[FairfieldLife] Re: Ragnorak
FWIW (Wiki): Etymology The Old Norse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse compound ragnarok has a long history of interpretation. Its first element, ragna, is unproblematic, being the genitive plural of regin (n. pl.) the ruling powers, gods. The second element is more difficult, as it occurs in two variants, -rök and -røkkr. Zoega's Old Icelandic Dictionary treats the two forms as two separate compounds, glossing ragnarök as the doom or destruction of the gods and ragnarøkkr as the twilight of the gods (1910). The plural noun rök, has several meanings, such as development, origin, cause, relation, fate.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar%C3%B6k#cite_note-2 The word ragnarök as a whole is then usually interpreted as the final destiny of the gods.[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar%C3%B6k#cite_note-FOOTNOTESimek2007259-3 The singular form ragnarøk(k)r is found in stanza 39 of the Poetic Edda poem Lokasenna http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lokasenna, and in the Prose Edda. The noun røkr, røkkr means twilight (from a verb røkkva to grow dark), suggesting a translation twilight of the gods. This reading was widely considered a folk-etymological corruption, or a learned reinterpretation, of the original term due to the merger of /ǫ/ and /ø/ in Old Icelandic after ca. 1200[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar%C3%B6k#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBjordvandLindeman2007856.E2.80.93857-4 (nevertheless giving rise to the concept of Götterdämmerung http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6tterd%C3%A4mmerung Twilight of the Gods in the German reception of Norse mythology[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar%C3%B6k#cite_note-FOOTNOTELindow2001254-5). Nevertheless, Haraldur Bernharðsson in a 2007 paper suggested that the singular form -røkr twilight (from a Proto-Germanic *rekwa) might have been the original reading.[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar%C3%B6k#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBernhar.C3.B0sson200730.E2.80.9332-6 Haraldur Bernharðsson argues instead that the words ragnarök and ragnarøkkr are closely related, etymologically and semantically, and suggests a meaning of renewal of the divine powers.Ragnarök - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar%C3%B6k#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBernhar.C3.B0sson200735-7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar%C3%B6k#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBernhar.C3.B0sson200735-7 Ragnarök - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar%C3%B6k#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBernhar.C3.B0sson200735-7 In Norse mythology, Ragnarök is a series of future events, including a great battle foretold to ultimately result in the death of a number of major fi... View on en.wikiped... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar%C3%B6k#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBernhar.C3.B0sson200735-7 Preview by Yahoo
[FairfieldLife] Maharishi Camo Clothing???
Y'all do some different stuff in the UK now don't you? http://www.maharishistore.com/about.php
Re: [FairfieldLife] Maharishi Camo Clothing???
When I was in Kerala and getting over Shiva's Revenge I made a trip to a local ayurvedic doctor who claimed to be selling Maharishi products. He did but it's wasn't the MAPI stuff. Of course the TMO has no exclusivity over the title Maharishi. On 12/27/2014 09:19 AM, Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Y'all do some different stuff in the UK now don't you? http://www.maharishistore.com/about.php
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ragnorak
It is referred to in the film as a sort of apocalypse that the Vikings envisioned. On 12/27/2014 03:30 AM, he...@hotmail.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: FWIW (Wiki): Etymology The Old Norse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse compound /ragnarok/ has a long history of interpretation. Its first element, /ragna/, is unproblematic, being the genitive plural of /regin/ (n. pl.) the ruling powers, gods. The second element is more difficult, as it occurs in two variants, /-rök/ and /-røkkr/. Zoega's /Old Icelandic Dictionary/ treats the two forms as two separate compounds, glossing /ragnarök/ as the doom or destruction of the gods and /ragnarøkkr/ as the twilight of the gods (1910). The plural noun /rök/, has several meanings, such as development, origin, cause, relation, fate.^[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar%C3%B6k#cite_note-2 The word /ragnarök/ as a whole is then usually interpreted as the final destiny of the gods.