[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Idea Since Darwin Part V

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> MIND AND COSMOS: WHY THE MATERIALIST NEO-DARWINIAN CONCEPTION OF NATURE IS 
> ALMOST CERTAINLY FALSE by Thomas Nagel
> 
> But to explain consciousness, as well as biological complexity, as a 
> consequence of the natural order adds a whole new dimension of difficulty, I 
> am setting aside outright dualism, which would abandon the hope for an 
> integrated explanation. Indeed, substance dualism would imply that biology 
> has no responsibility at all for the existence of minds. What interests me is 
> the alternative hypothesis that biological evolution is responsible for the 
> existence of conscious mental phenomena, but that since those phenomena are 
> not physically explainable, the usual view of evolution must be revised. It 
> is not just a physical process.
> 
> If that is so, how much would have to be added to the physical story to 
> produce a genuine explanation of consciousness--one that made the appearance 
> of consciousness, as such, intelligible, as opposed to merely explaining the 
> appearance of certain physical organisms that, as a matter of fact, are 
> conscious? It is not enough simply to add to the physical account of 
> evolution the further observation that different types of animal organisms, 
> depending on their physical constitution, have different forms of conscious 
> life. That would present the consciousness of animals as a mysterious side 
> effect of the physical history of evolution, which explains only the physical 
> and functional character of organisms. . .
> 
> For a satisfactory explanation of consciousness as such, a general 
> psychophysical theory of consciousness would have to be woven into the 
> evolutionary story, one which makes intelligible both (1) why specific 
> organisms have the conscious life they have, and (2) why conscious organisms 
> arose in the history of life on earth. . .
> 
> [S]ome kind of psychophysical theory must apply not only nonhistorically, at 
> the end of the process, but also to the evolutionary process itself. That 
> process would have to be not only the physical history of the appearance and 
> development of physical organisms but also a mental history of the appearance 
> and development of conscious beings. And somehow it would have to be one 
> process, making both aspects of the result intelligible. . .
> 
> This would mean abandoning the standard assumption that evolution is driven 
> by exclusively physical causes. Indeed, it suggests that the explanation may 
> have to be something more than physical all the way down. The rejection of 
> psychophysical reductionism leaves us with the mystery of the most basic kind 
> about the natural order--a mystery whose avoidance is one of the primary 
> motives of reductionism. It is a double mystery: first, about the relation 
> between the physical and the mental in each individual instance, and second, 
> about how the evolutionary explanation of the development of physical 
> organisms can be transformed into a psychophysical explanation of how 
> consciousness developed.
> 
> The existence of consciousness is both one of the most familiar and one of 
> the most astonishing things about the world. No conception of the natural 
> order that does not reveal it as something to be expected can aspire even to 
> the outline of completeness. And if physical science, whatever it may have to 
> say about the origin of life, leaves us necessarily in the dark about 
> consciousness, that shows that it cannot provide the basic form of 
> intelligibility for this world. There must be a very different way in which 
> things as they are make sense, and that includes the way the physical world 
> is, since the problem cannot be quarantined in the mind. . .
> 
> This dissatisfaction with an explanatory stopping place that relates complex 
> structures to complex structures is what underlies the constant push toward 
> reduction in modern science. It is hard to give up the assumption that 
> whatever is true of the complex must be explained by what is true of the 
> elements. That does not mean that new phenomena cannot emerge at higher 
> levels, but the hope is that they can be analyzed through the character and 
> interactions of their more elementary components. Such harmless emergence is 
> standardly illustrated by the example of liquidity, which depends on the 
> interactions of the molecules that compose the liquid. But the emergence of 
> the mental at certain levels of biological complexity is not like this. 
> According to the emergent position now being considered, consciousness is 
> something completely new.
> 
> Because such emergence, even if systematic, remains fundamentally 
> inexplicable, the ideal of intelligibility demands that we take seriously the 
> alternative of a reductive answer to the constitutive question--an answer 
> that accounts for the relation between mind and brain in terms of something 
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> Doc sez, you are taking it far too seriously - look into any organization of 
> human beings, anywhere, any place, and you will always find those who derive 
> power from their power over others. Sad as that may be, there is nothing 
> unique about the TMO in that. 
> 
> To say there is something cosmically corrupt about the TMO is a proclamation 
> without an existing reference point. Where does your standard of comparison 
> actually exist in the world? Boy Scouts? Catholic Church? National 
> governments? Universities? Corporations?
> 
> Answer: No place. So the question really becomes, is there any intrinsic 
> value to the TMO as an organization, and that, like the value we place on any 
> organization, is up to each of us.

Sigh. Jimbo, the thing that annoys people who discover the TMO
is just like every other gathering of humans trying to acheive
something is that it claims as a reason for existence that it
creats "coherence" and harmonious functioning in groups, and
whether they want to be part of it or not. The fact that it's,
IMO, even worse than most organisations (due to the lack of
accountability and a management structure based on whim rather
than talent) is depressing if you've left a job and life to join
in with what you thought was the "ultimate expression of life".

Which doesn't mean I didn't enjoy my time there, just that I
had to radically re-adjust my expectations once I'd worked out
everyone was just making it up as they went along.

 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> >
> > Dear Michael Jackson,
> > 
> > Your story, in two parts, reads so well. You could not have established the 
> > justice of your cause any better--because you told the story just as you 
> > had experienced it--without opinion or resentment. The response of Bill 
> > Sands is the story of the appalling failure of the Movement to in any way 
> > enlist the support of reality, nature, the universe--whatever you want to 
> > call it [Third Point of View]. If the TMO possessed any grace which 
> > indicated its agreement with what is real and what is true, *there would 
> > have been no way for Bill Sands to act as he did when confronted with the 
> > fact of your helplessness before this allergic reaction to formaldehyde 
> > inside the foam*--which includes of course the matter of your baking those 
> > breads and desserts.
> > 
> > To me this is the most serious indictment of the Movement, that someone in 
> > your predicament, presenting your case as honestly and respectfully as you 
> > could, would precipitate the reaction that Bill Sands had--on numerous 
> > occasions. Talk about failing to read reality. No matter what principles, 
> > rules, regulations he was charged to enforce, for him to go right against 
> > the whole momentum of how the truth was coming towards him as you explained 
> > your physical vulnerability, well, this demonstrates--even way back then 
> > (1987)--that Maharishi, TM, and the whole TMO enterprise was doomed. Bill 
> > Sands denied his own human feelings and conscience to act in accordance 
> > with an idea which was manifestly bizarre and indefensible *inside the 
> > context of learning the medical fact of your condition*--what made it 
> > unhealthy for you to meditate inside the Dome.
> > 
> > To arbitrarily override all of one's intuition and natural human 
> > feelings--which are there to make the kind of discrimination Bill Sands 
> > refused to allow himself to make--means that the TMO, at the highest 
> > levels, is, in some serious way, the enemy of whatever is loving and 
> > intelligent and merciful inside the universe. I almost could not believe 
> > the effect created by the unavoidable juxtaposition of your story--which 
> > only became more dramatic when the matter of your being the master baker 
> > came up--with the response of Bill Sands:--I almost feel more sorry for 
> > Bill than I do for you. His having to act so totally against his own human 
> > nature in order, I must suppose, *to please Maharishi Mahesh Yogi*.
> > 
> > For Bill Sands to be put in that position to feel he had to act the way he 
> > did when faced with the dilemma created by your allergic reaction to the 
> > formaldehyde, this reveals something irreversibly corrupt in the entire 
> > consciousness of the TMO. If there had been the very slightest 
> > justification for the actions of Bill Sands we would have felt that. Bill 
> > Sands acted out of obedience to Maharishi and those hierarchically above 
> > him; nevertheless he did violence to his own soul--and surely some day he 
> > will come to know this.
> > 
> > There is no answering this charge of cruelty and ruthlessness--I believe it 
> > does go to Maharishi's own sense of arrogance and pride--Maharishi at some 
> > fundamental level of reality entirely misunderstood what creation was all 
> > about, and what the purpose was of having

[FairfieldLife] Lumbini, the birthplace of the Buddha

[Richard]

While in Nepal we visited one of the most important Buddhist pilgrimage sites, 
Lumbini, birthplace of the Buddha. 

A link to the article is below:

http://richardarunachala.wordpress.com/2012/10/26/lumbini-nepal-buddhas-birthplace/

Richard

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday

[awoelflebater]

Thanks for responding Share. You know, these points I brought up I would have 
brought up to anyone who had written what you wrote. My intention was not to 
seek you out and target you for answers, my intention was simply to ask 
questions in my desire to obtain some answers. You just happened to have been 
the one. Now if you will bear with me I will respond to some of your post here. 
It is what I do when I get a hankering.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sharelong60"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sharelong60"  wrote:
> > >
> > > When I referred to all organizations I was addressing the context beyond 
> > > yet including the TMO.  
> > > 
> > > I also have had confrontations, conflicts, etc. with TMO.  Whether or not 
> > > they were harsher than what others experienced, I don't know because I 
> > > wasn't present at those.  And I don't choose to go into details of my own 
> > > situations because it wouldn't further the discussion and because I am at 
> > > peace with the various incidents.
> > 
> > It also might bring some heat your way that you want to avoid. Fair enough.
> 
> Share:  I've dealt with heat before and I was much younger then.  

Are you implying that you have less desire or resilience to do this now? If so, 
why do you think this might be the case? Or are you saying that even though you 
were much younger you were still willing to take "the heat" but now you are 
much more able?

>Plus now I have all this practice dealing with heat on FFL!  BTW, your 
>attributing a motive to me is not only not fair enough, it's not fair in the 
>least bit.  

Share, I never spoke about motive. I recognized that in your statement you 
expressed not wanting to discuss your situations, however long ago those took 
place and, in addition, that you were "at peace" with the outcome of the 
incidents and I was saying I found that understandable. For you to bring up 
specifics or tell me what those incidents were might re-ignite something that 
you don't care to be re-ignited and I feel that is your prerogative. What 
motive were you speaking about?
> > > 
> > > I am at peace with the various incidents mainly because I see the TMO 
> > > like all organizations and all individuals:  it has its strengths and its 
> > > flaws.  So yes, I focus on what's good and leave the rest.
> > 
> > This is very convenient but doesn't bring about change. Thank God others 
> > stronger and braver than myself have not chosen to follow this path 
> > throughout history or ours would be a very different and indifferent world.
> 
> Share:  I disagree.  I think there are many ways to bring about change, from 
> very peaceful to very confrontational ways.  I have done both in my life.

I think you are using your philosophy to avoid action. I think it is far too 
easy to talk your way out of really doing something meaningful by using terms 
like focusing on the good and leaving the rest. Usually "the rest" refers to 
the ugly, difficult, demanding parts. Few want to face those things head on but 
to do so would put you in a different class, a higher echelon where the brave 
reside. Peaceful is usually what describes what happens after the hard work is 
done, not before. Sorry, but I just can't agree with your take on this aspect 
of things.
> > 
> >   >And it is my belief that my being in the Dome is good for myself and for 
> > others.  So that is how I continue with the TMO.
> > 
> > Is the effect of your program less if you are practicing it in your own 
> > room two blocks down the road but at the same time as the dome meditation? 
> > In other words, do you have to be in the same geographic location as 
> > everyone else for it to be effective?
> 
> Share:  I live a mile from campus but even if I lived on campus I'd go to the 
> Dome.  Program is richer and yogic flying is more lively in a group.

Yes, but would this be worth giving up for a good cause?  
> > > 
> > > And as I said before, I see it as my being a plain sidha or grace or some 
> > > combo of the two, that, for example, I wasn't questioned when I came back 
> > > to the Dome after a 7 year absence.  I don't see it or any of the other 
> > > treatment I received as a privilege which is what Ann calls it.  Btw, in 
> > > my book her calling it a privilege is being more than descriptive and 
> > > declarative.  It is ignoring what I actually said.
> > 
> > No, I you misunderstood what I was referring to. I was speaking about the 
> > "privilege" being the opportunity to meditate in the Dome, not that you 
> > were treated less harshly. I did not mean that you were privileged.
> 
> Share:  Ok 
> > > 
> > > I also agree that one should stand up for what is right.  And I have done 
> > > that in at least one of my official capacities at MUM.  I didn't agree 
> > > with the leaders and I said so to help another.
> > 
> > Did you feel that by standing up to th

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Spiritual Question For Wednesday

[Buck]

Khazakstan-007 
that is fabulous, have we not drunk of the Soma juice?
No cool-aid here.
-Buck in the Dome


> Compare Rig.V 10 119
> 
> 7 The heavens and earth themselves have not grown equal to one half of me. 
> Have I not drunk of Soma juice?
> 8 I in my grandeur have surpassed the heavens and all this spacious earth. 
> Have I not drunk of Soma juice?
> 9 Aha! this spacious earth will I deposit either here or there
> Have I not drunk of Soma juice?
> 10 In one short moment will I smite the earth in fury here or there:
> Have I not drunk of Soma juice?
> 
> 
> Well, I stand up next to a mountain
> And I chop it down with the edge of my hand
> 
> Yeah
> 
> Well, I stand up next to a mountain
> And I chop it down with the edge of my hand
> Well, I pick up all the pieces and make an island
> Might even raise a little sand
>

[FairfieldLife] Vintage Guitars

[mjackson74]

For those on FFL who are "guitar freaks" this old TM Governor Steve Armato buys 
and sells vintage.

http://www.vintageoneguitars.com/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday

[Buck]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sharelong60"  wrote:
>
> Hi Mr. Soss, this is an experiment in that I've yet to reply via archives 
> before.  Anyway, on a recent MahaSaraswati day the first person I saw was Dr. 
> Vernon Katz walking along the road on his way to Patanjali Dome.  I 
> considered that sighting a great blessing.  Thank you for posting this which 
> gave me a sweet laugh out loud. Share
>

Share, I always take a fond delight seeing Vernon come in to the Dome. He is 
like a last of the Mohicans.  Honorably venerable he's an old guy now and 
looked out for.  He was an old guy when I was a kid.  I've known him and read 
him since I was seventeen.  Now again it is special to come out after the Dome 
meditation and drive back home towards the farm listening to the local radio 
show reading of verses from his Bhagavad-Gita.  It's all a pretty Utopian 
context.  Someone asked of me at this conference I was at in New York State a 
couple weeks ago, "How do you live in Fairfield?".  I laughed.  "Simply and 
richly", I answered.
-Buck

   
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > SHARE: Remembering that Maharishi said, "What we have no control over
> > we take to be the will of God."
> > >
> > > The way I read (I had not heard this before) this statement of
> > Maharishi's, it proves that he was in a higher state of consciousness.
> > Maharishi, and only Maharishi, had this ability to say something--and if
> > you really took it in from where he was saying it, and felt its
> > resonances throughout the universe itself [and that is indeed what
> > happened if you were sensitive enough], your very being told you he was
> > representing reality itself.
> > >
> > > There is the strict *content* of what Maharishi is saying here. But as
> > soon as I read it, *I felt the context of Maharishi and his
> > consciousness* and how perfectly, metaphysically, apt his comment was.
> > >
> > > Not only that: IT STILL SEEMS TRUE TO ME. But Maharishi Mahesh Yogi,
> > he was, during a stretch of time, infinitely tuned-in to the cosmos--at
> > least he could say something like this, and in one's being one sensed
> > that he was, as it were, making known the profoundest truth that could
> > be known. "What we have no control over we take to be the will of God".
> > How brilliant is this? It is said by someone who 'has more context' than
> > anyone whom I have ever known.
> > >
> > > I don't know how many persons (you would have to be an initiator to
> > really feel this, I suppose) remember how Maharishi would make some
> > truth become a kind of perception in one's life. I think, even now, I
> > can benefit from this precept. It actually works for me. Even as I do
> > not believe in a Personal God.
> > >
> > > But I believe in the empirical truth of Maharishi's words--*I
> > discovered their truth at a level I could not have any control over*.
> > That was the extraordinariness of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi: he wasn't
> > making this stuff up. He was reading off reality.
> > >
> > > One of the most perspicacious things I have ever heard--and only
> > Maharishi could have said it. As long as one guards oneself from the
> > mystical aura of his authority--and not allow this statement to be any
> > truer than it actually is--one can apply this truth in one's life. At
> > least when this situation comes up, this remembered perspective could be
> > useful.
> > >
> > > No one but Maharishi could say this--because it is (or it seems to me
> > it is objectively true somehow. "What we have no control over we take to
> > be the will of God". Even, then, if it is not literally true, to adopt
> > this frame of reference will be beneficial to us. No one refuted--in his
> > presence--a single thing Maharishi uttered.
> > 
> > 
> > Vernon was doing that ALL the time ! :-
> > Conversations with Maharishi  By Dr. Vernon Katz Hardcover, 393 pages
> > Published in 2011
> > Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Speaks about Full Development of Human
> > Consciousness
> > The majestic panoramas of Lake Tahoe in California and the Kashmir
> > Valley in the Himalayas provided the ideal settings for the
> > conversations in this book. It was there in 1968 and 1969 that Maharishi
> > began his as-yet-unpublished commentary on the Brahma Sutra, a key text
> > of the timeless wisdom of Vedanta. The penetrating questions asked by
> > Dr. Katz inspired deep insights from Maharishi on the nature and
> > development of higher states of consciousness. Through Maharishi's
> > words, the ultimate reality of life becomes meaningful and practical for
> > people living today: anyone can awaken the wholeness of consciousness
> > within. These conversations are suffused with bliss and serve as a
> > tribute to Maharishi's legacy of knowledge for full developm

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Idea Since Darwin Part V

[Robin Carlsen]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> On 10/25/2012 04:30 PM, Robin Carlsen wrote:
> > MIND AND COSMOS: WHY THE MATERIALIST NEO-DARWINIAN CONCEPTION OF NATURE IS 
> > ALMOST CERTAINLY FALSE by Thomas Nagel
> >
> > But to explain consciousness, as well as biological complexity, as a 
> > consequence of the natural order adds a whole new dimension of difficulty, 
> > I am setting aside outright dualism, which would abandon the hope for an 
> > integrated explanation. Indeed, substance dualism would imply that biology 
> > has no responsibility at all for the existence of minds. What interests me 
> > is the alternative hypothesis that biological evolution is responsible for 
> > the existence of conscious mental phenomena, but that since those phenomena 
> > are not physically explainable, the usual view of evolution must be 
> > revised. It is not just a physical process.
> >
> > If that is so, how much would have to be added to the physical story to 
> > produce a genuine explanation of consciousness--one that made the 
> > appearance of consciousness, as such, intelligible, as opposed to merely 
> > explaining the appearance of certain physical organisms that, as a matter 
> > of fact, are conscious? It is not enough simply to add to the physical 
> > account of evolution the further observation that different types of animal 
> > organisms, depending on their physical constitution, have different forms 
> > of conscious life. That would present the consciousness of animals as a 
> > mysterious side effect of the physical history of evolution, which explains 
> > only the physical and functional character of organisms. . .
> >
> > For a satisfactory explanation of consciousness as such, a general 
> > psychophysical theory of consciousness would have to be woven into the 
> > evolutionary story, one which makes intelligible both (1) why specific 
> > organisms have the conscious life they have, and (2) why conscious 
> > organisms arose in the history of life on earth. . .
> >
> > [S]ome kind of psychophysical theory must apply not only nonhistorically, 
> > at the end of the process, but also to the evolutionary process itself. 
> > That process would have to be not only the physical history of the 
> > appearance and development of physical organisms but also a mental history 
> > of the appearance and development of conscious beings. And somehow it would 
> > have to be one process, making both aspects of the result intelligible. . .
> >
> > This would mean abandoning the standard assumption that evolution is driven 
> > by exclusively physical causes. Indeed, it suggests that the explanation 
> > may have to be something more than physical all the way down. The rejection 
> > of psychophysical reductionism leaves us with the mystery of the most basic 
> > kind about the natural order--a mystery whose avoidance is one of the 
> > primary motives of reductionism. It is a double mystery: first, about the 
> > relation between the physical and the mental in each individual instance, 
> > and second, about how the evolutionary explanation of the development of 
> > physical organisms can be transformed into a psychophysical explanation of 
> > how consciousness developed.
> >
> > The existence of consciousness is both one of the most familiar and one of 
> > the most astonishing things about the world. No conception of the natural 
> > order that does not reveal it as something to be expected can aspire even 
> > to the outline of completeness. And if physical science, whatever it may 
> > have to say about the origin of life, leaves us necessarily in the dark 
> > about consciousness, that shows that it cannot provide the basic form of 
> > intelligibility for this world. There must be a very different way in which 
> > things as they are make sense, and that includes the way the physical world 
> > is, since the problem cannot be quarantined in the mind. . .
> >
> > This dissatisfaction with an explanatory stopping place that relates 
> > complex structures to complex structures is what underlies the constant 
> > push toward reduction in modern science. It is hard to give up the 
> > assumption that whatever is true of the complex must be explained by what 
> > is true of the elements. That does not mean that new phenomena cannot 
> > emerge at higher levels, but the hope is that they can be analyzed through 
> > the character and interactions of their more elementary components. Such 
> > harmless emergence is standardly illustrated by the example of liquidity, 
> > which depends on the interactions of the molecules that compose the liquid. 
> > But the emergence of the mental at certain levels of biological complexity 
> > is not like this. According to the emergent position now being considered, 
> > consciousness is something completely new.
> >
> > Because such emergence, even if systematic, remains fundamentally 
> > inexplicable, the ideal of intelligibility demands that we

Re: [FairfieldLife] David Lynch idiocy

[Bhairitu]

On 10/25/2012 04:07 PM, Mike Dixon wrote:
> I was watching *The Five* on FNC and they said David Lynch had decided to 
> vote for Obama because he had noticed that by changing a couple of letters in 
> Romney's name, that it spelled R(our)money and to him that meant Romney was 
> going to take R(our) money for himself and other rich people. I'm so thankful 
> they didn't mention the TMO in this story otherwise Transcendental Meditation 
> could have been linked to the *Lynching* of Obama.

Also known as Mitt Raw Money.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sharelong60"  wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sharelong60"  wrote:
> > >
> > > When I referred to all organizations I was addressing the
> > > context beyond yet including the TMO.  
> > > 
> > > I also have had confrontations, conflicts, etc. with TMO.  
> > > Whether or not they were harsher than what others experienced, 
> > > I don't know because I wasn't present at those.  And I don't 
> > > choose to go into details of my own situations because it 
> > > wouldn't further the discussion and because I am at peace with 
> > > the various incidents.
> > 
> > It also might bring some heat your way that you want to avoid. 
> > Fair enough.
> 
> Share:  I've dealt with heat before and I was much younger then.
> Plus now I have all this practice dealing with heat on FFL!

Are you confident that you've done a good job "dealing with
heat" on FFL, Share?

Just curious.

Re: [FairfieldLife] In praise of Barry (Re: Coup de foudre)

[Bhairitu]

Probably only a temporary Yahoo glitch.  Usually email doesn't have such 
problems.

On 10/25/2012 09:32 AM, emilymae.reyn wrote:
> I am going to have to give up on receiving FFL through email.  I don't get 
> half the posts.
>
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: An Obama win could break the back of this Country.

[Bhairitu]

On 10/25/2012 03:51 PM, wgm4u wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>> On 10/25/2012 03:04 PM, wgm4u wrote:
>>> His misguided policy of *forcing* alternative energy sources on us ALONE 
>>> will (has) doom the economy for years to come.
>>>
>>> Conversely by opening up ALL of our energy resources we could speed up 
>>> everything in the economy even R And D for renewable sources of energy like 
>>> wind and solar.
>>>
>>> This is a no brainer! Wake up America, Obama is an ideologue that doesn't 
>>> have his feet on the ground! He's already lost us Billions with a B.
>>>
>>>
>> Romney will take us back to the 19th century complete with land barons
>> and landed gentry.  Do you really want that, Serf Billy?
> Just keep your eye on California, it's the bellwether for the Country under 
> Democrat rule.
>
>

LOL!  Like the Republicans can do any better.  The problem is the 
banksters.  They gambled, lost and want us to pay for their gambling 
debt.  We need to tell them to go fuck themselves.  And Californians 
need to pass prop 37.  Fuck Monsanto!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday

[sharelong60]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sharelong60"  wrote:
> >
> > When I referred to all organizations I was addressing the context beyond 
> > yet including the TMO.  
> > 
> > I also have had confrontations, conflicts, etc. with TMO.  Whether or not 
> > they were harsher than what others experienced, I don't know because I 
> > wasn't present at those.  And I don't choose to go into details of my own 
> > situations because it wouldn't further the discussion and because I am at 
> > peace with the various incidents.
> 
> It also might bring some heat your way that you want to avoid. Fair enough.

Share:  I've dealt with heat before and I was much younger then.  Plus now I 
have all this practice dealing with heat on FFL!  BTW, your attributing a 
motive to me is not only not fair enough, it's not fair in the least bit.  
> > 
> > I am at peace with the various incidents mainly because I see the TMO like 
> > all organizations and all individuals:  it has its strengths and its flaws. 
> >  So yes, I focus on what's good and leave the rest.
> 
> This is very convenient but doesn't bring about change. Thank God others 
> stronger and braver than myself have not chosen to follow this path 
> throughout history or ours would be a very different and indifferent world.

Share:  I disagree.  I think there are many ways to bring about change, from 
very peaceful to very confrontational ways.  I have done both in my life.
> 
>   >And it is my belief that my being in the Dome is good for myself and for 
> others.  So that is how I continue with the TMO.
> 
> Is the effect of your program less if you are practicing it in your own room 
> two blocks down the road but at the same time as the dome meditation? In 
> other words, do you have to be in the same geographic location as everyone 
> else for it to be effective?

Share:  I live a mile from campus but even if I lived on campus I'd go to the 
Dome.  Program is richer and yogic flying is more lively in a group.  
> > 
> > And as I said before, I see it as my being a plain sidha or grace or some 
> > combo of the two, that, for example, I wasn't questioned when I came back 
> > to the Dome after a 7 year absence.  I don't see it or any of the other 
> > treatment I received as a privilege which is what Ann calls it.  Btw, in my 
> > book her calling it a privilege is being more than descriptive and 
> > declarative.  It is ignoring what I actually said.
> 
> No, I you misunderstood what I was referring to. I was speaking about the 
> "privilege" being the opportunity to meditate in the Dome, not that you were 
> treated less harshly. I did not mean that you were privileged.

Share:  Ok 
> > 
> > I also agree that one should stand up for what is right.  And I have done 
> > that in at least one of my official capacities at MUM.  I didn't agree with 
> > the leaders and I said so to help another.
> 
> Did you feel that by standing up to the leaders this might have threatened 
> your status or rights as a meditator with regard to access to the Dome? Did 
> this stand you took hold within it the possibility that you would be kicked 
> out of either the Movement or off campus?

Share:  At the time I didn't think about that at all.  I felt I was doing the 
right thing and that was all that mattered.  I suppose it was possible.  
> > 
> > Going to the Dome is self serving in the sense that it is beneficial for 
> > the individual.  But it is also beneficial for others.  And it's not always 
> > comfortable for the individual going to the Dome. 
> 
> In what way is it not comfortable to go to the Dome? You mean doing your 
> program is un-stressy and unpleasant?

Share:  It can be challenging just getting to the Dome on a winter morning 
during a blizzard for example.  And yes, program in the Dome is rich but it can 
also be intense.  Especially when the numbers increase or more pandits arrive 
or a TTC begins or ends, etc.
> > 
> > Nor do I agree that by going to the Dome I am giving the green light to 
> > heavy handed tactics or unreasonable forces.  Actually I believe that by 
> > going to the Dome we all help each other grow beyond the need for such.  
> > Because I believe this, the real compromise would be if I didn't go to the 
> > Dome.
> 
> Maybe it is easier to believe in non-concrete, theoretical ideas than it is 
> to deal with hands on situations that require action and talking and even 
> fighting. It is easy to pay lip service to purported but unsubstantiated 
> positive effects of meditating and hopping and claim that by doing these 
> things it will solve all the other problems created by heavy handed Movement 
> law enforcers.

Share:  As I've said, I've done both kinds of dealing with conflicts, both 
hands on as well as meditating with the group.
> > 
> > And if someone wants my help confronting the TMO, I am willing to hear 
> > their story and help if it be in alignment with m

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday

[Buck]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> To Buck - while I appreciate positive thinking, and the desire for god things 
> to happen, when I came into TM in the '70s I heard stories about people being 
> pushed around by the leaders of the Movement, had my own experiences with it 
> till I said so long in the 1990's and these kinds of strong arm tactics and 
> inflexible attitudes on the part of TM leaders is still going on today - what 
> makes you feel that any of it will change after at least 30 years of it being 
> the way it has been? 
>

Jackson;  The Arab Spring, Tienanmen Square, the nature of the internet and 
autocrats, and public scrutiny.   Thanks, your experience is a good example to 
air here.  They do read this stuff and they are very susceptible to change.  It 
is also apparent even to themselves that in about ten years many of us mortals 
left now (them too) who knew Maharishi directly are likely going to be mostly 
gone over.  There are elements very much at play at how things with the TMo are 
going to go.  There is also lots of yelling and screaming going on about this 
inside.  From ultra-preservationist over to ultra-progressive thrown together 
all at once.  It is not necessarily all one or the other.  In a lot of people 
inside it is both depending on who they are talking to.  Lots of looking at it 
and shades of grey. It's a very idealistic thing going on here and it's a 
pretty small group now and also the breadth of resources has narrowed a lot 
from before which is going to sober people up to specific practicalities of 
what needs to be done.  One element of it could fly it all in to the ground on 
principle and the other wants to make it fly for good reasons.  It's a bit of a 
horse-race right now how it is going to come out, but they are racing.  I was 
at a horse track a couple weeks ago and was down walking by the last turn 
before the final straight to the finish line.  In the quiet there what people 
back in the grand stand could not hear as the horses came around was the 
jockeys talking and shouting in the night air at their horses and at each other 
bunched on that final turn.  I hope you stick around for the finish.  You have 
a fresh perspective here about it by your experience with it.
-Buck in the Dome
 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: emilymae.reyn 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 2:14 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday
>  
> 
>   
>  
> This pretty much says it all.  Excuse me? 
> 
> Buck, in addition to the 3 gov level recommendations, do they solicit 
> anonymous "peer review" to weigh in? 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> >
> > Well, it is unfortunate that the Rajas put themselves in this position of 
> > interrogating folks against these un-published guidelines of theirs.  This 
> > is a really good example.  Instead of just asking that people only practice 
> > TM and the TM-sidhis in the Domes and not practice other spiritual 
> > techniques this person, someone who we all know in the community, is there 
> > standing in line with folks waiting for coffee downtown telling of being 
> > creep-ed out and Of the visceral fear it triggered in a feeling of how 
> > invasive the interview conversation was in the amount and detail of 
> > personal information they had gathered about this person and were asking 
> > about. 
> > 
> > Next step for the person is to git three 'recommendations' from governors.  
> > That means again going through this experience of applying for a badge and 
> > the feeling of being creep-ed out by how invasive it was with three or more 
> > people to get recommendations.  They likely tell three others each about 
> > this person's experience of being creep-ed out.  Those each tell three 
> > more.  This is really not good in a community.  It is just a bad position 
> > for the TM-rajas to be in building dossiers around the guidelines and the 
> > Dome numbers and interrogating people. 
> > 
> > In the long TM history around this thing with other saints where Maharishi 
> > clearly said a lot of different things about visiting saints to a lot of 
> > different people at different times, the Rajas should drop to being a lot 
> > simpler just in asking people to come and help by being practitioners of 
> > this again.  There are really very few TM-virgins around but a lot of 
> > people who could come and meditate.  The gross numbers of people meditating 
> > in the Domes are really quite paltry; however, the Rajas might want to 
> > quickly think again about change and re-introducing a second element to 
> > this particular problem even before their Nov 6 'election' campaign to 
> > increase the Dome numbers goes too far towards re-soliciting people back.  
> > The Rajas need to work more at reconciliation with their community rather 
> > than just hoping that people might be ni

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday

[doctordumbass]

Doc sez, that's what they call in North Carolina a left turn down a dirt 
road...got anything else, khazakstan-007? 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> >
> > Doc sez, you are taking it far too seriously - look into any organization 
> > of human beings, anywhere, any place, and you will always find those who 
> > derive power from their power over others.
> 
> 
> Derive power from their power? Yes, it is Jim..
>

[FairfieldLife] Early Voting in Iowa

[raunchydog]

What are your three options for voting in Iowa?
1. Absentee ballot by mail by November 5th
2. Early voting in person on or before November 5th
3. At the polls on Election Day, Tuesday, November 6th

I have an absentee ballot. What do I do?
1. Just fill it out and mail it in the stamped envelope. Be sure to use a pen 
and sign the affidavit.
2. Your ballot will be opened and tallied on Election Day. 
3. It must be postmarked by November 5th or hand delivered to the auditor's 
office on Election Day in order to be counted on Election Day.

