> > > Wouldn't hurt if we all made an effort to be as truthful
> > > as we possibly can, either.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity
> > > > > > I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct 
> > > > > > as an inclusive guideline for posting on FairfieldLife.  
> > > > > > Particularly for posting negativity here on FFL.  
> > > > > 
> > > > > We'll miss you. :-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Seriously, dude, what would you call all your endless
> > > > > posts deno

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[futur.musik]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Regarding being true to one's nature on here, is there any other choice?
> > > 
> > > I was thinking about what the difference in self-structure is, between 
> > > the person full of thoughts about who they are, and the person with a 
> > > rested mind.
> > > 
> > > I can picture my own experience as previously living within a sphere of 
> > > totality of myself, with a big impenetrable nucleus at the center. So I 
> > > was aware of everything around the nucleus, except the nucleus itself 
> > > (which was a completely unsustainable state). Then, once it began to 
> > > develop cracks and rapidly break apart, there became nothing left to hold 
> > > onto.
> > > 
> > > This distinction regarding our awareness is a crucial one in determining 
> > > our personal truth, and that of others. I find that once the nucleus 
> > > becomes known to us, it becomes easy to spot it in others, whether they 
> > > are aware of it or not.
> > > 
> > > The difference between having exploded one's nucleus and not is in the 
> > > former case, we are oneness within. However if the tight nucleus of ego 
> > > remains, we are constantly in a state of duality within ourselves, the 
> > > known and the unknown, or the comfortable and uncomfortable.
> > > 
> > > If someone is in a state of ignorance wrt their inner nature, then that 
> > > person will see the world as completely different than someone with full 
> > > knowledge of themselves. Two completely different worlds, even though 
> > > outer experience may appear similar.
> > > 
> > > So if someone appears dishonest, or contrary or fearful to us,
> > > it is merely a difference in awareness, and no deliberate
> > > attempt at deception or obfuscation.
> > 
> > I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely
> > differences in awareness account for whether a person
> > believes there is *justification* for saying something
> > they know to be false, but you really can't make much
> > of a case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others.
> 
> So true:
> 
> Judy:(In a post where she repeatedly accused me of being unethical!)
> 
> The only ploy Curtis has to
> > rebut this uncomfortable fact is the claim, which he's
> > made in other posts, that I brainwashed all of them into
> > concurring with me, >
> 
> Definitely more of a consciously lying thing than just a difference in 
> awareness.
> 
Hi, I agree that sometimes people consciously lie to conform to an idea of 
themselves which they wish to project. What I don't agree with is that there is 
any other intent except an attempt at continued self-deception, in lieu of self 
knowledge.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[merudanda]

The Narrow Door
Luke 13:22-30
Years ago, before Korea was divided, a theological professor
from Yale visited a mission in northern Korea.  He wanted to
preach in a country church, so the mission sent him with a missionary
interpreter to a rural Korean village.  The professor began
his sermon,
  “All thought is divided into two categories, the concrete and
the abstract.”
The Korean interpreter looked at the tiny congregation sitting
with eager attention on the floor of the little churchâ€"toothless
grandmothers, barefoot schoolboysâ€"and made a quick decision.
“Dear friends,” he translated, “I have come all the
way from
America to tell you about the Lord Jesus Christ.”  From that
point
on, the sermon was firmly in the interpreter’s hands
  (Samuel Moffet, Christianity Today [11/14/94], p. 55).

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[authfriend]

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

> > > So if someone appears dishonest, or contrary or fearful to us,
> > > it is merely a difference in awareness, and no deliberate
> > > attempt at deception or obfuscation.
> > 
> > I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely
> > differences in awareness account for whether a person
> > believes there is *justification* for saying something
> > they know to be false, but you really can't make much
> > of a case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others.
> 
> So true:
> 
> Judy:(In a post where she repeatedly accused me of being
> unethical!)
> 
> The only ploy Curtis has to
> > rebut this uncomfortable fact is the claim, which he's
> > made in other posts, that I brainwashed all of them into
> > concurring with me, >
> 
> Definitely more of a consciously lying thing than just a
> difference in awareness.

Right. I think you were consciously attempting to deceive
and believed it was justified (just as Barry does when *he*
attempts to perpetrate that deception):

"I agree that Judy has set the agenda for this angle and I
have to give credit for her forceful personality that so
many have taken up this perspective. (And yes I know it is
possible that everyone just came to this conclusion 
independently, but I don't find this as likely.)"

That's Curtis, responding to a post in which Barry said:

 *No one else* ever had
> any doubts about Vaj's TM "pedigree" until she started
> her "Gotta find a way to demonize Vaj so no one will
> believe him when he makes valid points" campaign.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/302040

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[merudanda]

Aha Renie the  TMO songwriter beside Rick Archer have many nice innocent
memories  of a long gone era- so cute -thanks

See how children in the K-2 kindergarten (4 years old!) chant Saha Nav
Avatu at the MCEE Maharishi Centre for Educational Excellence in
Lambakheda Bhopal India now

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6cjZYTei3Y



MMY amusingly "with many  blissful giggles "likes to describe it as:

” various degrees of happiness enjoyed by the different beings in
creation”


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" 
wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" raunchydog@ wrote:
> >
>  > Doug, this is the translation, as I remember it. It's not at all 
like anything, I've googled. For whatever reason, this is how Maharishi 
wanted us to understand the translation. IMO Maharishi's translation has
less to do with the actual meaning of the Sanskrit words and more to do 
with the intention he wanted to convey on the feeling level of one's 
experience.
> >
> > Let us be together
> > Let us eat together
> > Let us be radiating the light of truth together
> > Never shall we denounce anyone
> > Never entertain negativity
> >
>
> I found the correct translation of Saha Nav Avatu I tried to recall:
>
> Let us be together
> Let us eat together
> Let us be vital together
> Let us be radiating truth,
> radiating the light of life
> never shall we denounce anyone
> never entertain negativity.
>
> Saha nav avatu, Saha nau bhunaktu
> Saha viryam karavavahai
> Tejasvi nav adhitam astu, Ma vidvishavahai
>
> http://reniepraver.com/home/
>

Other version to listen to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEbvC19vu5c


Breathing instruction how to chant (remember the intimate connection
between syllables. "Lower jaw is first syllable or former form, upper
jaw is next syllable or next form)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdVj37f6B1M&feature=endscreen


“Om. May Brahman (the one divine Self in all) protect us
both (student and teacher);

May Brahman nourish us both; may we both acquire energy (by this
education);

May we never? quarrel?

Om, Peace Peace, Peace.”

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



oṃ saha nāvavatu
saha nau bhunaktu
saha vīryaṃ karavāvahai
tejasvināvadhītamastu mā vidviṣāvahai
oṃ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Wl2CagOL7T4#t=1\
10s


http://tinyurl.com/74tj593 



This is a chant used by the teacher and the students for a better
transfer of learning, to foster togetherness and the attitudes required
for the successful transfer of such learning.