^[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar%C3%B6k#cite_note-FOOTNOTESimek2007259-3 The singular form /ragnarøk(k)r/ is found in stanza 39 of the /Poetic Edda/ poem /Lokasenna http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lokasenna/, and in the /Prose Edda/. The noun /røkr, røkkr/ means twilight (from a verb /røkkva/ to grow dark), suggesting a translation twilight of the gods. This reading was widely considered a folk-etymological corruption, or a learned reinterpretation, of the original term due to the merger of /ǫ/ and /ø/ in Old Icelandic after ca. 1200^[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar%C3%B6k#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBjordvandLindeman2007856.E2.80.93857-4 (nevertheless giving rise to the concept of /Götterdämmerung http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6tterd%C3%A4mmerung/ Twilight of the Gods in the German reception of Norse mythology^[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar%C3%B6k#cite_note-FOOTNOTELindow2001254-5 ). Nevertheless, Haraldur Bernharðsson in a 2007 paper suggested that the singular form /-røkr/ twilight (from a Proto-Germanic */rekwa/) might have been the original reading.^[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar%C3%B6k#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBernhar.C3.B0sson200730.E2.80.9332-6 Haraldur Bernharðsson argues instead that the words /ragnarök/ and /ragnarøkkr/ are closely related, etymologically and semantically, and suggests a meaning of renewal of the divine powers.^Ragnarök - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar%C3%B6k#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBernhar.C3.B0sson200735-7 image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar%C3%B6k#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBernhar.C3.B0sson200735-7 Ragnarök - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar%C3%B6k#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBernhar.C3.B0sson200735-7 In Norse mythology, Ragnarök is a series of future events, including a great battle foretold to ultimately result in the death of a number of major fi... View on en.wikiped... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar%C3%B6k#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBernhar.C3.B0sson200735-7 Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The real nature of transcendence
As soon as one stops anticipating higher states of consciousness then they will easily come. Maybe because I was always struggling for income until the 1990s, enlightenment was not at the top of my priorities list. In fact I recall MMY saying survival first, enlightenment second. And he also had this little joke about people being told that God was coming and they all so obsessed with the idea he was coming that they missed the plane he was on. :-D On 12/26/2014 09:53 PM, lengli...@cox.net [FairfieldLife] wrote: Like as not, a lot of people ARE in CC (whether via the practice of TM, or just because) but don't see it as a big deal because, as MMY points out, it is merely normal. Of course, the sine qua non of CC is that one has PC even during deep sleep, so perhaps that is lacking in many people... I have the opposite issue: witnessing sleep has been around almost continuously (except during a few life-threatening illnesses over the decades) within a few weeks that I first learned TM. It's the waking state integration that appears to be lacking, although... When I inadvertently went off prozac abruptly a few years ago, and had 12 hours of non-stop, viciously and horrifically violent suicidal ideation, I still had permanent presence of pure sense-of-self that was untouched by the rather Grade-Z horror movie continuously running through my mind, and I never felt an urge to act on any of that stuff. ...I'd prefer to think that I'm not really in CC rather than CC being THIS useless as a higher state of consciousness. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : PC becomes a screen on which all activity including mental is played. If I want just pure consciousness, these days I just look at it. The bigger question is after all these years of sadhana why doesn't everyone have that experience? On 12/26/2014 01:47 AM, aryavazhi wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, LEnglish5@... mailto:LEnglish5@... wrote : Um, ok... The most detailed research on pure consciousness showed that the subject didn't press a button signalling that they had had a PC episode until *after* their physiology reverted to normal. They didn't notice PC. They noticed the transition *out of* PC. Yes. Just to let you know: it did serve me well for many years - so I do know it well. But it is very different from the more fully aware state without any thought, except for the basic awareness of the state itself. Thought is so subtle, that you are aware of what is going on, but you cannot actively think. And it is more related to the chakras and kundalini. But whatever. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, LEnglish5@... mailto:LEnglish5@... wrote : But as you said, of course, transcendence has nothing to do with either having a thought, or having no thought. It is not a physiological signature, as some keep telling here, a physiological signature, can only relate to a particular experience, and any experience is by the mind. Actually, sensory experiences happen because raw sensory data comes into the brain via the thalamus and is routed to the cortext via connections called thalamo-cortical feedback loops. Internal thinking is perceived when processed data from the cortex is fed back to the thalamus and merged into the incoming raw sensory data. This is called thinking. The process of transcending is when the activity of the thalamus becomes less and so the funneling of raw sensory data and/or the