How Can I Vote Early? 
1. You can vote early in person at the Jefferson County Courthouse from 8 am to 
4 pm Monday through Friday and from 8 am to 5 pm for the following two 
Saturdays.
2. You can vote early in person at HyVee from 9 am to 3 pm on October 27th and 
November 3rd.
3. If you have an absentee ballot, you must bring it with you.

When Are the Polls Open?
1. The polls will be open November 6th, from 7 am to 9pm. 
2. If you are a registered voter, your name should be on your precinct list.
3. You do NOT need your voter registration card.  You can find your polling 
place at: www.iowa.gov/elections. 

On Election Day what if I've Moved? 
1. Go to the polling place for your new address. 
2. You will fill out a form and they will confirm that you are registered in 
your old precinct.

What if I only turn 18 in October – or even on Election Day? 
1. You can vote!  If you are 18 before Election Day, the best thing is to 
register and vote at the same time, at the Courthouse. 
2. If you are 18 on Nov. 6th, go to your polling place to register and vote.

What do I need to Register? 
1. You need a photo ID with an expiration date and proof of your address.
2. The address proof can be separate.

How do I know I am Registered, or if My Vote has been Received? 
1. For these, and any other questions, check with www.iowa.gov/elections
2. Or contact Tara Metts Democratic Headquarters for help: (515) 306-1298.

What are my options on the ballot?
1. If you vote straight Democratic Party, ALL the Democratic candidates will 
have your vote.
2. Be sure to turn you ballot over and vote "YES" for the judges and "YES" for 
pool and gym.

This information is provided as a courtesy by Jefferson County Democratic Party 
10/25/12

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday

[khazana108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> Doc sez, you are taking it far too seriously - look into any organization of 
> human beings, anywhere, any place, and you will always find those who derive 
> power from their power over others.


Derive power from their power? Yes, it is Jim..

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday

[doctordumbass]

Doc sez, you are taking it far too seriously - look into any organization of 
human beings, anywhere, any place, and you will always find those who derive 
power from their power over others. Sad as that may be, there is nothing unique 
about the TMO in that. 

To say there is something cosmically corrupt about the TMO is a proclamation 
without an existing reference point. Where does your standard of comparison 
actually exist in the world? Boy Scouts? Catholic Church? National governments? 
Universities? Corporations?

Answer: No place. So the question really becomes, is there any intrinsic value 
to the TMO as an organization, and that, like the value we place on any 
organization, is up to each of us.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> Dear Michael Jackson,
> 
> Your story, in two parts, reads so well. You could not have established the 
> justice of your cause any better--because you told the story just as you had 
> experienced it--without opinion or resentment. The response of Bill Sands is 
> the story of the appalling failure of the Movement to in any way enlist the 
> support of reality, nature, the universe--whatever you want to call it [Third 
> Point of View]. If the TMO possessed any grace which indicated its agreement 
> with what is real and what is true, *there would have been no way for Bill 
> Sands to act as he did when confronted with the fact of your helplessness 
> before this allergic reaction to formaldehyde inside the foam*--which 
> includes of course the matter of your baking those breads and desserts.
> 
> To me this is the most serious indictment of the Movement, that someone in 
> your predicament, presenting your case as honestly and respectfully as you 
> could, would precipitate the reaction that Bill Sands had--on numerous 
> occasions. Talk about failing to read reality. No matter what principles, 
> rules, regulations he was charged to enforce, for him to go right against the 
> whole momentum of how the truth was coming towards him as you explained your 
> physical vulnerability, well, this demonstrates--even way back then 
> (1987)--that Maharishi, TM, and the whole TMO enterprise was doomed. Bill 
> Sands denied his own human feelings and conscience to act in accordance with 
> an idea which was manifestly bizarre and indefensible *inside the context of 
> learning the medical fact of your condition*--what made it unhealthy for you 
> to meditate inside the Dome.
> 
> To arbitrarily override all of one's intuition and natural human 
> feelings--which are there to make the kind of discrimination Bill Sands 
> refused to allow himself to make--means that the TMO, at the highest levels, 
> is, in some serious way, the enemy of whatever is loving and intelligent and 
> merciful inside the universe. I almost could not believe the effect created 
> by the unavoidable juxtaposition of your story--which only became more 
> dramatic when the matter of your being the master baker came up--with the 
> response of Bill Sands:--I almost feel more sorry for Bill than I do for you. 
> His having to act so totally against his own human nature in order, I must 
> suppose, *to please Maharishi Mahesh Yogi*.
> 
> For Bill Sands to be put in that position to feel he had to act the way he 
> did when faced with the dilemma created by your allergic reaction to the 
> formaldehyde, this reveals something irreversibly corrupt in the entire 
> consciousness of the TMO. If there had been the very slightest justification 
> for the actions of Bill Sands we would have felt that. Bill Sands acted out 
> of obedience to Maharishi and those hierarchically above him; nevertheless he 
> did violence to his own soul--and surely some day he will come to know this.
> 
> There is no answering this charge of cruelty and ruthlessness--I believe it 
> does go to Maharishi's own sense of arrogance and pride--Maharishi at some 
> fundamental level of reality entirely misunderstood what creation was all 
> about, and what the purpose was of having been created as a human being. With 
> all of my own involvement with Maharishi and teaching TM, your story stands 
> out as the cleanest and most damning revelation of the pathology of the TMO. 
> I am relieved, however, to feel how this has not embittered you--except where 
> it should. It was quite an experience *to find absolutely nothing that could 
> ever be said in defence of the behaviour of Bill Sands*; I am used to seeing 
> the point of view of the Movement in these matters, even as I would never 
> countenance submitting my soul to such misguided discipline and authority.
> 
> The only truth that is contained in TM and Maharishi requires, in order for 
> this kind of incident to be excused, that somehow inside the context of the 
> human operation of the TMO there is more intelligence, more love, more truth, 
> more reality than there is contained in any other organization in the world. 
> In this instance the universe was

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): Sat Oct 20 00:00:00 2012
End Date (UTC): Sat Oct 27 00:00:00 2012
605 messages as of (UTC) Thu Oct 25 23:30:08 2012

47 authfriend 
39 Share Long 
38 turquoiseb 
38 Robin Carlsen 
36 Buck 
36 "Richard J. Williams" 
35 Jason 
33 awoelflebater 
28 Emily Reyn 
23 Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
21 wgm4u 
20 nablusoss1008 
17 Bhairitu 
17 Alex Stanley 
16 Ravi Chivukula 
13 khazana108 
12 salyavin808 
12 raunchydog 
12 card 
10 emptybill 
10 PaliGap 
 9 Michael Jackson 
 8 Mike Dixon 
 7 wleed3 
 7 marekreavis 
 7 Yifu 
 6 oxcart49 
 5 seekliberation 
 5 wle...@aol.com
 5 Duveyoung 
 5 Dick Mays 
 4 sri...@ymail.com, UNEXPECTED_DATA_AFTER_ADDRESS@".SYNTAX-ERROR.
 4 merlin 
 4 John 
 4 "emilymae.reyn" 
 2 ultrarishi 
 2 feste37 
 2 Rick Archer 
 1 sharelong60 
 1 mjackson74 
 1 martyboi 
 1 hermandan0 
 1 Susan 
 1 "martin.quickman" 

Posters: 44
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] In praise of Barry (Re: Coup de foudre)

[khazana108]

This is one thing I like about Barry: that he tells this story. He is almost 
certainly being ridiculed for it, and he knows it, but he doesn't care. He 
really doesn't care. See how little guarded he is. In this case it is 
particularly clear, that he simply shares this, very personal moment, just the 
way he experienced it, and just shares his own reflections, as if he would be 
telling this to his best friend! There is no hidden agenda, no cynicism, or 
irony, he simply shares this moment of transcendence IN the world, the awe he 
experienced. 

And I think he does this here in general: this is Barry's MO. He has some kind 
of recognition, some truth he recognizes, and then he throws it at us, not 
really caring too much how people react, in take-it-or-leave-it style. He has 
this inner independence, and that's a great thing I think.  He could be more 
sensitive, to not hurt people, sure. But he is almost completely innocent in 
this. Now take it or leave it.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Today's koan:  Maharishi explains there's 100% determinism, 100% free 
> will.  I love these paradoxes!
> 
> Gangaji said, and I'm paraphrasing:  if you think you're the doer, then it's 
> better if you do what you think is right to do.
> 
> B, what comes out of the jello first, sound or light?
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: Bhairitu 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 3:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Coup de foudre
>  
> 
>   
> On 10/22/2012 07:59 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
> > I had an interesting experience this morning, interesting primarily
> > because I've only had such an experience a few times in my life, and
> > it's been a long time since the last one.
> >
> > I was out walking in my neighborhood and saw a woman approaching on a
> > bakfiets (a bicycle with a passenger compartment on the front, similar
> > to the Babboe I posted about earlier). She had two small kids -- boys, I
> > think -- in the compartment, but to tell the truth I'm not sure they
> > were boys because I couldn't take my eyes off of her face. I found her
> > incredibly beautiful. Not in a supermodel or actress sort of way, more a
> > "Wow...this is a very real and interesting person" sort of way. And not
> > in the least in a lustful sort of way. She just instantly captured my
> > interest, so I smiled. She smiled back, and then pedaled past me and
> > turned down a street parallel to mine.
> >
> > Unwilling to part with that delightful second of appreciation, I turned
> > to watch her pedal away. She turned to look at me, too. We both smiled
> > again, and then she pedaled on.
> >
> > That's all. You were maybe expecting her to have stopped and asked me to
> > feel her ass?  :-)
> >
> > That short interaction may not sound like much of a moment to others,
> > but to me it's of interest because several times in my life such a
> > moment of mutual recognition and appreciation has led to wonderful and
> > memorable love affairs.
> >
> > One of those times, interestingly enough, occurred on an ATR course of
> > at the old Cobb Mountain TM facility. It was the first day, and never
> > having been there before I was walking around checking things out. She
> > walked by me, I got that powerful "flash of recognition" feeling, and
> > then she'd walked past. No smiles this time; there wasn't really time.
> > But the flash was enough to stop me in my tracks and cause me to turn
> > around and look at her walking away. But she wasn't walking away. She
> > had stopped and turned around and was looking at me, too. We didn't hook
> > up on that course, but we did later, and it was memorable indeed, at
> > least from my side. Lovely woman.
> >
> > So I never ignore such moments. I may never see this woman in Leiden
> > again, but if I don't it really doesn't matter. In my experience such
> > moments are timeless, in the sense that they quite possibly cut across
> > the boundaries of one incarnation and intrude with memories of another.
> > If we run into one another again in this incarnation, I'll get to see
> > what happens. If not, that's what future incarnations are for. :-)
> 
> You hate jyotish but then I wouldn't be surprised if your horoscope 
> shows a "sanyasi yoga" or at least a weak 7th lord which means that your 
> life isn't set up for long term relationships such as marriage.   And if 
> you attempted marriage it might well end in divorce.  One of the most 
> common questions astrologers get is "will I ever be married?"  And in 
> every case where that question came up I could see that the horoscope 
> didn't support it.  Which is why they asked the question in the first 
> place.  That doesn't mean that you shouldn't try but it is getting a 
> little late in the day. ;-)
> 
> I was thinking about the free will and pre-destiny issue the other day 
> and thinking that one problem is that people think of the transcendent 
> like it is air.  Try thin

Re: [FairfieldLife] The Most Dangerous Idea Since Darwin Part V

[Bhairitu]

On 10/25/2012 04:30 PM, Robin Carlsen wrote:
> MIND AND COSMOS: WHY THE MATERIALIST NEO-DARWINIAN CONCEPTION OF NATURE IS 
> ALMOST CERTAINLY FALSE by Thomas Nagel
>
> But to explain consciousness, as well as biological complexity, as a 
> consequence of the natural order adds a whole new dimension of difficulty, I 
> am setting aside outright dualism, which would abandon the hope for an 
> integrated explanation. Indeed, substance dualism would imply that biology 
> has no responsibility at all for the existence of minds. What interests me is 
> the alternative hypothesis that biological evolution is responsible for the 
> existence of conscious mental phenomena, but that since those phenomena are 
> not physically explainable, the usual view of evolution must be revised. It 
> is not just a physical process.
>
> If that is so, how much would have to be added to the physical story to 
> produce a genuine explanation of consciousness--one that made the appearance 
> of consciousness, as such, intelligible, as opposed to merely explaining the 
> appearance of certain physical organisms that, as a matter of fact, are 
> conscious? It is not enough simply to add to the physical account of 
> evolution the further observation that different types of animal organisms, 
> depending on their physical constitution, have different forms of conscious 
> life. That would present the consciousness of animals as a mysterious side 
> effect of the physical history of evolution, which explains only the physical 
> and functional character of organisms. . .
>
> For a satisfactory explanation of consciousness as such, a general 
> psychophysical theory of consciousness would have to be woven into the 
> evolutionary story, one which makes intelligible both (1) why specific 
> organisms have the conscious life they have, and (2) why conscious organisms 
> arose in the history of life on earth. . .
>
> [S]ome kind of psychophysical theory must apply not only nonhistorically, at 
> the end of the process, but also to the evolutionary process itself. That 
> process would have to be not only the physical history of the appearance and 
> development of physical organisms but also a mental history of the appearance 
> and development of conscious beings. And somehow it would have to be one 
> process, making both aspects of the result intelligible. . .
>
> This would mean abandoning the standard assumption that evolution is driven 
> by exclusively physical causes. Indeed, it suggests that the explanation may 
> have to be something more than physical all the way down. The rejection of 
> psychophysical reductionism leaves us with the mystery of the most basic kind 
> about the natural order--a mystery whose avoidance is one of the primary 
> motives of reductionism. It is a double mystery: first, about the relation 
> between the physical and the mental in each individual instance, and second, 
> about how the evolutionary explanation of the development of physical 
> organisms can be transformed into a psychophysical explanation of how 
> consciousness developed.
>
> The existence of consciousness is both one of the most familiar and one of 
> the most astonishing things about the world. No conception of the natural 
> order that does not reveal it as something to be expected can aspire even to 
> the outline of completeness. And if physical science, whatever it may have to 
> say about the origin of life, leaves us necessarily in the dark about 
> consciousness, that shows that it cannot provide the basic form of 
> intelligibility for this world. There must be a very different way in which 
> things as they are make sense, and that includes the way the physical world 
> is, since the problem cannot be quarantined in the mind. . .
>
> This dissatisfaction with an explanatory stopping place that relates complex 
> structures to complex structures is what underlies the constant push toward 
> reduction in modern science. It is hard to give up the assumption that 
> whatever is true of the complex must be explained by what is true of the 
> elements. That does not mean that new phenomena cannot emerge at higher 
> levels, but the hope is that they can be analyzed through the character and 
> interactions of their more elementary components. Such harmless emergence is 
> standardly illustrated by the example of liquidity, which depends on the 
> interactions of the molecules that compose the liquid. But the emergence of 
> the mental at certain levels of biological complexity is not like this. 
> According to the emergent position now being considered, consciousness is 
> something completely new.
>
> Because such emergence, even if systematic, remains fundamentally 
> inexplicable, the ideal of intelligibility demands that we take seriously the 
> alternative of a reductive answer to the constitutive question--an answer 
> that accounts for the relation between mind and brain in terms of something 
> more basic about the natural

Re: [FairfieldLife] In praise of Barry (Re: Coup de foudre)

[Share Long]

I still think everyone here has their gifts and their flaws.  I like the 
richness of all the different voices of FFL though I'm more comfortable with 
some of those voices than with others.  But that selective comfort also seems 
true of us all.

Hey computer guys, is it possible to reply from archives?  I'm still not 
getting some posts in my email inbox.  Has been happening since Tuesday.  Heck 
I didn't even get last night's post count til this morning!




 From: khazana108 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 10:09 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] In praise of Barry (Re: Coup de foudre)
 

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:

> Could you say something nice about me too, Khazana?

Yes, Robin, of course I can, and will too. But you have to wait, wait at least 
a fraction of the time Barry had to wait. You see, I am already trying, but I 
still have to warm up a bit.


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch idiocy

[wgm4u]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon  wrote:
>
> I was watching *The Five* on FNC and they said David Lynch had decided to 
> vote for Obama because he had noticed that by changing a couple of letters in 
> Romney's name, that it spelled R(our)money and to him that meant Romney was 
> going to take R(our) money for himself and other rich people. I'm so thankful 
> they didn't mention the TMO in this story otherwise Transcendental Meditation 
> could have been linked to the *Lynching* of Obama.

Who would you rather manage your money? Romney or Obama?

[FairfieldLife] The Most Dangerous Idea Since Darwin Part V

[Robin Carlsen]

MIND AND COSMOS: WHY THE MATERIALIST NEO-DARWINIAN CONCEPTION OF NATURE IS 
ALMOST CERTAINLY FALSE by Thomas Nagel

But to explain consciousness, as well as biological complexity, as a 
consequence of the natural order adds a whole new dimension of difficulty, I am 
setting aside outright dualism, which would abandon the hope for an integrated 
explanation. Indeed, substance dualism would imply that biology has no 
responsibility at all for the existence of minds. What interests me is the 
alternative hypothesis that biological evolution is responsible for the 
existence of conscious mental phenomena, but that since those phenomena are not 
physically explainable, the usual view of evolution must be revised. It is not 
just a physical process.

If that is so, how much would have to be added to the physical story to produce 
a genuine explanation of consciousness--one that made the appearance of 
consciousness, as such, intelligible, as opposed to merely explaining the 
appearance of certain physical organisms that, as a matter of fact, are 
conscious? It is not enough simply to add to the physical account of evolution 
the further observation that different types of animal organisms, depending on 
their physical constitution, have different forms of conscious life. That would 
present the consciousness of animals as a mysterious side effect of the 
physical history of evolution, which explains only the physical and functional 
character of organisms. . .

For a satisfactory explanation of consciousness as such, a general 
psychophysical theory of consciousness would have to be woven into the 
evolutionary story, one which makes intelligible both (1) why specific 
organisms have the conscious life they have, and (2) why conscious organisms 
arose in the history of life on earth. . .

[S]ome kind of psychophysical theory must apply not only nonhistorically, at 
the end of the process, but also to the evolutionary process itself. That 
process would have to be not only the physical history of the appearance and 
development of physical organisms but also a mental history of the appearance 
and development of conscious beings. And somehow it would have to be one 
process, making both aspects of the result intelligible. . .

This would mean abandoning the standard assumption that evolution is driven by 
exclusively physical causes. Indeed, it suggests that the explanation may have 
to be something more than physical all the way down. The rejection of 
psychophysical reductionism leaves us with the mystery of the most basic kind 
about the natural order--a mystery whose avoidance is one of the primary 
motives of reductionism. It is a double mystery: first, about the relation 
between the physical and the mental in each individual instance, and second, 
about how the evolutionary explanation of the development of physical organisms 
can be transformed into a psychophysical explanation of how consciousness 
developed.

The existence of consciousness is both one of the most familiar and one of the 
most astonishing things about the world. No conception of the natural order 
that does not reveal it as something to be expected can aspire even to the 
outline of completeness. And if physical science, whatever it may have to say 
about the origin of life, leaves us necessarily in the dark about 
consciousness, that shows that it cannot provide the basic form of 
intelligibility for this world. There must be a very different way in which 
things as they are make sense, and that includes the way the physical world is, 
since the problem cannot be quarantined in the mind. . .

This dissatisfaction with an explanatory stopping place that relates complex 
structures to complex structures is what underlies the constant push toward 
reduction in modern science. It is hard to give up the assumption that whatever 
is true of the complex must be explained by what is true of the elements. That 
does not mean that new phenomena cannot emerge at higher levels, but the hope 
is that they can be analyzed through the character and interactions of their 
more elementary components. Such harmless emergence is standardly illustrated 
by the example of liquidity, which depends on the interactions of the molecules 
that compose the liquid. But the emergence of the mental at certain levels of 
biological complexity is not like this. According to the emergent position now 
being considered, consciousness is something completely new.

Because such emergence, even if systematic, remains fundamentally inexplicable, 
the ideal of intelligibility demands that we take seriously the alternative of 
a reductive answer to the constitutive question--an answer that accounts for 
the relation between mind and brain in terms of something more basic about the 
natural order. If such an account were possible, it would explain the 
appearance of mental life at complex levels of biological organization by means 
of a general monism according to which the co

[FairfieldLife] David Lynch idiocy

[Mike Dixon]

I was watching *The Five* on FNC and they said David Lynch had decided to vote 
for Obama because he had noticed that by changing a couple of letters in 
Romney's name, that it spelled R(our)money and to him that meant Romney was 
going to take R(our) money for himself and other rich people. I'm so thankful 
they didn't mention the TMO in this story otherwise Transcendental Meditation 
could have been linked to the *Lynching* of Obama.

[FairfieldLife] Re: An Obama win could break the back of this Country.

[wgm4u]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> On 10/25/2012 03:04 PM, wgm4u wrote:
> > His misguided policy of *forcing* alternative energy sources on us ALONE 
> > will (has) doom the economy for years to come.
> >
> > Conversely by opening up ALL of our energy resources we could speed up 
> > everything in the economy even R And D for renewable sources of energy like 
> > wind and solar.
> >
> > This is a no brainer! Wake up America, Obama is an ideologue that doesn't 
> > have his feet on the ground! He's already lost us Billions with a B.
> >
> >
> 
> Romney will take us back to the 19th century complete with land barons 
> and landed gentry.  Do you really want that, Serf Billy?

Just keep your eye on California, it's the bellwether for the Country under 
Democrat rule.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Vedic Astrology 2012 Presidential Election Newsletter

[Bhairitu]

Too bad those Republican NeoCons proposed a war in the first place.  
They are out to destroy the world.  Maybe they really are rakshasas. ;-)

On 10/25/2012 03:12 PM, wgm4u wrote:
> Too bad all of those Democrats voted FOR the war in Iraq! Here's Hillary 
> voting for it!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation"  
> wrote:
>> regardless of who wins and who predicts correctly, bottom line is that it's 
>> a 50/50 chance on the prediction, and I mean that almost literally.  I've 
>> seen a few sites that are saying there's a very good possibility that we 
>> could have an electorate tie of 269-269.  It would require Romney to win 
>> specific swing states, and he IS gaining momentum there.
>>
>> What's scary is all the potential riots.  Because if there's a tie, it will 
>> go to Mitt Romney.  The reason is because if there is a tie, the vote goes 
>> to the House of Representatives, which is currently GOP dominated.  I 
>> remember all the anger and commotion in 2000, and we were only 5 trillion in 
>> debt then, and no major wars & no major economic downfall.  If there's a tie 
>> and the House elects Romney, I can see things turning ugly real fast.
>>
>>
>> seekliberation
>>
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
 sigh, this jyotishi thinks Romney will win.
>>> And, Chakrapani thinks Obama will win.
>>>
>
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] An Obama win could break the back of this Country.

[Bhairitu]

On 10/25/2012 03:04 PM, wgm4u wrote:
> His misguided policy of *forcing* alternative energy sources on us ALONE will 
> (has) doom the economy for years to come.
>
> Conversely by opening up ALL of our energy resources we could speed up 
> everything in the economy even R And D for renewable sources of energy like 
> wind and solar.
>
> This is a no brainer! Wake up America, Obama is an ideologue that doesn't 
> have his feet on the ground! He's already lost us Billions with a B.
>
>

Romney will take us back to the 19th century complete with land barons 
and landed gentry.  Do you really want that, Serf Billy?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Spiritual Question For Wednesday

[Bhairitu]

On 10/25/2012 01:25 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "card"  wrote:
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap"  wrote:
 Thanks for the story Turq. I'm as jealous as f***! I'm
 afraid I'm a hopeless case where JH is concerned. Sorry.
>>> I understand. Which is why I probably also understand
>>> a certain reaction to people talking about him and his
>>> relative guitar prowess who in all likelihood never
>>> saw him play, and probably never even knew who he was
>>> until he died.
>>>
>>> As a guitar freak, I've been a relatively fortunate one,
>>> in that I've managed to be either lucky enough or solvent
>>> enough financially to have been able to gain access to
>>> first-row seats in front of some of the great guitarists
>>> of our age. I've sat an arm's length away from Segovia
>>> and John Williams and many of the great guitarists of
>>> our lifetime who you could name, and I'd weigh Jimi's
>>> sense of "touch" and the guitar being an extension of
>>> his self as the equal of any of them. Dude was phenomenal.
>> I still can remember when I first heard The Experience play.
>> It was Red House (Polydor, European[?] version; Spotify, the
>> *sixth* entry). I was climbing up the stairs to the second
>> floor of our summer residence, and kinda was almost petrified.
>> Thought, who the fvck plays so dirty and simultaneously
>> so skillfully?
>>
>> Only just a couple of minutes ago listened to the US version
>> (first entry, Reprise?), *for the first time*. Gots to say,
>> IMO Jimi almost ruins the song compared to that European
>> version. Stupid echos, and I'd say inaccurate additional bends,
>> and "lawds", occasionally poor rhythm, and stuff.
>>
>> Perhaps the British atmosphere made him somehow play more
>> relaxed and thus, better??
> I doubt very seriously that Jimi would have responded
> favorably to "relaxed." He was somewhat combative in
> person and thrived on challenge. Here's a classic story
> told by a rather combative person himself, rock promoter
> Bill Graham, who takes credit for...uh...coaxing one of
> Jimi's best performance ever out of him by getting in
> his face and calling him a slacker:
>
> Concert promoter extraordinaire BILL GRAHAM takes the
> credit for one of JIMI HENDRIX's greatest live performances.
> HENDRIX performed two shows on New Year's Eve, 1969, and
> two shows on New Year's Day, 1970, at the world famous
> FILLMORE EAST in New York City ... in fact, a couple
> of the shows were recorded for release as a live album.
> According to GRAHAM, JIMI put on an incredible show,
> pulling out every trick in the book to razzle dazzle the
> audience ... but, "he never really played. He did every one
> of his moves. Side. Up. Under. Piercing. Throwing. Kissing.
> Fire. Fucking. Humping. He did it all. Picking with his
> teeth ... they thought he was the greatest ... and he was
> ... but not during that set."  The audience sat in awe with
> their mouths open ... it appeared to be the show of shows.
> Between shows, HENDRIX came back stage to GRAHAM's office
> and asked, "What'd you think, Bill?"  GRAHAM says, "I
> didn't want to answer him, so I asked the others to leave
> the office. And I said, 'Jimi, you're the best guitar
> player I know and tonight, for an hour and a half, you
> were a hack. You were a disgrace to what you are.'"
> HENDRIX, typically a quiet and shy man, was blown away.
> "Didn't you hear that audience? They went crazy!" "I
> know," said GRAHAM. "You know what you did? You made the
> same mistake too many of the other great ones make. You
> subconsciously play what they want. You sock it to them.
> You did an hour and a half of shuck and grind and bullshit
> that you can do with your eyes closed lying down somewhere.
> But you forgot one thing. You forgot to play. And it's
> tragic for you, because you can play better than anyone
> I know." HENDRIX reportedly fell apart. "Why are you
> telling me that?" he screamed, pushing furniture around.
> "Because you asked me," GRAHAM answered. And, according
> to GRAHAM, "What followed on the next show, with respect
> to Carlos and Eric and all the others, was the most
> brilliant, emotional display of virtuoso electric guitar
> playing I have ever heard. I don't expect to hear such
> sustained brilliance in an hour and fifteen minutes. He
> just stood there, did nothing ... just played and played
> and played. He comes off the stage afterwards, a wet rag,
> and says to me ... 'All Right?'  I said, 'Jimi, it was
> great.'  And I hugged him and got all wet and I asked
> him if he would do an encore."  "Yeah," JIMI said ...
> "and then he goes out and does every conceivable corny
> bullshit thing he can do."
>
> I stick with my guns over the idiocy of anyone claiming
> that Stevie Ray Vaughn was better than Jimi Hendrix.
> That's akin to having so little discrimination and taste
> as to believe that Robin Carlsen was an ac

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday

[Robin Carlsen]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
 
 
SHARE: Remembering that Maharishi said, "What we have no control over we take 
to be the will of God." 

The way I read (I had not heard this before) this statement of Maharishi's, it 
proves that he was in a higher state of consciousness. Maharishi, and only 
Maharishi, had this ability to say something--and if you really took it in from 
where he was saying it, and felt its resonances throughout the universe itself 
[and that is indeed what happened if you were sensitive enough], your very 
being told you he was representing reality itself.

There is the strict *content* of what Maharishi is saying here. But as soon as 
I read it, *I felt the context of Maharishi and his consciousness* and how 
perfectly, metaphysically, apt his comment was.

Not only that: IT STILL SEEMS TRUE TO ME. But Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, he was, 
during a stretch of time, infinitely tuned-in to the cosmos--at least he could 
say something like this, and in one's being one sensed that he was, as it were, 
making known the profoundest truth that could be known. "What we have no 
control over we take to be the will of God". How brilliant is this? It is said 
by someone who 'has more context' than anyone whom I have ever known.

