[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim and Rory back!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 5, 2007, at 2:29 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: So could you unsubscribe me, please? You are free to unsubscribe yourself via the website, but you're subscribed with the no email option, so there's not much point to unsubscribing unless you have a need to be unable to post to FFL. I think the point of unsubscribing was an chance to declare that guys like me are stuck in the matrix and Rory is not. I thought we had gotten beyond spiritual oneupsmanship in our discussions together. In fact the point of many of our discussion was this very topic. Apologizing for over posting while delivering this backhanded put down was uncool IMO. It sounds like Jim might not be back either, but he sent a message to FF-Lifers from another list: Thanks Rick-- Not much to say over there, though. IMO it is not a conducive environment for discussing spiritual development, which is my sole topic of interest these days, and why I joined FFL in the first place. Not much to be accomplished engaging in the same old yes it is, no it isn't exchanges. All the best to all on FFL! Actually I was responding solely to Rick...In any case not much to say these days. All the best, and Happy Holidays to everyone!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, pranamoocher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've never understood the hostilities expressed on this board by some of its members in response to simple topics of personal experiences. I really enjoy reading Jim and Rory's ( and others') enlightened explanations and don't take them as attacks on others' states of consciousness at all, although I probably comprehend only half of their contents, and that is only on an intellectual basis. But I find them enriching or intriguing nonetheless and along with some of the other regular posters, they are a large reason I log onto FL almost daily. This board would be boring without them. As a comparison, are there other forums to recommend with people sharing their enlightened experiences? I'd like to surf those since besides FL, my only participation to these experiences has mainly been passive, from books, tapes, speakers or courses long ago. Glad to hear it-- BTW, I've always enjoyed your nom de plume here!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: When I quoted G. Spencer Brown (British mathematician) in response to the Davies piece, Judy assumed I had not read the thing. Angela, you still haven't gotten it yet. Judy assumes the worst she can imagine about anyone she feels like putting down. In your case and my case, she assumed that we never read the article in question. That, and that we are stupid and SO much less intellectually-endowed than her, of course. :-) In my case, I plowed my way through it even despite a complete disinterest in the subject matter. To me, *both* science and religion are on a par -- puny human beings trying to convince themselves and others that they've got things figured out. BORING. You're just an easy target, that's all. In a few days it'll be Delia (as it has been in the past). Or Sal. Or Curtis. Or anyone else who commits the Ultimate Sin of Not Taking Judy Seriously. Get used to it. As Curtis said about Jim, it's not about you. It's about a feeling of insecurity and the compulsion to elevate her image by lowering the image of others in her eyes. It's not personal. You're just the target du jour. Primary chakra speaks again!!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting stats
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of the three folks who regularly say that they are enlightened (or at the very least experiencing enlightened states of mind, even if they don't call themselves enlightened) on FFL, during the last month: * Jim has made +120 posts, the majority of them defending his view of himself against critics and those who regard his experiences as mainly mood- making. * Rory has made +100 posts, the majority of them defending his view of himself against critics and those who regard his experiences as mainly mood- making. * Tom T has made one post, just having fun with some photos that someone posted: I thought that the guys you picked to show me were much to handsome. I am much fatter and have all gray hair. Great shots of the gang on Weds nite. Enjoyed this very much. So here's a question -- if you were a betting man (or woman), based solely on their behavior, which of these three do you think is more likely to have actually experienced enlightened states of mind? :-) I am sure not betting on You, Buddhi Boy!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting stats
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Of the three folks who regularly say that they are enlightened (or at the very least experiencing enlightened states of mind, even if they don't call themselves enlightened) on FFL, during the last month: * Jim has made +120 posts, the majority of them defending his view of himself against critics and those who regard his experiences as mainly mood- making. * Rory has made +100 posts, the majority of them defending his view of himself against critics and those who regard his experiences as mainly mood- making. * Tom T has made one post, just having fun with some photos that someone posted: I thought that the guys you picked to show me were much to handsome. I am much fatter and have all gray hair. Great shots of the gang on Weds nite. Enjoyed this very much. So here's a question -- if you were a betting man (or woman), based solely on their behavior, which of these three do you think is more likely to have actually experienced enlightened states of mind? :-) I am sure not betting on You, Buddhi Boy! In all seriousness, this attempt to turn the actions of the enlightened into a popularity contest for the unenlightened is probably the most absurd thing I've ever seen-- almost demonic dude. So what you are saying is that living within your personal boundaries if you deign to judge my actions or another enlightened person's actions as worthy of your acceptance, or not, then you deem that person as enlightened, or not? Don't you get how completely f*cked up that sounds? I would hope that as a person I am liked by at least some on this forum, but to put my actions in the perverted spotlight that you are proposing is just crazy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Okay, true colors time (Expression of talent)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why does a beautifully vivid imagination have to be crushed with ontological importance? All the talented painters I know have detailed visions, they just don't try to label it as going to heaven. Likewise composing music often involves hearing it in detail inside first. Is it God speaking to me? This chick's talent is not being helped by buying into the content of her interpretations of her inner visions. It is going to keep her stuck painting ready-for- Ebay stuff instead of realizing her artistic potential. Humility in art is a hard pill for all of us, but it becomes twice as hard if someone believes their artistic expressions are divinely inspired. Angela was right about the stage of her art. It is a great start. She needs a teacher who can push her to her next level. Most likely the specialness bug will bite her so hard that she will become rich selling her simplistically emotionally centered pieces to people who are more interested in their imagined source than in her talent. Not a bad life probably. And who knows if she would ever grow into a mature painter? BTW, no dad mentioned in the piece......no dad in the picture and visions of a hunky perfect father in heaven... I enjoy your role as iconoclast to the last, Curtis-- well she is just 12-- if she indeed has a relationship with her guardian angel, as it appears she does (labeled as God), she will undoubtedly mature in her relationship with the Divine.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I don't sense any openness to feedback here so I'll just leave it at that. I'm with you on this one, Curtis, I don't sense it either. Haven't you guys paid any attention to the ROLE MODEL these enlightened guys have? The suspense is killing me. Has MAHARISHI ever been open to feedback? Has he ever demonstrated the slightest desire to ever *communicate* with another human being? I have to say, based on the time I spent with him, that the answer is an enormous NO. Maharishi doesn't communicate -- he pontificates. He makes pronouncements, and expects people to be awed by the things he says. Wow-- Many would say the same thing about you, little maharishi. Now look at Rory and Jim. Who do you think they're modeling their behavior on? modeling their behavior on??? WTF? more crazy talk. We're too far beneath them to communicate with. If you insist, and you ARE insisting. Boy are you ever insistent... The only thing a truly enlightened being like Jim or Rory can think of to do with one of us unenlight- ened souls is preach to us and tell us what we have to do to become *almost* as good as they are. Never really *as* good, of course, but close, if we try real hard, and display enough awe over their pronouncements. Buddhi Boy speaks!!! superior/inferior... The thing is, Maharishi had a little charisma for a while, long enough to suck a large number of people in with such an act. These guys? They're just trying to run his act but without anything to back it up. IMO, of course. I could be wrong. Nope-- no weaseling out this time-- I totally accept your position, and you are stuck with it-- Both of these guys could really be enlightened for all I know. But if it were *proved* to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were fully enlightened, I'd *still* never take anything they say seriously or act upon it. Testify Turq, Testify!!! Life's too short to waste it following the advice of assholes. Ooops, you lost me there. Contradicting yourself...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, excellent point. I've never seen MMY actually communicate with anyone. Jim and Rory may well be enlightened, but they don't seem to have enough self-awareness to notice how they come across. Maybe they just don't give a shit. a How can I *control* your perception of me Angela? Even if I could, I have no interest in doing so. Why do we all have such different perceptions of what I say? In the eye of the beholder perhaps?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting stats
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Its a comparison of *behaviors* in several people who have stepped up to the plate here on FFL and made statements about their supposed state of consciousness. My point was simply that one of them has done so with class, and two have done so without an ounce of class. You mean, one of Us is not threatening your Buddhi-tyranny at the moment, and the other two of Us are? You're just like Vaj, aren't you? You want us all to keep quiet, to not rock the boat? The only good Dead-guy is a dead Dead-guy! *lol* Exactly-- that pronouncement by Vaj about keeping quiet is a historical warning to not confuse the ignorant with the speech of the enlightened. I for one refuse to believe that everyone on FFL is as ignorant as Turq and Vaj would have us believe. It certainly feels as if there is some receptivity out there in the fertile Silence. Its a great feeling being able to share what are everyday experiences of mine to those who enjoy hearing them. I am also all ears when those who are supremely free speak. Its just more fun than being stuck and frustrated and desperate.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting stats
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Its a comparison of *behaviors* in several people who have stepped up to the plate here on FFL and made statements about their supposed state of consciousness. My point was simply that one of them has done so with class, and two have done so without an ounce of class. You mean, one of Us is not threatening your Buddhi-tyranny at the moment, and the other two of Us are? You're just like Vaj, aren't you? You want us all to keep quiet, to not rock the boat? The only good Dead-guy is a dead Dead-guy! *lol* A couple of fellows are shaking their anti-TM boat where it used to be so comfy. No wonder they are upset. :-) Unfortunately not upset enough to capsize the boat into the ocean though...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting stats
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Until the stories are good enough TO deserve applause, you really can't expect it. But you do. And you get pissed off and defensive when it doesn't appear. That's not enlightenment, dude. That's being a ten-year-old. Again, you filter my actions through this bizarre lens and equate how you perceive me on some only known to Turq enlightenment meter, or something. Huh? Its just crazy talk to me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting stats
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nablusos: A couple of fellows are shaking their anti-TM boat where it used to be so comfy. No wonder they are upset. :-) jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: Unfortunately not upset enough to capsize the boat into the ocean though... Ha! Just what I was thinking. I love how the flea sits on the elephant's rump, thinking it can control the elephant :-) No kidding! The dynamics are fascinating though. Also how the fleas are absolutely buck naked, yet strut around all wrapped up in themselves! What a hoot!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: Acid Trip and Jim and Rory [since they both seem to have missed the post] Didn't miss it; just didn't think you really wanted to converse :-) Reading Jim and Rory's posts reminds me of an acid trip I took decades snip If I read it correctly, Rory has been in this 'state' for 10+ years It's been 25 years since I saw that 'states' were completely irrelevant. and seems to have the same problem of not integrating his consciousness to simple civil effective communication. It is civil and effective for those who are not resisting; for those who still identify with the Tyrannical Buddhi, it is seen quite rightly as an Act of War :-) [Hint: Guru Dev and Maharishi didn't/don't seem to have that problem.] Here's a little hint from me to you: If you are still resisting Us, then did you really let Guru Dev and MMY finish the job? If you didn't, are you really in any position to judge which of Us is more effective at liberating you? Apparently we are *all* still failing miserably :-) Yeah. Like I said, arrogant asshole. Perhaps you really think that your being an arrogant asshole really DOES effectively liberate people. GUFFAW! Ergo Maharishi and Guru Dev, Brahmanada Saraswati, have also failed to liberate you John, and so they must also be arrogant assholes?? Surely your failure to live a liberated state is their fault, right? Am I tracking? Are you comfirtable with your logic here?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: R: Apparently we are *all* still failing miserably :-) Yeah. Like I said, arrogant asshole. Perhaps you really think that your being an arrogant asshole really DOES effectively liberate people. GUFFAW! No, not at all. I repeat: Apparently we are *all* still failing miserably :-) As far as I can see, people either liberate themselves or they stay in bondage. Death or cake? Oooh, cake, please! *lol* Cake, always by Betty Crocker, since she is an illusion too!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Ergo Maharishi and Guru Dev, Brahmanada Saraswati, have also failed to liberate you John, and so they must also be arrogant assholes?? Certainly not, but what they're doing doesn't include acting like assholes. Surely your failure to live a liberated state is their fault, right? Am I tracking? Are you comfirtable with your logic here? I'm perfectly comfortable with 'my' logic, Jim. It's only you and Rory who have suggested Maharishi and Guru Dev [SBS] are failures at what they do. I've made NO such suggestion whatsoever. My point is that Rory indicating that his and your being a assholes is useful accomplish the task, is laughable. BTW, who would want to *become* an arrogant asshole? There seems to be quite an overload of them all over the place as it is. Ok then-- I'll be an arrogant asshole IF, and only IF, you take responsibility for your failure to achieve liberation. Do we have a deal?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim announces new role for himself.