merging of processed data becomes less. This happens whenever one allows the mind to wander but is facilitated by what we call Transcendental Meditation. Which is not the same as you describe below, it maybe less, but is not zero. When the thalamus no longer allows ANY data to come in from the outside and no longer allows ANY processed data to be merged with the (now non-existent) raw data stream, and yet the part of the thalamus that promotes the connectivity between distant parts of the cortex remains functioning normally, one has no internal experience, no external experience--that is, nt thoughts--and yet the brain is still alert. This is samadhi. In TM what you experience of TC is not fully alert. When you are fully aware, you already have a thought. It's not samadhi. Real samadhi is when the kundalini rises to the top chakra. And it certainly has a physiological signature: I just described it. There is a physiological signature, but it has nothing to do with samadhi, it is only your imagination L
[FairfieldLife] Post Count Sun 28-Dec-14 00:15:03 UTC
Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): 12/27/14 00:00:00 End Date (UTC): 01/03/15 00:00:00 10 messages as of (UTC) 12/27/14 20:46:26 4 Bhairitu noozguru 2 LEnglish5 1 jr_esq 1 j_alexander_stanley 1 hepa7 1 Michael Jackson mjackson74 Posters: 6 Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times = Daylight Saving Time (Summer): US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM Standard Time (Winter): US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: The real nature of transcendence
Re When I inadvertently went off Prozac abruptly a few years ago, and had 12 hours of non-stop, viciously and horrifically violent suicidal ideation . . .: Can one be in CC (or in an expanded, higher state of awareness) if he also needs Prozac? Yes, I know it's not uncommon for spiritual aspirants to undergo a dark night of the soul as a purifying stage of growth but whatever happened to the bliss we were promised? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, LEnglish5@... wrote : Like as not, a lot of people ARE in CC (whether via the practice of TM, or just because) but don't see it as a big deal because, as MMY points out, it is merely normal. Of course, the sine qua non of CC is that one has PC even during deep sleep, so perhaps that is lacking in many people... I have the opposite issue: witnessing sleep has been around almost continuously (except during a few life-threatening illnesses over the decades) within a few weeks that I first learned TM. It's the waking state integration that appears to be lacking, although... When I inadvertently went off prozac abruptly a few years ago, and had 12 hours of non-stop, viciously and horrifically violent suicidal ideation, I still had permanent presence of pure sense-of-self that was untouched by the rather Grade-Z horror movie continuously running through my mind, and I never felt an urge to act on any of that stuff. ...I'd prefer to think that I'm not really in CC rather than CC being THIS useless as a higher state of consciousness. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : PC becomes a screen on which all activity including mental is played. If I want just pure consciousness, these days I just look at it. The bigger question is after all these years of sadhana why doesn't everyone have that experience? On 12/26/2014 01:47 AM, aryavazhi wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, LEnglish5@... mailto:LEnglish5@... wrote : Um, ok... The most detailed research on pure consciousness showed that the subject didn't press a button signalling that they had had a PC episode until *after* their physiology reverted to normal. They didn't notice PC. They noticed the transition *out of* PC. Yes. Just to let you know: it did serve me well for many years - so I do know it well. But it is very different from the more fully aware state without any thought, except for the basic awareness of the state itself. Thought is so subtle, that you are aware of what is going on, but you cannot actively think. And it is more related to the chakras and kundalini. But whatever. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, LEnglish5@... mailto:LEnglish5@... wrote : But as you said, of course, transcendence has nothing to do with either having a thought, or having no thought. It is not a physiological signature, as some keep telling here, a physiological signature, can only relate to a particular experience, and any experience is by the mind. Actually, sensory experiences happen because raw sensory data comes into the brain via the thalamus and is routed to the cortext via connections called thalamo-cortical feedback loops. Internal thinking is perceived when processed data from the cortex is fed back to the thalamus and merged into the incoming raw sensory data. This is called thinking. The process of transcending is when the activity of the thalamus becomes less and so the funneling of raw sensory data and/or the merging of processed data becomes less. This happens whenever one allows the mind to wander but is facilitated by what we call Transcendental Meditation. Which is not the same as you describe below, it maybe less, but is not zero. When the thalamus no longer allows ANY data to come in from the outside and no longer allows ANY processed data to be merged with the (now non-existent) raw data stream, and yet the part of the thalamus that promotes the connectivity between distant parts of the cortex remains functioning normally, one has no internal experience, no external experience--that is, nt thoughts--and yet the brain is still alert. This is samadhi. In TM what you experience of TC is not fully alert. When you are fully aware, you already have a thought. It's not samadhi. Real samadhi is when the kundalini rises to the top chakra. And it certainly has a physiological signature: I just described it. There is a physiological signature, but it has nothing to do with samadhi, it is only your imagination L
