[FairfieldLife] Crop Circle in Italy: Fabbrico (Reggio Emilia). Reported 25th June.

[nablusoss1008]

Fabbrico (Reggio Emilia). Reported 25th June.
Map Ref: HERE

This Page has been accessed
  [Hit Counter]

Updated Thursday 27th June 2012
AERIAL SHOTS
 
GROUND SHOTS
 
DIAGRAMS
 
FIELD REPORTS
 
ARTICLES




 

Discuss this circle on our Facebook
Crop Circles-UFO's-Ancient Mysteries-Scientific Speculations




A couple of days ago I've been informed by Leonardo Dragoni
(Cropfiles.it) about the rumours from Italy regarding a new formation in
Fabbrico (Reggio Emilia). I asked some friends that live in that area to
see what was going on, but nobody was able to help my requests...So I
tried with e-mails to flight-schools and aero-clubs, and this evening i
received the first positive answer...along with a photo from the sky! Of
course you can use this picture for the Crop Circle Connector database.
The only thing I'm asking you is to specify, as a source, "Elicompany.it
- Carpi (MO)"
Demetrio.Santini
Images Elicompany.it - Carpi (MO) Copyright 2012

[FairfieldLife] Crop Circle in France

[nablusoss1008]

Flat-d'Étain, nr Chécy, Boigny. Reported 11th June.
Map Ref: 47 54' 58'' N 2 0' 57'' E


This Page has been accessed
  [Hit Counter]

Updated Wednesday 27th June 2012
AERIAL SHOTS GROUND SHOTS DIAGRAMS FIELD REPORTS ARTICLES


This is Marty Patrice to France, an email to let you know that a crop
circle appeared in France It would be early June appeared as a plain
been deposited with the police on June 6 Attached clipping from the
newspaper and the link: http://www.larep.fr   Also
photos of the crop.

Patrice www.savoirperdu.com 
The Crop Circle was reported Monday June 11 in France is between the
"rue du Bois Saussier" and the "rue du Plat d'Étain" near to the city
of Chécy , Departement in the Loiret (45), Central region. 47 54'
58'' N 2 0' 57'' E

Jacques Garnier

  
Make a donation to keep the web site alive... Thank you


The mysterious drawing would have appeared, 15 days ago, in the middle
of a field. In the neighboring village, in Boigny, nobody knew ... Or
almost.

Thursday afternoon. Black sky. The storm rages in the distance. The wind
in the trees. And on this wheat field, located on the town Chécy,
near the small school ... The Bretauche the mysterious phenomenon. Reach
a singularity at the cinema in 2002 by the American director Night
Shyamalan in "Signs." It is there. Somewhere. Hidden. Invisible from the
road. Impossible to locate without an aerial photo.

A strangely perfect geometry
Incredible shot from the sky that this avid ULM provided to our editors.
Seized after a vertical transition to the incredible crop circle - often
known by its English name: "crop circle". "Ten years I flew over the
region, said Armel Couette, and this is the first time I see it. "A hoax
is always possible. Ensure that the circle on the spot there. The field
is located after an hour's drive, thanks to a firefighter who knows this
piece of countryside as his pocket.

The land is fat. The plant runs off. The huge drawing - of perhaps 40
meters in diameter - resists, amid stalks of cereals by 70 centimetres.
Total excess for two circles enclosing a triangle.

In the middle of a place called the Flat-d'Étain, odours were soaked,
the form appears suddenly in a wheat lying broken. Damn. It could have
been entertained that night. By day, its perpetrators would have run the
risk of detection. Corridors of a meter wide, ravaged corn snakes, are
the main crop circle. Another, just a round, just as enigmatic plot was
50 meters further east.

Geometric figures strangely perfect. Figures that question. Who is the
author of this farce? Is this a performance? Is it a message to decrypt?
Or, as some scientists argue, is do we in the centre of a UFO event? To
create an extraterrestrial?

Directorate Boigny, village-key with the key field. Café des Sports,
the boss, Rudolph, was stunned by the photos. "Who did it, a cult? "It
questions the customers. One knew. "It appeared, 15 days ago," says he,
detached. "It must be c ... who had nothing better to do," seems to sum
up the general feeling in the cafe. To the chagrin of the boss ...

This is not the case, opposite the town hall Boignacienne, where the
technical manager, Christophe Picard, surveyor training, speaks of "very
great skill to achieve create forms as regular. You really need to
know?! "

Contacted Thursday, Jean-Vincent Vallies Mayor Chécy who knew nothing
of the phenomenon, led his small survey. The field belongs to an old
lady of Strasbourg. This confirms that the gendarmes Caciens, adding
that a complaint was filed on June 6 And an investigation is underway.
Limited to dry land, so to speak, a common eye on the sky. (Google
Trnslate)

David Creff and Buzy and Marion

[FairfieldLife] Re: Retreat center to open at Heavenly Mtn.

[John]

I wonder if the Kaplan brothers have become members of Shri Shri Ravi Shankar's 
organization.  Nonetheless, the center appears ideal for meditation and other 
programs for well being.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "fflmod"  wrote:
>
>  [Watauga Democrat]   Boone, NC
> Weather   [ ] 
>  61.0°
> Fair7-Day Forecast  Contact Us
>  Subscribe
>  Advertise
> 
> * Home 
> * News  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> * Sports  
>  
> 
> * Obits  
>  
> 
> * Opinion  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> * Community 
> * Events 
> * Photos 
> * Classifieds  
>  
>  
> 
> * Marketplace  
>  
>  ining/> 
>  nd-entertainment/museums-galleries/> 
>  -and-accommodations/hotels-lodging/> 
>  ntertainment/> 
>  tion-and-sporting-goods/outdoors/> 
>  e-rentals/> 
> 
>  
> 
> * Gas Prices 
> * Contact Us  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> Get Breaking News  Receive special offers from wataugademocrat.com.
> [border-top-width: 0px;border-right-width: 0px;border-bottom-width:
> 0px;border-left-width: 0px;border-style: initial;border-color:
> initial;color: inherit;font-size: 13px;height: 0px;]
> Contractors and repairmen are busy this week at the new International
> Center for Meditation & Well-Being, which will hold its inauguration
> Saturday at the property previously known as Heavenly Mountain. Among
> the changes being made is the installation of two swan sculptures in
> front of one of the main gathering halls. Swans are part of the logo of
> The Art of Living Foundation, the center's parent organization. Photo by
> Kellen Moore.
> 
> 
> 
> More Info
> Originally published: 2012-06-27 15:07:17
> Last modified: 2012-06-27 15:11:36Retreat center to open at Heavenly
> Mtn.
> by Staff Reports
> The International Center for Peace and Well-Being will celebrate the
> inauguration of its new 381-acre center outside Boone on Saturday.
> 
> Founder and noted humanitarian Sri Sri Ravi Shankar will attend the
> opening of the new center, which will offer wellness programs, including
> meditation, yoga and cultural events.
> 
> State and local officials, as well as spiritual and business leaders
> from around the world, are expected to attend the event, which will
> include a musical performance directed by Grammy-nominated Chandrika
> Tandon and featuring local musicians.
> 
> The property, purchased in October 2011, will be home to
> stress-management and self-development programs for adults, corporate
> retreats, leadership development for young adults and summer camps for
> children.
> 
> The venue also is expected to provide trauma relief for returning
> veterans and will act as a hub for international cultural events.
> 
> The center also will house a Naturopathy Well

[FairfieldLife] "Maharishisez" (was Re: TV review: "The Newsroom")

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Apologies to any and all who felt upset by my use of the word 
> > > > > vata. And thanks Barry for bringing it to my attention. 
> > > > 
> > > > For the record, I was seeking neither an apology or
> > > > you or anyone else feeling guilty about using such
> > > > phrases. I certainly was seeking to provoke the 
> > > > defensiveness you seem to feel is necessary.
> > 
> > This is perhaps the one biggest, mystifying thing about Barry. 
> > The last sentence is bizarre. He claims he was "seeking to 
> > provoke" defensiveness and then he is dismissive and scathing 
> > when she gets apologetic (but I didn't sense defensive). 
> 
> It was a typo, numbnuts. I left out the word "not."

Translation: A typo, that's the ticket! I'm sure nobody
will remember any of the times I've explained in great
detail how I do my damndest to provoke defensiveness. (Or
what I choose to identify as defensiveness because it
makes disagreement sound like a weakness.) Me, Barry, of
course I'm *never* defensive. If I say something dumb I
later regret, I never *ever* would try to wiggle out of
it by claiming it was, you know, a typo or something.

[FairfieldLife] "Maharishisez" (was Re: TV review: "The Newsroom")

[authfriend]

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

> > Good for you for being able to maintain your autonomy (I
> > guess that's another word for "field independence") in the
> > face of both True Believerism and Skeptopathy.
> 
> Judy, I do believe you are making up words here. Believerism
> and skeptopathy??

Actually not. I thought for awhile I had coined the term
"skeptopathy," because I'd never seen it anywhere else; it
was original with me in that sense. But I've since found
out it's fairly common, so I can't take credit for it. It's
a pretty natural coinage; it would be surprising if others
hadn't thought of it.

"Believerism," especially in the phrase "True Believerism,"
is quite common.

Please feel free, then, to use either term royalty-free.

[FairfieldLife] "Maharishisez" (was Re: TV review: "The Newsroom")

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Apologies to any and all who felt upset by my use of the word 
> > > > vata. And thanks Barry for bringing it to my attention. 
> > > 
> > > For the record, I was seeking neither an apology or
> > > you or anyone else feeling guilty about using such
> > > phrases. I certainly was seeking to provoke the 
> > > defensiveness you seem to feel is necessary.
> 
> This is perhaps the one biggest, mystifying thing about Barry. 
> The last sentence is bizarre. He claims he was "seeking to 
> provoke" defensiveness and then he is dismissive and scathing 
> when she gets apologetic (but I didn't sense defensive). 

It was a typo, numbnuts. I left out the word "not." 

But you and Judy have fun obsessing, y'hear...  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Lecture by John Hagelin

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
[...]v
> 
> Most TMers understand what you're saying.  But it appears Hagelin is trying 
> out something new to say and to incorporate MMY's apaurusheya in context with 
> new discoveries in physics.  IOW, he's pushing the science part instead of 
> the experiencial aspect of meditation.
>

You're not familiar with John's original essays from 25 years ago, obviously, 
because this merely a dumbed-down version of those.


L

[FairfieldLife] nighty night

[Share Long]

Off to see, for the first time, Swami Beyondananda, the comedian.  


Probably won't get back online tonight.

But you never know.


Have fun, you all.

Dare I say, play nice (-:

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): Sat Jun 23 00:00:00 2012
End Date (UTC): Sat Jun 30 00:00:00 2012
342 messages as of (UTC) Thu Jun 28 00:01:28 2012

33 turquoiseb 
33 salyavin808 
31 Share Long 
24 Bhairitu 
21 sparaig 
21 authfriend 
19 Robert 
16 cardemaister 
15 merudanda 
12 raunchydog 
12 Vaj 
11 seventhray1 
10 Robin Carlsen 
 9 marekreavis 
 7 feste37 
 7 awoelflebater 
 7 John 
 6 Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
 6 Jason 
 5 emptybill 
 5 Mike Dixon 
 4 nablusoss1008 
 4 PaliGap 
 3 curtisdeltablues 
 3 "Richard J. Williams" 
 2 wgm4u 
 2 oxcart49 
 2 Susan 
 2 Seraphita 
 2 Rick Archer 
 2 Alex Stanley 
 1 ultrarishi 
 1 azgrey 
 1 Richard 
 1 Duveyoung 
 1 Buck 
 1 "martin.quickman" 

Posters: 37
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] "Maharishisez" (was Re: TV review: "The Newsroom")

[awoelflebater]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > >
> > > Apologies to any and all who felt upset by my use of the word 
> > > vata. And thanks Barry for bringing it to my attention. 
> > 
> > For the record, I was seeking neither an apology or
> > you or anyone else feeling guilty about using such
> > phrases. I certainly was seeking to provoke the 
> > defensiveness you seem to feel is necessary.

This is perhaps the one biggest, mystifying thing about Barry. The last 
sentence is bizarre. He claims he was "seeking to provoke" defensiveness and 
then he is dismissive and scathing when she gets apologetic (but I didn't sense 
defensive). When you push the "on" button of the TV set you don't throw it 
across the room because it came on. You're damned if you do and damned if you 
don't when it comes to that guy.
> 
> Now explain to her why you seek to provoke defensiveness.
> I don't think she's heard that one yet.

Oh, but she will.
> 
>  I was 
> > poking a little fun at the use of such buzzwords to 
> > point out that not everyone believes that the various
> > "doshas" mean diddleysquat, or that they have any 
> > more relationship to health than the various bodily
> > "humors" did in medieval times.

It is always "fun" when Mr Wright does the poking.
> 
> But you see, you had no need to "point that out," because
> she wasn't asserting belief, or any "meaningfulness"
> beyond the metaphorical. Almost all of us here know what
> "vata-deranged" means when it's used as she did. It's a
> good descriptive term for today's stressed-out society,
> regardless of whether doshas have any relationship to
> health.
> 
> You knew that. You wanted to embarrass her, make her feel
> stupid by suggesting that she'd said something that was
> somehow inappropriate. You did that out of sheer meanness
> and the need to make yourself feel superior.

Funny that, being mean is never considered a characteristic of real superiority 
(specialness) in the minds of well-adjusted people.
> 
> 
> > All valid assumptions. I guess I was still reacting to
> > people here recently claiming that the universe is made
> > up of the elements of earth, air, fire, water, and 
> > ether, with a straight face, again because of (IMO) 
> > "Maharishisez." 
> 
> Nobody made that claim, of course.
> 
> What happened was that somebody *claimed*, incorrectly,
> that this claim had been made. They were quickly set
> straight on the point. But Barry, because he deigns to
> read only the posts of those who tend to agree with him,
> missed the rebuttals, resulting in Barry making a fool
> of himself for the umpty-zillionth time.