snip Ok then-- I'll be an arrogant asshole IF, and only IF, you take responsibility for your failure to achieve liberation. Do we have a deal? You already ARE acting like an arrogant asshole - and my achieving or not achieving liberation is none of your business. Uh uh, sorry, the deal's off. No arrogant asshole for you! Better luck next time...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, there is nothing I can see that isn't part of me. I know condescension because I have been guilty of it. I know what it feels like. That we are what we behold is a given. Within that given, however, there are distinctions that a well-trained literary critic can make. I don't know you at all, but I do know your writing. Writing, ultimately, does not tell lies. I don't see condescension when I read William Blake, for instance, even when he criticizes what he sees as the limited vision of John Locke or Isaac Newton. But I do see it when I read your writing, less so in Rory, but still there. Now you may not be aware of any of that, but I am not the only one who sees this condescension in your writing. With so many people seeing it, may there not be a grain of truth to it? I will refer to Rory's explanation when he spoke about being uncompromising with regard to addressing the identification with the Tyrannical Buddhi, or ability to discriminate. When people identify with that, vs. the more fundamental oneness that we truly are, they will feel offended by what I am saying. If you feel offended, that is an accurate perception because of what I am specifically attacking. I will say though, that my attacks are not aimed at people indiscriminately, or even people themselves and every word has a specific meaning and sequence when so aimed. I have nothing to criticize about what I see as your and others' true nature, and if you read my postings carefully you will see that I am not out to hurt or criticize people here. I am often quite supportive of the positive messages expressed here. I hope that answers your question.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You know, if I were enlightened, I would expect that part of my freedom, part of my meat robot's new world, would be the duty or privilege of setting folks straight about enlightenment, and if the folks want to tussle, well, the enlightened can give what's given to them backacha TIMES TEN. snip I just do and say what comes naturally. I cannot help that it tweaks some people-- there doesn't seem to be any room for compromise in this way. The little that I have read on this topic talks about the polarization between those who identify with Oneness and those who don't, when we are specifically expressing our experiences. It is a fundamentally different view and experience of the world, and when expressed outright is just plainly and simply what it is.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Every scripture has saints who kill, lie, rape, swindle, etc. in the cause of upholding the integrity of spirituality itself. Those who will not even consider that God exists are the proper targets for such low behavoir on the parts of the enlightened. Atheists are all too aware of this fanatical position throughout history. Seeing it supported in this day and age by you Edg creeps me out to the max. But it doesn't surprise me one bit. I agree-- that does sound fanatical, and I cannot think of it being ever OK to commit a crime in the name of enlightenment.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do not feel offended. Your condescension was never directed at me, I just happened to notice it and also noticed honest efforts on the part of others to make you aware of it. So I thought I'd put in my two cents worth as a more or less objective observer. Intellect makes discriminations, and keeps doing it regardless of the state of enlightenment or lack thereof. I imagine that in the state of enlightenment discriminations are made without feeling tyrannized by them. I do read your posts carefully. My perceptions are based on careful reading, nor are my perceptions intended to hurt you. You're enlightened in any case, so beyond being hurt by anyone's observations. a Thank you for your honest and straightforward dialogue. This is as new for me as it is for anyone else. I enjoy it, and who knows what lies around the next turn?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Jim doesn't want to kill or swindle -- that's a good sign that he's not going to spontaneously manifest those dynamics, but, don't kid yourself, like all of us, he'd kill anyone holding a knife to his child's throat if that was his Jack Baur moment of doing the hard thing to be in tune with righteousness. snip Funny you should mention this-- there is a correlation to the state of consciousness that we have been discussing here, and that is I and my loved ones feel safe. In a tumultuous world, it is almost like a pre- emptive bubble of peace and safety surrounds me and my loved ones. Can't explain it any further than that, except to say that it is experiential and palpable. Perhaps it is related to an absence of fear. Also whenever I am in a challenging or potentially dangerous situation I communicate directly with those more powerful than me, to ensure a safe passage, or just take a moment to clear the way. Much better than the old style of looking figuratively over my shoulder.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting stats
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: If you're really cogitating that much, I'd recommend ice- packs to the skull and call me in the morning. Eat meat and potatoes in heavy gravy now or on arising. Me? No. I just liked your term klesha-dance and was open to hearing more of your backstory. JOOC, have you ever used ice-packs to the skull and eaten meat and potatoes in heavy gravy to keep yourself from thinking too much? What would have happened if you had let the thinking run its course, I wonder? ... I suspect we might find that kleshas and quiet are concepts built of nothing -- but that believing in them serves nicely to keep the meaninglessness of Death away, and thus to keep one imprisoned by the Tyrannical Buddhi, but of course I could be Dead wrong. I had no clue what a klesha was until Vaj mentioned it-- go figure...and it turns out that the first one, from which all the others spring, is ignorance of our own nature, so Vaj mentioning the *dance* of the kleshas, necessarily is speaking of someone in ignorance. Once that first klesha is recognized and dealt with, the whole structure of the kleshas vanishes. So it sure looks like yet another distraction, another fable, another construction of identity theft to keep our true nature from emerging victorious.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: Oh, goodie. Story time. Tell us the one again about the infinitely radiant Pride. Ot the ones where particlees collide in this big chamber and go boom boom! Or one about dragons. I love the ones about dragons! LOL. The one about bombarding all us other particles with His grace to fulfill all our desires and align our demonic impulses with His angelic harmony is one of my personal favorites. from the perspective of dense waking state, it does sound ludicrous doesn't it? I'd stick to material science if I were you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: It would be an interesting thing in my opinion to have a Meditation Smack-down Match, in which advanced practitioners of several techniques sit in a room together and go for samadhi, each of them hooked up to EEG machines and other testing devices to see if anything is happening on any other level than the subjective. It would be fascinating to me to see who kicks ass in such a contest. Now that's entertainment! Exactly. And *only* entertainment. I for one wouldn't really CARE who kicked ass or which technique comes out best. I'd just like to see it done so we could put all these My technique is better than your technique braggarts behind us once and for all. As far as I can tell, you are the ONLY ONE on here playing that particular game. You are the only one on here continuously driving the dichotomy between other seekers and your particular brand of spiritual correctness. So would this smack down really silence you? Methinks not. At all.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It would be an interesting thing in my opinion to have a Meditation Smack-down Match, in which advanced practitioners of several techniques sit in a room together and go for samadhi, each of them hooked up to EEG machines and other testing devices to see if anything is happening on any other level than the subjective. It would be fascinating to me to see who kicks ass in such a contest. Now that's entertainment! Excellent riffs off my odd exchange with Off. I'll give MMY credit for giving us criteria to judge the failure of his own program. No sidhi, no enlightenment. Now it seems to be fashionable to evade this clear connection and just go with inner feelings of expansion, evaluating coincidences or the ordinary weird stuff that happens in life, and very vivid imaginations, as signs of sidhis and enlightenment. LOL! good one! Yes, enlightenment is one big fantasy, designed to make those who have worked so hard to achieve this state feel good and disassociate from Reality! Whoo HA! See if you can sell that load of malarkey to someone-- oh wait, you just bought it-- LOL!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim: from the perspective of dense waking state, it does sound ludicrous doesn't it? I'd stick to material science if I were you. On a serious note Jim: If you can understand this you will understand why you get accused of using your self proclaimed state of consciousness as a position of condescension to the rest of us. You and I have gone through most of the levels of rapport and non rapport at different times. There is an original side of you that I can relate to and I enjoy. But the statement above is obnoxious in every way to me. It is using your self created position of superior awareness as a snide weapon, as if you were talking down to a child. Referring to anyone here as living in a dense waking state is simply rude. This is an extremely conscious group of humans posting here, including the ones I disagree with on a regular basis. I hope you can take a second to understand how offensive the posture of intrinsic superiority contained in your comment is to me. And I hope you also can consider that this perspective of intrinsic superiority may be leaking out in your posts more than you realize. It is an assumptive premise of superior consciousness. This is completely different from people here attempting to show that they are using superior reasoning skills or presenting facts unknown to the person they are debating a point with. I dig you at the reindeer games Jim, but your nose isn't glowing bright enough to guide our sleigh tonight. We killed Rudolph and are roasting his ribs over the campfire. Pull up a chair man. I was stating a conclusion based on Turq's misunderstanding and consequent condescending take on what Rory had originally posted. Turq's condescension apparently escaped your sensitivity to being offended-- which leads to an obvious conclusion-- that you are not offended by comments which no matter how condescending, are in line with your values. My reply was meant to say, Yes, I understand how you didn't understand a word of what Rory posted, because knowledge *is* different in different states of consciousness, and that you choose to take Rory's statement out of context and dismiss it as a joke. Therefore, to make yourself more comfortable, I suggest that you confine your musings in the future to the sensory comforts of material science. Better?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LOL! good one! Yes, enlightenment is one big fantasy, designed to make those who have worked so hard to achieve this state feel good and disassociate from Reality! Whoo HA! See if you can sell that load of malarkey to someone-- oh wait, you just bought it-- LOL! I am just talking about the formulation of enlightenment by MMY. In his system sidhis are needed as sigh posts of enlightenment. No sidhis mastery, no enlightenment. I admire him for his lack of wiggle room about this connection. Anyone enlightened without sidhis is using a different system of evaluation from MMY. BTW do you believe that the rapture of Christianity is a fantasy? Same thing for me so far about enlightenment. But perhaps someone will hover in the air someday and I can happily amend my opinion. I doubt that very much Curtis. There are people on this forum that would and do renounce the reality of enlightenment, no matter what is presented to them. Why? Because all enlightenment is, is a radical departure from how we see ourselves in terms of our relationship with our universe; with no longer any stories or concepts filtering our immediate experience. That is a very threatening reality to many, despite in most cases their former years being supposedly committed to the dissolution of such stories and filters. As I like to say of such peoples' thinking, unbounded awareness is great, but enough is enough. So continue as you choose to doubt and question and challenge, and in general protect all that you think is yours. Make every statement in favor of enlightenment, here and now, a rebuttal of your precious and protected self. Define each statement in favor of eternal freedom, available right now, in terms of a strange dualistic concept, where everything stated as Real is found to be either above or below you, either inferior or superior. Continue to ridicule and cast doubt on those who have awakened to life's Reality. I see clearly that there is nothing to be done about it, unless and until you and others choose to literally change your minds and hearts. I have nothing to prove to you, nor do I write for your benefit, as you have amply demonstrated.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