OM Let both of us protect each other together. May both of us enjoy
together. May both of us work together. Let our study become radiant,
let there be no hatred between us. OM Peace, Peace, Peace.

from the Cd: Mantram - Chants of India, produced by George Harrison
Forgive me:Too late to go into translation and Sanskrit lesson or
discussion --maybe another stroke of blissful togetherness ..later...

BTW
"Buck" s Message #302922
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/302922
Windham's poem: Broad is the road that leads to death


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07NMeF9PHTs


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Fm1bJuiIg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZNT_H5DxlI
  

based on Matthew 7:13 (Jesus is saying that choosing Him is neither the
popular nor the easy way!)"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is
the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter
through it. + Isaiah 35:8   And a
highway will be there; it will be called the Way of Holiness. The
unclean will not journey on it; it will be for those who walk in that
Way; wicked fools will not go about on it

The beginning  of a life of Jesu discipleship (the gate) and the process
of  discipleship (the way) are both restrictive and both involve 
persecution.(!--so be nice to Buck )


Not sure is this a reference to his Dome -page-dilemma seeing -on the
broad road to hell-  different saints not choosing MMY" narrow
road??"only or vice versa- tiresome [:D]





John Oxenham wrote  about that(in original old style)...


“To every man there openeth
A way and ways and a way;
And the high soul treads the high way,
And the low soul gropes the low;
And in between on the misty flats
The rest drift to and fro;
But to every man there openeth
A high way and a low;
And every man decideth
The way his soul shall go.”

anonym


"What poor, despised company
Of travelers are these,
That walk in yonder narrow way,
Along that 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
> >
> > Regarding being true to one's nature on here, is there any other choice?
> > 
> > I was thinking about what the difference in self-structure is, between the 
> > person full of thoughts about who they are, and the person with a rested 
> > mind.
> > 
> > I can picture my own experience as previously living within a sphere of 
> > totality of myself, with a big impenetrable nucleus at the center. So I was 
> > aware of everything around the nucleus, except the nucleus itself (which 
> > was a completely unsustainable state). Then, once it began to develop 
> > cracks and rapidly break apart, there became nothing left to hold onto.
> > 
> > This distinction regarding our awareness is a crucial one in determining 
> > our personal truth, and that of others. I find that once the nucleus 
> > becomes known to us, it becomes easy to spot it in others, whether they are 
> > aware of it or not.
> > 
> > The difference between having exploded one's nucleus and not is in the 
> > former case, we are oneness within. However if the tight nucleus of ego 
> > remains, we are constantly in a state of duality within ourselves, the 
> > known and the unknown, or the comfortable and uncomfortable.
> > 
> > If someone is in a state of ignorance wrt their inner nature, then that 
> > person will see the world as completely different than someone with full 
> > knowledge of themselves. Two completely different worlds, even though outer 
> > experience may appear similar.
> > 
> > So if someone appears dishonest, or contrary or fearful to us,
> > it is merely a difference in awareness, and no deliberate
> > attempt at deception or obfuscation.
> 
> I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely
> differences in awareness account for whether a person
> believes there is *justification* for saying something
> they know to be false, but you really can't make much
> of a case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others.

So true:

Judy:(In a post where she repeatedly accused me of being unethical!)

The only ploy Curtis has to
> rebut this uncomfortable fact is the claim, which he's
> made in other posts, that I brainwashed all of them into
> concurring with me, >

Definitely more of a consciously lying thing than just a difference in 
awareness.











> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Each type of person has their own awareness, one is complete and one is 
> incomplete. Comparing the two is a futile exercise in apples and oranges.
> >  
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I was mulling over a few versions of this post myself Barry,
> > > > but since you nailed it I can get off with just a:
> > > > 
> > > > what he said.
> > > > 
> > > > Favorite line:
> > > > 
> > > > > Call the media. "Buck" has just suggested that Fairfield
> > > > > Life be run the way the TMO is.  :-)
> > > 
> > > You sure that's what Buck means?
> > > 
> > > I wouldn't be in favor of legislating it, but IMHO FFL
> > > would be a better, more enjoyable place, and its
> > > discussions more interesting and productive, if we all
> > > would refrain from personal attacks against each other,
> > > if we could express our disagreements without being
> > > disagreeable, in Obama's phrase.
> > > 
> > > Wouldn't hurt if we all made an effort to be as truthful
> > > as we possibly can, either.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity
> > > > > > I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct 
> > > > > > as an inclusive guideline for posting on FairfieldLife.  
> > > > > > Particularly for posting negativity here on FFL.  
> > > > > 
> > > > > We'll miss you. :-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Seriously, dude, what would you call all your endless
> > > > > posts denouncing Bevan and the Rajas?
> > > > > 
> > > > > "Negative" is a RELATIVE concept, not an absolute 
> > > > > one. I'd be willing to bet that any of the people you
> > > > > rail against would consider you and your "Buck" char-
> > > > > acter more than a little negative. And, from their
> > > > > point of view, they'd be correct, because to them
> > > > > "negative" means anything that criticizes or goes
> > > > > against what they believe to be true and correct. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I thought that earlier you yourself were making the
> > > > > point that the injunction to "never entertain nega-
> > > > > tivity and never denounce anyone" was a two-edged
> > > > > sword that could be (and, as I remember you suggest-
> > > > > ing, was) used by the TMO to control minds and 
> > > > > opinions. I agree with that earlier assessment, and
> > > > > feel that what you propose abo

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[merudanda]

Aha Renie the  TMO songwriter beside Rick Archer have many nice innocent
memories  of a long gone era- so cute -thanks

See how children in the K-2 kindergarten (4 years old!) chant Saha Nav
Avatu at the MCEE Maharishi Centre for Educational Excellence in
Lambakheda Bhopal India now

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6cjZYTei3Y



MMY amusingly "with many  blissful giggles "likes to describe it as:

” various degrees of happiness enjoyed by the different beings in
creation”


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" 
wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" raunchydog@ wrote:
> >
> > Doug, this is the translation, as I remember it. It's not at all
like anything, I've googled. For whatever reason, this is how Maharishi
wanted us to understand the translation. IMO Maharishi's translation has
less to do with the actual meaning of the Sanskrit words and more to do
with the intention he wanted to convey on the feeling level of one's
experience.
> >
> > Let us be together
> > Let us eat together
> > Let us be radiating the light of truth together
> > Never shall we denounce anyone
> > Never entertain negativity
> >
>
> I found the correct translation of Saha Nav Avatu I tried to recall:
>
> Let us be together
> Let us eat together
> Let us be vital together
> Let us be radiating truth,
> radiating the light of life
> never shall we denounce anyone
> never entertain negativity.
>
> Saha nav avatu, Saha nau bhunaktu
> Saha viryam karavavahai
> Tejasvi nav adhitam astu, Ma vidvishavahai
>
> http://reniepraver.com/home/
>

Other version to listen to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEbvC19vu5c


Breathing instruction how to chant (remember the intimate connection
between syllables. "Lower jaw is first syllable or former form, upper
jaw is next syllable or next form)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdVj37f6B1M&feature=endscreen


“Om. May Brahman (the one divine Self in all) protect us
both (student and teacher);

May Brahman nourish us both; may we both acquire energy (by this
education);

May we never? quarrel?