And that is a lot of times.
> 
> And in any case, this had nothing whatsoever to do with
> your scolding Share for using the term "vata." That's a
> made-up, after-the-fact excuse, an attempt to make
> yourself look not *quite* so petty. Sadly, it hasn't
> worked.
> 
> 
> > I have *no problem* with someone quoting Maharishi. I don't
> > even have a problem with them quoting him as "authoritative,"
> > although I don't personally believe he is, about pretty 
> > much anything. I do sometimes poke fun of those who throw
> > out a Maharishi quote as if it were a grenade, which, when
> > it explodes, will put a halt to further discussion and
> > "settle" everything, because...after all...Maharishisez.
> 
> Nobody here does that. And you certainly *do* have a
> problem with people quoting Maharishi. You've complained
> about it many scores of times, not "poking fun" but
> viciously, in long analytical screeds.
> 
> 
> > > My point is that not all long term TMers are TBs. 
> > 
> > I don't think they are.
> 
> You're constantly labeling long-term TMers as TBs
> even though you know they aren't.
> 
> > I *do* think that many of them
> > have lost sight of how peculiar the terms they throw
> > around about TM and its philosophy are.
> 
> Oh, bullshit. This is a forum for TMers and former
> TMers. We share a common "language" for discussing
> various spiritual ideas. We don't go around using
> those terms to the world at large.

I must admit Ms Stein has a point here. This isn't exactly the dirt bikers or 
Harley owners forum here, at least not the last time I looked.
> 
> 
> > > To think so is simply a form of prejudice such as has been 
> > > around as long as there have been humans who disagree with 
> > > one another.
> > 
> > So who believes that all long-term TMers are TBs? 
> > I don't. There are many examples of long-term TMers
> > who are not TM True Believers on this very forum.
> 
> Then why do you keep labeling them TBs when you know
> they aren't?

Oh Judy, aren't you being a little hard on Barry here? Give him just a teeny 
break once in a while.
> 
> 
> > I'm more like my 3-year-old friend Maya. I think that
> > life is a toy, designed to be played with, and to 
> > have fun with. I hav

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris Book

[Vaj]

On Jun 27, 2012, at 12:34 PM, merudanda wrote:

> "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." 
> [Tractatus 6.44] 
> and
> " To view the world sub specie aeterni ["from the viewpoint of eternity"] is 
> to view it as a whole - a limited whole. Feeling the world as a limited whole 
> - it is this that is mystical."
> 6.45 
>  "There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make 
> themselves manifest. They are what is mystical."
> 6.522


Sweet quotes. I bet Robin could add some great ones - he used to be a big fan - 
perhaps still is.

[FairfieldLife] Re: RIP Nora ques to Barry

[azgrey]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > >
> > > Ok, thanks for explaining. So, who IS one of your favorite 
> > > writers? I mean, that I might be familiar with given my 
> > > limitations, weirdness, Domeness, etc. (-:
> > 
> > I'd rather not say,
> 
> (Says Barry, going on to say anyway. "I'd rather not" is
> just a rhetorical turn to allow him to dump on people
> here he doesn't like.)
> 
> > because there are some here who
> > will leap upon them as a way of leaping upon me.
> 
> Translation: "Anyone who criticizes the writers (movies,
> TV shows, music and musicians, whatever) I like is ipso
> facto criticizing *me*. (Just ignore the fact that I
> mock anybody who disagrees with my criticisms of their
> belief system/spiritual technique/guru/whatever as
> having identified themselves so completely with what I'm
> criticizing that they take my criticisms as criticisms
> of themselves. I'm nothing if not inconsistent.)"
> 

This is getting creepy.

Really really creepy. Note, dear and fair readers, that the author 
is not only deep into obsession, she is also including subtexts
of subtexts in her, ah, "translation." 

All the while TurquoiseB and Share are getting on like the hoopy 
froods. Go figure. Another sad and psycho GOTTA GET BARRY,
GOTTA WIN.

pt, Judy: Your crazy is showing.

kissey kissey smooch smooch :-)

[FairfieldLife] "Maharishisez" (was Re: TV review: "The Newsroom")

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Apologies to any and all who felt upset by my use of the word 
> > vata. And thanks Barry for bringing it to my attention. 
> 
> For the record, I was seeking neither an apology or
> you or anyone else feeling guilty about using such
> phrases. I certainly was seeking to provoke the 
> defensiveness you seem to feel is necessary.

Now explain to her why you seek to provoke defensiveness.
I don't think she's heard that one yet.

 I was 
> poking a little fun at the use of such buzzwords to 
> point out that not everyone believes that the various
> "doshas" mean diddleysquat, or that they have any 
> more relationship to health than the various bodily
> "humors" did in medieval times.

But you see, you had no need to "point that out," because
she wasn't asserting belief, or any "meaningfulness"
beyond the metaphorical. Almost all of us here know what
"vata-deranged" means when it's used as she did. It's a
good descriptive term for today's stressed-out society,
regardless of whether doshas have any relationship to
health.

You knew that. You wanted to embarrass her, make her feel
stupid by suggesting that she'd said something that was
somehow inappropriate. You did that out of sheer meanness
and the need to make yourself feel superior.


> All valid assumptions. I guess I was still reacting to
> people here recently claiming that the universe is made
> up of the elements of earth, air, fire, water, and 
> ether, with a straight face, again because of (IMO) 
> "Maharishisez." 

Nobody made that claim, of course.

What happened was that somebody *claimed*, incorrectly,
that this claim had been made. They were quickly set
straight on the point. But Barry, because he deigns to
read only the posts of those who tend to agree with him,
missed the rebuttals, resulting in Barry making a fool
of himself for the umpty-zillionth time.

And in any case, this had nothing whatsoever to do with
your scolding Share for using the term "vata." That's a
made-up, after-the-fact excuse, an attempt to make
yourself look not *quite* so petty. Sadly, it hasn't
worked.


> I have *no problem* with someone quoting Maharishi. I don't
> even have a problem with them quoting him as "authoritative,"
> although I don't personally believe he is, about pretty 
> much anything. I do sometimes poke fun of those who throw
> out a Maharishi quote as if it were a grenade, which, when
> it explodes, will put a halt to further discussion and
> "settle" everything, because...after all...Maharishisez.

Nobody here does that. And you certainly *do* have a
problem with people quoting Maharishi. You've complained
about it many scores of times, not "poking fun" but
viciously, in long analytical screeds.


> > My point is that not all long term TMers are TBs. 
> 
> I don't think they are.

You're constantly labeling long-term TMers as TBs
even though you know they aren't.

> I *do* think that many of them
> have lost sight of how peculiar the terms they throw
> around about TM and its philosophy are.

Oh, bullshit. This is a forum for TMers and former
TMers. We share a common "language" for discussing
various spiritual ideas. We don't go around using
those terms to the world at large.


> > To think so is simply a form of prejudice such as has been 
> > around as long as there have been humans who disagree with 
> > one another.
> 
> So who believes that all long-term TMers are TBs? 
> I don't. There are many examples of long-term TMers
> who are not TM True Believers on this very forum.

Then why do you keep labeling them TBs when you know
they aren't?


> I'm more like my 3-year-old friend Maya. I think that
> life is a toy, designed to be played with, and to 
> have fun with. I have no more patience with those who
> insist on turning every potential toy into a potential
> weapon of battle now than I did in kindergarten.

Barry is actually proud of the fact that he still thinks
with all the sophistication of a three-year-old.

[FairfieldLife] "Maharishisez" (was Re: TV review: "The Newsroom")

[awoelflebater]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
> >
> > Hi Judy,
> >
> > Hey, I was raised Catholic so mea culpa ing comes naturally (-:

Me too but there is a limit at FFL to how much you want to take
responsibility for what others might deem inappropriate, inane or
hurtful.
>
> Whatever floats your boat. ;-)
> >
> > More seriously, apologizing for me neither involves self
> > sacrifice nor feeling unhappy. I'm happy to do it even if
> > there's a small chance that I've hurt someone's feelings.
>
> OK, there wasn't even a small chance in this case.

Judy knows of what she speaks.
>
> > Going with the Marshall Rosenberg idea that no one causes anyone
> > to feel anything. But we can and do contribute to the emotional
> > reactions of others. I'd rather err on the side of apologizing
> > than being oblivious to the feelings of other.
>
> Just trying to point out that this otherwise admirable
> trait can leave you vulnerable to manipulation by folks
> who lack your scruples. It doesn't hurt, I don't think,
> to be at least somewhat selective.

Ditto on this wise counsel. Judy, being the veteran of many a season
here, is someone you might want to take note of when it comes to
techniques for self-preservation.
>
> > Thank you for enjoying my participation here and for saying
> > so. It's wonderful to be in a forum that has so many cool
> > women participants in addition to the men.
>
> It's the first time since I joined the group that we've
> had a really solid female contingent.

Minions and all.
>
> > laughing (as I was during yogic flying this morning) because
> > if someone knows my astrological chart, jyotish or otherwise,
> > they realize that I'm weird.
>
> Oh, heck, we're all weird here!

Hey, speak for yourself Ms Stein. I like to think of myself as exotic,
rarefied, special, oh never mind, okay, I'm weird.
>
> > And pretty good in the area of field independence. OTOH,
> > if reasonably possible, I enjoy getting along with people.
> >
> > As for being a TB, I started TM a few months after my marriage
> > ended. Coincidently, I had just read Eric Hoffer's book, The
> > True Believer. When I traveled to MIU 6 months later, I
> > realized I was in one categories of potential TB, being newly
> > unspoused. Nonetheless, I stayed for about 5 years, returned
> > to DC area for 8 years, returned to Fairfield in 1988. And
> > here I am (-:

Have you been in Fairfield since 1988?
>
> Good for you for being able to maintain your autonomy (I
> guess that's another word for "field independence") in the
> face of both True Believerism and Skeptopathy.

Judy, I do believe you are making up words here. Believerism and
skeptopathy??
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris Book

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap"  wrote:
>
> 
> 7 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57PWqFowq-4

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris Book

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> Better - I was pulling from my not always so great memory. Now all you have 
> to do is post the original German.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  wrote:
> >
> > "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it
> > exists." [Tractatus 6.44]

Seems to sound quite a bit more...hmmm... convincing, in German:

http://people.umass.edu/phil335-klement-2/tlp/tlp.html

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris Book

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  wrote:
>
> "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it
> exists." [Tractatus 6.44]
> and
>To view the world sub specie aeterni ["from the viewpoint of
> eternity"] is to view it as a whole - a limited whole. Feeling the world
> as a limited whole - it is this that is mystical.
> 6.45
>   There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make
> themselves manifest. They are what is mystical.
> 6.522
> Ludwig Wittgenstein
> 1921

And...

6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands
me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out
through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw
away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.)
He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world
rightly.

7 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.


> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
>  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" wayback71@ wrote:
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
>  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Sam Harris is writing a book, with the working title 'Waking Up: A
> Scientist Looks at Spirituality' due to be finished sometime near the
> end of the year. This one should be interesting.
> > >>
> > >> http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/look-into-my-eyes
> > >
> > > The video segment on Osho speaking on the link is a reminder of how
> especially young people can follow and adjust their their own beliefs to
> those of someone who really has only basic wisdom to offer, and combines
> that with being exotic, having an accent, and being a touch different or
> odd or provocative. Osho never blinked in the few minutes that I watched
> it!! Creepy, really.
> > >
> > > I will read this new book when it comes out, because this is the
> stuff I think about and care about - the science of those experiences.
> But a part of me misses the mystery of it all that went along with the
> sureness of faith. I have some trouble reconciling the two ways of
> looking at awakening - scientific and mystical. I think ignorance of the
> mind is where the bliss is. What I wish for is that on the other side of
> that understanding of exactly where and how our brains create spiritual
> experience, there is a Reality or Presence that causes the brain to
> behave in that way. That that Reality is the cause, not simply some
> shift in brain functioning and that is it.
> >
> > I do not think the mystery goes away; instead of believing it, or
> looking for it, one eventually just lives it, not thinking about it so
> much. The philosopher Wittgenstein put it that the mystical is 'that the
> world is, not how it is'. These spiritual practices we engage in are for
> the purpose of closing the gap between faith, which is believing in
> something we do not experience (in other words, pretending to say we
> know something when we do not), and our experience. If that does happen
> eventually, believing and faith is redundant. I have always thought
> people have had it backwards: if you could actually know something, then
> you have faith, if you just believe something, you are acting on
> ignorance. The real question is, 'is there anything we can really know?'
> We tend to think this is possible.
> >
> > In the early 20th century Bertrand Russell was talking about mature
> sciences, that they do not deal with causality, they deal with
> relationships. I think this is like the idea behind meditation.
> Meditation gradually simplifies our experience of relationships until
> there are none left. Very much like how physicists attempt to discover
> how all things are related in a single equation, which would be a
> unified field theory.
> >
> > I always thought Maharishi, in using the word 'wholeness', was
> employing a cop-out to hide the religious nature behind TM, but in fact,
> I now think it is an elegantly simple and accurate description, much
> better than the metaphysical claptrap that accompanies spiritual
> movements.
> >
> > As for the scientific and mystical. It is like a recipe and the
> wonderful meal that it may become. You need both, but not necessarily at
> the same time, and they are not in conflict with one another, they both
> represent the same thing.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Lecture by John Hagelin

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert"  wrote:
>
> It's easy to understand the 'Maharishi Effect' without all this 'Physics Bull 
> Sh-t...confusing even the most obediant student...
> 
> All you need to know, is that when anyone reaches the 'State of 
> Samadhi'...then this 'Enlivens Everywhere This Aspect'...
> 
> In Other Words'...This 'Aspect of Samadhi' is 'Non-Localized'...
> 
> It is 'Outside the Range' of the ego...
> It is 'Outside the Range of the Intellect'...
> and OUtside the range of the senses...
> 
> It is at the 'Basis of All Existence' in the 'Universe'...
> 
> So, without 'Bringing up Anything About the Unified Field'...
> We can understand by direct experience how the ME Works...
> 
> It works by creating an enviornment, where the more advance experienced 
> meditators, who have been having 'Stabilized Witnessing Experience 24/7...
> 
> Then that 'Witnessing Reality' of Self-Referra' is 'Imbibed All Around the 
> World'...
> Mostly in the United States, but nontheless, it is the 'Power of the 
> Individual in Samadhi' that is the 'Key''
> 
> jai guru dev

Most TMers understand what you're saying.  But it appears Hagelin is trying out 
something new to say and to incorporate MMY's apaurusheya in context with new 
discoveries in physics.  IOW, he's pushing the science part instead of the 
experiencial aspect of meditation.

[FairfieldLife] "Maharishisez" (was Re: TV review: "The Newsroom")

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Hi Judy,
> 
> Hey, I was raised Catholic so mea culpa ing comes naturally (-:

Whatever floats your boat. ;-)
> 
> More seriously, apologizing for me neither involves self
> sacrifice nor feeling unhappy. I'm happy to do it even if
> there's a small chance that I've hurt someone's feelings.

OK, there wasn't even a small chance in this case.

> Going with the Marshall Rosenberg idea that no one causes anyone
> to feel anything. But we can and do contribute to the emotional
> reactions of others. I'd rather err on the side of apologizing
> than being oblivious to the feelings of other.