I don't know how many persons (you would have to be an initiator to really feel 
this, I suppose) remember how Maharishi would make some truth become a kind of 
perception in one's life. I think, even now, I can benefit from this precept. 
It actually works for me. Even as I do not believe in a Personal God.

But I believe in the empirical truth of Maharishi's words--*I discovered their 
truth at a level I could not have any control over*. That was the 
extraordinariness of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi: he wasn't making this stuff up. He 
was reading off reality.

One of the most perspicacious things I have ever heard--and only Maharishi 
could have said it. As long as one guards oneself from the mystical aura of his 
authority--and not allow this statement to be any truer than it actually 
is--one can apply this truth in one's life. At least when this situation comes 
up, this remembered perspective could be useful.

No one but Maharishi could say this--because it is (or it seems to me it is 
objectively true somehow. "What we have no control over we take to be the will 
of God". Even, then, if it is not literally true, to adopt this frame of 
reference will be beneficial to us. No one refuted--in his presence--a single 
thing Maharishi uttered.

TM more or less made us helpless to resist the authority of Maharishi. However 
if you knew Maharishi personally I feel sure you carry within yourself 
something that no other being who has ever existed could put there. And I find 
not just the meaning, but the subtext of this statement of Maharishi's to be 
undeniably 'true'. What initiator's subjectivity could take in all of what and 
who Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was--and simultaneously and innocently experience 
what was flawed about him? For me, that has always been the challenge: to do 
Maharishi total justice (to what he was able to do to one's personal 
consciousness; to what he was inside creation in his glory days) while at the 
same time realizing his terrible weakness.

But here, he rules.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Vedic Astrology 2012 Presidential Election Newsletter

[wgm4u]

Too bad all of those Democrats voted FOR the war in Iraq! Here's Hillary voting 
for it!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation"  
wrote:
>
> regardless of who wins and who predicts correctly, bottom line is that it's a 
> 50/50 chance on the prediction, and I mean that almost literally.  I've seen 
> a few sites that are saying there's a very good possibility that we could 
> have an electorate tie of 269-269.  It would require Romney to win specific 
> swing states, and he IS gaining momentum there.  
> 
> What's scary is all the potential riots.  Because if there's a tie, it will 
> go to Mitt Romney.  The reason is because if there is a tie, the vote goes to 
> the House of Representatives, which is currently GOP dominated.  I remember 
> all the anger and commotion in 2000, and we were only 5 trillion in debt 
> then, and no major wars & no major economic downfall.  If there's a tie and 
> the House elects Romney, I can see things turning ugly real fast.  
>   
> 
> seekliberation
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > >
> > > sigh, this jyotishi thinks Romney will win.
> > 
> > And, Chakrapani thinks Obama will win.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday

[Robin Carlsen]

Dear Michael Jackson,

Your story, in two parts, reads so well. You could not have established the 
justice of your cause any better--because you told the story just as you had 
experienced it--without opinion or resentment. The response of Bill Sands is 
the story of the appalling failure of the Movement to in any way enlist the 
support of reality, nature, the universe--whatever you want to call it [Third 
Point of View]. If the TMO possessed any grace which indicated its agreement 
with what is real and what is true, *there would have been no way for Bill 
Sands to act as he did when confronted with the fact of your helplessness 
before this allergic reaction to formaldehyde inside the foam*--which includes 
of course the matter of your baking those breads and desserts.

To me this is the most serious indictment of the Movement, that someone in your 
predicament, presenting your case as honestly and respectfully as you could, 
would precipitate the reaction that Bill Sands had--on numerous occasions. Talk 
about failing to read reality. No matter what principles, rules, regulations he 
was charged to enforce, for him to go right against the whole momentum of how 
the truth was coming towards him as you explained your physical vulnerability, 
well, this demonstrates--even way back then (1987)--that Maharishi, TM, and the 
whole TMO enterprise was doomed. Bill Sands denied his own human feelings and 
conscience to act in accordance with an idea which was manifestly bizarre and 
indefensible *inside the context of learning the medical fact of your 
condition*--what made it unhealthy for you to meditate inside the Dome.

To arbitrarily override all of one's intuition and natural human 
feelings--which are there to make the kind of discrimination Bill Sands refused 
to allow himself to make--means that the TMO, at the highest levels, is, in 
some serious way, the enemy of whatever is loving and intelligent and merciful 
inside the universe. I almost could not believe the effect created by the 
unavoidable juxtaposition of your story--which only became more dramatic when 
the matter of your being the master baker came up--with the response of Bill 
Sands:--I almost feel more sorry for Bill than I do for you. His having to act 
so totally against his own human nature in order, I must suppose, *to please 
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi*.

For Bill Sands to be put in that position to feel he had to act the way he did 
when faced with the dilemma created by your allergic reaction to the 
formaldehyde, this reveals something irreversibly corrupt in the entire 
consciousness of the TMO. If there had been the very slightest justification 
for the actions of Bill Sands we would have felt that. Bill Sands acted out of 
obedience to Maharishi and those hierarchically above him; nevertheless he did 
violence to his own soul--and surely some day he will come to know this.

There is no answering this charge of cruelty and ruthlessness--I believe it 
does go to Maharishi's own sense of arrogance and pride--Maharishi at some 
fundamental level of reality entirely misunderstood what creation was all 
about, and what the purpose was of having been created as a human being. With 
all of my own involvement with Maharishi and teaching TM, your story stands out 
as the cleanest and most damning revelation of the pathology of the TMO. I am 
relieved, however, to feel how this has not embittered you--except where it 
should. It was quite an experience *to find absolutely nothing that could ever 
be said in defence of the behaviour of Bill Sands*; I am used to seeing the 
point of view of the Movement in these matters, even as I would never 
countenance submitting my soul to such misguided discipline and authority.

The only truth that is contained in TM and Maharishi requires, in order for 
this kind of incident to be excused, that somehow inside the context of the 
human operation of the TMO there is more intelligence, more love, more truth, 
more reality than there is contained in any other organization in the world. In 
this instance the universe was presenting a challenge to Bill Sands in the 
story you told him about your suffering from your reaction to the formaldehyde: 
contrary to what he thought, he was to transcend the rules, realizing that the 
particulars here mandated that he make a judgment independent of what was asked 
of him by his superiors. What a terrible thing it is for Bill Sands to live 
with this memory--thinking he was doing the will of his Master (which he very 
well might have been doing), meanwhile trangressing against the very 
intelligence which was providentially arranging this conflict in order to 
challenge his blind and idolatrous orthodoxy.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> By that time I didn't feel I was being mis-used - it was just part of the 
> junk one had to put up with if one had no money (which makes you a darling of 
> the Movement) and wants to stay and be part

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Spiritual Question For Wednesday

[khazana108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108  wrote:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHPKe8D01Kk

Something more from down the memory lane:

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7337593/the-joke

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7338575/full-of-lies

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7364869/defending-the-rajas


> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > Trying to recruit me, are you, Zebra Boy? Think I was born
> > > > > yesterday? Think I fell off a turnip truck? Well, I'm not
> > > > > so green as I am grassy-looking, so back off, buster.
> > > 
> > > Well authorfiend is certainly not green.
> > 
> > (He means "authfriend.")
> > 
> > > Due to the hints of the Willytexter,
> > 
> > (He means "willytex." And he doesn't mean "hints." Does
> > he mean "links"?)
> > 
> > > I stumbled upon this dialoque between her and Barry (Shoki)
> > > and quite honestly, you you tell any difference between the
> > > tone now and then? This is 1995, but you could post this
> > > same post today on FFL with just changing the names a little
> > > bit - to suit the present environment, and nobody would really 
> > > notice the difference.
> > 
> > It's not clear what point khazana is trying to make here--
> > that I'm consistent in how I respond to illogic and
> > misrepresentation? That Barry has always been a prick?
> > 
> > What's interesting is that in following Richard's link,
> > khazana would have seen a post from me *defending Barry*
> > from someone else's attack:
> > 
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.meditation/Xa_w7e7dEb4/MAorIbdMZqoJ
> > 
> > http://tinyurl.com/c7q57sw
> > 
> > But that would be evidence in my favor. Ooops! So khazana has
> > to go on a hunt for a different post from a different thread
> > to use against me. Too funny.
> > 
> > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.meditation.transcendental/browse_thread/thread/35b5ad0cd70ee2d8/6e533bbfc2e53e3d
> > > http://tinyurl.com/9r8985j
> > > 
> > > > OK, well maybe we don't see it here but I do believe it is in there 
> > > > somewhere - that nurturing, softer side.
> > > 
> > > You may well be the recipient of this softer, nurturing side
> > > at times Ann, but to be the recipient of her other side, may
> > > I suggest a little experiment? Just sign in with a different
> > > yahoo ID, and profess to be at one with Barry or the other
> > > crew. Profess to be critical of TM and/ or Robin, and see
> > > what happens. I promise you, this is the only way to find out.
> > 
> > Or try a slightly different experiment: sign in with a
> > different Yahoo ID, "profess to be at one with Barry or the
> > other crew" (I think he means "or one of the others of 
> > Barry's crew"), come up with *fair* criticisms of TM and/or
> > Robin (or just don't make criticisms--or criticize Mitt
> > Romney), and see what happens.
> > 
> > I guess poor khazana was misled the other day by Barry's
> > lie concerning why I was fighting with Xeno--according to
> > Barry, it was because Xeno had said Barry was a better
> > spiritual teacher than Robin. In fact, Xeno and I have
> > been fighting since summer 2011 (as well as having had
> > several entirely pleasant exchanges).
> > 
> > What is so illuminating about khazana's post here is that
> > it shows him to be guilty of the very behavior he accuses
> > me of.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] An Obama win could break the back of this Country.

[wgm4u]

His misguided policy of *forcing* alternative energy sources on us ALONE will 
(has) doom the economy for years to come. 

Conversely by opening up ALL of our energy resources we could speed up 
everything in the economy even R And D for renewable sources of energy like 
wind and solar.

This is a no brainer! Wake up America, Obama is an ideologue that doesn't have 
his feet on the ground! He's already lost us Billions with a B.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Spiritual Question For Wednesday

[khazana108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "card"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap"  wrote:
> > >
> > > (BTW Ann - I have words for you. It's not "Jimmy Hendrix". 
> > > And the fact that JH no longer walks amongst is perhaps a 
> > > sufficient refutation of the idea that God evolves. As for 
> > > "Vaughan is easily as good, especially when comparing the 
> > > two versions of that song" [Voodoo Chile, Slight Return]...
> > > well! Are you stark, staring, raving bonkers? (Meaning no 
> > > disrespect to SRV).
> > 
> > This just made my day, and caused a fit of milk-related
> > nose-snorting. :-)
> > 
> > Speaking as a lifelong Guitar Freak, to compare Jimi 
> > Hendrix with Stevie Ray Vaughn is the highest heresy.
> > I've seen both play, up close and personal, and even
> > though SRV was better than I'll ever be at the guitar,
> > he ain't no Jack Kennedy. And he certainly ain't no
> > Jimi Hendrix. 
> > 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMyH4XTlVgs
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JkuLAzIAys
> 
> Listen e.g. to the "transcendental" sound at about 1:10.
> I don't think SRV ever could reach that level of subtlety,
> or stuff...
>
Compare Rig.V 10 119

7 The heavens and earth themselves have not grown equal to one half of me. Have 
I not drunk of Soma juice?
8 I in my grandeur have surpassed the heavens and all this spacious earth. Have 
I not drunk of Soma juice?
9 Aha! this spacious earth will I deposit either here or there
Have I not drunk of Soma juice?
10 In one short moment will I smite the earth in fury here or there:
Have I not drunk of Soma juice?


Well, I stand up next to a mountain
And I chop it down with the edge of my hand

Yeah

Well, I stand up next to a mountain
And I chop it down with the edge of my hand
Well, I pick up all the pieces and make an island
Might even raise a little sand

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday

[awoelflebater]

What an incredible story and so well told. I felt so much empathy for you and 
when you described the baking the essence of that kind of came through and made 
me think how they should have valued you because the fact of being a baker and 
making those beautiful and nourishing things demanded their respect. And yet 
they were oblivious and blind and stupid. How and why do people abuse others 
like this? You were providing something necessary and beautiful and they 
couldn't see that. All they could focus on was the need to have a job completed 
and then get you gone.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> By that time I didn't feel I was being mis-used - it was just part of the 
> junk one had to put up with if one had no money (which makes you a darling of 
> the Movement) and wants to stay and be part of the MIU experience. 
> 
> I actually liked Bill although he was a bit aloof but I reckon he learned 
> that from TM higher ups. When I did get ticked off was at the end of school 
> year 1987 when he and my direct supervisor Brad O'nash called me in for the 
> normal staff interview to see if I would be staying, talked about the extreme 
> importance of the upcoming banquet for the DAC (Development Advisory Council) 
> and asked me if they could count on me as the head of the bakery to do all 
> the extra work making desserts for the banquets and I said yes of course I am 
> not going anywhere. 
> 
> Then as soon as I had promised to do my best Bill told me I had to leave MIU 
> immediately after the banquet weekend was over because I wasn't participating 
> in group program. When I reminded him that I had Greg Wilson's written 
> permission to do program in my room, Bill who had obviously prepared said 
> "That is the Capitol (of the Age of Enlightenment) they don't tell us what to 
> do over here at MIU. So you are going to have to leave after the last day of 
> the DAC weekend. 
> 
> This was only about 2 weeks away, mind you. When I asked how long I had 
> between the end of the banquet and leaving MIU, Bill said "5 oclock." 
> 
> "What?" says I.
> 
> Bills says "The last meal of the banquet is noon, we want you out by 5 oclock 
> that afternoon."
> 
> Then I did get mad and told them that if that was the deal, I would pack up 
> and leave right then and they could come make the breads and desserts for the 
> DAC deal. Neither of them was willing to do anything so extreme and after 
> they took me to task for going back on my agreement to do all I could with 
> the banquet (which I countered with what the hell do you think you are doing 
> to me?) they asked me how much time I wanted and I said 2 weeks from the last 
> day of the banquet.
> 
> Bill said that was too long and I got up to leave and said "Then the two of 
> you will have to bake those desserts." They were both mad, but had to back 
> down. Real baking is an art and there was no one else who could have stepped 
> in and done what had to be done. 
> 
> After I walked out of the office, I just shook my head and laughed. It was 
> just typical Movement trash behavior. And so I kept my word, did a great job 
> with the banquet in addition to my regular duties. The banquet went well and 
> I even saved the day by preventing a very obstinate and bullheaded Purusha 
> guy they had sent me from ruining the dessert for a thousand people by not 
> following my instructions (I was mad enough to punch him)
> 
> And left 2 weeks later - it was just typical Movement treatment by the powers 
> that be towards the people who actually make the Movement successful - from 
> what some of your write, things have not improved in the last 25 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: Share Long 
> To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday
>  
> 
>   
> Jason, it's my experience that in every organization there are at least a few 
> good people.  Michael, I had a similar interview to yours.  I am so sorry 
> you were given such a hard time.  I admire how you handled the situation.   
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: Jason 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 4:05 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday
>  
> 
>   
> 
> 
> You know, all these cults and religions have his 'shit herd' 
> mentality.  I am thankfull that I never lived inside any 
> cult or org.  Being on the outside gave me a 'ringside view' 
> of a spectrum of these things.  I talk to a lot of people 
> who are in cults and get an idea of what is happening 
> inside.  You are better off alone.
> 
> All these orgs and cults are inhabited by such bureaucratic, 
> pedantic, dicactic, dogmatic, zombie bots.
> 
> ---  Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances. I quit going
> > to the Dome when I was on s

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday

[khazana108]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzWDzGxqqa0

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> By that time I didn't feel I was being mis-used - it was just part of the 
> junk one had to put up with if one had no money (which makes you a darling of 
> the Movement) and wants to stay and be part of the MIU experience. 
> 
> I actually liked Bill although he was a bit aloof but I reckon he learned 
> that from TM higher ups. When I did get ticked off was at the end of school 
> year 1987 when he and my direct supervisor Brad O'nash called me in for the 
> normal staff interview to see if I would be staying, talked about the extreme 
> importance of the upcoming banquet for the DAC (Development Advisory Council) 
> and asked me if they could count on me as the head of the bakery to do all 
> the extra work making desserts for the banquets and I said yes of course I am 
> not going anywhere. 
> 
> Then as soon as I had promised to do my best Bill told me I had to leave MIU 
> immediately after the banquet weekend was over because I wasn't participating 
> in group program. When I reminded him that I had Greg Wilson's written 
> permission to do program in my room, Bill who had obviously prepared said 
> "That is the Capitol (of the Age of Enlightenment) they don't tell us what to 
> do over here at MIU. So you are going to have to leave after the last day of 
> the DAC weekend. 
> 
> This was only about 2 weeks away, mind you. When I asked how long I had 
> between the end of the banquet and leaving MIU, Bill said "5 oclock." 
> 
> "What?" says I.
> 
> Bills says "The last meal of the banquet is noon, we want you out by 5 oclock 
> that afternoon."
> 
> Then I did get mad and told them that if that was the deal, I would pack up 
> and leave right then and they could come make the breads and desserts for the 
> DAC deal. Neither of them was willing to do anything so extreme and after 
> they took me to task for going back on my agreement to do all I could with 
> the banquet (which I countered with what the hell do you think you are doing 
> to me?) they asked me how much time I wanted and I said 2 weeks from the last 
> day of the banquet.
> 
> Bill said that was too long and I got up to leave and said "Then the two of 
> you will have to bake those desserts." They were both mad, but had to back 
> down. Real baking is an art and there was no one else who could have stepped 
> in and done what had to be done. 
> 
> After I walked out of the office, I just shook my head and laughed. It was 
> just typical Movement trash behavior. And so I kept my word, did a great job 
> with the banquet in addition to my regular duties. The banquet went well and 
> I even saved the day by preventing a very obstinate and bullheaded Purusha 
> guy they had sent me from ruining the dessert for a thousand people by not 
> following my instructions (I was mad enough to punch him)
> 
> And left 2 weeks later - it was just typical Movement treatment by the powers 
> that be towards the people who actually make the Movement successful - from 
> what some of your write, things have not improved in the last 25 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: Share Long 
> To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday
>  
> 
>   
> Jason, it's my experience that in every organization there are at least a few 
> good people.  Michael, I had a similar interview to yours.  I am so sorry 
> you were given such a hard time.  I admire how you handled the situation.   
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: Jason 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 4:05 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday
>  
> 
>   
> 
> 
> You know, all these cults and religions have his 'shit herd' 
> mentality.  I am thankfull that I never lived inside any 
> cult or org.  Being on the outside gave me a 'ringside view' 
> of a spectrum of these things.  I talk to a lot of people 
> who are in cults and get an idea of what is happening 
> inside.  You are better off alone.
> 
> All these orgs and cults are inhabited by such bureaucratic, 
> pedantic, dicactic, dogmatic, zombie bots.
> 
> ---  Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances. I quit going
> > to the Dome when I was on staff due to a really serious allergy to
> > formaldehyde, which in those days at least was a major component in making 
> > foam. 
> > The longer I was in the Dome, the worse I felt. 
> > 
> > 
> > So I stopped
> > going. I did program by myself in my pod room and felt great both in and 
> > out of
> > program. As twice a day in the Dome was part of the staff program, I was 
> > called
> > in to the Personnel Director's office (Bill Sands) and he gave me a serious
> > talk and threatened me with dismissal if I didn't start toeing th

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday

[Michael Jackson]

To Buck - while I appreciate positive thinking, and the desire for god things 
to happen, when I came into TM in the '70s I heard stories about people being 
pushed around by the leaders of the Movement, had my own experiences with it 
till I said so long in the 1990's and these kinds of strong arm tactics and 
inflexible attitudes on the part of TM leaders is still going on today - what 
makes you feel that any of it will change after at least 30 years of it being 
the way it has been? 





 From: emilymae.reyn 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 2:14 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday
 

  
 wrote:
>
> Well, it is unfortunate that the Rajas put themselves in this position of 
> interrogating folks against these un-published guidelines of theirs.  This is 
> a really good example.  Instead of just asking that people only practice TM 
> and the TM-sidhis in the Domes and not practice other spiritual techniques 
> this person, someone who we all know in the community, is there standing in 
> line with folks waiting for coffee downtown telling of being creep-ed out and 
> Of the visceral fear it triggered in a feeling of how invasive the interview 
> conversation was in the amount and detail of personal information they had 
> gathered about this person and were asking about. 
> 
> Next step for the person is to git three 'recommendations' from governors.  
> That means again going through this experience of applying for a badge and 
> the feeling of being creep-ed out by how invasive it was with three or more 
> people to get recommendations.  They likely tell three others each about this 
> person's experience of being creep-ed out.  Those each tell three more.  This 
> is really not good in a community.  It is just a bad position for the 
> TM-rajas to be in building dossiers around the guidelines and the Dome 
> numbers and interrogating people. 
> 
> In the long TM history around this thing with other saints where Maharishi 
> clearly said a lot of different things about visiting saints to a lot of 
> different people at different times, the Rajas should drop to being a lot 
> simpler just in asking people to come and help by being practitioners of this 
> again.  There are really very few TM-virgins around but a lot of people who 
> could come and meditate.  The gross numbers of people meditating in the Domes 
> are really quite paltry; however, the Rajas might want to quickly think again 
> about change and re-introducing a second element to this particular problem 
> even before their Nov 6 'election' campaign to increase the Dome numbers goes 
> too far towards re-soliciting people back.  The Rajas need to work more at 
> reconciliation with their community rather than just hoping that people might 
> be nice and come back.  Yes, time is of an essence and it is certainly within 
> the authority, power and responsibility of the
 TM-Rajas to improve on things like this.  The ball is in their court to serve.
> -Buck 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Khazana I wouldn't say I'm fine with the system as it is since it seems to 
> > be so hard on other people.  However, I have to also take into account my 
> > own experience.  I wasn't questioned at all when I returned to the Dome 
> > after a 7 year absence.  Though I had been to Amma several times and had 
> > been participating in Waking Down on a weekly basis right here in FF.  
> > Maybe I wasn't questioned because I'm not a gov.  I don't know and I feel 
> > for the people who are given such a rough time about it all.  
> > 
> > 
> > OTOH, I too have been interviewed by Movement leaders and have had 
> > conflicts with them.  Again I don't understand why I've escaped harsher 
> > reprimands.  But I'll give an example.  Years ago, after the end of a 
> > relationship, tantric teacher David Deida happened to come to town.  Right 
> > away I knew I wanted to attend.  I was an MUM grad student at the time.  
> > I was open about my participation in Deida's workshop.  But perhaps more 
> > importantly I felt right about it.  True, I was scared of possible 
> > consequences.  But I was willing to take that chance because I felt I was 
> > doing what was right for me and my life.  Also important, inside I 
> > acknowledged that I might be wrong.  I was not 100% sure that I was acting 
> > rightly.  But again, I was willing to take a chance that I was.  
> > 
> > 
> > That feeling of rightness, even when not 100% sure, even when afraid of 
> > possible consequences, is a grace and I do believe it is what has protected 
> > me all these decades on a spiritual path.  I am deeply grateful for this 
> > grace.
> > 
> > PS  Yahoo has been acting wonky the last few days.  Posts get to the 
> > archives right away and I read there to stay current.  Posts to my inbox 
> > can arrive many hours after th

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday

[Emily Reyn]

This is a good story that reflects the idea of "take what you like and leave 
the rest."  Sometimes, for health reasons, or ethical reasons, or logistical 
reasons, or mental or emotional reasons, this platitude just doesn't cut it.  
I've had to leave organizations before, for taking a stand.  I've been 
"lynched" in a conference room before.  This org doesn't sound much different 
that the stereotype of corporate america.  I "took what I liked and left the 
rest" on many occasions, but I was getting a working salary.  



 From: Michael Jackson 
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday
 

  
Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances. I quit going
to the Dome when I was on staff due to a really serious allergy to
formaldehyde, which in those days at least was a major component in making 
foam. 
The longer I was in the Dome, the worse I felt. 


So I stopped
going. I did program by myself in my pod room and felt great both in and out of
program. As twice a day in the Dome was part of the staff program, I was called
in to the Personnel Director’s office (Bill Sands) and he gave me a serious
talk and threatened me with dismissal if I didn’t start toeing the line.

I told him about the allergy and he said it didn’t matter,
rules were rules. I showed him the letter I had from my allergy doctor (Allen
Lieberman in Charleston SC) saying that I had to avoid formaldehyde exposure. 
Bill
said it still didn’t matter. Rules were rules. No exceptions. 

So I returned to the Dome and after a couple days started
feeling like crap again. So I thought about things and decided to write a
letter to then TM Sidhi Administrator Greg Wilson and told him my story and
sent him a copy of the letter from my allergy doctor. 
A
nd a couple weeks later to my surprise he wrote me a letter
back giving me permission to do program in my room, tho he suggested that I
might consider serving MIU in some other capacity since Dome attendance was
part of staff program. So I quit going to the Dome again. 

A couple weeks went by and I was called into Bill Sands office
again, with my letters in my pocket. After he gave me hell and pretty much told
me my time at MIU was over, I told him I had permission from Greg Wilson and
showed him my letter, or rather a copy of it, I wisely had the original in my
room. 

Bill was completely discombobulated and hemmed and hawed and
puffed and blustered but had to back down, but he didn’t like it. So I went
back to doing program in my room and had great experiences and was much more
effective in activity for about eight months until Bill found a way to get rid
of me.




 From: Buck 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 12:52 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday
 

  
This being Compassionate Posting Wednesday on FFL where ne'er a negative word 
is written, I am not going to go on at all about just how stoopid and 
undeserving it is that meditators who even live in Fairfield do not come to the 
group meditation.  No, I'll save that for tomorrow and then may be also 
consider the fallen away and outright meditation quitters out in the world too; 
all those who have fell off the meditation wagon and even walked away entirely. 
 I am excercising a lot of compassion for them all right now today, 
-Buck in the Dome 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> - Forwarded Message -
> From: DailyGood.org 
> To: sharelong60@... 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 7:15 AM
> Subject: The Science of Compassion
> 
> 
> DailyGood.org 
> You're receiving this email because you are a DailyGood subscriber.
> Trouble Viewing?  On a mobile? Just click here. Not interested anymore? 
> Unsubscribe. 
> 
> October 23, 2012 a project of ServiceSpace 
>   Have compassion for everyone you meet, even if they don't want it. What 
> appears bad manners, an ill temper or cynicism is always a sign of things no 
> ears have heard, no eyes have seen. You do not know what wars are going on 
> down there where the spirit meets the bone.
> 
> - Miller Williams - 
> The Science of Compassion
> "As human beings, we will inevitably encounter suffering at some point in our 
> lives. However, we also have evolved very specific social mechanisms to 
> relieve that pain: altruism and compassion. It is not just receiving 
> compassion that relieves our pain...The act of experiencing compassion and 
> helping others actually leads to tremendous mental and physical well-being 
> for us as well. It is our ability to stand together as a group, to support 
> each other, to help each other, to communicate for mutual understanding, and 
> to cooperate, that has taken our species this far." Dr. James R. Doty, the 
> Director of the Center for Compassion and Altruism Research 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Vedic Astrology 2012 Presidential Election Newsletter

[seekliberation]

regardless of who wins and who predicts correctly, bottom line is that it's a 
50/50 chance on the prediction, and I mean that almost literally.  I've seen a 
few sites that are saying there's a very good possibility that we could have an 
electorate tie of 269-269.  It would require Romney to win specific swing 
states, and he IS gaining momentum there.  

What's scary is all the potential riots.  Because if there's a tie, it will go 
to Mitt Romney.  The reason is because if there is a tie, the vote goes to the 
House of Representatives, which is currently GOP dominated.  I remember all the 
anger and commotion in 2000, and we were only 5 trillion in debt then, and no 
major wars & no major economic downfall.  If there's a tie and the House elects 
Romney, I can see things turning ugly real fast.  
  

seekliberation

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > sigh, this jyotishi thinks Romney will win.
> 
> And, Chakrapani thinks Obama will win.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday

[awoelflebater]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sharelong60"  wrote:
>
> When I referred to all organizations I was addressing the context beyond yet 
> including the TMO.  
> 
> I also have had confrontations, conflicts, etc. with TMO.  Whether or not 
> they were harsher than what others experienced, I don't know because I wasn't 
> present at those.  And I don't choose to go into details of my own situations 
> because it wouldn't further the discussion and because I am at peace with the 
> various incidents.

It also might bring some heat your way that you want to avoid. Fair enough.  
> 
> I am at peace with the various incidents mainly because I see the TMO like 
> all organizations and all individuals:  it has its strengths and its flaws.  
> So yes, I focus on what's good and leave the rest.

This is very convenient but doesn't bring about change. Thank God others 
stronger and braver than myself have not chosen to follow this path throughout 
history or ours would be a very different and indifferent world.

  >And it is my belief that my being in the Dome is good for myself and for 
others.  So that is how I continue with the TMO.

Is the effect of your program less if you are practicing it in your own room 
two blocks down the road but at the same time as the dome meditation? In other 
words, do you have to be in the same geographic location as everyone else for 
it to be effective?
> 
> And as I said before, I see it as my being a plain sidha or grace or some 
> combo of the two, that, for example, I wasn't questioned when I came back to 
> the Dome after a 7 year absence.  I don't see it or any of the other 
> treatment I received as a privilege which is what Ann calls it.  Btw, in my 
> book her calling it a privilege is being more than descriptive and 
> declarative.  It is ignoring what I actually said.

No, I you misunderstood what I was referring to. I was speaking about the 
"privilege" being the opportunity to meditate in the Dome, not that you were 
treated less harshly. I did not mean that you were privileged. 
> 
> I also agree that one should stand up for what is right.  And I have done 
> that in at least one of my official capacities at MUM.  I didn't agree with 
> the leaders and I said so to help another.

Did you feel that by standing up to the leaders this might have threatened your 
status or rights as a meditator with regard to access to the Dome? Did this 
stand you took hold within it the possibility that you would be kicked out of 
either the Movement or off campus?
> 
> Going to the Dome is self serving in the sense that it is beneficial for the 
> individual.  But it is also beneficial for others.  And it's not always 
> comfortable for the individual going to the Dome. 

In what way is it not comfortable to go to the Dome? You mean doing your 
program is un-stressy and unpleasant?
> 
> Nor do I agree that by going to the Dome I am giving the green light to heavy 
> handed tactics or unreasonable forces.  Actually I believe that by going to 
> the Dome we all help each other grow beyond the need for such.  Because I 
> believe this, the real compromise would be if I didn't go to the Dome.