I thought about the particular passage Vaj has taken exception to when I wrote it, because I am making a relative comparison, not an absolute one. To say that enlightenment is a state where all prior knowledge disappears is not accurate, and this isn't what I meant. There seems to be a basic level of conceptual knowledge that is necessary for our fulflling existence. Thanks for the question. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it possible to perceive the world without the filter of concepts? If that's the case, why does someone blind from birth who gains sight have to learn to see? Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 26, 2007, at 2:47 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: I doubt that very much Curtis. There are people on this forum that would and do renounce the reality of enlightenment, no matter what is presented to them. Why? Because all enlightenment is, is a radical departure from how we see ourselves in terms of our relationship with our universe; with no longer any stories or concepts filtering our immediate experience Or so the story goes.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: Excuse me, Dr. Pete; I mean to say, maybe you have forgotten what the world looks like to those who don't know they are No-one yet? Questioning the hitherto-unquestioned assumption that there is an external order to which the Universe conforms, is *huge*. IMO it shows a consciousness beginning to actually become aware of itself and its own participatory role in universe-manifestation. And I don't mean this in a purely intellectual way; his words *actually tickled and stirred Me* bodily. He is becoming a knower of Me, of That- Self. When you say, actually tickled and stirred Me, don't you mean with a particular sensation of bliss? The reason I ask is that I find it quite easy sometimes to put my attention on a particular individual and feel their vibrations regardless of their physical proximity, and so can be stirred by their vibrations, which is not necessarily an indication that the person is becoming a knower of Self (at least not very quickly-lol). However, when someone has released themselves into that which is universal, that which is enlightened, their vibrations take on a blissy quality. I don't know how else to describe it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: When you say, actually tickled and stirred Me, don't you mean with a particular sensation of bliss? The reason I ask is that I find it quite easy sometimes to put my attention on a particular individual and feel their vibrations regardless of their physical proximity, and so can be stirred by their vibrations, which is not necessarily an indication that the person is becoming a knower of Self (at least not very quickly-lol). However, when someone has released themselves into that which is universal, that which is enlightened, their vibrations take on a blissy quality. I don't know how else to describe it. Yes, I can relate to that, Jim. A Knower of the Self *is* my Self. At present most people look/feel like love/light/bliss-points in me, which if drawn to do so I either pay attention to and watch them warm up or lighten up or quicken (as is usually the case nowadays), or else incarnate and experience from the inside out, if need be (which is actually quite seldom nowadays), and in either case only to whatever degree is appropriate. In Davies' case, he was *not* a bliss-point at all; he was right from the start an entire field, a significant portion of me. Not my Self, exactly, but ... definitely tickling in that vicinity *lol* Interesting observations-- I don't really get what you mean when you say incarnate and experience from the inside out, if need be (which is quite seldom these days) Can you be a little bit more specific?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Turq's condescension apparently escaped your sensitivity to being offended-- which leads to an obvious conclusion-- that you are not offended by comments which no matter how condescending, are in line with your values. My reply was meant to say, Yes, I understand how you didn't understand a word of what Rory posted, because knowledge *is* different in different states of consciousness, and that you choose to take Rory's statement out of context and dismiss it as a joke. Therefore, to make yourself more comfortable, I suggest that you confine your musings in the future to the sensory comforts of material science. Better? A little bit. I may not have read Turq's post. But being offended is always a choice, so I'll call myself on that one. Being offended is almost never a good choice for me. I accept that I may have blown in half-cocked (now there is an unpleasant image) with my own agenda, without reading what you meant in context. Plus I was condescending about it! Have a Rudolf rib with the hot sauce, they are excellent. Hey Curtis, Thanks for your reply-- you've got a lot of heart!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Expression of talent
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, aztjbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.tinyurl.com/yxewot WOW! Great find!!! Thank you for sharing this!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The thing about being enlightened that I personally don't like all that much is that I am surrounded by unenlightened idiots. How could this have happened? I'm incarnate in a sea of idiots reflecting all that profound idiocy back to me??? Incredible. You misunderstand me. I don't mind my circumstances at all. Quite happy actually. I don't consider unenlightened people idiots at all, or people in general idiots. What an awful thought! What a weird and confining and miserable existence that single thought would create, wouldn't it? What I was expressing in my previous post is that gaining enlightenment or gaining a desire for enlightenment is not at all about someone proving the benefits of enlightenment to you, that it somehow emerges as a rational decision based on external evidence. Not at all. I was also expressing my annoyance at how an expression of enlightenment here and now is regarded by some with disdain, and a kind of spoiled child attitude. I admit being somewhat slow on the uptake regarding my evaluation of others' attitudes towards a frank expression of enlightenment. As I've said before, I don't spend any time at all outside of this forum, and one other, expressing my observations of enlightenment, so my learning about how to express it, and learning about others' reactions are relatively new. I don't attend courses, or visit spiritual teachers or read so-called spiritually oriented books. I never in all my years of seeking this state had the attitude that those who were enlightened felt that they were better than me, or that I had to challenge them constantly, or that somehow all that I had in life was owed to me, which are all attitudes I find with some people here. Its frankly somewhat shocking. I spent my years seeking enlightenment mostly by myself, observing and praying. I was solely oriented towards the goal of my freedom, willing to do anything for it. This forum with those who have studied such a state intellectually and academically, and engaged in a supermarket of practices is all new to me, kind of a fascinating subculture. But also sometimes with a sense of entitlement and egotism to it that I find bizarre-- understandable, but bizarre nonetheless, that some of those who began as idealistic seekers have been transformed into mere collectors of spiritual trivia, bent on tearing down and finding the flaws in everything, instead of breaking through these reflections of bitterness and fear, and just going for it again. That is what I meant to express, not that any of us are idiots. Thanks
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: Interesting observations-- I don't really get what you mean when you say incarnate and experience from the inside out, if need be (which is quite seldom these days) Can you be a little bit more specific? Sorry; I was *wondering* if that sentence construction might not be all that clear. Simply meant incarnating or manifesting through (the various bodies of) another, coming up as a different wave of our ocean so to speak, to experience something of how another experiences Life -- also useful for tickling the bliss-points in another's physiology, to help facilitate their moving through their painful (mis) interpretations of that bliss, so we can meet and enjoy the bliss together. I think Patanjali 3:37 describes this briefly. All very much like what you were describing, I believe. :-) Ah, could we call it *enlightened* empathy, as an experience actually *through* the other vs the closely related though still dualistic experience? Yes, I know exactly what you mean now! Thank you!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: BTW do you believe that the rapture of Christianity is a fantasy? Same thing for me so far about enlightenment. But perhaps someone will hover in the air someday and I can happily amend my opinion. I doubt that very much Curtis. There are people on this forum that would and do renounce the reality of enlightenment, no matter what is presented to them. Why? Because all enlightenment is, is a radical departure from how we see ourselves in terms of our relationship with our universe; with no longer any stories or concepts filtering our immediate experience. That is a very threatening reality to many, despite in most cases their former years being supposedly committed to the dissolution of such stories and filters. As I like to say of such peoples' thinking, unbounded awareness is great, but enough is enough. Curtis, I think framing an analogy for this phenomenon may be useful. People don't see that Jim deomonstrates any of the qualities he professes to have in abundance-- e.g., perfect intellignece perfect knowingness on and on -- and he blames this on the shortcomings of others. Even painting them as threatened and apparently shallow and insincere. It would be difficult, I think, for a novelist to make this stuff up. Life can be stranger than fiction. Still, tut there must be some apt analogy for this -- to immortalize the phenomenon. Yes, I am completely lacking in perfect intellignence. You though have apparently perfected it! I am also as you say incapable of deomonstrateing it! Don't you see what an utter fool you appear as when you try this stuff?? Simply a delusional fool.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Everybody's a Dr. these days
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 26, 2007, at 9:03 PM, Rick Archer wrote: Dr. Joel Wysong They're really scraping the bottom of the barrel with some of these. Sal Encroaching on your territory, are they Sal?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: Yes, I am completely lacking in perfect intellignence. You though have apparently perfected it! I am also as you say incapable of deomonstrateing it! Don't you see what an utter fool you appear as when you try this stuff?? Simply a delusional fool. And in time, you will realize this to be your Self. Don't try to lay your moodmaking crap on me buddy. I am not condemning you, or me, if you want to see it that way- just calling you on your BS and your foolishness, your hypocrisy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: Yes, I am completely lacking in perfect intellignence. You though have apparently perfected it! I am also as you say incapable of deomonstrateing it! Don't you see what an utter fool you appear as when you try this stuff?? Simply a delusional fool. And in time, you will realize this to be your Self. Don't try to lay your moodmaking crap on me buddy. I am not condemning you, or me, if you want to see it that way- just calling you on your BS and your foolishness, your hypocrisy. I think you have revealed quite a bit of foolishness and hypocrisy tonight. Bravo! No, no I insist the rsponsibility for that is *all* yours! And in time, you will also realize this to be your Self. Whereas you have trumped me, I am afraid, for it *already* all you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: Don't try to lay your moodmaking crap on me buddy. I am not condemning you, or me, if you want to see it that way- just calling you on your BS and your foolishness, your hypocrisy. Ahh, but you see, Jim, he *is* condemning *you* -- trying desperately to find and prove flaws in you so he won't have to look up to you as a role model, which is what he thinks you want! You remember how that worked, don't you? I had forgotten, I admit, but FFL has beautifully reminded me of how the separate self still thoroughly identifying with buddhi has only two near-automatic choices in any given moment: me-better-than-you or you-better-than-me. That everything-utterly-perfect-everything-the-same US we essentially take for granted is anathema to the identified self; still sees it as Death and boredom and so on... Yes, scared to death of it. I know-- its weird and awful at the same time. Such a horrible blasphemy upon such a person's inner nature. Truly a black spot on the soul. I cannot concieve of the blindness that creates this condition. I am not saying I was immune from this me-better-than-you or you- better-than-me condition, for it is automatic, left over from our animal lives probably. But to also apply it to spiritual pursuit? Oh my God, just *ask* outright for a few more turns on the wheel, why don'cha???