Om, Peace Peace, Peace.”

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



oṃ saha nāvavatu
saha nau bhunaktu
saha vīryaṃ karavāvahai
tejasvināvadhītamastu mā vidviṣāvahai
oṃ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Wl2CagOL7T4#t=1\
10s


http://tinyurl.com/74tj593 



This is a chant used by the teacher and the students for a better
transfer of learning, to foster togetherness and the attitudes required
for the successful transfer of such learning.

OM Let both of us protect each other together. May both of us enjoy
together. May both of us work together. Let our study become radiant,
let there be no hatred between us. OM Peace, Peace, Peace.

from the Cd: Mantram - Chants of India, produced by George Harrison
Forgive  me:Too late to go into translation and Sanskrit lesson or
discussion  --maybe another stroke of blissful togetherness ..later...

BTW
"Buck" s Message #302922
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/302922
Windham's poem: Broad is the road that leads to death

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl2CagOL7T4


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Fm1bJuiIg


based on Matthew 7:13 (Jesus is saying that choosing Him is neither the
popular nor the easy way!)"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is
the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter
through it. + Isaiah 35:8   And a
highway will be there; it will be called the Way of Holiness. The
unclean will not journey on it; it will be for those who walk in that
Way; wicked fools will not go about on it

The  beginning of a life of Jesu discipleship (the gate) and the process
of  discipleship (the way) are both restrictive and both involve 
persecution.(!--so be nice to Buck )


Not  sure is this a reference to his Dome -page-dilemma seeing -on the
broad  road to hell-  different saints not choosing MMY" narrow
road??"only or  vice versa- tiresome [:D]





John Oxenham wrote  about that(in original old style)...


“To every man there openeth
A way and ways and a way;
And the high soul treads the high way,
And the low soul gropes the low;
And in between on the misty flats
The rest drift to and fro;
But to every man there openeth
A high way and a low;
And every man decideth
The way his soul shall go.”

anonym


"What poor, despised company
Of travelers are these,
That walk in yonder narrow way,
Along that rugged maze?
Why, they are of a royal line,
All children of a King:
Heirs of immortal crowns

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
>
> Regarding being true to one's nature on here, is there any other choice?
> 
> I was thinking about what the difference in self-structure is, between the 
> person full of thoughts about who they are, and the person with a rested mind.
> 
> I can picture my own experience as previously living within a sphere of 
> totality of myself, with a big impenetrable nucleus at the center. So I was 
> aware of everything around the nucleus, except the nucleus itself (which was 
> a completely unsustainable state). Then, once it began to develop cracks and 
> rapidly break apart, there became nothing left to hold onto.
> 
> This distinction regarding our awareness is a crucial one in determining our 
> personal truth, and that of others. I find that once the nucleus becomes 
> known to us, it becomes easy to spot it in others, whether they are aware of 
> it or not.
> 
> The difference between having exploded one's nucleus and not is in the former 
> case, we are oneness within. However if the tight nucleus of ego remains, we 
> are constantly in a state of duality within ourselves, the known and the 
> unknown, or the comfortable and uncomfortable.
> 
> If someone is in a state of ignorance wrt their inner nature, then that 
> person will see the world as completely different than someone with full 
> knowledge of themselves. Two completely different worlds, even though outer 
> experience may appear similar.
> 
> So if someone appears dishonest, or contrary or fearful to us,
> it is merely a difference in awareness, and no deliberate
> attempt at deception or obfuscation.

I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely
differences in awareness account for whether a person
believes there is *justification* for saying something
they know to be false, but you really can't make much
of a case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others.




 Each type of person has their own awareness, one is complete and one is 
incomplete. Comparing the two is a futile exercise in apples and oranges.
>  
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > I was mulling over a few versions of this post myself Barry,
> > > but since you nailed it I can get off with just a:
> > > 
> > > what he said.
> > > 
> > > Favorite line:
> > > 
> > > > Call the media. "Buck" has just suggested that Fairfield
> > > > Life be run the way the TMO is.  :-)
> > 
> > You sure that's what Buck means?
> > 
> > I wouldn't be in favor of legislating it, but IMHO FFL
> > would be a better, more enjoyable place, and its
> > discussions more interesting and productive, if we all
> > would refrain from personal attacks against each other,
> > if we could express our disagreements without being
> > disagreeable, in Obama's phrase.
> > 
> > Wouldn't hurt if we all made an effort to be as truthful
> > as we possibly can, either.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity
> > > > > I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct 
> > > > > as an inclusive guideline for posting on FairfieldLife.  
> > > > > Particularly for posting negativity here on FFL.  
> > > > 
> > > > We'll miss you. :-)
> > > > 
> > > > Seriously, dude, what would you call all your endless
> > > > posts denouncing Bevan and the Rajas?
> > > > 
> > > > "Negative" is a RELATIVE concept, not an absolute 
> > > > one. I'd be willing to bet that any of the people you
> > > > rail against would consider you and your "Buck" char-
> > > > acter more than a little negative. And, from their
> > > > point of view, they'd be correct, because to them
> > > > "negative" means anything that criticizes or goes
> > > > against what they believe to be true and correct. 
> > > > 
> > > > I thought that earlier you yourself were making the
> > > > point that the injunction to "never entertain nega-
> > > > tivity and never denounce anyone" was a two-edged
> > > > sword that could be (and, as I remember you suggest-
> > > > ing, was) used by the TMO to control minds and 
> > > > opinions. I agree with that earlier assessment, and
> > > > feel that what you propose above is just another
> > > > flavor of it. 
> > > > 
> > > > Who gets to decide what is "negative" and what is not?
> > > > You? The mysterious "we" you refer to below? Not. Gonna. 
> > > > Happen.  :-)
> > > > 
> > > > > You know, posting on FFL is a privilege, not a right.  We 
> > > > > should do more to protect that privilege.  This is a simple 
> > > > > guideline that is very easily enforced.  Coulld just revoke 
> > > > > someone's FFL membership when they violate it. For being 
> > > > > negative like that. 
> > > > 
> > > > Call the media. "Buck" has just suggested that Fairfield
> > > > Life be run the 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[futur.musik]

Regarding being true to one's nature on here, is there any other choice?

I was thinking about what the difference in self-structure is, between the 
person full of thoughts about who they are, and the person with a rested mind.