Maybe it is easier to believe in non-concrete, theoretical ideas than it is to 
deal with hands on situations that require action and talking and even 
fighting. It is easy to pay lip service to purported but unsubstantiated 
positive effects of meditating and hopping and claim that by doing these things 
it will solve all the other problems created by heavy handed Movement law 
enforcers.
> 
> And if someone wants my help confronting the TMO, I am willing to hear their 
> story and help if it be in alignment with my core values to do so.

Pretty general statement here. It is a complex subject and you would have to 
reveal your core values before I could know what you are really saying. But 
I'll bet they have something to do with respecting people's rights and allowing 
them to pursue happiness.

Bottom line Share, I think you are willing to tolerate some injustices done to 
others so that you can continue doing what you like doing. As long as you do 
not have your privileges revoked you are happy to let things stand as they are. 
You are I are quite different.
>  
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emilymae.reyn"  wrote:
> >
> > Share, this is an example of another type of response - a descriptive and 
> > declarative statement by Ann, on Ann's point of view where the question is 
> > tossed around in a larger, if you will, arena, than just the "TMO rules" 
> > and gets to the question of "at what point is compromise worth the price?"
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Of course, org's are composed of people.  Does a 'few good people' 
> > > > mean that you compromise your core value system to continue if you find 
> > > > it at odds?
> > > 
> > 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday

[khazana108]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlzrNKN3rZI

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> Excellent question and one I was just going to elaborate on before I read 
> this comment of yours Emily. It is fine and dandy to say one is sorry for 
> others being given a hard time but in Share's case she says she had been 
> "spared" more rigorous questioning on her other practices as they relate to 
> being allowed in the Dome etc. My problem  with this is that by valuing one's 
> privilege of being less aggressively challenged than others while at the same 
> time having access to the Domes is very self-serving in a way that, for me, 
> compromises many things. It essentially gives the green light to what I see 
> are heavy handed and short-sighted tactics by the TM movement. I see it as 
> endorsing police-state mentality by tacitly going along with how things are 
> run on campus/within the Movement and by the powers that be. I think there is 
> a limit to what one should allow to happen even though one still wants the 
> privilege of engaging in activities which are governed by such powers. There 
> comes a point when the compromises are not worth the price. But, again, I 
> have addressed this issue before and perhaps it is easy for me to be so 
> self-righteous in this instance since meditating and hopping around a 
> foam-lined building does not rate in my top ten choice of activities and thus 
> it would be easy for me to make a stand against "authority" in this case. On 
> the other hand, knowing myself as I do, I rather think I would rebel. I have 
> a rather perverse need to counteract immovable and unreasonable forces.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Vedic Astrology 2012 Presidential Election Newsletter

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> sigh, this jyotishi thinks Romney will win.

And, Chakrapani thinks Obama will win.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Spiritual Question For Wednesday

[khazana108]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHPKe8D01Kk

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> > 
> > > > Trying to recruit me, are you, Zebra Boy? Think I was born
> > > > yesterday? Think I fell off a turnip truck? Well, I'm not
> > > > so green as I am grassy-looking, so back off, buster.
> > 
> > Well authorfiend is certainly not green.
> 
> (He means "authfriend.")
> 
> > Due to the hints of the Willytexter,
> 
> (He means "willytex." And he doesn't mean "hints." Does
> he mean "links"?)
> 
> > I stumbled upon this dialoque between her and Barry (Shoki)
> > and quite honestly, you you tell any difference between the
> > tone now and then? This is 1995, but you could post this
> > same post today on FFL with just changing the names a little
> > bit - to suit the present environment, and nobody would really 
> > notice the difference.
> 
> It's not clear what point khazana is trying to make here--
> that I'm consistent in how I respond to illogic and
> misrepresentation? That Barry has always been a prick?
> 
> What's interesting is that in following Richard's link,
> khazana would have seen a post from me *defending Barry*
> from someone else's attack:
> 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.meditation/Xa_w7e7dEb4/MAorIbdMZqoJ
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/c7q57sw
> 
> But that would be evidence in my favor. Ooops! So khazana has
> to go on a hunt for a different post from a different thread
> to use against me. Too funny.
> 
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.meditation.transcendental/browse_thread/thread/35b5ad0cd70ee2d8/6e533bbfc2e53e3d
> > http://tinyurl.com/9r8985j
> > 
> > > OK, well maybe we don't see it here but I do believe it is in there 
> > > somewhere - that nurturing, softer side.
> > 
> > You may well be the recipient of this softer, nurturing side
> > at times Ann, but to be the recipient of her other side, may
> > I suggest a little experiment? Just sign in with a different
> > yahoo ID, and profess to be at one with Barry or the other
> > crew. Profess to be critical of TM and/ or Robin, and see
> > what happens. I promise you, this is the only way to find out.
> 
> Or try a slightly different experiment: sign in with a
> different Yahoo ID, "profess to be at one with Barry or the
> other crew" (I think he means "or one of the others of 
> Barry's crew"), come up with *fair* criticisms of TM and/or
> Robin (or just don't make criticisms--or criticize Mitt
> Romney), and see what happens.
> 
> I guess poor khazana was misled the other day by Barry's
> lie concerning why I was fighting with Xeno--according to
> Barry, it was because Xeno had said Barry was a better
> spiritual teacher than Robin. In fact, Xeno and I have
> been fighting since summer 2011 (as well as having had
> several entirely pleasant exchanges).
> 
> What is so illuminating about khazana's post here is that
> it shows him to be guilty of the very behavior he accuses
> me of.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Spiritual Question For Wednesday

[card]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap"  wrote:
> >
> > (BTW Ann - I have words for you. It's not "Jimmy Hendrix". 
> > And the fact that JH no longer walks amongst is perhaps a 
> > sufficient refutation of the idea that God evolves. As for 
> > "Vaughan is easily as good, especially when comparing the 
> > two versions of that song" [Voodoo Chile, Slight Return]...
> > well! Are you stark, staring, raving bonkers? (Meaning no 
> > disrespect to SRV).
> 
> This just made my day, and caused a fit of milk-related
> nose-snorting. :-)
> 
> Speaking as a lifelong Guitar Freak, to compare Jimi 
> Hendrix with Stevie Ray Vaughn is the highest heresy.
> I've seen both play, up close and personal, and even
> though SRV was better than I'll ever be at the guitar,
> he ain't no Jack Kennedy. And he certainly ain't no
> Jimi Hendrix. 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMyH4XTlVgs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JkuLAzIAys

Listen e.g. to the "transcendental" sound at about 1:10.
I don't think SRV ever could reach that level of subtlety,
or stuff...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday

[emilymae.reyn]

Share, this is an example of another type of response - a descriptive and 
declarative statement by Ann, on Ann's point of view where the question is 
tossed around in a larger, if you will, arena, than just the "TMO rules" and 
gets to the question of "at what point is compromise worth the price?"

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
> >
> > Of course, org's are composed of people.  Does a 'few good people' mean 
> > that you compromise your core value system to continue if you find it at 
> > odds?
> 
> Excellent question and one I was just going to elaborate on before I read 
> this comment of yours Emily. It is fine and dandy to say one is sorry for 
> others being given a hard time but in Share's case she says she had been 
> "spared" more rigorous questioning on her other practices as they relate to 
> being allowed in the Dome etc. My problem  with this is that by valuing one's 
> privilege of being less aggressively challenged than others while at the same 
> time having access to the Domes is very self-serving in a way that, for me, 
> compromises many things. It essentially gives the green light to what I see 
> are heavy handed and short-sighted tactics by the TM movement. I see it as 
> endorsing police-state mentality by tacitly going along with how things are 
> run on campus/within the Movement and by the powers that be. I think there is 
> a limit to what one should allow to happen even though one still wants the 
> privilege of engaging in activities which are governed by such powers. There 
> comes a point when the compromises are not worth the price. But, again, I 
> have addressed this issue before and perhaps it is easy for me to be so 
> self-righteous in this instance since meditating and hopping around a 
> foam-lined building does not rate in my top ten choice of activities and thus 
> it would be easy for me to make a stand against "authority" in this case. On 
> the other hand, knowing myself as I do, I rather think I would rebel. I have 
> a rather perverse need to counteract immovable and unreasonable forces.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: Share Long 
> > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
> > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 10:33 AM
> > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for 
> > Wednesday
> >  
> > 
> >   
> > Jason, it's my experience that in every organization there are at least a 
> > few good people.  Michael, I had a similar interview to yours.  I am so 
> > sorry you were given such a hard time.  I admire how you handled the 
> > situation.   
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: Jason 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 4:05 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday
> >  
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > 
> > You know, all these cults and religions have his 'shit herd' 
> > mentality.  I am thankfull that I never lived inside any 
> > cult or org.  Being on the outside gave me a 'ringside view' 
> > of a spectrum of these things.  I talk to a lot of people 
> > who are in cults and get an idea of what is happening 
> > inside.  You are better off alone.
> > 
> > All these orgs and cults are inhabited by such bureaucratic, 
> > pedantic, dicactic, dogmatic, zombie bots.
> > 
> > ---  Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > >
> > > Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances. I quit going
> > > to the Dome when I was on staff due to a really serious allergy to
> > > formaldehyde, which in those days at least was a major component in 
> > > making foam. 
> > > The longer I was in the Dome, the worse I felt. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > So I stopped
> > > going. I did program by myself in my pod room and felt great both in and 
> > > out of
> > > program. As twice a day in the Dome was part of the staff program, I was 
> > > called
> > > in to the Personnel Director's office (Bill Sands) and he gave me a 
> > > serious
> > > talk and threatened me with dismissal if I didn't start toeing the line.
> > > 
> > > I told him about the allergy and he said it didn't matter,
> > > rules were rules. I showed him the letter I had from my allergy doctor 
> > > (Allen
> > > Lieberman in Charleston SC) saying that I had to avoid formaldehyde 
> > > exposure. Bill
> > > said it still didn't matter. Rules were rules. No exceptions. 
> > > 
> > > So I returned to the Dome and after a couple days started
> > > feeling like crap again. So I thought about things and decided to write a
> > > letter to then TM Sidhi Administrator Greg Wilson and told him my story 
> > > and
> > > sent him a copy of the letter from my allergy doctor. 
> > > A
> > > nd a couple weeks later to my surprise he wrote me a letter
> > > back giving me permission to do program in my room, tho he suggested that 
> > > I
> > > might consider serving MIU in some other capacity since Dome

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday

[sharelong60]

When I referred to all organizations I was addressing the context beyond yet 
including the TMO.  

I also have had confrontations, conflicts, etc. with TMO.  Whether or not they 
were harsher than what others experienced, I don't know because I wasn't 
present at those.  And I don't choose to go into details of my own situations 
because it wouldn't further the discussion and because I am at peace with the 
various incidents.  

I am at peace with the various incidents mainly because I see the TMO like all 
organizations and all individuals:  it has its strengths and its flaws.  So 
yes, I focus on what's good and leave the rest.  And it is my belief that my 
being in the Dome is good for myself and for others.  So that is how I continue 
with the TMO. 

And as I said before, I see it as my being a plain sidha or grace or some combo 
of the two, that, for example, I wasn't questioned when I came back to the Dome 
after a 7 year absence.  I don't see it or any of the other treatment I 
received as a privilege which is what Ann calls it.  Btw, in my book her 
calling it a privilege is being more than descriptive and declarative.  It is 
ignoring what I actually said.

I also agree that one should stand up for what is right.  And I have done that 
in at least one of my official capacities at MUM.  I didn't agree with the 
leaders and I said so to help another.

Going to the Dome is self serving in the sense that it is beneficial for the 
individual.  But it is also beneficial for others.  And it's not always 
comfortable for the individual going to the Dome. 

Nor do I agree that by going to the Dome I am giving the green light to heavy 
handed tactics or unreasonable forces.  Actually I believe that by going to the 
Dome we all help each other grow beyond the need for such.  Because I believe 
this, the real compromise would be if I didn't go to the Dome.

And if someone wants my help confronting the TMO, I am willing to hear their 
story and help if it be in alignment with my core values to do so.
 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emilymae.reyn"  wrote:
>
> Share, this is an example of another type of response - a descriptive and 
> declarative statement by Ann, on Ann's point of view where the question is 
> tossed around in a larger, if you will, arena, than just the "TMO rules" and 
> gets to the question of "at what point is compromise worth the price?"
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
> > >
> > > Of course, org's are composed of people.  Does a 'few good people' mean 
> > > that you compromise your core value system to continue if you find it at 
> > > odds?
> > 
> > Excellent question and one I was just going to elaborate on before I read 
> > this comment of yours Emily. It is fine and dandy to say one is sorry for 
> > others being given a hard time but in Share's case she says she had been 
> > "spared" more rigorous questioning on her other practices as they relate to 
> > being allowed in the Dome etc. My problem  with this is that by valuing 
> > one's privilege of being less aggressively challenged than others while at 
> > the same time having access to the Domes is very self-serving in a way 
> > that, for me, compromises many things. It essentially gives the green light 
> > to what I see are heavy handed and short-sighted tactics by the TM 
> > movement. I see it as endorsing police-state mentality by tacitly going 
> > along with how things are run on campus/within the Movement and by the 
> > powers that be. I think there is a limit to what one should allow to happen 
> > even though one still wants the privilege of engaging in activities which 
> > are governed by such powers. There comes a point when the compromises are 
> > not worth the price. But, again, I have addressed this issue before and 
> > perhaps it is easy for me to be so self-righteous in this instance since 
> > meditating and hopping around a foam-lined building does not rate in my top 
> > ten choice of activities and thus it would be easy for me to make a stand 
> > against "authority" in this case. On the other hand, knowing myself as I 
> > do, I rather think I would rebel. I have a rather perverse need to 
> > counteract immovable and unreasonable forces.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  From: Share Long 
> > > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 10:33 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for 
> > > Wednesday
> > >  
> > > 
> > >   
> > > Jason, it's my experience that in every organization there are at least a 
> > > few good people.  Michael, I had a similar interview to yours.  I am so 
> > > sorry you were given such a hard time.  I admire how you handled the 
> > > situation.   
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  From: Jason 
> > > To: FairfieldLi

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emilymae.reyn"  wrote:
>
> You got it right..."going to the Dome supports.".  "And the Dome is run 
> by...and supports a philosophy that..."..so therefore, my actions are in 
> alignment with enough of my core value system that I  can agree to "take what 
> I like and leave the rest."
> 
> Re: the second comment.  I'm looking at it bigger picture than you, not 
> "within" the construct of the TMO.


In this going to the Domes/seeing "saints" controvery, why is everyone 
referring to the TMO ? 

As far as I've experienced it's not a TMO policy in Europe nor in the rest of 
the world. It's strictly a policy laid out by Maharishi for the americans. 

One could speculate to why he made these rules in the USA and nowhere else. 
Perhaps, as a wise father, he wanted to protect his youngest ones from the 
confusion of the New Age thinking ?

My advice would be to make his wishes your own, take them seriously, stop 
arguing about it, or do something else with your life.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday

[Michael Jackson]

By that time I didn't feel I was being mis-used - it was just part of the junk 
one had to put up with if one had no money (which makes you a darling of the 
Movement) and wants to stay and be part of the MIU experience. 

I actually liked Bill although he was a bit aloof but I reckon he learned that 
from TM higher ups. When I did get ticked off was at the end of school year 
1987 when he and my direct supervisor Brad O'nash called me in for the normal 
staff interview to see if I would be staying, talked about the extreme 
importance of the upcoming banquet for the DAC (Development Advisory Council) 
and asked me if they could count on me as the head of the bakery to do all the 
extra work making desserts for the banquets and I said yes of course I am not 
going anywhere. 

Then as soon as I had promised to do my best Bill told me I had to leave MIU 
immediately after the banquet weekend was over because I wasn't participating 
in group program. When I reminded him that I had Greg Wilson's written 
permission to do program in my room, Bill who had obviously prepared said "That 
is the Capitol (of the Age of Enlightenment) they don't tell us what to do over 
here at MIU. So you are going to have to leave after the last day of the DAC 
weekend. 

This was only about 2 weeks away, mind you. When I asked how long I had between 
the end of the banquet and leaving MIU, Bill said "5 oclock." 

"What?" says I.

Bills says "The last meal of the banquet is noon, we want you out by 5 oclock 
that afternoon."

Then I did get mad and told them that if that was the deal, I would pack up and 
leave right then and they could come make the breads and desserts for the DAC 
deal. Neither of them was willing to do anything so extreme and after they took 
me to task for going back on my agreement to do all I could with the banquet 
(which I countered with what the hell do you think you are doing to me?) they 
asked me how much time I wanted and I said 2 weeks from the last day of the 
banquet.

Bill said that was too long and I got up to leave and said "Then the two of you 
will have to bake those desserts." They were both mad, but had to back down. 
Real baking is an art and there was no one else who could have stepped in and 
done what had to be done. 

After I walked out of the office, I just shook my head and laughed. It was just 
typical Movement trash behavior. And so I kept my word, did a great job with 
the banquet in addition to my regular duties. The banquet went well and I even 
saved the day by preventing a very obstinate and bullheaded Purusha guy they 
had sent me from ruining the dessert for a thousand people by not following my 
instructions (I was mad enough to punch him)

And left 2 weeks later - it was just typical Movement treatment by the powers 
that be towards the people who actually make the Movement successful - from 
what some of your write, things have not improved in the last 25 years.





 From: Share Long 
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday
 

  
Jason, it's my experience that in every organization there are at least a few 
good people.  Michael, I had a similar interview to yours.  I am so sorry you 
were given such a hard time.  I admire how you handled the situation.   




 From: Jason 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 4:05 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday
 

  


You know, all these cults and religions have his 'shit herd' 
mentality.  I am thankfull that I never lived inside any 
cult or org.  Being on the outside gave me a 'ringside view' 
of a spectrum of these things.  I talk to a lot of people 
who are in cults and get an idea of what is happening 
inside.  You are better off alone.

All these orgs and cults are inhabited by such bureaucratic, 
pedantic, dicactic, dogmatic, zombie bots.

---  Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances. I quit going
> to the Dome when I was on staff due to a really serious allergy to
> formaldehyde, which in those days at least was a major component in making 
> foam. 
> The longer I was in the Dome, the worse I felt. 
> 
> 
> So I stopped
> going. I did program by myself in my pod room and felt great both in and out 
> of
> program. As twice a day in the Dome was part of the staff program, I was 
> called
> in to the Personnel Director's office (Bill Sands) and he gave me a serious
> talk and threatened me with dismissal if I didn't start toeing the line.
> 
> I told him about the allergy and he said it didn't matter,
> rules were rules. I showed him the letter I had from my allergy doctor (Allen
> Lieberman in Charleston SC) saying that I had to avoid formaldehyde exposure. 
> Bill
> said it still didn't matter. Rules were rules. No exceptions. 
> 
> So I retu

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" 
wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
>
>
> SHARE: Remembering that Maharishi said, "What we have no control over
we take to be the will of God."
>
> The way I read (I had not heard this before) this statement of
Maharishi's, it proves that he was in a higher state of consciousness.
Maharishi, and only Maharishi, had this ability to say something--and if
you really took it in from where he was saying it, and felt its
resonances throughout the universe itself [and that is indeed what
happened if you were sensitive enough], your very being told you he was
representing reality itself.
>
> There is the strict *content* of what Maharishi is saying here. But as
soon as I read it, *I felt the context of Maharishi and his
consciousness* and how perfectly, metaphysically, apt his comment was.
>
> Not only that: IT STILL SEEMS TRUE TO ME. But Maharishi Mahesh Yogi,
he was, during a stretch of time, infinitely tuned-in to the cosmos--at
least he could say something like this, and in one's being one sensed
that he was, as it were, making known the profoundest truth that could
be known. "What we have no control over we take to be the will of God".
How brilliant is this? It is said by someone who 'has more context' than
anyone whom I have ever known.
>
> I don't know how many persons (you would have to be an initiator to
really feel this, I suppose) remember how Maharishi would make some
truth become a kind of perception in one's life. I think, even now, I
can benefit from this precept. It actually works for me. Even as I do
not believe in a Personal God.
>
> But I believe in the empirical truth of Maharishi's words--*I
discovered their truth at a level I could not have any control over*.
That was the extraordinariness of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi: he wasn't
making this stuff up. He was reading off reality.
>
> One of the most perspicacious things I have ever heard--and only
Maharishi could have said it. As long as one guards oneself from the
mystical aura of his authority--and not allow this statement to be any
truer than it actually is--one can apply this truth in one's life. At
least when this situation comes up, this remembered perspective could be
useful.
>
> No one but Maharishi could say this--because it is (or it seems to me
it is objectively true somehow. "What we have no control over we take to
be the will of God". Even, then, if it is not literally true, to adopt
this frame of reference will be beneficial to us. No one refuted--in his
presence--a single thing Maharishi uttered.


Vernon was doing that ALL the time ! :-
Conversations with Maharishi  By Dr. Vernon Katz Hardcover, 393 pages
Published in 2011
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Speaks about Full Development of Human
Consciousness
The majestic panoramas of Lake Tahoe in California and the Kashmir
Valley in the Himalayas provided the ideal settings for the
conversations in this book. It was there in 1968 and 1969 that Maharishi
began his as-yet-unpublished commentary on the Brahma Sutra, a key text
of the timeless wisdom of Vedanta. The penetrating questions asked by
Dr. Katz inspired deep insights from Maharishi on the nature and
development of higher states of consciousness. Through Maharishi's
words, the ultimate reality of life becomes meaningful and practical for
people living today: anyone can awaken the wholeness of consciousness
within. These conversations are suffused with bliss and serve as a
tribute to Maharishi's legacy of knowledge for full development of the
human heart and mind.
Maharishi: People will enjoy this book. They will enjoy your insight.
VK: I haven't any insight. It's your wisdom they will enjoy, and they
will enjoy it all the more when set against my ignorance.
Maharishi: See what insight you have!
"Dr. Vernon Katz brought such huge delight to Maharishi. His sweet and
lovable nature was one thing-but his powerful and highly discriminating
intellect and his repeated enquiries to Maharishi inspired Maharishi so
much. Maharishi in conversation with Vernon brought out wave upon wave
of the highest knowledge to satisfy Vernon's thirst to understand fully
the Brahm Vidya that Maharishi was expounding to the world. And
Maharishi loved him for it. Vernon's role has been a singular one in the
history of Maharishi's unfoldment of Total Knowledge from the Vedic
tradition. We are all grateful to him for what he has done for all of
us, and for sharing his fascinating conversations with Maharishi in this
book." - Dr. Bevan Morris, Prime Minister Global Country of World Peace,
President Maharishi University of Management
"In this long-awaited book, we join Dr. Vernon Katz as he sits by
Maharishi's side, and we listen in on these exhilarating conversations
about the highest potential of human life. We are on the scene as
Maharishi brings to light the precious knowledge of enlightenment in its
original purity and completeness. This book presents a clear e

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday

[emilymae.reyn]

You got it right..."going to the Dome supports.".  "And the Dome is run 
by...and supports a philosophy that..."..so therefore, my actions are in 
alignment with enough of my core value system that I  can agree to "take what I 
like and leave the rest."

Re: the second comment.  I'm looking at it bigger picture than you, not 
"within" the construct of the TMO.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> What do you mean by continue?  Both Buck and I go to the Dome to meditate.  
> So we continue with TMO in that way.  And yes, going to the Dome supports my 
> core value system.  
> 
> It sounded like Jason was saying that all organizations are peopled by 
> bots.  I was replying to that.
> 
> Also I don't understand your reply in another post to my saying that I don't 
> understand why I escaped harsher reprimands.  Though I do go on to say that 
> it might be because I'm not a gov, a TM teacher.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: Emily Reyn 
> To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 12:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday
>  
> 
>   
> Of course, org's are composed of people.  Does a 'few good people' mean that 
> you compromise your core value system to continue if you find it at odds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: Share Long 
> To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 10:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday
>  
> 
>   
> Jason, it's my experience that in every organization there are at least a few 
> good people.  Michael, I had a similar interview to yours.  I am so sorry 
> you were given such a hard time.  I admire how you handled the situation.   
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: Jason 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 4:05 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday
>  
> 
>   
> 
> 
> You know, all these cults and religions have his 'shit herd' 
> mentality.  I am thankfull that I never lived inside any 
> cult or org.  Being on the outside gave me a 'ringside view' 
> of a spectrum of these things.  I talk to a lot of people 
> who are in cults and get an idea of what is happening 
> inside.  You are better off alone.
> 
> All these orgs and cults are inhabited by such bureaucratic, 
> pedantic, dicactic, dogmatic, zombie bots.
> 
> ---  Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances. I quit going
> > to the Dome when I was on staff due to a really serious allergy to
> > formaldehyde, which in those days at least was a major component in making 
> > foam. 
> > The longer I was in the Dome, the worse I felt. 
> > 
> > 
> > So I stopped
> > going. I did program by myself in my pod room and felt great both in and 
> > out of
> > program. As twice a day in the Dome was part of the staff program, I was 
> > called
> > in to the Personnel Director's office (Bill Sands) and he gave me a serious
> > talk and threatened me with dismissal if I didn't start toeing the line.
> > 
> > I told him about the allergy and he said it didn't matter,
> > rules were rules. I showed him the letter I had from my allergy doctor 
> > (Allen
> > Lieberman in Charleston SC) saying that I had to avoid formaldehyde 
> > exposure. Bill
> > said it still didn't matter. Rules were rules. No exceptions. 
> > 
> > So I returned to the Dome and after a couple days started
> > feeling like crap again. So I thought about things and decided to write a
> > letter to then TM Sidhi Administrator Greg Wilson and told him my story and
> > sent him a copy of the letter from my allergy doctor. 
> > A
> > nd a couple weeks later to my surprise he wrote me a letter
> > back giving me permission to do program in my room, tho he suggested that I
> > might consider serving MIU in some other capacity since Dome attendance was
> > part of staff program. So I quit going to the Dome again. 
> > 
> > A couple weeks went by and I was called into Bill Sands office
> > again, with my letters in my pocket. After he gave me hell and pretty much 
> > told
> > me my time at MIU was over, I told him I had permission from Greg Wilson and
> > showed him my letter, or rather a copy of it, I wisely had the original in 
> > my
> > room. 
> > 
> > Bill was completely discombobulated and hemmed and hawed and
> > puffed and blustered but had to back down, but he didn't like it. So I went
> > back to doing program in my room and had great experiences and was much more
> > effective in activity for about eight months until Bill found a way to get 
> > rid
> > of me.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: Buck 
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 12:52 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday
> > 
> >   
> > This being Compassionate Posting We

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Meditating Numbers

[Buck]

The Field Effect in meditation is quite awesome. 
> 
> This is one of the largest utopian things going now and if you're in 
> Fairfield try not to miss it.
> >
> > > If you haven't been there in a while arrive early, find your way around 
> > > and get going early.
> > >
> > 
> > The Dome doors open in the morning for meditation at 7am and around 4pm for 
> > the afternoon meditation.
> > 
> >  
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, oxcart49  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The Domes are quite geriatric friendly too.
> > > > > 
> > > > > For a moment I read that as "gastric friendly". Although I suppose 
> > > > > they are that too.
> > > > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > Aye, the Domes are that too with new and cleaned fabulous air-handling 
> > > > ventilation systems and new boiler and A/C for heating and cooling.
> > > >   
> > > > > > > It's all quiet and quite clean and comfortable.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > There are also nice chairs that can be sat in for meditation, 
> > > > > > > > you know, the nice chairs that the Rajas sit in for community 
> > > > > > > > meetings.  
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > You can come for a short meditation or do the long one by 
> > > > > > > > > choice according to your life accommodation.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > There are large open un-reserved
> > > > > > > > > > "visitor" sections complete with backjack seats for 
> > > > > > > > > > itinerant residents
> > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > don't need a designated long-term place.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > http://superradiance.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/backjacks1.jpg?w=300&h=\
> > > > > > > > > > 225
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Friends, just a reminder.  As they say it's like a 
> > > > > > > > > > > baptism,  "Come on
> > > > > > > > > > in, the water's nice".  At the Dome the doors open at 7am 
> > > > > > > > > > for the
> > > > > > > > > > morning meditation and open again at 4pm for the evening 
> > > > > > > > > > meditation. 
> > > > > > > > > > I'd personally be appreciative if you'd at least take a 
> > > > > > > > > > break in
> > > > > > > > > > whatever you are doing where ever you may be at those times 
> > > > > > > > > > and sit to
> > > > > > > > > > meditate along with the large group.  The world will be a 
> > > > > > > > > > better place
> > > > > > > > > > if you join in.  That's always my experience and the 
> > > > > > > > > > science is saying
> > > > > > > > > > so too.  The world evidently could use some help.  Come to 
> > > > > > > > > > meditation.
> > > > > > > > > > > -Buck in the Dome
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ..yes I want to take this opportunity and encourage 
> > > > > > > > > > > > people to come
> > > > > > > > > > once again up to the Domes as they can and meditate.  There 
> > > > > > > > > > are large
> > > > > > > > > > open un-reserved "visitor" sections complete with backjack 
> > > > > > > > > > seats for
> > > > > > > > > > itinerant residents who don't need a designated long-term 
> > > > > > > > > > place.  You
> > > > > > > > > > can come for a short meditation or do the long one by 
> > > > > > > > > > choice according
> > > > > > > > > > to your life accommodation.  There are also nice chairs 
> > > > > > > > > > that can be sat
> > > > > > > > > > in for meditation, you know, the nice chairs the Rajas sit 
> > > > > > > > > > in for
> > > > > > > > > > community meetings.  The Domes are quite geriatric friendly 
> > > > > > > > > > too.  It's
> > > > > > > > > > all quiet and quite clean and comfortable.  If you haven't 
> > > > > > > > > > been there in
> > > > > > > > > > a while arrive early and get going early.  The Field Effect 
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > meditation is quite awesome.  This is one of the largest 
> > > > > > > > > > utopian things
> > > > > > > > > > going now and if you're in Fairfield try not to miss it, if 
> > > > > > > > > > they'll let
> > > > > > > > > > you.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Come to Mediation,
> > > > > > > > > > > > -Buck in the Dome
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday

[Share Long]

What do you mean by continue?  Both Buck and I go to the Dome to meditate.  So 
we continue with TMO in that way.  And yes, going to the Dome supports my core 
value system.  

It sounded like Jason was saying that all organizations are peopled by bots.  I 
was replying to that.

Also I don't understand your reply in another post to my saying that I don't 
understand why I escaped harsher reprimands.  Though I do go on to say that it 
might be because I'm not a gov, a TM teacher.




 From: Emily Reyn 
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday
 

  
Of course, org's are composed of people.  Does a 'few good people' mean that 
you compromise your core value system to continue if you find it at odds?




 From: Share Long 
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday
 

  
Jason, it's my experience that in every organization there are at least a few 
good people.  Michael, I had a similar interview to yours.  I am so sorry you 
were given such a hard time.  I admire how you handled the situation.   




