Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: the deer this morning

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Yes. Like conscious jewels in his face.
 

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

 
 

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

 Yep, I love the critters, too, and miss my feral black cat, from the Bay Area, 
who I named, 'Sylvester' - I've never tried to pet, or feed him, but he has 
taken refuge in the gazebo on many cold nights, and we blink back and forth a 
lot. 

 Sylvester.JPG - File Shared from Box 
https://app.box.com/s/h9gs1dtoseplixrytx22 
 
 https://app.box.com/s/h9gs1dtoseplixrytx22
 
 Sylvester.JPG - File Shared from Box 
https://app.box.com/s/h9gs1dtoseplixrytx22 Sign up | Log in Sylvester.JPG


 
 View on app.box.com https://app.box.com/s/h9gs1dtoseplixrytx22
 Preview by Yahoo 
 


 

 Who but an imaginative and artistic, not to mention creatively bold, God would 
think to pair such black fur with such intense golden eyes and think he could 
get away with it, that it would be believable?
 

 
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] A nostalgia moment

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Oh, I see, Barry - You don't care for what I said, and don't care for me, 
either, but, just like Curtis, have very little spiritual experience; no full 
time witnessing, no fullness of silence in activity, no establishment in Being. 
Yet you speak as if you do, as if you are capable of evaluating such things. 

 Another ex-TM teacher, out to prove how little he is, casting about uninformed 
opinions, to demonstrate his failure to achieve that which he was teaching 
others to accomplish, while working as a TM teacher, many, many years ago - has 
it been over 40, yet? I think so. 
 

 Another ex-TM teacher who hasn't the foggiest notion of his former teacher's 
message, because he too, never reached a point of integration and wholeness, 
that was the basis for understanding his former teacher's message - no 
permanent witnessing.
 

 Speaking always with great hubris about *this* spiritual topic and *that*, as 
if you actually have something to add to the conversation, Barry. You, who has 
failed to achieve the foundation, 24x7 permanent witnessing, that is the first 
unmistakable sign of enlightenment. Sure, we all know how you experienced 
witnessing for TWO WHOLE WEEKS. And it faded. Just like Curtis's experience of 
witnessing faded.
 

 No big deal - it will, until you are established in Being, in silence. But 
stop making the mistake the other ex-TM teacher makes, and recognize that you 
are not enlightened, and therefore cannot speak as if you are. It is arrogant, 
and makes you look terribly, terribly unintelligent. I wish you would take my 
word for that.
 

 So, for your sake, mostly, stick to cheerful, happy, light, and pleasant 
subjects. Thank you, in advance! :-)
 

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

 Thanks for all the Biff trivia. As should be obvious, I was just riffing on 
the fact that the character of Biff not only looks like Jim Flanegin, he acts 
like him, too.  :-)

 

 From: "Michael Jackson mjackson74@... [FairfieldLife]" 

 To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
 Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 10:25 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] A nostalgia moment
 
 
   Tom Wilson (Biff) performs The Question Song on WEBN 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WFeFwDPwSk

On Fri, 5/16/14, TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... 
[FairfieldLife] mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 Subject: [FairfieldLife] A nostalgia moment
 To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"; 
mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
 Date: Friday, May 16, 2014, 4:56 PM
  I don't know what made me think of this, but does
 anyone else remember Biff from the "Back to the
 Future" movies? He started out looking like this, yer
 classic big guy with a tiny
 dick:

 But over time he morphed into pretty much the same
 big guy with the tiny dick, but now sagging and experiencing
 retirement panic:

 That's all. Just a nostalgia moment. It's not
 as if Biff reminds me of anyone. Really. 
 :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] A nostalgia moment

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Thanks for all the Biff trivia. As should be obvious, I was just riffing on the 
fact that the character of Biff not only looks like Jim Flanegin, he acts like 
him, too.  :-)




 From: "Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] A nostalgia moment
 


  
Tom Wilson (Biff) performs The Question Song on WEBN

On Fri, 5/16/14, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
 wrote:

Subject: [FairfieldLife] A nostalgia moment
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" 
Date: Friday, May 16, 2014, 4:56 PM
       I don't know what made me think of this, but does
anyone else remember Biff from the "Back to the
Future" movies? He started out looking like this, yer
classic big guy with a tiny
dick:

But over time he morphed into pretty much the
 same
big guy with the tiny dick, but now sagging and experiencing
retirement panic:

That's all. Just a nostalgia moment. It's not
as if Biff reminds me of anyone. Really. 
:-)







    



#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780 --
   #yiv3234059780ygrp-mkp {
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px
0;padding:0 10px;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780ygrp-mkp hr {
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780ygrp-mkp #yiv3234059780hd {
color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780ygrp-mkp #yiv3234059780ads {
margin-bottom:10px;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780ygrp-mkp .yiv3234059780ad {
padding:0 0;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780ygrp-mkp .yiv3234059780ad p {
margin:0;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780ygrp-mkp .yiv3234059780ad a {
color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}
#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780ygrp-sponsor
#yiv3234059780ygrp-lc {
font-family:Arial;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780ygrp-sponsor
#yiv3234059780ygrp-lc #yiv3234059780hd {
margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780ygrp-sponsor
#yiv3234059780ygrp-lc .yiv3234059780ad {
margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780actions {
font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780activity {
background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780activity span {
font-weight:700;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780activity span:first-child {
text-transform:uppercase;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780activity span a {
color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780activity span span {
color:#ff7900;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780activity span
.yiv3234059780underline {
text-decoration:underline;}

#yiv3234059780 .yiv3234059780attach {
clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
0;width:400px;}

#yiv3234059780 .yiv3234059780attach div a {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv3234059780 .yiv3234059780attach img {
border:none;padding-right:5px;}

#yiv3234059780 .yiv3234059780attach label {
display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}

#yiv3234059780 .yiv3234059780attach label a {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv3234059780 blockquote {
margin:0 0 0 4px;}

#yiv3234059780 .yiv3234059780bold {
font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}

#yiv3234059780 .yiv3234059780bold a {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv3234059780 dd.yiv3234059780last p a {
font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}

#yiv3234059780 dd.yiv3234059780last p span {
margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}

#yiv3234059780 dd.yiv3234059780last p
span.yiv3234059780yshortcuts {
margin-right:0;}

#yiv3234059780 div.yiv3234059780attach-table div div a {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv3234059780 div.yiv3234059780attach-table {
width:400px;}

#yiv3234059780 div.yiv3234059780file-title a, #yiv3234059780
div.yiv3234059780file-title a:active, #yiv3234059780
div.yiv3234059780file-title a:hover, #yiv3234059780
div.yiv3234059780file-title a:visited {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv3234059780 div.yiv3234059780photo-title a,
#yiv3234059780 div.yiv3234059780photo-title a:active,
#yiv3234059780 div.yiv3234059780photo-title a:hover,
#yiv3234059780 div.yiv3234059780photo-title a:visited {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv3234059780 div#yiv3234059780ygrp-mlmsg
#yiv3234059780ygrp-msg p a span.yiv3234059780yshortcuts {
font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;font-weight:normal;}

#yiv3234059780 .yiv3234059780green {
color:#628c2a;}

#yiv3234059780 .yiv3234059780MsoNormal {
margin:0 0 0 0;}

#yiv3234059780 o {
font-size:0;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780photos div {
float:left;width:72px;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780photos div div {
border:1px solid
#66;height:62px;overflow:hidden;width:62px;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780photos div label {
color:#66;font-size:10px;overflow:hidden;text-align:center;white-space:nowrap;width:64px;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780reco-category {
font-size:77%;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780reco-desc {
font-size:77

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: the deer this morning

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

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

 Yep, I love the critters, too, and miss my feral black cat, from the Bay Area, 
who I named, 'Sylvester' - I've never tried to pet, or feed him, but he has 
taken refuge in the gazebo on many cold nights, and we blink back and forth a 
lot. 

 Sylvester.JPG - File Shared from Box 
https://app.box.com/s/h9gs1dtoseplixrytx22 
 
 https://app.box.com/s/h9gs1dtoseplixrytx22 
 
 Sylvester.JPG - File Shared from Box 
https://app.box.com/s/h9gs1dtoseplixrytx22 Sign up | Log in Sylvester.JPG 
 
 
 
 View on app.box.com https://app.box.com/s/h9gs1dtoseplixrytx22 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 
 

 

 Who but an imaginative and artistic, not to mention creatively bold, God would 
think to pair such black fur with such intense golden eyes and think he could 
get away with it, that it would be believable?
 

 
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

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

 
 

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

 
 

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

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

 Curtis, can you say in a nutshell what about consciousness you think Maharishi 
got wrong?

C: Thanks for asking Share. You will get more than a nutshell because this is a 
rich topic. The first fundamental problem for me is that he was shaping our 
view of our experiences from his techniques from a religious perspective 
created in a pre-scientific society. He made many unwarranted assumptions about 
the value of his techniques or what he was doing to our brains. Although they 
are highly addictive and pleasurable states of mind, I see no evidence that 
they improve anyone's thinking or creative processes. I see evidence of the 
opposite at least at higher levels of exposure. High exposure leads to an 
erosion of the ability to distinguish internal and external experiences. This 
causes a lot of problems that show up in claims here. 

I challenge his fundamental assumption that  "knowledge is structured in 
consciousness." This is epistemological bogus and psychologically manipulative. 
It comes from  a non modern view of what knowledge is that had its birth in a 
caste system controlled culture. If you see what Jim is attempting to assume 
here by virtue of his self reported grandiose claims of experiences you can see 
where this belief leads socially. It has been rejected by all modern societies 
for good reason.
 

 A: I have been following this discussion with moderate interest. My 
highlighted statement is what I find relatively unsupported and just kind of 
thrown out there. It doesn't resonate with anything true for me. If you want, 
you could elaborate on it.

C: That it comes from a caste system controlled culture is an historical fact. 
That it is manipulative is my opinion. It tacks on another subjectively claimed 
aspect to knowledge that does not resonate with me now. It sets up a hierarchy 
of  levels of knowledge without any reference to an objective standard. I 
cannot come up with an example that makes any sense to me now. YMMV
 

 A2: Yes, I believe my mileage might vary. First of all, I don't know the 
history of how philosophies and theories of consciousness have evolved. I am 
not interested in its evolution in terms of historical development nor am I, as 
I have stated earlier, a philosopher. I don't talk about things as much as just 
throw myself in there willy nilly and stumble over them. 
 

 "Knowledge" is a relative term and can mean more to me than just learned 
things. Knowledge encompasses aspects of current experiences as well as past 
memories of learned things. How one subsequently structures this stuff into 
meaningful and useful cerebral data could be "structured in consciousness", 
structured in where one's consciousness is now. Consciousness simply being a 
concrete aspect of intelligence/awareness. I see this statement as an aspect or 
means of structuring knowledge within the embracing existence of an awareness 
(consciousness); we inevitably see things through the 'haze' of our 
awareness/consciousness so the resulting experience has been "structured" by it.

 A:When I first became familiar with TM and started SCI this "Knowledge is 
Structured in Consciousness" statement made a lot of sense. And while I don't 
really think about, let alone practice, TM anymore I still understand what it 
means and it hardly seems elitist or let alone bogus or psychologically 
manipulative. Instead I understand it as a very simple and clean statement and 
I believe it - as far as it goes.

C2: I am drawing out the implications that seem important to me. Can you give 
any examples of this that makes sense to you? In teaching the idea we used to 
say that when you are tired you don't think clearly. But this is bogus because 
although that may be true it has nothing to do with my "knowledge." 
 

 A2: But then the state of being "tired" is not what MMY meant by 
"consciousness" I don't believe. I think he meant it to mean something far more 
pervasive and abiding. Therefore, I would agree with you on this small point. 
 

 My perspective on the world is not changed because of this I have to teach 
this way all the time for early classes. And by extension he is claiming that 
"knowledge" is somehow also changed by continuing to meditate and achieve his 
higher states of consciousness. I see zero evidence for this in my own or 
anyone else's life.  Again YMMV so I am open to any examples that resonate with 
you.

 

 A2: I think he is saying consciousness changes, not so much knowledge. 
Knowledge is just input whereas consciousness, although subject to evolution 
and deepening, is the deciding factor, the thing that trumps knowledge because 
consciousness is always present and it is through the filter of consciousness 
that all things must pass. Knowledge is relative, consciousness is p

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: the deer this morning

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Yep, I love the critters, too, and miss my feral black cat, from the Bay Area, 
who I named, 'Sylvester' - I've never tried to pet, or feed him, but he has 
taken refuge in the gazebo on many cold nights, and we blink back and forth a 
lot. 

 https://app.box.com/s/h9gs1dtoseplixrytx22 
https://app.box.com/s/h9gs1dtoseplixrytx22
 

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

 
 

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

 On 05/16/2014 07:24 PM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:

   

 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote :
 
 I mentioned them earlier:
 

 a closer look
 https://app.box.com/s/0toaopzloex24swoxn8r 
https://app.box.com/s/0toaopzloex24swoxn8r

 

 deer eating clover
 https://app.box.com/s/phi5lwcj1eh54ibtjfxn 
https://app.box.com/s/phi5lwcj1eh54ibtjfxn

 

 listening
 https://app.box.com/s/cqgmqumz48j5zmdxbvzp 
https://app.box.com/s/cqgmqumz48j5zmdxbvzp

 

 three deer in the meadow
 https://app.box.com/s/xh8zgj2ojmaqo055fq4l 
https://app.box.com/s/xh8zgj2ojmaqo055fq4l

 

 two deer and a squirrel
 two deer and a squirrel on the golf course.jpg - File Shared from Box

 
 
 
 
 two deer and a squirrel on the golf course.jpg - File Sh... Sign up | Log in 
two deer and a squirrel on the golf course.jpg


 
 View on app.box.com 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

 

 Beautiful and delicate things. Victoria is considering a cull of these 
creatures with nets and bolt guns. Can you imagine killing one of these 
terrified innocents while it lays trapped under the net?



 
 Maybe after they ate up all your garden? 
 Nope. Couldn't care less. They are welcome to my tulips which they love. They 
are welcome to trample my beds of azaelias and heather. They can make 
hoofprints on my lawn and wander through my orchard eating the pears and 
apples. I will always share my property with the creatures that choose to 
enter. We have rats and deer and ducks and blue herons who eat the fish and 
frogs out of our man-made pond. We have hawks and owls and eagles and sparrows 
and swallows and hummingbirds. We have installed bat houses and plant things 
that attract bees and butterflies. No, you will not see me chasing off the wild 
ones. They are a gift.
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: the deer this morning

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

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

 On 05/16/2014 07:24 PM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:

   

 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote :
 
 I mentioned them earlier:
 

 a closer look
 https://app.box.com/s/0toaopzloex24swoxn8r 
https://app.box.com/s/0toaopzloex24swoxn8r

 

 deer eating clover
 https://app.box.com/s/phi5lwcj1eh54ibtjfxn 
https://app.box.com/s/phi5lwcj1eh54ibtjfxn

 

 listening
 https://app.box.com/s/cqgmqumz48j5zmdxbvzp 
https://app.box.com/s/cqgmqumz48j5zmdxbvzp

 

 three deer in the meadow
 https://app.box.com/s/xh8zgj2ojmaqo055fq4l 
https://app.box.com/s/xh8zgj2ojmaqo055fq4l

 

 two deer and a squirrel
 two deer and a squirrel on the golf course.jpg - File Shared from Box

 
 
 
 
 two deer and a squirrel on the golf course.jpg - File Sh... Sign up | Log in 
two deer and a squirrel on the golf course.jpg


 
 View on app.box.com 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

 

 Beautiful and delicate things. Victoria is considering a cull of these 
creatures with nets and bolt guns. Can you imagine killing one of these 
terrified innocents while it lays trapped under the net?



 
 Maybe after they ate up all your garden? 
 Nope. Couldn't care less. They are welcome to my tulips which they love. They 
are welcome to trample my beds of azaelias and heather. They can make 
hoofprints on my lawn and wander through my orchard eating the pears and 
apples. I will always share my property with the creatures that choose to 
enter. We have rats and deer and ducks and blue herons who eat the fish and 
frogs out of our man-made pond. We have hawks and owls and eagles and sparrows 
and swallows and hummingbirds. We have installed bat houses and plant things 
that attract bees and butterflies. No, you will not see me chasing off the wild 
ones. They are a gift.
 
 

[FairfieldLife] Life on Mars

[jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Maybe inside the rocks.  Will any of the enlightened members here on FFL 
comment on this issue?
 

 In the meantime, here's the current article discussing this possibility.
 

 
http://www.examiner.com/article/1976-life-on-mars-controversy-resurrected-new-scientific-report
 
http://www.examiner.com/article/1976-life-on-mars-controversy-resurrected-new-scientific-report

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

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

 
 

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

 
 

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

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

 Curtis, can you say in a nutshell what about consciousness you think Maharishi 
got wrong?

C: Thanks for asking Share. You will get more than a nutshell because this is a 
rich topic. The first fundamental problem for me is that he was shaping our 
view of our experiences from his techniques from a religious perspective 
created in a pre-scientific society. He made many unwarranted assumptions about 
the value of his techniques or what he was doing to our brains. Although they 
are highly addictive and pleasurable states of mind, I see no evidence that 
they improve anyone's thinking or creative processes. I see evidence of the 
opposite at least at higher levels of exposure. High exposure leads to an 
erosion of the ability to distinguish internal and external experiences. This 
causes a lot of problems that show up in claims here. 

I challenge his fundamental assumption that  "knowledge is structured in 
consciousness." This is epistemological bogus and psychologically manipulative. 
It comes from  a non modern view of what knowledge is that had its birth in a 
caste system controlled culture. If you see what Jim is attempting to assume 
here by virtue of his self reported grandiose claims of experiences you can see 
where this belief leads socially. It has been rejected by all modern societies 
for good reason.
 

 A: I have been following this discussion with moderate interest. My 
highlighted statement is what I find relatively unsupported and just kind of 
thrown out there. It doesn't resonate with anything true for me. If you want, 
you could elaborate on it.

C: That it comes from a caste system controlled culture is an historical fact. 
That it is manipulative is my opinion. It tacks on another subjectively claimed 
aspect to knowledge that does not resonate with me now. It sets up a hierarchy 
of  levels of knowledge without any reference to an objective standard. I 
cannot come up with an example that makes any sense to me now. YMMV

 A:When I first became familiar with TM and started SCI this "Knowledge is 
Structured in Consciousness" statement made a lot of sense. And while I don't 
really think about, let alone practice, TM anymore I still understand what it 
means and it hardly seems elitist or let alone bogus or psychologically 
manipulative. Instead I understand it as a very simple and clean statement and 
I believe it - as far as it goes.

C2: I am drawing out the implications that seem important to me. Can you give 
any examples of this that makes sense to you? In teaching the idea we used to 
say that when you are tired you don't think clearly. But this is bogus because 
although that may be true it has nothing to do with my "knowledge." My 
perspective on the world is not changed because of this I have to teach this 
way all the time for early classes. And by extension he is claiming that 
"knowledge" is somehow also changed by continuing to meditate and achieve his 
higher states of consciousness. I see zero evidence for this in my own or 
anyone else's life.  Again YMMV so I am open to any examples that resonate with 
you.

 
Because of Maharishi's religiously motivated agenda, he was unable to combine 
more modern theories of the mind with his POV to expand it. He was unwilling to 
be humble about the limits of his knowledge and instead presented himself and 
his teacher as more than human with the appropriate humility concerning the 
human condition. He used science as marketing like a charlatan with zero 
respect for its methods. Over time this killed what could have been a much more 
interesting endeavor. He was a superstitious man and had the intellectual 
failing of hubris which clouded his judgement and turned a fascinatingly bright 
man into a caricature of himself. He became fat Elvis.

A: From my experience at MIU and studying what it had to teach me for 4 years I 
certainly didn't find that. But then you stayed on board the ship of the 
traveling TM salesman and enthusiastic endorser far longer than I did. I 
basically got a degree and moved on.

C: Maharishi did not respect the methods of science. He was an authority guy. 
He talked about it at length on many tapes whenever he was off marketing to the 
public mode. He was not open to the idea that any studies on TM would show 
anything but a positive result.

Yes our experiences after MIU were different but even at MIU I suspect I was 
drawn to a different focus. I was in the library digging up transcripts of 
India lectures and you were probably in the open air on a horse somewhere! In 
retrospect I which I had been on one too. Did you ride there? I did cross 
country sky which was fantastic in that flat big sky land.

 

 You bet. I rode every day. I walked and trotted and cantered along the soybean 
and cornfield pe

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 5/16/2014 10:32 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:

As you know, minet.org is Mike Doughney's Web site.

>
As you know, Knapp was the founder of TM-Free Blog.

http://tinyurl.com/pn23gxt


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

As you know, minet.org is Mike Doughney's Web site. 

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

 On 5/16/2014 9:55 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:

 As you know, Knapp hasn't been associated with TM-Free for several years. Mike 
Doughney runs it now.
 >
 Apparently, Knapp is still active as a promoter of the TM-Free Blog.
 
 http://minet.org/ http://minet.org/
 
 
 You already did this, over on TM-Free, for John Knapp.


 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

wtf? ...more distracted nonsense from you... 

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

 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Curtis, if you were open to a normal explanation, and had already heard a 
lecture or two of Maharishi's, he always spoke in terms of the highest, first - 
so it sounds like a reasonable explanation to me - the furthest extent, of a 
currently unstable state of consciousness.  

 Of course, if you, and whatshisface, were half the teachers you claim to be, 
and actually understood life  from the perspective of the first stage of 
enlightenment, witnessing 24x7, you would recognize how what Maharishi said, 
makes a lot of sense, with a dash of inspiration, for those he was helping 
along.
 

 However, without this grounded nature in silence, all you see are the pieces, 
simply because the wholeness of what Maharishi is talking about, has not yet 
been achieved, by you.
 

 So, your perspective is comprehensible, yet by your own refusal to admit it, 
unenlightened -- but the question remains, why do you feel qualified, then, to 
hold forth on something you know next to nothing about??

C:So proud of witnessing, imagine that! I haven't heard such an adorable focus 
of attention since college. You know what goes great with witnessing Jim? Some 
nice Celestial Seasonings tea, maybe some  Almond Sunset with a nice big spoon 
of honey. (Organic of course and preferably orange blossom) Be sure to put on 
some Keith Jarret too, that will calm you down a bit.



 

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

 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 "He made it very clear on the first 6 month course that his model was just 
that and then proceeded to try to convince everyone they were already in 
Brahmin Consciousness like those Advaita dudes do!"
 
 Now that is very very interesting to me - he really said that, that the CC, 
GC, UC stuff was just a model, as in just a way of talking about awareness, not 
the definitive definition of human enlightenment???

C: It stared with teachers admitting that they did not have clear transcending 
when he asked for experiences. He was shocked. The way it was relayed to me 
when they got back was that he said that transcending to no mantra no thoughts 
was for is for beginners, that everyone was witnessing their meditations which 
is why everyone still had thoughts in meditation and not clear transcending the 
whole time and that all his teachers at the course were living in Brahman 
already but needed his stroke of knowledge. He said that their growth had not 
been sequential but all at once so that they all had flashes of all the states 
as they grew in wholeness. (there is a word too fat to pin down huh?) It was 
relayed to me by a really smart chick from the course who I could tell was a 
bit conflicted about being able to embrace her new Brahman consciousness. 