Just trying to point out that this otherwise admirable
trait can leave you vulnerable to manipulation by folks
who lack your scruples. It doesn't hurt, I don't think,
to be at least somewhat selective.

> Thank you for enjoying my participation here and for saying
> so. It's wonderful to be in a forum that has so many cool
> women participants in addition to the men.

It's the first time since I joined the group that we've
had a really solid female contingent.

> laughing (as I was during yogic flying this morning) because
> if someone knows my astrological chart, jyotish or otherwise,
> they realize that I'm weird.

Oh, heck, we're all weird here!

> And pretty good in the area of field independence. OTOH,
> if reasonably possible, I enjoy getting along with people.
> 
> As for being a TB, I started TM a few months after my marriage
> ended. Coincidently, I had just read Eric Hoffer's book, The
> True Believer. When I traveled to MIU 6 months later, I
> realized I was in one categories of potential TB, being newly 
> unspoused. Nonetheless, I stayed for about 5 years, returned
> to DC area for 8 years, returned to Fairfield in 1988. And
> here I am (-:

Good for you for being able to maintain your autonomy (I
guess that's another word for "field independence") in the
face of both True Believerism and Skeptopathy.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris Book

[Share Long]

I do not think the mystery goes away; instead of believing it, or 
looking for it, one eventually just lives it, not thinking about it so 
much... 


I have always thought people have had it backwards: if you could 
actually know something, then you have faith, if you just believe 
something, you are acting on ignorance. The real question is, 'is there 
anything we can really know?' We tend to think this is possible...

As for the scientific and mystical. It is like a recipe and the 
wonderful meal that it may become. You need both, but not necessarily at the 
same time, and they are not in conflict with one another, they both represent 
the same thing.

So very beautiful.  Thank you so much for posting.  Yes, to what Susan wrote.  
This is a keeper.



 From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 9:43 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris Book
 

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan"  wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"  
> wrote:
>>
>> Sam Harris is writing a book, with the working title 'Waking Up: A Scientist 
>> Looks at Spirituality' due to be finished sometime near the end of the year. 
>> This one should be interesting.
>> 
>> http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/look-into-my-eyes
> 
> The video segment on Osho speaking on the link is a reminder of how 
> especially young people can follow and adjust their their own beliefs to 
> those of someone who really has only basic wisdom to offer, and combines that 
> with being exotic, having an accent, and being a touch different or odd or 
> provocative. Osho never blinked in the few minutes that I watched it!! 
> Creepy, really.
> 
> I will read this new book when it comes out, because this is the stuff I 
> think about and care about - the science of those experiences. But a part of 
> me misses the mystery of it all that went along with the sureness of faith. I 
> have some trouble reconciling the two ways of looking at awakening - 
> scientific and mystical. I think ignorance of the mind is where the bliss is. 
> What I wish for is that on the other side of that understanding of exactly 
> where and how our brains create spiritual experience, there is a Reality or 
> Presence that causes the brain to behave in that way. That that Reality is 
> the cause, not simply some shift in brain functioning and that is it.

I do not think the mystery goes away; instead of believing it, or looking for 
it, one eventually just lives it, not thinking about it so much. The 
philosopher Wittgenstein put it that the mystical is 'that the world is, not 
how it is'. These spiritual practices we engage in are for the purpose of 
closing the gap between faith, which is believing in something we do not 
experience (in other words, pretending to say we know something when we do 
not), and our experience. If that does happen eventually, believing and faith 
is redundant. I have always thought people have had it backwards: if you could 
actually know something, then you have faith, if you just believe something, 
you are acting on ignorance. The real question is, 'is there anything we can 
really know?' We tend to think this is possible.

In the early 20th century Bertrand Russell was talking about mature sciences, 
that they do not deal with causality, they deal with relationships. I think 
this is like the idea behind meditation. Meditation gradually simplifies our 
experience of relationships until there are none left. Very much like how 
physicists attempt to discover how all things are related in a single equation, 
which would be a unified field theory.

I always thought Maharishi, in using the word 'wholeness', was employing a 
cop-out to hide the religious nature behind TM, but in fact, I now think it is 
an elegantly simple and accurate description, much better than the metaphysical 
claptrap that accompanies spiritual movements.

As for the scientific and mystical. It is like a recipe and the wonderful meal 
that it may become. You need both, but not necessarily at the same time, and 
they are not in conflict with one another, they both represent the same thing.


 

[FairfieldLife] "Maharishisez" (was Re: TV review: "The Newsroom")

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long 
wrote:
>
> Ok, Barry, you made me laugh.  And that's good enough for me. 
It was the bit about TM quotes being tossed like grenades.  God
knows why that tickled me.  It's all unfathomable as far as I'm
concerned.  Especially humor.

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
>>
>> Apologies to any and all who felt upset by my use of the word

>> vata. And thanks Barry for bringing it to my attention.

I sometimes wonder what the ethics of doing a double-blind study on
serious diseases would be, splitting the individuals between
Science-Based Medicine and Maharishi Ayur-Veda.



  [Maharishi Car, with Disclaimer]

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris Book

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

Better - I was pulling from my not always so great memory. Now all you have to 
do is post the original German.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  wrote:
>
> "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it
> exists." [Tractatus 6.44]
> and
>To view the world sub specie aeterni ["from the viewpoint of
> eternity"] is to view it as a whole - a limited whole. Feeling the world
> as a limited whole - it is this that is mystical.
> 6.45
>   There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make
> themselves manifest. They are what is mystical.
> 6.522
> Ludwig Wittgenstein
> 1921
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
>  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" wayback71@ wrote:
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
>  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Sam Harris is writing a book, with the working title 'Waking Up: A
> Scientist Looks at Spirituality' due to be finished sometime near the
> end of the year. This one should be interesting.
> > >>
> > >> http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/look-into-my-eyes
> > >
> > > The video segment on Osho speaking on the link is a reminder of how
> especially young people can follow and adjust their their own beliefs to
> those of someone who really has only basic wisdom to offer, and combines
> that with being exotic, having an accent, and being a touch different or
> odd or provocative. Osho never blinked in the few minutes that I watched
> it!! Creepy, really.
> > >
> > > I will read this new book when it comes out, because this is the
> stuff I think about and care about - the science of those experiences.
> But a part of me misses the mystery of it all that went along with the
> sureness of faith. I have some trouble reconciling the two ways of
> looking at awakening - scientific and mystical. I think ignorance of the
> mind is where the bliss is. What I wish for is that on the other side of
> that understanding of exactly where and how our brains create spiritual
> experience, there is a Reality or Presence that causes the brain to
> behave in that way. That that Reality is the cause, not simply some
> shift in brain functioning and that is it.
> >
> > I do not think the mystery goes away; instead of believing it, or
> looking for it, one eventually just lives it, not thinking about it so
> much. The philosopher Wittgenstein put it that the mystical is 'that the
> world is, not how it is'. These spiritual practices we engage in are for
> the purpose of closing the gap between faith, which is believing in
> something we do not experience (in other words, pretending to say we
> know something when we do not), and our experience. If that does happen
> eventually, believing and faith is redundant. I have always thought
> people have had it backwards: if you could actually know something, then
> you have faith, if you just believe something, you are acting on
> ignorance. The real question is, 'is there anything we can really know?'
> We tend to think this is possible.
> >
> > In the early 20th century Bertrand Russell was talking about mature
> sciences, that they do not deal with causality, they deal with
> relationships. I think this is like the idea behind meditation.
> Meditation gradually simplifies our experience of relationships until
> there are none left. Very much like how physicists attempt to discover
> how all things are related in a single equation, which would be a
> unified field theory.
> >
> > I always thought Maharishi, in using the word 'wholeness', was
> employing a cop-out to hide the religious nature behind TM, but in fact,
> I now think it is an elegantly simple and accurate description, much
> better than the metaphysical claptrap that accompanies spiritual
> movements.
> >
> > As for the scientific and mystical. It is like a recipe and the
> wonderful meal that it may become. You need both, but not necessarily at
> the same time, and they are not in conflict with one another, they both
> represent the same thing.
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Yahoo Groups Chat being shut down

[Bhairitu]

On 06/26/2012 05:29 PM, Alex Stanley wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Now to bug Alex, I just installed a new printer.  I went to print an
>> online recipe yesterday and my HP Photosmart said it was out of ink.
>> What!  I barely print.  Apparently as some have established HP and other
>> printer companies put the cartridges on timers.  So if you're in an
>> office printing lots of the stuff you may see you get a lot of out of a
>> cartridge.  Home user printing a few pages a month? Forget it.
>>
> I owned an HP inkjet printer back in the mid-90s, and just sitting there, 
> doing nothing, the print head would get all gunked up, and I'd have to pull 
> out the cartridge and wipe it with a wet kleenex every time I wanted to print 
> something. So, I can understand why they'd implement timers on cartridges 
> full of liquid ink.
>
> Now, if they tried that with laser printers, there'd be hell to pay because 
> toner cartridges can sit around for ages and still work just fine. If I 
> recall correctly, the HP Laserjet 6L that I bought in 1998 is only on its 
> second toner cartridge, the first having lasted more than ten years. The new 
> color laser printer came with a set of partially filled toner cartridges, and 
> a new set, good for 2000 prints, is $400. If they pull that timer shit on the 
> new printer, I'm gonna be pissed.
>
>

That video link I posted the other day about planned obsolescence had as 
the prime example an Epson printer that actually had a chip in it that 
made it refuse to work after a certain period of time.  A Russian 
developer found the chip and wrote some software to reset the chip so 
that the printer could continue to be used.

I should dig out my only laser printer which I still have, an 1989 NEC 
(cost ~ $1800) and I wouldn't be surprised if the toner is still good.  
It only prints 300 dpi and might be hard to interface. Because of all 
the computers and devices around here I now prefer wifi.  BTW, the app 
on Android for the printing documents with the Kodak printer is cloud 
based which from comments didn't exactly make people happy though their 
photo printer will work with wifi.  I print color stuff so a BW laser 
would not do.   Thing is about 8 years ago fed up with the Epson (the 
very same as in the video) I picked up an HP 3520 at Target for all of 
$28.  Replacement ink for that printer was $32.  I served me well until 
it just seemed to wear out and of course not wifi.  You could use just 
the color module even for BW so it was cost effective and also not on 
any timer.

The other hangup which I think I will solve is getting the scanner part 
of the printer to work with Linux.  I downloaded the source for that but 
it is still a bit tricky to get the system to see the printer as a 
scanner.  This has to do with some conf files I may need to edit.  HP 
has an actual app that you could download for Linux that had the same 
functionality as the Windows app.

Re: [FairfieldLife] "Maharishisez" (was Re: TV review: "The Newsroom")

[Bhairitu]

FYI, I use ayurveda all the time and have had a long term interest in 
alternative medicine going back to the early 1970s.  I looked into 
ayurveda when I got home from TTC in 1976 because we had rumors that we 
were going to get ayurvedic stuff on our TTC which did not turn out to 
happen (there were some things on the AE courses at the same time though).

MAPI was slow to roll out and by 1985 when I attended a presentation on 
ayurveda I had already read Dr. Lad's book on the subject and that 
session by the TMO cost $185 and I had already learned more from the 
book than was in the session.  Later I actually attended a workshop in 
Berkeley with Dr. Lad.  I also attended workshops and classes with Dr. 
Robert Svoboda, Dr. David Frawely and a bunch of other ayurvedic 
experts.   In 1996 I went to India on an ayurvedic tour.

I find that ayurveda works very well but I think there are some sour 
grapes about it here from people who may have only used Maharishi 
Ayurveda.  Most of my experience has been from Dr. Lad's school.  Dr. 
Lad has remedies in his books including ayurvedic teas that you can make 
from inexpensive kitchen herbs.  I also saw an MD in Berkeley who took 
both the MAPI and Lad courses for physicians.

The doshas are actually "body states" as one alternative practitioner 
puts it.  And those states can fluctuate.  I think people become 
confused with the terms and the difference between your constitution 
which you were born with and the currently active state of your body 
(vakriti).   This can be a very powerful tool and something that could 
be used to prevent a lot of disease in the world.

Fortunately being aware of the workings of ayurveda I notice that 
medical research seems to be looking into the field and from time to 
time we get research news which indicates that.  Unfortunately 
physicians still don't like the idea that each individual is different 
and that what works for one won't work for another. They too much like 
shotgun solutions.  We'll have real medicine when they finally recognize 
biochemical individuality.

Along with ayurveda I also observe metabolic typing concepts.  The head 
of the company and writer of the book on it, William Wolcott, was the 
Seattle TM center chairman in the 1970s.  Metabolic typing uses vitamin 
supplements and diets to achieve body balancing results.  It too has 
body states: a carb type, a protein type and a mixed type.

Using these concepts as tools you can get a good handle on your health 
and keep those big pharma profit seekers away.