I can picture my own experience as previously living within a sphere of 
totality of myself, with a big impenetrable nucleus at the center. So I was 
aware of everything around the nucleus, except the nucleus itself (which was a 
completely unsustainable state). Then, once it began to develop cracks and 
rapidly break apart, there became nothing left to hold onto.

This distinction regarding our awareness is a crucial one in determining our 
personal truth, and that of others. I find that once the nucleus becomes known 
to us, it becomes easy to spot it in others, whether they are aware of it or 
not.

The difference between having exploded one's nucleus and not is in the former 
case, we are oneness within. However if the tight nucleus of ego remains, we 
are constantly in a state of duality within ourselves, the known and the 
unknown, or the comfortable and uncomfortable.

If someone is in a state of ignorance wrt their inner nature, then that person 
will see the world as completely different than someone with full knowledge of 
themselves. Two completely different worlds, even though outer experience may 
appear similar.

So if someone appears dishonest, or contrary or fearful to us, it is merely a 
difference in awareness, and no deliberate attempt at deception or obfuscation. 
Each type of person has their own awareness, one is complete and one is 
incomplete. Comparing the two is a futile exercise in apples and oranges.
 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > I was mulling over a few versions of this post myself Barry,
> > but since you nailed it I can get off with just a:
> > 
> > what he said.
> > 
> > Favorite line:
> > 
> > > Call the media. "Buck" has just suggested that Fairfield
> > > Life be run the way the TMO is.  :-)
> 
> You sure that's what Buck means?
> 
> I wouldn't be in favor of legislating it, but IMHO FFL
> would be a better, more enjoyable place, and its
> discussions more interesting and productive, if we all
> would refrain from personal attacks against each other,
> if we could express our disagreements without being
> disagreeable, in Obama's phrase.
> 
> Wouldn't hurt if we all made an effort to be as truthful
> as we possibly can, either.
> 
> 
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity
> > > > I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct 
> > > > as an inclusive guideline for posting on FairfieldLife.  
> > > > Particularly for posting negativity here on FFL.  
> > > 
> > > We'll miss you. :-)
> > > 
> > > Seriously, dude, what would you call all your endless
> > > posts denouncing Bevan and the Rajas?
> > > 
> > > "Negative" is a RELATIVE concept, not an absolute 
> > > one. I'd be willing to bet that any of the people you
> > > rail against would consider you and your "Buck" char-
> > > acter more than a little negative. And, from their
> > > point of view, they'd be correct, because to them
> > > "negative" means anything that criticizes or goes
> > > against what they believe to be true and correct. 
> > > 
> > > I thought that earlier you yourself were making the
> > > point that the injunction to "never entertain nega-
> > > tivity and never denounce anyone" was a two-edged
> > > sword that could be (and, as I remember you suggest-
> > > ing, was) used by the TMO to control minds and 
> > > opinions. I agree with that earlier assessment, and
> > > feel that what you propose above is just another
> > > flavor of it. 
> > > 
> > > Who gets to decide what is "negative" and what is not?
> > > You? The mysterious "we" you refer to below? Not. Gonna. 
> > > Happen.  :-)
> > > 
> > > > You know, posting on FFL is a privilege, not a right.  We 
> > > > should do more to protect that privilege.  This is a simple 
> > > > guideline that is very easily enforced.  Coulld just revoke 
> > > > someone's FFL membership when they violate it. For being 
> > > > negative like that. 
> > > 
> > > Call the media. "Buck" has just suggested that Fairfield
> > > Life be run the way the TMO is.  :-)
> > > 
> > > > Have it on the homepage as part of the forum description so 
> > > > it comes up every time.  It's a uniform code of justice to 
> > > > attend to that we could all use and our moderators enforce. 
> > > > We'd all be better off and the list a safer place to be.
> > > 
> > > I can think of no place on earth that would be a safer
> > > place to be with someone of the "Buck" mindset running it.
> > > Just sayin'. 
> > > 
> > > > Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; 
> > > > may It nourish us

[FairfieldLife] Re: So what AREall those people listening to on their Ipods as they walk by?

[curtisdeltablues]

I wondered the same thing. I would guess that he had more of a visual cue of 
what was going on to get that many friendly responses.  You can't talk to these 
people so only a visual would have worked to ge them to take the earphones out. 
The public does not appreciate an ambush and that goes double for people in 
their own headphone worlds.

It is a whole series and they do it in cities all over the world.  I may have 
to do one here.  It would make a great parody format too!

Here is Amsterdam.  You can do a search for the rest.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/what-are-you-listening-to-amsterdam-edition



 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  wrote:
>
> 
> This is kind of funny.  I wonder if the guy had some kind of sign that
> indicated what he was doing, because in general everyone seemed pretty
> friendly.  I wonder if, in say Turkey, people would be that friendly or
> relaxed.  It's interestng to scratch a little beneath the surface and
> see what you find.
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
>  wrote:
> >
> > Great concept. I have always wondered about this but never took the
> brilliant jump this guy did. Take the time and effort and ask them!
> >
> > http://kottke.org/11/05/what-song-are-you-listening-to
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: So a stoic pholospher and Roman emperor NAILS IT?!

[seventhray1]

One great quote deserves another.  I'm still smiling!


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "marekreavis" 
wrote:
>
> Great quote. I'd follow that Mr. Aurelius guy on twitter, if I did
twitter.
>
> ***
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
> >
> > "Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they
will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on
the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you
should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be
gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories
of your loved ones."
> > ― Marcus Aurelius
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: So a stoic pholospher and Roman emperor NAILS IT?!

[marekreavis]

Thumbs up (and an "lol", too).

***

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "marekreavis"  wrote:
> >
> > Great quote. I'd follow that Mr. Aurelius guy on twitter, if 
> > I did twitter.
> > 
> > ***
> 
> Be content to seem what you really are. #aureliuslolcat
> 
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > "Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, 
> > > then they will not care how devout you have been, but will 
> > > welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If 
> > > there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to 
> > > worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, 
> > > but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the 
> > > memories of your loved ones."
> > > ~ Marcus Aurelius
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: So a stoic pholospher and Roman emperor NAILS IT?!

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "marekreavis"  wrote:
>
> Great quote. I'd follow that Mr. Aurelius guy on twitter, if 
> I did twitter.
> 
> ***

Be content to seem what you really are. #aureliuslolcat


> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > "Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, 
> > then they will not care how devout you have been, but will 
> > welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If 
> > there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to 
> > worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, 
> > but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the 
> > memories of your loved ones."
> > ~ Marcus Aurelius
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> I was mulling over a few versions of this post myself Barry,
> but since you nailed it I can get off with just a:
> 
> what he said.
> 
> Favorite line:
> 
> > Call the media. "Buck" has just suggested that Fairfield
> > Life be run the way the TMO is.  :-)

You sure that's what Buck means?

I wouldn't be in favor of legislating it, but IMHO FFL
would be a better, more enjoyable place, and its
discussions more interesting and productive, if we all
would refrain from personal attacks against each other,
if we could express our disagreements without being
disagreeable, in Obama's phrase.