 
 On Fri, 5/16/14, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... 
[FairfieldLife] mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Friday, May 16, 2014, 9:54 PM
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ---In
 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :
 
 "Neither
 one of you is established in being" It's that
 phrase again. Language is
 a big problem here. If I was to say I have an experience
 caused by my 
 brain having learnt over time to experience a separation of
 my thoughts 
 and the way the conscious substrate of qualia visualises 3
 dimensional 
 space, everyone would say so what? But couch the perception
 in "holy" 
 nomenclature and everyone goes: Wow! are you really
 enlightened?
 
 C: Great
 point. This is a big issue I have with how language is being
 used to describe internal experience. It is so imprecise.
 
 
 A: You
 don't have to have experienced what you call cosmic
 consciousness for 
 very long (or indeed at all) to know that Jim's claim
 that you need to 
 have done to have an opinion of it is in error. The model of
 
 consciousness as an unfolding of/from some sort of unified
 field via 
 seven stages is a description of a change in awareness but
 that doesn't 
 mean this poor analogy of Marshy's is in any way an
 accurate description
 of how our brains work and integrate with the world.
 
 C: I believe the CC state was
 an aberration more closely associated with dissociation and
 with the same problems. He made it very clear on the first 6
 month course that his model was just that and then proceeded
 to try to convince everyone they were already in Brahmin
 Consciousness like those Advaita dudes do! 
 
 A:
 Consciousness isn't the unified field, but it seems like it is when you
 are in that state - I have been there before you write in
 and complain - It's a trick of the mind. 
 
 C: Ther

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

I am *not* kidding you - I was laughing so hard after reading this, my stomach 
hurt - especially the bits about outgrowing witnessing, it being for children 
and all, and witnessing is for losers!!  

 Such boldness and imperiousness - you didn't outgrow it, dude -- IT FADED, it 
simply...faded, just like all yer other experiences of 'higher consciousness' - 
lol. A normal experience, for the cloth to fade, but please quit going around 
here like you know jack shit about the 24x7 witnessing experience, because you 
do not. 
 

 You probably need to mentally review what you once learned, about don't pay 
attention to an experience, when it comes and goes. A transient experience of 
witnessing, like yours and Barry's, is NOT the same thing as somewhat 
habituating to silence, to Being. 
 

 I am almost surprised at your continued dodging around with this. How did you 
get so good at it??
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Yes, you are a complete bullshitter, Curtis. I ask you a simple question, four 
times, and you cannot give me a simple, or coherent, answer. And that would be 
simply, NO, I do not witness activity, 24x7. 

C: WItnessing is for children, are you a child Jim?
 

 IJ: nstead I hear about your past. I don't care about your past, or as Barry 
calls it, Cafe Zen. It is clear you are not now witnessing full-time, which is 
the basic hallmark of what Maharishi was trying to have you establish for 
yourself, and have you teach to others.

C: The goal is unity Jim, not witnessing. I witnessed in my second year at MIU 
and had outgrown it by my 3rd. Are you still trying to outgrow that stage Jim? 
Too bad you really should have applied yourself more and taken more courses 
instead of frittering away your evolution in your business life. Can't be 
helped, we all act according to our natures. 
 

 J: What a load of crap you try to sell here, Curtis. All I see is a failed 
ex-TM teacher, who tries increasingly hard, to get me to take my eye off the 
ball - Someone who feels it is appropriate to hold forth on a subject he knows 
nothing about.

C: Yeah claims about ones subjective state are fraught with issues. That was 
one of my original points which you, as usual, missed.

 

 J: I have not attacked you, ad-hominem - it is simply another distraction, for 
you, from your lack of spiritual experience. Ain't buyin' it. You can spare 
yourself the tears, and answer the damned question

C: Yes you  did and continue to do it Jim. I remember when I used to witness 
like you but that was before I grew beyond it. I hope you do too, it is such a 
limited state. I'll be praying for you Jim.

 

 J: Or not. I got all week

C: You really do feel like such an entitled twit don't you. Demanding that I 
answer your petty ignorant questions about your sad little precious milestone. 
Witnesssing is for losers Jim. It leads to people acting like you. Embrace life 
Jim, jump in. You are too busy building walls on your tiny castle that you are 
missing what life really is. Wake up Jim, it is not too late! 
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 So...we can forget about you addressing this issue, directly; your failure to 
experience what Maharishi attempted to teach you, and have you teach others. It 
doesn't bode well for you, dude. You continue your evasive moves, trying to 
somehow make this about me.

C: It is about you Jim. Yet another example of you turning every discussion 
into an ad hominem personal attack because you can't keep up with discussions. 
You want to know what state of consciousness I am in? I am in the one above 
yours. Got it? I am the higher stage of enlightenment from the one you are in 
and it allows me to know what state you are in, a lower one. 
 

 J: But, it isn't about me. It is about a couple of ex-TM teachers, 
overreaching their knowledge, and stating their opinions, for which they have 
no substance. That is it. Very simply.

C: It would have to be simple because you can't follow any detailed discussions 
here which is why you always go ad hominem.

 

 J: At least the other guy was willing, all too willing, to admit the extent of 
his "enlightenment" -- two weeks of witnessing, a lng time ago. 
 

 Put up, or shut up, Curtis. As your cohort would say, "I'll wait".

C: No need to wait any further Jim. You got your answer. I am fully 
enlightened, verified by Nandkashore in Seelisberg. Since then I have gone 
through even higher states beyond Maharishi's Brahman to levels that you don't 
know anything about. 

So are you clear now Mr. Oneupmanship? 



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

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

 So, let's get this straight. You are not enlightened, are not established in 
Being, and therefore have not the slightest idea of what Maharishi was 
ultimately trying to accomplish. 

c: I have a very clear idea of wha

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 5/16/2014 9:55 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:


As you know, Knapp hasn't been associated with TM-Free for several 
years. Mike Doughney runs it now.



>
Apparently, Knapp is still active as a promoter of the TM-Free Blog.

http://minet.org/



You already did this, over on TM-Free, for John Knapp.





---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Curtis, if you were open to a normal explanation, and had already heard a 
lecture or two of Maharishi's, he always spoke in terms of the highest, first - 
so it sounds like a reasonable explanation to me - the furthest extent, of a 
currently unstable state of consciousness.  

 Of course, if you, and whatshisface, were half the teachers you claim to be, 
and actually understood life  from the perspective of the first stage of 
enlightenment, witnessing 24x7, you would recognize how what Maharishi said, 
makes a lot of sense, with a dash of inspiration, for those he was helping 
along.
 

 However, without this grounded nature in silence, all you see are the pieces, 
simply because the wholeness of what Maharishi is talking about, has not yet 
been achieved, by you.
 

 So, your perspective is comprehensible, yet by your own refusal to admit it, 
unenlightened -- but the question remains, why do you feel qualified, then, to 
hold forth on something you know next to nothing about??

C:So proud of witnessing, imagine that! I haven't heard such an adorable focus 
of attention since college. You know what goes great with witnessing Jim? Some 
nice Celestial Seasonings tea, maybe some  Almond Sunset with a nice big spoon 
of honey. (Organic of course and preferably orange blossom) Be sure to put on 
some Keith Jarret too, that will calm you down a bit.



 

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

 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 "He made it very clear on the first 6 month course that his model was just 
that and then proceeded to try to convince everyone they were already in 
Brahmin Consciousness like those Advaita dudes do!"
 
 Now that is very very interesting to me - he really said that, that the CC, 
GC, UC stuff was just a model, as in just a way of talking about awareness, not 
the definitive definition of human enlightenment???

C: It stared with teachers admitting that they did not have clear transcending 
when he asked for experiences. He was shocked. The way it was relayed to me 
when they got back was that he said that transcending to no mantra no thoughts 
was for is for beginners, that everyone was witnessing their meditations which 
is why everyone still had thoughts in meditation and not clear transcending the 
whole time and that all his teachers at the course were living in Brahman 
already but needed his stroke of knowledge. He said that their growth had not 
been sequential but all at once so that they all had flashes of all the states 
as they grew in wholeness. (there is a word too fat to pin down huh?) It was 
relayed to me by a really smart chick from the course who I could tell was a 
bit conflicted about being able to embrace her new Brahman consciousness. 





 
 On Fri, 5/16/14, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... 
[FairfieldLife] mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Friday, May 16, 2014, 9:54 PM
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ---In
 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :
 
 "Neither
 one of you is established in being" It's that
 phrase again. Language is
 a big problem here. If I was to say I have an experience
 caused by my 
 brain having learnt over time to experience a separation of
 my thoughts 
 and the way the conscious substrate of qualia visualises 3
 dimensional 
 space, everyone would say so what? But couch the perception
 in "holy" 
 nomenclature and everyone goes: Wow! are you really
 enlightened?
 
 C: Great
 point. This is a big issue I have with how language is being
 used to describe internal experience. It is so imprecise.
 
 
 A: You
 don't have to have experienced what you call cosmic
 consciousness for 
 very long (or indeed at all) to know that Jim's claim
 that you need to 
 have done to have an opinion of it is in error. The model of
 
 consciousness as an unfolding of/from some sort of unified
 field via 
 seven stages is a description of a change in awareness but
 that doesn't 
 mean this poor analogy of Marshy's is in any way an
 accurate description
 of how our brains work and integrate with the world.
 
 C: I believe the CC state was
 an aberration more closely associated with dissociation and
 with the same problems. He made it very clear on the first 6
 month course that his model was just that and then proceeded
 to try to convince everyone they were already in Brahmin
 Consciousness like those Advaita dudes do! 
 
 A:
 Consciousness isn't the unified field, but it seems like it is when you
 are in that state - I have been there before you write in
 and complain - It's a trick of the mind. 
 
 C: There are so many states
 that feel like so many things. It seems to me that we are a
 long way o

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Yes, you are a complete bullshitter, Curtis. I ask you a simple question, four 
times, and you cannot give me a simple, or coherent, answer. And that would be 
simply, NO, I do not witness activity, 24x7. 

C: WItnessing is for children, are you a child Jim?
 

 IJ: nstead I hear about your past. I don't care about your past, or as Barry 
calls it, Cafe Zen. It is clear you are not now witnessing full-time, which is 
the basic hallmark of what Maharishi was trying to have you establish for 
yourself, and have you teach to others.

C: The goal is unity Jim, not witnessing. I witnessed in my second year at MIU 
and had outgrown it by my 3rd. Are you still trying to outgrow that stage Jim? 
Too bad you really should have applied yourself more and taken more courses 
instead of frittering away your evolution in your business life. Can't be 
helped, we all act according to our natures. 
 

 J: What a load of crap you try to sell here, Curtis. All I see is a failed 
ex-TM teacher, who tries increasingly hard, to get me to take my eye off the 
ball - Someone who feels it is appropriate to hold forth on a subject he knows 
nothing about.

C: Yeah claims about ones subjective state are fraught with issues. That was 
one of my original points which you, as usual, missed.

 

 J: I have not attacked you, ad-hominem - it is simply another distraction, for 
you, from your lack of spiritual experience. Ain't buyin' it. You can spare 
yourself the tears, and answer the damned question

C: Yes you  did and continue to do it Jim. I remember when I used to witness 
like you but that was before I grew beyond it. I hope you do too, it is such a 
limited state. I'll be praying for you Jim.

 

 J: Or not. I got all week

C: You really do feel like such an entitled twit don't you. Demanding that I 
answer your petty ignorant questions about your sad little precious milestone. 
Witnesssing is for losers Jim. It leads to people acting like you. Embrace life 
Jim, jump in. You are too busy building walls on your tiny castle that you are 
missing what life really is. Wake up Jim, it is not too late! 
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 So...we can forget about you addressing this issue, directly; your failure to 
experience what Maharishi attempted to teach you, and have you teach others. It 
doesn't bode well for you, dude. You continue your evasive moves, trying to 
somehow make this about me.

C: It is about you Jim. Yet another example of you turning every discussion 
into an ad hominem personal attack because you can't keep up with discussions. 
You want to know what state of consciousness I am in? I am in the one above 
yours. Got it? I am the higher stage of enlightenment from the one you are in 
and it allows me to know what state you are in, a lower one. 
 

 J: But, it isn't about me. It is about a couple of ex-TM teachers, 
overreaching their knowledge, and stating their opinions, for which they have 
no substance. That is it. Very simply.

C: It would have to be simple because you can't follow any detailed discussions 
here which is why you always go ad hominem.

 

 J: At least the other guy was willing, all too willing, to admit the extent of 
his "enlightenment" -- two weeks of witnessing, a lng time ago. 
 

 Put up, or shut up, Curtis. As your cohort would say, "I'll wait".

C: No need to wait any further Jim. You got your answer. I am fully 
enlightened, verified by Nandkashore in Seelisberg. Since then I have gone 
through even higher states beyond Maharishi's Brahman to levels that you don't 
know anything about. 

So are you clear now Mr. Oneupmanship? 



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

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

 So, let's get this straight. You are not enlightened, are not established in 
Being, and therefore have not the slightest idea of what Maharishi was 
ultimately trying to accomplish. 

c: I have a very clear idea of what he was trying to accomplish. Far better 
than your delusional relationship with his buzz words.
 

 J: You, and that other ex-TM teacher, like to pick at the loose threads, while 
ignoring the blatant fact, that you guys were washouts, in terms of succeeding 
at that which you taught, and were taught.
 

 You can say it is a problem with subjective interpretation, pre-scientific 
thought, and erroneous assumptions about consciousness, but the one thing you 
and tweedle dee cannot say, is simply, that you know what you are talking 
about, not having achieved the permanent state of consciousness, that Maharishi 
constantly referred to.

C: Jim, your assumptions about yourself are fraudulent and have zero traction 
for your goal with me. Nothing you say here has any relevance to me.I know you 
think you have found some kind of tool to make yourself feel superior and 
important, but it is backfiring badly. Trying to use bombast to get a

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Curtis, if you were open to a normal explanation, and had already heard a 
lecture or two of Maharishi's, he always spoke in terms of the highest, first - 
so it sounds like a reasonable explanation to me - the furthest extent, of a 
currently unstable state of consciousness.  

 Of course, if you, and whatshisface, were half the teachers you claim to be, 
and actually understood life  from the perspective of the first stage of 
enlightenment, witnessing 24x7, you would recognize how what Maharishi said, 
makes a lot of sense, with a dash of inspiration, for those he was helping 
along.
 

 However, without this grounded nature in silence, all you see are the pieces, 
simply because the wholeness of what Maharishi is talking about, has not yet 
been achieved, by you.
 

 So, your perspective is comprehensible, yet by your own refusal to admit it, 
unenlightened -- but the question remains, why do you feel qualified, then, to 
hold forth on something you know next to nothing about??
 

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

 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 "He made it very clear on the first 6 month course that his model was just 
that and then proceeded to try to convince everyone they were already in 
Brahmin Consciousness like those Advaita dudes do!"
 
 Now that is very very interesting to me - he really said that, that the CC, 
GC, UC stuff was just a model, as in just a way of talking about awareness, not 
the definitive definition of human enlightenment???

C: It stared with teachers admitting that they did not have clear transcending 
when he asked for experiences. He was shocked. The way it was relayed to me 
when they got back was that he said that transcending to no mantra no thoughts 
was for is for beginners, that everyone was witnessing their meditations which 
is why everyone still had thoughts in meditation and not clear transcending the 
whole time and that all his teachers at the course were living in Brahman 
already but needed his stroke of knowledge. He said that their growth had not 
been sequential but all at once so that they all had flashes of all the states 
as they grew in wholeness. (there is a word too fat to pin down huh?) It was 
relayed to me by a really smart chick from the course who I could tell was a 
bit conflicted about being able to embrace her new Brahman consciousness. 





 
 On Fri, 5/16/14, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... 
[FairfieldLife] mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Friday, May 16, 2014, 9:54 PM
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ---In
 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :
 
 "Neither
 one of you is established in being" It's that
 phrase again. Language is
 a big problem here. If I was to say I have an experience
 caused by my 
 brain having learnt over time to experience a separation of
 my thoughts 
 and the way the conscious substrate of qualia visualises 3
 dimensional 
 space, everyone would say so what? But couch the perception
 in "holy" 
 nomenclature and everyone goes: Wow! are you really
 enlightened?
 
 C: Great
 point. This is a big issue I have with how language is being
 used to describe internal experience. It is so imprecise.
 
 
 A: You
 don't have to have experienced what you call cosmic
 consciousness for 
 very long (or indeed at all) to know that Jim's claim
 that you need to 
 have done to have an opinion of it is in error. The model of
 
 consciousness as an unfolding of/from some sort of unified
 field via 
 seven stages is a description of a change in awareness but
 that doesn't 
 mean this poor analogy of Marshy's is in any way an
 accurate description
 of how our brains work and integrate with the world.
 
 C: I believe the CC state was
 an aberration more closely associated with dissociation and
 with the same problems. He made it very clear on the first 6
 month course that his model was just that and then proceeded
 to try to convince everyone they were already in Brahmin
 Consciousness like those Advaita dudes do! 
 
 A:
 Consciousness isn't the unified field, but it seems like it is when you
 are in that state - I have been there before you write in
 and complain - It's a trick of the mind. 
 
 C: There are so many states
 that feel like so many things. It seems to me that we are a
 long way off from having any justification to just buy into
 the traditional view of it all. There were so wrong about so
 much else we can prove today why would we take their word on
 ultimate reality? And it isn't that they just didn't
 now about how conception shapes perception they consciously
 used it  for their religious agenda.
 
 Thanks for extending the rap in a sane
 direction. I hope I didn't butcher your meaning too much

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 5/16/2014 9:49 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:


Actually, according to the dictionary, "meditation" can mean
several different things depending on the context. You can use the
term in an everyday sense to mean "to think things over," but it
doesn't "simply" mean that, and that isn't what it means when we
use it on FFL or in the context of a spiritual practice. To claim
that's /all/ it means just makes you look dumb.


According to the dictionary, meditation means simply 'to think
things over'.


>
So, I wonder what it is in /practicing TM/ that you do if not /simply 
thinking things over/? It's not concentration and it's not mind-control. 
What is it, exactly?


According to Sam Harris, mindfulness is simply a state of clear, 
nonjudgmental, and nondiscursive attention to the contents of 
consciousness, whether pleasant or unpleasant. Developing this quality 
of mind has been shown to reduce pain, anxiety, and depression; improve 
cognitive function; and even produce changes in gray matter density in 
regions of the brain related to learning and memory, emotional 
regulation, and self-awareness.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: the deer this morning

[Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]]

On 05/16/2014 07:24 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:





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

I mentioned them earlier:


a closer look

https://app.box.com/s/0toaopzloex24swoxn8r


deer eating clover

https://app.box.com/s/phi5lwcj1eh54ibtjfxn


listening

https://app.box.com/s/cqgmqumz48j5zmdxbvzp


three deer in the meadow

https://app.box.com/s/xh8zgj2ojmaqo055fq4l


two deer and a squirrel

two deer and a squirrel on the golf course.jpg - File Shared from Box 






image 


two deer and a squirrel on the golf course.jpg - File Sh... 


Sign up | Log in two deer and a squirrel on the golf course.jpg

View on app.box.com 

Preview by Yahoo


Beautiful and delicate things. Victoria is considering a cull of these 
creatures with nets and bolt guns. Can you imagine killing one of 
these terrified innocents while it lays trapped under the net?




Maybe after they ate up all your garden?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

As you know, Knapp hasn't been associated with TM-Free for several years. Mike 
Doughney runs it now. 
 You already did this, over on TM-Free, for John Knapp.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 5/16/2014 5:35 PM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
> I do not believe that proof by analogy is useful especially in non 
> sensory realms.
 >
"I generally recommend a method called vipassana in which one cultivates 
a form of attention widely known as “mindfulness.” There is nothing 
spooky or irrational about mindfulness, and the literature on its 
psychological benefits is now substantial. Mindfulness is simply a state 
of clear, nonjudgmental, and nondiscursive attention to the contents of 
consciousness, whether pleasant or unpleasant." - Sam Harris

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :
 
 On 5/16/2014 2:58 PM, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
 > R: But, I would have thought you would have come to question MMY's human
 > consciousness model about midway in your first Philosophy 101 course.
 > So, why did it take you so many years to put it all together?
 >
 > C: You would think. But I had PHDs carefully shaping our conclusions. 
 > We were questioning lots, but the conclusion always came back to the 
 > empirical experience of Unity Consciousness. We figured that with that 
 > experience we were fulfilling the strictest epistemological criteria.
 >
 That makes sense, but I wonder where you got the idea in the first place 
 to major in philosophy at MUM?

C: Because it was the major that allowed me to focus on Maharishi's teaching 
the most. It was the major for the most hard core TMer guys. I loved it..

R: So, it is an intellectual exercise. If 
 so, then it's going to be a real challenge to argue against the 
 'Consciousness Only' or the Idealistic point-of-view. In the West, you'd 
 have to argue against Immanual Kant, George Hegel and Arthur 
 Shopenhauer. Not an easy task.

C:Kant and Hegel where such eccentrics. I don't relate to them at all now. 
Neurosicience has eclipsed a lot of their speculations for me. Do you relate to 
those guys these days? I would rather remove my eye than read those guys again.


 
 ---
 This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus 
protection is active.
 http://www.avast.com http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Actually, according to the dictionary, "meditation" can mean several different 
things depending on the context. You can use the term in an everyday sense to 
mean "to think things over," but it doesn't "simply" mean that, and that isn't 
what it means when we use it on FFL or in the context of a spiritual practice. 
To claim that's all it means just makes you look dumb. 
 According to the dictionary, meditation means simply 'to think things over'. 
 
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: the deer this morning

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Yes, these were quite tame, too, and about twice the size of those I have seen 
in the coastal range near SF. I am sad to hear about the culling, though I have 
heard it prevents getting a deer through the windshield, at 50 mph, which is 
often fatal for both the deer, and the driver.
 

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

 
 

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

 I mentioned them earlier:
 

 a closer look
 https://app.box.com/s/0toaopzloex24swoxn8r 
https://app.box.com/s/0toaopzloex24swoxn8r

 

 deer eating clover
 https://app.box.com/s/phi5lwcj1eh54ibtjfxn 
https://app.box.com/s/phi5lwcj1eh54ibtjfxn

 

 listening
 https://app.box.com/s/cqgmqumz48j5zmdxbvzp 
https://app.box.com/s/cqgmqumz48j5zmdxbvzp

 

 three deer in the meadow
 https://app.box.com/s/xh8zgj2ojmaqo055fq4l 
https://app.box.com/s/xh8zgj2ojmaqo055fq4l

 

 two deer and a squirrel
 two deer and a squirrel on the golf course.jpg - File Shared from Box 
https://app.box.com/s/bzqegcr1yezvcf3kx9qg

 
 
 https://app.box.com/s/bzqegcr1yezvcf3kx9qg
 
 two deer and a squirrel on the golf course.jpg - File Sh... 
https://app.box.com/s/bzqegcr1yezvcf3kx9qg Sign up | Log in two deer and a 
squirrel on the golf course.jpg


 
 View on app.box.com https://app.box.com/s/bzqegcr1yezvcf3kx9qg
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

 

 Beautiful and delicate things. Victoria is considering a cull of these 
creatures with nets and bolt guns. Can you imagine killing one of these 
terrified innocents while it lays trapped under the net?
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 5/16/2014 6:04 PM, Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
> How do you feel it is a trick of the mind?
 >
"From deep personal experience, I can tell you that it is possible to 
intellectually understand that "it's all maya" while still remaining in 
the grip of it." - L.B. Shriver

FFL Message 5712

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 5/16/2014 6:21 PM, Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
> Man, I wish someone would write a clear and comprehensive history of 
> the Movement! Even in answering questions for me I see things I had 
> still never heard of.
 >
You already did this, over on TM-Free, for John Knapp. Did you leave 
something out, like some important facts?