On 06/27/2012 08:04 AM, Share Long wrote:
> Apologies to any and all who felt upset by my use of the word vata.  And 
> thanks Barry for bringing it to my attention.  Hope you all can make 
> allowances for the "new kid on the block."  I did make an assumption that 
> others know what vata means.  And another assumption that those who didn't 
> and were interested, would either google or ask me.
>
> I also assume that there are those on this forum who don't enjoy my posts, 
> either for content or style or
>   both.  I assume that they do what I do in such cases.
> Skim or skip totally.
>
>
> As for me supposedly believing that ayurveda is the highest form of medicine, 
> at this time I'm taking 6 supplements.  ZERO are ayurvedic herbs and one is 
> actually a Chinese herb, which I've used in the past and had great success 
> with.  On Monday I had a CAT scan and Tuesday, blood work, both aspects of 
> Western medicine.  My actions speak for themselves.  Hopefully (-:
>
> OTOH, I do quote Maharishi a lot and will probably continue to do so.  I very 
> much enjoy his expressions of spiritual teaching.  I also enjoy Adyashanti's 
> expressions and sometimes other teachers.  But I'm not so familiar with those 
> and consequently don't quote as much. Again, everyone is
>   welcome to skim or skip to their heart's contentment.
>
> In addition to being in the Dome, I've also attended Ammachi gatherings.  I 
> love to be hugged by her and I enjoy the bhajans.
> In the past I've participated in something called Waking Down in Mutuality, 
> mainly for the social contact.
>
> I don't live in vastu though I have enjoyed being in vastu.  I very much 
> enjoy jyotish and read several non TM teachers of that.  I also really like 
> Chinese astrology (earth rat) and Western astrology.
>
> My point is that not all long term TMers are TBs.  To think so is simply a 
> form of prejudice such as has been around as long as there have been humans 
> who disagree with one another.
>
>
> Having a family who does not practice TM, I am well aware that many people 
> think it's weird.  Over the years we all have come to more peace about one 
> another's differentness.  I don't quote Maharishi to them often.  Doesn't fit 
> as well at a Christmas gathering as it does on a spiritual forum.
>
> As for flooding the forum, seems to me that can be done with even just ONE 
> post.
>
> Finally, some New Age claptrap (another favorite ph

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris Book

[merudanda]

"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it
exists." [Tractatus 6.44]
and
   To view the world sub specie aeterni ["from the viewpoint of
eternity"] is to view it as a whole - a limited whole. Feeling the world
as a limited whole - it is this that is mystical.
6.45
  There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make
themselves manifest. They are what is mystical.
6.522
Ludwig Wittgenstein
1921
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" wayback71@ wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
 wrote:
> >>
> >> Sam Harris is writing a book, with the working title 'Waking Up: A
Scientist Looks at Spirituality' due to be finished sometime near the
end of the year. This one should be interesting.
> >>
> >> http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/look-into-my-eyes
> >
> > The video segment on Osho speaking on the link is a reminder of how
especially young people can follow and adjust their their own beliefs to
those of someone who really has only basic wisdom to offer, and combines
that with being exotic, having an accent, and being a touch different or
odd or provocative. Osho never blinked in the few minutes that I watched
it!! Creepy, really.
> >
> > I will read this new book when it comes out, because this is the
stuff I think about and care about - the science of those experiences.
But a part of me misses the mystery of it all that went along with the
sureness of faith. I have some trouble reconciling the two ways of
looking at awakening - scientific and mystical. I think ignorance of the
mind is where the bliss is. What I wish for is that on the other side of
that understanding of exactly where and how our brains create spiritual
experience, there is a Reality or Presence that causes the brain to
behave in that way. That that Reality is the cause, not simply some
shift in brain functioning and that is it.
>
> I do not think the mystery goes away; instead of believing it, or
looking for it, one eventually just lives it, not thinking about it so
much. The philosopher Wittgenstein put it that the mystical is 'that the
world is, not how it is'. These spiritual practices we engage in are for
the purpose of closing the gap between faith, which is believing in
something we do not experience (in other words, pretending to say we
know something when we do not), and our experience. If that does happen
eventually, believing and faith is redundant. I have always thought
people have had it backwards: if you could actually know something, then
you have faith, if you just believe something, you are acting on
ignorance. The real question is, 'is there anything we can really know?'
We tend to think this is possible.
>
> In the early 20th century Bertrand Russell was talking about mature
sciences, that they do not deal with causality, they deal with
relationships. I think this is like the idea behind meditation.
Meditation gradually simplifies our experience of relationships until
there are none left. Very much like how physicists attempt to discover
how all things are related in a single equation, which would be a
unified field theory.
>
> I always thought Maharishi, in using the word 'wholeness', was
employing a cop-out to hide the religious nature behind TM, but in fact,
I now think it is an elegantly simple and accurate description, much
better than the metaphysical claptrap that accompanies spiritual
movements.
>
> As for the scientific and mystical. It is like a recipe and the
wonderful meal that it may become. You need both, but not necessarily at
the same time, and they are not in conflict with one another, they both
represent the same thing.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris Book

[merudanda]

"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it
exists." [Tractatus 6.44]
and
" To view the world sub specie aeterni ["from the viewpoint of
eternity"] is to view it as a whole - a limited whole. Feeling the world
as a limited whole - it is this that is mystical."
6.45
  "There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make
themselves manifest. They are what is mystical."
6.522
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" wayback71@ wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
 wrote:
> >>
> >> Sam Harris is writing a book, with the working title 'Waking Up: A
Scientist Looks at Spirituality' due to be finished sometime near the
end of the year. This one should be interesting.
> >>
> >> http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/look-into-my-eyes
> >
> > The video segment on Osho speaking on the link is a reminder of how
especially young people can follow and adjust their their own beliefs to
those of someone who really has only basic wisdom to offer, and combines
that with being exotic, having an accent, and being a touch different or
odd or provocative. Osho never blinked in the few minutes that I watched
it!! Creepy, really.
> >
> > I will read this new book when it comes out, because this is the
stuff I think about and care about - the science of those experiences.
But a part of me misses the mystery of it all that went along with the
sureness of faith. I have some trouble reconciling the two ways of
looking at awakening - scientific and mystical. I think ignorance of the
mind is where the bliss is. What I wish for is that on the other side of
that understanding of exactly where and how our brains create spiritual
experience, there is a Reality or Presence that causes the brain to
behave in that way. That that Reality is the cause, not simply some
shift in brain functioning and that is it.
>
> I do not think the mystery goes away; instead of believing it, or
looking for it, one eventually just lives it, not thinking about it so
much. The philosopher Wittgenstein put it that the mystical is 'that the
world is, not how it is'. These spiritual practices we engage in are for
the purpose of closing the gap between faith, which is believing in
something we do not experience (in other words, pretending to say we
know something when we do not), and our experience. If that does happen
eventually, believing and faith is redundant. I have always thought
people have had it backwards: if you could actually know something, then
you have faith, if you just believe something, you are acting on
ignorance. The real question is, 'is there anything we can really know?'
We tend to think this is possible.
>
> In the early 20th century Bertrand Russell was talking about mature
sciences, that they do not deal with causality, they deal with
relationships. I think this is like the idea behind meditation.
Meditation gradually simplifies our experience of relationships until
there are none left. Very much like how physicists attempt to discover
how all things are related in a single equation, which would be a
unified field theory.
>
> I always thought Maharishi, in using the word 'wholeness', was
employing a cop-out to hide the religious nature behind TM, but in fact,
I now think it is an elegantly simple and accurate description, much
better than the metaphysical claptrap that accompanies spiritual
movements.
>
> As for the scientific and mystical. It is like a recipe and the
wonderful meal that it may become. You need both, but not necessarily at
the same time, and they are not in conflict with one another, they both
represent the same thing.
>

[FairfieldLife] Google upstaging Apple

[Bhairitu]

I should  have posted this earlier for any geeks here but the Google IO 
is live on Internet:
https://developers.google.com/events/io/

They just had 4 skydivers fly from a blimp to the roof of the Moscone 
Center in San Francisco showing their dive via Google Glass.

[FairfieldLife] Well Begun Is Half Done

[PaliGap]

Wake up with music that changes with the weather.

http://youtu.be/9kQCeAxe_aI

(What odd times these folks set their alarms to)

Now you see I think they've got this all wrong. You need
the jingly, cheerful music when "today is cloudy"; And the
downer stuff when it's "scorchio". 

http://youtu.be/kZMUAd7OJc8

Balancing the doshas and all that?

I think this June if I'd had this alarm where I live 
I'd be suicidal by now... 

"Hello! It's 10.0am. Today is grey, wet and windy. Again".
Cue dismal music - Dong,dong,da,dong,ding,da,dong,da,dong,
da,dong.

Re: [FairfieldLife] "Maharishisez" (was Re: TV review: "The Newsroom")

[Share Long]

Ok, Barry, you made me laugh.  And that's good enough for me.  It was the bit 
about TM quotes being tossed like grenades.  God knows why that tickled me.  
It's all unfathomable as far as I'm concerned.  Especially humor.


Oh, and that image of a house biting a person on the derriere.  That got a 
guffaw out of me too.


I guess I'm not sure what it means to be defensive.  Is explaining one's self 
the same thing?  Just curious.  In any case, my behavior probably won't change 
much.  64 on Friday and somewhat attached to my personality, especially the 
loveable foibles (-:


Thank you for all the positive words.  Means a lot.

I'm taking a Chinese herb to strengthen my optic nerve.  I have pre glaucoma.  
But the low pressure kind, whatever the heck that means!  Oy, don't get me 
started on Western, allopathic medicine.

Hey, watch it now!  No criticizing Joe Blow (-:

Just fyi, I'm bigger than both little rats and small dog sized rats.

Wow, I never knew the Unified Field=God!


Sigh!  I agree with you about thinking of life as a battle.  It's unhealthy.  
But I couldn't resist the quote because it's about being compassionate.  Which 
is not only healthy, but also supportive of happiness.  And the very best kind 
of playing.  IMunhumbleO (-:




 From: turquoiseb 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 10:38 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] "Maharishisez" (was Re: TV review: "The Newsroom")
 

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Apologies to any and all who felt upset by my use of the word 
> vata. And thanks Barry for bringing it to my attention. 

For the record, I was seeking neither an apology or
you or anyone else feeling guilty about using such
phrases. I certainly was seeking to provoke the 
defensiveness you seem to feel is necessary. I was 
poking a little fun at the use of such buzzwords to 
point out that not everyone believes that the various
"doshas" mean diddleysquat, or that they have any 
more relationship to health than the various bodily
"humors" did in medieval times.

> Hope you all can make allowances for the "new kid on the block."

No such allowances need be made. You do just fine.

> I did make an assumption that others know what vata means.

Many do. Especially if they lived through the Ayurveda
Brainwashing phase of the TM movement. It's just that 
some of us know what the word means without believing 
that it means diddleysquat. :-)

> And another assumption that those who didn't and were interested, 
> would either google or ask me.

All valid assumptions. I guess I was still reacting to
people here recently claiming that the universe is made
up of the elements of earth, air, fire, water, and 
ether, with a straight face, again because of (IMO) 
"Maharishisez." 

> I also assume that there are those on this forum who don't 
> enjoy my posts, either for content or style or both. 

If so, I am not one of them. I think you contribute
a great deal here, something I don't say about all
posters.

> I assume that they do what I do in such cases. 
> Skim or skip totally.
> 
> As for me supposedly believing that ayurveda is the highest 
> form of medicine...

I didn't suggest that about you, merely the TMO, which
sold its beliefs (and, incidentally, its many A-V products)
based on exactly that. 

> ...at this time I'm taking 6 supplements. ZERO are ayurvedic 
> herbs and one is actually a Chinese herb, which I've used in 
> the past and had great success with.

Which herb? I have taken Chinese tonic herbs in the past,
and swear by them. I have much more faith in them than
I do in Ayurvedic remedies. 

> On Monday I had a CAT scan and Tuesday, blood work, both 
> aspects of Western medicine. My actions speak for themselves.
> Hopefully (-:
> 
> OTOH, I do quote Maharishi a lot and will probably continue 
> to do so. I very much enjoy his expressions of spiritual 
> teaching. I also enjoy Adyashanti's expressions and sometimes 
> other teachers. But I'm not so familiar with those and 
> consequently don't quote as much. Again, everyone is
> welcome to skim or skip to their heart's contentment.

I have *no problem* with someone quoting Maharishi. I don't
even have a problem with them quoting him as "authoritative,"
although I don't personally believe he is, about pretty 
much anything. I do sometimes poke fun of those who throw
out a Maharishi quote as if it were a grenade, which, when
it explodes, will put a halt to further discussion and
"settle" everything, because...after all...Maharishisez. 

For me, that's as meaningless as "Joe Blow sez." :-)

> In addition to being in the Dome, I've also attended Ammachi 
> gatherings. I love to be hugged by her and I enjoy the bhajans.
> In the past I've participated in something called Waking Down 
> in Mutuality, mainly for the social contact.
> 
> I don't live in vastu though I have enjoyed being in vastu. 

I wouldn't know a vastu house if it snuck up and bit m

[FairfieldLife] Re: RIP Nora ques to Barry

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Oy, I've never even heard of your favorite writers! Which 
> I'm sure sez way more about me than about them (-:

Not really. Chris' books sell well, but he's not as
well known as many American humorists. Dorothy wrote
primarily historical fiction, which is not everyone's
cuppa tea.

> Anyway, I do the same thing. I read/watch stuff over and over.
> Same with music. Some people don't understand how I can watch 
> a movie over and over once I know the story. Or reread a novel.
> It's that my enjoyment is derived not only from the story, but 
> also from how it's told.

Exactly.

> And I'm also sensing that my taste is a little more low brow 
> than yours. Vive la difference! 

Not necessarily. Chris writes very middlebrow humor,
with occasional forays into brilliance, such as his
"Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's 
Childhood Pal." It's one of the most spiritual books
I've ever read. Really.

As for Dorothy, she was a trip. She was the wife of
Lord Alistair Dunnett, editor of The Scotsman, and
real-life model for Ian Fleming's James Bond. She 
only started writing in her late 30s, but developed
a rather fanatical following, among whom she is 
regarded as the best writer of the English language
in the 20th century. 

It's the mastery thang, as I suggested before. She
writes the best plots in the world, her history is
always impeccable (far better than historians'), 
but above all it's about her characters. They're
like peeling an onion. You think you know them 
when you first meet them, but 2000 pages later
she can make you gasp and say, "Jesus...I never
saw that coming. Now I have to go back and read
the book from the beginning." Suffice it to say
I have done just that, many times.

> 
>  From: turquoiseb 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 11:16 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: RIP Nora ques to Barry
>  
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Ok, thanks for explaining. So, who IS one of your favorite 
> > writers? I mean, that I might be familiar with given my 
> > limitations, weirdness, Domeness, etc. (-:
> 
> I'd rather not say, because there are some here who
> will leap upon them as a way of leaping upon me. But
> there are a few I've mentioned in the past. For funny,
> it's hard to beat Christopher Moore. For mastery,
> Dorothy Dunnett.
> 
> The bottom line for me when it comes to "Favorite
> Writers" is the same as for "Favorite Movies or TV."
> Repeatability. That is, do I want to read it twice,
> or even more than twice? As much as I liked Nora
> Ephron, she never met that criterion. The corollary
> to this criterion is whether the writing in question
> gets *better* with every reading. For Chris Moore,
> and for Lady Dunnett, this is always true.
> 
> > 
> >  From: turquoiseb 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 10:40 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: RIP Nora ques to Barry
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > >
> > > Ok, Barry, now I'm really confused. You say her writing style 
> > > was superb and she always made you laugh. BUT, she was not 
> > > one of your favorite writers!
> > > Huh? What am I missing here?
> > 
> > Many writers, few spots on the "Favorites" list.
> > 
> > > 
> > >  From: turquoiseb 
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 8:11 AM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] RIP Nora
> > > 
> > > Nora Ephron was never one of my favorite writers, but I 
> > > can say of her something I can't say about many others --
> > > she always made me laugh. Whether it was in the scripts
> > > of her movies or in articles for Esquire or the New Yorker
> > > or Huffington Post, she was a hoot. Her writing style was
> > > superb, and no matter how serious the subject, it almost 
> > > always seemed to be almost-but-not-quite-concealing-a-
> > > smile. If you don't know her except as the author of
> > > "When Harry Met Sally," here are a couple of short
> > > pieces to hopefully make you smile as well.
> > > 
> > > Her recent hilarious short parody of Stieg Larsson:
> > > http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2010/07/05/100705sh_shouts_ephron
> > > 
> > > Nora's famous slightly longer piece on becoming an heiress:
> > > http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/11/101011fa_fact_ephron
> > >
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fascinating NYTimes article, Kurzweil article

[Share Long]

par pitie'

I'm sort of joking about how all those film makers were right and the robots 
ARE taking over the world, cheating or not (-:




 From: marekreavis 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 11:30 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fascinating NYTimes article, Kurzweil article
 

  
Yes, Share, but the R-P-S robot hand cheats, using a camera to discern what 
gesture the human hand is about to form milli-seconds before it does so, and 
then countering with the winning gesture.