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: Don't try to lay your moodmaking crap on me buddy. I am not condemning you, or me, if you want to see it that way- just calling you on your BS and your foolishness, your hypocrisy. Ahh, but you see, Jim, he *is* condemning *you* -- trying desperately to find and prove flaws in you so he won't have to look up to you as a role model, which is what he thinks you want! and I am sorry, but that's just f*ckin' HI-larious!!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: Don't try to lay your moodmaking crap on me buddy. I am not condemning you, or me, if you want to see it that way- just calling you on your BS and your foolishness, your hypocrisy. Ahh, but you see, Jim, he *is* condemning *you* -- trying desperately to find and prove flaws in you so he won't have to look up to you as a role model, which is what he thinks you want! and I am sorry, but that's just f*ckin' HI-larious!! True that. But I kid you not; these guys have as much as said so, many times. It would be tragic if it weren't so funny, or vice versa :-) I know, I know-- but just to see it so plainly in writing cracked me up.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: Don't try to lay your moodmaking crap on me buddy. I am not condemning you, or me, if you want to see it that way- just calling you on your BS and your foolishness, your hypocrisy. Ahh, but you see, Jim, he *is* condemning *you* -- trying desperately to find and prove flaws in you so he won't have to look up to you as a role model, which is what he thinks you want! You remember how that worked, don't you? I had forgotten, I admit, but FFL has beautifully reminded me of how the separate self still thoroughly identifying with buddhi has only two near-automatic choices in any given moment: me-better-than-you or you-better-than-me. That everything-utterly-perfect-everything-the-same US we essentially take for granted is anathema to the identified self; still sees it as Death and boredom and so on... Yes, scared to death of it. I know-- its weird and awful at the same time. Such a horrible blasphemy upon such a person's inner nature. Truly a black spot on the soul. I cannot concieve of the blindness that creates this condition. I am not saying I was immune from this me-better-than-you or you- better-than-me condition, for it is automatic, left over from our animal lives probably. But to also apply it to spiritual pursuit? Oh my God, just *ask* outright for a few more turns on the wheel, why don'cha??? *lol* Well, I just see it as what discrimination DOES -- it is always deciding which alternative is better. That's its job. It applies itself to everything. And when the unrecognized Self identifies with it and is obscured by it, there is no appreciation of the underlying perfect-USness everywhere, and so it creates nothing but misery. In fact it thrives on it, fights for it, as it feels it would have no reason to live if everything really IS perfect. The old great servant, lousy master routine. Gotta love it! :-) Now, THAT makes sense! I remember the terrific battles that would rage within me as I approached my enlightenment; the revealing of my Self-- especially when I would practice TM- Transcendental Meditation- *lol* the Buddhi was being forced to surrender to Atman-- Man, did that take a lot of stepping out into nothingness; deliberately, and with intense observation, faith and calculation and courage, until I earned nothing but effortlessness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: Ahh, but you see, Jim, he *is* condemning *you* -- trying desperately to find and prove flaws in you so he won't have to look up to you as a role model, which is what he thinks you want! J: and I am sorry, but that's just f*ckin' HI-larious!! True that. But I kid you not; these guys have as much as said so, many times. It would be tragic if it weren't so funny, or vice versa :-) You watch; right now those Buddhis are interpreting *even this* conversation as elitist, special, attention-grabbing, unconvincingly mood-makey, etc. etc. etc. They *have to* or *they will Die* .. and identified-Buddhi is not at all psyched about the prospect of being dethroned, not until it actually comprehends the unceasing misery of identification with aversion-desire/spacetime. Said it before, I'll say it again: Life is wasted on the so-called Living :-) lol! I shouldn't laugh, but I am not laughing at the Buddhis, I love them, but just the ridiculousness of the situation, the topsy-turvy world as it appears to the Buddhis is so laughably sad/funny! That they protect such a meager little amount, thinking it so valuable! And then turn on conversations like this to protect themselves! As Nabby says, I think they need a checking! lol!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nice story. lol! my stomach hurts!!!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: Nice story. lol! my stomach hurts!!! RUN!!! FFL has been hijacked by the Goal itself!!! RUN!!! LOL!!!Enlightenment is here for all who want it!!!RUUN!!!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: I wrote a paper on this very subject while working on my Master's at Harvard Divinity School... That was in 1980 or so, right after constant immersion in the omnipresent gold light/angels/deities/blah- blah-blah of Unity and immediately followed by 2 years of Dark Night. I wonder if there was a correlation *there*? *lol* (Dis/claimer to any and all of mySelf: Please, please, please -- plunge into the Dark, if that is where (y)our inquiry takes us! The True Dark is not bad -- or good for that matter -- it is not even Dark because of an absence of Light. It is Dark because it is *faster than light* -- outside of the bubble of illusory spacetime. That where ourSelf lies, Truly :-) ) What an interesting statement, that of Dark being faster than light...that certainly rings true when evaluating the Dark Night experience, but how then do we integrate such an experience? Perhaps the Dark Night experience is that of having transcended space time intuitively, recognizing that transcendence as Reality, yet still hanging on to the now empty husk of false identity? Then after a long time of trying to miserably reanimate the false identity of concepts and stories, we give up, and gracefully, magically integrate ourselves into the Dark, now recognizing how to function again in space time, while being true to our Selves.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: I wrote a paper on this very subject while working on my Master's at Harvard Divinity School... That was in 1980 or so, right after constant immersion in the omnipresent gold light/angels/deities/blah- blah-blah of Unity and immediately followed by 2 years of Dark Night. I wonder if there was a correlation *there*? *lol* (Dis/claimer to any and all of mySelf: Please, please, please -- plunge into the Dark, if that is where (y)our inquiry takes us! The True Dark is not bad -- or good for that matter -- it is not even Dark because of an absence of Light. It is Dark because it is *faster than light* -- outside of the bubble of illusory spacetime. That where ourSelf lies, Truly :-) ) What an interesting statement, that of Dark being faster than light...that certainly rings true when evaluating the Dark Night experience, but how then do we integrate such an experience? Perhaps the Dark Night experience is that of having transcended space time intuitively, recognizing that transcendence as Reality, yet still hanging on to the now empty husk of false identity? Then after a long time of trying to miserably reanimate the false identity of concepts and stories, we give up, and gracefully, magically integrate ourselves into the Dark, now recognizing how to function again in space time, while being true to our Selves.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: Yes, nicely put (if I do say so mySelf *lol*); the omnipresent gold- light/angels/deities/etc. would be the subjective (and by that I mean real) equivalent of attaining lightspeed and essential identity with the laws of nature; with further acceleration the inevitable onset of the Dark if resisted (and it usually is *lol*) with belief in stories, concepts, etc. brings suffering, as all resistance = suffering. Kind of like trying to crawl back into the spacetime womb, resisting one's own birth. But afterwards, we can program the particles and superimpose whatever story of duality they/we like on the emptiful-indescribable, but without that bind of identifying belief and consequent resistance, there is no suffering. IOW, because we know we are nothing we can give our particles ANYthing they desire (desire = of the star(s); particular). Our simple, ordinary thoughts are just thoughts to us, but they are concrete, physical, divine mandates to those particles/gods within us to whom we are God, and who make up our space-time physiology or body- mind. By honestly attuning to our desire-particles, bestowing grace on them, and listening to their feedback, and adjusting our subsequent grace- bestowals to meet their needs, we comb or align them into harmony with us, into integrity, converting the resistant or demonic aspects of ourselves into coherent or angelic polarity. Thereafter as we fluctuate from nothing or boundlessness into particular or spacetime bodymind, our bodymind now projects the paradise we have programmed...as it was always meant to do, and has been faithfully doing, ab principio *lol* Beautifully put! (patting mySelf on the back...) Seriously, really well done, and blissfully conveyed! Yes, it really is what the universe intends for us after all-- that the simplest state, that of pure acceptance and surrender, conveys with it an eternal, ever changing, ever renewable paradise. On the other hand, the second (literally) we enter space time with the intent to control it, we are bound into just that and no more, again gaining just exactly what we have sought. Either way we gain exactly what we want, though through complete surrender to our universal nature, we gain so much more. Also, the bit about attaining lightspeed having as its symptomatic reflection the golden light, gods and dieties is very helpful, as I tend to slip into my perceptions of gods and dieties as a continuum of some avenue of self discovery or other. To see their phenomena as essential identification with nature makes perfect sense.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: Oh, goodie. Story time. Tell us the one again about the infinitely radiant Pride. Ot the ones where particlees collide in this big chamber and go boom boom! Or one about dragons. I love the ones about dragons! It looks as if you are more than capable of generating your own :-) ...by the bye, OMGAkashaNewMonitor, I seem to remember that you recently claimed you found me boring and didn't wish any further contact with me. Have you changed your policy, or was that or this but a momentary lapse, a verbal eructation as it were, indicative of a smidgen of mental indigestion, a bit of undigested beef? In any case, not to appear elitist or exclusive or anything, but it's a pretty fair bet that what I have recently been discussing with Jim will be of no real use to any who haven't yet embraced their Death in the perfection of the Here-Now. I could be wrong of course, but I don't think one can truly appreciate a star-particle point-self and its potential as emptifulness collapsed unless and until one has actually surrendered into emptiful Nothing. The Unsurrendered/Unrealized would tend to see it as just a fairy tale. End of story! *lol* It occurred to me while writing my previous reply that it must sound like quite a foreign language to some. Nonetheless to be able to clarify and express elements of consciousness is too precious an opportunity to be concerned about how it might look to someone else. As for those who ridicule such dialogues, it occurs to me that if they find themselves fortunate enough to experience the death of all illusion, their previous ridicule might be a somewhat humbling and embarrassing memory.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: It occurred to me while writing my previous reply that it must sound like quite a foreign language to some. Nonetheless to be able to clarify and express elements of consciousness is too precious an opportunity to be concerned about how it might look to someone else. Yes -- I would write to you privately, but I do have a clear feeling these dialogues are actually useful to others of Us as well. As for those who ridicule such dialogues, it occurs to me that if they find themselves fortunate enough to experience the death of all illusion, their previous ridicule might be a somewhat humbling and embarrassing memory. *lol* Couldn't say, Jim, but God knows, I remain somewhat humbled and embarrassed by a good deal of my own thoughtless and immature behavior, both before and for some time after Death. I am constantly astonished at the sweet forgiving depths of understanding, love and grace in Him/Her, the Deep-Me against whom as a particle I so often believed I was rebelling:-) Amen to that! I particularly enjoy working with the Reality of One- absolutely delicious and uncompromising- one of those nuggets too precious to sell for anything else.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for those who ridicule such dialogues, it occurs to me that if they find themselves fortunate enough to experience the death of all illusion, their previous ridicule might be a somewhat humbling and embarrassing memory. Wow, enlightened, BUT embarrassed. That sounds pretty bad to me. How would you know? Or is this a product of an overly fertile imagination? guess it would be better not to chance having that happen. I mean when you are enlightened I guess you can't look back at yourself in the compassionate way any of us do our own childhoods. I am learning more about this state every day. If enlightenment doesn't even include the smallest amount of perspective on your past, just how valuable is this state? Who said it didn't? Not me. Nonetheless to be able to clarify and express elements of consciousness is too precious an opportunity to be concerned about how it might look to someone else. Jim if there is a common theme in your writing about your enlightenment experiences, it is a hyper awareness and concern about how you appear to other people. If I could sum up one quality of enlightenment I have seen demonstrated so far by you and others, it is insecurity. I don't feel the least bit insecure. I don't know where you get that perception. I am certainly sensitive about my public identity, but insecure about my enightenment? No. Not at all. Why on earth would I share my divine perceptions, experiences, even my art and music if that were the case? Even far more than you or most others do, here? Are you sure you aren't ascribing something to me that you see in yourself? Sending emails to other enlightened people is one way to enjoy expressing your satisfaction with your self without the danger that people will think something you don't want. I don't know any enlightened people. Do you? Perhaps you can send me their e-mail addresses. But that might cut out the biggest pleasure of sharing your experience on a public forum wouldn't it? Heck of I know-- its your game, not mine. Trying to tell people who don't take your claims at face value that they will be sorry one day for doubting you is probably not going to work on anyone here. It wouldn't work on you if I tried it would it? The context is what I was referring to-- not that it was *me* speaking. You may want to slow down a little before responding.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: if they find themselves fortunate enough to experience the death of all illusion, their previous ridicule might be a somewhat humbling and embarrassing memory. And then tomorrow, a deeper set of illusion may die. it seems to b an on-going journey of uncovery. Not a dead end statis for some, i hope. Yes! Yes! Yes!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: I remain open to the claim from some folks that they no longer perceive a difference between shit and shinola -- both are just particles of their Self. It's possible, and more power to 'em if they really do perceive that way. But to be honest I don't want to smell their shoes after they shine them. :-) I think Judy has pointed out could not function in this world without *some* discrimination; after Death it simply is not predominant, more like a fine, multi-colored oil-layer of variety on an ocean of ThatSelf. Call it leshavidya if you like, or simply keeping one eye on the movie :-) This simile still implies that the oil-slick and the ocean are in someway different though, and that's not true. This idea that after enlightenment, differences fade away, or become secondary to carrying out the thoughts and tasks of an active life, or the looniest conclusion of all, that we cannot tell the difference between one thing and another, are just feeble attempts by the coarse intellect which can only see two, to make sense out of the One, which it does not see before enlightenment. My experience is now I am constantly creating, experiencing, observing, and just having a great time. There is not enough time in the day or night to enjoy it all. Problems are solved in the blink of an eye, and new tasks accomplished quickly and with satisfaction. With the ocean of infinite silence and potential to support me, I have an endless supply of discrimination available, attached to nothing and so always clean and sharp. My prior life was restricted by so many judgments and stories and preconcieved ideas and concepts, all of it to protect a me that was ephemeral and false, that I was far less dynamic and successful. The sense that anyone would deliberately keep themselves locked in ignorance because of the supposed inability to discriminate after their eternal freedom has been accomplished, is silliness itself.