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

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

 
 

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

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

 Curtis, can you say in a nutshell what about consciousness you think Maharishi 
got wrong?

C: Thanks for asking Share. You will get more than a nutshell because this is a 
rich topic. The first fundamental problem for me is that he was shaping our 
view of our experiences from his techniques from a religious perspective 
created in a pre-scientific society. He made many unwarranted assumptions about 
the value of his techniques or what he was doing to our brains. Although they 
are highly addictive and pleasurable states of mind, I see no evidence that 
they improve anyone's thinking or creative processes. I see evidence of the 
opposite at least at higher levels of exposure. High exposure leads to an 
erosion of the ability to distinguish internal and external experiences. This 
causes a lot of problems that show up in claims here. 

I challenge his fundamental assumption that  "knowledge is structured in 
consciousness." This is epistemological bogus and psychologically manipulative. 
It comes from  a non modern view of what knowledge is that had its birth in a 
caste system controlled culture. If you see what Jim is attempting to assume 
here by virtue of his self reported grandiose claims of experiences you can see 
where this belief leads socially. It has been rejected by all modern societies 
for good reason.
 

 A: I have been following this discussion with moderate interest. My 
highlighted statement is what I find relatively unsupported and just kind of 
thrown out there. It doesn't resonate with anything true for me. If you want, 
you could elaborate on it.

C: That it comes from a caste system controlled culture is an historical fact. 
That it is manipulative is my opinion. It tacks on another subjectively claimed 
aspect to knowledge that does not resonate with me now. It sets up a hierarchy 
of  levels of knowledge without any reference to an objective standard. I 
cannot come up with an example that makes any sense to me now. YMMV

 A:When I first became familiar with TM and started SCI this "Knowledge is 
Structured in Consciousness" statement made a lot of sense. And while I don't 
really think about, let alone practice, TM anymore I still understand what it 
means and it hardly seems elitist or let alone bogus or psychologically 
manipulative. Instead I understand it as a very simple and clean statement and 
I believe it - as far as it goes.

C2: I am drawing out the implications that seem important to me. Can you give 
any examples of this that makes sense to you? In teaching the idea we used to 
say that when you are tired you don't think clearly. But this is bogus because 
although that may be true it has nothing to do with my "knowledge." My 
perspective on the world is not changed because of this I have to teach this 
way all the time for early classes. And by extension he is claiming that 
"knowledge" is somehow also changed by continuing to meditate and achieve his 
higher states of consciousness. I see zero evidence for this in my own or 
anyone else's life.  Again YMMV so I am open to any examples that resonate with 
you.

 
Because of Maharishi's religiously motivated agenda, he was unable to combine 
more modern theories of the mind with his POV to expand it. He was unwilling to 
be humble about the limits of his knowledge and instead presented himself and 
his teacher as more than human with the appropriate humility concerning the 
human condition. He used science as marketing like a charlatan with zero 
respect for its methods. Over time this killed what could have been a much more 
interesting endeavor. He was a superstitious man and had the intellectual 
failing of hubris which clouded his judgement and turned a fascinatingly bright 
man into a caricature of himself. He became fat Elvis.

A: From my experience at MIU and studying what it had to teach me for 4 years I 
certainly didn't find that. But then you stayed on board the ship of the 
traveling TM salesman and enthusiastic endorser far longer than I did. I 
basically got a degree and moved on.

C: Maharishi did not respect the methods of science. He was an authority guy. 
He talked about it at length on many tapes whenever he was off marketing to the 
public mode. He was not open to the idea that any studies on TM would show 
anything but a positive result.

Yes our experiences after MIU were different but even at MIU I suspect I was 
drawn to a different focus. I was in the library digging up transcripts of 
India lectures and you were probably in the open air on a horse somewhere! In 
retrospect I which I had been on one too. Did you ride there? I did cross 
country sky which was fantastic in that flat big sky land.

 
I also challenge his assumption about the silent state of meditation as either 
being our "true Self" or having any trans-personal implications about 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 5/16/2014 7:12 PM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
> Now that is very very interesting to me - he really said that, that 
> the CC, GC, UC stuff was just a model, as in just a way of talking 
> about awareness, not the definitive definition of human enlightenment???
 >
"Maybe you mistook the pointing finger for the moon itself." - Kung Fu 
saying

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 5/16/2014 7:48 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
Good for Sam Harris. Anyone without a solid understanding of this 
elementary truth is not going to get anywhere studying the nature of 
consciousness.



According to Sam Harris, to say that consciousness may only seem to
exist is to admit its existence in full—for if things seem any way at
all, that is consciousness. Consciousness is the one thing in this
universe that cannot be an illusion.

>
Now it's time for the hard question: define consciousness. According to 
the dictionary, meditation means simply 'to think things over'. If so, 
then everyone meditates. There's probably not a person on the planet who 
doesn't pause once or twice a day to take stock of their mind contents. 
And we're all transcending - even without a specific techniqe. So, the 
question is: did you enjoy?



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Yes, you are a complete bullshitter, Curtis. I ask you a simple question, four 
times, and you cannot give me a simple, or coherent, answer. And that would be 
simply, NO, I do not witness activity, 24x7.  

 Instead I hear about your past. I don't care about your past, or as Barry 
calls it, Cafe Zen. It is clear you are not now witnessing full-time, which is 
the basic hallmark of what Maharishi was trying to have you establish for 
yourself, and have you teach to others.  

 What a load of crap you try to sell here, Curtis. All I see is a failed ex-TM 
teacher, who tries increasingly hard, to get me to take my eye off the ball - 
Someone who feels it is appropriate to hold forth on a subject he knows nothing 
about.
 

 I have not attacked you, ad-hominem - it is simply another distraction, for 
you, from your lack of spiritual experience. Ain't buyin' it. You can spare 
yourself the tears, and answer the damned question.
 

 Or not. I got all week.
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 So...we can forget about you addressing this issue, directly; your failure to 
experience what Maharishi attempted to teach you, and have you teach others. It 
doesn't bode well for you, dude. You continue your evasive moves, trying to 
somehow make this about me.

C: It is about you Jim. Yet another example of you turning every discussion 
into an ad hominem personal attack because you can't keep up with discussions. 
You want to know what state of consciousness I am in? I am in the one above 
yours. Got it? I am the higher stage of enlightenment from the one you are in 
and it allows me to know what state you are in, a lower one. 
 

 J: But, it isn't about me. It is about a couple of ex-TM teachers, 
overreaching their knowledge, and stating their opinions, for which they have 
no substance. That is it. Very simply.

C: It would have to be simple because you can't follow any detailed discussions 
here which is why you always go ad hominem.

 

 J: At least the other guy was willing, all too willing, to admit the extent of 
his "enlightenment" -- two weeks of witnessing, a lng time ago. 
 

 Put up, or shut up, Curtis. As your cohort would say, "I'll wait".

C: No need to wait any further Jim. You got your answer. I am fully 
enlightened, verified by Nandkashore in Seelisberg. Since then I have gone 
through even higher states beyond Maharishi's Brahman to levels that you don't 
know anything about. 

So are you clear now Mr. Oneupmanship? 



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

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

 So, let's get this straight. You are not enlightened, are not established in 
Being, and therefore have not the slightest idea of what Maharishi was 
ultimately trying to accomplish. 

c: I have a very clear idea of what he was trying to accomplish. Far better 
than your delusional relationship with his buzz words.
 

 J: You, and that other ex-TM teacher, like to pick at the loose threads, while 
ignoring the blatant fact, that you guys were washouts, in terms of succeeding 
at that which you taught, and were taught.
 

 You can say it is a problem with subjective interpretation, pre-scientific 
thought, and erroneous assumptions about consciousness, but the one thing you 
and tweedle dee cannot say, is simply, that you know what you are talking 
about, not having achieved the permanent state of consciousness, that Maharishi 
constantly referred to.

C: Jim, your assumptions about yourself are fraudulent and have zero traction 
for your goal with me. Nothing you say here has any relevance to me.I know you 
think you have found some kind of tool to make yourself feel superior and 
important, but it is backfiring badly. Trying to use bombast to get at what I 
experienced with Maharishi's programs is not going to work. You are acting like 
a dick Jim. 
 
 J: If you would just admit this, Curtis, for you and Barry, both, you wouldn't 
have to spend so much time running down rabbit holes, and darting off to the 
side, constantly. Once you admit it - Barry already has - you are scot-free, 
off to the races, no problem. 

C: Whatever power you are attempting to exert over me here is just showing you 
for what you are. The whole "when did you stop beating your wife" routine is 
transparent. Are you really too dim to understand this?

 

 J:But continuing to spew forth on all things Maharishi and enlightenment, when 
you were clearly a failure,  really shouldn't be tolerated on a forum like this.

C: Shouldn't be tolerated? Who exactly do you think you are?  





 

 

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

 
 Your attributes are wrong. Share didn't write that paragraph, I did.

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

 On 5/16/2014 4:00 PM, Share Long sharelong60@... mailto:sharelong60@... 
[FairfieldLife] 
 wrote:
 C: > I challenge his fundamental assumption that "knowledge is structured 
 > in consciousness." 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 5/16/2014 9:18 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
If you want, you could elaborate on it. When I first became familiar 
with TM and started SCI this "Knowledge is Structured in 
Consciousness" statement made a lot of sense.

>
Apparently the really hard question is the definition of consciousness, 
so that makes discussion of altered States of Consciousness even more 
difficult. So, what we need is an operational definition of consciousness.


From what I've read, the most extensive study of the characteristics of 
altered states of consciousness was made by psychologist Charles Tart in 
the 1960s and 1970s. William James is usually credited with popularizing 
the idea that human consciousness flows like a stream.


The mystical psychiatrist Richard Maurice Bucke distinguished between 
three types of consciousness: Simple Consciousness, awareness of the 
body, possessed by many animals; Self Consciousness, awareness of being 
aware, possessed only by humans; and Cosmic Consciousness, awareness of 
the life and order of the universe, possessed only by humans who are 
enlightened.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 5/16/2014 2:42 PM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
R: I mean, how difficult is it to just pause once or twice a day and 
think things over? Go figure.


C: This is your torettes loop which defies all logic or connection to 
Maharishi's teaching.

>
It's kind of difficult to dialog with you when you can't or won't even 
define what meditation is. A philosopher should be able to do this. Why 
is it so difficult to define TM? Maybe because it's just /thinking 
things over/. It is just astounding that with a degree in philosophy you 
can't seem to articulate what you did for all those years. Go figure.


1 :  to engage in contemplation or reflection
2 :  to engage in mental exercise (as concentration on one's breathing 
or repetition of a mantra) for the purpose of reaching a heightened 
level of spiritual awareness


transitive verb

1 :  to focus one's thoughts on :  reflect on or ponder over
2 :  to plan or project in the mind :

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meditate


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

[FairfieldLife] Re: the deer this morning

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

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

 I mentioned them earlier:
 

 a closer look
 https://app.box.com/s/0toaopzloex24swoxn8r 
https://app.box.com/s/0toaopzloex24swoxn8r

 

 deer eating clover
 https://app.box.com/s/phi5lwcj1eh54ibtjfxn 
https://app.box.com/s/phi5lwcj1eh54ibtjfxn

 

 listening
 https://app.box.com/s/cqgmqumz48j5zmdxbvzp 
https://app.box.com/s/cqgmqumz48j5zmdxbvzp

 

 three deer in the meadow
 https://app.box.com/s/xh8zgj2ojmaqo055fq4l 
https://app.box.com/s/xh8zgj2ojmaqo055fq4l

 

 two deer and a squirrel
 two deer and a squirrel on the golf course.jpg - File Shared from Box 
https://app.box.com/s/bzqegcr1yezvcf3kx9qg

 
 
 https://app.box.com/s/bzqegcr1yezvcf3kx9qg 
 
 two deer and a squirrel on the golf course.jpg - File Sh... 
https://app.box.com/s/bzqegcr1yezvcf3kx9qg Sign up | Log in two deer and a 
squirrel on the golf course.jpg 
 
 
 
 View on app.box.com https://app.box.com/s/bzqegcr1yezvcf3kx9qg 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 
 
 

 Beautiful and delicate things. Victoria is considering a cull of these 
creatures with nets and bolt guns. Can you imagine killing one of these 
terrified innocents while it lays trapped under the net?
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

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

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

 Curtis, can you say in a nutshell what about consciousness you think Maharishi 
got wrong?

C: Thanks for asking Share. You will get more than a nutshell because this is a 
rich topic. The first fundamental problem for me is that he was shaping our 
view of our experiences from his techniques from a religious perspective 
created in a pre-scientific society. He made many unwarranted assumptions about 
the value of his techniques or what he was doing to our brains. Although they 
are highly addictive and pleasurable states of mind, I see no evidence that 
they improve anyone's thinking or creative processes. I see evidence of the 
opposite at least at higher levels of exposure. High exposure leads to an 
erosion of the ability to distinguish internal and external experiences. This 
causes a lot of problems that show up in claims here. 

I challenge his fundamental assumption that  "knowledge is structured in 
consciousness." This is epistemological bogus and psychologically manipulative. 
It comes from  a non modern view of what knowledge is that had its birth in a 
caste system controlled culture. If you see what Jim is attempting to assume 
here by virtue of his self reported grandiose claims of experiences you can see 
where this belief leads socially. It has been rejected by all modern societies 
for good reason.
 

 I have been following this discussion with moderate interest. My highlighted 
statement is what I find relatively unsupported and just kind of thrown out 
there. It doesn't resonate with anything true for me. If you want, you could 
elaborate on it. When I first became familiar with TM and started SCI this 
"Knowledge is Structured in Consciousness" statement made a lot of sense. And 
while I don't really think about, let alone practice, TM anymore I still 
understand what it means and it hardly seems elitist or let alone bogus or 
psychologically manipulative. Instead I understand it as a very simple and 
clean statement and I believe it - as far as it goes. 
 
Because of Maharishi's religiously motivated agenda, he was unable to combine 
more modern theories of the mind with his POV to expand it. He was unwilling to 
be humble about the limits of his knowledge and instead presented himself and 
his teacher as more than human with the appropriate humility concerning the 
human condition. He used science as marketing like a charlatan with zero 
respect for its methods. Over time this killed what could have been a much more 
interesting endeavor. He was a superstitious man and had the intellectual 
failing of hubris which clouded his judgement and turned a fascinatingly bright 
man into a caricature of himself. He became fat Elvis.

From my experience at MIU and studying what it had to teach me for 4 years I 
certainly didn't find that. But then you stayed on board the ship of the 
traveling TM salesman and enthusiastic endorser far longer than I did. I 
basically got a degree and moved on.
 
I also challenge his assumption about the silent state of meditation as either 
being our "true Self" or having any trans-personal implications about how the 
world works. The sidhis were supposed to be the proof of his trans-personal 
claims about the "absolute" but that test failed by his own created standards 
and criteria. So we are now left with people feeling different subjective 
things in the sidhis that cannot be tested and studied as well as grandiose 
claims about its affects on the world. I respect that Maharishi set up a 
legitimate test of his theories, but I do not respect that neither he nor his 
organization acknowledged the falsification of his theory by the lack of siddhi 
performance. He failed with his own clearly stated and self created test. 

That is just off the top of my head. But that is ten minutes worth and I hope 
you enjoy it.

Please feel free to share your perspective.




 On Friday, May 16, 2014 2:58 PM, "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 wrote:
 
 

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

 
 On 5/16/2014 11:54 AM, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
 > The problem was that I don't think he is right about human 
 > consciousness. And that leads me to post on a site like this one as I 
 > figure out where I stand on various issues of interest to others on 
 > this board.
 >
 This is not about you, Curtis, it's mostly about Barry.

C: Apparently your "mostly" left room for you to include me expliscitely.

 R: But, I would have thought you would have come to question MMY's human 
 consciousness model about midway in your first Philosophy 101 course. 
 So, why did it take you so many years to put it all together?

C: You would think. But I had PHDs carefully shaping our conclusions. We were 
questioning lots, but the conclusion always came back to the empirical 
experience of Unity Consciousness. We figured that with that 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 5/16/2014 2:58 PM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
> R: But, I would have thought you would have come to question MMY's human
> consciousness model about midway in your first Philosophy 101 course.
> So, why did it take you so many years to put it all together?
>
> C: You would think. But I had PHDs carefully shaping our conclusions. 
> We were questioning lots, but the conclusion always came back to the 
> empirical experience of Unity Consciousness. We figured that with that 
> experience we were fulfilling the strictest epistemological criteria.
 >
That makes sense, but I wonder where you got the idea in the first place 
to major in philosophy at MUM? So, it is an intellectual exercise. If 
so, then it's going to be a real challenge to argue against the 
'Consciousness Only' or the Idealistic point-of-view. In the West, you'd 
have to argue against Immanual Kant, George Hegel and Arthur 
Shopenhauer. Not an easy task.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Good for Sam Harris. Anyone without a solid understanding of this elementary 
truth is not going to get anywhere studying the nature of consciousness.
 

 According to Sam Harris, to say that consciousness may only seem to 
 exist is to admit its existence in full—for if things seem any way at 
 all, that is consciousness. Consciousness is the one thing in this 
 universe that cannot be an illusion.

[FairfieldLife] Post Count Sat 17-May-14 00:15:08 UTC

[FFL PostCount ffl.postco...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): 05/10/14 00:00:00
End Date (UTC): 05/17/14 00:00:00
673 messages as of (UTC) 05/16/14 23:04:12

 80 fleetwood_macncheese
 74 'Richard J. Williams' punditster
 52 authfriend
 52 TurquoiseBee turquoiseb
 37 dhamiltony2k5
 37 awoelflebater
 36 Bhairitu noozguru
 34 nablusoss1008 
 33 LEnglish5
 31 curtisdeltablues
 29 jr_esq
 29 Share Long sharelong60
 24 Michael Jackson mjackson74
 19 raunchydog
 17 steve.sundur
 11 'Rick Archer' rick
 10 merudanda 
 10 cardemaister
  9 anartaxius
  9 Pundit Sir punditster
  9 Mike Dixon mdixon.6569
  7 salyavin808 
  6 s3raphita
  5 punditster
  3 j_alexander_stanley
  3 emilymaenot
  3 Dick Mays dickmays
  2 emptybill
  1 ultrarishi 
  1 feste37 
Posters: 30
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: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 "He made it very clear on the first 6 month course that his model was just 
that and then proceeded to try to convince everyone they were already in 
Brahmin Consciousness like those Advaita dudes do!"
 
 Now that is very very interesting to me - he really said that, that the CC, 
GC, UC stuff was just a model, as in just a way of talking about awareness, not 
the definitive definition of human enlightenment???

C: It stared with teachers admitting that they did not have clear transcending 
when he asked for experiences. He was shocked. The way it was relayed to me 
when they got back was that he said that transcending to no mantra no thoughts 
was for is for beginners, that everyone was witnessing their meditations which 
is why everyone still had thoughts in meditation and not clear transcending the 
whole time and that all his teachers at the course were living in Brahman 
already but needed his stroke of knowledge. He said that their growth had not 
been sequential but all at once so that they all had flashes of all the states 
as they grew in wholeness. (there is a word too fat to pin down huh?) It was 
relayed to me by a really smart chick from the course who I could tell was a 
bit conflicted about being able to embrace her new Brahman consciousness. 





 
 On Fri, 5/16/14, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... 
[FairfieldLife] mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Friday, May 16, 2014, 9:54 PM
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ---In
 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :
 
 "Neither
 one of you is established in being" It's that
 phrase again. Language is
 a big problem here. If I was to say I have an experience
 caused by my 
 brain having learnt over time to experience a separation of
 my thoughts 
 and the way the conscious substrate of qualia visualises 3
 dimensional 
 space, everyone would say so what? But couch the perception
 in "holy" 
 nomenclature and everyone goes: Wow! are you really
 enlightened?
 
 C: Great
 point. This is a big issue I have with how language is being
 used to describe internal experience. It is so imprecise.
 
 
 A: You
 don't have to have experienced what you call cosmic
 consciousness for 
 very long (or indeed at all) to know that Jim's claim
 that you need to 
 have done to have an opinion of it is in error. The model of
 
 consciousness as an unfolding of/from some sort of unified
 field via 
 seven stages is a description of a change in awareness but
 that doesn't 
 mean this poor analogy of Marshy's is in any way an
 accurate description
 of how our brains work and integrate with the world.
 
 C: I believe the CC state was
 an aberration more closely associated with dissociation and
 with the same problems. He made it very clear on the first 6
 month course that his model was just that and then proceeded
 to try to convince everyone they were already in Brahmin
 Consciousness like those Advaita dudes do! 
 
 A:
 Consciousness isn't the unified field, but it seems like it is when you
 are in that state - I have been there before you write in
 and complain - It's a trick of the mind. 
 
 C: There are so many states
 that feel like so many things. It seems to me that we are a
 long way off from having any justification to just buy into
 the traditional view of it all. There were so wrong about so
 much else we can prove today why would we take their word on
 ultimate reality? And it isn't that they just didn't
 now about how conception shapes perception they consciously
 used it  for their religious agenda.
 
 Thanks for extending the rap in a sane
 direction. I hope I didn't butcher your meaning too much
 in my response.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ---In
 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 

 wrote :
 
 
 ---In
 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
  wrote :
 
 Curtis
 writes:"The problem was
 that I don't think he [Maharishi] is right about human
 consciousness."  My
 only question is: How do you know Maharishi is wrong, if you
 have not completed the first step in his model of human
 conciousness, Cosmic Consciousness?
 
 
 J: I have never
 come across a more close-minded and idiotic
 perspective on TM. Neither one of you is established
 in Being, and yet you say, without having experienced it,
 and without knowing the first thing about Maharishi's
 model of consciousness, that you deny
 it. 
 "Neither one of you is established in
 being" It's that phrase again. Language is a big
 problem here. If I was to say I have an experience caused by
 my brain having learnt over time to experience a separation
 of my thoughts and the way the conscious substrate of qualia
 visualise

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 So...we can forget about you addressing this issue, directly; your failure to 
experience what Maharishi attempted to teach you, and have you teach others. It 
doesn't bode well for you, dude. You continue your evasive moves, trying to 
somehow make this about me.

C: It is about you Jim. Yet another example of you turning every discussion 
into an ad hominem personal attack because you can't keep up with discussions. 
You want to know what state of consciousness I am in? I am in the one above 
yours. Got it? I am the higher stage of enlightenment from the one you are in 
and it allows me to know what state you are in, a lower one. 
 

 J: But, it isn't about me. It is about a couple of ex-TM teachers, 
overreaching their knowledge, and stating their opinions, for which they have 
no substance. That is it. Very simply.

C: It would have to be simple because you can't follow any detailed discussions 
here which is why you always go ad hominem.

 

 J: At least the other guy was willing, all too willing, to admit the extent of 
his "enlightenment" -- two weeks of witnessing, a lng time ago. 
 

 Put up, or shut up, Curtis. As your cohort would say, "I'll wait".

C: No need to wait any further Jim. You got your answer. I am fully 
enlightened, verified by Nandkashore in Seelisberg. Since then I have gone 
through even higher states beyond Maharishi's Brahman to levels that you don't 
know anything about. 

So are you clear now Mr. Oneupmanship? 