Wouldn't hurt if we all made an effort to be as truthful
as we possibly can, either.



> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > >
> > > You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity
> > > I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct 
> > > as an inclusive guideline for posting on FairfieldLife.  
> > > Particularly for posting negativity here on FFL.  
> > 
> > We'll miss you. :-)
> > 
> > Seriously, dude, what would you call all your endless
> > posts denouncing Bevan and the Rajas?
> > 
> > "Negative" is a RELATIVE concept, not an absolute 
> > one. I'd be willing to bet that any of the people you
> > rail against would consider you and your "Buck" char-
> > acter more than a little negative. And, from their
> > point of view, they'd be correct, because to them
> > "negative" means anything that criticizes or goes
> > against what they believe to be true and correct. 
> > 
> > I thought that earlier you yourself were making the
> > point that the injunction to "never entertain nega-
> > tivity and never denounce anyone" was a two-edged
> > sword that could be (and, as I remember you suggest-
> > ing, was) used by the TMO to control minds and 
> > opinions. I agree with that earlier assessment, and
> > feel that what you propose above is just another
> > flavor of it. 
> > 
> > Who gets to decide what is "negative" and what is not?
> > You? The mysterious "we" you refer to below? Not. Gonna. 
> > Happen.  :-)
> > 
> > > You know, posting on FFL is a privilege, not a right.  We 
> > > should do more to protect that privilege.  This is a simple 
> > > guideline that is very easily enforced.  Coulld just revoke 
> > > someone's FFL membership when they violate it. For being 
> > > negative like that. 
> > 
> > Call the media. "Buck" has just suggested that Fairfield
> > Life be run the way the TMO is.  :-)
> > 
> > > Have it on the homepage as part of the forum description so 
> > > it comes up every time.  It's a uniform code of justice to 
> > > attend to that we could all use and our moderators enforce. 
> > > We'd all be better off and the list a safer place to be.
> > 
> > I can think of no place on earth that would be a safer
> > place to be with someone of the "Buck" mindset running it.
> > Just sayin'. 
> > 
> > > Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; 
> > > may It nourish us both together;
> > > May we work conjointly with great energy,
> > > May our study be vigorous and effective;
> > > May we not mutually dispute 
> > > or may we not hate any.

[FairfieldLife] Re: So what AREall those people listening to on their Ipods as they walk by?

[seventhray1]

This is kind of funny.  I wonder if the guy had some kind of sign that
indicated what he was doing, because in general everyone seemed pretty
friendly.  I wonder if, in say Turkey, people would be that friendly or
relaxed.  It's interestng to scratch a little beneath the surface and
see what you find.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
 wrote:
>
> Great concept. I have always wondered about this but never took the
brilliant jump this guy did. Take the time and effort and ask them!
>
> http://kottke.org/11/05/what-song-are-you-listening-to
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> 
> You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity
> I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct as an inclusive 
> guideline for posting on FairfieldLife..  Particularly for posting negativity 
> here on FFL.  You know, posting on FFL is a privilege, not a right.  We 
> should do more to protect that privilege.  This is a simple guideline that is 
> very easily enforced.  Coulld just revoke someone's FFL membership when they 
> violate it.  For being negative like that. 
> 
> Have it on the homepage as part of the forum description so it comes up every 
> time.  It's a uniform code of justice to attend to that we could all use and 
> our moderators enforce. We'd all be better off and the list a safer place to 
> be.
> 
> Sincerely,
> -Buck

IOW, you want FFL to be run like the oh-so-successful FCK:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fairfield_Community_Kiosk/

Not gonna happen.

[FairfieldLife] Re: So a stoic pholospher and Roman emperor NAILS IT?!

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "marekreavis"  wrote:
>
> Great quote. I'd follow that Mr. Aurelius guy on twitter, if I did twitter.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of the tweet truth either!  I'm sure there are some 
comedians who use it as a scratch pad for material that would be worth 
"following" on Twitter.  Maybe that word follower is the problem!

Anyway I basically ignored all these emperor's writings.  I may have to fill in 
this gap. 






> 
> ***
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > "Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not 
> > care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues 
> > you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want 
> > to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have 
> > lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."
> > ― Marcus Aurelius
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: So a stoic pholospher and Roman emperor NAILS IT?!

[marekreavis]

Great quote. I'd follow that Mr. Aurelius guy on twitter, if I did twitter.

***

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> "Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not 
> care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you 
> have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to 
> worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have 
> lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."
> ― Marcus Aurelius
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: So a stoic pholospher and Roman emperor NAILS IT?!

[futur.musik]

All true, and the fourth option here is discovering a personal relationship 
with any one of the gods, not out of a sense of duty, but rather a sense of 
wonder, expansion, and love.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> "Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not 
> care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you 
> have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to 
> worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have 
> lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."
> ― Marcus Aurelius
>

[FairfieldLife] Are we living in Reality or belief?

[futur.musik]

A really good benchmark for determining whether or now we are living in Reality 
vs. belief is how often we think. If we can tolerate long periods of not 
thinking, simply observing, then we are living more in Reality. However, if the 
mind is always active, thoughts all the time, much of that is simply effort to 
maintain an edifice of belief. 

This self-assessment is most useful when one is inactive. If one is task 
focused, it's natural for there to be more thoughts. They key thing is the 
amount of "noise" or "monkey mind" thoughts that have no function, other than 
to maintain the edifice.

[FairfieldLife] So a stoic pholospher and Roman emperor NAILS IT?!

[curtisdeltablues]

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care 
how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have 
lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship 
them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble 
life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."
― Marcus Aurelius

[FairfieldLife] So a stoic pholospher and Roman emporer NAILS IT?!

[curtisdeltablues]

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care 
how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have 
lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship 
them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble 
life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."
― Marcus Aurelius


What he said.

[FairfieldLife] So what AREall those people listening to on their Ipods as they walk by?

[curtisdeltablues]

Great concept.  I have always wondered about this but never took the brilliant 
jump this guy did.  Take the time and effort and ask them!

http://kottke.org/11/05/what-song-are-you-listening-to

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[curtisdeltablues]

I was mulling over a few versions of this post myself Barry, but since you 
nailed it I can get off with just a:

what he said.