[FairfieldLife] Invincibility sucks (was Re: IMO from this point on the USA went downhill)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Here's the honest truth -- some people are offended by certain words. I use those words from time to time so that I can identify those people and avoid them. Look how well hittin' that worked. :-) Yes, and look how well I am enlightened worked! Same dynamic, same result-- lol!
[FairfieldLife] Invincibility sucks (was Re: IMO from this point on the USA went downhill)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Same dynamic of separation, exclusivity, specialness, cliques, condescention, boundaries and elitism. A lesson well learned in the TMO. Damned if they are not effective! Its all in your mind, kiddo!
[FairfieldLife] Invincibility sucks (was Re: IMO from this point on the USA went downhill)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: Same dynamic of separation, exclusivity, specialness, cliques, condescention, boundaries and elitism. A lesson well learned in the TMO. Damned if they are not effective! Its all in your mind, kiddo! It is All in my mind, yes. And as long as its ALL not in your mind, creation is safe. I don't know in what way I influence your creation, but just to be clear, I wish the very best for you (and everyone else).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: I think you forgot the part where they just aren't evolved enough to understand you. But they will be someday, by which time you'll have evolved to ZC and still be superior to them. :-) Well, that goes without saying. Well, unless one is really frozen in ignorance, in deep waking state, and need everything shouted at them repeatedly to make it clear. So for the benefit of heavin' heathen cretin ones, I will repeat it: I am cool, you are not. Indeed you are full of snot. I am so liberated, I am so free and gay, And you, poor ignorant sloth, will never transcend maya in all your days. I have infinite wisdom and insight, Compassion, undiluted and bright, My intelligence crystal clear, I loathe, and hate and detest it, when slugs like you appear, And make gush my radiant rear. My vision sees only that which IS, I see Brahman in my wiz, Not massive inner projections From Ego's need of protection. You are filthy, ignorant scum, So ignorantly fucking dumb. Sad you are not vastly enlightened Like me, and my crystalline chum. Graceous, full and blissy are we Our egos long fried in blazing ghee We ate them at a sumptuous brunch We are the Cosmic Wild Bunch I live the compassion of Christ, Buddha and Manson I speak total Truth About this mobius strip noose, I am Escher with words, as I zig, As slippery as a holy greased pig As a particle you reek, with a shell hard like teak, You exasperate and make me sigh Why not just roll over and die? I eat you up for lunch, Yum! Burping cuz you are so incredibly dumb. Mystical, magic, mysterious am I Though, really, I let my ego die. I am blazin' Brahman, as are you, Clear as the morning dew. Oh, why don't we have some fun, Through fairly tales we can run. If I wanted to, i could fly, From ocean floor, could kiss the sky. But that would bend God's Will Yikes, did I take the blue or red pill? But thats a laugh, God's will I AM, Believe not, I don't give a damn. Let your particle fly into ME And you will become infinite glee That you doubt is your great sin On what a hard trip you have been. Though my particles flying into her, T'would be a revelation, for sure. You fiddle and faddle through thick and thin, To the point you forget the reality you are in, Clear your mind, steer your mind, hope for blessed relief, Usurper, blasphemer, in bondage a thief, Whatever it takes, in your close little mind, To deny and confound, and continue the bind.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: I think you forgot the part where they just aren't evolved enough to understand you. But they will be someday, by which time you'll have evolved to ZC and still be superior to them. Not IME. Death is the great equalizer. Funny that from certain people's perspective, they assume that once they reach enlightenment, they will be superior to everyone. Another case of the dualist mind imagining something it cannot comprehend-- a state where everything is available, and no duality occurs in our identity, where the idea of taking the Universe's gifts and making them ours, against theirs, becomes not only impossible, but absurd; when you have either nothing or everything, what comparison is there to be made?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: I think you forgot the part where they just aren't evolved enough to understand you. But they will be someday, by which time you'll have evolved to ZC and still be superior to them. Not IME. Death is the great equalizer. Funny that from certain people's perspective, they assume that once they reach enlightenment, they will be superior to everyone. Another case of the dualist mind imagining something it cannot comprehend-- a state where everything is available, and no duality occurs in our identity, where the idea of taking the Universe's gifts and making them ours, against theirs, becomes not only impossible, but absurd; when you have either nothing or everything, what comparison is there to be made? I don't know :-) I've been investigating Krishna recently-- very amazing, and quite soothing, literally. It began with my hot tub irritating my skin-- out of the blue (lol) I began developing a rash everytime I would use it-- became quite a mental game of manifestation, though with unwanted results, and so a few evenings ago, I thought, hold on, all the sheaths between me and the gods are gone, perhaps it will work to speak directly to Krishna about this, and ask for His help?- - I would've tried Lord Shiva, but His energy is so different-- much better for killing off aspects of ignorance and embracing Death, I felt I needed to immerse myself in some not so well known Divine energy. So I began asking that this skin condition and the itchiness would go away completely, that whatever my body needed to do facing the salt in the hot tub, it would create a harmonious non irritating chemistry. So I got in that night and things seemed OK. Then as I was lying there, I began cycling through Lord Krishna's worlds, very rapidly-- Time and space took on an almost liquid characteristic. It probably sounds dramatic, but like you, I do this stuff and stuff like it on a regular basis, as it naturally arises during the course of daily activity. In any case, and to make a long story short, the metamorphosis occured and the skin problem vanished, along with me getting along great with my new Blue friend.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Top Ten Ways You Know You're a TM fundie
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 10 - You consider Bevan Morris, John Hagelin and Tony Nader sex symbols. 9 - You actually believe TM is the fastest boat. 8 - You believe that theoretical quantum physics actually can explain consciousness and the effects of higher states of consciousness...and can explain it to anyone who's willing to listen long enough. If you can't explain it, you'd take non-TM friends to a TM lecture on the topic. 7 - You can quote, from memory, parts of the Science of Being and Art of Living or Maharishi's Translation and commentary to Ch. 1-6 of the Bhagavad-gita. 6 - You save spare money to buy rasayanas, herbal health products, cooking supplies and/or home beauty supplies only from MAPI. 5 - You are suspicious of other types of meditators but actually worry little about it since you believe you have the best meditation method there is on the planet. 4 - You haven't missed, at least 2 x 20 mins of meditation, for many years and/or feel very guilty if you do. 3 - You refuse to have contact or have diminished contact with other non-meditators outside the TM movement and/or shun those who've left for other gurus or scenes. 2 - You revere the Beatles and certain select list other celebrities (film producers, ayurvedic doctors, musicans/movie stars and a short list of approved saints) who endorse TM. 1 - You actually voted for John Hagelin for president and have written in his name every year since. LOL! Excellent!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Top Ten Ways You Know You're a TM fundie
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: 10 - You consider Bevan Morris, John Hagelin and Tony Nader sex symbols. 9 - You actually believe TM is the fastest boat. 8 - You believe that theoretical quantum physics actually can explain consciousness and the effects of higher states of consciousness...and can explain it to anyone who's willing to listen long enough. If you can't explain it, you'd take non-TM friends to a TM lecture on the topic. 7 - You can quote, from memory, parts of the Science of Being and Art of Living or Maharishi's Translation and commentary to Ch. 1-6 of the Bhagavad-gita. 6 - You save spare money to buy rasayanas, herbal health products, cooking supplies and/or home beauty supplies only from MAPI. 5 - You are suspicious of other types of meditators but actually worry little about it since you believe you have the best meditation method there is on the planet. 4 - You haven't missed, at least 2 x 20 mins of meditation, for many years and/or feel very guilty if you do. 3 - You refuse to have contact or have diminished contact with other non-meditators outside the TM movement and/or shun those who've left for other gurus or scenes. 2 - You revere the Beatles and certain select list other celebrities (film producers, ayurvedic doctors, musicans/movie stars and a short list of approved saints) who endorse TM. 1 - You actually voted for John Hagelin for president and have written in his name every year since. LOL! Excellent! I can only subscribe to one of the above - whats wrong with me, do I need a checking ?? We could all use one!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Emotion Junkies (was New Age Elements of the Third Reich)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Certainly a large percentage of the experiences claimed as enlightenment by Jim and Rory fall into the category of just some overwhelming emotion. snip Wow-- you nailed it Turq! lol
[FairfieldLife] Re: Emotion Junkies (was New Age Elements of the Third Reich)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: snip Certainly a large percentage of the experiences claimed as enlightenment by Jim and Rory fall into the category of just some overwhelming emotion. On the one hand, you're quite right; no emotion is a substitute for enlightenment; nothing transitory is a substitute for enlightenment. On the other hand, you're killing another straw- man. I claim no experience as enlightenment. Nor does Jim, as far as I can see. It would appear you're still managing to ignore me, as I repeat yet again that Death is the door to Life: everything false must die; the eye of the needle can accept nothing but Truth. No experience, no tradition, no concept, no belief, no attachment, no I can survive the Long View. Death is a sculptor/sculpture, carefully chipping everything away that is not Real. And that's every thing. *After* Death, now -- that's different! But you're in no position to evaluate any of that until you Die. Surrender to the Crone, and then we'll talk. Possibly what Turq mistakes as the emotion of enlightenment-like experiences is the more immediate emotion expressed as a result of living Here and Now. Like when you stub your toe, cut your finger or bang your head; its immediate, and expressed as such. No time for concepts, postulates, discourse. Instead its here, now, in your face, immediate, and so very very enjoyable. Life at one's fingertips. That is the expression. As for Turq's contrast of emotion with hours long experience of no thought samadhi, he sees this clearly as a great contrast and relief from the endless stories and clutter that ordinarily inhabit his mind. Whereas the experience of established enlightenment is that typically nothing is in the mind. hours long samadhi...when I read that, my reaction was, why only hours long? Seems so limiting... After hours long samadhi, then what, go back to hell? How is that possibly better than living in freedom 24x7?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Emotion Junkies (was New Age Elements of the Third Reich)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: Yes, exactly. Valuing Hours long samadhi is still just clinging to another experience... I don't care what you two clowns argue about to defend your images of your selves as enlightened. Not my interest. But for the record, I only mentioned hours-long experiences of samadhi to differentiate the experience from the momentary second-long-or- less flashes of thoughtlessness that most TMers seem to have, based on having taught and checked thousands of them. To get an idea of what samadhi actually is, you probably need some time to settle in to the experience, not just a tiny flash. That could be in the form of hours-long periods of samadhi during meditation, which some forms of meditation can produce, or it could be in the form of samadhi present for long periods of time simultaneous with activity, as in what Maharishi used to call CC. At one point that was *his* definition of what a transcendental experience was. Now his focus seems to be about getting people all hopped up on emotion over gods and goddesses and bozos wearing Burger King crowns. :-) Just one small correction, my fellow clown, to the statement above: ...it could be in the form of samadhi present for long periods of time simultaneous with activity, as in what Maharishi used to call CC What Maharishi calls CC, and you should know this having been a TM teacher, is samadhi permanently established with all activity; waking, dreaming and sleeping. Not present for long periods of time-- permanently established.