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

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

 So, let's get this straight. You are not enlightened, are not established in 
Being, and therefore have not the slightest idea of what Maharishi was 
ultimately trying to accomplish. 

c: I have a very clear idea of what he was trying to accomplish. Far better 
than your delusional relationship with his buzz words.
 

 J: You, and that other ex-TM teacher, like to pick at the loose threads, while 
ignoring the blatant fact, that you guys were washouts, in terms of succeeding 
at that which you taught, and were taught.
 

 You can say it is a problem with subjective interpretation, pre-scientific 
thought, and erroneous assumptions about consciousness, but the one thing you 
and tweedle dee cannot say, is simply, that you know what you are talking 
about, not having achieved the permanent state of consciousness, that Maharishi 
constantly referred to.

C: Jim, your assumptions about yourself are fraudulent and have zero traction 
for your goal with me. Nothing you say here has any relevance to me.I know you 
think you have found some kind of tool to make yourself feel superior and 
important, but it is backfiring badly. Trying to use bombast to get at what I 
experienced with Maharishi's programs is not going to work. You are acting like 
a dick Jim. 
 
 J: If you would just admit this, Curtis, for you and Barry, both, you wouldn't 
have to spend so much time running down rabbit holes, and darting off to the 
side, constantly. Once you admit it - Barry already has - you are scot-free, 
off to the races, no problem. 

C: Whatever power you are attempting to exert over me here is just showing you 
for what you are. The whole "when did you stop beating your wife" routine is 
transparent. Are you really too dim to understand this?

 

 J:But continuing to spew forth on all things Maharishi and enlightenment, when 
you were clearly a failure,  really shouldn't be tolerated on a forum like this.

C: Shouldn't be tolerated? Who exactly do you think you are?  





 

 

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

 
 Your attributes are wrong. Share didn't write that paragraph, I did.

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

 On 5/16/2014 4:00 PM, Share Long sharelong60@... mailto:sharelong60@... 
[FairfieldLife] 
 wrote:
 C: > I challenge his fundamental assumption that "knowledge is structured 
 > in consciousness." This is epistemological bogus and psychologically 
 > manipulative.
 >
 R: You've totally lost me on this one. It is a standard Vedanta and 
 Vajrayana theory first put forth by Asanga - that consciousness is the 
 ultimate reality. Apparently they don't teach Hindu Vedanta or Buddhist 
 Vajrayana philosophy at MUM. Go figure.

C:So extend the bogusness to include them. I am aware of what Maharishi was 
presenting historically too.

 "Duality is only an appearance; non-duality is the real truth. The 
 object exists as an object for the knowing subject; but it does not 
 exist outside of consciousness because the distinction of subject and 
 object is within consciousness." (IV 25-27) Sharma, p. 245-246.

C: This is an assumptive phase that reminds me a bit of Locke's views. 

 R: According to Sam Harris, to say that consciousness may only seem to 
 exist is to admit its existence in full—for if things seem any way at 
 all, that is consciousness. Consciousness is the one thing in this 
 universe that

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

"He made it very clear on the first 6 month course that his model was just that 
and then proceeded to try to convince everyone they were already in Brahmin 
Consciousness like those Advaita dudes do!"

Now that is very very interesting to me - he really said that, that the CC, GC, 
UC stuff was just a model, as in just a way of talking about awareness, not the 
definitive definition of human enlightenment???

On Fri, 5/16/14, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
 wrote:

 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Friday, May 16, 2014, 9:54 PM
 
 
  
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
   
   
   
 ---In
 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
  wrote :
 
 "Neither
  one of you is established in being" It's that
 phrase again. Language is
  a big problem here. If I was to say I have an experience
 caused by my 
 brain having learnt over time to experience a separation of
 my thoughts 
 and the way the conscious substrate of qualia visualises 3
 dimensional 
 space, everyone would say so what? But couch the perception
 in "holy" 
 nomenclature and everyone goes: Wow! are you really
 enlightened?
 
 C: Great
 point. This is a big issue I have with how language is being
 used to describe internal experience. It is so imprecise.
 
 
 A: You
  don't have to have experienced what you call cosmic
 consciousness for 
 very long (or indeed at all) to know that Jim's claim
 that you need to 
 have done to have an opinion of it is in error. The model of
 
 consciousness as an unfolding of/from some sort of unified
 field via 
 seven stages is a description of a change in awareness but
 that doesn't 
 mean this poor analogy of Marshy's is in any way an
 accurate description
  of how our brains work and integrate with the world.
 
 C: I believe the CC state was
 an aberration more closely associated with dissociation and
 with the same problems. He made it very clear on the first 6
 month course that his model was just that and then proceeded
 to try to convince everyone they were already in Brahmin
 Consciousness like those Advaita dudes do! 
 
 A:
 Consciousness isn't the unified field, but it seems like it is when you
 are in that state - I have been there before you write in
 and complain - It's a trick of the mind. 
 
 C: There are so many states
 that feel like so many things. It seems to me that we are a
 long way off from having any justification to just buy into
 the traditional view of it all. There were so wrong about so
 much else we can prove today why would we take their word on
 ultimate reality? And it isn't that they just didn't
 now about how conception shapes perception they consciously
 used it  for their religious agenda.
 
 Thanks for extending the rap in a sane
 direction. I hope I didn't butcher your meaning too much
 in my response.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ---In
 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 wrote :
 
 
 ---In
 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
  wrote :
 
 Curtis
 writes:"The problem was
 that I don't think he [Maharishi] is right about human
 consciousness."  My
 only question is: How do you know Maharishi is wrong, if you
 have not completed the first step in his model of human
 conciousness, Cosmic Consciousness?
 
 
 J: I have never
 come across a more close-minded and idiotic
 perspective on TM. Neither one of you is established
 in Being, and yet you say, without having experienced it,
 and without knowing the first thing about Maharishi's
 model of consciousness, that you deny
 it. 
 "Neither one of you is established in
 being" It's that phrase again. Language is a big
 problem here. If I was to say I have an experience caused by
 my brain having learnt over time to experience a separation
 of my thoughts and the way the conscious substrate of qualia
 visualises 3 dimensional space, everyone would say so what?
 But couch the perception in "holy" nomenclature
 and everyone goes: Wow! are you really
 enlightened?
 You
 don't have to have experienced what you call cosmic
 consciousness for very long (or indeed at all) to know that
 Jim's claim that you need to have done to have an
 opinion of it is in error. The model of consciousness as an
 unfolding of/from some sort of unified field via seven
 stages is a description of a change in awareness but that
 doesn't mean this poor analogy of Marshy's is in any
 way an accurate description of how our brains work and
 integrate with the
 world.
 Consciousness isn't the unified field, but it
 seems like it is
 when you are in that state - I have been there before you
 write in and complain - It's a trick of the
 mind. 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 #yiv6760653152 #yiv6760653152 --
   #yiv6760653152ygrp-mkp {
 border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px
 0;padding:0 10px;}
 
 #yiv6760653152 #yiv6760653152ygrp-mkp hr {
 border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}
 
 #yiv6760653152 #yiv6760653152ygrp-mkp #yiv6760653152hd {

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

it is an excellent mahavakya, but too much to not disassemble. The key is the 
identity. The more bound the identity, the less consciousness there is between 
the mind and the unified field  (not sure what you mean here, by unified field, 
but infinite correlation will do). So, as the identity expands, through Unity 
and beyond, the mind has many more resources available to it, and syncs up with 
the unified field, much more easily - more data points, easier to stay on 
track. The freedom is not only in the number of available choices, but also 
understanding the relative value of each. Hope that helps.
 

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

 salyavin, what do you think is the relationship between the mind and the 
unified field? This is what I'm pondering about the last couple of months. 

 On Friday, May 16, 2014 3:52 PM, salyavin808  wrote:
 
 

   

 

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

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

 Curtis writes: "The problem was that I don't think he [Maharishi] is right 
about human consciousness." 
  
 My only question is: How do you know Maharishi is wrong, if you have not 
completed the first step in his model of human conciousness, Cosmic 
Consciousness?

 

 

 J: I have never come across a more close-minded and idiotic perspective on TM. 
Neither one of you is established in Being, and yet you say, without having 
experienced it, and without knowing the first thing about Maharishi's model of 
consciousness, that you deny it. 
 

 "Neither one of you is established in being" It's that phrase again. Language 
is a big problem here. If I was to say I have an experience caused by my brain 
having learnt over time to experience a separation of my thoughts and the way 
the conscious substrate of qualia visualises 3 dimensional space, everyone 
would say so what? But couch the perception in "holy" nomenclature and everyone 
goes: Wow! are you really enlightened?
 

 You don't have to have experienced what you call cosmic consciousness for very 
long (or indeed at all) to know that Jim's claim that you need to have done to 
have an opinion of it is in error. The model of consciousness as an unfolding 
of/from some sort of unified field via seven stages is a description of a 
change in awareness but that doesn't mean this poor analogy of Marshy's is in 
any way an accurate description of how our brains work and integrate with the 
world.
 

 Consciousness isn't the unified field, but it seems like it is when you are in 
that state - I have been there before you write in and complain - It's a trick 
of the mind. 
 

 

 

 

 

 






 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

How do you feel it is a trick of the mind?

On Fri, 5/16/14, salyavin808  wrote:

 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Friday, May 16, 2014, 8:52 PM
 
 
  
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
   
   
   
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
  wrote :
 
 
 ---In
 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
  wrote :
 
 Curtis
 writes:"The problem was
 that I don't think he [Maharishi] is right about human
 consciousness."  My
 only question is: How do you know Maharishi is wrong, if you
 have not completed the first step in his model of human
 conciousness, Cosmic Consciousness?
 
 
 J: I have never
 come across a more close-minded and idiotic
 perspective on TM. Neither one of you is established
 in Being, and yet you say, without having experienced it,
 and without knowing the first thing about Maharishi's
 model of consciousness, that you deny
 it. 
 "Neither one of you is established in
 being" It's that phrase again. Language is a big
 problem here. If I was to say I have an experience caused by
 my brain having learnt over time to experience a separation
 of my thoughts and the way the conscious substrate of qualia
 visualises 3 dimensional space, everyone would say so what?
 But couch the perception in "holy" nomenclature
 and everyone goes: Wow! are you really
 enlightened?
 You
 don't have to have experienced what you call cosmic
 consciousness for very long (or indeed at all) to know that
 Jim's claim that you need to have done to have an
 opinion of it is in error. The model of consciousness as an
 unfolding of/from some sort of unified field via seven
 stages is a description of a change in awareness but that
 doesn't mean this poor analogy of Marshy's is in any
 way an accurate description of how our brains work and
 integrate with the
 world.
 Consciousness isn't the unified field, but it
 seems like it is
 when you are in that state - I have been there before you
 write in and complain - It's a trick of the
 mind. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 #yiv0212728581 #yiv0212728581 --
   #yiv0212728581ygrp-mkp {
 border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px
 0;padding:0 10px;}
 
 #yiv0212728581 #yiv0212728581ygrp-mkp hr {
 border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}
 
 #yiv0212728581 #yiv0212728581ygrp-mkp #yiv0212728581hd {
 color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
 0;}
 
 #yiv0212728581 #yiv0212728581ygrp-mkp #yiv0212728581ads {
 margin-bottom:10px;}
 
 #yiv0212728581 #yiv0212728581ygrp-mkp .yiv0212728581ad {
 padding:0 0;}
 
 #yiv0212728581 #yiv0212728581ygrp-mkp .yiv0212728581ad p {
 margin:0;}
 
 #yiv0212728581 #yiv0212728581ygrp-mkp .yiv0212728581ad a {
 color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}
 #yiv0212728581 #yiv0212728581ygrp-sponsor
 #yiv0212728581ygrp-lc {
 font-family:Arial;}
 
 #yiv0212728581 #yiv0212728581ygrp-sponsor
 #yiv0212728581ygrp-lc #yiv0212728581hd {
 margin:10px
 0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}
 
 #yiv0212728581 #yiv0212728581ygrp-sponsor
 #yiv0212728581ygrp-lc .yiv0212728581ad {
 margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}
 
 #yiv0212728581 #yiv0212728581actions {
 font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}
 
 #yiv0212728581 #yiv0212728581activity {
 
background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}
 
 #yiv0212728581 #yiv0212728581activity span {
 font-weight:700;}
 
 #yiv0212728581 #yiv0212728581activity span:first-child {
 text-transform:uppercase;}
 
 #yiv0212728581 #yiv0212728581activity span a {
 color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}
 
 #yiv0212728581 #yiv0212728581activity span span {
 color:#ff7900;}
 
 #yiv0212728581 #yiv0212728581activity span
 .yiv0212728581underline {
 text-decoration:underline;}
 
 #yiv0212728581 .yiv0212728581attach {
 clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
 0;width:400px;}
 
 #yiv0212728581 .yiv0212728581attach div a {
 text-decoration:none;}
 
 #yiv0212728581 .yiv0212728581attach img {
 border:none;padding-right:5px;}
 
 #yiv0212728581 .yiv0212728581attach label {
 display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}
 
 #yiv0212728581 .yiv0212728581attach label a {
 text-decoration:none;}
 
 #yiv0212728581 blockquote {
 margin:0 0 0 4px;}
 
 #yiv0212728581 .yiv0212728581bold {
 font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}
 
 #yiv0212728581 .yiv0212728581bold a {
 text-decoration:none;}
 
 #yiv0212728581 dd.yiv0212728581last p a {
 font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}
 
 #yiv0212728581 dd.yiv0212728581last p span {
 margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}
 
 #yiv0212728581 dd.yiv0212728581last p
 span.yiv0212728581yshortcuts {
 margin-right:0;}
 
 #yiv0212728581 div.yiv0212728581attach-table div div a {
 text-decoration:none;}
 
 #yiv0212728581 div.yiv0212728581attach-table {
 width:400px;}
 
 #yiv0212728581 div.yiv0212728581file-title a, #yiv0212728581
 div.yiv0212728581file-title a:active, #yiv021272858

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

So...we can forget about you addressing this issue, directly; your failure to 
experience what Maharishi attempted to teach you, and have you teach others. It 
doesn't bode well for you, dude. You continue your evasive moves, trying to 
somehow make this about me. 

 But, it isn't about me. It is about a couple of ex-TM teachers, overreaching 
their knowledge, and stating their opinions, for which they have no substance. 
That is it. Very simply.
 

 At least the other guy was willing, all too willing, to admit the extent of 
his "enlightenment" -- two weeks of witnessing, a lng time ago. 
 

 Put up, or shut up, Curtis. As your cohort would say, "I'll wait".
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

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

 So, let's get this straight. You are not enlightened, are not established in 
Being, and therefore have not the slightest idea of what Maharishi was 
ultimately trying to accomplish. 

c: I have a very clear idea of what he was trying to accomplish. Far better 
than your delusional relationship with his buzz words.
 

 J: You, and that other ex-TM teacher, like to pick at the loose threads, while 
ignoring the blatant fact, that you guys were washouts, in terms of succeeding 
at that which you taught, and were taught.
 

 You can say it is a problem with subjective interpretation, pre-scientific 
thought, and erroneous assumptions about consciousness, but the one thing you 
and tweedle dee cannot say, is simply, that you know what you are talking 
about, not having achieved the permanent state of consciousness, that Maharishi 
constantly referred to.

C: Jim, your assumptions about yourself are fraudulent and have zero traction 
for your goal with me. Nothing you say here has any relevance to me.I know you 
think you have found some kind of tool to make yourself feel superior and 
important, but it is backfiring badly. Trying to use bombast to get at what I 
experienced with Maharishi's programs is not going to work. You are acting like 
a dick Jim. 
 
 J: If you would just admit this, Curtis, for you and Barry, both, you wouldn't 
have to spend so much time running down rabbit holes, and darting off to the 
side, constantly. Once you admit it - Barry already has - you are scot-free, 
off to the races, no problem. 

C: Whatever power you are attempting to exert over me here is just showing you 
for what you are. The whole "when did you stop beating your wife" routine is 
transparent. Are you really too dim to understand this?

 

 J:But continuing to spew forth on all things Maharishi and enlightenment, when 
you were clearly a failure,  really shouldn't be tolerated on a forum like this.

C: Shouldn't be tolerated? Who exactly do you think you are?  





 

 

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

 
 Your attributes are wrong. Share didn't write that paragraph, I did.

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

 On 5/16/2014 4:00 PM, Share Long sharelong60@... mailto:sharelong60@... 
[FairfieldLife] 
 wrote:
 C: > I challenge his fundamental assumption that "knowledge is structured 
 > in consciousness." This is epistemological bogus and psychologically 
 > manipulative.
 >
 R: You've totally lost me on this one. It is a standard Vedanta and 
 Vajrayana theory first put forth by Asanga - that consciousness is the 
 ultimate reality. Apparently they don't teach Hindu Vedanta or Buddhist 
 Vajrayana philosophy at MUM. Go figure.

C:So extend the bogusness to include them. I am aware of what Maharishi was 
presenting historically too.

 "Duality is only an appearance; non-duality is the real truth. The 
 object exists as an object for the knowing subject; but it does not 
 exist outside of consciousness because the distinction of subject and 
 object is within consciousness." (IV 25-27) Sharma, p. 245-246.

C: This is an assumptive phase that reminds me a bit of Locke's views. 

 R: According to Sam Harris, to say that consciousness may only seem to 
 exist is to admit its existence in full—for if things seem any way at 
 all, that is consciousness. Consciousness is the one thing in this 
 universe that cannot be an illusion.

C: I would have to read that in context but I can assure you , he doesn't use 
this term in the same way the ancient Indians did. Our sense of our 
consciousness is fraught with all sorts of illusions and may even be a by 
product itself of a brain that evolved by necessity rather than intelligent 
design.Some parts communicate with other parts at a different pace and this may 
be the cause of our sense of consciousness. It is quite a mystery and I just 
don't accept that the ancients had it all figured out. or the moderns for that 
matter!


 
 ---
 This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus 
protection is active.
 http://www.avast.com http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

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

 So, let's get this straight. You are not enlightened, are not established in 
Being, and therefore have not the slightest idea of what Maharishi was 
ultimately trying to accomplish. 

c: I have a very clear idea of what he was trying to accomplish. Far better 
than your delusional relationship with his buzz words.
 

 J: You, and that other ex-TM teacher, like to pick at the loose threads, while 
ignoring the blatant fact, that you guys were washouts, in terms of succeeding 
at that which you taught, and were taught.
 

 You can say it is a problem with subjective interpretation, pre-scientific 
thought, and erroneous assumptions about consciousness, but the one thing you 
and tweedle dee cannot say, is simply, that you know what you are talking 
about, not having achieved the permanent state of consciousness, that Maharishi 
constantly referred to.

C: Jim, your assumptions about yourself are fraudulent and have zero traction 
for your goal with me. Nothing you say here has any relevance to me.I know you 
think you have found some kind of tool to make yourself feel superior and 
important, but it is backfiring badly. Trying to use bombast to get at what I 
experienced with Maharishi's programs is not going to work. You are acting like 
a dick Jim. 
 
 J: If you would just admit this, Curtis, for you and Barry, both, you wouldn't 
have to spend so much time running down rabbit holes, and darting off to the 
side, constantly. Once you admit it - Barry already has - you are scot-free, 
off to the races, no problem. 

C: Whatever power you are attempting to exert over me here is just showing you 
for what you are. The whole "when did you stop beating your wife" routine is 
transparent. Are you really too dim to understand this?

 

 J:But continuing to spew forth on all things Maharishi and enlightenment, when 
you were clearly a failure,  really shouldn't be tolerated on a forum like this.

C: Shouldn't be tolerated? Who exactly do you think you are?  





 

 

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

 
 Your attributes are wrong. Share didn't write that paragraph, I did.

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

 On 5/16/2014 4:00 PM, Share Long sharelong60@... mailto:sharelong60@... 
[FairfieldLife] 
 wrote:
 C: > I challenge his fundamental assumption that "knowledge is structured 
 > in consciousness." This is epistemological bogus and psychologically 
 > manipulative.
 >
 R: You've totally lost me on this one. It is a standard Vedanta and 
 Vajrayana theory first put forth by Asanga - that consciousness is the 
 ultimate reality. Apparently they don't teach Hindu Vedanta or Buddhist 
 Vajrayana philosophy at MUM. Go figure.

C:So extend the bogusness to include them. I am aware of what Maharishi was 
presenting historically too.

 "Duality is only an appearance; non-duality is the real truth. The 
 object exists as an object for the knowing subject; but it does not 
 exist outside of consciousness because the distinction of subject and 
 object is within consciousness." (IV 25-27) Sharma, p. 245-246.

C: This is an assumptive phase that reminds me a bit of Locke's views. 

 R: According to Sam Harris, to say that consciousness may only seem to 
 exist is to admit its existence in full—for if things seem any way at 
 all, that is consciousness. Consciousness is the one thing in this 
 universe that cannot be an illusion.

C: I would have to read that in context but I can assure you , he doesn't use 
this term in the same way the ancient Indians did. Our sense of our 
consciousness is fraught with all sorts of illusions and may even be a by 
product itself of a brain that evolved by necessity rather than intelligent 
design.Some parts communicate with other parts at a different pace and this may 
be the cause of our sense of consciousness. It is quite a mystery and I just 
don't accept that the ancients had it all figured out. or the moderns for that 
matter!


 
 ---
 This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus 
protection is active.
 http://www.avast.com http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

I am not a fan of Wilber.. I only read on of his books I think it was that one. 
I believe he is an example of using physics poetry to make it seem as if we are 
having a meaningful discussion about things we are not in a position to 
meaningfully understand or discuss. He reminds me of Maharishi that way 
although I believe he is probably more sincere about the physics connections 
and believes his own rap. I do not believe that proof by analogy is useful 
especially in non sensory realms. I get the limits of reductionism. The bigger 
problem is that we don't have an intuitive basis to discuss what goes on in 
subsensory areas like consciousness or at the field levels of matter.. 

But for me the first step would be to toss out all the assumptive pseudoscience 
drivel spouted by people who don't have the math background necessary to 
discuss these concepts meaningfully.

But wait, Hagelin DOES have the math! Shit, I don't know.  
 

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

 On 5/16/2014 3:45 PM, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
 > High exposure leads to an erosion of the ability to distinguish 
 > internal and external experiences. 
 Where else but in our consciousness would knowledge be structured?
 
 According to Ken Wilber, consciousness is the having of perceptions, 
 thoughts, and feelings; awareness. Scientists want to find an activity 
 that has a neural correlate that is part of the brain or some kind of 
 global pattern of brain activity. If found, there should be a predictive 
 of conscious awareness and would be demonstrated with brain imaging 
 techniques, such as EEG and fMRI.
 
 For TMers the most thorough account of the spiritual approach may be 
 Wilber's book The Spectrum of Consciousness. Wilber compares western and 
 eastern ways of thinking about the mind and consciousness. According to 
 Wilber, consciousness is a spectrum. Ordinary awareness is at one end, 
 and more profound types of awareness are found at higher levels.
 
 Work cited:
 
 'The Spectrum of Consciousness'
 by Ken Wilber
 pp. 3–16
 
 ---
 This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus 
protection is active.
 http://www.avast.com http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

So, let's get this straight. You are not enlightened, are not established in 
Being, and therefore have not the slightest idea of what Maharishi was 
ultimately trying to accomplish.  

 You, and that other ex-TM teacher, like to pick at the loose threads, while 
ignoring the blatant fact, that you guys were washouts, in terms of succeeding 
at that which you taught, and were taught.
 