Favorite line:


> Call the media. "Buck" has just suggested that Fairfield
> Life be run the way the TMO is.  :-)



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> >
> > You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity
> > I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct 
> > as an inclusive guideline for posting on FairfieldLife.  
> > Particularly for posting negativity here on FFL.  
> 
> We'll miss you. :-)
> 
> Seriously, dude, what would you call all your endless
> posts denouncing Bevan and the Rajas?
> 
> "Negative" is a RELATIVE concept, not an absolute 
> one. I'd be willing to bet that any of the people you
> rail against would consider you and your "Buck" char-
> acter more than a little negative. And, from their
> point of view, they'd be correct, because to them
> "negative" means anything that criticizes or goes
> against what they believe to be true and correct. 
> 
> I thought that earlier you yourself were making the
> point that the injunction to "never entertain nega-
> tivity and never denounce anyone" was a two-edged
> sword that could be (and, as I remember you suggest-
> ing, was) used by the TMO to control minds and 
> opinions. I agree with that earlier assessment, and
> feel that what you propose above is just another
> flavor of it. 
> 
> Who gets to decide what is "negative" and what is not?
> You? The mysterious "we" you refer to below? Not. Gonna. 
> Happen.  :-)
> 
> > You know, posting on FFL is a privilege, not a right.  We 
> > should do more to protect that privilege.  This is a simple 
> > guideline that is very easily enforced.  Coulld just revoke 
> > someone's FFL membership when they violate it. For being 
> > negative like that. 
> 
> Call the media. "Buck" has just suggested that Fairfield
> Life be run the way the TMO is.  :-)
> 
> > Have it on the homepage as part of the forum description so 
> > it comes up every time.  It's a uniform code of justice to 
> > attend to that we could all use and our moderators enforce. 
> > We'd all be better off and the list a safer place to be.
> 
> I can think of no place on earth that would be a safer
> place to be with someone of the "Buck" mindset running it.
> Just sayin'. 
> 
> > Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; 
> > may It nourish us both together;
> > May we work conjointly with great energy,
> > May our study be vigorous and effective;
> > May we not mutually dispute 
> > or may we not hate any.
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  > >
> > > 
> > > I kind of suspected you'd come up with the more correct translation of 
> > > that hymn. Thanks Cardm,
> > > 
> > > Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; 
> > > may It nourish us both together;
> > > May we work conjointly with great energy,
> > > May our study be vigorous and effective;
> > > May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any).
> > >   
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Om Jeezus X-mas, they've been chanting it wrong all this time!
> > > > > > > Well then, no wonder.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > saha nau avatu . 
> > > > > > > saha nau bhunaktu . 
> > > > > > > saha viiryaM karavaavahai .
> > > > > > > tejasvi nau; 
> > > > > > > adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > That's pada-paaTha (word-reading), so to speak.
> > > > > > The saMhitaa-paaTha goes like this:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  saha naav avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai .
> > > > > >  tejasvi naav adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai .
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > That is, before a *vowel*, 'nau' changes to 'naav',
> > > > > > without any effect on the *semantic* level.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > This seems to be the most accurate translation I could
> > > > > find quickly:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Om ! May He protect us both together; may He nourish us both together;
> > > > > May we work conjointly with great energy,
> > > > > May our study be vigorous and effective;
> > > > > May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any).
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > Oh, so that's the correct translation.  For us meditators here, it 
> > > > reads really well substituting in `Unified Field.  It's beautiful even 
> > > > if it is not the way Maharishi and Bevan used it. 
> > > > 
> > > > Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; 
> > > > may It nourish us both together;
> > > > May we work conjointly with great energy,
> > > > May our study be vigorous and effective;
> > > > May we not mut

[FairfieldLife] Re: Lakshmi Gayatri Mantra

[futur.musik]

Thanks - I remember back when MMY was on his TV channel and they had Vedic 
chanting for the rajas' coronation. I got a lot of it on CD. Play about a half 
hour of that stuff and I won't be able to find the front door of my house.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for posting these - I can handle them for a few minutes each, so 
> > powerful. They are like Vedic cocktails! :-)
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XhR3qz7TIA&feature=related
> 
> 
> Can't have enough of those powerful Vedic Coctails ! :-)
> 
> These versions is more complete:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJiwquzld8Q&feature=related
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7NudEBgHlk&feature=related
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZeSqr_lWYE&feature=related
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity
> I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct 
> as an inclusive guideline for posting on FairfieldLife.  
> Particularly for posting negativity here on FFL.  

We'll miss you. :-)

Seriously, dude, what would you call all your endless
posts denouncing Bevan and the Rajas?

"Negative" is a RELATIVE concept, not an absolute 
one. I'd be willing to bet that any of the people you
rail against would consider you and your "Buck" char-
acter more than a little negative. And, from their
point of view, they'd be correct, because to them
"negative" means anything that criticizes or goes
against what they believe to be true and correct. 

I thought that earlier you yourself were making the
point that the injunction to "never entertain nega-
tivity and never denounce anyone" was a two-edged
sword that could be (and, as I remember you suggest-
ing, was) used by the TMO to control minds and 
opinions. I agree with that earlier assessment, and
feel that what you propose above is just another
flavor of it. 

Who gets to decide what is "negative" and what is not?
You? The mysterious "we" you refer to below? Not. Gonna. 
Happen.  :-)

> You know, posting on FFL is a privilege, not a right.  We 
> should do more to protect that privilege.  This is a simple 
> guideline that is very easily enforced.  Coulld just revoke 
> someone's FFL membership when they violate it. For being 
> negative like that. 

Call the media. "Buck" has just suggested that Fairfield
Life be run the way the TMO is.  :-)

> Have it on the homepage as part of the forum description so 
> it comes up every time.  It's a uniform code of justice to 
> attend to that we could all use and our moderators enforce. 
> We'd all be better off and the list a safer place to be.

I can think of no place on earth that would be a safer
place to be with someone of the "Buck" mindset running it.
Just sayin'. 

> Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; 
> may It nourish us both together;
> May we work conjointly with great energy,
> May our study be vigorous and effective;
> May we not mutually dispute 
> or may we not hate any.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  >
> > 
> > I kind of suspected you'd come up with the more correct translation of that 
> > hymn. Thanks Cardm,
> > 
> > Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; 
> > may It nourish us both together;
> > May we work conjointly with great energy,
> > May our study be vigorous and effective;
> > May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any).
> >   
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Om Jeezus X-mas, they've been chanting it wrong all this time!
> > > > > > Well then, no wonder.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > saha nau avatu . 
> > > > > > saha nau bhunaktu . 
> > > > > > saha viiryaM karavaavahai .
> > > > > > tejasvi nau; 
> > > > > > adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > That's pada-paaTha (word-reading), so to speak.
> > > > > The saMhitaa-paaTha goes like this:
> > > > > 
> > > > >  saha naav avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai .
> > > > >  tejasvi naav adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai .
> > > > > 
> > > > > That is, before a *vowel*, 'nau' changes to 'naav',
> > > > > without any effect on the *semantic* level.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > This seems to be the most accurate translation I could
> > > > find quickly:
> > > > 
> > > > Om ! May He protect us both together; may He nourish us both together;
> > > > May we work conjointly with great energy,
> > > > May our study be vigorous and effective;
> > > > May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any).
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Oh, so that's the correct translation.  For us meditators here, it reads 
> > > really well substituting in `Unified Field.  It's beautiful even if it is 
> > > not the way Maharishi and Bevan used it. 
> > > 
> > > Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; 
> > > may It nourish us both together;
> > > May we work conjointly with great energy,
> > > May our study be vigorous and effective;
> > > May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any).
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  
> > > >  May He protect (avatu) us both (nau [~now] accusative *dual*) together 
> > > > (saha);
> > > >  may He nourish (bhunaktu) us both (nau) together (saha);
> > > > May we work (karavaavahai) conjointly (saha) 
> > > > with great energy (viiryam),
> > > > May our study be (adhiitam [study] astu [may (it) be])
> > > >  vigorous-and-effective (tejasvi);
> > > > May we not (maa: 'we' in the verb ->) mutually-dispute (vidviSaavahai)
> > > > (or may we not hate any: vidviSaavahai).
> > 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[Buck]