 From: Jason 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 4:05 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday
 

  


You know, all these cults and religions have his 'shit herd' 
mentality.  I am thankfull that I never lived inside any 
cult or org.  Being on the outside gave me a 'ringside view' 
of a spectrum of these things.  I talk to a lot of people 
who are in cults and get an idea of what is happening 
inside.  You are better off alone.

All these orgs and cults are inhabited by such bureaucratic, 
pedantic, dicactic, dogmatic, zombie bots.

---  Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances. I quit going
> to the Dome when I was on staff due to a really serious allergy to
> formaldehyde, which in those days at least was a major component in making 
> foam. 
> The longer I was in the Dome, the worse I felt. 
> 
> 
> So I stopped
> going. I did program by myself in my pod room and felt great both in and out 
> of
> program. As twice a day in the Dome was part of the staff program, I was 
> called
> in to the Personnel Director's office (Bill Sands) and he gave me a serious
> talk and threatened me with dismissal if I didn't start toeing the line.
> 
> I told him about the allergy and he said it didn't matter,
> rules were rules. I showed him the letter I had from my allergy doctor (Allen
> Lieberman in Charleston SC) saying that I had to avoid formaldehyde exposure. 
> Bill
> said it still didn't matter. Rules were rules. No exceptions. 
> 
> So I returned to the Dome and after a couple days started
> feeling like crap again. So I thought about things and decided to write a
> letter to then TM Sidhi Administrator Greg Wilson and told him my story and
> sent him a copy of the letter from my allergy doctor. 
> A
> nd a couple weeks later to my surprise he wrote me a letter
> back giving me permission to do program in my room, tho he suggested that I
> might consider serving MIU in some other capacity since Dome attendance was
> part of staff program. So I quit going to the Dome again. 
> 
> A couple weeks went by and I was called into Bill Sands office
> again, with my letters in my pocket. After he gave me hell and pretty much 
> told
> me my time at MIU was over, I told him I had permission from Greg Wilson and
> showed him my letter, or rather a copy of it, I wisely had the original in my
> room. 
> 
> Bill was completely discombobulated and hemmed and hawed and
> puffed and blustered but had to back down, but he didn't like it. So I went
> back to doing program in my room and had great experiences and was much more
> effective in activity for about eight months until Bill found a way to get rid
> of me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: Buck 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 12:52 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday
> 
>   
> This being Compassionate Posting Wednesday on FFL where ne'er a negative word 
> is written, I am not going to go on at all about just how stoopid and 
> undeserving it is that meditators who even live in Fairfield do not come to 
> the group meditation.  No, I'll save that for tomorrow and then may be also 
> consider the fallen away and outright meditation quitters out in the world 
> too; all those who have fell off the meditation wagon and even walked away 
> entirely.  I am excercising a lot of compassion for them all right now today, 
> -Buck in the Dome 
> 






 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday

[awoelflebater]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> Of course, org's are composed of people.  Does a 'few good people' mean that 
> you compromise your core value system to continue if you find it at odds?

Excellent question and one I was just going to elaborate on before I read this 
comment of yours Emily. It is fine and dandy to say one is sorry for others 
being given a hard time but in Share's case she says she had been "spared" more 
rigorous questioning on her other practices as they relate to being allowed in 
the Dome etc. My problem  with this is that by valuing one's privilege of being 
less aggressively challenged than others while at the same time having access 
to the Domes is very self-serving in a way that, for me, compromises many 
things. It essentially gives the green light to what I see are heavy handed and 
short-sighted tactics by the TM movement. I see it as endorsing police-state 
mentality by tacitly going along with how things are run on campus/within the 
Movement and by the powers that be. I think there is a limit to what one should 
allow to happen even though one still wants the privilege of engaging in 
activities which are governed by such powers. There comes a point when the 
compromises are not worth the price. But, again, I have addressed this issue 
before and perhaps it is easy for me to be so self-righteous in this instance 
since meditating and hopping around a foam-lined building does not rate in my 
top ten choice of activities and thus it would be easy for me to make a stand 
against "authority" in this case. On the other hand, knowing myself as I do, I 
rather think I would rebel. I have a rather perverse need to counteract 
immovable and unreasonable forces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: Share Long 
> To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 10:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday
>  
> 
>   
> Jason, it's my experience that in every organization there are at least a few 
> good people.  Michael, I had a similar interview to yours.  I am so sorry 
> you were given such a hard time.  I admire how you handled the situation.   
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: Jason 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 4:05 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday
>  
> 
>   
> 
> 
> You know, all these cults and religions have his 'shit herd' 
> mentality.  I am thankfull that I never lived inside any 
> cult or org.  Being on the outside gave me a 'ringside view' 
> of a spectrum of these things.  I talk to a lot of people 
> who are in cults and get an idea of what is happening 
> inside.  You are better off alone.
> 
> All these orgs and cults are inhabited by such bureaucratic, 
> pedantic, dicactic, dogmatic, zombie bots.
> 
> ---  Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances. I quit going
> > to the Dome when I was on staff due to a really serious allergy to
> > formaldehyde, which in those days at least was a major component in making 
> > foam. 
> > The longer I was in the Dome, the worse I felt. 
> > 
> > 
> > So I stopped
> > going. I did program by myself in my pod room and felt great both in and 
> > out of
> > program. As twice a day in the Dome was part of the staff program, I was 
> > called
> > in to the Personnel Director's office (Bill Sands) and he gave me a serious
> > talk and threatened me with dismissal if I didn't start toeing the line.
> > 
> > I told him about the allergy and he said it didn't matter,
> > rules were rules. I showed him the letter I had from my allergy doctor 
> > (Allen
> > Lieberman in Charleston SC) saying that I had to avoid formaldehyde 
> > exposure. Bill
> > said it still didn't matter. Rules were rules. No exceptions. 
> > 
> > So I returned to the Dome and after a couple days started
> > feeling like crap again. So I thought about things and decided to write a
> > letter to then TM Sidhi Administrator Greg Wilson and told him my story and
> > sent him a copy of the letter from my allergy doctor. 
> > A
> > nd a couple weeks later to my surprise he wrote me a letter
> > back giving me permission to do program in my room, tho he suggested that I
> > might consider serving MIU in some other capacity since Dome attendance was
> > part of staff program. So I quit going to the Dome again. 
> > 
> > A couple weeks went by and I was called into Bill Sands office
> > again, with my letters in my pocket. After he gave me hell and pretty much 
> > told
> > me my time at MIU was over, I told him I had permission from Greg Wilson and
> > showed him my letter, or rather a copy of it, I wisely had the original in 
> > my
> > room. 
> > 
> > Bill was completely discombobulated and hemmed and hawed and
> > puffed and blustered but had to back down, but he didn't like it. So I went
> > back to doing prog

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday

[emilymae.reyn]

 wrote:
>
> Well, it is unfortunate that the Rajas put themselves in this position of 
> interrogating folks against these un-published guidelines of theirs.  This is 
> a really good example.  Instead of just asking that people only practice TM 
> and the TM-sidhis in the Domes and not practice other spiritual techniques 
> this person, someone who we all know in the community, is there standing in 
> line with folks waiting for coffee downtown telling of being creep-ed out and 
> Of the visceral fear it triggered in a feeling of how invasive the interview 
> conversation was in the amount and detail of personal information they had 
> gathered about this person and were asking about.
> 
> Next step for the person is to git three 'recommendations' from governors.  
> That means again going through this experience of applying for a badge and 
> the feeling of being creep-ed out by how invasive it was with three or more 
> people to get recommendations.  They likely tell three others each about this 
> person's experience of being creep-ed out.  Those each tell three more.  This 
> is really not good in a community.  It is just a bad position for the 
> TM-rajas to be in building dossiers around the guidelines and the Dome 
> numbers and interrogating people.  
> 
> In the long TM history around this thing with other saints where Maharishi 
> clearly said a lot of different things about visiting saints to a lot of 
> different people at different times, the Rajas should drop to being a lot 
> simpler just in asking people to come and help by being practitioners of this 
> again.  There are really very few TM-virgins around but a lot of people who 
> could come and meditate.  The gross numbers of people meditating in the Domes 
> are really quite paltry; however, the Rajas might want to quickly think again 
> about change and re-introducing a second element to this particular problem 
> even before their Nov 6 'election' campaign to increase the Dome numbers goes 
> too far towards re-soliciting people back.  The Rajas need to work more at 
> reconciliation with their community rather than just hoping that people might 
> be nice and come back.  Yes, time is of an essence and it is certainly within 
> the authority, power and responsibility of the TM-Rajas to improve on things 
> like this.  The ball is in their court to serve.
> -Buck 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Khazana I wouldn't say I'm fine with the system as it is since it seems to 
> > be so hard on other people.  However, I have to also take into account my 
> > own experience.  I wasn't questioned at all when I returned to the Dome 
> > after a 7 year absence.  Though I had been to Amma several times and had 
> > been participating in Waking Down on a weekly basis right here in FF.  
> > Maybe I wasn't questioned because I'm not a gov.  I don't know and I feel 
> > for the people who are given such a rough time about it all.  
> > 
> > 
> > OTOH, I too have been interviewed by Movement leaders and have had 
> > conflicts with them.  Again I don't understand why I've escaped harsher 
> > reprimands.  But I'll give an example.  Years ago, after the end of a 
> > relationship, tantric teacher David Deida happened to come to town.  Right 
> > away I knew I wanted to attend.  I was an MUM grad student at the time.  
> > I was open about my participation in Deida's workshop.  But perhaps more 
> > importantly I felt right about it.  True, I was scared of possible 
> > consequences.  But I was willing to take that chance because I felt I was 
> > doing what was right for me and my life.  Also important, inside I 
> > acknowledged that I might be wrong.  I was not 100% sure that I was acting 
> > rightly.  But again, I was willing to take a chance that I was.  
> > 
> > 
> > That feeling of rightness, even when not 100% sure, even when afraid of 
> > possible consequences, is a grace and I do believe it is what has protected 
> > me all these decades on a spiritual path.  I am deeply grateful for this 
> > grace.
> > 
> > PS  Yahoo has been acting wonky the last few days.  Posts get to the 
> > archives right away and I read there to stay current.  Posts to my inbox 
> > can arrive many hours after they were posted.  Even my own!  
> > 
> > 
> > Remembering that Maharishi said, "What we have no control over we take to 
> > be the will of God."      
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: khazana108 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 6:14 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday
> >  
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, one would hope if you were interested in meditating with the large 
> > > > group that they would issue you

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What we have no control over we take to be the will of God expanded

[Emily Reyn]

Yep, that's a real one - definitely made me cry.


 From: Robin Carlsen 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 10:39 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What we have no control over we take to be the 
will of God expanded
 

  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgaFKqnj0dg

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> First of all, I myself heard someone challenge Maharishi.  It was at a 
> physics conference in fall of 1975.  Someone asked Maharishi what we would do 
> if it turned out the ideas were all wrong.  To which Maharishi replied and 
> I'm paraphrasing:  then we'll have to start all over again.
> 
> 
> Plus I've heard of people disagreeing with Maharishi.  For example, someone 
> challenged Maharishi about the sweet truth saying that sometimes the truth is 
> not sweet.  To which Maharishi replied that if it's not sweet, it's not 
> true.  Another great koan in my book. 
> 
> 
> Here's the more complete story about personal control and will of God:
> People were at a long rounding course in Europe and someone complained about 
> people slamming their doors during program time.  To which Maharishi said 
> people shouldn't slam their doors.  Then someone else, challenging Maharishi, 
> said, Well Maharishi what about the noisy construction next door?  To which 
> Maharishi said, "What we have no control over, we take to be the will of 
> God."  And the second part of Maharishi's reply I will paraphrase:  But what 
> we have control over, we do something about.
> 
> I'm replying like this, Robin because I have not received your post in my 
> inbox, only in archives.  Not sure about replying from archives.  Does that 
> work the same? 
>


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday

[Buck]

Well, it is unfortunate that the Rajas put themselves in this position of 
interrogating folks against these un-published guidelines of theirs.  This is a 
really good example.  Instead of just asking that people only practice TM and 
the TM-sidhis in the Domes and not practice other spiritual techniques this 
person, someone who we all know in the community, is there standing in line 
with folks waiting for coffee downtown telling of being creep-ed out and Of the 
visceral fear it triggered in a feeling of how invasive the interview 
conversation was in the amount and detail of personal information they had 
gathered about this person and were asking about.

Next step for the person is to git three 'recommendations' from governors.  
That means again going through this experience of applying for a badge and the 
feeling of being creep-ed out by how invasive it was with three or more people 
to get recommendations.  They likely tell three others each about this person's 
experience of being creep-ed out.  Those each tell three more.  This is really 
not good in a community.  It is just a bad position for the TM-rajas to be in 
building dossiers around the guidelines and the Dome numbers and interrogating 
people.  

In the long TM history around this thing with other saints where Maharishi 
clearly said a lot of different things about visiting saints to a lot of 
different people at different times, the Rajas should drop to being a lot 
simpler just in asking people to come and help by being practitioners of this 
again.  There are really very few TM-virgins around but a lot of people who 
could come and meditate.  The gross numbers of people meditating in the Domes 
are really quite paltry; however, the Rajas might want to quickly think again 
about change and re-introducing a second element to this particular problem 
even before their Nov 6 'election' campaign to increase the Dome numbers goes 
too far towards re-soliciting people back.  The Rajas need to work more at 
reconciliation with their community rather than just hoping that people might 
be nice and come back.  Yes, time is of an essence and it is certainly within 
the authority, power and responsibility of the TM-Rajas to improve on things 
like this.  The ball is in their court to serve.
-Buck 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Khazana I wouldn't say I'm fine with the system as it is since it seems to be 
> so hard on other people.  However, I have to also take into account my own 
> experience.  I wasn't questioned at all when I returned to the Dome after a 
> 7 year absence.  Though I had been to Amma several times and had been 
> participating in Waking Down on a weekly basis right here in FF.  Maybe I 
> wasn't questioned because I'm not a gov.  I don't know and I feel for the 
> people who are given such a rough time about it all.  
> 
> 
> OTOH, I too have been interviewed by Movement leaders and have had conflicts 
> with them.  Again I don't understand why I've escaped harsher reprimands.  
> But I'll give an example.  Years ago, after the end of a relationship, 
> tantric teacher David Deida happened to come to town.  Right away I knew I 
> wanted to attend.  I was an MUM grad student at the time.  I was open about 
> my participation in Deida's workshop.  But perhaps more importantly I felt 
> right about it.  True, I was scared of possible consequences.  But I was 
> willing to take that chance because I felt I was doing what was right for me 
> and my life.  Also important, inside I acknowledged that I might be wrong.  
> I was not 100% sure that I was acting rightly.  But again, I was willing to 
> take a chance that I was.  
> 
> 
> That feeling of rightness, even when not 100% sure, even when afraid of 
> possible consequences, is a grace and I do believe it is what has protected 
> me all these decades on a spiritual path.  I am deeply grateful for this 
> grace.
> 
> PS  Yahoo has been acting wonky the last few days.  Posts get to the 
> archives right away and I read there to stay current.  Posts to my inbox can 
> arrive many hours after they were posted.  Even my own!  
> 
> 
> Remembering that Maharishi said, "What we have no control over we take to be 
> the will of God."      
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: khazana108 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 6:14 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday
>  
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, one would hope if you were interested in meditating with the large 
> > > group that they would issue you a badge.  That in itself is still a 
> > > problem to surmount just coming in. I spoke with someone yesterday in 
> > > line waiting for coffee, an old meditator here who just re-applied and 
> > > 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday

[Emily Reyn]

Of course, org's are composed of people.  Does a 'few good people' mean that 
you compromise your core value system to continue if you find it at odds?




 From: Share Long 
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday
 

  
Jason, it's my experience that in every organization there are at least a few 
good people.  Michael, I had a similar interview to yours.  I am so sorry you 
were given such a hard time.  I admire how you handled the situation.   




 From: Jason 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 4:05 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday
 

  


You know, all these cults and religions have his 'shit herd' 
mentality.  I am thankfull that I never lived inside any 
cult or org.  Being on the outside gave me a 'ringside view' 
of a spectrum of these things.  I talk to a lot of people 
who are in cults and get an idea of what is happening 
inside.  You are better off alone.

All these orgs and cults are inhabited by such bureaucratic, 
pedantic, dicactic, dogmatic, zombie bots.

---  Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances. I quit going
> to the Dome when I was on staff due to a really serious allergy to
> formaldehyde, which in those days at least was a major component in making 
> foam. 
> The longer I was in the Dome, the worse I felt. 
> 
> 
> So I stopped
> going. I did program by myself in my pod room and felt great both in and out 
> of
> program. As twice a day in the Dome was part of the staff program, I was 
> called
> in to the Personnel Director's office (Bill Sands) and he gave me a serious
> talk and threatened me with dismissal if I didn't start toeing the line.
> 
> I told him about the allergy and he said it didn't matter,
> rules were rules. I showed him the letter I had from my allergy doctor (Allen
> Lieberman in Charleston SC) saying that I had to avoid formaldehyde exposure. 
> Bill
> said it still didn't matter. Rules were rules. No exceptions. 
> 
> So I returned to the Dome and after a couple days started
> feeling like crap again. So I thought about things and decided to write a
> letter to then TM Sidhi Administrator Greg Wilson and told him my story and
> sent him a copy of the letter from my allergy doctor. 
> A
> nd a couple weeks later to my surprise he wrote me a letter
> back giving me permission to do program in my room, tho he suggested that I
> might consider serving MIU in some other capacity since Dome attendance was
> part of staff program. So I quit going to the Dome again. 
> 
> A couple weeks went by and I was called into Bill Sands office
> again, with my letters in my pocket. After he gave me hell and pretty much 
> told
> me my time at MIU was over, I told him I had permission from Greg Wilson and
> showed him my letter, or rather a copy of it, I wisely had the original in my
> room. 
> 
> Bill was completely discombobulated and hemmed and hawed and
> puffed and blustered but had to back down, but he didn't like it. So I went
> back to doing program in my room and had great experiences and was much more
> effective in activity for about eight months until Bill found a way to get rid
> of me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: Buck 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 12:52 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday
> 
>   
> This being Compassionate Posting Wednesday on FFL where ne'er a negative word 
> is written, I am not going to go on at all about just how stoopid and 
> undeserving it is that meditators who even live in Fairfield do not come to 
> the group meditation.  No, I'll save that for tomorrow and then may be also 
> consider the fallen away and outright meditation quitters out in the world 
> too; all those who have fell off the meditation wagon and even walked away 
> entirely.  I am excercising a lot of compassion for them all right now today, 
> -Buck in the Dome 
> 




 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday

[sharelong60]

Hi Mr. Soss, this is an experiment in that I've yet to reply via archives 
before.  Anyway, on a recent MahaSaraswati day the first person I saw was Dr. 
Vernon Katz walking along the road on his way to Patanjali Dome.  I considered 
that sighting a great blessing.  Thank you for posting this which gave me a 
sweet laugh out loud. Share

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > SHARE: Remembering that Maharishi said, "What we have no control over
> we take to be the will of God."
> >
> > The way I read (I had not heard this before) this statement of
> Maharishi's, it proves that he was in a higher state of consciousness.
> Maharishi, and only Maharishi, had this ability to say something--and if
> you really took it in from where he was saying it, and felt its
> resonances throughout the universe itself [and that is indeed what
> happened if you were sensitive enough], your very being told you he was
> representing reality itself.
> >
> > There is the strict *content* of what Maharishi is saying here. But as
> soon as I read it, *I felt the context of Maharishi and his
> consciousness* and how perfectly, metaphysically, apt his comment was.
> >
> > Not only that: IT STILL SEEMS TRUE TO ME. But Maharishi Mahesh Yogi,
> he was, during a stretch of time, infinitely tuned-in to the cosmos--at
> least he could say something like this, and in one's being one sensed
> that he was, as it were, making known the profoundest truth that could
> be known. "What we have no control over we take to be the will of God".
> How brilliant is this? It is said by someone who 'has more context' than
> anyone whom I have ever known.
> >
> > I don't know how many persons (you would have to be an initiator to
> really feel this, I suppose) remember how Maharishi would make some
> truth become a kind of perception in one's life. I think, even now, I
> can benefit from this precept. It actually works for me. Even as I do
> not believe in a Personal God.
> >
> > But I believe in the empirical truth of Maharishi's words--*I
> discovered their truth at a level I could not have any control over*.
> That was the extraordinariness of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi: he wasn't
> making this stuff up. He was reading off reality.
> >
> > One of the most perspicacious things I have ever heard--and only
> Maharishi could have said it. As long as one guards oneself from the
> mystical aura of his authority--and not allow this statement to be any
> truer than it actually is--one can apply this truth in one's life. At
> least when this situation comes up, this remembered perspective could be
> useful.
> >
> > No one but Maharishi could say this--because it is (or it seems to me
> it is objectively true somehow. "What we have no control over we take to
> be the will of God". Even, then, if it is not literally true, to adopt
> this frame of reference will be beneficial to us. No one refuted--in his
> presence--a single thing Maharishi uttered.
> 
> 
> Vernon was doing that ALL the time ! :-
> Conversations with Maharishi  By Dr. Vernon Katz Hardcover, 393 pages
> Published in 2011
> Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Speaks about Full Development of Human
> Consciousness
> The majestic panoramas of Lake Tahoe in California and the Kashmir
> Valley in the Himalayas provided the ideal settings for the
> conversations in this book. It was there in 1968 and 1969 that Maharishi
> began his as-yet-unpublished commentary on the Brahma Sutra, a key text
> of the timeless wisdom of Vedanta. The penetrating questions asked by
> Dr. Katz inspired deep insights from Maharishi on the nature and
> development of higher states of consciousness. Through Maharishi's
> words, the ultimate reality of life becomes meaningful and practical for
> people living today: anyone can awaken the wholeness of consciousness
> within. These conversations are suffused with bliss and serve as a
> tribute to Maharishi's legacy of knowledge for full development of the
> human heart and mind.
> Maharishi: People will enjoy this book. They will enjoy your insight.
> VK: I haven't any insight. It's your wisdom they will enjoy, and they
> will enjoy it all the more when set against my ignorance.
> Maharishi: See what insight you have!
> "Dr. Vernon Katz brought such huge delight to Maharishi. His sweet and
> lovable nature was one thing-but his powerful and highly discriminating
> intellect and his repeated enquiries to Maharishi inspired Maharishi so
> much. Maharishi in conversation with Vernon brought out wave upon wave
> of the highest knowledge to satisfy Vernon's thirst to understand fully
> the Brahm Vidya that Maharishi was expounding to the world. And
> Maharishi loved him for it. Vernon's role has been a singular one in the
> history of Maharishi's unfoldment of Total Knowledge from the Vedic
> tradition. We are all

[FairfieldLife] What we have no control over we take to be the will of God expanded

[Share Long]

First of all, I myself heard someone challenge Maharishi.  It was at a physics 
conference in fall of 1975.  Someone asked Maharishi what we would do if it 
turned out the ideas were all wrong.  To which Maharishi replied and I'm 
paraphrasing:  then we'll have to start all over again.


Plus I've heard of people disagreeing with Maharishi.  For example, someone 
challenged Maharishi about the sweet truth saying that sometimes the truth is 
not sweet.  To which Maharishi replied that if it's not sweet, it's not true.  
Another great koan in my book. 


Here's the more complete story about personal control and will of God:
People were at a long rounding course in Europe and someone complained about 
people slamming their doors during program time.  To which Maharishi said 
people shouldn't slam their doors.  Then someone else, challenging Maharishi, 
said, Well Maharishi what about the noisy construction next door?  To which 
Maharishi said, "What we have no control over, we take to be the will of God."  
And the second part of Maharishi's reply I will paraphrase:  But what we have 
control over, we do something about.

I'm replying like this, Robin because I have not received your post in my 
inbox, only in archives.  Not sure about replying from archives.  Does that 
work the same?  

[FairfieldLife] In praise of Barry (Re: Coup de foudre)

[emilymae.reyn]

You see, this supports my premise that there are no original thoughts.  

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
> >
> > I will admit, whether an original thought or not, I got a big kick out of 
> > trying to wrap my mind around the question "Does God Evolve?" 
> 
> "The truth itself is nothing else than how the composite natures of the 
> organic actualities of the world obtain adequate representation in the divine 
> nature. Such representations compose the `consequent nature' of God, which 
> evolves in its relationship to the evolving world without derogation to the 
> eternal completion of its primordial conceptual nature."
> Alfred North Whitehead 
>  
>  
> >  From: Susan 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 8:45 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] In praise of Barry (Re: Coup de foudre)
> >  
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108  wrote:
> > >
> > > This is one thing I like about Barry: that he tells this story. He is 
> > > almost certainly being ridiculed for it, and he knows it, but he doesn't 
> > > care. He really doesn't care. See how little guarded he is. In this case 
> > > it is particularly clear, that he simply shares this, very personal 
> > > moment, just the way he experienced it, and just shares his own 
> > > reflections, as if he would be telling this to his best friend! There is 
> > > no hidden agenda, no cynicism, or irony, he simply shares this moment of 
> > > transcendence IN the world, the awe he experienced. 
> > > 
> > > And I think he does this here in general: this is Barry's MO. He has some 
> > > kind of recognition, some truth he recognizes, and then he throws it at 
> > > us, not really caring too much how people react, in take-it-or-leave-it 
> > > style. He has this inner independence, and that's a great thing I think.  
> > > He could be more sensitive, to not hurt people, sure. But he is almost 
> > > completely innocent in this. Now take it or leave it.
> > 
> > Well said.  I agree with this 100%. And this is why I look forward to 
> > reading Barry's posts.  He puts his ideas out there - are some are terrific 
> > and interesting.  Some not so much to me, but so what?
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Today's koan:  Maharishi explains there's 100% determinism, 100% 
> > > > free will.  I love these paradoxes!
> > > > 
> > > > Gangaji said, and I'm paraphrasing:  if you think you're the doer, 
> > > > then it's better if you do what you think is right to do.
> > > > 
> > > > B, what comes out of the jello first, sound or light?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >  From: Bhairitu 
> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 3:06 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Coup de foudre
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >   
> > > > On 10/22/2012 07:59 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
> > > > > I had an interesting experience this morning, interesting primarily
> > > > > because I've only had such an experience a few times in my life, and
> > > > > it's been a long time since the last one.
> > > > >
> > > > > I was out walking in my neighborhood and saw a woman approaching on a
> > > > > bakfiets (a bicycle with a passenger compartment on the front, similar
> > > > > to the Babboe I posted about earlier). She had two small kids -- 
> > > > > boys, I
> > > > > think -- in the compartment, but to tell the truth I'm not sure they
> > > > > were boys because I couldn't take my eyes off of her face. I found her
> > > > > incredibly beautiful. Not in a supermodel or actress sort of way, 
> > > > > more a
> > > > > "Wow...this is a very real and interesting person" sort of way. And 
> > > > > not
> > > > > in the least in a lustful sort of way. She just instantly captured my
> > > > > interest, so I smiled. She smiled back, and then pedaled past me and
> > > > > turned down a street parallel to mine.
> > > > >
> > > > > Unwilling to part with that delightful second of appreciation, I 
> > > > > turned
> > > > > to watch her pedal away. She turned to look at me, too. We both smiled
> > > > > again, and then she pedaled on.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's all. You were maybe expecting her to have stopped and asked me 
> > > > > to
> > > > > feel her ass?  :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > That short interaction may not sound like much of a moment to others,
> > > > > but to me it's of interest because several times in my life such a
> > > > > moment of mutual recognition and appreciation has led to wonderful and
> > > > > memorable love affairs.
> > > > >
> > > > > One of those times, interestingly enough, occurred on an ATR course of
> > > > > at the old Cobb Mountain TM facility. It was the first day, and never
> > > > > having been there before I was walking around checking t

[FairfieldLife] Re: What we have no control over we take to be the will of God expanded

[Robin Carlsen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgaFKqnj0dg

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> First of all, I myself heard someone challenge Maharishi.  It was at a 
> physics conference in fall of 1975.  Someone asked Maharishi what we would do 
> if it turned out the ideas were all wrong.  To which Maharishi replied and 
> I'm paraphrasing:  then we'll have to start all over again.
> 
> 
> Plus I've heard of people disagreeing with Maharishi.  For example, someone 
> challenged Maharishi about the sweet truth saying that sometimes the truth is 
> not sweet.  To which Maharishi replied that if it's not sweet, it's not 
> true.  Another great koan in my book. 
> 
> 
> Here's the more complete story about personal control and will of God:
> People were at a long rounding course in Europe and someone complained about 
> people slamming their doors during program time.  To which Maharishi said 
> people shouldn't slam their doors.  Then someone else, challenging Maharishi, 
> said, Well Maharishi what about the noisy construction next door?  To which 
> Maharishi said, "What we have no control over, we take to be the will of 
> God."  And the second part of Maharishi's reply I will paraphrase:  But what 
> we have control over, we do something about.
> 
> I'm replying like this, Robin because I have not received your post in my 
> inbox, only in archives.  Not sure about replying from archives.  Does that 
> work the same? 
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Wallace Stevens writes to his daughter, a nun, & a poet

[Emily Reyn]

I love this "letter to the daughter."  It captures so much of parenting and 
recognizes a child who has matured, but might not know it yet.  He acknowledges 
his own faults as a parent, and shows his love by stating his intent to "undo 
any damage", but doesn't apologize for being a parent or loving  his 
daughter in the best way he knows  how.  



 From: Robin Carlsen 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 4:07 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Wallace Stevens writes to his daughter, a nun, & a poet
 

  
To His Daughter

Hartford, Conn.
Oct. 7, 1941

Dear Holly:

I cannot well dictate this.

Yr. mother has written to you and I do not now what she has said. For my own 
part, I think you already have the independence you desire. No parents could be 
less authoritarian than we have been. You have always been free. [. . .]

That your parents--and one's parents--have their imperfections is nothing to 
brood on. They also have their perfections. Yr mother has them to an exquisite 
degree, tough as she is. The blow-ups that we have are nothing more than 
blow-ups of the nerves--when they are over they are over. And I think and hope 
that you will look back some day and be happy about the whole thing. My own 
stubbornness and taciturn eras are straight out of Holland and I cannot change 
them any more than I can take off my skin. But i never hesitate to seek to undo 
any damage I am have done.

We both love you and desire only to help you and part of yr education is to get 
on with us and part of ours is to get on with you.

Love,
Dad

To Sister M. Bernetta Quinn

Hartford, Conn.
Dec. 21, 1951

Dear Sister Bernetta:

It gives me sincere pleasure to have your card. It is a flash apart from the 
endless common-place. Mr. [C. Roland] Wagner indulges in over-simplifications. 
I am not an atheist although I do not believe to-day in the same God in whom I 
believed when I was a boy. But to talk to you about God is like explaining 
French to a Frenchman. [. . .]

We are covered with snow and ice here. But we have been having the most saintly 
moonlight nights with a bright day every now and then. In the midst of this 
Xmas comes roaring on. It makes me envy your enclave at Winona: envy the 
loneliness of a school at Xmas, in which at least one can collect one's self 
and no doubt, in your case, collect a great deal more. [. . .]