 You can say it is a problem with subjective interpretation, pre-scientific 
thought, and erroneous assumptions about consciousness, but the one thing you 
and tweedle dee cannot say, is simply, that you know what you are talking 
about, not having achieved the permanent state of consciousness, that Maharishi 
constantly referred to.
 
 If you would just admit this, Curtis, for you and Barry, both, you wouldn't 
have to spend so much time running down rabbit holes, and darting off to the 
side, constantly. Once you admit it - Barry already has - you are scot-free, 
off to the races, no problem. 
 

 But continuing to spew forth on all things Maharishi and enlightenment, when 
you were clearly a failure,  really shouldn't be tolerated on a forum like this.
 

 

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

 
 Your attributes are wrong. Share didn't write that paragraph, I did.

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

 On 5/16/2014 4:00 PM, Share Long sharelong60@... mailto:sharelong60@... 
[FairfieldLife] 
 wrote:
 C: > I challenge his fundamental assumption that "knowledge is structured 
 > in consciousness." This is epistemological bogus and psychologically 
 > manipulative.
 >
 R: You've totally lost me on this one. It is a standard Vedanta and 
 Vajrayana theory first put forth by Asanga - that consciousness is the 
 ultimate reality. Apparently they don't teach Hindu Vedanta or Buddhist 
 Vajrayana philosophy at MUM. Go figure.

C:So extend the bogusness to include them. I am aware of what Maharishi was 
presenting historically too.

 "Duality is only an appearance; non-duality is the real truth. The 
 object exists as an object for the knowing subject; but it does not 
 exist outside of consciousness because the distinction of subject and 
 object is within consciousness." (IV 25-27) Sharma, p. 245-246.

C: This is an assumptive phase that reminds me a bit of Locke's views. 

 R: According to Sam Harris, to say that consciousness may only seem to 
 exist is to admit its existence in full—for if things seem any way at 
 all, that is consciousness. Consciousness is the one thing in this 
 universe that cannot be an illusion.

C: I would have to read that in context but I can assure you , he doesn't use 
this term in the same way the ancient Indians did. Our sense of our 
consciousness is fraught with all sorts of illusions and may even be a by 
product itself of a brain that evolved by necessity rather than intelligent 
design.Some parts communicate with other parts at a different pace and this may 
be the cause of our sense of consciousness. It is quite a mystery and I just 
don't accept that the ancients had it all figured out. or the moderns for that 
matter!


 
 ---
 This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus 
protection is active.
 http://www.avast.com http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 5/16/2014 3:45 PM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
> High exposure leads to an erosion of the ability to distinguish 
> internal and external experiences. 
Where else but in our consciousness would knowledge be structured?

According to Ken Wilber, consciousness is the having of perceptions, 
thoughts, and feelings; awareness. Scientists want to find an activity 
that has a neural correlate that is part of the brain or some kind of 
global pattern of brain activity. If found, there should be a predictive 
of conscious awareness and would be demonstrated with brain imaging 
techniques, such as EEG and fMRI.

For TMers the most thorough account of the spiritual approach may be 
Wilber's book The Spectrum of Consciousness. Wilber compares western and 
eastern ways of thinking about the mind and consciousness. According to 
Wilber, consciousness is a spectrum. Ordinary awareness is at one end, 
and more profound types of awareness are found at higher levels.

Work cited:

'The Spectrum of Consciousness'
by Ken Wilber
pp. 3–16

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

[FairfieldLife] the deer this morning

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

I mentioned them earlier:
 

 a closer look
 https://app.box.com/s/0toaopzloex24swoxn8r 
https://app.box.com/s/0toaopzloex24swoxn8r

 

 deer eating clover
 https://app.box.com/s/phi5lwcj1eh54ibtjfxn 
https://app.box.com/s/phi5lwcj1eh54ibtjfxn

 

 listening
 https://app.box.com/s/cqgmqumz48j5zmdxbvzp 
https://app.box.com/s/cqgmqumz48j5zmdxbvzp

 

 three deer in the meadow
 https://app.box.com/s/xh8zgj2ojmaqo055fq4l 
https://app.box.com/s/xh8zgj2ojmaqo055fq4l

 

 two deer and a squirrel
 https://app.box.com/s/bzqegcr1yezvcf3kx9qg 
https://app.box.com/s/bzqegcr1yezvcf3kx9qg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 Your attributes are wrong. Share didn't write that paragraph, I did.

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

 On 5/16/2014 4:00 PM, Share Long sharelong60@... mailto:sharelong60@... 
[FairfieldLife] 
 wrote:
 C: > I challenge his fundamental assumption that "knowledge is structured 
 > in consciousness." This is epistemological bogus and psychologically 
 > manipulative.
 >
 R: You've totally lost me on this one. It is a standard Vedanta and 
 Vajrayana theory first put forth by Asanga - that consciousness is the 
 ultimate reality. Apparently they don't teach Hindu Vedanta or Buddhist 
 Vajrayana philosophy at MUM. Go figure.

C:So extend the bogusness to include them. I am aware of what Maharishi was 
presenting historically too.

 "Duality is only an appearance; non-duality is the real truth. The 
 object exists as an object for the knowing subject; but it does not 
 exist outside of consciousness because the distinction of subject and 
 object is within consciousness." (IV 25-27) Sharma, p. 245-246.

C: This is an assumptive phase that reminds me a bit of Locke's views. 

 R: According to Sam Harris, to say that consciousness may only seem to 
 exist is to admit its existence in full—for if things seem any way at 
 all, that is consciousness. Consciousness is the one thing in this 
 universe that cannot be an illusion.

C: I would have to read that in context but I can assure you , he doesn't use 
this term in the same way the ancient Indians did. Our sense of our 
consciousness is fraught with all sorts of illusions and may even be a by 
product itself of a brain that evolved by necessity rather than intelligent 
design.Some parts communicate with other parts at a different pace and this may 
be the cause of our sense of consciousness. It is quite a mystery and I just 
don't accept that the ancients had it all figured out. or the moderns for that 
matter!


 
 ---
 This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus 
protection is active.
 http://www.avast.com http://www.avast.com

[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Ginger Baker and black coffee have in common?

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Excellent! It is good that such things have survived all the tech.
 

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

 Yes, I have. Another is 'penin-kulma', originally probably 'penin-kuulema', 10 
kilometres, a distance a dog's (peni) barking can still be heard (kuulla) from??

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

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

 "Neither one of you is established in being" It's that phrase again. Language 
is a big problem here. If I was to say I have an experience caused by my brain 
having learnt over time to experience a separation of my thoughts and the way 
the conscious substrate of qualia visualises 3 dimensional space, everyone 
would say so what? But couch the perception in "holy" nomenclature and everyone 
goes: Wow! are you really enlightened?

C: Great point. This is a big issue I have with how language is being used to 
describe internal experience. It is so imprecise. 

 

 A: You don't have to have experienced what you call cosmic consciousness for 
very long (or indeed at all) to know that Jim's claim that you need to have 
done to have an opinion of it is in error. The model of consciousness as an 
unfolding of/from some sort of unified field via seven stages is a description 
of a change in awareness but that doesn't mean this poor analogy of Marshy's is 
in any way an accurate description of how our brains work and integrate with 
the world.

C: I believe the CC state was an aberration more closely associated with 
dissociation and with the same problems. He made it very clear on the first 6 
month course that his model was just that and then proceeded to try to convince 
everyone they were already in Brahmin Consciousness like those Advaita dudes 
do! 

 

 A: Consciousness isn't the unified field, but it seems like it is when you are 
in that state - I have been there before you write in and complain - It's a 
trick of the mind. 

C: There are so many states that feel like so many things. It seems to me that 
we are a long way off from having any justification to just buy into the 
traditional view of it all. There were so wrong about so much else we can prove 
today why would we take their word on ultimate reality? And it isn't that they 
just didn't now about how conception shapes perception they consciously used it 
 for their religious agenda.

Thanks for extending the rap in a sane direction. I hope I didn't butcher your 
meaning too much in my response.








 
 

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

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

 Curtis writes: "The problem was that I don't think he [Maharishi] is right 
about human consciousness." 
  
 My only question is: How do you know Maharishi is wrong, if you have not 
completed the first step in his model of human conciousness, Cosmic 
Consciousness?

 

 

 J: I have never come across a more close-minded and idiotic perspective on TM. 
Neither one of you is established in Being, and yet you say, without having 
experienced it, and without knowing the first thing about Maharishi's model of 
consciousness, that you deny it. 
 

 "Neither one of you is established in being" It's that phrase again. Language 
is a big problem here. If I was to say I have an experience caused by my brain 
having learnt over time to experience a separation of my thoughts and the way 
the conscious substrate of qualia visualises 3 dimensional space, everyone 
would say so what? But couch the perception in "holy" nomenclature and everyone 
goes: Wow! are you really enlightened?
 

 You don't have to have experienced what you call cosmic consciousness for very 
long (or indeed at all) to know that Jim's claim that you need to have done to 
have an opinion of it is in error. The model of consciousness as an unfolding 
of/from some sort of unified field via seven stages is a description of a 
change in awareness but that doesn't mean this poor analogy of Marshy's is in 
any way an accurate description of how our brains work and integrate with the 
world.
 

 Consciousness isn't the unified field, but it seems like it is when you are in 
that state - I have been there before you write in and complain - It's a trick 
of the mind. 
 

 

 

 

 

 







  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 5/16/2014 4:00 PM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:
> I challenge his fundamental assumption that  "knowledge is structured 
> in consciousness." This is epistemological bogus and psychologically 
> manipulative.
 >
You've totally lost me on this one. It is a standard Vedanta and 
Vajrayana theory first put forth by Asanga - that consciousness is the 
ultimate reality. Apparently they don't teach Hindu Vedanta or Buddhist 
Vajrayana philosophy at MUM. Go figure.

"Duality is only an appearance; non-duality is the real truth. The 
object exists as an object for the knowing subject; but it does not 
exist outside of consciousness because the distinction of subject and 
object is within consciousness." (IV 25-27) Sharma, p. 245-246.

According to Sam Harris, to say that consciousness may only seem to 
exist is to admit its existence in full—for if things seem any way at 
all, that is consciousness. Consciousness is the one thing in this 
universe that cannot be an illusion.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

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

 

C: Thanks for asking Share. You will get more than a nutshell because this is a 
rich topic. The first fundamental problem for me is that he was shaping our 
view of our experiences from his techniques from a religious perspective 
created in a pre-scientific society. He made many unwarranted assumptions about 
the value of his techniques or what he was doing to our brains. Although they 
are highly addictive and pleasurable states of mind, I see no evidence that 
they improve anyone's thinking or creative processes. I see evidence of the 
opposite at least at higher levels of exposure. High exposure leads to an 
erosion of the ability to distinguish internal and external experiences. This 
causes a lot of problems that show up in claims here. 

 

 S: Curtis, by internal experience do you mean thoughts, feelings, dreams? And 
by external do you mean behaviors, observable events?

C: I am including all internal experiences. The leaking of dream state 
experiences into waking state seems to be a problem for some people. 

 

 I challenge his fundamental assumption that  "knowledge is structured in 
consciousness." This is epistemological bogus and psychologically manipulative. 
It comes from  a non modern view of what knowledge is that had its birth in a 
caste system controlled culture. If you see what Jim is attempting to assume 
here by virtue of his self reported grandiose claims of experiences you can see 
where this belief leads socially. It has been rejected by all modern societies 
for good reason.
 

 S: KISIC is rooted in the caste system?!

C: The whole teaching is rooted in the caste system, read your Gita!
Yes the idea that knowledge is structured in consciousness is fundamental to 
the rationalization of castes in Maharishi's system. Maharishi was proud of 
Guru Devs role as supporter of the caste system, they were both anti Gandhi.


 

 Because of Maharishi's religiously motivated agenda, he was unable to combine 
more modern theories of the mind with his POV to expand it. He was unwilling to 
be humble about the limits of his knowledge and instead presented himself and 
his teacher as more than human with the appropriate humility concerning the 
human condition. He used science as marketing like a charlatan with zero 
respect for its methods. Over time this killed what could have been a much more 
interesting endeavor. He was a superstitious man and had the intellectual 
failing of hubris which clouded his judgement and turned a fascinatingly bright 
man into a caricature of himself. He became fat Elvis.

I also challenge his assumption about the silent state of meditation as either 
being our "true Self" or having any trans-personal implications about how the 
world works. The sidhis were supposed to be the proof of his trans-personal 
claims about the "absolute" but that test failed by his own created standards 
and criteria. So we are now left with people feeling different subjective 
things in the sidhis that cannot be tested and studied as well as grandiose 
claims about its affects on the world. I respect that Maharishi set up a 
legitimate test of his theories, but I do not respect that neither he nor his 
organization acknowledged the falsification of his theory by the lack of siddhi 
performance. He failed with his own clearly stated and self created test. 

That is just off the top of my head. But that is ten minutes worth and I hope 
you enjoy it.
 

 S: Thanks, Curtis. What have you come to think about consciousness and the 
nature of reality? I'm currently thinking a lot about what I've come to call 
the field. I know others use this terminology. I've adopted it because it feels 
right to me. Do you think there is a field that underlies and give rise to all 
of creation?

C: I lack the kind of intellectual tools that would make a discussion about 
what underlies creation meaningful. It is too far from our sensory intuition 
for us to be any good at this. So I don't really have any theories about what 
might underlie creation, the creation itself seems vast enough for me to focus 
on in my life.  I find Maharishi's mishmash of physics word poetry vapid these 
days. It can all be replaced with "then magic happened" and the meaning remains 
unchanged. 
If you can do better more power to you!



 On Friday, May 16, 2014 3:45 PM, "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 wrote:
 
 

   

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

 Curtis, can you say in a nutshell what about consciousness you think Maharishi 
got wrong?

C: Thanks for asking Share. You will get more than a nutshell because this is a 
rich topic. The first fundamental problem for me is that he was shaping our 
view of our experiences from his techniques from a religious perspective 
created in a pre-scientific society. He made many unwarranted assumptions about 
the value of his techniques or what he was doing to our brains. Although they 
are highly addictive a

[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Ginger Baker and black coffee have in common?

[cardemais...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Yes, I have. Another is 'penin-kulma', originally probably 'penin-kuulema', 10 
kilometres, a distance a dog's (peni) barking can still be heard (kuulla) from??

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

I had a fairly clear experience of being some years before I learned TM, while 
that clarity then did not last, it did leave a strong sense of how to proceed 
with a 'spiritual' life, as I had no religious nor spiritual inclinations until 
that experience. But the sense it left was that the 'spiritual' teacher, 
whatever you want to call him or her, is a conduit for certain kinds of 
information that is in essence not personal. As a result I never had any sense 
of devotion to the 'teacher' whoever they might be.  

 My focus was on the flow through the conduit or conduits (assuming one is 
getting similar information from similar sources). So the devotion to the 
master routine for me just beaded off like water on a duck. My problem was to 
distinguish useful information from flack and crap. I cannot say I always 
succeeded in doing this. I had a number of dead ends.
 

 I do recall that if you got too pointed with questions to professors at 
MIU/MUM, you would get some pushback rather than a reasoned argument, though it 
varied with the professor. I recall one professor being rather shocked when a 
student seriously questioned Maharishi's ideas, or would quickly pick another 
student, I suppose, in the hope of getting a more palatable 'right' answer. A 
conduit can deliver clear water, or sewage, or some combination thereof. The 
student needs to be taught how to make those distinctions, and by college 
level, certainly that ability should have a solid foundation. Devotion to the 
'master' can obscure as well as illuminate. Depends on the 'master' how much 
freedom the student has for interacting. It is especially difficult when the 
'master' is not around and one is dealing with stooges. An ideal teacher would 
train the student to equal or surpass him or her.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :
 The students who were able to maintain more intellectual integrity and 
challenged the system further got a big reaction from the admin. But they were 
teachers who didn't have TTC recommendations hanging over their heads. I was 
trained to be a company man early. I was also very young so it was not likely 
that I would have the confidence to challenge my professors. I am glad in some 
ways I didn't catch on then, my college life would have been hell instead of 
wonderful.

The key piece for me to put it together was from outside sources that I had not 
found or did not exist then. It was a bit of an intellectual rabbit warren to 
untangle and it all took time. Plus I had been worked over pretty good with the 
devotion to the master routine. I had a lot of phobias against thinking too far 
outside the box. When it came crashing down it was quite a shock.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Cafe Zen

[Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

turq, I love these 2 phrases: shakes her head with joy...brought to silence.


On Friday, May 16, 2014 8:03 AM, "TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife]"  wrote:
 


  
Sun on face, beer on table
Hotel California on the sound system
My kinda cafe Friday


While others on this forum demonstrate their spiritual advancement by trying to 
"get" those who disagree with them, you'll have to forgive me if I prefer to 
just sit in a sunny cafe and take in the scene. 

The first thing I notice is that no one in the cafe is arguing, or seems to 
feel they need to. No one is trying to sell anything, whether it be their 
belief in something, or their disbelief. No one is trying to demonstrate their 
superiority. In fact, most of them seem to be far more "in the moment" and 
actually *enjoying* the moment than any of the "spiritual elite" on FFL have 
been in years. Go figure. 


Across the cafe
young woman with waist-length red hair 
feels the sun on it and shakes her head with joy
and twenty people pause in mid-sentence 
brought to silence by the beauty of the lightdance

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

salyavin, what do you think is the relationship between the mind and the 
unified field? This is what I'm pondering about the last couple of months. 

On Friday, May 16, 2014 3:52 PM, salyavin808  wrote:
 


  




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




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


Curtis writes:
"The problem was that I don't think he [Maharishi] is right about human 
consciousness." 
 
My only question is: How do you know Maharishi is wrong, if you have not 
completed the first step in his model of human conciousness, Cosmic 
Consciousness?



J: I have never come across a more close-minded and idiotic perspective on TM. 
Neither one of you is established in Being, and yet you say, without having 
experienced it, and without knowing the first thing about Maharishi's model of 
consciousness, that you deny it. 

"Neither one of you is established in being" It's that phrase again. Language 
is a big problem here. If I was to say I have an experience caused by my brain 
having learnt over time to experience a separation of my thoughts and the way 
the conscious substrate of qualia visualises 3 dimensional space, everyone 
would say so what? But couch the perception in "holy" nomenclature and everyone 
goes: Wow! are you really enlightened?

You don't have to have experienced what you call cosmic consciousness for very 
long (or indeed at all) to know that Jim's claim that you need to have done to 
have an opinion of it is in error. The model of consciousness as an unfolding 
of/from some sort of unified field via seven stages is a description of a 
change in awareness but that doesn't mean this poor analogy of Marshy's is in 
any way an accurate description of how our brains work and integrate with the 
world.

Consciousness isn't the unified field, but it seems like it is when you are in 
that state - I have been there before you write in and complain - It's a trick 
of the mind. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

C: Thanks 
for asking Share. You will get more than a nutshell because this is a 
rich topic. The first fundamental problem for me is that he was shaping 
our view of our experiences from his techniques from a religious 
perspective created in a pre-scientific society. He made many 
unwarranted assumptions about the value of his techniques or what he was
 doing to our brains. Although they are highly addictive and pleasurable
 states of mind, I see no evidence that they improve anyone's thinking 
or creative processes. I see evidence of the opposite at least at higher
 levels of exposure. High exposure leads to an erosion of the ability to
 distinguish internal and external experiences. This causes a lot of 
problems that show up in claims here. 


S: Curtis, by internal experience do you mean thoughts, feelings, dreams? And 
by external do you mean behaviors, observable events?


I challenge his fundamental assumption that  "knowledge is structured in 
consciousness." This is epistemological bogus and psychologically 
manipulative. It comes from  a non modern view of what knowledge is that had 
its birth in a caste system controlled culture. If you see what Jim is 
attempting to assume here by virtue of his self reported grandiose 
claims of experiences you can see where this belief leads socially. It 
has been rejected by all modern societies for good reason.

S: KISIC is rooted in the caste system?!


Because of Maharishi's religiously motivated agenda, he was unable to combine 
more modern theories of the mind with his POV to expand it. He was 
unwilling to be humble about the limits of his knowledge and instead 
presented himself and his teacher as more than human with the 
appropriate humility concerning the human condition. He used science as 
marketing like a charlatan with zero respect for its methods. Over time 
this killed what could have been a much more interesting endeavor. He 
was a superstitious man and had the intellectual failing of hubris which 
clouded his judgement and turned a fascinatingly bright man into a 
caricature of himself. He became fat Elvis.

I
 also challenge his assumption about the silent state of meditation as 
either being our "true Self" or having any trans-personal implications 
about how the world works. The sidhis were supposed to be the proof of 
his trans-personal claims about the "absolute" but that test failed by 
his own created standards and criteria. So we are now left with people 
feeling different subjective things in the sidhis that cannot be tested 
and studied as well as grandiose claims about its affects on the world. I
 respect that Maharishi set up a legitimate test of his theories, but I 
do not respect that neither he nor his organization acknowledged the 
falsification of his theory by the lack of siddhi performance. He failed
 with his own clearly stated and self created test. 

That is just off the top of my head. But that is ten minutes worth and I hope 
you enjoy it.

S: Thanks, Curtis. What have you come to think about consciousness and the 
nature of reality? I'm currently thinking a lot about what I've come to call 
the field. I know others use this terminology. I've adopted it because it feels 
right to me. Do you think there is a field that underlies and give rise to all 
of creation?

On Friday, May 16, 2014 3:45 PM, "curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 
 wrote:
 


  


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


Curtis, can you say in a nutshell what about consciousness you think Maharishi 
got wrong?

C: Thanks for asking Share. You will get more than a nutshell because this is a 
rich topic. The first fundamental problem for me is that he was shaping our 
view of our experiences from his techniques from a religious perspective 
created in a pre-scientific society. He made many unwarranted assumptions about 
the value of his techniques or what he was doing to our brains. Although they 
are highly addictive and pleasurable states of mind, I see no evidence that 
they improve anyone's thinking or creative processes. I see evidence of the 
opposite at least at higher levels of exposure. High exposure leads to an 
erosion of the ability to distinguish internal and external experiences. This 
causes a lot of problems that show up in claims here. 

I challenge his fundamental assumption that  "knowledge is structured in 
consciousness." This is epistemological bogus and psychologically manipulative. 
It comes from  a non modern view of what knowledge is that had its birth in a 
caste system controlled culture. If you see what Jim is attempting to assume 
here by virtue of his self reported grandiose claims of experiences you can see 
where this belief leads socially. It has been rejected by all modern societies 
for good reason.

Because of Maharishi's religiously motivated agenda, he was unable to combine 
more modern theories of the mind with his POV to expand it. He was unwilling to 
be humble about the limits of his knowle

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[salyavin808]

 

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

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

 Curtis writes: "The problem was that I don't think he [Maharishi] is right 
about human consciousness." 
  
 My only question is: How do you know Maharishi is wrong, if you have not 
completed the first step in his model of human conciousness, Cosmic 
Consciousness?

 

 

 J: I have never come across a more close-minded and idiotic perspective on TM. 
Neither one of you is established in Being, and yet you say, without having 
experienced it, and without knowing the first thing about Maharishi's model of 
consciousness, that you deny it. 
 

 "Neither one of you is established in being" It's that phrase again. Language 
is a big problem here. If I was to say I have an experience caused by my brain 
having learnt over time to experience a separation of my thoughts and the way 
the conscious substrate of qualia visualises 3 dimensional space, everyone 
would say so what? But couch the perception in "holy" nomenclature and everyone 
goes: Wow! are you really enlightened?
 