J'accuse!

***

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Following up:
> 
> http://www.kurzweilai.net/robot-hand-beats-you-at-rock-paper-scissors-100-of-the-time
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: marekreavis 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 10:01 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Fascinating NYTimes article
> 
> 
>   
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/technology/in-a-big-network-of-computers-evidence-of-machine-learning.html?
> 
> A 16,000-unit computer system teaches itself the concept of "cat" after 
> watching a lot of YouTube.
>


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: RIP Nora ques to Barry

[Share Long]

Oy, I've never even heard of your favorite writers!  Which I'm sure sez way 
more about me than about them (-:

Anyway, I do the same thing.  I read/watch stuff over and over.  Same with 
music.  Some people don't understand how I can watch a movie over and over once 
I know the story.  Or reread a novel.  It's that my enjoyment is derived not 
only from the story, but also from how it's told.

And I'm also sensing that my taste is a little more low brow than yours.  Vive 
la difference! 




 From: turquoiseb 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 11:16 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: RIP Nora ques to Barry
 

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Ok, thanks for explaining. So, who IS one of your favorite 
> writers? I mean, that I might be familiar with given my 
> limitations, weirdness, Domeness, etc. (-:

I'd rather not say, because there are some here who
will leap upon them as a way of leaping upon me. But
there are a few I've mentioned in the past. For funny,
it's hard to beat Christopher Moore. For mastery,
Dorothy Dunnett.

The bottom line for me when it comes to "Favorite
Writers" is the same as for "Favorite Movies or TV."
Repeatability. That is, do I want to read it twice,
or even more than twice? As much as I liked Nora
Ephron, she never met that criterion. The corollary
to this criterion is whether the writing in question
gets *better* with every reading. For Chris Moore,
and for Lady Dunnett, this is always true.

> 
>  From: turquoiseb 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 10:40 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: RIP Nora ques to Barry
> 
> 
>   
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Ok, Barry, now I'm really confused. You say her writing style 
> > was superb and she always made you laugh. BUT, she was not 
> > one of your favorite writers!
> > Huh? What am I missing here?
> 
> Many writers, few spots on the "Favorites" list.
> 
> > 
> >  From: turquoiseb 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 8:11 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] RIP Nora
> > 
> > Nora Ephron was never one of my favorite writers, but I 
> > can say of her something I can't say about many others --
> > she always made me laugh. Whether it was in the scripts
> > of her movies or in articles for Esquire or the New Yorker
> > or Huffington Post, she was a hoot. Her writing style was
> > superb, and no matter how serious the subject, it almost 
> > always seemed to be almost-but-not-quite-concealing-a-
> > smile. If you don't know her except as the author of
> > "When Harry Met Sally," here are a couple of short
> > pieces to hopefully make you smile as well.
> > 
> > Her recent hilarious short parody of Stieg Larsson:
> > http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2010/07/05/100705sh_shouts_ephron
> > 
> > Nora's famous slightly longer piece on becoming an heiress:
> > http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/11/101011fa_fact_ephron
> >
>


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fascinating NYTimes article, Kurzweil article

[marekreavis]

Yes, Share, but the R-P-S robot hand cheats, using a camera to discern what 
gesture the human hand is about to form milli-seconds before it does so, and 
then countering with the winning gesture.

J'accuse!

***

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Following up:
> 
> http://www.kurzweilai.net/robot-hand-beats-you-at-rock-paper-scissors-100-of-the-time
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: marekreavis 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 10:01 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Fascinating NYTimes article
>  
> 
>   
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/technology/in-a-big-network-of-computers-evidence-of-machine-learning.html?
> 
> A 16,000-unit computer system teaches itself the concept of "cat" after 
> watching a lot of YouTube.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] "Maharishisez" (was Re: TV review: "The Newsroom")

[Share Long]

Hi Judy,

Hey, I was raised Catholic so mea culpa ing comes naturally (-:

More seriously, apologizing for me neither involves self sacrifice nor feeling 
unhappy.  I'm happy to do it even if there's a small chance that I've hurt 
someone's feelings.  Going with the Marshall Rosenberg idea that no one causes 
anyone to feel anything.  But we can and do contribute to the emotional 
reactions of others.  I'd rather err on the side of apologizing than being 
oblivious to the feelings of other. 


Thank you for enjoying my participation here and for saying so.  It's wonderful 
to be in a forum that has so many cool women participants in addition to the 
men.

laughing (as I was during yogic flying this morning) because if someone knows 
my astrological chart, jyotish or otherwise, they realize that I'm weird.  And 
pretty good in the area of field independence.  OTOH, if reasonably possible, I 
enjoy getting along with people.  

As for being a TB, I started TM a few months after my marriage ended.  
Coincidently, I had just read Eric Hoffer's book, The True Believer.  When I 
traveled to MIU 6 months later, I realized I was in one categories of potential 
TB, being newly unspoused.  Nonetheless, I stayed for about 5 years, returned 
to DC area for 8 years, returned to Fairfield in 1988.  And here I am (-:




 From: authfriend 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 11:17 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] "Maharishisez" (was Re: TV review: "The Newsroom")
 

  
Share, all this mea culpa is utterly unnecessary. There are
a few people here who are happy only when they think they're
making others unhappy. If you're such a self-sacrificing
person that you want to make them happy by letting them make
you unhappy, fine. Otherwise just realize how twisted and
miserable they are and don't let 'em get you down. It's
*their* problem, not yours.

You're a great addition to this group and have absolutely
nothing to apologize for.

"My point is that not all long term TMers are TBs. To think
so is simply a form of prejudice such as has been around as
long as there have been humans who disagree with one another."

Excellently well said. But you should know that the person
who purports to think this does not, in fact, really think
it. He knows otherwise. He just wants to intimidate you into
not saying positive things about TM lest he label you a TB.
But even if he did, nobody here would believe him, so you
have nothing to worry about on that score.

The writer of the post you're responding to is doing his best
to make you believe it's important that the rest of the world
think of you as rational and stable, and if they don't, you
need to adjust your thinking and behavior. That's very
amusing, because this same writer would be the first to
reject that notion as applied to himself: If he's declared
once here, he's declared it scores of times--he doesn't give
a hoot what *anybody* thinks of him.

(At least that's what he'd like us to believe.)

Oh, and as far as saying things the rest of the world would
feel were "a little weird," ask the writer about his
experiences with that Rama dude out in the desert. ;-)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Apologies to any and all who felt upset by my use of the word vata.  And 
> thanks Barry for bringing it to my attention.  Hope you all can make 
> allowances for the "new kid on the block."  I did make an assumption that 
> others know what vata means.  And another assumption that those who didn't 
> and were interested, would either google or ask me.  
> 
> I also assume that there are those on this forum who don't enjoy my posts, 
> either for content or style or
>  both.  I assume that they do what I do in such cases.  
> Skim or skip totally.
> 
> 
> As for me supposedly believing that ayurveda is the highest form of medicine, 
> at this time I'm taking 6 supplements.  ZERO are ayurvedic herbs and one is 
> actually a Chinese herb, which I've used in the past and had great success 
> with.  On Monday I had a CAT scan and Tuesday, blood work, both aspects of 
> Western medicine.  My actions speak for themselves.  Hopefully (-:
> 
> OTOH, I do quote Maharishi a lot and will probably continue to do so.  I 
> very much enjoy his expressions of spiritual teaching.  I also enjoy 
> Adyashanti's expressions and sometimes other teachers.  But I'm not so 
> familiar with those and consequently don't quote as much. Again, everyone is
>  welcome to skim or skip to their heart's contentment.  
> 
> In addition to being in the Dome, I've also attended Ammachi gatherings.  I 
> love to be hugged by her and I enjoy the bhajans.
> In the past I've participated in something called Waking Down in Mutuality, 
> mainly for the social contact.
> 
> I don't live in vastu though I have enjoyed being in vastu.  I very much 
> enjoy jyotish and read several non TM teachers of that.  I also really like 
> Chinese

[FairfieldLife] "Maharishisez" (was Re: TV review: "The Newsroom")

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Apologies to any and all who felt upset by my use of the word 
> vata. And thanks Barry for bringing it to my attention. 

For the record, I was seeking neither an apology or
you or anyone else feeling guilty about using such
phrases. I certainly was seeking to provoke the 
defensiveness you seem to feel is necessary. I was 
poking a little fun at the use of such buzzwords to 
point out that not everyone believes that the various
"doshas" mean diddleysquat, or that they have any 
more relationship to health than the various bodily
"humors" did in medieval times.

> Hope you all can make allowances for the "new kid on the block."

No such allowances need be made. You do just fine.

> I did make an assumption that others know what vata means.

Many do. Especially if they lived through the Ayurveda
Brainwashing phase of the TM movement. It's just that 
some of us know what the word means without believing 
that it means diddleysquat. :-)

> And another assumption that those who didn't and were interested, 
> would either google or ask me.

All valid assumptions. I guess I was still reacting to
people here recently claiming that the universe is made
up of the elements of earth, air, fire, water, and 
ether, with a straight face, again because of (IMO) 
"Maharishisez." 
 
> I also assume that there are those on this forum who don't 
> enjoy my posts, either for content or style or both. 

If so, I am not one of them. I think you contribute
a great deal here, something I don't say about all
posters.

> I assume that they do what I do in such cases. 
> Skim or skip totally.
> 
> As for me supposedly believing that ayurveda is the highest 
> form of medicine...

I didn't suggest that about you, merely the TMO, which
sold its beliefs (and, incidentally, its many A-V products)
based on exactly that. 

> ...at this time I'm taking 6 supplements. ZERO are ayurvedic 
> herbs and one is actually a Chinese herb, which I've used in 
> the past and had great success with.

Which herb? I have taken Chinese tonic herbs in the past,
and swear by them. I have much more faith in them than
I do in Ayurvedic remedies. 

> On Monday I had a CAT scan and Tuesday, blood work, both 
> aspects of Western medicine. My actions speak for themselves.
> Hopefully (-:
> 
> OTOH, I do quote Maharishi a lot and will probably continue 
> to do so. I very much enjoy his expressions of spiritual 
> teaching. I also enjoy Adyashanti's expressions and sometimes 
> other teachers. But I'm not so familiar with those and 
> consequently don't quote as much. Again, everyone is
> welcome to skim or skip to their heart's contentment.

I have *no problem* with someone quoting Maharishi. I don't
even have a problem with them quoting him as "authoritative,"
although I don't personally believe he is, about pretty 
much anything. I do sometimes poke fun of those who throw
out a Maharishi quote as if it were a grenade, which, when
it explodes, will put a halt to further discussion and
"settle" everything, because...after all...Maharishisez. 

For me, that's as meaningless as "Joe Blow sez." :-)

> In addition to being in the Dome, I've also attended Ammachi 
> gatherings. I love to be hugged by her and I enjoy the bhajans.
> In the past I've participated in something called Waking Down 
> in Mutuality, mainly for the social contact.
> 
> I don't live in vastu though I have enjoyed being in vastu. 

I wouldn't know a vastu house if it snuck up and bit me
on the ass. Although I certainly would have reservations
about living in a house that bit me on the ass. :-)

> I very much enjoy jyotish and read several non TM teachers of 
> that. 

I think of Jyotish and other forms of astrology as enter-
tainment, and as such can appreciate them for short periods
of time. I do think of them as pseudoscience, however, and
would no more base anything in my life on their predictions
than I would invest in Facebook based on the initial hype 
about its IPO.

> I also really like Chinese astrology (earth rat) and Western 
> astrology.

Don't know anything about Chinese astrology, but I do like 
rats. The cute, pet-size rats, that is. Not the rats the
size of a small dog who used to live in my alley in Boston.

> My point is that not all long term TMers are TBs. 

I don't think they are. I *do* think that many of them
have lost sight of how peculiar the terms they throw
around about TM and its philosophy are. They've just
heard them so often over the years that they think
these terms come with a kind of built-in Douglas
Adams "Babel fish" that translates them universally.
Like when Buck says "The Unified Field" and expects
every reader to hear "God."  :-)

> To think so is simply a form of prejudice such as has been 
> around as long as there have been humans who disagree with 
> one another.

So who believes that all long-term TMers are TBs? 
I don't. There are many examples of long-term TMers
who are not TM True Beli

[FairfieldLife] Re: RIP Nora ques to Barry

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Ok, thanks for explaining. So, who IS one of your favorite 
> > writers? I mean, that I might be familiar with given my 
> > limitations, weirdness, Domeness, etc. (-:
> 
> I'd rather not say,

(Says Barry, going on to say anyway. "I'd rather not" is
just a rhetorical turn to allow him to dump on people
here he doesn't like.)

> because there are some here who
> will leap upon them as a way of leaping upon me.

Translation: "Anyone who criticizes the writers (movies,
TV shows, music and musicians, whatever) I like is ipso
facto criticizing *me*. (Just ignore the fact that I
mock anybody who disagrees with my criticisms of their
belief system/spiritual technique/guru/whatever as
having identified themselves so completely with what I'm
criticizing that they take my criticisms as criticisms
of themselves. I'm nothing if not inconsistent.)"