[FairfieldLife] Re: The real nature of transcendence
Whether or not I needed prozac is not the point. I was taking prozac. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Re When I inadvertently went off Prozac abruptly a few years ago, and had 12 hours of non-stop, viciously and horrifically violent suicidal ideation . . .: Can one be in CC (or in an expanded, higher state of awareness) if he also needs Prozac? Yes, I know it's not uncommon for spiritual aspirants to undergo a dark night of the soul as a purifying stage of growth but whatever happened to the bliss we were promised? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, LEnglish5@... wrote : Like as not, a lot of people ARE in CC (whether via the practice of TM, or just because) but don't see it as a big deal because, as MMY points out, it is merely normal. Of course, the sine qua non of CC is that one has PC even during deep sleep, so perhaps that is lacking in many people... I have the opposite issue: witnessing sleep has been around almost continuously (except during a few life-threatening illnesses over the decades) within a few weeks that I first learned TM. It's the waking state integration that appears to be lacking, although... When I inadvertently went off prozac abruptly a few years ago, and had 12 hours of non-stop, viciously and horrifically violent suicidal ideation, I still had permanent presence of pure sense-of-self that was untouched by the rather Grade-Z horror movie continuously running through my mind, and I never felt an urge to act on any of that stuff. ...I'd prefer to think that I'm not really in CC rather than CC being THIS useless as a higher state of consciousness. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : PC becomes a screen on which all activity including mental is played. If I want just pure consciousness, these days I just look at it. The bigger question is after all these years of sadhana why doesn't everyone have that experience? On 12/26/2014 01:47 AM, aryavazhi wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, LEnglish5@... mailto:LEnglish5@... wrote : Um, ok... The most detailed research on pure consciousness showed that the subject didn't press a button signalling that they had had a PC episode until *after* their physiology reverted to normal. They didn't notice PC. They noticed the transition *out of* PC. Yes. Just to let you know: it did serve me well for many years - so I do know it well. But it is very different from the more fully aware state without any thought, except for the basic awareness of the state itself. Thought is so subtle, that you are aware of what is going on, but you cannot actively think. And it is more related to the chakras and kundalini. But whatever. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, LEnglish5@... mailto:LEnglish5@... wrote : But as you said, of course, transcendence has nothing to do with either having a thought, or having no thought. It is not a physiological signature, as some keep telling here, a physiological signature, can only relate to a particular experience, and any experience is by the mind. Actually, sensory experiences happen because raw sensory data comes into the brain via the thalamus and is routed to the cortext via connections called thalamo-cortical feedback loops. Internal thinking is perceived when processed data from the cortex is fed back to the thalamus and merged into the incoming raw sensory data. This is called thinking. The process of transcending is when the activity of the thalamus becomes less and so the funneling of raw sensory data and/or the merging of processed data becomes less. This happens whenever one allows the mind to wander but is facilitated by what we call Transcendental Meditation. Which is not the same as you describe below, it maybe less, but is not zero. When the thalamus no longer allows ANY data to come in from the outside and no longer allows ANY processed data to be merged with the (now non-existent) raw data stream, and yet the part of the thalamus that promotes the connectivity between distant parts of the cortex remains functioning normally, one has no internal experience, no external experience--that is, nt thoughts--and yet the brain is still alert. This is samadhi. In TM what you experience of TC is not fully alert. When you are fully aware, you already have a thought. It's not samadhi. Real samadhi is when the kundalini rises to the top chakra. And it certainly has a physiological signature: I just described it. There is a physiological signature, but it has nothing to do with samadhi, it is only your imagination L