 You don't have to have experienced what you call cosmic consciousness for very 
long (or indeed at all) to know that Jim's claim that you need to have done to 
have an opinion of it is in error. The model of consciousness as an unfolding 
of/from some sort of unified field via seven stages is a description of a 
change in awareness but that doesn't mean this poor analogy of Marshy's is in 
any way an accurate description of how our brains work and integrate with the 
world.
 

 Consciousness isn't the unified field, but it seems like it is when you are in 
that state - I have been there before you write in and complain - It's a trick 
of the mind. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

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

 Oh, Curtis, no need to play COY - It is clear you do not witness 24x7, are not 
established in Being,

C: Glad you settled that Jim. Do tell.

J:  and have no clue what it was you were supposed to be teaching others to 
accomplish, during your daze as a TM-teacher. 

C: Glad you settled that Jim. Do tell.
 

 j: Quit the smoke-screen. You and the other phony "enlightened" ex-TM teacher 
on here, can wander and wonder about TM, and enlightenment, all you want. 
However, until you have a clue, please keep it to yourselves.

C: Glad you settled that Jim. Do tell.

 

 J: Thanks - Peace, and out -

C: I call bullshit on that. Let's see who is right.
 

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

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

 Curtis writes: "The problem was that I don't think he [Maharishi] is right 
about human consciousness." 
  
 I am willing to bet a jelly donut, that the other mouthy ex-TM teacher on FFL, 
agrees with you, here.
 

 My only question is: How do you know Maharishi is wrong, if you have not 
completed the first step in his model of human conciousness, Cosmic 
Consciousness?

C: You have no idea what I have experienced or what I am experiencing Jim. You 
are caught in his intellectual model. I do not see the states achieved in his 
programs as a positive thing. You are a perfect example of the downsides. The 
inability to internally distinguish fact from fantasy. It comes across in all 
of your writing here. You also exhibit traits of lack of healthy intellectual 
and emotional boundaries. That is also very obvious from your unpleasant 
behavior here.

J:It is like saying I do not like Alaska, but I have never been there.

C: You have no idea where I have been or what  I am basing my conclusions on.

 

 C: The basis of Maharisi's model, is Being. Being established in Silence. Also 
known subjectively, as, witnessing. 
 

 J: You and the other guy do not, by your own admission, experience witnessing 
24x7, and yet you have the balls to say that even though, you do not experience 
it, and cannot experience it, you don't like it??

C: I have admitted nothing. You are not privy to my inner experiences. You are 
a troll Jim. plain and simple. You have a group where  you can crow about your 
glorious inner experience but you choose to come here to try to pretend you are 
an expert to people who don't care. What's up with that?

 

 J: I have never come across a more close-minded and idiotic perspective on TM. 
Neither one of you is established in Being, and yet you say, without having 
experienced it, and without knowing the first thing about Maharishi's model of 
consciousness, that you deny it. 
 
C: You can't even articulate my perspective Jim. You have no idea what it is. 
You don't even have a detailed grasp of Maharishi's teaching. You are trying to 
present yourself as something I am not buying Jim. But hey you have Nabbie, so 
be happy for that.


 J: That is some silly and stupid shit, Curtis, and if I were you, I'd probably 
choose to keep very quiet from now on, regarding Maharishi's model of 
consciousness, or any other model of consciousness.

C: Yeah, well you aren't me Jim so your attempt to shut me up has failed 
miserably. I will be posting my perspective as much as it pleases me. 

 

 J: This is what I mean about your utter lack of credibility.

C: Coming from you that is much appreciated. I would worry if it were otherwise.









  

Re: [FairfieldLife] HuffPost US vs. UK on the new Indian Prime Minister

[Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

noozguru, guilty as charged! By big, do you mean large in square miles or 
population or influence?

On Friday, May 16, 2014 2:14 PM, "Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net 
[FairfieldLife]"  wrote:
 


  
Weren't paying much to the last 50 years of US politics?

On 05/16/2014 10:11 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:

  
>noozguru, I'm intrigued by your statement that big countries can't get it 
>right. Can you say more?
>On Friday, May 16, 2014 11:52 AM, "Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net 
>[FairfieldLife]"  wrote:
> 
>
>
>  
>On 05/16/2014 09:37 AM, 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com 
>[FairfieldLife] wrote:
>
>  
>>On 5/16/2014 11:09 AM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife] 
>>wrote:
>>> India seems to be doing a
  pendulum swing again from the more
  liberal 
>>> socialist leadership to the
  conservative BJP. Big countries
  never can 
>>> get things right.
>>>
>>The young people have spoken -
  they are tired of the corruption, 
>>mismanagement, and poor economy of
  the dynastic Congress Party. It's
  not 
>>complicated.
>>
>Don't look to the BJP to solve that! :-D 
>
>
>
>>---
>>This email is free from
  viruses and malware because
  avast! Antivirus protection is
  active.
>>http://www.avast.com
>>
>>
>
>
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

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

 Curtis, can you say in a nutshell what about consciousness you think Maharishi 
got wrong?

C: Thanks for asking Share. You will get more than a nutshell because this is a 
rich topic. The first fundamental problem for me is that he was shaping our 
view of our experiences from his techniques from a religious perspective 
created in a pre-scientific society. He made many unwarranted assumptions about 
the value of his techniques or what he was doing to our brains. Although they 
are highly addictive and pleasurable states of mind, I see no evidence that 
they improve anyone's thinking or creative processes. I see evidence of the 
opposite at least at higher levels of exposure. High exposure leads to an 
erosion of the ability to distinguish internal and external experiences. This 
causes a lot of problems that show up in claims here. 

I challenge his fundamental assumption that  "knowledge is structured in 
consciousness." This is epistemological bogus and psychologically manipulative. 
It comes from  a non modern view of what knowledge is that had its birth in a 
caste system controlled culture. If you see what Jim is attempting to assume 
here by virtue of his self reported grandiose claims of experiences you can see 
where this belief leads socially. It has been rejected by all modern societies 
for good reason.

Because of Maharishi's religiously motivated agenda, he was unable to combine 
more modern theories of the mind with his POV to expand it. He was unwilling to 
be humble about the limits of his knowledge and instead presented himself and 
his teacher as more than human with the appropriate humility concerning the 
human condition. He used science as marketing like a charlatan with zero 
respect for its methods. Over time this killed what could have been a much more 
interesting endeavor. He was a superstitious man and had the intellectual 
failing of hubris which clouded his judgement and turned a fascinatingly bright 
man into a caricature of himself. He became fat Elvis.

I also challenge his assumption about the silent state of meditation as either 
being our "true Self" or having any trans-personal implications about how the 
world works. The sidhis were supposed to be the proof of his trans-personal 
claims about the "absolute" but that test failed by his own created standards 
and criteria. So we are now left with people feeling different subjective 
things in the sidhis that cannot be tested and studied as well as grandiose 
claims about its affects on the world. I respect that Maharishi set up a 
legitimate test of his theories, but I do not respect that neither he nor his 
organization acknowledged the falsification of his theory by the lack of siddhi 
performance. He failed with his own clearly stated and self created test. 

That is just off the top of my head. But that is ten minutes worth and I hope 
you enjoy it.

Please feel free to share your perspective.




 On Friday, May 16, 2014 2:58 PM, "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 wrote:
 
 

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

 
 On 5/16/2014 11:54 AM, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
 > The problem was that I don't think he is right about human 
 > consciousness. And that leads me to post on a site like this one as I 
 > figure out where I stand on various issues of interest to others on 
 > this board.
 >
 This is not about you, Curtis, it's mostly about Barry.

C: Apparently your "mostly" left room for you to include me expliscitely.

 R: But, I would have thought you would have come to question MMY's human 
 consciousness model about midway in your first Philosophy 101 course. 
 So, why did it take you so many years to put it all together?

C: You would think. But I had PHDs carefully shaping our conclusions. We were 
questioning lots, but the conclusion always came back to the empirical 
experience of Unity Consciousness. We figured that with that experience we were 
fulfilling the strictest epistemological criteria.

The students who were able to maintain more intellectual integrity and 
challenged the system further got a big reaction from the admin. But they were 
teachers who didn't have TTC recommendations hanging over their heads. I was 
trained to be a company man early. I was also very young so it was not likely 
that I would have the confidence to challenge my professors. I am glad in some 
ways I didn't catch on then, my college life would have been hell instead of 
wonderful.

The key piece for me to put it together was from outside sources that I had not 
found or did not exist then. It was a bit of an intellectual rabbit warren to 
untangle and it all took time. Plus I had been worked over pretty good with the 
devotion to the master routine. I had a lot of phobias against thinking too far 
outside the box. When it came crashing down it was quite a shock.

R:  It's just odd that you'd want to discuss anyt

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Oh, Curtis, no need to play COY - It is clear you do not witness 24x7, are not 
established in Being, and have no clue what it was you were supposed to be 
teaching others to accomplish, during your daze as a TM-teacher.  

 Quit the smoke-screen. You and the other phony "enlightened" ex-TM teacher on 
here, can wander and wonder about TM, and enlightenment, all you want. However, 
until you have a clue, please keep it to yourselves.
 

 Thanks - Peace, and out -
 

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

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

 Curtis writes: "The problem was that I don't think he [Maharishi] is right 
about human consciousness." 
  
 I am willing to bet a jelly donut, that the other mouthy ex-TM teacher on FFL, 
agrees with you, here.
 

 My only question is: How do you know Maharishi is wrong, if you have not 
completed the first step in his model of human conciousness, Cosmic 
Consciousness?

C: You have no idea what I have experienced or what I am experiencing Jim. You 
are caught in his intellectual model. I do not see the states achieved in his 
programs as a positive thing. You are a perfect example of the downsides. The 
inability to internally distinguish fact from fantasy. It comes across in all 
of your writing here. You also exhibit traits of lack of healthy intellectual 
and emotional boundaries. That is also very obvious from your unpleasant 
behavior here.

J:It is like saying I do not like Alaska, but I have never been there.

C: You have no idea where I have been or what  I am basing my conclusions on.

 

 C: The basis of Maharisi's model, is Being. Being established in Silence. Also 
known subjectively, as, witnessing. 
 

 J: You and the other guy do not, by your own admission, experience witnessing 
24x7, and yet you have the balls to say that even though, you do not experience 
it, and cannot experience it, you don't like it??

C: I have admitted nothing. You are not privy to my inner experiences. You are 
a troll Jim. plain and simple. You have a group where  you can crow about your 
glorious inner experience but you choose to come here to try to pretend you are 
an expert to people who don't care. What's up with that?

 

 J: I have never come across a more close-minded and idiotic perspective on TM. 
Neither one of you is established in Being, and yet you say, without having 
experienced it, and without knowing the first thing about Maharishi's model of 
consciousness, that you deny it. 
 
C: You can't even articulate my perspective Jim. You have no idea what it is. 
You don't even have a detailed grasp of Maharishi's teaching. You are trying to 
present yourself as something I am not buying Jim. But hey you have Nabbie, so 
be happy for that.


 J: That is some silly and stupid shit, Curtis, and if I were you, I'd probably 
choose to keep very quiet from now on, regarding Maharishi's model of 
consciousness, or any other model of consciousness.

C: Yeah, well you aren't me Jim so your attempt to shut me up has failed 
miserably. I will be posting my perspective as much as it pleases me. 

 

 J: This is what I mean about your utter lack of credibility.

C: Coming from you that is much appreciated. I would worry if it were otherwise.

Re: [FairfieldLife] A nostalgia moment

[Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Tom Wilson (Biff) performs The Question Song on WEBN

On Fri, 5/16/14, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
 wrote:

Subject: [FairfieldLife] A nostalgia moment
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" 
Date: Friday, May 16, 2014, 4:56 PM












       I don't know what made me think of this, but does
anyone else remember Biff from the "Back to the
Future" movies? He started out looking like this, yer
classic big guy with a tiny
dick:

But over time he morphed into pretty much the same
big guy with the tiny dick, but now sagging and experiencing
retirement panic:

That's all. Just a nostalgia moment. It's not
as if Biff reminds me of anyone. Really. 
:-)







     



#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780 --
   #yiv3234059780ygrp-mkp {
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px
0;padding:0 10px;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780ygrp-mkp hr {
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780ygrp-mkp #yiv3234059780hd {
color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780ygrp-mkp #yiv3234059780ads {
margin-bottom:10px;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780ygrp-mkp .yiv3234059780ad {
padding:0 0;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780ygrp-mkp .yiv3234059780ad p {
margin:0;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780ygrp-mkp .yiv3234059780ad a {
color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}
#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780ygrp-sponsor
#yiv3234059780ygrp-lc {
font-family:Arial;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780ygrp-sponsor
#yiv3234059780ygrp-lc #yiv3234059780hd {
margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780ygrp-sponsor
#yiv3234059780ygrp-lc .yiv3234059780ad {
margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780actions {
font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780activity {
background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780activity span {
font-weight:700;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780activity span:first-child {
text-transform:uppercase;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780activity span a {
color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780activity span span {
color:#ff7900;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780activity span
.yiv3234059780underline {
text-decoration:underline;}

#yiv3234059780 .yiv3234059780attach {
clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
0;width:400px;}

#yiv3234059780 .yiv3234059780attach div a {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv3234059780 .yiv3234059780attach img {
border:none;padding-right:5px;}

#yiv3234059780 .yiv3234059780attach label {
display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}

#yiv3234059780 .yiv3234059780attach label a {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv3234059780 blockquote {
margin:0 0 0 4px;}

#yiv3234059780 .yiv3234059780bold {
font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}

#yiv3234059780 .yiv3234059780bold a {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv3234059780 dd.yiv3234059780last p a {
font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}

#yiv3234059780 dd.yiv3234059780last p span {
margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}

#yiv3234059780 dd.yiv3234059780last p
span.yiv3234059780yshortcuts {
margin-right:0;}

#yiv3234059780 div.yiv3234059780attach-table div div a {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv3234059780 div.yiv3234059780attach-table {
width:400px;}

#yiv3234059780 div.yiv3234059780file-title a, #yiv3234059780
div.yiv3234059780file-title a:active, #yiv3234059780
div.yiv3234059780file-title a:hover, #yiv3234059780
div.yiv3234059780file-title a:visited {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv3234059780 div.yiv3234059780photo-title a,
#yiv3234059780 div.yiv3234059780photo-title a:active,
#yiv3234059780 div.yiv3234059780photo-title a:hover,
#yiv3234059780 div.yiv3234059780photo-title a:visited {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv3234059780 div#yiv3234059780ygrp-mlmsg
#yiv3234059780ygrp-msg p a span.yiv3234059780yshortcuts {
font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;font-weight:normal;}

#yiv3234059780 .yiv3234059780green {
color:#628c2a;}

#yiv3234059780 .yiv3234059780MsoNormal {
margin:0 0 0 0;}

#yiv3234059780 o {
font-size:0;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780photos div {
float:left;width:72px;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780photos div div {
border:1px solid
#66;height:62px;overflow:hidden;width:62px;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780photos div label {
color:#66;font-size:10px;overflow:hidden;text-align:center;white-space:nowrap;width:64px;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780reco-category {
font-size:77%;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780reco-desc {
font-size:77%;}

#yiv3234059780 .yiv3234059780replbq {
margin:4px;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780ygrp-actbar div a:first-child {
margin-right:2px;padding-right:5px;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780ygrp-mlmsg {
font-size:13px;font-family:Arial, helvetica, clean,
sans-serif;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780ygrp-mlmsg table {
font-size:inherit;font:100%;}

#yiv3234059780 #yiv3234059780ygrp-mlmsg select,
#y

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What do Ginger Baker and black coffee have in common?

[Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]]

Thumbs top grip.  This is usually a grip for tympani.

On 05/16/2014 12:16 PM, cardemais...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:


A bit tense and inaccurate, but sounds quite good, though:

http://drummerworld.com/Videos/gingerbakerrudiments.html

Re: [FairfieldLife] HuffPost US vs. UK on the new Indian Prime Minister

[Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]]

On 05/16/2014 12:23 PM, 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:


On 5/16/2014 11:52 AM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]
wrote:
> On 05/16/2014 09:37 AM, 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com
> [FairfieldLife] wrote:
>>
>> On 5/16/2014 11:09 AM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]
>> wrote:
>> > India seems to be doing a pendulum swing again from the more liberal
>> > socialist leadership to the conservative BJP. Big countries never can
>> > get things right.
>> >
>> The young people have spoken - they are tired of the corruption,
>> mismanagement, and poor economy of the dynastic Congress Party. 
It's not

>> complicated.
>>
>
> Don't look to the BJP to solve that! :-D
>
There are probably a million new voters coming of voting age every month
in India and they want a change of leadership after sixty-seven years of
Gandhi rule - the country is in a shambles, so change was inevitable. If
you can't make the country right in 67 years, maybe it's time to try
something else.



The BJP didn't work before they won't now either.  India is one of the 
most corrupt countries on earth. It is run by the oligarchs. It's a 
plutocracy just like the US.  Can't win with people who are so deluded 
they believe they are doing "God's work."




---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus 
protection is active.

http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

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

 Curtis writes: "The problem was that I don't think he [Maharishi] is right 
about human consciousness." 
  
 I am willing to bet a jelly donut, that the other mouthy ex-TM teacher on FFL, 
agrees with you, here.
 

 My only question is: How do you know Maharishi is wrong, if you have not 
completed the first step in his model of human conciousness, Cosmic 
Consciousness?

C: You have no idea what I have experienced or what I am experiencing Jim. You 
are caught in his intellectual model. I do not see the states achieved in his 
programs as a positive thing. You are a perfect example of the downsides. The 
inability to internally distinguish fact from fantasy. It comes across in all 
of your writing here. You also exhibit traits of lack of healthy intellectual 
and emotional boundaries. That is also very obvious from your unpleasant 
behavior here.

J:It is like saying I do not like Alaska, but I have never been there.

C: You have no idea where I have been or what  I am basing my conclusions on.

 

 C: The basis of Maharisi's model, is Being. Being established in Silence. Also 
known subjectively, as, witnessing. 
 

 J: You and the other guy do not, by your own admission, experience witnessing 
24x7, and yet you have the balls to say that even though, you do not experience 
it, and cannot experience it, you don't like it??

C: I have admitted nothing. You are not privy to my inner experiences. You are 
a troll Jim. plain and simple. You have a group where  you can crow about your 
glorious inner experience but you choose to come here to try to pretend you are 
an expert to people who don't care. What's up with that?

 

 J: I have never come across a more close-minded and idiotic perspective on TM. 
Neither one of you is established in Being, and yet you say, without having 
experienced it, and without knowing the first thing about Maharishi's model of 
consciousness, that you deny it. 
 
C: You can't even articulate my perspective Jim. You have no idea what it is. 
You don't even have a detailed grasp of Maharishi's teaching. You are trying to 
present yourself as something I am not buying Jim. But hey you have Nabbie, so 
be happy for that.


 J: That is some silly and stupid shit, Curtis, and if I were you, I'd probably 
choose to keep very quiet from now on, regarding Maharishi's model of 
consciousness, or any other model of consciousness.

C: Yeah, well you aren't me Jim so your attempt to shut me up has failed 
miserably. I will be posting my perspective as much as it pleases me. 

 

 J: This is what I mean about your utter lack of credibility.

C: Coming from you that is much appreciated. I would worry if it were otherwise.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Curtis, can you say in a nutshell what about consciousness you think Maharishi 
got wrong?

On Friday, May 16, 2014 2:58 PM, "curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 
 wrote:
 


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



On 5/16/2014 11:54 AM, curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:

> The problem was that I don't think he is right about human 
>> consciousness. And that leads me to post on a site like this one as I 
>> figure out where I stand on various issues of interest to others on 
>> this board.
>>
>This is not about you, Curtis, it's mostly about Barry.

C: Apparently your "mostly" left room for you to include me expliscitely.

R: But, I would have thought you would have come to question MMY's human 
consciousness model about midway in your first Philosophy 101 course. 
So, why did it take you so many years to put it all together?

C: You would think. But I had PHDs carefully shaping our conclusions. We were 
questioning lots, but the conclusion always came back to the empirical 
experience of Unity Consciousness. We figured that with that experience we were 
fulfilling the strictest epistemological criteria.

The students who were able to maintain more intellectual integrity and 
challenged the system further got a big reaction from the admin. But they were 
teachers who didn't have TTC recommendations hanging over their heads. I was 
trained to be a company man early. I was also very young so it was not likely 
that I would have the confidence to challenge my professors. I am glad in some 
ways I didn't catch on then, my college life would have been hell instead of 
wonderful.

The key piece for me to put it together was from outside sources that I had not 
found or did not exist then. It was a bit of an intellectual rabbit warren to 
untangle and it all took time. Plus I had been worked over pretty good with the 
devotion to the master routine. I had a lot of phobias against thinking too far 
outside the box. When it came crashing down it was quite a shock.

R:  It's just odd that you'd want to discuss anything here with the likes of 
Barry, 
seeing as how you feel now. Go figure.

C: And I'm sure he thinks it is odd for me to want to discuss anything with 
you. I post here to interact with people who think differently than I do. It is 
how I can locate my intellectual edges.

R: And, what in the world would MMY have to do with you practicing basic TM 
anyway?

C: He had a lot, I was quickly indoctrinated into the master disciple 
relationship model. But I didn't stop TM because I thought Maharishi was a bad 
guy, I stopped because I thought he was wrong in his theories of human 
consciousness. I still do. That doesn't mean that TM won't turn out to be a 
useful mental trick to have in our tool box. It is for me. But his beliefs 
about it were too embroiled in his fundamentalist Hinduism for them to make 
sense to my perspective now. I believe he was a victim of his own success, kind 
of a tragic figure. Still amazing, but not what I would call a "saint." I work 
with some of those and it is a completely different type of person who fits my 
criteria. No Donald Trumps in a dhoti!



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

[FairfieldLife] Re: A nostalgia moment

[merudanda]

Back to the Future (1985): Where Are They Now? 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOh45HZV26U 
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOh45HZV26U 
 
 Back to the Future (1985): Where Are They Now? 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOh45HZV26U find out what happen to the 1985 
movie, Back to the Future.
 
 
 
 View on www.youtube.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOh45HZV26U 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 
 
.. there are people just passing by not realizing who he is
Tom Wilson - New York City http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09-9DLMpOwk 
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09-9DLMpOwk 
 
 Tom Wilson - New York City http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09-9DLMpOwk 
Skyscrapers and everything...
 
 
 
 View on www.youtube.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09-9DLMpOwk 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 
 


Tom Wilson Stand-up Comedy Demo 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6doN7IEgXc 
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6doN7IEgXc 
 
 Tom Wilson Stand-up Comedy Demo 2010 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6doN7IEgXc This feature is not available right 
now. Please try again later. 
 
 
 
 View on www.youtube.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6doN7IEgXc 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 
 
I don't get irritated, I just wrote a funny song about it ..enjoy thanks 
turqioiseB

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :
 
 On 5/16/2014 11:54 AM, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
 > The problem was that I don't think he is right about human 
 > consciousness. And that leads me to post on a site like this one as I 
 > figure out where I stand on various issues of interest to others on 
 > this board.
 >
 This is not about you, Curtis, it's mostly about Barry.

C: Apparently your "mostly" left room for you to include me expliscitely.

 R: But, I would have thought you would have come to question MMY's human 
 consciousness model about midway in your first Philosophy 101 course. 
 So, why did it take you so many years to put it all together?