Sincerely yours,
Wallace Stevens

To William Carlos Williams

Hartford, Conn.
January 22, 1942.

Dear Bill,

Thanks for your postcard. I am just getting under way. Twenty or thirty years 
from now I expect to be really well oiled. Don't worry about my gray hair. 
Whenever I ring for a stenographer she comes in with a pistol strapped around 
her belt.

Best regards young feller and best wishes.

Wallace Stevens


 

[FairfieldLife] In praise of Barry (Re: Coup de foudre)

[Robin Carlsen]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108  wrote:
>
> This is one thing I like about Barry: that he tells this story. He is almost 
> certainly being ridiculed for it, and he knows it, but he doesn't care. He 
> really doesn't care. See how little guarded he is. In this case it is 
> particularly clear, that he simply shares this, very personal moment, just 
> the way he experienced it, and just shares his own reflections, as if he 
> would be telling this to his best friend! There is no hidden agenda, no 
> cynicism, or irony, he simply shares this moment of transcendence IN the 
> world, the awe he experienced. 
> 
> And I think he does this here in general: this is Barry's MO. He has some 
> kind of recognition, some truth he recognizes, and then he throws it at us, 
> not really caring too much how people react, in take-it-or-leave-it style. He 
> has this inner independence, and that's a great thing I think.  He could be 
> more sensitive, to not hurt people, sure. But he is almost completely 
> innocent in this. Now take it or leave it.

I heartily agree with all of this. Anyone who fails to perceive--and 
appreciate--this aspect of Barry obviously has a problem. And this analysis, 
Khazana, it contains as much (how could it not?) independence and transcendence 
and innocence as the very virtue you are extolling in Barry.There simply is no 
argument to be made against it. I'd like to see someone try--If they do, they 
will prove: Hey! YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! What you have missed in your 
analysis, however, Khazana, is that Barry himself already knows about this, and 
his real innocence (and creative martyrdom) depends on no one having figured 
out what you have just told us.

You may have just deprived him of the spiritual effectuality of his being so 
misunderstood (and persecuted). Now that we can see how remarkable his 
originality is--through the generosity and sensitivity of your soul--Barry can 
no longer make his act as evolutionarily efficient as it was--when its beauty 
and coherence was hidden from us by our prejudice against him.

What you should do next is see what it is in AWB and raunchy (to take two 
examples) which makes them go after Barry and refuse to open their heart and 
their consciousness to what NOW they can only deny through a false conscience.

But if you let go of this need to see Barry in this way, Khazana, you will see 
more of the light of India.

I like hating Barry. And I am used to it. I don't want to see him change--and 
for Christ's sake I don't need to hear about his good qualities either.

Barry doesn't like me, and this is my little Garden of Gethsemane.

Could you say something nice about me too, Khazana?

"He sought an earthly leader who could stand/ Without panache, without 
cockade,/ Son only of man and sun of men/ The outer captain, the inner saint,/ 
The pine, the pillar and the priest,/ The voice, the book, the hidden well. . ."

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Today's koan:  Maharishi explains there's 100% determinism, 100% free 
> > will.  I love these paradoxes!
> > 
> > Gangaji said, and I'm paraphrasing:  if you think you're the doer, then 
> > it's better if you do what you think is right to do.
> > 
> > B, what comes out of the jello first, sound or light?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: Bhairitu 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 3:06 PM
> > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Coup de foudre
> >  
> > 
> >   
> > On 10/22/2012 07:59 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
> > > I had an interesting experience this morning, interesting primarily
> > > because I've only had such an experience a few times in my life, and
> > > it's been a long time since the last one.
> > >
> > > I was out walking in my neighborhood and saw a woman approaching on a
> > > bakfiets (a bicycle with a passenger compartment on the front, similar
> > > to the Babboe I posted about earlier). She had two small kids -- boys, I
> > > think -- in the compartment, but to tell the truth I'm not sure they
> > > were boys because I couldn't take my eyes off of her face. I found her
> > > incredibly beautiful. Not in a supermodel or actress sort of way, more a
> > > "Wow...this is a very real and interesting person" sort of way. And not
> > > in the least in a lustful sort of way. She just instantly captured my
> > > interest, so I smiled. She smiled back, and then pedaled past me and
> > > turned down a street parallel to mine.
> > >
> > > Unwilling to part with that delightful second of appreciation, I turned
> > > to watch her pedal away. She turned to look at me, too. We both smiled
> > > again, and then she pedaled on.
> > >
> > > That's all. You were maybe expecting her to have stopped and asked me to
> > > feel her ass?  :-)
> > >
> > > That short interaction may not sound like much of a moment to others,
> > > but to me it's of interest because several times in my life such a
> >

[FairfieldLife] In praise of Barry (Re: Coup de foudre)

[Robin Carlsen]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emilymae.reyn"  wrote:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsU6_eSG4k4&feature=fvwrel
> 

Good one, Emily. ;-)
 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emilymae.reyn" emilymae.reyn@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I am going to have to give up on receiving FFL through email.  I
> don't get half the posts.
> > >
> > > Jesus Christos, Robin, who wrote that?
> >
> > Hi Emily,
> >
> > Same guy who wrote that letter to his daughter when she was seventeen.
> >
> > I took Stevens with me on my Teacher-Training Course, and I took him
> on my Six Month Course.
> >
> > He once got into a fist fight with Ernest Hemingway.
> >
> > I like how his first person ontology almost angelically resists
> definition.
> >
> > His daughter once wrote me a letter.
> >
> > The tragic never entered into a single poem of his.
> >
> > Nagel and Stevens: two beautiful extremes for me.
> >
> > See you, Emily.
> >
> > Robin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is one thing I like about Barry: that he tells this
> story. He is almost certainly being ridiculed for it, and he knows it,
> but he doesn't care. He really doesn't care. See how little guarded he
> is. In this case it is particularly clear, that he simply shares this,
> very personal moment, just the way he experienced it, and just shares
> his own reflections, as if he would be telling this to his best friend!
> There is no hidden agenda, no cynicism, or irony, he simply shares this
> moment of transcendence IN the world, the awe he experienced.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And I think he does this here in general: this is Barry's MO.
> He has some kind of recognition, some truth he recognizes, and then he
> throws it at us, not really caring too much how people react, in
> take-it-or-leave-it style. He has this inner independence, and that's a
> great thing I think.  He could be more sensitive, to not hurt people,
> sure. But he is almost completely innocent in this. Now take it or leave
> it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well said.  I agree with this 100%. And this is why I look
> forward to reading Barry's posts.  He puts his ideas out there - are
> some are terrific and interesting.  Some not so much to me, but so what?
> > > >
> > > > "And in the bright excellence adorned, crested
> > > > With every prodigal, familiar fire,
> > > > And unfamiliar escapades: whirroos
> > > > And scintillant sizzlings such as children like,
> > > > Vested in the serious folds of majesty,
> > > > Moving around and behind, a following,
> > > > A source of trumpeting seraphs in the eye,
> > > > A source of pleasant outbursts to the ear."
> > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long
>  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Today's koan:Â  Maharishi explains there's 100%
> determinism, 100% free will.  I love these paradoxes!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Gangaji said, and I'm paraphrasing:Â  if you think you're
> the doer, then it's better if you do what you think is right to do.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > B, what comes out of the jello first, sound or light?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  From: Bhairitu 
> > > > > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 3:06 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Coup de foudre
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > On 10/22/2012 07:59 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
> > > > > > > > I had an interesting experience this morning, interesting
> primarily
> > > > > > > > because I've only had such an experience a few times in my
> life, and
> > > > > > > > it's been a long time since the last one.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I was out walking in my neighborhood and saw a woman
> approaching on a
> > > > > > > > bakfiets (a bicycle with a passenger compartment on the
> front, similar
> > > > > > > > to the Babboe I posted about earlier). She had two small
> kids -- boys, I
> > > > > > > > think -- in the compartment, but to tell the truth I'm not
> sure they
> > > > > > > > were boys because I couldn't take my eyes off of her face.
> I found her
> > > > > > > > incredibly beautiful. Not in a supermodel or actress sort
> of way, more a
> > > > > > > > "Wow...this is a very real and interesting person" sort of
> way. And not
> > > > > > > > in the least in a lustful sort of way. She just instantly
> captured my
> > > > > > > > interest, so I smiled. She smiled back, and then pedaled
> past me and
> > > > > > > > turned down a street parallel to mine.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Unwilling to part with

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday

[Share Long]

Jason, it's my experience that in every organization there are at least a few 
good people.  Michael, I had a similar interview to yours.  I am so sorry you 
were given such a hard time.  I admire how you handled the situation.   




 From: Jason 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 4:05 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday
 

  


You know, all these cults and religions have his 'shit herd' 
mentality.  I am thankfull that I never lived inside any 
cult or org.  Being on the outside gave me a 'ringside view' 
of a spectrum of these things.  I talk to a lot of people 
who are in cults and get an idea of what is happening 
inside.  You are better off alone.

All these orgs and cults are inhabited by such bureaucratic, 
pedantic, dicactic, dogmatic, zombie bots.

---  Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances. I quit going
> to the Dome when I was on staff due to a really serious allergy to
> formaldehyde, which in those days at least was a major component in making 
> foam. 
> The longer I was in the Dome, the worse I felt. 
> 
> 
> So I stopped
> going. I did program by myself in my pod room and felt great both in and out 
> of
> program. As twice a day in the Dome was part of the staff program, I was 
> called
> in to the Personnel Director's office (Bill Sands) and he gave me a serious
> talk and threatened me with dismissal if I didn't start toeing the line.
> 
> I told him about the allergy and he said it didn't matter,
> rules were rules. I showed him the letter I had from my allergy doctor (Allen
> Lieberman in Charleston SC) saying that I had to avoid formaldehyde exposure. 
> Bill
> said it still didn't matter. Rules were rules. No exceptions. 
> 
> So I returned to the Dome and after a couple days started
> feeling like crap again. So I thought about things and decided to write a
> letter to then TM Sidhi Administrator Greg Wilson and told him my story and
> sent him a copy of the letter from my allergy doctor. 
> A
> nd a couple weeks later to my surprise he wrote me a letter
> back giving me permission to do program in my room, tho he suggested that I
> might consider serving MIU in some other capacity since Dome attendance was
> part of staff program. So I quit going to the Dome again. 
> 
> A couple weeks went by and I was called into Bill Sands office
> again, with my letters in my pocket. After he gave me hell and pretty much 
> told
> me my time at MIU was over, I told him I had permission from Greg Wilson and
> showed him my letter, or rather a copy of it, I wisely had the original in my
> room. 
> 
> Bill was completely discombobulated and hemmed and hawed and
> puffed and blustered but had to back down, but he didn't like it. So I went
> back to doing program in my room and had great experiences and was much more
> effective in activity for about eight months until Bill found a way to get rid
> of me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: Buck 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 12:52 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday
> 
>   
> This being Compassionate Posting Wednesday on FFL where ne'er a negative word 
> is written, I am not going to go on at all about just how stoopid and 
> undeserving it is that meditators who even live in Fairfield do not come to 
> the group meditation.  No, I'll save that for tomorrow and then may be also 
> consider the fallen away and outright meditation quitters out in the world 
> too; all those who have fell off the meditation wagon and even walked away 
> entirely.  I am excercising a lot of compassion for them all right now today, 
> -Buck in the Dome 
> 


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Idea Since Darwin Part III

[Jason]

---  "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> 
> MIND AND COSMOS: WHY THE MATERIALIST NEO-DARWINIAN CONCEPTION OF NATURE IS 
> ALMOST CERTAINLY FALSE by Thomas Nagel
> 
> Modern evolutionary theory offers a general picture of how the existence and 
> development of life could be just another consequence of the equations of 
> particle physics. Even if no one yet has a workable idea about the details, 
> it is possible to speculate that the appearance of life was the product of 
> chemical processes governed by the law of physics, and that evolution after 
> that is likewise due to chemical mutations and natural selection that are 
> just super-complex consequences of physical principles. Even if there is a 
> residual problem of exactly how to account for consciousness in physical 
> terms, the orthodox naturalistic view is that biology is in principle 
> completely explained by physics and chemistry, and that evolutionary 
> psychology provides a rough idea of how everything distinctive about human 
> life can also be regarded as an extremely complicated consequence of the 
> behaviour of physical particles in accordance with certain fundamental laws. 
> This will ultimately include an explanation of the cognitive capacities that 
> enable us to discover those laws.
> 
> I find it puzzling that this view of things should be taken as more or less 
> self-evident, as I believe it commonly is. . . . [S]cientific naturalists 
> claim to know what the form of that progress will be, and to know that 
> mentalistic, teleological, or evaluative intelligibility in particular have 
> been left behind for good as fundamental forms of understanding. It is 
> assumed not only that the natural order is intelligible but that its 
> intelligibility has a certain form, being found in the simplest and most 
> unified physical laws, governing the simplest and fewest elements, from which 
> all else follows. That is what scientific optimists mean by a theory of 
> everything. . . 
> 
> . . . The implausibility of the reductive program that is needed to defend 
> the completeness of this kind of naturalism provides a reason for trying to 
> think of alternatives--alternatives that make mind, meaning, and value as 
> fundamental as matter and space-time in an account of what there is. . . .
> 
> A theistic self-understanding, for those who find it compelling to see the 
> world as the expression of divine intention, would leave intact our natural 
> confidence in our cognitive faculties. But it would not be the kind of 
> understanding that explains *how* beings like us fit into the world. The kind 
> of intelligibility that would still be missing is intelligibility of the 
> natural order itself--intelligibility from within. That kind of 
> intelligibility may be compatible with some forms of theism--if God creates a 
> self-contained natural order which he then leaves undisturbed. But it is not 
> compatible with direct theistic explanation of systematic features of the 
> world that would seem otherwise to be brute facts--such as creation of life 
> from dead matter, or the birth of consciousness, or reason. Such 
> interventionist hypotheses amount to a denial that there is a comprehensive 
> natural order. They are in part motivated by a belief that seems to me 
> correct, namely, that there is little or no possibility that these facts 
> depend on nothing but the laws of physics. But another response to the 
> situation is to think that there may be a completely different type of 
> systematic account of nature, one that makes these neither brute facts that 
> are beyond explanation nor the products of divine intervention. That, at any 
> rate, is my ungrounded intellectual preference.
> 
> . . . Evolutionary naturalism provides an account of our capacities that 
> undermines their reliability, and in doing so undermines itself. . .
> 
> Inevitably, when we construct a naturalistic external self-understanding, we 
> are relying on one part of our "sense-making" capacities to create a system 
> that will make sense of the rest. We rely on evolutionary theory to analyze 
> and evaluate everything from our logical and probabilistic cognition to our 
> moral sense. This reflects the view that empirical science is the one secure, 
> privileged form of understanding and that we can trust other forms only to 
> the extent that they can be validated through a scientific account of how and 
> why they work. That still requires reliance on some of our own faculties. But 
> some faculties are thought to merit more confidence than others, and even if 
> we cannot provide them with a noncircular external justification, we must at 
> least believe that they are not undermined by the external account of their 
> sources and operation that is being proposed. A core of cognitive confidence 
> must remain intact, even if some other faculties rae rendered doubtful by 
> their evolutionary pedigree.
> 
> . . . The failure of evolutionary naturalism to

[FairfieldLife] In praise of Barry (Re: Coup de foudre)

[Robin Carlsen]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> I will admit, whether an original thought or not, I got a big kick out of 
> trying to wrap my mind around the question "Does God Evolve?" 

"The truth itself is nothing else than how the composite natures of the organic 
actualities of the world obtain adequate representation in the divine nature. 
Such representations compose the `consequent nature' of God, which evolves in 
its relationship to the evolving world without derogation to the eternal 
completion of its primordial conceptual nature."
Alfred North Whitehead 
 
 
>  From: Susan 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 8:45 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] In praise of Barry (Re: Coup de foudre)
>  
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108  wrote:
> >
> > This is one thing I like about Barry: that he tells this story. He is 
> > almost certainly being ridiculed for it, and he knows it, but he doesn't 
> > care. He really doesn't care. See how little guarded he is. In this case it 
> > is particularly clear, that he simply shares this, very personal moment, 
> > just the way he experienced it, and just shares his own reflections, as if 
> > he would be telling this to his best friend! There is no hidden agenda, no 
> > cynicism, or irony, he simply shares this moment of transcendence IN the 
> > world, the awe he experienced. 
> > 
> > And I think he does this here in general: this is Barry's MO. He has some 
> > kind of recognition, some truth he recognizes, and then he throws it at us, 
> > not really caring too much how people react, in take-it-or-leave-it style. 
> > He has this inner independence, and that's a great thing I think.  He could 
> > be more sensitive, to not hurt people, sure. But he is almost completely 
> > innocent in this. Now take it or leave it.
> 
> Well said.  I agree with this 100%. And this is why I look forward to reading 
> Barry's posts.  He puts his ideas out there - are some are terrific and 
> interesting.  Some not so much to me, but so what?
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > >
> > > Today's koan:  Maharishi explains there's 100% determinism, 100% free 
> > > will.  I love these paradoxes!
> > > 
> > > Gangaji said, and I'm paraphrasing:  if you think you're the doer, 
> > > then it's better if you do what you think is right to do.
> > > 
> > > B, what comes out of the jello first, sound or light?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  From: Bhairitu 
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 3:06 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Coup de foudre
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   
> > > On 10/22/2012 07:59 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
> > > > I had an interesting experience this morning, interesting primarily
> > > > because I've only had such an experience a few times in my life, and
> > > > it's been a long time since the last one.
> > > >
> > > > I was out walking in my neighborhood and saw a woman approaching on a
> > > > bakfiets (a bicycle with a passenger compartment on the front, similar
> > > > to the Babboe I posted about earlier). She had two small kids -- boys, I
> > > > think -- in the compartment, but to tell the truth I'm not sure they
> > > > were boys because I couldn't take my eyes off of her face. I found her
> > > > incredibly beautiful. Not in a supermodel or actress sort of way, more a
> > > > "Wow...this is a very real and interesting person" sort of way. And not
> > > > in the least in a lustful sort of way. She just instantly captured my
> > > > interest, so I smiled. She smiled back, and then pedaled past me and
> > > > turned down a street parallel to mine.
> > > >
> > > > Unwilling to part with that delightful second of appreciation, I turned
> > > > to watch her pedal away. She turned to look at me, too. We both smiled
> > > > again, and then she pedaled on.
> > > >
> > > > That's all. You were maybe expecting her to have stopped and asked me to
> > > > feel her ass?  :-)
> > > >
> > > > That short interaction may not sound like much of a moment to others,
> > > > but to me it's of interest because several times in my life such a
> > > > moment of mutual recognition and appreciation has led to wonderful and
> > > > memorable love affairs.
> > > >
> > > > One of those times, interestingly enough, occurred on an ATR course of
> > > > at the old Cobb Mountain TM facility. It was the first day, and never
> > > > having been there before I was walking around checking things out. She
> > > > walked by me, I got that powerful "flash of recognition" feeling, and
> > > > then she'd walked past. No smiles this time; there wasn't really time.
> > > > But the flash was enough to stop me in my tracks and cause me to turn
> > > > around and look at her walking away. But she wasn't walking away. She
> > > > had stopped and turned around and was looking at me

[FairfieldLife] In praise of Barry (Re: Coup de foudre)

[Robin Carlsen]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108  wrote:
> >
> > This is one thing I like about Barry: that he tells this story. He is 
> > almost certainly being ridiculed for it, and he knows it, but he doesn't 
> > care. He really doesn't care. See how little guarded he is. In this case it 
> > is particularly clear, that he simply shares this, very personal moment, 
> > just the way he experienced it, and just shares his own reflections, as if 
> > he would be telling this to his best friend! There is no hidden agenda, no 
> > cynicism, or irony, he simply shares this moment of transcendence IN the 
> > world, the awe he experienced. 
> > 
> > And I think he does this here in general: this is Barry's MO. He has some 
> > kind of recognition, some truth he recognizes, and then he throws it at us, 
> > not really caring too much how people react, in take-it-or-leave-it style. 
> > He has this inner independence, and that's a great thing I think.  He could 
> > be more sensitive, to not hurt people, sure. But he is almost completely 
> > innocent in this. Now take it or leave it.
> 
> Well said.  I agree with this 100%. And this is why I look forward to reading 
> Barry's posts.  He puts his ideas out there - are some are terrific and 
> interesting.  Some not so much to me, but so what?

"And in the bright excellence adorned, crested
With every prodigal, familiar fire,
And unfamiliar escapades: whirroos
And scintillant sizzlings such as children like,
Vested in the serious folds of majesty,
Moving around and behind, a following,
A source of trumpeting seraphs in the eye,
A source of pleasant outbursts to the ear."
 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > >
> > > Today's koan:  Maharishi explains there's 100% determinism, 100% free 
> > > will.  I love these paradoxes!
> > > 
> > > Gangaji said, and I'm paraphrasing:  if you think you're the doer, then 
> > > it's better if you do what you think is right to do.
> > > 
> > > B, what comes out of the jello first, sound or light?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  From: Bhairitu 
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 3:06 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Coup de foudre
> > >  
> > > 
> > >   
> > > On 10/22/2012 07:59 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
> > > > I had an interesting experience this morning, interesting primarily
> > > > because I've only had such an experience a few times in my life, and
> > > > it's been a long time since the last one.
> > > >
> > > > I was out walking in my neighborhood and saw a woman approaching on a
> > > > bakfiets (a bicycle with a passenger compartment on the front, similar
> > > > to the Babboe I posted about earlier). She had two small kids -- boys, I
> > > > think -- in the compartment, but to tell the truth I'm not sure they
> > > > were boys because I couldn't take my eyes off of her face. I found her
> > > > incredibly beautiful. Not in a supermodel or actress sort of way, more a
> > > > "Wow...this is a very real and interesting person" sort of way. And not
> > > > in the least in a lustful sort of way. She just instantly captured my
> > > > interest, so I smiled. She smiled back, and then pedaled past me and
> > > > turned down a street parallel to mine.
> > > >
> > > > Unwilling to part with that delightful second of appreciation, I turned
> > > > to watch her pedal away. She turned to look at me, too. We both smiled
> > > > again, and then she pedaled on.
> > > >
> > > > That's all. You were maybe expecting her to have stopped and asked me to
> > > > feel her ass?  :-)
> > > >
> > > > That short interaction may not sound like much of a moment to others,
> > > > but to me it's of interest because several times in my life such a
> > > > moment of mutual recognition and appreciation has led to wonderful and
> > > > memorable love affairs.
> > > >
> > > > One of those times, interestingly enough, occurred on an ATR course of
> > > > at the old Cobb Mountain TM facility. It was the first day, and never
> > > > having been there before I was walking around checking things out. She
> > > > walked by me, I got that powerful "flash of recognition" feeling, and
> > > > then she'd walked past. No smiles this time; there wasn't really time.
> > > > But the flash was enough to stop me in my tracks and cause me to turn
> > > > around and look at her walking away. But she wasn't walking away. She
> > > > had stopped and turned around and was looking at me, too. We didn't hook
> > > > up on that course, but we did later, and it was memorable indeed, at
> > > > least from my side. Lovely woman.
> > > >
> > > > So I never ignore such moments. I may never see this woman in Leiden
> > > > again, but if I don't it really doesn't matter. In my experience such
> > > > moments are timeless, in the sense that they quite possibly cut across
> > > > the boundaries of one incarna

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Spiritual Question For Wednesday

[Robin Carlsen]

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

 
I stick with my guns over the idiocy of anyone claiming
that Stevie Ray Vaughn was better than Jimi Hendrix. 
That's akin to having so little discrimination and taste
as to believe that Robin Carlsen was an actual spiritual 
teacher. 

RESPONSE: I believe Robin Carlsen was a very great spiritual teacher--AT THE 
TIME. Anyone who was around him carries some deposit of real darshan. I knew 
him well: he had his faults, but "an actual spiritual teacher"? Oh, most 
certainly he was this. You are very wrong here, Barry. Robin was the cat's 
pyjamas. An incredible fellow. But he's gone from being Jimi Hendrix to 
Liberace. Has he ever told you about his 'suffering'? Don't get him on that. 
No, I learned a lot from him. He would have laid out Freddy fast enough.

But ultimately? Haywire. Fucking haywire.

[FairfieldLife] In praise of Barry (Re: Coup de foudre)

[Robin Carlsen]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> I still think everyone here has their gifts and their flaws.  I like the 
> richness of all the different voices of FFL though I'm more comfortable with 
> some of those voices than with others.  But that selective comfort also 
> seems true of us all.
> 
> Hey computer guys, is it possible to reply from archives?  I'm still not 
> getting some posts in my email inbox.  Has been happening since Tuesday.  
> Heck I didn't even get last night's post count til this morning!

WALLACE STEVENS DISCOVERS SHARON:
 
But she that says good-by losing in self
The sense of self, rosed out of prestiges
Of rose, stood tall in self not symbol, quick

And potent, an influence felt instead of seen.
She spoke with backward gestures of her hand.
She held men closely with discovery.

Almost as speed discovers, in the way
Invisible change discovers what is changed.
In the way what was has ceased to be what is.

It was not her look but a knowledge that she had.
She was a self that knew, an inner thing,
Subtler than look's declaiming, although she moved

With a sad splendor, beyond artifice,
Impassioned by the knowledge that she had,
There on the edges of oblivion. 


 
>  From: khazana108 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 10:09 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] In praise of Barry (Re: Coup de foudre)
>  
> 
>   
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> 
> > Could you say something nice about me too, Khazana?
> 
> Yes, Robin, of course I can, and will too. But you have to wait, wait at 
> least a fraction of the time Barry had to wait. You see, I am already trying, 
> but I still have to warm up a bit.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obam lied after the Ambassador died!

[Mike Dixon]

Of course he lied. He lies all the time and then points his finger at Romney 
and says he's the one that's lying. Oldest trick in the book. He mixes truth, 
half- truths, distortions and outright lies as his tactic to "paint your 
opponent as somebody to run from". Then he gets his minions in the media to 
cover for him. As the right Reverend Jesse Jackson says, "when you point your 
finger at somebody, there's three more pointing back at you." BTW I just 
noticed that he has lost his advantage among women voters. Romney's strategy 
(tell the truth but don't be combative) in the last debate is working!


 


 From: wgm4u 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 11:40 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obam lied after the Ambassador died!
   
   
 


--- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
wrote:
>
> --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, wgm4u  wrote:
> >
> > There was NO protest over the video, it was all a lie to cover
> > up the incompetence of the Obama administration! And, an
> > American citizen was arrested and 4 Americans lost their lives!

snip

White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: 

(Reuters) - Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two 
hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, 
on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the 
attack, official emails show.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024

   
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Spiritual Question For Wednesday

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> 
> > > Trying to recruit me, are you, Zebra Boy? Think I was born
> > > yesterday? Think I fell off a turnip truck? Well, I'm not
> > > so green as I am grassy-looking, so back off, buster.
> 
> Well authorfiend is certainly not green.

(He means "authfriend.")

> Due to the hints of the Willytexter,

(He means "willytex." And he doesn't mean "hints." Does
he mean "links"?)

> I stumbled upon this dialoque between her and Barry (Shoki)
> and quite honestly, you you tell any difference between the
> tone now and then? This is 1995, but you could post this
> same post today on FFL with just changing the names a little
> bit - to suit the present environment, and nobody would really 
> notice the difference.

It's not clear what point khazana is trying to make here--
that I'm consistent in how I respond to illogic and
misrepresentation? That Barry has always been a prick?

What's interesting is that in following Richard's link,
khazana would have seen a post from me *defending Barry*
from someone else's attack:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.meditation/Xa_w7e7dEb4/MAorIbdMZqoJ

http://tinyurl.com/c7q57sw

But that would be evidence in my favor. Ooops! So khazana has
to go on a hunt for a different post from a different thread
to use against me. Too funny.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.meditation.transcendental/browse_thread/thread/35b5ad0cd70ee2d8/6e533bbfc2e53e3d
> http://tinyurl.com/9r8985j
> 
> > OK, well maybe we don't see it here but I do believe it is in there 
> > somewhere - that nurturing, softer side.
> 
> You may well be the recipient of this softer, nurturing side
> at times Ann, but to be the recipient of her other side, may
> I suggest a little experiment? Just sign in with a different
> yahoo ID, and profess to be at one with Barry or the other
> crew. Profess to be critical of TM and/ or Robin, and see
> what happens. I promise you, this is the only way to find out.

Or try a slightly different experiment: sign in with a
different Yahoo ID, "profess to be at one with Barry or the
other crew" (I think he means "or one of the others of 
Barry's crew"), come up with *fair* criticisms of TM and/or
Robin (or just don't make criticisms--or criticize Mitt
Romney), and see what happens.

I guess poor khazana was misled the other day by Barry's
lie concerning why I was fighting with Xeno--according to
Barry, it was because Xeno had said Barry was a better
spiritual teacher than Robin. In fact, Xeno and I have
been fighting since summer 2011 (as well as having had
several entirely pleasant exchanges).

What is so illuminating about khazana's post here is that
it shows him to be guilty of the very behavior he accuses
me of.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Spiritual Question For Wednesday

[Emily Reyn]

"may I suggest a little experiment? Just sign in with a different yahoo 
ID, and profess to be at one with Barry or the other crew. Profess to be 
critical of TM and/ or Robin, and see what happens. I promise you, this is the 
only way to find out."

Khazana:  Just to make an obvious point, "signing in" with a new name and 
starting fresh, after having spent some time here, is mostly a waste of time.  
In all the cases I've seen here, one's writing style "outs" oneself before much 
time has passed, as well as one's biases, opinions, knowledge base, etc.  It is 
possible of course, but would take a skilled, concerted and constant effort on 
the part of the poster to maintain his/her new identity over time if a regular 
participant.  Particularly if one wrote anything "personal." An example of late 
is Dr. Dumbass.  I would never have known he had a prior name here, but 
apparently he did and some figured it out. 

I have a situation currently where my FFL name has been discovered by a family 
member.  I am considering closing Emily down as I am not interested in 
explaining why I'm here or what I write and I don't like to be tracked, 
particularly by anyone in my family, who could use the information I've written 
here to create harm for me. I am weighing this against an idea that perhaps I 
just say "yeah, and so fuckin' what."  Also, if I am being tracked, if I were 
to change names at this point, it would be pretty easy to figure out who I am 
in my next incarnation, just like with you.  

Also, IMO, most people come to conclusions about a poster for a reason.  I 
almost always look for the individual merit in a post, subjectively or 
objectively.  It isn't a "for or against" scenario; it isn't a "with us or 
against us" mentality.  It's so demeaning to dismiss people by shuffling them 
into "camps" and defining their reality for them.  