 But
> there are a few I've mentioned in the past. For funny,
> it's hard to beat Christopher Moore. For mastery,
> Dorothy Dunnett.
> 
> The bottom line for me when it comes to "Favorite
> Writers" is the same as for "Favorite Movies or TV."
> Repeatability. That is, do I want to read it twice,
> or even more than twice? As much as I liked Nora
> Ephron, she never met that criterion. The corollary
> to this criterion is whether the writing in question
> gets *better* with every reading. For Chris Moore,
> and for Lady Dunnett, this is always true.
> 
> > 
> >  From: turquoiseb 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 10:40 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: RIP Nora ques to Barry
> >  
> > 
> >   
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > >
> > > Ok, Barry, now I'm really confused. You say her writing style 
> > > was superb and she always made you laugh. BUT, she was not 
> > > one of your favorite writers!
> > > Huh? What am I missing here?
> > 
> > Many writers, few spots on the "Favorites" list.
> > 
> > > 
> > >  From: turquoiseb 
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 8:11 AM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] RIP Nora
> > > 
> > > Nora Ephron was never one of my favorite writers, but I 
> > > can say of her something I can't say about many others --
> > > she always made me laugh. Whether it was in the scripts
> > > of her movies or in articles for Esquire or the New Yorker
> > > or Huffington Post, she was a hoot. Her writing style was
> > > superb, and no matter how serious the subject, it almost 
> > > always seemed to be almost-but-not-quite-concealing-a-
> > > smile. If you don't know her except as the author of
> > > "When Harry Met Sally," here are a couple of short
> > > pieces to hopefully make you smile as well.
> > > 
> > > Her recent hilarious short parody of Stieg Larsson:
> > > http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2010/07/05/100705sh_shouts_ephron
> > > 
> > > Nora's famous slightly longer piece on becoming an heiress:
> > > http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/11/101011fa_fact_ephron
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] "Maharishisez" (was Re: TV review: "The Newsroom")

[authfriend]

Share, all this mea culpa is utterly unnecessary. There are
a few people here who are happy only when they think they're
making others unhappy. If you're such a self-sacrificing
person that you want to make them happy by letting them make
you unhappy, fine. Otherwise just realize how twisted and
miserable they are and don't let 'em get you down. It's
*their* problem, not yours.

You're a great addition to this group and have absolutely
nothing to apologize for.

"My point is that not all long term TMers are TBs. To think
so is simply a form of prejudice such as has been around as
long as there have been humans who disagree with one another."

Excellently well said. But you should know that the person
who purports to think this does not, in fact, really think
it. He knows otherwise. He just wants to intimidate you into
not saying positive things about TM lest he label you a TB.
But even if he did, nobody here would believe him, so you
have nothing to worry about on that score.

The writer of the post you're responding to is doing his best
to make you believe it's important that the rest of the world
think of you as rational and stable, and if they don't, you
need to adjust your thinking and behavior. That's very
amusing, because this same writer would be the first to
reject that notion as applied to himself: If he's declared
once here, he's declared it scores of times--he doesn't give
a hoot what *anybody* thinks of him.

(At least that's what he'd like us to believe.)

Oh, and as far as saying things the rest of the world would
feel were "a little weird," ask the writer about his
experiences with that Rama dude out in the desert. ;-)



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Apologies to any and all who felt upset by my use of the word vata.  And 
> thanks Barry for bringing it to my attention.  Hope you all can make 
> allowances for the "new kid on the block."  I did make an assumption that 
> others know what vata means.  And another assumption that those who didn't 
> and were interested, would either google or ask me.  
> 
> I also assume that there are those on this forum who don't enjoy my posts, 
> either for content or style or
>  both.  I assume that they do what I do in such cases.  
> Skim or skip totally.
> 
> 
> As for me supposedly believing that ayurveda is the highest form of medicine, 
> at this time I'm taking 6 supplements.  ZERO are ayurvedic herbs and one is 
> actually a Chinese herb, which I've used in the past and had great success 
> with.  On Monday I had a CAT scan and Tuesday, blood work, both aspects of 
> Western medicine.  My actions speak for themselves.  Hopefully (-:
> 
> OTOH, I do quote Maharishi a lot and will probably continue to do so.  I 
> very much enjoy his expressions of spiritual teaching.  I also enjoy 
> Adyashanti's expressions and sometimes other teachers.  But I'm not so 
> familiar with those and consequently don't quote as much. Again, everyone is
>  welcome to skim or skip to their heart's contentment.  
> 
> In addition to being in the Dome, I've also attended Ammachi gatherings.  I 
> love to be hugged by her and I enjoy the bhajans.
> In the past I've participated in something called Waking Down in Mutuality, 
> mainly for the social contact.
> 
> I don't live in vastu though I have enjoyed being in vastu.  I very much 
> enjoy jyotish and read several non TM teachers of that.  I also really like 
> Chinese astrology (earth rat) and Western astrology.
> 
> My point is that not all long term TMers are TBs. To think
> so is simply a form of prejudice such as has been around as
> long as there have been humans who disagree with one another.
> 
> Having a family who does not practice TM, I am well aware that many people 
> think it's weird.  Over the years we all have come to more peace about one 
> another's differentness.  I don't quote Maharishi to them often.  Doesn't 
> fit as well at a Christmas gathering as it does on a spiritual forum.
> 
> As for flooding the forum, seems to me that can be done with even just ONE 
> post.
> 
> Finally, some New Age claptrap (another favorite phrase of mine) from Plato 
> maybe.  URL provided for those who want to trace quote.
> Be kind.  Everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.  
> 
> http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/06/29/be-kind/
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: turquoiseb 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 2:43 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] "Maharishisez" (was Re: TV review: "The Newsroom")
>  
> 
>   
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > laughing because vata schmata is something I would say!
> 
> Glad that you, at least, got that. :-)
> 
> > Anyway, Ann, I don't know how I can be so Bronze Aged 
> > because I don't know what that means! Aged in a bronze 
> > lined barrel like fine wine or something? As for more 
> > than a little deranged, my vata is often that. But I'm 

[FairfieldLife] Re: RIP Nora ques to Barry

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Ok, thanks for explaining. So, who IS one of your favorite 
> writers? I mean, that I might be familiar with given my 
> limitations, weirdness, Domeness, etc. (-:

I'd rather not say, because there are some here who
will leap upon them as a way of leaping upon me. But
there are a few I've mentioned in the past. For funny,
it's hard to beat Christopher Moore. For mastery,
Dorothy Dunnett.

The bottom line for me when it comes to "Favorite
Writers" is the same as for "Favorite Movies or TV."
Repeatability. That is, do I want to read it twice,
or even more than twice? As much as I liked Nora
Ephron, she never met that criterion. The corollary
to this criterion is whether the writing in question
gets *better* with every reading. For Chris Moore,
and for Lady Dunnett, this is always true.

> 
>  From: turquoiseb 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 10:40 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: RIP Nora ques to Barry
>  
> 
>   
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Ok, Barry, now I'm really confused. You say her writing style 
> > was superb and she always made you laugh. BUT, she was not 
> > one of your favorite writers!
> > Huh? What am I missing here?
> 
> Many writers, few spots on the "Favorites" list.
> 
> > 
> >  From: turquoiseb 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 8:11 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] RIP Nora
> > 
> > Nora Ephron was never one of my favorite writers, but I 
> > can say of her something I can't say about many others --
> > she always made me laugh. Whether it was in the scripts
> > of her movies or in articles for Esquire or the New Yorker
> > or Huffington Post, she was a hoot. Her writing style was
> > superb, and no matter how serious the subject, it almost 
> > always seemed to be almost-but-not-quite-concealing-a-
> > smile. If you don't know her except as the author of
> > "When Harry Met Sally," here are a couple of short
> > pieces to hopefully make you smile as well.
> > 
> > Her recent hilarious short parody of Stieg Larsson:
> > http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2010/07/05/100705sh_shouts_ephron
> > 
> > Nora's famous slightly longer piece on becoming an heiress:
> > http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/11/101011fa_fact_ephron
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris Book

[Susan]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan"  wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >> Sam Harris is writing a book, with the working title 'Waking Up: A 
> >> Scientist Looks at Spirituality' due to be finished sometime near the end 
> >> of the year. This one should be interesting.
> >> 
> >> http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/look-into-my-eyes
> > 
> > The video segment on Osho speaking on the link is a reminder of how 
> > especially young people can follow and adjust their their own beliefs to 
> > those of someone who really has only basic wisdom to offer, and combines 
> > that with being exotic, having an accent, and being a touch different or 
> > odd or provocative. Osho never blinked in the few minutes that I watched 
> > it!! Creepy, really.
> > 
> > I will read this new book when it comes out, because this is the stuff I 
> > think about and care about - the science of those experiences. But a part 
> > of me misses the mystery of it all that went along with the sureness of 
> > faith. I have some trouble reconciling the two ways of looking at awakening 
> > - scientific and mystical. I think ignorance of the mind is where the bliss 
> > is. What I wish for is that on the other side of that understanding of 
> > exactly where and how our brains create spiritual experience, there is a 
> > Reality or Presence that causes the brain to behave in that way. That that 
> > Reality is the cause, not simply some shift in brain functioning and that 
> > is it.
> 
> I do not think the mystery goes away; instead of believing it, or looking for 
> it, one eventually just lives it, not thinking about it so much. The 
> philosopher Wittgenstein put it that the mystical is 'that the world is, not 
> how it is'. These spiritual practices we engage in are for the purpose of 
> closing the gap between faith, which is believing in something we do not 
> experience (in other words, pretending to say we know something when we do 
> not), and our experience. If that does happen eventually, believing and faith 
> is redundant. I have always thought people have had it backwards: if you 
> could actually know something, then you have faith, if you just believe 
> something, you are acting on ignorance. The real question is, 'is there 
> anything we can really know?' We tend to think this is possible.
> 
> In the early 20th century Bertrand Russell was talking about mature sciences, 
> that they do not deal with causality, they deal with relationships. I think 
> this is like the idea behind meditation. Meditation gradually simplifies our 
> experience of relationships until there are none left. Very much like how 
> physicists attempt to discover how all things are related in a single 
> equation, which would be a unified field theory.
> 
> I always thought Maharishi, in using the word 'wholeness', was employing a 
> cop-out to hide the religious nature behind TM, but in fact, I now think it 
> is an elegantly simple and accurate description, much better than the 
> metaphysical claptrap that accompanies spiritual movements.
> 
> As for the scientific and mystical. It is like a recipe and the wonderful 
> meal that it may become. You need both, but not necessarily at the same time, 
> and they are not in conflict with one another, they both represent the same 
> thing.
>

Wise and comforting words, Xeno.  Thanks, and I printed it out for those 
moments when I need to know it again.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: RIP Nora ques to Barry

[Share Long]

Ok, thanks for explaining.  So, who IS one of your favorite writers?  I mean, 
that I might be familiar with given my limitations, weirdness, Domeness, etc. 
(-:





 From: turquoiseb 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 10:40 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: RIP Nora ques to Barry
 

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Ok, Barry, now I'm really confused. You say her writing style 
> was superb and she always made you laugh. BUT, she was not 
> one of your favorite writers!
> Huh? What am I missing here?

Many writers, few spots on the "Favorites" list.

> 
>  From: turquoiseb 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 8:11 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] RIP Nora
> 
> Nora Ephron was never one of my favorite writers, but I 
> can say of her something I can't say about many others --
> she always made me laugh. Whether it was in the scripts
> of her movies or in articles for Esquire or the New Yorker
> or Huffington Post, she was a hoot. Her writing style was
> superb, and no matter how serious the subject, it almost 
> always seemed to be almost-but-not-quite-concealing-a-
> smile. If you don't know her except as the author of
> "When Harry Met Sally," here are a couple of short
> pieces to hopefully make you smile as well.
> 
> Her recent hilarious short parody of Stieg Larsson:
> http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2010/07/05/100705sh_shouts_ephron
> 
> Nora's famous slightly longer piece on becoming an heiress:
> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/11/101011fa_fact_ephron
>


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: RIP Nora

[merudanda]

RIP
Mike Nichols profiled her
 .

Oh -this crazy  especially  gifted  New Yorker writer Nora Ephron 
transcending some details! :)

"She went to the bathroom and got a Q-tip and gently cleaned the area
around the Alt key. It popped into place. Then she pressed "U."
An umlaut danced before her eyes".



Should someone's gonna say it, so it may as well be me.
Isn't the "Alt" key on a Mac  actually an "Option key"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_key
Nora Ephron's writing and directing was so remarkably honest, touching
and funny -  One of this honest, touching and funny scene of one of many
Nora Ephron movies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=q-NrI_TMjIo
Nora Ephron Gave Me My Dreams
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/meghan-okeefe/nora-ephron-remembrance_b_16\
30626.html
To-Do List: Remembering Nora Ephron; Rangel and Hatch Win
Posted by Nadine Zylberberg

Read more
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/06/to-do-list-nora-e\
phron-rangel-and-hatch.html#ixzz1z0ceqc6s

Mike Nichols told me a few years ago when I profiled her
 .
"Nora knows what to do: I think that's the main thing about
her."
Read more
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2012/06/nora-ephron-everyo\
nes-arch-and-insightful-new-best-friend.html#ixzz1z0dzvmFJ





--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> Nora Ephron was never one of my favorite writers, but I
> can say of her something I can't say about many others --
> she always made me laugh. Whether it was in the scripts
> of her movies or in articles for Esquire or the New Yorker
> or Huffington Post, she was a hoot. Her writing style was
> superb, and no matter how serious the subject, it almost
> always seemed to be almost-but-not-quite-concealing-a-
> smile. If you don't know her except as the author of
> "When Harry Met Sally," here are a couple of short
> pieces to hopefully make you smile as well.
>
> Her recent hilarious short parody of Stieg Larsson:
> http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2010/07/05/100705sh_shouts_ephron
>
> Nora's famous slightly longer piece on becoming an heiress:
> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/11/101011fa_fact_ephron
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: RIP Nora ques to Barry

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Ok, Barry, now I'm really confused. You say her writing style 
> was superb and she always made you laugh. BUT, she was not 
> one of your favorite writers!
> Huh? What am I missing here?

Many writers, few spots on the "Favorites" list.

> 
>  From: turquoiseb 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 8:11 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] RIP Nora
>  
> Nora Ephron was never one of my favorite writers, but I 
> can say of her something I can't say about many others --
> she always made me laugh. Whether it was in the scripts
> of her movies or in articles for Esquire or the New Yorker
> or Huffington Post, she was a hoot. Her writing style was
> superb, and no matter how serious the subject, it almost 
> always seemed to be almost-but-not-quite-concealing-a-
> smile. If you don't know her except as the author of
> "When Harry Met Sally," here are a couple of short
> pieces to hopefully make you smile as well.
> 
> Her recent hilarious short parody of Stieg Larsson:
> http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2010/07/05/100705sh_shouts_ephron
> 
> Nora's famous slightly longer piece on becoming an heiress:
> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/11/101011fa_fact_ephron
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Fascinating NYTimes article, Kurzweil article

[Share Long]

Following up:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/robot-hand-beats-you-at-rock-paper-scissors-100-of-the-time




 From: marekreavis 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 10:01 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Fascinating NYTimes article
 

  
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/technology/in-a-big-network-of-computers-evidence-of-machine-learning.html?