C: You would think. But I had PHDs carefully shaping our conclusions. We were 
questioning lots, but the conclusion always came back to the empirical 
experience of Unity Consciousness. We figured that with that experience we were 
fulfilling the strictest epistemological criteria.

The students who were able to maintain more intellectual integrity and 
challenged the system further got a big reaction from the admin. But they were 
teachers who didn't have TTC recommendations hanging over their heads. I was 
trained to be a company man early. I was also very young so it was not likely 
that I would have the confidence to challenge my professors. I am glad in some 
ways I didn't catch on then, my college life would have been hell instead of 
wonderful.

The key piece for me to put it together was from outside sources that I had not 
found or did not exist then. It was a bit of an intellectual rabbit warren to 
untangle and it all took time. Plus I had been worked over pretty good with the 
devotion to the master routine. I had a lot of phobias against thinking too far 
outside the box. When it came crashing down it was quite a shock.

R:  It's just odd that you'd want to discuss anything here with the likes of 
Barry, 
 seeing as how you feel now. Go figure.

C: And I'm sure he thinks it is odd for me to want to discuss anything with 
you. I post here to interact with people who think differently than I do. It is 
how I can locate my intellectual edges.
 
 R: And, what in the world would MMY have to do with you practicing basic TM 
 anyway?

C: He had a lot, I was quickly indoctrinated into the master disciple 
relationship model. But I didn't stop TM because I thought Maharishi was a bad 
guy, I stopped because I thought he was wrong in his theories of human 
consciousness. I still do. That doesn't mean that TM won't turn out to be a 
useful mental trick to have in our tool box. It is for me. But his beliefs 
about it were too embroiled in his fundamentalist Hinduism for them to make 
sense to my perspective now. I believe he was a victim of his own success, kind 
of a tragic figure. Still amazing, but not what I would call a "saint." I work 
with some of those and it is a completely different type of person who fits my 
criteria. No Donald Trumps in a dhoti!


 
 ---
 This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus 
protection is active.
 http://www.avast.com http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Curtis writes: "The problem was that I don't think he [Maharishi] is right 
about human consciousness." 
  
 I am willing to bet a jelly donut, that the other mouthy ex-TM teacher on FFL, 
agrees with you, here.
 

 My only question is: How do you know Maharishi is wrong, if you have not 
completed the first step in his model of human conciousness, Cosmic 
Consciousness?
 

 It is like saying I do not like Alaska, but I have never been there.
 

 The basis of Maharisi's model, is Being. Being established in Silence. Also 
known subjectively, as, witnessing. 
 

 You and the other guy do not, by your own admission, experience witnessing 
24x7, and yet you have the balls to say that even though, you do not experience 
it, and cannot experience it, you don't like it??
 

 I have never come across a more close-minded and idiotic perspective on TM. 
Neither one of you is established in Being, and yet you say, without having 
experienced it, and without knowing the first thing about Maharishi's model of 
consciousness, that you deny it. 
 

 That is some silly and stupid shit, Curtis, and if I were you, I'd probably 
choose to keep very quiet from now on, regarding Maharishi's model of 
consciousness, or any other model of consciousness.
 

 This is what I mean about your utter lack of credibility.

[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Ginger Baker and black coffee have in common?

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Hey, Carde, ever heard of a unit of measure called a "poronkusema"? Apparently 
the Samis use it - the distance a reindeer travels before it has to pee. I just 
found out today.
 

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

 A bit tense and inaccurate, but sounds quite good, though:

http://drummerworld.com/Videos/gingerbakerrudiments.html 
http://drummerworld.com/Videos/gingerbakerrudiments.html

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 On 5/16/2014 12:15 PM, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
 > R: Over twenty years. My gawd, Man! I finished school, got married, 
 > raised a family and retired from a career in that length of time. So, 
 > I just can't figure it. Where is Dr. Pete when we need him?
 >
 > C: Yeah I've been busy too Richard. Let's both skip the self 
 > congratulatory medals for living.
 >
 It's just that it seems like most of the people posting that still do TM 
 are doing quite well - it's the quitters that seem to be having a hard 
 time.

C: Yeah well that is just bullshit and how would you know such a thing? And 
calling moving on "quitting" is Buck's tiny world, what are you doing in it? 

 R:I post here out of a sense of joy, but most of the time, the 
 quitters posting here are just bitching and complaining

C: Is it that you don't see that you are bitching and complaining about other 
people here or that you do but you haven't made the connection that this makes 
no sense?

 R: and blaming others for their own failures.

C: I call dipshittery, no one has done this, you made it up. 

R: I mean, how difficult is it to just pause once or twice a day and think 
things over? Go figure.

C: This is your torettes loop which defies all logic or connection to 
Maharishi's teaching. Does the endless repetition make you feel calmer? 
Seriously? 

But since you mentioned it, this doesn't match my experience with TM or with 
mindfulness meditation. I am thinking things over all day long. When I meditate 
I am seeking a different internal mix of attention than my active thinking 
mind. Although they seem to accomplish this goal differently, both do achieve 
what I am looking for. And neither of them would be characterized as thinking 
things over Either we are not connecting on the meaning of these words, or you 
need a checking Richard. When you are aware you are not thinking the mantra, 
come back to it. Don't choose to pursue thoughts as you do when you need to 
think things over.   


 
 ---
 This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus 
protection is active.
 http://www.avast.com http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

A few were nice, like Rick's brother-in-law, and Mark P, and a couple were real 
pricks, but easy enough to avoid - The work was really hard, and physical, so 
there wasn't room for much elitist stuff, and we got a lot of latitude, as a 
result.  
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :
 I don't know why I am asking this, maybe cuz of my low opinion of Movement 
facility leaders like Reed Martin, et al - but what were the people like who 
ran Kansas City Sidhaland? Did they act like they had good sense?
 
 On Fri, 5/16/14, fleetwood_macncheese@... mailto:fleetwood_macncheese@... 
[FairfieldLife] mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Friday, May 16, 2014, 3:45 PM
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Hey, Michael,
 I was at the Kansas City Siddhaland, while Curtis was
 wasting his time in Florida. There were no additional
 techniques, and we were not invited to perfect the sidhis,
 simply to learn them. That was in 1979-80. You have to be
 careful listening to either Barry or Curtis, as both of them
 are eager to tell lies to cover their lack of spiritual
 advancement. Just sayin'.
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
  wrote :
 
 Curtis, can you tell
 us anything about your experiences in Sidhaland? I had never
 heard that the invitation was given out for people to
 "perfect the siddhis" - was that only at a
 Sidhaland, or was it in all Movement facilities. Were any
 additional techniques given out, or was it just perfecting
 them through practice?
 
 
 
 Thanks,
 
 
 
 MJ
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] HuffPost US vs. UK on the new Indian Prime Minister

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 5/16/2014 11:52 AM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:
> On 05/16/2014 09:37 AM, 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com 
> [FairfieldLife] wrote:
>>
>> On 5/16/2014 11:09 AM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]
>> wrote:
>> > India seems to be doing a pendulum swing again from the more liberal
>> > socialist leadership to the conservative BJP. Big countries never can
>> > get things right.
>> >
>> The young people have spoken - they are tired of the corruption,
>> mismanagement, and poor economy of the dynastic Congress Party. It's not
>> complicated.
>>
>
> Don't look to the BJP to solve that! :-D 
 >
There are probably a million new voters coming of voting age every month 
in India and they want a change of leadership after sixty-seven years of 
Gandhi rule - the country is in a shambles, so change was inevitable. If 
you can't make the country right in 67 years, maybe it's time to try 
something else.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] What do Ginger Baker and black coffee have in common?

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Makes sense -- great story about the drifting tempo - 
 

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

 Drummers when they sing are focusing on the vocal not the drumming.  But 
Collins is probably enough of a pro it doesn't matter.  That's the thing, I 
only had problems with non-pro musicians on time or in one case when I subbed 
for a friend the leader had a heart condition which caused his tempo to vary.  
He explained it to me so I could lock down the tempo when he started to drift 
as he didn't want that to happen.
 
 On 05/16/2014 09:36 AM, fleetwood_macncheese@... 
mailto:fleetwood_macncheese@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:

   Interesting stuff - I am curious about how you would characterize Phil 
Collins, when he was both drumming, and singing his songs? Obviously he is 
keeping time, and it is his band, but he seems to have a looser style than 
simply a time-keeper.
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:noozguru@... wrote :
 
 Kinda lame research.  A bit of the "blind men elephant" type.  They assume all 
drummers are "time keepers."  Actually there are two kinds of "drummers":  time 
keepers (captain of the rhythm section) and "compers".  There are a some who 
can even manage both roles.
 
 "Time Keepers" tend to be left brained but if the bass player decides he's 
going to be the "time keeper" the drummer loses.  He can't overpower the 
influence of the bass line on time.  "Compers" are more right brained and 
listen to the band and go with the flow of time of the lead.  They tend to 
"jell well" with the band.
 
 I'm more of a "comper" because I started out playing to records and developed 
an ear for listening.  "Time keepers" probably didn't do that and started out 
just playing with other musicians.  If you are a comper and hired by a band 
that needs a time keeper things aren't going to go well.  If you are a time 
keeper and the leader of a group wants the drummer to go with his rubato timing 
things won't go well either.  Duke Ellington preferred comping drummers.
 
 The research shouldn't have sat in the grandstand but actually talked to 
musicians.
 
 On 05/16/2014 01:24 AM, salyavin808 wrote:
 
   They both suck without Cream.
 

 Yup, but here's a fascinating article about something we beat boys always knew 
instinctively.
 

 

 Science Shows How Drummers' Brains Are Actually Different From Everybody Elses'
 
 
 
 
 
 Science Shows How Drummers' Brains Are Actual... Their brains are in an 
artistic league of their own.


 
 View on www.policymic.com 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

 
 

 




 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 5/16/2014 11:54 AM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
> The problem was that I don't think he is right about human 
> consciousness. And that leads me to post on a site like this one as I 
> figure out where I stand on various issues of interest to others on 
> this board.
 >
This is not about you, Curtis, it's mostly about Barry.

But, I would have thought you would have come to question MMY's human 
consciousness model about midway in your first Philosophy 101 course. 
So, why did it take you so many years to put it all together? It's just 
odd that you'd want to discuss anything here with the likes of Barry, 
seeing as how you feel now. Go figure.

And, what in the world would MMY have to do with you practicing basic TM 
anyway?

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Ginger Baker and black coffee have in common?

[cardemais...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

A bit tense and inaccurate, but sounds quite good, though:

http://drummerworld.com/Videos/gingerbakerrudiments.html 
http://drummerworld.com/Videos/gingerbakerrudiments.html

Re: [FairfieldLife] HuffPost US vs. UK on the new Indian Prime Minister

[Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]]

Weren't paying much to the last 50 years of US politics?

On 05/16/2014 10:11 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:
noozguru, I'm intrigued by your statement that big countries can't get 
it right. Can you say more?
On Friday, May 16, 2014 11:52 AM, "Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net 
[FairfieldLife]"  wrote:



On 05/16/2014 09:37 AM, 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com 
 [FairfieldLife] wrote:
On 5/16/2014 11:09 AM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net 
 [FairfieldLife]

wrote:
> India seems to be doing a pendulum swing again from the more liberal
> socialist leadership to the conservative BJP. Big countries never can
> get things right.
>
The young people have spoken - they are tired of the corruption,
mismanagement, and poor economy of the dynastic Congress Party. It's not
complicated.


Don't look to the BJP to solve that! :-D



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus 
protection is active.

http://www.avast.com 

Re: [FairfieldLife] A nostalgia moment

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 5/16/2014 11:56 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:
I don't know what made me think of this, but does anyone else remember 
Biff from the "Back to the Future" movies?

>
He's still got his hair, which is probably more than you can claim. And, 
it looks like he still got his own teeth too. We don't know for sure 
about your mug until you send in your latest self-portrait. Why is it 
taking you so long? We know you have an iPhone with a camera in it. Go 
figure.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] What do Ginger Baker and black coffee have in common?

[Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]]

Not necessarily.  A lot of drummers learned rudimental drumming in high 
school.  A lot of Baker's playing verged on that.  It may just sound 
like they are influenced by Baker.


On 05/16/2014 11:46 AM, Pundit Sir pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:
Virtually every drummer of every heavy metal band that has followed 
since Fresh Cream has sought to emulate some aspect of Baker's playing.


Ginger Baker Live at Royal Albert Hall - Toad solo
http://youtu.be/4Gze0PxDKgQ


On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:24 AM, salyavin808 > wrote:


They both suck without Cream.


Yup, but here's a fascinating article about something we beat boys
always knew instinctively.



Science Shows How Drummers' Brains Are Actually Different From
Everybody Elses'






image





Science Shows How Drummers' Brains Are Actual...



Their brains are in an artistic league of their own.

View on www.policymic.com




Preview by Yahoo

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 5/16/2014 12:15 PM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
> R: Over twenty years. My gawd, Man! I finished school, got married, 
> raised a family and retired from a career in that length of time. So, 
> I just can't figure it. Where is Dr. Pete when we need him?
>
> C: Yeah I've been busy too Richard. Let's both skip the self 
> congratulatory medals for living.
 >
It's just that it seems like most of the people posting that still do TM 
are doing quite well - it's the quitters that seem to be having a hard 
time. I post here out of a sense of joy, but most of the time, the 
quitters posting here are just bitching and complaining and blaming 
others for their own failures. I mean, how difficult is it to just pause 
once or twice a day and think things over? Go figure.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 5/16/2014 12:15 PM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
To call what you and Jim do in your postings an expression of a 
"spiritual path" is laughable even from the perspective within the 
movement I left behind.

>
So, I don't have to /prove/ anything in a debate - all I have to do is 
point out the absurdity of your statements when they are taken to 
extremes -  and cast an element of doubt. /Every statement when it is 
taken to extremes will be found to be self-contradictory./



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 5/16/2014 12:15 PM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
> Thanks for posting this, but it is difficult to understand why anyone 
> would work in a cult movement for over twenty years and then turn 
> around and refute almost everything they believed in before.
>
> C: Really? You can't understand why a person in their 30's might have 
> some better insights about his beliefs adopted when he was 16 and held 
> through his 20's?
 >
I'm mostly going on what Barry says about it, but I learned not to lie, 
cheat, steal, and make stuff up when I was about seven years old and I 
haven't changed my mind about those things since.

According to Barry, you guys sold water down by the river and gave the 
money to Marshy and Lenz for years. What was right about that then and 
so wrong about it now? That's the part I can't figure out. Or, maybe 
Barry is just lying about the whole thing and it's all about Judy. Go 
figure.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] What do Ginger Baker and black coffee have in common?

[Pundit Sir pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

Virtually every drummer of every heavy metal band that has followed since
Fresh Cream has sought to emulate some aspect of Baker's playing.

Ginger Baker Live at Royal Albert Hall - Toad solo
http://youtu.be/4Gze0PxDKgQ


On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:24 AM, salyavin808 wrote:

>
>
> They both suck without Cream.
>
>
> Yup, but here's a fascinating article about something we beat boys always
> knew instinctively.
>
>
>
> Science Shows How Drummers' Brains Are Actually Different From Everybody
> Elses'
>[image: image]
> 
>  Science Shows How Drummers' Brains Are Actual...
> 
> Their brains are in an artistic league of their own.
>   View on www.policymic.com
> 
>   Preview by Yahoo
>
>
>  
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: facing a lack of spiritual experience head on

[Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

All the good stuff I learnt raght cheer on FFL!

On Fri, 5/16/14, lengli...@cox.net [FairfieldLife] 
 wrote:

 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: facing a lack of spiritual experience head on
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Friday, May 16, 2014, 3:30 PM
 
 
  
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
   
   
   So which info did you give him to dissuade him to
 cease TM after 40+ years of practice?
 L
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
  wrote :
 
 I am
 very happy to have been of some small service to the lady
 who recently got TM booted out of her son's school in
 San Francisco. Also my North Carolina buddy who has done TM
 since 1972 and recently ceased and desisted in part due to
 info I gave him is coming to visit this very evening. I
 think we'll make plans of how to neuter the TMO and
 maybe go glass a few TM'ers -wait, we aren't in the
 Scorpion Nation, we're in SC!!!
 
 
 
 On Fri, 5/16/14, dhamiltony2k5@...
 [FairfieldLife] 
 wrote:
 
 
 
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: facing a lack of spiritual
 experience head on
 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 
 Date: Friday, May 16, 2014, 11:57 AM
 
 
 
 
 Very fair observation, Fleetwood.  And
 
 facing the enemies combatant who actively fight gainst
 
 larger spirituality, meditating an Maharishi. The
 
 anti-meditation neganauts even arrayed here.  Especially
 
 the indictment of their
 
 negativist position of obstructing and keeping meditation
 
 from
 
 school educational design is no better than those
 religious
 
 nuts
 
 kidnapping all those school girls and selling them in to
 
 Islamic
 
 slavery.  Certainly with people like those Nigerian
 
 religious ideological nuts
 
 in the news now, bringing in the drones and special
 forces
 
 to hunt
 
 them down, some of our own enemies combatant could
 
 certainly be
 
 hunted down as criminals against humanity for their
 
 ignorant and wrong asocial behaviors.-Buck in the
 
 Dome
 
 Yep,
 
 and yesterday's Zen
 
 Calendar
 
 quote is still good for today:
 
 “It is by silence
 
 that the saints grew, that it was because of silence that
 
 the power
 
 of [the Unified Field] grew in them, because of silence
 that
 
 the
 
 mysteries were known to them.”  -The Desert Father
 
 Ammonas
 
 Fleetwood_macncheese
 
 writes:
 
 
 
 Boys,
 
 boys -- lest we get distracted. The original point was
 
 about, on the one hand, your relative lack of self-reported
 spiritual
 
 experience, and, on the other, your fantasized expertise,
 
 regarding same. 
 
 I see a
 
 lot of hot air, but no answers to such a question. I
 admit
 
 it is a very tough question for either of you to address,
 
 head on, and I really don't expect as much. I am
 simply
 
 asking that you both be aware of your utter lack of
 
 experience, to back up any spiritual claims you may
 attempt.
 
 A little self-reflection would be very helpful, for
 either
 
 of you.
 
 fleetwood_macncheese
 
 writes:
 
 Enlightenment. Funny, because no one talks about this
 topic
 
 here,
 
 despite this forum's alleged purpose.  Fellows like
 
 Barry (or
 
 Bawee) who criticizes Maharishi endlessly, haven't had
 a
 
 good
 
 meditation during this century. The criticizers have just
 a
 
 very
 
 small amount of spiritual experience between them. Even
 
 Curtis, the
 
 musician guy who meditated and rounded, with Sidhis, for
 15
 
 years, is
 
 not established in Being.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 So we have those here, who denigrate every bit of
 
 Maharishi's
 
 teaching, Guru Dev, TM and the siddhis. But these critics
 
 are not
 
 established in Being. They have weak and empty spiritual
 
 lives, and
 
 rather than working on that, they find it a great and
 happy
 
 distraction, to focus, instead, on someone else's
 
 perceived failings.
 
 
 
 
 
 That is not
 
 the purpose of this forum, to take pot shots at
 
 others, because of your own failures. I hope that Barry,
 
 Curtis and
 
 Michael all take this to heart, and the next time they
 open
 
 their
 
 mouths to fling an empty criticism at all things TM, they
 
 reflect,
 
 first, on their paucity of spiritual experience, and be
 
 aware of
 
 that.-Fleetwood  
 
 turquoiseb writes:
 
 
 
 curtisdeltablues writes:
 
 
 
 fleetwood_macncheese
 
 writes:
 
 "An
 
 enthusiastic response" from me? Nope, just stay far
 
 enough away from me, to keep your bleeding heart from
 
 ruining my shirt.
 
 
 
 C:Your
 
 framing compassion for people suffering from a disease
 they
 
 did not choose and speaking out against your callus post
 as
 
 a "bleeding heart" makes my point perfectly. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Especially coming from one of the "Maharishi
 
 enlightened."
 
 
 
 This
 
 exchange illustrates my basic thesis on this forum. It
 
 REALLY DOESN'T MATTER what one *says* about people
 one
 
 doesn't like on FFL. All that matters is what the
 
 persons saying it do in their posts, as often-unintended
 
 "accessories" to what they say. 
 
 

[FairfieldLife] Does meditation make you SMART?

[salyavin808]

(Perhaps if you play drums and meditate?)
 

 Does meditation make you SMART? Letting your mind wander lets the brain 
process MORE thoughts than when concentrating
 

 Letting your mind wander is more effective than concentrating on emptying your 
head of thoughts, scientists said Researchers from St Olavs Hospital in 
Trondheim and the University of Oslo used MRI scanners to look at brain 
activity during meditations Concentrating on 'nothing' is only as effective as 
resting Meditation is practiced by millions of people but little is known about 
how it works 
Regardless of religious beliefs, many people attempt to meditate at busy times 
in their lives.

 And now a new study claims that meditation activates parts of the brain that 
simple ‘relaxing’ cannot.

 People who meditate process more ideas and feelings than when they are just 
resting and letting your mind wander is more effective than concentrating on 
emptying your head of thoughts, scientists said.

 
 
+2

 Focus: The experts discovered that letting your mind wander is more effective 
than concentrating on emptying your head of thoughts when meditating. The left 
images show the brain during concentrative meditation, while images to the 
right show the brain during nondirective meditation

 
Researchers from St Olavs Hospital in Trondheim, Norway, believe their findings 
- published in the journal Frontiers in Human Neuroscience - suggest that 
meditation is more than just a way to lower stress.

 

 There are countless techniques such as Zen, Buddhist and transcendental 
meditation and these can be divided into two main groups known as 
‘concentrative’ meditation where the person focuses on breathing and specific 
thoughts and ‘nondirective’ which allows the mind to wander as it pleases.

 All the participants in the study had experience with a nondirective form of 
meditation practiced in Norway called Acem.
 
Using an MRI scanner, the experiment showed that the part of their brains 
dedicated to processing self-related thoughts and feelings were more active 
during the activity than at rest.

 When test subjects performed concentrative meditation, the activity in this 
part of the brain was almost the same as when they were just resting.
 Dr Jian Xu, of St Olavs, said: ‘I was surprised the activity of the brain was 
greatest when the person’s thoughts wandered freely on their own, rather than 
when the brain worked to be more strongly focused.

 ‘When the subjects stopped doing a specific task and were not really doing 
anything special, there was an increase in activity in the area of the brain 
where we process thoughts and feelings. 

 ‘It is described as a kind of resting network. And it was this area that was 
most active during nondirective meditation.’

 Professor Svend Davanger, of the University of Oslo, said: ‘The study 
indicates nondirective meditation allows for more room to process memories and 
emotions than during concentrated meditation.

 ‘This area of the brain has its highest activity when we rest. It represents a 
kind of basic operating system; a resting network that takes over when external 
tasks do not require our attention.

 ‘It is remarkable a mental task like nondirective meditation results in even 
higher activity in this network than regular rest.’

 Professor Davanger is the only member of the research team to regularly 
meditate and he believes that good research depends on having a team that can 
combine personal experience of meditation with a critical attitude towards 
results.

 ‘Meditation is an activity practiced by millions of people. It is important we 
find out how this really works,’ he added.
 

Read more: 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2630446/Does-meditation-make-SMART-Letting-mind-wander-lets-brains-process-MORE-thoughts-concentrating.html#ixzz31uAyB4f3
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2630446/Does-meditation-make-SMART-Letting-mind-wander-lets-brains-process-MORE-thoughts-concentrating.html#ixzz31uAyB4f3
 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: facing a lack of spiritual experience head on

[Pundit Sir pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

MJ:
 > I am very happy to have been of some small service
> to the lady who recently got TM booted out of her son's
> school in San Francisco.
>
We are so *happy* for you to finally accomplish something in your life. You
should be very proud of your accomplishments, which are many indeed. What
would our schools do with you are your valuable service?