 From: khazana108 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 6:44 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Spiritual Question For Wednesday
 

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

> > Trying to recruit me, are you, Zebra Boy? Think I was born
> > yesterday? Think I fell off a turnip truck? Well, I'm not
> > so green as I am grassy-looking, so back off, buster.

Well authorfiend is certainly not green. Due to the hints of the Willytexter, I 
stumbled upon this dialoque between her and Barry (Shoki) and quite honestly, 
you you tell any difference between the tone now and then? This is 1995, but 
you could post this same post today on FFL with just changing the names a 
little bit - to suit the present environment, and nobody would really notice 
the difference.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.meditation.transcendental/browse_thread/thread/35b5ad0cd70ee2d8/6e533bbfc2e53e3d
http://tinyurl.com/9r8985j

> OK, well maybe we don't see it here but I do believe it is in there somewhere 
> - that nurturing, softer side.

You may well be the recipient of this softer, nurturing side at times Ann, but 
to be the recipient of her other side, may I suggest a little experiment? Just 
sign in with a different yahoo ID, and profess to be at one with Barry or the 
other crew. Profess to be critical of TM and/ or Robin, and see what happens. I 
promise you, this is the only way to find out.


 

[FairfieldLife] In praise of Barry (Re: Coup de foudre)

[emilymae.reyn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsU6_eSG4k4&feature=fvwrel


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" 
wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emilymae.reyn" emilymae.reyn@
wrote:
> >
> > I am going to have to give up on receiving FFL through email.  I
don't get half the posts.
> >
> > Jesus Christos, Robin, who wrote that?
>
> Hi Emily,
>
> Same guy who wrote that letter to his daughter when she was seventeen.
>
> I took Stevens with me on my Teacher-Training Course, and I took him
on my Six Month Course.
>
> He once got into a fist fight with Ernest Hemingway.
>
> I like how his first person ontology almost angelically resists
definition.
>
> His daughter once wrote me a letter.
>
> The tragic never entered into a single poem of his.
>
> Nagel and Stevens: two beautiful extremes for me.
>
> See you, Emily.
>
> Robin
>
>
>
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" 
wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > This is one thing I like about Barry: that he tells this
story. He is almost certainly being ridiculed for it, and he knows it,
but he doesn't care. He really doesn't care. See how little guarded he
is. In this case it is particularly clear, that he simply shares this,
very personal moment, just the way he experienced it, and just shares
his own reflections, as if he would be telling this to his best friend!
There is no hidden agenda, no cynicism, or irony, he simply shares this
moment of transcendence IN the world, the awe he experienced.
> > > > >
> > > > > And I think he does this here in general: this is Barry's MO.
He has some kind of recognition, some truth he recognizes, and then he
throws it at us, not really caring too much how people react, in
take-it-or-leave-it style. He has this inner independence, and that's a
great thing I think.  He could be more sensitive, to not hurt people,
sure. But he is almost completely innocent in this. Now take it or leave
it.
> > > >
> > > > Well said.  I agree with this 100%. And this is why I look
forward to reading Barry's posts.  He puts his ideas out there - are
some are terrific and interesting.  Some not so much to me, but so what?
> > >
> > > "And in the bright excellence adorned, crested
> > > With every prodigal, familiar fire,
> > > And unfamiliar escapades: whirroos
> > > And scintillant sizzlings such as children like,
> > > Vested in the serious folds of majesty,
> > > Moving around and behind, a following,
> > > A source of trumpeting seraphs in the eye,
> > > A source of pleasant outbursts to the ear."
> > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long
 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Today's koan:Â  Maharishi explains there's 100%
determinism, 100% free will.  I love these paradoxes!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gangaji said, and I'm paraphrasing:Â  if you think you're
the doer, then it's better if you do what you think is right to do.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > B, what comes out of the jello first, sound or light?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  From: Bhairitu 
> > > > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 3:06 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Coup de foudre
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Â
> > > > > > On 10/22/2012 07:59 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
> > > > > > > I had an interesting experience this morning, interesting
primarily
> > > > > > > because I've only had such an experience a few times in my
life, and
> > > > > > > it's been a long time since the last one.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I was out walking in my neighborhood and saw a woman
approaching on a
> > > > > > > bakfiets (a bicycle with a passenger compartment on the
front, similar
> > > > > > > to the Babboe I posted about earlier). She had two small
kids -- boys, I
> > > > > > > think -- in the compartment, but to tell the truth I'm not
sure they
> > > > > > > were boys because I couldn't take my eyes off of her face.
I found her
> > > > > > > incredibly beautiful. Not in a supermodel or actress sort
of way, more a
> > > > > > > "Wow...this is a very real and interesting person" sort of
way. And not
> > > > > > > in the least in a lustful sort of way. She just instantly
captured my
> > > > > > > interest, so I smiled. She smiled back, and then pedaled
past me and
> > > > > > > turned down a street parallel to mine.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Unwilling to part with that delightful second of
appreciation, I turned
> > > > > > > to watch her pedal away. She turned to look at me, too. We
both smiled
> > > > > > > again, and then she pedaled on.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's all. You were maybe expecting her to have stopped
and asked me to
> > > > > > > feel her ass?  :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That sho

[FairfieldLife] Colin Powell endorses Barack Obama!

[ultrarishi]

Thank you, General!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57539893/colin-powell-endorses-barack-obama-for-president/?tag=AverageHero;HeroImage

[FairfieldLife] In praise of Barry (Re: Coup de foudre)

[emilymae.reyn]

I am going to have to give up on receiving FFL through email.  I don't get half 
the posts.

Jesus Christos, Robin, who wrote that?  

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108  wrote:
> > >
> > > This is one thing I like about Barry: that he tells this story. He is 
> > > almost certainly being ridiculed for it, and he knows it, but he doesn't 
> > > care. He really doesn't care. See how little guarded he is. In this case 
> > > it is particularly clear, that he simply shares this, very personal 
> > > moment, just the way he experienced it, and just shares his own 
> > > reflections, as if he would be telling this to his best friend! There is 
> > > no hidden agenda, no cynicism, or irony, he simply shares this moment of 
> > > transcendence IN the world, the awe he experienced. 
> > > 
> > > And I think he does this here in general: this is Barry's MO. He has some 
> > > kind of recognition, some truth he recognizes, and then he throws it at 
> > > us, not really caring too much how people react, in take-it-or-leave-it 
> > > style. He has this inner independence, and that's a great thing I think.  
> > > He could be more sensitive, to not hurt people, sure. But he is almost 
> > > completely innocent in this. Now take it or leave it.
> > 
> > Well said.  I agree with this 100%. And this is why I look forward to 
> > reading Barry's posts.  He puts his ideas out there - are some are terrific 
> > and interesting.  Some not so much to me, but so what?
> 
> "And in the bright excellence adorned, crested
> With every prodigal, familiar fire,
> And unfamiliar escapades: whirroos
> And scintillant sizzlings such as children like,
> Vested in the serious folds of majesty,
> Moving around and behind, a following,
> A source of trumpeting seraphs in the eye,
> A source of pleasant outbursts to the ear."
>  
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Today's koan:  Maharishi explains there's 100% determinism, 100% free 
> > > > will.  I love these paradoxes!
> > > > 
> > > > Gangaji said, and I'm paraphrasing:  if you think you're the doer, 
> > > > then it's better if you do what you think is right to do.
> > > > 
> > > > B, what comes out of the jello first, sound or light?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >  From: Bhairitu 
> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 3:06 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Coup de foudre
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > >   
> > > > On 10/22/2012 07:59 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
> > > > > I had an interesting experience this morning, interesting primarily
> > > > > because I've only had such an experience a few times in my life, and
> > > > > it's been a long time since the last one.
> > > > >
> > > > > I was out walking in my neighborhood and saw a woman approaching on a
> > > > > bakfiets (a bicycle with a passenger compartment on the front, similar
> > > > > to the Babboe I posted about earlier). She had two small kids -- 
> > > > > boys, I
> > > > > think -- in the compartment, but to tell the truth I'm not sure they
> > > > > were boys because I couldn't take my eyes off of her face. I found her
> > > > > incredibly beautiful. Not in a supermodel or actress sort of way, 
> > > > > more a
> > > > > "Wow...this is a very real and interesting person" sort of way. And 
> > > > > not
> > > > > in the least in a lustful sort of way. She just instantly captured my
> > > > > interest, so I smiled. She smiled back, and then pedaled past me and
> > > > > turned down a street parallel to mine.
> > > > >
> > > > > Unwilling to part with that delightful second of appreciation, I 
> > > > > turned
> > > > > to watch her pedal away. She turned to look at me, too. We both smiled
> > > > > again, and then she pedaled on.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's all. You were maybe expecting her to have stopped and asked me 
> > > > > to
> > > > > feel her ass?  :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > That short interaction may not sound like much of a moment to others,
> > > > > but to me it's of interest because several times in my life such a
> > > > > moment of mutual recognition and appreciation has led to wonderful and
> > > > > memorable love affairs.
> > > > >
> > > > > One of those times, interestingly enough, occurred on an ATR course of
> > > > > at the old Cobb Mountain TM facility. It was the first day, and never
> > > > > having been there before I was walking around checking things out. She
> > > > > walked by me, I got that powerful "flash of recognition" feeling, and
> > > > > then she'd walked past. No smiles this time; there wasn't really time.
> > > > > But the flash was enough to stop me in my tracks and cause me to turn
> > > > > around and look at her walking away. But she wasn't walking away. She
> > > > > had stopped and turned around a

Re: [FairfieldLife] In praise of Barry (Re: Coup de foudre)

[Emily Reyn]

I will admit, whether an original thought or not, I got a big kick out of 
trying to wrap my mind around the question "Does God Evolve?"  



 From: Susan 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 8:45 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] In praise of Barry (Re: Coup de foudre)
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108  wrote:
>
> This is one thing I like about Barry: that he tells this story. He is almost 
> certainly being ridiculed for it, and he knows it, but he doesn't care. He 
> really doesn't care. See how little guarded he is. In this case it is 
> particularly clear, that he simply shares this, very personal moment, just 
> the way he experienced it, and just shares his own reflections, as if he 
> would be telling this to his best friend! There is no hidden agenda, no 
> cynicism, or irony, he simply shares this moment of transcendence IN the 
> world, the awe he experienced. 
> 
> And I think he does this here in general: this is Barry's MO. He has some 
> kind of recognition, some truth he recognizes, and then he throws it at us, 
> not really caring too much how people react, in take-it-or-leave-it style. He 
> has this inner independence, and that's a great thing I think.  He could be 
> more sensitive, to not hurt people, sure. But he is almost completely 
> innocent in this. Now take it or leave it.

Well said.  I agree with this 100%. And this is why I look forward to reading 
Barry's posts.  He puts his ideas out there - are some are terrific and 
interesting.  Some not so much to me, but so what?
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Today's koan:  Maharishi explains there's 100% determinism, 100% free 
> > will.  I love these paradoxes!
> > 
> > Gangaji said, and I'm paraphrasing:  if you think you're the doer, then 
> > it's better if you do what you think is right to do.
> > 
> > B, what comes out of the jello first, sound or light?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: Bhairitu 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 3:06 PM
> > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Coup de foudre
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > On 10/22/2012 07:59 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
> > > I had an interesting experience this morning, interesting primarily
> > > because I've only had such an experience a few times in my life, and
> > > it's been a long time since the last one.
> > >
> > > I was out walking in my neighborhood and saw a woman approaching on a
> > > bakfiets (a bicycle with a passenger compartment on the front, similar
> > > to the Babboe I posted about earlier). She had two small kids -- boys, I
> > > think -- in the compartment, but to tell the truth I'm not sure they
> > > were boys because I couldn't take my eyes off of her face. I found her
> > > incredibly beautiful. Not in a supermodel or actress sort of way, more a
> > > "Wow...this is a very real and interesting person" sort of way. And not
> > > in the least in a lustful sort of way. She just instantly captured my
> > > interest, so I smiled. She smiled back, and then pedaled past me and
> > > turned down a street parallel to mine.
> > >
> > > Unwilling to part with that delightful second of appreciation, I turned
> > > to watch her pedal away. She turned to look at me, too. We both smiled
> > > again, and then she pedaled on.
> > >
> > > That's all. You were maybe expecting her to have stopped and asked me to
> > > feel her ass?  :-)
> > >
> > > That short interaction may not sound like much of a moment to others,
> > > but to me it's of interest because several times in my life such a
> > > moment of mutual recognition and appreciation has led to wonderful and
> > > memorable love affairs.
> > >
> > > One of those times, interestingly enough, occurred on an ATR course of
> > > at the old Cobb Mountain TM facility. It was the first day, and never
> > > having been there before I was walking around checking things out. She
> > > walked by me, I got that powerful "flash of recognition" feeling, and
> > > then she'd walked past. No smiles this time; there wasn't really time.
> > > But the flash was enough to stop me in my tracks and cause me to turn
> > > around and look at her walking away. But she wasn't walking away. She
> > > had stopped and turned around and was looking at me, too. We didn't hook
> > > up on that course, but we did later, and it was memorable indeed, at
> > > least from my side. Lovely woman.
> > >
> > > So I never ignore such moments. I may never see this woman in Leiden
> > > again, but if I don't it really doesn't matter. In my experience such
> > > moments are timeless, in the sense that they quite possibly cut across
> > > the boundaries of one incarnation and intrude with memories of another.
> > > If we run into one another again in this incarnation, I'll get to see
> > > what happens. If not, that's what future incarnations are for. :-)
> > 
> > You hate jyotish but then I 

[FairfieldLife] In praise of Barry (Re: Coup de foudre)

[Robin Carlsen]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emilymae.reyn"  wrote:
>
> I am going to have to give up on receiving FFL through email.  I don't get 
> half the posts.
> 
> Jesus Christos, Robin, who wrote that?

Hi Emily,

Same guy who wrote that letter to his daughter when she was seventeen.

I took Stevens with me on my Teacher-Training Course, and I took him on my Six 
Month Course.

He once got into a fist fight with Ernest Hemingway.

I like how his first person ontology almost angelically resists definition.

His daughter once wrote me a letter.

The tragic never entered into a single poem of his.

Nagel and Stevens: two beautiful extremes for me.

See you, Emily.

Robin


  

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This is one thing I like about Barry: that he tells this story. He is 
> > > > almost certainly being ridiculed for it, and he knows it, but he 
> > > > doesn't care. He really doesn't care. See how little guarded he is. In 
> > > > this case it is particularly clear, that he simply shares this, very 
> > > > personal moment, just the way he experienced it, and just shares his 
> > > > own reflections, as if he would be telling this to his best friend! 
> > > > There is no hidden agenda, no cynicism, or irony, he simply shares this 
> > > > moment of transcendence IN the world, the awe he experienced. 
> > > > 
> > > > And I think he does this here in general: this is Barry's MO. He has 
> > > > some kind of recognition, some truth he recognizes, and then he throws 
> > > > it at us, not really caring too much how people react, in 
> > > > take-it-or-leave-it style. He has this inner independence, and that's a 
> > > > great thing I think.  He could be more sensitive, to not hurt people, 
> > > > sure. But he is almost completely innocent in this. Now take it or 
> > > > leave it.
> > > 
> > > Well said.  I agree with this 100%. And this is why I look forward to 
> > > reading Barry's posts.  He puts his ideas out there - are some are 
> > > terrific and interesting.  Some not so much to me, but so what?
> > 
> > "And in the bright excellence adorned, crested
> > With every prodigal, familiar fire,
> > And unfamiliar escapades: whirroos
> > And scintillant sizzlings such as children like,
> > Vested in the serious folds of majesty,
> > Moving around and behind, a following,
> > A source of trumpeting seraphs in the eye,
> > A source of pleasant outbursts to the ear."
> >  
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Today's koan:  Maharishi explains there's 100% determinism, 100% 
> > > > > free will.  I love these paradoxes!
> > > > > 
> > > > > Gangaji said, and I'm paraphrasing:  if you think you're the doer, 
> > > > > then it's better if you do what you think is right to do.
> > > > > 
> > > > > B, what comes out of the jello first, sound or light?
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >  From: Bhairitu 
> > > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > > > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 3:06 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Coup de foudre
> > > > >  
> > > > > 
> > > > >   
> > > > > On 10/22/2012 07:59 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
> > > > > > I had an interesting experience this morning, interesting primarily
> > > > > > because I've only had such an experience a few times in my life, and
> > > > > > it's been a long time since the last one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was out walking in my neighborhood and saw a woman approaching on 
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > bakfiets (a bicycle with a passenger compartment on the front, 
> > > > > > similar
> > > > > > to the Babboe I posted about earlier). She had two small kids -- 
> > > > > > boys, I
> > > > > > think -- in the compartment, but to tell the truth I'm not sure they
> > > > > > were boys because I couldn't take my eyes off of her face. I found 
> > > > > > her
> > > > > > incredibly beautiful. Not in a supermodel or actress sort of way, 
> > > > > > more a
> > > > > > "Wow...this is a very real and interesting person" sort of way. And 
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > in the least in a lustful sort of way. She just instantly captured 
> > > > > > my
> > > > > > interest, so I smiled. She smiled back, and then pedaled past me and
> > > > > > turned down a street parallel to mine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unwilling to part with that delightful second of appreciation, I 
> > > > > > turned
> > > > > > to watch her pedal away. She turned to look at me, too. We both 
> > > > > > smiled
> > > > > > again, and then she pedaled on.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's all. You were maybe expecting her to have stopped and asked 
> > > > > > me to
> > > > > > feel her ass?  :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That short interaction may not sound like much of a moment to 
> > > > > >

Re: [FairfieldLife] In praise of Barry (Re: Coup de foudre)

[Emily Reyn]

Conversation between Wo and Ma:

Wo:  "Could we discuss the effects your behavior is having on my psyche?"
Ma:  "Huh?"  "When are we having dinner?"
Wo:  "I feel like the tone of voice you use to speak to me in is 
disrespectful." 
Ma:  "There you go againgad, to you have to be so dramtic?
Wo:  "I just wanted to tell you how I was feeling." "What do you want for 
dinner."
Ma:  "Listen, all I need to keep me happy is food, sex, and exercise, not 
necessarily in that order.  And, it would be nice if you would give me a few 
complements now and again."
Wo:  "Do you mean you want to continually stroke your ego?"
Ma:  "See.  There you go, getting all "draaamtic again."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPR108kwNo4




 From: Emily Reyn 
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] In praise of Barry (Re: Coup de foudre)
 

  
Ha ha.  Gotta love a male point of view (see my stereotype here Khazana?)



 From: Richard J. Williams 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 8:59 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] In praise of Barry (Re: Coup de foudre)
 

  
> >  "He could be more sensitive, to not hurt people, 
> > sure. But he is almost completely innocent in this. Now 
> > take it or leave it."
>
Emily Reyn: 
> He is almost completely innocent in this? Huh? Is this 
> because he is constitutionally incapable of allowing 
> feedback on his behavior into his psyche?
> 
Well yes, but some expats just feel better when they have 
someone to talk to.






 

Re: [FairfieldLife] In praise of Barry (Re: Coup de foudre)

[Emily Reyn]

Ha ha.  Gotta love a male point of view (see my stereotype here Khazana?)



 From: Richard J. Williams 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 8:59 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] In praise of Barry (Re: Coup de foudre)
 

  
> >  "He could be more sensitive, to not hurt people, 
> > sure. But he is almost completely innocent in this. Now 
> > take it or leave it."
>
Emily Reyn: 
> He is almost completely innocent in this? Huh? Is this 
> because he is constitutionally incapable of allowing 
> feedback on his behavior into his psyche?
> 
Well yes, but some expats just feel better when they have 
someone to talk to.




 

[FairfieldLife] In praise of Barry (Re: Coup de foudre)

[Richard J. Williams]

> >  "He could be more sensitive, to not hurt people, 
> > sure. But he is almost completely innocent in this. Now 
> > take it or leave it."
>
Emily Reyn: 
> He is almost completely innocent in this? Huh? Is this 
> because he is constitutionally incapable of allowing 
> feedback on his behavior into his psyche?
> 
Well yes, but some expats just feel better when they have 
someone to talk to.

Re: [FairfieldLife] In praise of Barry (Re: Coup de foudre)

[Emily Reyn]

 "He could be more sensitive, to not hurt people, sure. But he is almost 
completely innocent in this. Now take it or leave it."

He is almost completely innocent in this?  Huh?  Is this because he is 
constitutionally incapable of allowing feedback on his behavior into his 
psyche?  



 From: Susan 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 8:45 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] In praise of Barry (Re: Coup de foudre)
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108  wrote:
>
> This is one thing I like about Barry: that he tells this story. He is almost 
> certainly being ridiculed for it, and he knows it, but he doesn't care. He 
> really doesn't care. See how little guarded he is. In this case it is 
> particularly clear, that he simply shares this, very personal moment, just 
> the way he experienced it, and just shares his own reflections, as if he 
> would be telling this to his best friend! There is no hidden agenda, no 
> cynicism, or irony, he simply shares this moment of transcendence IN the 
> world, the awe he experienced. 
> 
> And I think he does this here in general: this is Barry's MO. He has some 
> kind of recognition, some truth he recognizes, and then he throws it at us, 
> not really caring too much how people react, in take-it-or-leave-it style. He 
> has this inner independence, and that's a great thing I think.  He could be 
> more sensitive, to not hurt people, sure. But he is almost completely 
> innocent in this. Now take it or leave it.

Well said.  I agree with this 100%. And this is why I look forward to reading 
Barry's posts.  He puts his ideas out there - are some are terrific and 
interesting.  Some not so much to me, but so what?
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Today's koan:  Maharishi explains there's 100% determinism, 100% free 
> > will.  I love these paradoxes!
> > 
> > Gangaji said, and I'm paraphrasing:  if you think you're the doer, then 
> > it's better if you do what you think is right to do.
> > 
> > B, what comes out of the jello first, sound or light?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: Bhairitu 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 3:06 PM
> > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Coup de foudre
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > On 10/22/2012 07:59 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
> > > I had an interesting experience this morning, interesting primarily
> > > because I've only had such an experience a few times in my life, and
> > > it's been a long time since the last one.
> > >
> > > I was out walking in my neighborhood and saw a woman approaching on a
> > > bakfiets (a bicycle with a passenger compartment on the front, similar
> > > to the Babboe I posted about earlier). She had two small kids -- boys, I
> > > think -- in the compartment, but to tell the truth I'm not sure they
> > > were boys because I couldn't take my eyes off of her face. I found her
> > > incredibly beautiful. Not in a supermodel or actress sort of way, more a
> > > "Wow...this is a very real and interesting person" sort of way. And not
> > > in the least in a lustful sort of way. She just instantly captured my
> > > interest, so I smiled. She smiled back, and then pedaled past me and
> > > turned down a street parallel to mine.
> > >
> > > Unwilling to part with that delightful second of appreciation, I turned
> > > to watch her pedal away. She turned to look at me, too. We both smiled
> > > again, and then she pedaled on.
> > >
> > > That's all. You were maybe expecting her to have stopped and asked me to
> > > feel her ass?  :-)
> > >
> > > That short interaction may not sound like much of a moment to others,
> > > but to me it's of interest because several times in my life such a
> > > moment of mutual recognition and appreciation has led to wonderful and
> > > memorable love affairs.
> > >
> > > One of those times, interestingly enough, occurred on an ATR course of
> > > at the old Cobb Mountain TM facility. It was the first day, and never
> > > having been there before I was walking around checking things out. She
> > > walked by me, I got that powerful "flash of recognition" feeling, and
> > > then she'd walked past. No smiles this time; there wasn't really time.
> > > But the flash was enough to stop me in my tracks and cause me to turn
> > > around and look at her walking away. But she wasn't walking away. She
> > > had stopped and turned around and was looking at me, too. We didn't hook
> > > up on that course, but we did later, and it was memorable indeed, at
> > > least from my side. Lovely woman.
> > >
> > > So I never ignore such moments. I may never see this woman in Leiden
> > > again, but if I don't it really doesn't matter. In my experience such
> > > moments are timeless, in the sense that they quite possibly cut across
> > > the boundaries of one incarnation and intrude with memories of another.
> > > If we run into one another again 

[FairfieldLife] In praise of Barry (Re: Coup de foudre)

[Susan]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108  wrote:
>
> This is one thing I like about Barry: that he tells this story. He is almost 
> certainly being ridiculed for it, and he knows it, but he doesn't care. He 
> really doesn't care. See how little guarded he is. In this case it is 
> particularly clear, that he simply shares this, very personal moment, just 
> the way he experienced it, and just shares his own reflections, as if he 
> would be telling this to his best friend! There is no hidden agenda, no 
> cynicism, or irony, he simply shares this moment of transcendence IN the 
> world, the awe he experienced. 
> 
> And I think he does this here in general: this is Barry's MO. He has some 
> kind of recognition, some truth he recognizes, and then he throws it at us, 
> not really caring too much how people react, in take-it-or-leave-it style. He 
> has this inner independence, and that's a great thing I think.  He could be 
> more sensitive, to not hurt people, sure. But he is almost completely 
> innocent in this. Now take it or leave it.

Well said.  I agree with this 100%. And this is why I look forward to reading 
Barry's posts.  He puts his ideas out there - are some are terrific and 
interesting.  Some not so much to me, but so what?
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Today's koan:  Maharishi explains there's 100% determinism, 100% free 
> > will.  I love these paradoxes!
> > 
> > Gangaji said, and I'm paraphrasing:  if you think you're the doer, then 
> > it's better if you do what you think is right to do.
> > 
> > B, what comes out of the jello first, sound or light?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: Bhairitu 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 3:06 PM
> > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Coup de foudre
> >  
> > 
> >   
> > On 10/22/2012 07:59 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
> > > I had an interesting experience this morning, interesting primarily
> > > because I've only had such an experience a few times in my life, and
> > > it's been a long time since the last one.
> > >
> > > I was out walking in my neighborhood and saw a woman approaching on a
> > > bakfiets (a bicycle with a passenger compartment on the front, similar
> > > to the Babboe I posted about earlier). She had two small kids -- boys, I
> > > think -- in the compartment, but to tell the truth I'm not sure they
> > > were boys because I couldn't take my eyes off of her face. I found her
> > > incredibly beautiful. Not in a supermodel or actress sort of way, more a
> > > "Wow...this is a very real and interesting person" sort of way. And not
> > > in the least in a lustful sort of way. She just instantly captured my
> > > interest, so I smiled. She smiled back, and then pedaled past me and
> > > turned down a street parallel to mine.
> > >
> > > Unwilling to part with that delightful second of appreciation, I turned
> > > to watch her pedal away. She turned to look at me, too. We both smiled
> > > again, and then she pedaled on.
> > >
> > > That's all. You were maybe expecting her to have stopped and asked me to
> > > feel her ass?  :-)
> > >
> > > That short interaction may not sound like much of a moment to others,
> > > but to me it's of interest because several times in my life such a
> > > moment of mutual recognition and appreciation has led to wonderful and
> > > memorable love affairs.
> > >
> > > One of those times, interestingly enough, occurred on an ATR course of
> > > at the old Cobb Mountain TM facility. It was the first day, and never
> > > having been there before I was walking around checking things out. She
> > > walked by me, I got that powerful "flash of recognition" feeling, and
> > > then she'd walked past. No smiles this time; there wasn't really time.
> > > But the flash was enough to stop me in my tracks and cause me to turn
> > > around and look at her walking away. But she wasn't walking away. She
> > > had stopped and turned around and was looking at me, too. We didn't hook
> > > up on that course, but we did later, and it was memorable indeed, at
> > > least from my side. Lovely woman.
> > >
> > > So I never ignore such moments. I may never see this woman in Leiden
> > > again, but if I don't it really doesn't matter. In my experience such
> > > moments are timeless, in the sense that they quite possibly cut across
> > > the boundaries of one incarnation and intrude with memories of another.
> > > If we run into one another again in this incarnation, I'll get to see
> > > what happens. If not, that's what future incarnations are for. :-)
> > 
> > You hate jyotish but then I wouldn't be surprised if your horoscope 
> > shows a "sanyasi yoga" or at least a weak 7th lord which means that your 
> > life isn't set up for long term relationships such as marriage.   And if 
> > you attempted marriage it might well end in divorce.  One of the most 
> > common questions astrologers get is "will I ever be marrie

[FairfieldLife] In praise of Barry (Re: Coup de foudre)

[Richard J. Williams]

khazana108:
> This is one thing I like about Barry: that he tells 
> this story... 
>
So, it's all about Barry seeing a nineteen year old 
girl on a bicycle.

> > > I had an interesting experience this morning, interesting primarily
> > > because I've only had such an experience a few times in my life, and
> > > it's been a long time since the last one.
> > >
> > > I was out walking in my neighborhood and saw a woman approaching on a
> > > bakfiets (a bicycle with a passenger compartment on the front, similar
> > > to the Babboe I posted about earlier). She had two small kids -- boys, I
> > > think -- in the compartment, but to tell the truth I'm not sure they
> > > were boys because I couldn't take my eyes off of her face. I found her
> > > incredibly beautiful. Not in a supermodel or actress sort of way, more a
> > > "Wow...this is a very real and interesting person" sort of way. And not
> > > in the least in a lustful sort of way. She just instantly captured my
> > > interest, so I smiled. She smiled back, and then pedaled past me and
> > > turned down a street parallel to mine.
> > >
> > > Unwilling to part with that delightful second of appreciation, I turned
> > > to watch her pedal away. She turned to look at me, too. We both smiled
> > > again, and then she pedaled on.
> > >
> > > That's all. You were maybe expecting her to have stopped and asked me to
> > > feel her ass?  :-)
> > >
> > > That short interaction may not sound like much of a moment to others,
> > > but to me it's of interest because several times in my life such a
> > > moment of mutual recognition and appreciation has led to wonderful and
> > > memorable love affairs.
> > >
> > > One of those times, interestingly enough, occurred on an ATR course of
> > > at the old Cobb Mountain TM facility. It was the first day, and never
> > > having been there before I was walking around checking things out. She
> > > walked by me, I got that powerful "flash of recognition" feeling, and
> > > then she'd walked past. No smiles this time; there wasn't really time.
> > > But the flash was enough to stop me in my tracks and cause me to turn
> > > around and look at her walking away. But she wasn't walking away. She
> > > had stopped and turned around and was looking at me, too. We didn't hook
> > > up on that course, but we did later, and it was memorable indeed, at
> > > least from my side. Lovely woman.
> > >
> > > So I never ignore such moments. I may never see this woman in Leiden
> > > again, but if I don't it really doesn't matter. In my experience such
> > > moments are timeless, in the sense that they quite possibly cut across
> > > the boundaries of one incarnation and intrude with memories of another.
> > > If we run into one another again in this incarnation, I'll get to see
> > > what happens. If not, that's what future incarnations are for. :-)
> > 
> > You hate jyotish but then I wouldn't be surprised if your horoscope 
> > shows a "sanyasi yoga" or at least a weak 7th lord which means that your 
> > life isn't set up for long term relationships such as marriage.   And if 
> > you attempted marriage it might well end in divorce.  One of the most 
> > common questions astrologers get is "will I ever be married?"  And in 
> > every case where that question came up I could see that the horoscope 
> > didn't support it.  Which is why they asked the question in the first 
> > place.  That doesn't mean that you shouldn't try but it is getting a 
> > little late in the day. ;-)
> > 
> > I was thinking about the free will and pre-destiny issue the other day 
> > and thinking that one problem is that people think of the transcendent 
> > like it is air.  Try thinking of it as jello and we are being wiggled 
> > around by its shaking.  That's what we experience as "life."  In that 
> > context the next thought you have was predetermined at the inception of 
> > the universe when the fundamental tone was struck.  We are nothing but 
> > part of the overtones.  I had that thought years ago and learned a while 
> > back that physicists labeled it "string theory" in it is like a string 
> > being struck.  Makes sense to me.  But enjoy life anyway as if there is 
> > free will.
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Spiritual Question For Wednesday

[Emily Reyn]

 From: khazana108 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 7:56 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Spiritual Question For Wednesday
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> "may I suggest a little experiment? Just sign in with a different yahoo 
> ID, and profess to be at one with Barry or the other crew. Profess to be 
> critical of TM and/ or Robin, and see what happens. I promise you, this is 
> the only way to find out."
> 
> Khazana:  Just to make an obvious point, "signing in" with a new name and 
> starting fresh, after having spent some time here, is mostly a waste of time.