A 16,000-unit computer system teaches itself the concept of "cat" after 
watching a lot of YouTube.


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RIP Nora ques to Barry

[Share Long]

Ok, Barry, now I'm really confused.  You say her writing style was superb and 
she always made you laugh.  BUT, she was not one of your favorite writers!
Huh?  What am I missing here?




 From: turquoiseb 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 8:11 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] RIP Nora
 

  
Nora Ephron was never one of my favorite writers, but I 
can say of her something I can't say about many others --
she always made me laugh. Whether it was in the scripts
of her movies or in articles for Esquire or the New Yorker
or Huffington Post, she was a hoot. Her writing style was
superb, and no matter how serious the subject, it almost 
always seemed to be almost-but-not-quite-concealing-a-
smile. If you don't know her except as the author of
"When Harry Met Sally," here are a couple of short
pieces to hopefully make you smile as well.

Her recent hilarious short parody of Stieg Larsson:
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2010/07/05/100705sh_shouts_ephron

Nora's famous slightly longer piece on becoming an heiress:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/11/101011fa_fact_ephron


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris Book

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan"  wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"  
> wrote:
>>
>> Sam Harris is writing a book, with the working title 'Waking Up: A Scientist 
>> Looks at Spirituality' due to be finished sometime near the end of the year. 
>> This one should be interesting.
>> 
>> http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/look-into-my-eyes
> 
> The video segment on Osho speaking on the link is a reminder of how 
> especially young people can follow and adjust their their own beliefs to 
> those of someone who really has only basic wisdom to offer, and combines that 
> with being exotic, having an accent, and being a touch different or odd or 
> provocative. Osho never blinked in the few minutes that I watched it!! 
> Creepy, really.
> 
> I will read this new book when it comes out, because this is the stuff I 
> think about and care about - the science of those experiences. But a part of 
> me misses the mystery of it all that went along with the sureness of faith. I 
> have some trouble reconciling the two ways of looking at awakening - 
> scientific and mystical. I think ignorance of the mind is where the bliss is. 
> What I wish for is that on the other side of that understanding of exactly 
> where and how our brains create spiritual experience, there is a Reality or 
> Presence that causes the brain to behave in that way. That that Reality is 
> the cause, not simply some shift in brain functioning and that is it.

I do not think the mystery goes away; instead of believing it, or looking for 
it, one eventually just lives it, not thinking about it so much. The 
philosopher Wittgenstein put it that the mystical is 'that the world is, not 
how it is'. These spiritual practices we engage in are for the purpose of 
closing the gap between faith, which is believing in something we do not 
experience (in other words, pretending to say we know something when we do 
not), and our experience. If that does happen eventually, believing and faith 
is redundant. I have always thought people have had it backwards: if you could 
actually know something, then you have faith, if you just believe something, 
you are acting on ignorance. The real question is, 'is there anything we can 
really know?' We tend to think this is possible.

In the early 20th century Bertrand Russell was talking about mature sciences, 
that they do not deal with causality, they deal with relationships. I think 
this is like the idea behind meditation. Meditation gradually simplifies our 
experience of relationships until there are none left. Very much like how 
physicists attempt to discover how all things are related in a single equation, 
which would be a unified field theory.

I always thought Maharishi, in using the word 'wholeness', was employing a 
cop-out to hide the religious nature behind TM, but in fact, I now think it is 
an elegantly simple and accurate description, much better than the metaphysical 
claptrap that accompanies spiritual movements.

As for the scientific and mystical. It is like a recipe and the wonderful meal 
that it may become. You need both, but not necessarily at the same time, and 
they are not in conflict with one another, they both represent the same thing.

Re: [FairfieldLife] "Maharishisez" (was Re: TV review: "The Newsroom")

[Share Long]

Apologies to any and all who felt upset by my use of the word vata.  And thanks 
Barry for bringing it to my attention.  Hope you all can make allowances for 
the "new kid on the block."  I did make an assumption that others know what 
vata means.  And another assumption that those who didn't and were interested, 
would either google or ask me.  

I also assume that there are those on this forum who don't enjoy my posts, 
either for content or style or
 both.  I assume that they do what I do in such cases.  
Skim or skip totally.


As for me supposedly believing that ayurveda is the highest form of medicine, 
at this time I'm taking 6 supplements.  ZERO are ayurvedic herbs and one is 
actually a Chinese herb, which I've used in the past and had great success 
with.  On Monday I had a CAT scan and Tuesday, blood work, both aspects of 
Western medicine.  My actions speak for themselves.  Hopefully (-:

OTOH, I do quote Maharishi a lot and will probably continue to do so.  I very 
much enjoy his expressions of spiritual teaching.  I also enjoy Adyashanti's 
expressions and sometimes other teachers.  But I'm not so familiar with those 
and consequently don't quote as much. Again, everyone is
 welcome to skim or skip to their heart's contentment.  

In addition to being in the Dome, I've also attended Ammachi gatherings.  I 
love to be hugged by her and I enjoy the bhajans.
In the past I've participated in something called Waking Down in Mutuality, 
mainly for the social contact.

I don't live in vastu though I have enjoyed being in vastu.  I very much enjoy 
jyotish and read several non TM teachers of that.  I also really like Chinese 
astrology (earth rat) and Western astrology.

My point is that not all long term TMers are TBs.  To think so is simply a form 
of prejudice such as has been around as long as there have been humans who 
disagree with one another.


Having a family who does not practice TM, I am well aware that many people 
think it's weird.  Over the years we all have come to more peace about one 
another's differentness.  I don't quote Maharishi to them often.  Doesn't fit 
as well at a Christmas gathering as it does on a spiritual forum.

As for flooding the forum, seems to me that can be done with even just ONE post.

Finally, some New Age claptrap (another favorite phrase of mine) from Plato 
maybe.  URL provided for those who want to trace quote.
Be kind.  Everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.  

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/06/29/be-kind/




 From: turquoiseb 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 2:43 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] "Maharishisez" (was Re: TV review: "The Newsroom")
 

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> laughing because vata schmata is something I would say!

Glad that you, at least, got that. :-)

> Anyway, Ann, I don't know how I can be so Bronze Aged 
> because I don't know what that means! Aged in a bronze 
> lined barrel like fine wine or something? As for more 
> than a little deranged, my vata is often that. But I'm 
> working on it. 

My comment was about the tendency of TMers to throw
around terms as if 1) everyone knew what they meant,
as if 2) everyone agrees that they are meaningful 
and/or have any relationship to reality, and 3) as if
they are actually "saying something" by invoking some
a buzzword or buzzphrase taught to them by Maharishi.

You have to remember where I'm "coming from," Share.
I blew out of the TM movement back during the time
when the only "Maharishisez" buzzphrases we had been
exposed to and expected to revere as if they were
wisdom were:

* TM is the best, fastest, and most effective means
of gaining enlightenment on the planet.
* Any form of concentration during meditation is BAD,
contrary to the natural tendency of the mind, and
probably evil. 
* All TMers will achieve Cosmic Consciousness within
5 to 8 years of starting TM.
* Stress has something -- anything -- to do with not
being enlightened.
* If you practice the TM-Sidhis one day you will 
float in the air, demonstrating real levitation.
* If we can get 1% of the world's population to prac-
tice TM, we can achieve world peace. (Later downgraded
to 1% of 1%, but whatever.)

That was pretty much it. Those were the full extent
of the Maharishisez Mandates we were expected to believe
in and repeat as if they were true. I rejected pretty
much ALL of them as invalid within months of leaving
the TMO.

But now think of all the things I never *was* exposed
to, and which modern-day TMers repeat as if they were
true, and IMO *only because of "Maharishisez"*:

* People practicing the TM-Sidhis in a group emanate
such powerful Woo Woo that they can change the weather,
reduce crime, and save the world from destruction.
* Buildings built according to old Bronze Age super-
stitions (which architects point out don't look any-
thing like actual Vedic age buildings, and resemble
more closely the architec

[FairfieldLife] Re: RIP Nora

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> Nora Ephron was never one of my favorite writers, but I 
> can say of her something I can't say about many others --
> she always made me laugh. Whether it was in the scripts
> of her movies or in articles for Esquire or the New Yorker
> or Huffington Post, she was a hoot. Her writing style was
> superb, and no matter how serious the subject, it almost 
> always seemed to be almost-but-not-quite-concealing-a-
> smile. If you don't know her except as the author of
> "When Harry Met Sally," here are a couple of short
> pieces to hopefully make you smile as well.
> 
> Her recent hilarious short parody of Stieg Larsson:
> http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2010/07/05/100705sh_shouts_ephron

That certainly made me smile, especially the bit about not
knowing where you are in Sweden I got a map out to try and
navigate my way through Larsson's books but was still none 
wiser!
 
> Nora's famous slightly longer piece on becoming an heiress:
> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/11/101011fa_fact_ephron
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Yahoo Groups Chat being shut down

[Richard J. Williams]

> I just installed a new printer...
>
Alex Stanley:
> Now, if they tried that with laser printers, there'd
> be hell to pay because toner cartridges can sit around
> for ages and still work just fine...
>
Seriously considering this one, unless I go with the
ethernet or the wireless business class - there is an
optional external print server available for increased
productivity for a small home office:

Canon Monochrome Laser All-in-One Printer MF3240
$138.99


"Bought this unit after going through several inkjet machines
over the past few years. I decided to forego color printing for
the economics of a laser printer. I expected the quality to
reflect the reasonable price, but the machine has the sturdy
feel of small-business equipment. It's quiet, fast, and has
good-quality output. It's a very good buy." - Thomas J. Laginja

Amazon review;
http://tinyurl.com/89bqhbc 

[FairfieldLife] RIP Nora

[turquoiseb]

Nora Ephron was never one of my favorite writers, but I 
can say of her something I can't say about many others --
she always made me laugh. Whether it was in the scripts
of her movies or in articles for Esquire or the New Yorker
or Huffington Post, she was a hoot. Her writing style was
superb, and no matter how serious the subject, it almost 
always seemed to be almost-but-not-quite-concealing-a-
smile. If you don't know her except as the author of
"When Harry Met Sally," here are a couple of short
pieces to hopefully make you smile as well.

Her recent hilarious short parody of Stieg Larsson:
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2010/07/05/100705sh_shouts_ephron

Nora's famous slightly longer piece on becoming an heiress:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/11/101011fa_fact_ephron

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris Book

[Susan]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> Sam Harris is writing a book, with the working title 'Waking Up: A Scientist 
> Looks at Spirituality' due to be finished sometime near the end of the year. 
> This one should be interesting.
> 
> http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/look-into-my-eyes
>

The video segment on Osho speaking on the link is a reminder of how especially 
young people can follow and adjust their their own beliefs to those of someone 
who really has only basic wisdom to offer, and combines that with being exotic, 
having an accent, and being a touch different or odd or provocative.  Osho 
never blinked in the few minutes that I watched it!!  Creepy, really.

I will read this new book when it comes out, because this is the stuff I think 
about and care about - the science of those experiences. But a part of me 
misses the mystery of it all that went along with the sureness of faith.  I 
have some trouble reconciling the two ways of looking at awakening - scientific 
and mystical.  I think ignorance of the mind is where the bliss is.  What I 
wish for is that on the other side of that understanding of exactly where and 
how our brains create spiritual experience, there is a Reality or Presence that 
causes the brain to behave in that way. That that Reality is the cause, not 
simply some shift in brain functioning and that is it.   

[FairfieldLife] Re: Recycled Karma!

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>
> 
> http://www.fiskerautomotive.com/en-us
>

Facilities

The global headquarters for Fisker Automotive is located in Anaheim, 
California. Centrally located in Southern California, the facility reflects the 
company's philosophy for sustainability. The recycled flooring, animal 
cruelty-free furniture, solar-powered signage, use of compact fluorescent light 
bulbs and ongoing recycling efforts keeps every team member and associate fully 
engaged in this core company mission. Fisker retail facilities also reflect 
this same philosophy in order to reduce the environmental impact of the entire 
Fisker operation on a global scale. Locations include: Delaware, Munich, 
Beijing, Finland.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Line of Duty

[Vaj]

On Jun 26, 2012, at 7:00 PM, Bhairitu wrote:


Probably on BBC America delayed by weeks or months and censored. They
don't like to upset Americans by showing them anything that is too
smart. ;-)



Like the frontal female nudity that banned "Trailer Park Boys", an  
important look into rural Canadian culture, from BBC America  
airwaves...it's amazing to me I can drive a mere hour north and see  
very different TV.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Line of Duty

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > Don't badrap British TV series too badly, or
> > compare them negatively to Danish TV too much. It was
> > the Brits, after all, who created brilliant series
> > such as "Life On Mars," "Luther," "Jekyll," "Sherlock,"
> > "Prime Suspect," "Smiley's People," "The Hour," and 
> > "The Shadow Line." 
> 
> I'm one of the few people who never saw Life on Mars,
> but I didn't like most of the others with the exception
> of Smileys People. Sherlock had its moments though, I
> gave it a try even though I'm a Sherlock traditionalist
> and thought the characters were excellent but I'm no
> fan of Moffat's writing style - I might just be too old
> fashioned!

I'm a big fan of Steven Moffat *and* a Sherlock Holmes
traditionalist, which is why I loved the series. Espec-
ially compared to the utter dreck produced by Guy Ritchie
with the more recent Holmes movies, starring Robert 
Downey, Jr. They were an embarrassment for all concerned,
and a case can be made for Ritchie never having read a 
single Conan Doyle story before making them. That cannot
be said of Moffat. 

As for "Life On Mars," I thought it was wonderful, but
understand that not all agree. 

> > Yeah, they created some dreck, too, but I'd be willing
> > to bet that if we saw a cross section of Danish and
> > Swedish TV, and not just the cherry-picked "best of
> > the bunch," they produce a lot of dreck, too. :-)
> 
> You could well be right here but the ones I've seen have
> a style about them I love, The Bridge was preposterous
> on paper but somehow they pulled it off, effortlessly
> making it the best thing on TV so far this year for me.
> And it wasn't even a big budget production, just good
> camera work and convincing acting. 

I agree -- it's the best TV drama I've seen this year,
and I fully expect it to give "Breaking Bad" and the 
second season of "Boss" a run for its money in the Emmy
and Golden Globe nominations. 

> Too many Brit shows 
> fall behind but Line of Duty bucks the trend in the right
> direction, I've only seen the first episode though!

Careful about making your own judgments about such 
things. There is a contingent here who believe that
you should only weigh the merits of a TV show based
on what those who are "competent" to assess them tell
you. Some of this contingent believe this so thoroughly
that they've made posts claiming that a film's director
is a "Christian bigot," based on never having seen the
film they're condemning him for, but having read a 
review of it by one of these "competent" critics. 