[FairfieldLife] Re: New Age-Like Elements and the Third Reich
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: I have reached a conclusion on the Hitler conspiracies, I think it's all caused by fear. Fear that if Hitler wasn't possessed/in league with aliens/ the devil etc. then he must have been closer to us than we like to admit. Just a man. How close to his madness are we? That, I think, is the fear that drives this. Bingo. The higher the pedestal of evil folks place Hitler up on, the less they have to deal with the possibility that he was Just Like Them. So, you don't do this, therefore you are Just Like Hitler??? sounds terribly confused Turq...but, uh, sieg heil anyway I suppose. I actually see it as the *same* phenomenon as put- ting one's spiritual teachers up on pedestals of good. The further away folks make them, the less they ever have to deal with what these teachers teach. The more they can make these guys special, the more excuses they'll have to avoid realization, because they're not *as* special. Huh? Are you just dancing here, or what?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Emotion Junkies (was New Age Elements of the Third Reich)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: Yes, exactly. Valuing Hours long samadhi is still just clinging to another experience... I don't care what you two clowns argue about to defend your images of your selves as enlightened. Not my interest. No, your interest appears to be attacking something or somebody that only exists in your head. But for the record, I only mentioned hours-long experiences of samadhi to differentiate the experience from the momentary second-long-or- less flashes of thoughtlessness that most TMers seem to have, based on having taught and checked thousands of them. To get an idea of what samadhi actually is, you probably need some time to settle in to the experience, not just a tiny flash. Who cares about any of that shit? It is of no lasting value; someone looking for more or longer samadhi is pathetic, just another addict looking for his fix. Anything to escape that nagging sense of futility and failure, eh? *lol* Excellent!! and funnier than hell too!
[FairfieldLife] Re: New Age-Like Elements and the Third Reich
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: I have reached a conclusion on the Hitler conspiracies, I think it's all caused by fear. Fear that if Hitler wasn't possessed/in league with aliens/ the devil etc. then he must have been closer to us than we like to admit. Just a man. How close to his madness are we? That, I think, is the fear that drives this. Bingo. The higher the pedestal of evil folks place Hitler up on, the less they have to deal with the possibility that he was Just Like Them. So, you don't do this, therefore you are Just Like Hitler??? sounds terribly confused Turq...but, uh, sieg heil anyway I suppose. I actually see it as the *same* phenomenon as put- ting one's spiritual teachers up on pedestals of good. The further away folks make them, the less they ever have to deal with what these teachers teach. The more they can make these guys special, the more excuses they'll have to avoid realization, because they're not *as* special. Huh? Are you just dancing here, or what? Oh, I don't know; I'd say he's pretty close here -- his main hang- up seems to be he still thinks samadhi is special. could be-- of course its all of a piece, isn't it? if he takes [false]ownership of 'his' samadhi, and owns the action; usurps the bliss for himself, then he will consider it special, extraordinary even. Unfortunately, the flip side of ownership is loss.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Emotion Junkies (was New Age Elements of the Third Reich)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Certainly a large percentage of the experiences claimed as enlightenment by Jim and Rory fall into the category of just some overwhelming emotion. snip Wow-- you nailed it Turq! lol *lol* You crack me up. Who's 'me'? An unreal spewer of non-truth. Who seems to get away with it in Fairfield. What's up with that, huh? The best I can figure is that after decades of empty TM promises people are so hungry for some sign that enlightenment exists that they'll believe almost anyone who claims to have realized it. Tell me it isn't so, and that he has some phwam! in person, cuz he really doesn't on the Net. It's not an attacking thing on my part, as his ego likes to believe, it's just that I don't believe him, and he's uncomfortable with the fact that I don't believe him. If he weren't, and if there weren't a he still in there *to* be uncomfortable, why all these endless defenses, eh? Same with Jimbo. The ladies doth protest too much, methinks. oooh I am like, sooo threatened by you!!! not protesting dude, just having a little fun and keeping it REAL...comprende?
[FairfieldLife] Bitches, Dream Sequences, and Miro (was Re: Emotion Junkies)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: If all you're looking for is stupid human shakti tricks, then Rory is probably not the one to seek out for a fix. But, he's definitely a good one to seek out if you want to chat outside Revelations and watch the hot babes with cute puppies. Which does he prefer? :-) Sorry, couldn't resist. I just watched the Bitches episode of Pushing Daisies. Anything to escape that nagging sense of futility and failure, eh?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Empty Bill's claims about alamabana
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 19, 2007, at 11:05 AM, Angela Mailander wrote: How can you possibly know what others experience or do not experience? I understand your point and I agree that expectation muddies the waters of meditation, but that doesn't mean that some, eventually, swan-like, get through that muddy water and come out clean. By observation, experience and by gaining perspective through other techniques/methods or simply by detailed instruction in the first place. One of the most obvious deficits in TM practice is torpor, and then, falling asleep. If you know what causes this and when you observe (for example) that the technique for relieving torpor is not part of TM practice, you can gain an understanding as to why it occurs so commonly. That's just one example, you could go through other parts of the practice and draw similar conclusions from direct experience. Another way, is through authoritative testimony, the experiences of others in the practical tradition itself. Particularly in regard to mental mantra practice, it's very detailed in what the stages are, what their signs are and what the pitfalls are. You've read Padoux, so I'm sure you have an idea of what I mean. Poppycock-- has no relevance at all in the REAL world. To each his own, but don't expect to get here from there. Enrobed and glittering ignorance, or maybe somber and serious ignorance, is all you will be left with.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Empty Bill's claims about alamabana
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: R: In THIS context, any tradition, even a practical one is baloney. We don't die by acquiring more and more, we die by ourselves, naked and Alone. Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: I don't know about you, but I plan on dying with my clothes ON (unless of course I happen to be in the shower at the time or making love)! It is natural to trivialize and joke about it, in our attempt to avoid and deny it. Just dropping a friendly reminder that until we accept its presence wholeheartedly as Here and Now, our spiritual journey has not truly even begun. As we see from this world's great religions, lifetimes can be spent deciding what to wear, what color, drape of fabric, what shoes to put on, how to step, in what order progress will be made, what to think, how others may have explained it in the dusty past, before the very first step of the spiritual journey is made. What a waste of time, and a waste of life.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Type of Yoga (was Chopra's )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: snip Says the selfproclaimed expert Vaj who never even practised TM. What's even funnier is that on the journey to eternal freedom, Vaj seems to think the vehicle we use is more important than the destination itself. Says a lot about where he is. What a hoot I can see him now, making his way down the seeker highway, honking his horn, flashing his lights, Hey-e Everybody! I'm in a big shiny expensive Cadeeelack!!! Uh, yeah Vaj, we're REAL impressed... Hehe, must be something wrong with the exhaust-system of that old Cadillac since it it making so much noise ! Anyway I would not trade it for my Bentley :-) It IS making a lot of noise, huh? May be time for a smog check...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Empty Bill's claims about alamabana
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: As we see from this world's great religions, lifetimes can be spent deciding what to wear, what color, drape of fabric, what shoes to put on, how to step, in what order progress will be made, what to think, how others may have explained it in the dusty past, before the very first step of the spiritual journey is made. What a waste of time, and a waste of life. Certainly looks like it, doesn't it? Life is wasted on the living. *lol* But there's one thing I've learned here: the living can not really see the dead, and the dead cannot really speak to the living. To us the so-called living are like ghosts -- i.e., the dead who refuse to acknowledge they are dead, because of some attachment they still hold to earth, some overriding past-memory or future-desire keeping them out of Here and Now. We can speak to them, but they refuse to hear. The dead can only be truly heard by the dead, or, on rare occasions, by someone on their death-bed. Then they can see us, and we can serve as a welcoming-committee, as was my pleasure with you :-) The oddest thing about your welcoming commitee role with me was that I had an expectation of it for about twenty years. I would infrequently run across individuals who I thought would fulfill this role for me, but not yet ready myself, my death did not occur until we met. Hey, someone's gotta do it, right? It is an interesting sequence to go through leading up to such a point of ultimate dissolution; that I was continually facing down or plunging headlong into the destruction of my boundaries, learning how far to go, what to retain and what to lose, until the final threads of my fake identity dissolved altogether-- buh bye...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Empty Bill's claims about alamabana
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Nov 19, 2007, at 12:14 PM, Angela Mailander wrote: So, it is possible, and I find I often know what someone else is thinking. But there are literally millions of TMers. You can't have done enough of a study to determine what percentage of them are getting it. a Honestly, I don't think many are left, at least compared to the numbers that started. It's pretty easy to spot some of the more prevalent meditational issues (like falling asleep), esp. if you're a domer. It's only more recently we've actually had number of TM-sidhi people being investigated by experienced yogins for meditational disorders and damage. The reports I've heard are that it's a prevalent problem in long-term TM-sidhi people, as it tends to cause imbalanced awakenings and a host of issues. How prevalent? It's hard to say. Vaj, can you enlarge on this a bit. Who is this we doing the investigating? I ask because I'm really not sure if the TMSP is doing me any good anymore, I don't like doing long progs either, I used to but now it makes me feel shite, really thick-headed, tired and angry, nothing easy or relaxing about it. It's easy to just go along with the TMO claims about unstressing but I've been losing confidence in the whole TM charade for a while now, maybe that's the cause of it, if you don't believe in the supporting philosophy perhaps you lose the ability (or will) to transcend. Speaking from personal experience, what TM and especially the more powerful TMSP does, is continue to set up the bodymind or nervous system (choose your term...) to experience enlightenment. After awhile, the bodymind becomes so attuned to experiencing this that it is almost ready to sustain it. But, the false identity and the couldas, wouldas, and shouldas keep wanting to intrude and get into strong conflict with this natural state. So if you want to give yourself a break and perhaps integrate into activity a little more, lay off the siddhis altogether, and just do TM 2x a day-- maybe some regular exercise too, just to keep the runaway intellect from trying to always intercede and control things. It will balance you out and perhaps give you a little bit more insight into where your attention needs to be for your personal issues to be resolved.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A reply to Vaj's claims about alamabana (was Chopra's Intent)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams willytex@ wrote: Bill wrote: Vaj mashes together Vedantic, Tantric and Dzogchen concepts to critique TM but without giving due reference to the traditional sources of these concepts... Something tells me that Vaj has never actually been taught TM. Something also tells me that Vaj has never been taught Dzogchen. He claims to have been instructed by a Patanjali Yogi and also to have been initiated into Sri Vidya. So take care not to impose anything on the mind or to tax it. When you meditate there should be no effort to control and no attempt to be peaceful. Don't be overly solemn or feel that you are taking part in some special ritual; let go even of the idea that you are meditating. Let your body remain as it is, and your breath as you find it. - Sogyal Rinpoche His knowledge of TM has been exposed here again and again as non- existent. The puzzle about this Vaj fellow is what his motivation is. Obviously fear of the unknown.;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Empty Bill's claims about alamabana