You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity
I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct as an inclusive 
guideline for posting on FairfieldLife..  Particularly for posting negativity 
here on FFL.  You know, posting on FFL is a privilege, not a right.  We should 
do more to protect that privilege.  This is a simple guideline that is very 
easily enforced.  Coulld just revoke someone's FFL membership when they violate 
it.  For being negative like that. 

Have it on the homepage as part of the forum description so it comes up every 
time.  It's a uniform code of justice to attend to that we could all use and 
our moderators enforce. We'd all be better off and the list a safer place to be.

Sincerely,
-Buck

Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; 
may It nourish us both together;
May we work conjointly with great energy,
May our study be vigorous and effective;
May we not mutually dispute 
or may we not hate any.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" 
> 
> I kind of suspected you'd come up with the more correct translation of that 
> hymn. Thanks Cardm,
> 
> Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; 
> may It nourish us both together;
> May we work conjointly with great energy,
> May our study be vigorous and effective;
> May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any).
>   
> 
> 
>  
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Om Jeezus X-mas, they've been chanting it wrong all this time!
> > > > > Well then, no wonder.
> > > > > 
> > > > > saha nau avatu . 
> > > > > saha nau bhunaktu . 
> > > > > saha viiryaM karavaavahai .
> > > > > tejasvi nau; 
> > > > > adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > That's pada-paaTha (word-reading), so to speak.
> > > > The saMhitaa-paaTha goes like this:
> > > > 
> > > >  saha naav avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai .
> > > >  tejasvi naav adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai .
> > > > 
> > > > That is, before a *vowel*, 'nau' changes to 'naav',
> > > > without any effect on the *semantic* level.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > This seems to be the most accurate translation I could
> > > find quickly:
> > > 
> > > Om ! May He protect us both together; may He nourish us both together;
> > > May we work conjointly with great energy,
> > > May our study be vigorous and effective;
> > > May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any).
> > >
> > 
> > Oh, so that's the correct translation.  For us meditators here, it reads 
> > really well substituting in `Unified Field.  It's beautiful even if it is 
> > not the way Maharishi and Bevan used it. 
> > 
> > Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; 
> > may It nourish us both together;
> > May we work conjointly with great energy,
> > May our study be vigorous and effective;
> > May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any).
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > >  May He protect (avatu) us both (nau [~now] accusative *dual*) together 
> > > (saha);
> > >  may He nourish (bhunaktu) us both (nau) together (saha);
> > > May we work (karavaavahai) conjointly (saha) 
> > > with great energy (viiryam),
> > > May our study be (adhiitam [study] astu [may (it) be])
> > >  vigorous-and-effective (tejasvi);
> > > May we not (maa: 'we' in the verb ->) mutually-dispute (vidviSaavahai)
> > > (or may we not hate any: vidviSaavahai).
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[Buck]

I kind of suspected you'd come up with the more correct translation of that 
hymn. Thanks Cardm,

Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; 
may It nourish us both together;
May we work conjointly with great energy,
May our study be vigorous and effective;
May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any).
  


 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Om Jeezus X-mas, they've been chanting it wrong all this time!
> > > > Well then, no wonder.
> > > > 
> > > > saha nau avatu . 
> > > > saha nau bhunaktu . 
> > > > saha viiryaM karavaavahai .
> > > > tejasvi nau; 
> > > > adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > That's pada-paaTha (word-reading), so to speak.
> > > The saMhitaa-paaTha goes like this:
> > > 
> > >  saha naav avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai .
> > >  tejasvi naav adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai .
> > > 
> > > That is, before a *vowel*, 'nau' changes to 'naav',
> > > without any effect on the *semantic* level.
> > > 
> > 
> > This seems to be the most accurate translation I could
> > find quickly:
> > 
> > Om ! May He protect us both together; may He nourish us both together;
> > May we work conjointly with great energy,
> > May our study be vigorous and effective;
> > May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any).
> >
> 
> Oh, so that's the correct translation.  For us meditators here, it reads 
> really well substituting in `Unified Field.  It's beautiful even if it is not 
> the way Maharishi and Bevan used it. 
> 
> Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; 
> may It nourish us both together;
> May we work conjointly with great energy,
> May our study be vigorous and effective;
> May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any).
> 
> 
>  
> >  May He protect (avatu) us both (nau [~now] accusative *dual*) together 
> > (saha);
> >  may He nourish (bhunaktu) us both (nau) together (saha);
> > May we work (karavaavahai) conjointly (saha) 
> > with great energy (viiryam),
> > May our study be (adhiitam [study] astu [may (it) be])
> >  vigorous-and-effective (tejasvi);
> > May we not (maa: 'we' in the verb ->) mutually-dispute (vidviSaavahai)
> > (or may we not hate any: vidviSaavahai).
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Damned Liberals!

[obbajeeba]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> A reminder of what the word Liberal really means,
> from MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell:
> 
>  
> [https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/s320x320/424750_30\
> 46463131215_1552286745_2676552_324667814_n.jpg]
> 
> https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/s320x320/424750_304\
> 6463131215_1552286745_2676552_324667814_n.jpg
>  46463131215_1552286745_2676552_324667814_n.jpg>
>

As apposed to libertarian. If there were not original laws dissecting people in 
society, there would be no reason to create a new law to protect the dissected 
in society, thereby again, creating a false division. : ) 
This way creating a purpose for excess government on what appears both sides of 
any issue. : )


Here is a fun tidbit:   http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sun_Tzu

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[Buck]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
> > >
> > > Om Jeezus X-mas, they've been chanting it wrong all this time!
> > > Well then, no wonder.
> > > 
> > > saha nau avatu . 
> > > saha nau bhunaktu . 
> > > saha viiryaM karavaavahai .
> > > tejasvi nau; 
> > > adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . 
> > > 
> > 
> > That's pada-paaTha (word-reading), so to speak.
> > The saMhitaa-paaTha goes like this:
> > 
> >  saha naav avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai .
> >  tejasvi naav adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai .
> > 
> > That is, before a *vowel*, 'nau' changes to 'naav',
> > without any effect on the *semantic* level.
> > 
> 
> This seems to be the most accurate translation I could
> find quickly:
> 
> Om ! May He protect us both together; may He nourish us both together;
> May we work conjointly with great energy,
> May our study be vigorous and effective;
> May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any).
>

Oh, so that's the correct translation.  For us meditators here, it reads really 
well substituting in `Unified Field.  It's beautiful even if it is not the way 
Maharishi and Bevan used it. 

Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; 
may It nourish us both together;
May we work conjointly with great energy,
May our study be vigorous and effective;
May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any).


 
>  May He protect (avatu) us both (nau [~now] accusative *dual*) together 
> (saha);
>  may He nourish (bhunaktu) us both (nau) together (saha);
> May we work (karavaavahai) conjointly (saha) 
> with great energy (viiryam),
> May our study be (adhiitam [study] astu [may (it) be])
>  vigorous-and-effective (tejasvi);
> May we not (maa: 'we' in the verb ->) mutually-dispute (vidviSaavahai)
> (or may we not hate any: vidviSaavahai).
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Lakshmi Gayatri Mantra

[obbajeeba]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
> >
> > Wow. Who edited that piece? 
> >  
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> > >
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XhR3qz7TIA&feature=related
> 
> Even on the original web-page the chanting is ending abruptly, quite a shame.
>

Yes, and at least there is one job that will not be outsourced? hehe
: )

[FairfieldLife] Damned Liberals!

[turquoiseb]

A reminder of what the word Liberal really means,
from MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell:

 
[https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/s320x320/424750_30\
46463131215_1552286745_2676552_324667814_n.jpg]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/s320x320/424750_304\
6463131215_1552286745_2676552_324667814_n.jpg

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[obbajeeba]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Om Jeezus X-mas, they've been chanting it wrong all this time!
> > > Well then, no wonder.
> > > 
> > > saha nau avatu . 
> > > saha nau bhunaktu . 
> > > saha viiryaM karavaavahai .
> > > tejasvi nau; 
> > > adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . 
> > > 
> > 
> > That's pada-paaTha (word-reading), so to speak.
> > The saMhitaa-paaTha goes like this:
> > 
> >  saha naav avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai .
> >  tejasvi naav adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai .
> > 
> > That is, before a *vowel*, 'nau' changes to 'naav',
> > without any effect on the *semantic* level.
> > 
> 
> This seems to be the most accurate translation I could
> find quickly:
> 
> Om ! May He protect us both together; may He nourish us both together;
> May we work conjointly with great energy,
> May our study be vigorous and effective;
> May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any).
> 
>  May He protect (avatu) us both (nau [~now] accusative *dual*) together 
> (saha);
>  may He nourish (bhunaktu) us both (nau) together (saha);
> May we work (karavaavahai) conjointly (saha) 
> with great energy (viiryam),
> May our study be (adhiitam [study] astu [may (it) be])
>  vigorous-and-effective (tejasvi);
> May we not (maa: 'we' in the verb ->) mutually-dispute (vidviSaavahai)
> (or may we not hate any: vidviSaavahai).
>

This looks correct!  
The word, "never," is such a negative term and implies having to be negative to 
avoid negative. haha.. and the above seems more polite in thought.  : )

[FairfieldLife] Re: Lakshmi Gayatri Mantra

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik"  wrote:
>
> Thanks for posting these - I can handle them for a few minutes each, so 
> powerful. They are like Vedic cocktails! :-)
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XhR3qz7TIA&feature=related


Can't have enough of those powerful Vedic Coctails ! :-)

These versions is more complete:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJiwquzld8Q&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7NudEBgHlk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZeSqr_lWYE&feature=related

[FairfieldLife] Re: Lakshmi Gayatri Mantra

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
>
> Wow. Who edited that piece? 
>  
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> >

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XhR3qz7TIA&feature=related

Even on the original web-page the chanting is ending abruptly, quite a shame.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Om Jeezus X-mas, they've been chanting it wrong all this time!
> > > Well then, no wonder.
> > > 
> > > saha nau avatu . 
> > > saha nau bhunaktu . 
> > > saha viiryaM karavaavahai .
> > > tejasvi nau; 
> > > adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . 
> > > 
> > 
> > That's pada-paaTha (word-reading), so to speak.
> > The saMhitaa-paaTha goes like this:
> > 
> >  saha naav avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai .
> >  tejasvi naav adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai .
> > 
> > That is, before a *vowel*, 'nau' changes to 'naav',
> > without any effect on the *semantic* level.
> > 
> 
> This seems to be the most accurate translation I could
> find quickly:
> 
> Om ! May He protect us both together; may He nourish us both together;
> May we work conjointly with great energy,
> May our study be vigorous and effective;
> May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any).
> 
>  May He protect (avatu) us both (nau [~now] accusative *dual*) together 
> (saha);
>  may He nourish (bhunaktu) us both (nau) together (saha);
> May we work (karavaavahai) conjointly (saha) 
> with great energy (viiryam),
> May our study be (adhiitam [study] astu [may (it) be])
>  vigorous-and-effective (tejasvi);
> May we not (maa: 'we' in the verb ->) mutually-dispute (vidviSaavahai)
> (or may we not hate any: vidviSaavahai).
>

Read more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanti_Mantra#Taittiriya_Upanishad

[FairfieldLife] Yogis Come In Many Different Disguises

[ynorthr]

Here is the story of one such yogi - Arnaud Desjardins, a Frenchman caught up 
in the mysteries of Sri Mataji Anandamayi Ma.

http://sathyasaimemories.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/light-on-arnaud-desjardins-children-of-light/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> >
> > Om Jeezus X-mas, they've been chanting it wrong all this time!
> > Well then, no wonder.
> > 
> > saha nau avatu . 
> > saha nau bhunaktu . 
> > saha viiryaM karavaavahai .
> > tejasvi nau; 
> > adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai . 
> > 
> 
> That's pada-paaTha (word-reading), so to speak.
> The saMhitaa-paaTha goes like this:
> 
>  saha naav avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai .
>  tejasvi naav adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai .
> 
> That is, before a *vowel*, 'nau' changes to 'naav',
> without any effect on the *semantic* level.
> 

This seems to be the most accurate translation I could
find quickly:

Om ! May He protect us both together; may He nourish us both together;
May we work conjointly with great energy,
May our study be vigorous and effective;
May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any).

 May He protect (avatu) us both (nau [~now] accusative *dual*) together (saha);
 may He nourish (bhunaktu) us both (nau) together (saha);
May we work (karavaavahai) conjointly (saha) 
with great energy (viiryam),
May our study be (adhiitam [study] astu [may (it) be])
 vigorous-and-effective (tejasvi);
May we not (maa: 'we' in the verb ->) mutually-dispute (vidviSaavahai)
(or may we not hate any: vidviSaavahai).