I can see, why you see it that way. But it is also a challenge. It just says, 
in other words, that you rely on the appreciation of other posters, that you 
have built up, instead of the actual content of your posts.
Em: I am misunderstanding you here.  "Who" relies on the appreciation of other 
posters?  I stand on the content of my posts, not on the "appreciation" of 
other posters.  Even if my content is limited to off-the-cuff remarks or 
passing perceptions.  This isn't why I said it was a "waste of time."

> In all the cases I've seen here, one's writing style "outs" oneself before 
> much time has passed, as well as one's biases, opinions, knowledge base, etc.

That's true, but then you would -at least prentend -to have a different bias, 
set of opinions etc. As an American it would be more easy to 'fake' your style. 
As non native English speaking, typical mistakes would be the give away.
Em:  Yes, one could "pretend" to be someone  one wasn't - American or not.  
Trying on a different personality just for fun - stepping into the reality of 
those with a different value system than the one I have.  I could try and fake 
being a male chauvinist, for example, and might be able to pull that off, but 
in the end, the way I communicate using the written language would out me 
regardless - my style is more than my grammar.  I make grammatical mistakes all 
the time.   I would get comments based on my content, first.  I could come from 
the position that the women on FFL are "pathetic", etc. and Judy is simply "out 
to get" anyone who doesn't agree with her.  *HOWEVER*,  given that she always 
looks at the "content" of the posts, it is a no-brainer that if she objected to 
what I was writing, she would disagree, regardless of whether I was a loved one 
or not.  Recently, I objected to Mike's insinuating raunchy should get 
"legitimately raped."
  I don't know Mike and didn't base my comment on any personal dislike of him; 
I based it on the words that crossed the page.  He went on to explain the 
context and reasoning for what he posted.  

> It is possible of course, but would take a skilled, concerted and constant 
> effort on the part of the poster to maintain his/her new identity over time 
> if a regular participant.  Particularly if one wrote anything "personal." 

You would have to avoid it, if you don't want to fake it.

> An example of late is Dr. Dumbass.  I would never have known he had a prior 
> name here, but apparently he did and some figured it out. 

The people who figured this out, Barry I suppose, had long on going 
controversies with him, the style of his posts was actually very similar to his 
older posts, and especially the content was - that's almost the most easy 
give-away.

> I have a situation currently where my FFL name has been discovered by a 
> family member.  I am considering closing Emily down as I am not interested 
> in explaining why I'm here or what I write and I don't like to be tracked, 
> particularly by anyone in my family, who could use the information I've 
> written here to create harm for me. I am weighing this against an idea that 
> perhaps I just say "yeah, and so fuckin' what."  Also, if I am being 
> tracked, if I were to change names at this point, it would be pretty easy to 
> figure out who I am in my next incarnation, just like with you.  
> 

Yes, but this would be true for people who post here regularly, and have been 
in interactions with you. Some of them are simply good at figuring out. But you 
can adopt a different screen name, and you are simply out of the search 
engines. Unless your relatives read FFL regularly, and especially if you let 
some time pass, wouldn't really follow all of FFL traffic for any considerable 
length of time. So, once you wait, take a different screen name with a 
different email, or hide your email, they are unlikely to find out. And no, I 
also wouldn't like to be tracked down. 
Em:  Yes, this is what I am considering.  

> Also, IMO, most people come to conclusions about a poster for a reason.  I 
> almost always look for the individual merit in a post, subjectively or 
> objectively.  It isn't a "for or against" scenario; it isn't a "with us or 
> against us" mentality.  It's so demeaning to dismiss people by shuffling 
> them into "cam

[FairfieldLife] In praise of Barry (Re: Coup de foudre)

[khazana108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:

> Could you say something nice about me too, Khazana?

Yes, Robin, of course I can, and will too. But you have to wait, wait at least 
a fraction of the time Barry had to wait. You see, I am already trying, but I 
still have to warm up a bit.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robbie Robbie (The Most Dangerous Idea Since Darwin Part III)

[Jason]

> > 
> > ---  "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > MIND AND COSMOS: WHY THE MATERIALIST NEO-DARWINIAN CONCEPTION
OF NATURE IS ALMOST CERTAINLY FALSE by Thomas Nagel
> > > 
> > > 
> > > . . . The implausibility of the reductive program that is needed to 
> > > defend the completeness of this kind of naturalism provides a reason for 
> > > trying to think of alternatives--alternatives that make mind, meaning, 
> > > and value as fundamental as matter and space-time in an account of what 
> > > there is. . . .
> > > 
> > > . . . The failure of evolutionary naturalism to provide a form of 
> > > transcendent self-understanding that does not undermine our confidence in 
> > > our natural faculties should not lead us to abandon the search for 
> > > transcendent self-understanding. There is no reason to allow our 
> > > confidence in the objective truth of our moral beliefs, or for that 
> > > matter our confidence in the objective truth or our mathematical or 
> > > scientific reasoning, to depend on whether this is consistent with the 
> > > assumption that those capacities are the product of natural selection. 
> > > Given how speculative evolutionary explanations of human mental faculties 
> > > are, they seem too weak a ground for putting into question the most basic 
> > > forms of thought. Our confidence in the truth of propositions that seem 
> > > evident on reflection should not be shaken so easily (and, I would add, 
> > > cannot be shaken on these sorts of grounds without a kind of false 
> > > consciousness).
> > > 
> > 
> ---  "Jason"  wrote:
> >
> > Robbie, these are false accusations Nagel and many other 
> > theists have levelled at Darwin's naturalist theory.
> > 
> > The purpose of Darwin's theory is to enable us to understand 
> > the mechanisms and processes of how life evolved and adapted 
> > on this planet.
> > 
> > It's purpose is *not* to provide us with "trancendent 
> > understanding" and *not* to "undermine our confidence".
> > 
> > Nagel begins to sound like Chopra who also makes these kind 
> > of insuniations.
> > 
> > Darwin's theory is *not* a replacement for theism or 
> > religion or morality or even trancendent ontological 
> > understanding.
> > 
> > Nature has a set of laws and that gives it a certain 
> > inherent intangible intelligence.  Even Hagelin mentioned 
> > this once. This intelligence is the "infinite 
> > self-organising power of nature to arrange itself into 
> > larger and larger structures and patterns.  It's not a type 
> > of conventional intelligence, it's more like a software 
> > code.
> > 
> > There is no contradiction between Darwin and "transcendent 
> > self-understanding" "notions of morality" which function on 
> > the level of intellect.
> >
> >
---  "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> I'm afraid you're too deep for me, Jason. And too deep (if he only knew: I am 
> thinking of sending him your post) for Professor Nagel.
> 
> I only wished I had understood Darwin a little better before I said anything. 
> And I know that Professor Nagel will wish he had not written that book (I 
> plan to send him your posts).
> 
> I would ask you--if this is possible--to get Alex to delete your posts 
> critical of me, and critical of Nagel.
> 
> I don't think either of us (me and Professor Nagel) need to look like 
> intellectual chumps. And right now, that is how I feel.  
> 
> One way I envy you, Jason: the warrant of your confidence in what you know. I 
> have not read widely enough, nor do I feel I know enough to be entirely 
> without doubts about what this evolution thing is all about. Next time I will 
> think a little harder before I post.
> 
> Did you ever write a paper on Hamlet by the way?
> 
> You give new meaning to the word innocence.
>

Robin, this Nagel seems to indirectly imply that it's the 
job of evolution theory to provide us "trancendent 
self-understanding".!!  This is downright absurd.

The leap to the intellect is a quantum leap in evolution and 
the rules of the game change dramaticaly.  The first three 
levels of evolution body, senses and mind are basicaly 
instinctual and their behaviour is fixed.

Nagel seems to indirecty imply that the intellect and "moral 
beliefs" is not possible through evolution.  He seems to be 
parallel on track with people like Plantinga.  It certainly 
looks like Nagel is in ID camp.

The problem for these ID guys is that impersonal 
intelligence doesn't really contradict natural evolution.

Nature has intelligence and it is apparent through the 
'total laws of nature'.

You wrote a lot of rubbish when you were in "Unity 
Consciousness". You admit that all that you wrote was 
nonsense. It proves that you can change your opinions.

Think about it Robin.  I doubt much if this book would be 
seriously taken by mainstream scientists.  You don't seem to 
have proper understanding of the methodology of science. If 
you understood, would definitely change your opinion about 
this.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Spiritual Question For Wednesday

[khazana108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> "may I suggest a little experiment? Just sign in with a different yahoo 
> ID, and profess to be at one with Barry or the other crew. Profess to be 
> critical of TM and/ or Robin, and see what happens. I promise you, this is 
> the only way to find out."
> 
> Khazana:  Just to make an obvious point, "signing in" with a new name and 
> starting fresh, after having spent some time here, is mostly a waste of time.

I can see, why you see it that way. But it is also a challenge. It just says, 
in other words, that you rely on the appreciation of other posters, that you 
have built up, instead of the actual content of your posts.

> In all the cases I've seen here, one's writing style "outs" oneself before 
> much time has passed, as well as one's biases, opinions, knowledge base, etc.

That's true, but then you would -at least prentend -to have a different bias, 
set of opinions etc. As an American it would be more easy to 'fake' your style. 
As non native English speaking, typical mistakes would be the give away.

> It is possible of course, but would take a skilled, concerted and constant 
> effort on the part of the poster to maintain his/her new identity over time 
> if a regular participant.  Particularly if one wrote anything "personal." 

You would have to avoid it, if you don't want to fake it.

> An example of late is Dr. Dumbass.  I would never have known he had a prior 
> name here, but apparently he did and some figured it out. 

The people who figured this out, Barry I suppose, had long on going 
controversies with him, the style of his posts was actually very similar to his 
older posts, and especially the content was - that's almost the most easy 
give-away.

> I have a situation currently where my FFL name has been discovered by a 
> family member.  I am considering closing Emily down as I am not interested 
> in explaining why I'm here or what I write and I don't like to be tracked, 
> particularly by anyone in my family, who could use the information I've 
> written here to create harm for me. I am weighing this against an idea that 
> perhaps I just say "yeah, and so fuckin' what."  Also, if I am being 
> tracked, if I were to change names at this point, it would be pretty easy to 
> figure out who I am in my next incarnation, just like with you.  
> 

Yes, but this would be true for people who post here regularly, and have been 
in interactions with you. Some of them are simply good at figuring out. But you 
can adopt a different screen name, and you are simply out of the search 
engines. Unless your relatives read FFL regularly, and especially if you let 
some time pass, wouldn't really follow all of FFL traffic for any considerable 
length of time. So, once you wait, take a different screen name with a 
different email, or hide your email, they are unlikely to find out. And no, I 
also wouldn't like to be tracked down.


> Also, IMO, most people come to conclusions about a poster for a reason.  I 
> almost always look for the individual merit in a post, subjectively or 
> objectively.  It isn't a "for or against" scenario; it isn't a "with us or 
> against us" mentality.  It's so demeaning to dismiss people by shuffling 
> them into "camps" and defining their reality for them.  
> 

What you say above, could have been my words for many years here. I never liked 
to be in one camp, and said so many times. You could say that I started out in 
one camp, always trying to be independent, which let to drifting slowly away 
from that camp, just to find myself on the opposite side. (I am not REALLY on 
the opposite side) I embrace this situation fully. And it certainly helped me 
to open my eyes, because you really have to experience this. If I am honest, I 
always wanted to know it, and ultimately I must be grateful to Robin, as he was 
the reason this falling out came to be. I think it was necessary and had to be. 
Some dirt is created, but after that the area is cleaned up. Just like with the 
jackhammer in India.


> 
>  From: khazana108 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 6:44 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Spiritual Question For Wednesday
>  
> 
>   
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> 
> > > Trying to recruit me, are you, Zebra Boy? Think I was born
> > > yesterday? Think I fell off a turnip truck? Well, I'm not
> > > so green as I am grassy-looking, so back off, buster.
> 
> Well authorfiend is certainly not green. Due to the hints of the Willytexter, 
> I stumbled upon this dialoque between her and Barry (Shoki) and quite 
> honestly, you you tell any difference between the tone now and then? This is 
> 1995, but you could post this same post today on FFL with just changing the 
> names a little bit - to suit the present environment, and nobody would really 
> notice the difference.
> http://groups.google.com/gro

[FairfieldLife] Re: Facebook users would rather have fake friends than no friends

[awoelflebater]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> I'm not sure what the researchers' conclusions are in
> this study, but mine are: "72% of Facebook users are
> either incredibly lonely or incredibly stupid or both."

Funny that. I would have to extrapolate from this then that posters who have 
been inhabiting forums for years and years (how many is it now Barry?) and who 
continually throw abuse at fellow posters and bullshit their way time and time 
again and are in turn disliked, disrespected, argued unceasingly against still 
come back for more - day after day. Why do you do it? Are you stupid? Lonely? 
Or both?
> 
> Fictional privacy among Facebook users.
> 
> The current study involved the creation of a fictional
> Facebook account with limited information and was designed
> to assess whether participants would accept the friendship
> of an ambiguous, unknown person. Results indicated that
> 325 Facebook members (72% of the sample) willingly accepted
> the friendship of the unknown individual. Results are
> discussed in relation to privacy concerns, norms of
> reciprocity, and allowing access to potentially embarrassing
> information and/or pictures.
> 
> http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s14e04-you-have-0-friends
>  >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Spiritual Question For Wednesday

[Richard J. Williams]

turquoiseb:
> I stick with my guns over the idiocy of anyone claiming
> that Stevie Ray Vaughn was better than Jimi Hendrix.
>
Did anyone make that claim? It's always 'dick-size' with
you, even on a Wednesday afternoon of posting nice stuff
for people to read. Go figure.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Spiritual Question For Wednesday

[khazana108]

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

> > Trying to recruit me, are you, Zebra Boy? Think I was born
> > yesterday? Think I fell off a turnip truck? Well, I'm not
> > so green as I am grassy-looking, so back off, buster.


Well authorfiend is certainly not green. Due to the hints of the Willytexter, I 
stumbled upon this dialoque between her and Barry (Shoki) and quite honestly, 
you you tell any difference between the tone now and then? This is 1995, but 
you could post this same post today on FFL with just changing the names a 
little bit - to suit the present environment, and nobody would really notice 
the difference.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.meditation.transcendental/browse_thread/thread/35b5ad0cd70ee2d8/6e533bbfc2e53e3d
http://tinyurl.com/9r8985j

> OK, well maybe we don't see it here but I do believe it is in there somewhere 
> - that nurturing, softer side.

You may well be the recipient of this softer, nurturing side at times Ann, but 
to be the recipient of her other side, may I suggest a little experiment? Just 
sign in with a different yahoo ID, and profess to be at one with Barry or the 
other crew. Profess to be critical of TM and/ or Robin, and see what happens. I 
promise you, this is the only way to find out.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Spiritual Question For Wednesday

[Robin Carlsen]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Speaking as a lifelong Guitar Freak, to compare Jimi 
> > > > > Hendrix with Stevie Ray Vaughn is the highest heresy.
> > > > 
> > > > Interestingly, lifelong guitar freaks frequently compare
> > > > Hendrix and Vaughan (note spelling) and usually (from
> > > > what I've read) acknowledge that which of the two was
> > > > better is a difficult choice.
> > > 
> > > Thanks Judy, at least I spelled Vaughan right even if the
> > > Jimi was lacking. But however you spell them, they are two 
> > > magnificent guitarists and raise adrenaline levels in me
> > > when I hear them play.
> > > 
> > > And by the way, your knowledge seems to know no bounds when
> > > it comes to cultural, literary and current worldly goings on.
> > > Not to mention your ongoing commitment to accuracy and broad 
> > > viewpoint. And here I thought the symphony and opera were
> > > your areas of expertise.
> 
> Hey, thanks for da kind woids, but I know almost nothing
> about guitarists. I just happen to have had friends who
> knew a lot. They'd have found the notion that preferring
> SRV to Hendrix was "heresy" hilariously ignorant.
> 
> > Yeah, I'll certainly give her that: she's smart. Knows a lot.
> > She makes me more careful than I otherwise would be if she
> > weren't around. I am sure she is a very nice girl.
> 
> Trying to recruit me, are you, Zebra Boy? Think I was born
> yesterday? Think I fell off a turnip truck? Well, I'm not
> so green as I am grassy-looking, so back off, buster.

Now, I may be missing the irony here (if there is some), but what was there in 
what I wrote above which would warrant this kind of response? I think here, 
authfriend, you have over-reacted. I said what everyone here knows--But I 
suppose you are essentially addressing that sentence, about my innocuous 
conjecture that you are a nice person. 

In any case, authfriend, I assure you I was not trying  "to recruit" you. You 
are unrecruitable, as far as I can tell. You have, however, left me with a 
dilemma: how is it  you refer to me by my proper name when you are translating 
my philosophy to other posters, and yet here, you name me "Zebra Boy"? As 
someone who tries to probe to the truth of things, I must admit to being 
stymied in the attempt to understand why you would invoke this appellation. 
It's maskedzebra, by the way [I am sure you knew this].

Please allow me to apologize if I have insinuated anything here which you deem 
inappropriate. I don't know if you are a nice person at all, authfriend. I only 
meant that from your posts one could not be confident in asserting the contrary 
of this. Is that better? I certainly hope so. I think someone is safer not ever 
becoming personal with you: Stick to content. That shall be my watchword from 
now on if I have any experience [from reading your posts] which would tempt me 
into saying more than I should say.

"[B]ack off, buster": I find that almost ludicrously incongruous to what my 
intent was in making my reflections, authfriend. But again, you seem fine with 
explaining my philosophy to others here: I think maybe only a 
psychoanalytically-trained therapist could discern the reason behind your post 
here, authfriend. That said, I think you're just terrific in every way. OK?

Of course, if you were somehow just being playful here--and there is some 
double entendre going on, then I confess to not getting it at all.  But I feel 
I should just play safe here and say: I am sorry if I said anything which you 
found untoward, authfriend.

I certainly hope that the Gide-Claudel correspondence did not confuse you. 
Re-read that letter of Stevens to his daughter. And William Carlos Williams, 
authfriend, don't you think he took  "young feller" in the right spirit?

[FairfieldLife] Facebook users would rather have fake friends than no friends

[turquoiseb]

I'm not sure what the researchers' conclusions are in
this study, but mine are: "72% of Facebook users are
either incredibly lonely or incredibly stupid or both."

Fictional privacy among Facebook users.

The current study involved the creation of a fictional
Facebook account with limited information and was designed
to assess whether participants would accept the friendship
of an ambiguous, unknown person. Results indicated that
325 Facebook members (72% of the sample) willingly accepted
the friendship of the unknown individual. Results are
discussed in relation to privacy concerns, norms of
reciprocity, and allowing access to potentially embarrassing
information and/or pictures.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s14e04-you-have-0-friends

[FairfieldLife] Re: Giants Win 8-3!

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> Does the Unified Field play in the World Series?  It would appear to be so.  
> A lot of fans in San Francisco, CA are in bliss tonight.
>

I'm home girl rooting for the home team. Go Tigers!

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): Sat Oct 20 00:00:00 2012
End Date (UTC): Sat Oct 27 00:00:00 2012
552 messages as of (UTC) Thu Oct 25 11:46:06 2012

47 authfriend 
37 turquoiseb 
36 Share Long 
35 Buck 
33 Jason 
33 "Richard J. Williams" 
32 Robin Carlsen 
31 awoelflebater 
23 Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
21 Emily Reyn 
19 nablusoss1008 
17 wgm4u 
16 Ravi Chivukula 
16 Alex Stanley 
15 Bhairitu 
12 salyavin808 
11 raunchydog 
11 card 
10 emptybill 
10 PaliGap 
 8 Michael Jackson 
 7 wleed3 
 7 marekreavis 
 7 Yifu 
 6 oxcart49 
 6 Mike Dixon 
 5 khazana108 
 5 wle...@aol.com
 5 Duveyoung 
 5 Dick Mays 
 4 sri...@ymail.com, UNEXPECTED_DATA_AFTER_ADDRESS@".SYNTAX-ERROR.
 4 seekliberation 
 4 merlin 
 4 John 
 2 feste37 
 2 Rick Archer 
 1 ultrarishi 
 1 mjackson74 
 1 martyboi 
 1 hermandan0 
 1 "martin.quickman" 
 1 "emilymae.reyn" 

Posters: 42
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 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday

[Share Long]

Khazana I wouldn't say I'm fine with the system as it is since it seems to be 
so hard on other people.  However, I have to also take into account my own 
experience.  I wasn't questioned at all when I returned to the Dome after a 7 
year absence.  Though I had been to Amma several times and had been 
participating in Waking Down on a weekly basis right here in FF.  Maybe I 
wasn't questioned because I'm not a gov.  I don't know and I feel for the 
people who are given such a rough time about it all.  


OTOH, I too have been interviewed by Movement leaders and have had conflicts 
with them.  Again I don't understand why I've escaped harsher reprimands.  But 
I'll give an example.  Years ago, after the end of a relationship, tantric 
teacher David Deida happened to come to town.  Right away I knew I wanted to 
attend.  I was an MUM grad student at the time.  I was open about my 
participation in Deida's workshop.  But perhaps more importantly I felt right 
about it.  True, I was scared of possible consequences.  But I was willing to 
take that chance because I felt I was doing what was right for me and my life.  
Also important, inside I acknowledged that I might be wrong.  I was not 100% 
sure that I was acting rightly.  But again, I was willing to take a chance that 
I was.  


That feeling of rightness, even when not 100% sure, even when afraid of 
possible consequences, is a grace and I do believe it is what has protected me 
all these decades on a spiritual path.  I am deeply grateful for this grace.

PS  Yahoo has been acting wonky the last few days.  Posts get to the archives 
right away and I read there to stay current.  Posts to my inbox can arrive many 
hours after they were posted.  Even my own!  


Remembering that Maharishi said, "What we have no control over we take to be 
the will of God."      




 From: khazana108 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 6:14 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> >
> > Yes, one would hope if you were interested in meditating with the large 
> > group that they would issue you a badge.  That in itself is still a problem 
> > to surmount just coming in. I spoke with someone yesterday in line waiting 
> > for coffee, an old meditator here who just re-applied and still waiting to 
> > get a Dome badge and was appalled at the dossier that was compiled and 
> > questioning by the course office of private information they had gathered 
> > about concerts gone to and saints visited.  Was really creep-ed out by the 
> > interview.   However the air quality in the Domes is a lot better than 
> > before.  They have been working at that.  I am told tha smaller rooms 
> > around like out in Maharishi Vedic City have real nice air quality. I do 
> > notice the formaldehyde taint is not as great in some places around the 
> > dome depending on the flow of fresh air mix by the air handling system. 
> > Overall it is noticeably better. 
> > 
> 
> The TMO collects information on you? 

They definitely do this. The national course offices know exactly which TM 
teacher went to another organization or has been with another saint and so on. 
Basically according to all  criteria they have for giving admission to courses, 
they will collect information. On that depends if you will get a batch or 
admission to any kind of course.

> Why do you want to even
> be in the dome if this is the sort of treatment you get in
> a so called "coherent" atmosphere. Don't you think it's gone
> wrong, the AofE course office shouldn't be like the east German
> Stazi should it? Maybe you want to amend your unified field 
> poems a bit.

This will always remain an individual decision. I have friends who are very 
much in the center of the movement, and who struggle with these policies, 
mostly by keeping their mouths shut. You have to think about to whom of your 
friends you tell what. And this is then really like it was in East Germany with 
the Stasi, I have a brother, who grew up in this system and told me how it was. 
He said that it leads to a kind of a double mind, where you behave like an 
obedient GDR citizen OTOH and and with some close friends, whose opinion you 
happen to know, you rant about the system.

And yet, there are people like Share, who are just fine with the system like it 
is, who don't seem to have any points of conflict with the movement, and for 
them it is just fine. You could say that the movement serves them well, until 
any of these conflicts arise.

For me it is like it is with you: I wouldn't like to be in such a situation 
again, I prefer my freedom, and I am happy that in my present spiritual 
environment, there is not at all a problem with that.

The only problem I see for the movement with these policies is that they will 
slowly

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Objective Is Your Subjectivity? A Quiz to Xeno

[khazana108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>

> ROBIN2: Why did you make that video about the ideological inflexibility of 
> the TMO in issuing Dome passes? You have a motive, your motive was justified 
> (at least from one point of view). I make a careful decision in each and 
> every instance where I use irony, Khazana. And at least from my  own 
> perspective, I am actuated by the very same sensitivity: the perception that 
> irony is the only way to get at the truth. Show me where my irony has failed. 
> And make your case. Unless and until you do, you are like people in the TMO 
> complaining about that video you made and wishing they could make it go away. 
> The only way anyone in the TMO can answer that video would be to make another 
> video where the irony against you having made that video was greater than the 
> irony in your video. They don't attempt such a thing--because your video 
> can't be answered on that level. And neither can my posts which make use of 
> irony. 
> 
Well Robin, for the video, if the TMO really wanted me to take it down, they 
simply could give me enough money, right? Of course we have to bargain about 
the right amount. ;-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Alex, yahoo's pic link

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason  wrote:
>
>  
>  
> Hey Alex,
>  
> In the olden days Yahoo's pic link used to work.  Now the 
> pics just don't show up.  Could it be yahoo made it 
> forbidden?
>  
> http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/3920196/or/930849132/name/varela-diagam.jpg
> 
> http://xa.yimg.com/
> 
> Any idea if there are alternatives in yahoo itself?
>

I have no idea what you're asking. If you need image hosting, use a site like 
these:

http://tinypic.com/

http://imgur.com/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday

[khazana108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> >
> > Yes, one would hope if you were interested in meditating with the large 
> > group that they would issue you a badge.  That in itself is still a problem 
> > to surmount just coming in. I spoke with someone yesterday in line waiting 
> > for coffee, an old meditator here who just re-applied and still waiting to 
> > get a Dome badge and was appalled at the dossier that was compiled and 
> > questioning by the course office of private information they had gathered 
> > about concerts gone to and saints visited.  Was really creep-ed out by the 
> > interview.   However the air quality in the Domes is a lot better than 
> > before.  They have been working at that.  I am told tha smaller rooms 
> > around like out in Maharishi Vedic City have real nice air quality. I do 
> > notice the formaldehyde taint is not as great in some places around the 
> > dome depending on the flow of fresh air mix by the air handling system. 
> > Overall it is noticeably better.
> > 
> 
> The TMO collects information on you? 

They definitely do this. The national course offices know exactly which TM 
teacher went to another organization or has been with another saint and so on. 
Basically according to all  criteria they have for giving admission to courses, 
they will collect information. On that depends if you will get a batch or 
admission to any kind of course.

> Why do you want to even
> be in the dome if this is the sort of treatment you get in
> a so called "coherent" atmosphere. Don't you think it's gone
> wrong, the AofE course office shouldn't be like the east German
> Stazi should it? Maybe you want to amend your unified field 
> poems a bit.

This will always remain an individual decision. I have friends who are very 
much in the center of the movement, and who struggle with these policies, 
mostly by keeping their mouths shut. You have to think about to whom of your 
friends you tell what. And this is then really like it was in East Germany with 
the Stasi, I have a brother, who grew up in this system and told me how it was. 
He said that it leads to a kind of a double mind, where you behave like an 
obedient GDR citizen OTOH and and with some close friends, whose opinion you 
happen to know, you rant about the system.

And yet, there are people like Share, who are just fine with the system like it 
is, who don't seem to have any points of conflict with the movement, and for 
them it is just fine. You could say that the movement serves them well, until 
any of these conflicts arise.

For me it is like it is with you: I wouldn't like to be in such a situation 
again, I prefer my freedom, and I am happy that in my present spiritual 
environment, there is not at all a problem with that.

The only problem I see for the movement with these policies is that they will 
slowly alienate an increasing number of people. But in the end of the day, 
everybody has to determine the life style that works best for him, one has to 
cut out the piece of the cake in a way that works best for oneself, and not 
think of the rest.
 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > >
> > > Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances. I quit going
> > > to the Dome when I was on staff due to a really serious allergy to
> > > formaldehyde, which in those days at least was a major component in 
> > > making foam. 
> > > The longer I was in the Dome, the worse I felt. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > So I stopped
> > > going. I did program by myself in my pod room and felt great both in and 
> > > out of
> > > program. As twice a day in the Dome was part of the staff program, I was 
> > > called
> > > in to the Personnel Director’s office (Bill Sands) and he gave me a 
> > > serious
> > > talk and threatened me with dismissal if I didn’t start toeing the line.
> > > 
> > > I told him about the allergy and he said it didn’t matter,
> > > rules were rules. I showed him the letter I had from my allergy doctor 
> > > (Allen
> > > Lieberman in Charleston SC) saying that I had to avoid formaldehyde 
> > > exposure. Bill
> > > said it still didn’t matter. Rules were rules. No exceptions. 
> > > 
> > > So I returned to the Dome and after a couple days started
> > > feeling like crap again. So I thought about things and decided to write a
> > > letter to then TM Sidhi Administrator Greg Wilson and told him my story 
> > > and
> > > sent him a copy of the letter from my allergy doctor. 
> > > A
> > > nd a couple weeks later to my surprise he wrote me a letter
> > > back giving me permission to do program in my room, tho he suggested that 
> > > I
> > > might consider serving MIU in some other capacity since Dome attendance 
> > > was
> > > part of staff program. So I quit going to the Dome again. 
> > > 
> > > A couple weeks went by and I was called into Bill Sands office
> > > again, with my lett