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Nov 19, 2007, at 12:14 PM, Angela Mailander wrote: So, it is possible, and I find I often know what someone else is thinking. But there are literally millions of TMers. You can't have done enough of a study to determine what percentage of them are getting it. a Honestly, I don't think many are left, at least compared to the numbers that started. It's pretty easy to spot some of the more prevalent meditational issues (like falling asleep), esp. if you're a domer. It's only more recently we've actually had number of TM-sidhi people being investigated by experienced yogins for meditational disorders and damage. The reports I've heard are that it's a prevalent problem in long-term TM-sidhi people, as it tends to cause imbalanced awakenings and a host of issues. How prevalent? It's hard to say. Vaj, can you enlarge on this a bit. Who is this we doing the investigating? I ask because I'm really not sure if the TMSP is doing me any good anymore, I don't like doing long progs either, I used to but now it makes me feel shite, really thick-headed, tired and angry, nothing easy or relaxing about it. It's easy to just go along with the TMO claims about unstressing but I've been losing confidence in the whole TM charade for a while now, maybe that's the cause of it, if you don't believe in the supporting philosophy perhaps you lose the ability (or will) to transcend. Speaking from personal experience, what TM and especially the more powerful TMSP does, is continue to set up the bodymind or nervous system (choose your term...) to experience enlightenment. After awhile, the bodymind becomes so attuned to experiencing this that it is almost ready to sustain it. But, the false identity and the couldas, wouldas, and shouldas keep wanting to intrude and get into strong conflict with this natural state. So if you want to give yourself a break and perhaps integrate into activity a little more, lay off the siddhis altogether, and just do TM 2x a day-- maybe some regular exercise too, just to keep the runaway intellect from trying to always intercede and control things. It will balance you out and perhaps give you a little bit more insight into where your attention needs to be for your personal issues to be resolved. Thanks for the advice Jim I know what your saying, but I'm not sure my intellect is trying to control anyhting when I meditate. It feels like the state of consciousness I get into is putting to much strain on me, it's not that I strain it's just like my mind doesn't want to be there at all! It's mentally and physically unpleasant. You are right though I shall give the sids a miss for a bit, I'd pretty much done that anyway. Sounds like it could just be too much meditation at this point and not enough integration-- My experience was as I progressed, TM and TMSP became incredibly efficient and powerful. Like you are doing anyway, just lay off the TMSP for awhile, or permanently if you want to. *Get into your body more*. I wonder how many stop TM because of things like this. I think Vaj is right in that this awakening can go wrong and there is no expertise in the TMO to help you cope with it, not that I've ever heard of anyway, it's just do more asanas usually. Where there is a will, there is a way.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Empty Bill's claims about alamabana
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: But there are literally millions of TMers. Would anyone like to guess how many people practice TM in the world? I think we would have to start with the numbers of sidhas. I am guessing that a higher percentage of that group is likely to as least still do TM. Perhaps someone in Fairfield can guess the percentages of the community that still does TM. I would guess that the number of people in the world doing TM regularly is no more more than 30,000 and perhaps a lot less. I'd be very surprised if there were more than 9,990 practicing TM regularly worldwide. I'd put the number at around 200 thousand globally, doing TM every day, 2x per day. I would have made it an even 10,000, but it appears that Bevan has eaten at least ten of them, so I'm gonna stick with 9,990.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Empty Bill's claims about alamabana
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ---I don't get it. In reply to the statement that if people waste their lives watching the NFL and drinking beer, Rory said This could be just what the doctor ordered. Sounds like somebody wants to have it both ways. Short answer, yes. And no problem with that. Mine was a personal opinion, whereas Rory's was an observation. I should have clarified that *for me*, the way the major religions approach enlightenment is like someone who says they want to go bungee jumping, and instead of doing so, spends all of their time taking measurements, studying techniques, asking other's opinions, issuing pronouncements on what it will feel like when the jump is made, instead of just jumping.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Empty Bill's claims about alamabana
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Nov 19, 2007, at 11:01 AM, do.rflex wrote: I go by *experience*, not TMO propaganda. TM instruction is TMO propaganda. You cannot be instructed in authentic TM without being indoctrinated in their set of expectations. Heck, they'll even try to convince you they've proved it with science! Nonsense. It's entirely possible to separate the indoctrination from experience of the technique. Not only is it possible, it isn't possible *not* to separate them. given that we're talking about the results of TM, shouldn't this topic title be changed to Sweet Home, alamabana?
[FairfieldLife] Re: for Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: Then you failed in your job. You should have been taking a bunch of us to Valhalla. Only when we're truly dead. Many of us appear to be resisting that. It's only natural to see Death as the ultimate Demon to be feared, resisted, denied, trivialized, and ignored. I mean utter death, not death of the body or subtle body but my I-ness lives on denial. But I've never yet met a Demon that can be conquered by running away from it or denying it. The only way to escape the Crone is by complete surrender, by intercourse with Her -- that's the way to sovereignty. Support of Nature without utter surrender to Nature is half-baked tyranny and yet another ego-fantasy. It's interesting to see how universal the spiritual advice is that we can't really live until we have died. Until we *know* and accept utter futility -- utter meaninglessness, utter sameness, utter evanescence, utter emptiness, utter Nothingness -- our so-called spiritual path and progress is just play-acting: avoidance mechanisms, addictions to palliate and ignore the Here and Now. Oh goodie! Now I can claim to be *dead*, in addition to *enlightened*! I wonder if it will generate as much controversy? So, I will officially state that I am absolutely DEAD, and have been for about two and a half years. But Jim, you don't ACT dead!!! People come close to dying, but I've never actually met someone who was... Jim, you are a sham...you are obviously faking your own death Hey, I KNOW dead, and you ain't dead I get no 'dead' vibes from you over the internet... Saying you are dead is just a way for you to avoid accountability, assh*le Or will we find some that will accept one, my death, because it isn't desirable, and deny the other, my enlightenment, because it is desirable...not realizing that they are both the same thing...oh brother; F*ck Death.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Type of Yoga (was Chopra's )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Laya-yoga. Laya-yoga is a path that had died centuries ago according to several Hindu yogins I've known, but has been re-written about since the British colonial era. Now that it has been written about, some are claiming to teach it. From what I know again about laya-yoga, it ain't anything remotely like TM, which (again) is very plain-Jane in comparison. Says the selfproclaimed expert Vaj who never even practised TM. What's even funnier is that on the journey to eternal freedom, Vaj seems to think the vehicle we use is more important than the destination itself. Says a lot about where he is. What a hoot I can see him now, making his way down the seeker highway, honking his horn, flashing his lights, Hey-e Everybody! I'm in a big shiny expensive Cadeeelack!!! Uh, yeah Vaj, we're REAL impressed...
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: snip... the distinction between sattva and purusha, or judging it's a really, really *good* movie vs. actually freeing oneself from belief in the movie. While I enjoy sattvic behavior as much as the next guy, judging anyone's behavior as enlightened or not enlightened would to me fall into the category of judging the quality of the movie. I'd like to refine this comparison a bit, because I think it's crucial, and it's come up a lot here on FFL lately. Judging a person as enlightened or unenlightened by his or her behavior is somewhat like judging an actor in a movie as being a genuinely good or bad person *based upon one's response to the dramatic role s/he happens to be playing in the movie*, when the real issue is whether the spectator even knows s/he is watching a movie. Except it is even funnier than that, because it's not just a movie, it's a mirror, so we could see the whole judgment-process as more like the canary pecking away at his own reflection. I don't know much about logic, but I imagine one could call it a category error. *lol* I like that analogy-- it works. After working with my mind to refine, refine, refine, and discriminate, the most difficult thing to get for me was the letting go, into enlightenment. It occurred because I had exhausted everything else, and in the process had refined my thought and action to become worthy of the state of enlightenment. So it seems like a very basic trap if you will, of everyone that approaches, and eventually (who can say when?) completes this process. Especially difficult for those who have spent so much time on the refinement of thought and studying the process from a dualistic standpoint. Very difficult to let go. So much rationalization and false ownership for holding on to what has been learned to that point. Or in some cases the seeker tries to get it by declaring that all viewpoints they have are essentially worthless, or distinctly transient-- which is just another attempt to capture enlightenment, by the dualistic mind; not enlightenment at all.
[FairfieldLife] The Proximity Factor (was Re: TM and Improved Behavior)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Same thing in a *legitimate* teacher or being who is having *legitimate* subjective experiences of higher states of consciousness, in my opinion. In the moment, the subjective experience they are having of Unity might be more overshadowing for them than the intellect could be, or that discrimination could be, or that common sense could be. And, if you're sitting in the same room with one of these people who is having a *legitimate* experience of a higher state of consciousness, they might be able to transmit enough of what they are feeling that you could tag along and experience some of it yourself, so that the contradictions aren't so glaring. But on the Internet? And from these two? Fuhgeddaboutit. Two things Barry-- when you are drinking or doing drugs, your ability to sense shakti is significantly reduced, so that may play a part in what you have said. On the other hand, I have found coffee sometimes ewnhances it, so its difficult to say with you. The other is that you argue so strongly for your limitations that why should anyone attempt to convince you otherwise? If you are happy, I am happy for you, regardless of the conclusions you may be reaching. Have at it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: (P.S. It looks as though you've apparently chosen yet again to ignore the main point of the post: the distinction between sattva and purusha, or judging it's a really, really *good* movie vs. actually freeing oneself from belief in the movie. While I enjoy sattvic behavior as much as the next guy, judging anyone's behavior as enlightened or not enlightened would to me fall into the category of judging the quality of the movie.) Ah, the light dawns. Rory and Jim just don't have any *discrimination*. It's all about upholding their moodmake-y views of their own states of consciousness, in the same way that Ed Wood actually believed that he was a good filmmaker. One *can* suspend disbelief and enjoy even an Ed Wood movie, but if one has been around the film block a few times, that suspension of dis- belief doesn't prevent one from knowing that one is watching a Really Bad Movie. The problem with you guys and your claims about your own states of consciousness is *not* that you don't believe them. I'm sure that you both believe them, and that, like Ed Wood, you believe that you're creating great works of consciousness cinema with your posts here. The problem IMO is that you're acting, and you're both really bad actors, What you mistake for high drama and uplifting cinema many of the rest of us -- our discrimination still intact -- see as a Really Bad Movie. Bottom line: moodmaking isn't enlightenment, unless your audience can be convinced to moodmake along with you. You guys just aren't that convincing. Hilarious Barry, simply hilarious!!!