Now you may begin to understand why such people *also*
tend to believe that they know "all about" techniques
of meditation and self discovery that they've never
learned, and never will. They trust the "competence"
of people like Maharishi, who never learned them,
either.  :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Sam Harris Book

[Vaj]

On Jun 27, 2012, at 12:19 AM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote:

Sam Harris is writing a book, with the working title 'Waking Up: A  
Scientist Looks at Spirituality' due to be finished sometime near  
the end of the year. This one should be interesting.


http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/look-into-my-eyes



It should be very interesting, thanks for the heads up.

Harris and numerous others, along with HHDL, are helping to forge a  
neuro-scientifically based dharma: no gods necessary, all gods  
welcome. And the first longitudinal studies to follow someone from  
the beginning of practice thru to buddhahood are already well under way.


This was an interesting slant, it shows the depth of his inquiry and  
skepticism:


One behavior that you can readily notice in many gurus, as well as in  
their students, is an unusual commitment to maintaining eye contact.  
In the best case, this behavior emerges from a genuine comfort in the  
presence of other people and deep interest in their well-being. Given  
this frame of mind, there may not be a reason to look elsewhere. But  
maintaining eye contact can also become a way of “acting spiritual”— 
and an intrusive affectation. Needless to say, there are people who  
maintain rigid eye lock, not from an attitude of openness and interest 
—or from a desire to appear open and interested—but as an aggressive  
and narcissistic show of dominance. (Psychopaths tend to make  
exceptionally good eye contact.) Whatever the motive behind it, there  
can be tremendous power in an unwavering gaze.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The End of the Time= 13 Hellish Timez'...

[Robert]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
>
> Still parading around your prophetic claims Chaim?
> Last time you couldn't even tell your own fortune - much less the
> fortune of someone else.
> 
> Better go get a checking Herschmann - before you blunder down the same
> foolish trails of your old buddies with their twisted-cross.
> 
> By the way … you know they're here now, just like poltergeists
> … only back in the flesh and hungry for more fun.
> 
>   Vetali, Vetali …
> 
> 
> Life, Life!  Blood! Blood!
> 
> Feast on the hearts of trôth breakers.
> 
> Hûng Hûng Phat Phat Svâhâ!
> 
'I'm not quite sure what you are talking about here, Mr.Bill...?
I was just stating what the Mayans had said, that the 13 Hells would end at the 
end of this year, 2012...
This isn't my Prophesy, although I might have been a Mayan Priest, at that 
time, and been involved with these studies, as I have studied this sort of 
thing in many lifetimes...
So, that is all I was saying...
That the Final Hell of the Nazi Regime of the 1930's-40's...are still being 
unwound in the dome, as I percieve the remnents of people on both sides Jews 
and Germans, Israelis and Vikings, Girls and Boys, all going to the Dome...
Where the tiniest remnent of the remains of ignorance cannot live in the pure 
light of pure consciousness en masse...

So, the little demons leave, they leave, some you didn't even know were there...
Those little demons that want to start trouble all of the time..

They are leaving now..losing their power, their grip on us...
Finally and fully, we ask all the demons to leave us clean...

To fully recieve the Holy Spirit in Christ Name, Amen...

Jai Guru Dev

[FairfieldLife] Re: Line of Duty

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> > >
> > > On 06/26/2012 02:17 PM, salyavin808 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Here's a treat for all you crime drama fans out there:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01k9pn6
> > > >
> > > > It's not often I think that the BBC might have equalled the
> > > > Scandinavian's in the crime genre but I thoroughly enjoyed
> > > > this well written tale of the police up against the governments
> > > > target driven culture and their own corruption department.
> > > >
> > > > Not sure how anyone outside of the UK will get to watch it
> > > > but it's bound to cross the waters sooner or later!
> > > 
> > > Probably on BBC America delayed by weeks or months and censored. 
> > > They don't like to upset Americans by showing them anything that 
> > > is too smart. ;-)
> > 
> > The only thing they might not get is al the references
> > to UK government policy, surely no other govt acts like
> > this?
> > 
> > It's just nice to watch a BBC drama that doesn't make me 
> > want to switch off after 10 minutes! Only seen the first
> > episode though, so sorry if the rest of it's crap...
> 
> I've downloaded it and will watch it soon. Thanks for
> the tip. Don't badrap British TV series too badly, or
> compare them negatively to Danish TV too much. It was
> the Brits, after all, who created brilliant series
> such as "Life On Mars," "Luther," "Jekyll," "Sherlock,"
> "Prime Suspect," "Smiley's People," "The Hour," and 
> "The Shadow Line." 

I'm one of the few people who never saw Life on Mars,
but I didn't like most of the others with the exception
of Smileys People. Sherlock had its moments though, I
gave it a try even though I'm a Sherlock traditionalist
and thought the characters were excellent but I'm no
fan of Moffat's writing style - I might just be too old
fashioned!
 
> Yeah, they created some dreck, too, but I'd be willing
> to bet that if we saw a cross section of Danish and
> Swedish TV, and not just the cherry-picked "best of
> the bunch," they produce a lot of dreck, too. :-)

You could well be right here but the ones I've seen have
a style about them I love, The Bridge was preposterous
on paper but somehow they pulled it off, effortlessly
making it the best thing on TV so far this year for me.
And it wasn't even a big budget production, just good
camera work and convincing acting. Too many Brit shows 
fall behind but Line of Duty bucks the trend in the right
direction, I've only seen the first episode though!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting trend in South America

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> >
> > Things are really hoppin'...
> > 
> > 
> > http://www.globalgoodnews.com/education-news-a.html?art=133982143029827885
> > 
> > highlights:
> > 
> > A new school in one country is making instruction in the meditation 
> > technique available to 3,000 of its students. In addition, 800 students are 
> > learning the advanced Transcendental Meditation Sidhi programme, including 
> > Yogic Flying. 
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > In another country, 5,000 university students have started the advanced 
> > programme.
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > A university in a different country is also inviting its students to learn 
> > Transcendental Meditation and its advanced programmes. At one of the 
> > largest private universities in the region, Transcendental Meditation 
> > teachers recently taught 2,000 students the TM-Sidhi programme. 
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > In addition to a few other school projects, an initiative is underway 
> > involving the military. Transcendental Meditation teachers have been 
> > holding courses to instruct about 2,500 young soldiers in the advanced 
> > programmes.
> >
> 
> Let's hope they are mostly individuals with lots of "white" (shukla)
> karma. Otherwise :o
> 
> karmaashuklaakRSNaM yoginaH, tri-vidham (1.shukla, 2. kRSNa, 3. mishra[?]) 
> itareSaam!
>

What I'm trying to say is that "too many" rookie Yffers at a time
could cause very nasty global unstressing! :o

[FairfieldLife] "Maharishisez" (was Re: TV review: "The Newsroom")

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> laughing because vata schmata is something I would say!

Glad that you, at least, got that. :-)

> Anyway, Ann, I don't know how I can be so Bronze Aged 
> because I don't know what that means! Aged in a bronze 
> lined barrel like fine wine or something? As for more 
> than a little deranged, my vata is often that. But I'm 
> working on it. 

My comment was about the tendency of TMers to throw
around terms as if 1) everyone knew what they meant,
as if 2) everyone agrees that they are meaningful 
and/or have any relationship to reality, and 3) as if
they are actually "saying something" by invoking some
a buzzword or buzzphrase taught to them by Maharishi.

You have to remember where I'm "coming from," Share.
I blew out of the TM movement back during the time
when the only "Maharishisez" buzzphrases we had been
exposed to and expected to revere as if they were
wisdom were:

* TM is the best, fastest, and most effective means
of gaining enlightenment on the planet.
* Any form of concentration during meditation is BAD,
contrary to the natural tendency of the mind, and
probably evil. 
* All TMers will achieve Cosmic Consciousness within
5 to 8 years of starting TM.
* Stress has something -- anything -- to do with not
being enlightened.
* If you practice the TM-Sidhis one day you will 
float in the air, demonstrating real levitation.
* If we can get 1% of the world's population to prac-
tice TM, we can achieve world peace. (Later downgraded
to 1% of 1%, but whatever.)

That was pretty much it. Those were the full extent
of the Maharishisez Mandates we were expected to believe
in and repeat as if they were true. I rejected pretty
much ALL of them as invalid within months of leaving
the TMO.

But now think of all the things I never *was* exposed
to, and which modern-day TMers repeat as if they were
true, and IMO *only because of "Maharishisez"*:

* People practicing the TM-Sidhis in a group emanate
such powerful Woo Woo that they can change the weather,
reduce crime, and save the world from destruction.
* Buildings built according to old Bronze Age super-
stitions (which architects point out don't look any-
thing like actual Vedic age buildings, and resemble
more closely the architecture of the British Raj)
are better for you than other, lesser buildings. 
* Your prosperity and health depend on you living in
one of these buildings. This is so important that all
major cities in the world (like London and New York)
should be torn down to the ground and rebuilt in
accordance with these Bronze Age guidelines.
* If you enter or leave a building from the wrong
direction, Bad Things will happen to you.
* Ayurveda is the highest form of medicine, even though
we can't show you any scientific proof of this.
* Bronze Age descriptions of the different body types
are accurate, again even though science doesn't agree.
* Astrology is a science, and you should pay the TMO
to have your Jyotish chart done so that Bad Things 
don't happen to you.
* Yagyas, in which prayers are chanted and offerings
made to Hindu gods, can actually produce results, and
are worth the thousands of dollars we charge for them.
* TM is *still* not a religion.
* England is a scorpion nation and George W. Bush is
a rakshasa, but Ferdinand Marcos is a saint.

The list goes on and on. 

My point is that is *has* gone on and on for so long
that TMers don't really realize any more how MUCH 
claptrap and gobbledegook and sheer idiocy they believe
and repeat as if it were some kind of cosmic truth in
their everyday writing and speech. They actually think
this stuff is *normal*.

I submit that most of the world disagrees with them.
I would bet that if you picked 1000 people at random
around the world who had never heard of TM and Maharishi,
they would consider *every one of the items on both lists
above* to be nonsense, and consider those who believe in 
them a tad unreliable, if not actually a little crazy.

If you wound up telling these doubters WHY people believe
all this gobbledegook -- because of the magic word 
"Maharishisez" -- they'd probably settle on "crazy."

I'm just doing what I do here from time to time, and what
salyavin and a few others do as well. We point out the
*incredible* lapses of discrimination, intelligence, and
rational thought that long-term TMers indulge in on a 
regular basis, so as hopefully to remind them that the
things they say and believe are...uh...a little weird.

It's FINE to be weird. If you *know* how others outside
of the TM Echo Chamber might react to you if you talk and
think this way, your language and thought peppered with
"Maharishisez" bullshit buzzwords, then IMO you're welcome
to continue talking and thinking that way. It's when folks
lose sight of how weird this stuff makes them sound to
others that I grow concerned for them.

> And yes, I do think twice before posting here. If only 
> to keep track of that dang posting limit.

That danged limit is there 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Line of Duty

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> >
> > On 06/26/2012 02:17 PM, salyavin808 wrote:
> > >
> > > Here's a treat for all you crime drama fans out there:
> > >
> > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01k9pn6
> > >
> > > It's not often I think that the BBC might have equalled the
> > > Scandinavian's in the crime genre but I thoroughly enjoyed
> > > this well written tale of the police up against the governments
> > > target driven culture and their own corruption department.
> > >
> > > Not sure how anyone outside of the UK will get to watch it
> > > but it's bound to cross the waters sooner or later!
> > 
> > Probably on BBC America delayed by weeks or months and censored. 
> > They don't like to upset Americans by showing them anything that 
> > is too smart. ;-)
> 
> The only thing they might not get is al the references
> to UK government policy, surely no other govt acts like
> this?
> 
> It's just nice to watch a BBC drama that doesn't make me 
> want to switch off after 10 minutes! Only seen the first
> episode though, so sorry if the rest of it's crap...

I've downloaded it and will watch it soon. Thanks for
the tip. Don't badrap British TV series too badly, or
compare them negatively to Danish TV too much. It was
the Brits, after all, who created brilliant series
such as "Life On Mars," "Luther," "Jekyll," "Sherlock,"
"Prime Suspect," "Smiley's People," "The Hour," and 
"The Shadow Line." 

Yeah, they created some dreck, too, but I'd be willing
to bet that if we saw a cross section of Danish and
Swedish TV, and not just the cherry-picked "best of
the bunch," they produce a lot of dreck, too. :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Line of Duty

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> On 06/26/2012 02:17 PM, salyavin808 wrote:
> >
> > Here's a treat for all you crime drama fans out there:
> >
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01k9pn6
> >
> > It's not often I think that the BBC might have equalled the
> > Scandinavian's in the crime genre but I thoroughly enjoyed
> > this well written tale of the police up against the governments
> > target driven culture and their own corruption department.
> >
> > Not sure how anyone outside of the UK will get to watch it
> > but it's bound to cross the waters sooner or later!
> 
> Probably on BBC America delayed by weeks or months and censored. They 
> don't like to upset Americans by showing them anything that is too 
> smart. ;-)

The only thing they might not get is al the references
to UK government policy, surely no other govt acts like
this?

It's just nice to watch a BBC drama that doesn't make me 
want to switch off after 10 minutes! Only seen the first
episode though, so sorry if the rest of it's crap...

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Lecture by John Hagelin

[Robert]

It's easy to understand the 'Maharishi Effect' without all this 'Physics Bull 
Sh-t...confusing even the most obediant student...

All you need to know, is that when anyone reaches the 'State of Samadhi'...then 
this 'Enlivens Everywhere This Aspect'...

In Other Words'...This 'Aspect of Samadhi' is 'Non-Localized'...

It is 'Outside the Range' of the ego...
It is 'Outside the Range of the Intellect'...
and OUtside the range of the senses...

It is at the 'Basis of All Existence' in the 'Universe'...

So, without 'Bringing up Anything About the Unified Field'...
We can understand by direct experience how the ME Works...

It works by creating an enviornment, where the more advance experienced 
meditators, who have been having 'Stabilized Witnessing Experience 24/7...

Then that 'Witnessing Reality' of Self-Referra' is 'Imbibed All Around the 
World'...
Mostly in the United States, but nontheless, it is the 'Power of the Individual 
in Samadhi' that is the 'Key''

jai guru dev
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> He now calls the Maharishi Effect as the Field Effect.  He attempted to use 
> ideas from Maharishi's Apaurusheya to explain the unified field.  But IMO the 
> audience did not understand it.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fqdcdky9wR4&feature=g-vrec
>