Happy!
http://youtu.be/y6Sxv-sUYtM



On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Michael Jackson
mjackso...@yahoo.com[FairfieldLife]
 wrote:

>
>
> I am very happy to have been of some small service to the lady who
> recently got TM booted out of her son's school in San Francisco. Also my
> North Carolina buddy who has done TM since 1972 and recently ceased and
> desisted in part due to info I gave him is coming to visit this very
> evening. I think we'll make plans of how to neuter the TMO and maybe go
> glass a few TM'ers -wait, we aren't in the Scorpion Nation, we're in SC!!!
> 
>
> On Fri, 5/16/14, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] <
> FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: facing a lack of spiritual experience head on
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, May 16, 2014, 11:57 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Very fair observation, Fleetwood.  And
> facing the enemies combatant who actively fight gainst
> larger spirituality, meditating an Maharishi. The
> anti-meditation neganauts even arrayed here.  Especially
> the indictment of their
> negativist position of obstructing and keeping meditation
> from
> school educational design is no better than those religious
> nuts
> kidnapping all those school girls and selling them in to
> Islamic
> slavery. Certainly with people like those Nigerian
> religious ideological nuts
> in the news now, bringing in the drones and special forces
> to hunt
> them down, some of our own enemies combatant could
> certainly be
> hunted down as criminals against humanity for their
> ignorant and wrong asocial behaviors.-Buck in the
>
> Dome
> Yep,
> and yesterday's Zen
> Calendar
> quote is still good for today:
> “It is by silence
> that the saints grew, that it was because of silence that
> the power
> of [the Unified Field] grew in them, because of silence that
> the
> mysteries were known to them.” -The Desert Father
> Ammonas
> Fleetwood_macncheese
> writes:
>
> Boys,
> boys -- lest we get distracted. The original point was
> about, on the one hand, your relative lack of self-reported spiritual
> experience, and, on the other, your fantasized expertise,
> regarding same.
> I see a
> lot of hot air, but no answers to such a question. I admit
> it is a very tough question for either of you to address,
> head on, and I really don't expect as much. I am simply
> asking that you both be aware of your utter lack of
> experience, to back up any spiritual claims you may attempt.
> A little self-reflection would be very helpful, for either
> of you.
> fleetwood_macncheese
> writes:
> Enlightenment. Funny, because no one talks about this topic
> here,
> despite this forum's alleged purpose.  Fellows like
> Barry (or
> Bawee) who criticizes Maharishi endlessly, haven't had a
> good
> meditation during this century. The criticizers have just a
> very
> small amount of spiritual experience between them. Even
> Curtis, the
> musician guy who meditated and rounded, with Sidhis, for 15
> years, is
> not established in Being.
>
>
>
> So we have those here, who denigrate every bit of
> Maharishi's
> teaching, Guru Dev, TM and the siddhis. But these critics
> are not
> established in Being. They have weak and empty spiritual
> lives, and
> rather than working on that, they find it a great and happy
> distraction, to focus, instead, on someone else's
> perceived failings.
>
>
> That is not
> the purpose of this forum, to take pot shots at
> others, because of your own failures. I hope that Barry,
> Curtis and
> Michael all take this to heart, and the next time they open
> their
> mouths to fling an empty criticism at all things TM, they
> reflect,
> first, on their paucity of spiritual experience, and be
> aware of
> that.-Fleetwood
> turquoiseb writes:
>
> curtisdeltablues writes:
>
> fleetwood_macncheese
> writes:
> "An
> enthusiastic response" from me? Nope, just stay far
> enough away from me, to keep your bleeding heart from
> ruining my shirt.
>
> C:Your
> framing compassion for people suffering from a disease they
> did not choose and speaking out against your callus post as
> a "bleeding heart" makes my point perfectly.
>
>
> Especially coming from one of the "Maharishi
> enlightened."
>
> This
> exchange illustrates my basic thesis on this forum. It
> REALLY DOESN'T MATTER what one *says* about people one
> doesn't like on FFL. All that matters is what the
> persons saying it do in their posts, as often-unintended
> "accessories" to what they say.
>
>
>
> ---In
> FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
>  wrote :
>
>
> ---In
> FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
>  w

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cutting Spam on FFL

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 5/16/2014 9:51 AM, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:

TM/MIU/MUM are a sacred posting ground here.

>
Apparently there are zero TMO representatives posting here. But, I 
wonder how many TMO lurkers there are? You would think though, that at 
least one MUM student in ten years would have been interested in joining 
in the FFL conversation, considering how kids these days love to text 
and tweet these days. But, I guess they have better things to do with 
their time. Go figure.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cutting Spam on FFL

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 5/16/2014 9:58 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:


I suspect Richard is referring just to your posts, Buck.


>
Spam is somebody trying to sell us something. And, there's not much TMO 
news to report. The speed of movement news from the TMO could be 
compared to that of pouring molasses in winter. Nobody posting here 
seems to know what is going on in Vedic City, if anything.


But, I will have to say that I am very impressed with what the TMO has 
been able to accomplish - it's very impressive when you consider that it 
was one tiny little bearded guy dressed in a bed sheet holding a rolled 
up carpet for a suitcase that got it all started.


Credit where credit is due. Very impressive - considering what MMY had 
to work with when he got here.





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


Whoa, TM/MIU/MUM are a sacred posting ground here. The TM/MIU/MUM
postings to FFL are well grandfathered on to FFL as a kind of fact
based postulate and original thought. They are a particularly
protected and a substantial content of FFL. As essential FFL
spiritual grist for the mill, we would be nothing here without TM
the TM movement postings here,  -Buck





---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] What do Ginger Baker and black coffee have in common?

[Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]]

Drummers when they sing are focusing on the vocal not the drumming.  But 
Collins is probably enough of a pro it doesn't matter.  That's the 
thing, I only had problems with non-pro musicians on time or in one case 
when I subbed for a friend the leader had a heart condition which caused 
his tempo to vary.  He explained it to me so I could lock down the tempo 
when he started to drift as he didn't want that to happen.


On 05/16/2014 09:36 AM, fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:


Interesting stuff - I am curious about how you would characterize Phil 
Collins, when he was both drumming, and singing his songs? Obviously 
he is keeping time, and it is his band, but he seems to have a looser 
style than simply a time-keeper.



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

Kinda lame research.  A bit of the "blind men elephant" type.  They 
assume all drummers are "time keepers."  Actually there are two kinds 
of "drummers":  time keepers (captain of the rhythm section) and 
"compers".  There are a some who can even manage both roles.


"Time Keepers" tend to be left brained but if the bass player decides 
he's going to be the "time keeper" the drummer loses.  He can't 
overpower the influence of the bass line on time.  "Compers" are more 
right brained and listen to the band and go with the flow of time of 
the lead.  They tend to "jell well" with the band.


I'm more of a "comper" because I started out playing to records and 
developed an ear for listening.  "Time keepers" probably didn't do 
that and started out just playing with other musicians. If you are a 
comper and hired by a band that needs a time keeper things aren't 
going to go well.  If you are a time keeper and the leader of a group 
wants the drummer to go with his rubato timing things won't go well 
either.  Duke Ellington preferred comping drummers.


The research shouldn't have sat in the grandstand but actually talked 
to musicians.


On 05/16/2014 01:24 AM, salyavin808 wrote:


They both suck without Cream.


Yup, but here's a fascinating article about something we beat boys 
always knew instinctively.




Science Shows How Drummers' Brains Are Actually Different From 
Everybody Elses' 






image 




Science Shows How Drummers' Brains Are Actual... 
 


Their brains are in an artistic league of their own.

View on www.policymic.com 



Preview by Yahoo

Re: [FairfieldLife] Sleeper TV show

[lengli...@cox.net [FairfieldLife]]

Hey, I'm a fan of From Dusk til Dawn, both the original movie, and the TV 
series. 

 Reviewers rank it pretty highly, actually, so its not just oddballs like me 
who like it.
 

 

 L
 

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

 On 5/16/2014 2:09 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:

 I've been watching it since the start, because I'm a real Robert Rodriguez 
fanboy. >
 Typical America violent warfare stuff - perfect for a neo_Nazi skinhead Texas 
hick living over  in flea-town playing games on a laptop and watching TV in his 
bedroom all day and night - all alone. Some people just feel better when they 
have someone to talk to, even it's a chat room on the internet. Go figure.
 
 Like anyone on this forum would be interested in watching  a dumb Rodriquez 
movie. LoL! 
 

 This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus 
http://www.avast.com/ protection is active.
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

I admit I'm congratulating myself because most of the time I don't feel 
tormented. And if I do, then I practice a little EFT tapping or ho'oponopono. 

On Friday, May 16, 2014 12:15 PM, "curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 
 wrote:
 


  


--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :


Thanks for posting this, but it is
difficult to understand why anyone would work in a cult movement
for over twenty years and then turn around and refute almost
everything they believed in before. 

C: Really? You can't understand why a person in their 30's might have some 
better insights about his beliefs adopted when he was 16 and held through his 
20's?

That doesn't say much for your own learning ability.

R: And, then be so obsessive
about it they would troll here to torment people still on the
spiritual path. 

C: Let me wipe the lipstick off that pig for you Richard. To call what you and 
Jim do in your postings an expression of a "spiritual path" is laughable even 
from the perspective within the movement I left behind. And you might want to 
lay off the term "obsessive" considering your posting style.

R: Over twenty years. My gawd, Man! I finished school, got married,
raised a family and retired from a career in that length of time.
So, I just can't figure it. Where is Dr. Pete when we need him?

C: Yeah I've been busy too Richard. Let's both skip the self congratulatory 
medals for living.




On 5/16/2014 10:41 AM, anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:
>
It is not a no brainer
to attempt to determine a person's experience by what they
say, particularly just based on text they write. For example,
Michael Jackson, to me, sounds angry at times, but I do not really know what he 
is
experiencing. Judy does not typically sound angry to me most
of the time. Barry doesn't sound angry to me either. In spite
of what and how he writes he seems rather light hearted to me.
Curtis is the more serious thinker and he has a forceful way
of presenting his thoughts, but that does not mean he is
pissed off.
>
>
>I tend to think of the
world in terms of 'structure' and 'content'. Structure
underlies content. Take a movie script. There is the structure
- how it is put together, and content - what it is about. If
we were to consider the art of film making, what makes a film
work artistically is the structure; the content is an
expression of the underlying structure. The content is 'more
superficial' because the same kind of underlying structure can
be used with different kinds of content. People who focus on
content however will be more attracted to certain films and
repelled by others even though they have the same basic
artistic under pinnings.
>
>
>That is pretty much like
being and form. Being is the underlying structure of
experience, and content is the variable. The more you are
moved by the content, the more your world is rocked for good
or ill.
>
>
>Spiritual development
has the characteristic of making a person more autonomous
psychologically, that is, less reliance on others concerning
how and what one thinks. Maharishi called it self sufficiency.
So if these spiritual techniques work, a person should show
more and more signs of independent thought and action as time
goes on.
>
>
>That various people on
this forum have left the TM movement through their own choice
or not their own choice - both seem to indicate that self
sufficiency and independence of thought are at play. The TMO
does not tolerate independent thinking and expression more
than a small degree when it comes to the corpus of what
Maharishi left behind. So as one develops spiritually in any
movement that has viable strategies for growth, if that
movement does not encourage independence, self sufficiency,
autonomous behaviour, there will eventually be a clash simply
because of the success of those strategies. Traditionally a
teacher, a 'master', teaches and the students eventually are
sent off on their own to teach, or just live their independent
autonomous lives. The problem exists when an organisation
develops around a teaching, and independence of thought
develops in those who are within that matrix of the
organisation, by virtue of the organisations own teachings.
>
>
>It is thus the tendency
that, for those with the most autonomous characteristics
developing, to leave the nest, or be kicked out of the nest,
because it is a necessity for further progress, and because
for the organisation, since it develops a 'fixed canon' of
ideas, for the organisation to maintain its content without
alternation.
>
>
>In other words a
breakdown of the relationship between an organisation and its
developing students is inevitable, because of the growing
freedom of the students mind and experience within the
framework of an ever more constrained organisational structure
as time progresses. This is to say that spiritual development
of an individual person and a spiritual organisation tend to
be eventually become antithetical to one another by their very
nature. This do

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Thanks for posting this, but it is difficult to understand why anyone would 
work in a cult movement for over twenty years and then turn around and refute 
almost everything they believed in before. 

C: Really? You can't understand why a person in their 30's might have some 
better insights about his beliefs adopted when he was 16 and held through his 
20's?

That doesn't say much for your own learning ability.

R: And, then be so obsessive about it they would troll here to torment people 
still on the spiritual path. 

C: Let me wipe the lipstick off that pig for you Richard. To call what you and 
Jim do in your postings an expression of a "spiritual path" is laughable even 
from the perspective within the movement I left behind. And you might want to 
lay off the term "obsessive" considering your posting style.
 
 R: Over twenty years. My gawd, Man! I finished school, got married, raised a 
family and retired from a career in that length of time. So, I just can't 
figure it. Where is Dr. Pete when we need him?

C: Yeah I've been busy too Richard. Let's both skip the self congratulatory 
medals for living.


 
 On 5/16/2014 10:41 AM, anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:
 
 It is not a no brainer to attempt to determine a person's experience by what 
they say, particularly just based on text they write. For example, Michael 
Jackson, to me, sounds angry at times, but I do not really know what he is 
experiencing. Judy does not typically sound angry to me most of the time. Barry 
doesn't sound angry to me either. In spite of what and how he writes he seems 
rather light hearted to me. Curtis is the more serious thinker and he has a 
forceful way of presenting his thoughts, but that does not mean he is pissed 
off.
 
 
 I tend to think of the world in terms of 'structure' and 'content'. Structure 
underlies content. Take a movie script. There is the structure - how it is put 
together, and content - what it is about. If we were to consider the art of 
film making, what makes a film work artistically is the structure; the content 
is an expression of the underlying structure. The content is 'more superficial' 
because the same kind of underlying structure can be used with different kinds 
of content. People who focus on content however will be more attracted to 
certain films and repelled by others even though they have the same basic 
artistic under pinnings.
 
 
 That is pretty much like being and form. Being is the underlying structure of 
experience, and content is the variable. The more you are moved by the content, 
the more your world is rocked for good or ill.
 
 
 Spiritual development has the characteristic of making a person more 
autonomous psychologically, that is, less reliance on others concerning how and 
what one thinks. Maharishi called it self sufficiency. So if these spiritual 
techniques work, a person should show more and more signs of independent 
thought and action as time goes on.
 
 
 That various people on this forum have left the TM movement through their own 
choice or not their own choice - both seem to indicate that self sufficiency 
and independence of thought are at play. The TMO does not tolerate independent 
thinking and expression more than a small degree when it comes to the corpus of 
what Maharishi left behind. So as one develops spiritually in any movement that 
has viable strategies for growth, if that movement does not encourage 
independence, self sufficiency, autonomous behaviour, there will eventually be 
a clash simply because of the success of those strategies. Traditionally a 
teacher, a 'master', teaches and the students eventually are sent off on their 
own to teach, or just live their independent autonomous lives. The problem 
exists when an organisation develops around a teaching, and independence of 
thought develops in those who are within that matrix of the organisation, by 
virtue of the organisations own teachings.
 
 
 It is thus the tendency that, for those with the most autonomous 
characteristics developing, to leave the nest, or be kicked out of the nest, 
because it is a necessity for further progress, and because for the 
organisation, since it develops a 'fixed canon' of ideas, for the organisation 
to maintain its content without alternation.
 
 
 In other words a breakdown of the relationship between an organisation and its 
developing students is inevitable, because of the growing freedom of the 
students mind and experience within the framework of an ever more constrained 
organisational structure as time progresses. This is to say that spiritual 
development of an individual person and a spiritual organisation tend to be 
eventually become antithetical to one another by their very nature. This does 
not mean everyone who becomes 'spiritually advanced' (a rather peculiar term 
considering what enlightenment is), will walk out or be excommunicated from the 
fold, but th

Re: [FairfieldLife] commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 5/16/2014 10:31 AM, fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
> Rank beginners in terms of spiritual advancement, not cult following. 
> In terms of cult following, Barry and Curtis have us all beat, hands 
> down. That is why they piss and moan about it, so often.
 >
Alright, being a follower of MMY for twenty years is one thing, but 
working for Fred Lenz? And post here claiming he witnessed hundreds of 
levitation events? It just boggles the mind - does anyone take this guy 
seriously?

There's something else at work here - only an idiot would go online and 
brag about his relationship with Lenz, and at the same time make fun of 
followers of the Maharishi. It's just hilarious and bizarre!

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] HuffPost US vs. UK on the new Indian Prime Minister

[Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

noozguru, I'm intrigued by your statement that big countries can't get it 
right. Can you say more?

On Friday, May 16, 2014 11:52 AM, "Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net 
[FairfieldLife]"  wrote:
 


  
On 05/16/2014 09:37 AM, 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:

  
>On 5/16/2014 11:09 AM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife] 
>wrote:
>> India seems to be doing a pendulum swing again from
  the more liberal 
>> socialist leadership to the conservative BJP. Big
  countries never can 
>> get things right.
>>
>The young people have spoken - they are tired of the
  corruption, 
>mismanagement, and poor economy of the dynastic Congress
  Party. It's not 
>complicated.
>
Don't look to the BJP to solve that! :-D 



>---
>This email is free from viruses and malware because avast!
  Antivirus protection is active.
>http://www.avast.com
>
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

Thanks for posting this, but it is difficult to understand why anyone 
would work in a cult movement for over twenty years and then turn around 
and refute almost everything they believed in before. And, then be so 
obsessive about it they would troll here to torment people still on the 
spiritual path.


Over twenty years. My gawd, Man! I finished school, got married, raised 
a family and retired from a career in that length of time. So, I just 
can't figure it. Where is Dr. Pete when we need him?


On 5/16/2014 10:41 AM, anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:


It is not a no brainer to attempt to determine a person's experience 
by what they say, particularly just based on text they write. For 
example, Michael Jackson, to me, sounds angry at times, but I do not 
really know what he is experiencing. Judy does not typically sound 
angry to me most of the time. Barry doesn't sound angry to me either. 
In spite of what and how he writes he seems rather light hearted to 
me. Curtis is the more serious thinker and he has a forceful way of 
presenting his thoughts, but that does not mean he is pissed off.



I tend to think of the world in terms of 'structure' and 'content'. 
Structure underlies content. Take a movie script. There is the 
structure - how it is put together, and content - what it is about. If 
we were to consider the art of film making, what makes a film work 
artistically is the structure; the content is an expression of the 
underlying structure. The content is 'more superficial' because the 
same kind of underlying structure can be used with different kinds of 
content. People who focus on content however will be more attracted to 
certain films and repelled by others even though they have the same 
basic artistic under pinnings.


That is pretty much like being and form. Being is the underlying 
structure of experience, and content is the variable. The more you are 
moved by the content, the more your world is rocked for good or ill.


Spiritual development has the characteristic of making a person more 
autonomous psychologically, that is, less reliance on others 
concerning how and what one thinks. Maharishi called it self 
sufficiency. So if these spiritual techniques work, a person should 
show more and more signs of independent thought and action as time 
goes on.


That various people on this forum have left the TM movement through 
their own choice or not their own choice - both seem to indicate that 
self sufficiency and independence of thought are at play. The TMO does 
not tolerate independent thinking and expression more than a small 
degree when it comes to the corpus of what Maharishi left behind. So 
as one develops spiritually in any movement that has viable strategies 
for growth, if that movement does not encourage independence, self 
sufficiency, autonomous behaviour, there will eventually be a clash 
simply because of the success of those strategies. Traditionally a 
teacher, a 'master', teaches and the students eventually are sent off 
on their own to teach, or just live their independent autonomous 
lives. The problem exists when an organisation develops around a 
teaching, and independence of thought develops in those who are within 
that matrix of the organisation, by virtue of the organisations own 
teachings.


It is thus the tendency that, for those with the most autonomous 
characteristics developing, to leave the nest, or be kicked out of the 
nest, because it is a necessity for further progress, and because for 
the organisation, since it develops a 'fixed canon' of ideas, for the 
organisation to maintain its content without alternation.


In other words a breakdown of the relationship between an organisation 
and its developing students is inevitable, because of the growing 
freedom of the students mind and experience within the framework of an 
ever more constrained organisational structure as time progresses. 
This is to say that spiritual development of an individual person and 
a spiritual organisation tend to be eventually become antithetical to 
one another by their very nature. This does not mean everyone who 
becomes 'spiritually advanced' (a rather peculiar term considering 
what enlightenment is), will walk out or be excommunicated from the 
fold, but that it is a strong tendency that we observe.


It might have to do with the intrinsic characteristics of an 
individual. Freedom can be scary, not necessarily comfortable. 
Spiritual progress in not necessarily a cakewalk. You can chicken out 
by staying in an organisation, staying in the womb, as much as by 
simply giving up.




---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

[FairfieldLife] A nostalgia moment

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

I don't know what made me think of this, but does anyone else remember Biff 
from the "Back to the Future" movies? He started out looking like this, yer 
classic big guy with a tiny dick:


But over time he morphed into pretty much the same big guy with the tiny dick, 
but now sagging and experiencing retirement panic:


That's all. Just a nostalgia moment. It's not as if Biff reminds me of anyone. 
Really.  :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

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

 On 5/16/2014 11:07 AM, fleetwood_macncheese@... 
mailto:fleetwood_macncheese@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:

 However, the trend around here, for a couple of ex-TM teachers, seems to be to 
take credit for their status and knowledge as TM teachers, within an 
organization that they now completely discredit, and even denigrate.  >
 It's like they can't let go, so they come here for the memories and to make 
fun of their former compatriots - like we are going to listen to them any more. 
There's something else working here now - it's all about Judy. 
 
 And, that's what makes it so weird. What is it with these guys anyway - are 
they still trying to impress us? It's like a reverse attempt at mind-control.
 
 Who in their right mind would spend all this time trolling here just to 
antagonize people seeking spiritual truth? Why can't they just get over it and 
move on? There's nothing more boring than a reformed cultist preaching to a 
choir. Go figure.

C:Your framing spin doesn't fit me Richard. I am as sincere a seeker of truth 
of anyone here. I rejected Maharishi's model because it doesn't fit what I 
consider the truth to be. You are just in shoot the messenger mode and it isn't 
gunna work.

The problem I had with Maharishi's organization was not that it functioned like 
a cult. When I was in it I couldn't have cared less. The problem was that I 
don't think he is right about human consciousness. And that leads me to post on 
a site like this one as I figure out where I stand on various issues of 
interest to others on this board.



 

 This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus 
http://www.avast.com/ protection is active.
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] HuffPost US vs. UK on the new Indian Prime Minister

[Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]]

On 05/16/2014 09:37 AM, 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:


On 5/16/2014 11:09 AM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]
wrote:
> India seems to be doing a pendulum swing again from the more liberal
> socialist leadership to the conservative BJP. Big countries never can
> get things right.
>
The young people have spoken - they are tired of the corruption,
mismanagement, and poor economy of the dynastic Congress Party. It's not
complicated.



Don't look to the BJP to solve that! :-D



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus 
protection is active.

http://www.avast.com