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: (P.S. It looks as though you've apparently chosen yet again to ignore the main point of the post: the distinction between sattva and purusha, or judging it's a really, really *good* movie vs. actually freeing oneself from belief in the movie. While I enjoy sattvic behavior as much as the next guy, judging anyone's behavior as enlightened or not enlightened would to me fall into the category of judging the quality of the movie.) Ah, the light dawns. Rory and Jim just don't have any *discrimination*. It's all about upholding their moodmake-y views of their own states of consciousness, in the same way that Ed Wood actually believed that he was a good filmmaker. One *can* suspend disbelief and enjoy even an Ed Wood movie, but if one has been around the film block a few times, that suspension of dis- belief doesn't prevent one from knowing that one is watching a Really Bad Movie. The problem with you guys and your claims about your own states of consciousness is *not* that you don't believe them. I'm sure that you both believe them, and that, like Ed Wood, you believe that you're creating great works of consciousness cinema with your posts here. The problem IMO is that you're acting, and you're both really bad actors, What you mistake for high drama and uplifting cinema many of the rest of us -- our discrimination still intact -- see as a Really Bad Movie. Bottom line: moodmaking isn't enlightenment, unless your audience can be convinced to moodmake along with you. You guys just aren't that convincing. Hilarious Barry, simply hilarious!!! And accurate. For example, you claim to have perfect knowledge and the ability to act from the level of the laws of nature, and you're now at 38 posts, AFTER having been told that you were at the limit some time ago by Sal. And you're undoubtedly going to respond to this post, too, as if you had a right to keep posting as much as you damned well please. You're a sham, Jim. You claim to be enlightened because your view of what enlightenment means is that you don't have to take any responsibility for your words and your actions. That's not enlightenment, dude, it's being an asshole. That's even funnier Barry!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jim Done
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Flanegin 40 posts for the week. Cool it bro'. Done.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Deepak Chopra and Mike Myers on Sundance Channel
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Snip And it's all because of the bottom-line marketing approach used by Maharishi since Day One, that TM is the best. That is *so* much the *foundation* of everything TM that anything that challenges this idea just Cannot Be Allowed. You are spending a lot of time here describing the symptoms of what is essentially a natural phenomenon; the critical mass of any entity as it grows, encourages exclusivity. Try working for General Motors and driviong a Ford to work, for example. Or put up a sign at work declaring that your competitor is just as good. Just The Way Things Work, dude. If you want to ascribe nefarious intent to it, fine, but you've got countless targets to go after. So the question to you becomes, why are you focused on Maharishi and the TMO when you could choose *anybody* or *anything*? Why does Barry focus on the TMO and Maharishi, when he has entire countries, organizations, corporations, and yes, even billions of people to choose from? Looks somewhat obsessive from my perspective.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Deepak Chopra and Mike Myers on Sundance Channel
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If Jim is really an example of 'enlightenment' it shows me that 'enlightened' people can still be sycophantic, biased, amoral colossal assholes. And it shows me John that you are full of condemnation and judgment. He certainly comes off pretty much the opposite of what I'm familiar with and aspire to in Guru Dev. Yes, excellent lesson then-- continue to devote yourself to Guru Dev, but don't just talk about it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Deepak Chopra and Mike Myers on Sundance Channel
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Isn't the whole premise of Maharishi's vision that TM is supposed to lead to enlightened behavior? Never heard that one. That it's supposed to enable its long-time followers to act in accord with the laws of nature and do nothing that is harmful? Not just long time followers. Immediate improvement. Where's the beef, dude? Good question!! You're trying to say that the claim is real when the very organization that makes the claim fails to live up to its predictions. Really?? Please quote me on this entire conclusion. It's a *great* deal like saying that you are able to have perfect knowledge of things while making dumb and stupid mistakes all the time about things you *could* have looked up, but don't because you don't need to. Huh? you've lost me on that one. Sounds like you would like your fleeting and unstable judgments of me to be the gold standard by which I judge myself. But wait...there's a perfect explanation for that one, too. Just claim that other enlightened beings in the past made stuff up and claimed that it was true because they'd cognized it. Then you could use the Yeah, but they do it, too argument again. You still sound obsessed Barry. On the other hand, I am not sure I wrote what I said under either the influence of a minor realization (10% probability), New Age bullshit (95% probability), or mood- making (95% probability)...lol
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Isn't the whole premise of Maharishi's vision that TM is supposed to lead to enlightened behavior? Never heard that one. I don't know if you are simply parsing words, Jim -- in that MMY did not as I recall, use the term enlightened behavior as much as many others which signify improved action and behavior in all contexts of life from the practice of TM etc. A few among them: - improved social behavior was 1/4 of the entire SIMS intro lecture format. Improved action -- based on fuller mental potential -- was another 1/4. - being in-tune with all the laws of nature - acting from the home of all the laws of nature - being established in the constitution of the universe - acting with grace - improed deservabily resulting from ones behavior - infinitely flexible action and behavior - acting from a level of overflowing fulfillment - being able to give in all social interactions - acting from an ocean of love - spontaneously providing life-supporting influence on all around him - even that blood relatives would gain benefit and their lives would improve - radiating bliss in ones actions - 100's of scientific charts and studies often alluded to regarding improved behavior fir many different benchmarks. - improved compassion and empathy I think the list could fill many pages. Since enlightenment in his view and teachings is the living emodiment of these qualities, the culmination of their fuller, if not full growth, then the concept, if not the words, enlightened behavior certainly have a strong context in the TMO. (Though I would not choose to use the term in that it, in its present usage, becomes quite nebulous.) You never heard MMY speak of any of this, improved behavior through TM? Or are you simply parsing words? I detest that expression enlightened behavior because it attempts to signify a state which is all about eternal, universal immortal freedom and categorize it so that the dualistic mind can make it comprehensible.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Deepak Chopra and Mike Myers on Sundance Channel
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 13, 2007, at 5:28 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Barry is talking about the larger situation, not Chopra in particular, and Judy knows it. In fact, that's why she's trying to *distract* from the larger situation, and try to make it all about Chopra, even though I clearly said at the beginning of my comments that I knew nothing about him and couldn't care less about him. I used Chopra as a springboard to talk about a larger subject -- the cult tendencies of the TM movement and how they manifest when someone walks away. THAT is what Judy is attempting to distract people from. She doesn't LIKE it when someone brings up the cult nature of the TMO. What would be interesting and truly instructive would be for some researcher, to go thru, step by step, the basic TM initiation process and not only show it's cult indoctrination methods, but at the same time it's deceitful use of marketing tactics and flawed / biased research to indoctrinate and foster a belief (or beliefs) that are difficult to step out of once one accepts the lies. Merely pointing out the lies to TB's (or in some cases, even casual users) often provokes endless counter-posting and gymnastics to try to side- step the obvious. Various smoke-screens and obfuscation tactics are common in the knee-jerk reaction that inevitably follows. However since TM is a dying path and lineage, I doubt there would be many interested in doing so. At the same time it would be important to show where the basic TM lies are (i.e. the uniqueness lie, the effortless lie, the fastest boat lie, etc , etc.), why they are false and give informed perspective. What a collosal waste of time that would be. If someone doesn't want to learn it, the steep initiation fee is barrier enough.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Deepak Chopra and Mike Myers on Sundance Channel
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: If Jim is really an example of 'enlightenment' it shows me that 'enlightened' people can still be sycophantic, biased, amoral colossal assholes. And it shows me John that you are full of condemnation and judgment. No. It simply shows that you indeed ARE a sycophant, that you indeed ARE biased, that you apparently really DON'T have and standards for Maharishi or the TMO, and that you really ARE an asshole for attempting to dodge acknowledging those lack of standards and then blaming me for pointing all of it out. He certainly comes off pretty much the opposite of what I'm familiar with and aspire to in Guru Dev. Yes, excellent lesson then-- continue to devote yourself to Guru Dev, but don't just talk about it. Guru Dev openly spoke of characters like you who ignored standards of behavior. Oh give it a rest John-- I doubt very much that this condemnation and judgment makes you a satisfied and happy man-- more like paranoid and disatisfied with nearly everything; I have been there and done that, and it is not a happy place. So do yourself a favor and stop dumping your stuff everywhere. I cannot obviously stop you from reaching any conclusion you want about me. And that isn't the point. I just know that it is not possible to categorize and judge everything to ever be satisfied and happy on the route you are on. Just some friendly advice, with the best for you in mind. Take it or leave it, as you wish.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Isn't the whole premise of Maharishi's vision that TM is supposed to lead to enlightened behavior? Never heard that one. I don't know if you are simply parsing words, Jim -- in that MMY did not as I recall, use the term enlightened behavior as much as many others which signify improved action and behavior in all contexts of life from the practice of TM etc. A few among them: - improved social behavior was 1/4 of the entire SIMS intro lecture format. Improved action -- based on fuller mental potential -- was another 1/4. - being in-tune with all the laws of nature - acting from the home of all the laws of nature - being established in the constitution of the universe - acting with grace - improed deservabily resulting from ones behavior - infinitely flexible action and behavior - acting from a level of overflowing fulfillment - being able to give in all social interactions - acting from an ocean of love - spontaneously providing life-supporting influence on all around him - even that blood relatives would gain benefit and their lives would improve - radiating bliss in ones actions - 100's of scientific charts and studies often alluded to regarding improved behavior fir many different benchmarks. - improved compassion and empathy I think the list could fill many pages. Since enlightenment in his view and teachings is the living emodiment of these qualities, the culmination of their fuller, if not full growth, then the concept, if not the words, enlightened behavior certainly have a strong context in the TMO. (Though I would not choose to use the term in that it, in its present usage, becomes quite nebulous.) You never heard MMY speak of any of this, improved behavior through TM? Or are you simply parsing words? I detest that expression enlightened behavior because it attempts to signify a state which is all about eternal, universal immortal freedom and categorize it so that the dualistic mind can make it comprehensible. Right. But you said you never heard of the term -- implying that you are unfamiliar with MMY's and the TMO's premise that TM etc significantly improves behavior, social interactions, and actions . Are you unfamiliar with this premise? That is what you implied, and that is my question. This feels like a very familiar road for both of us, eh? MMY's and the TMO's attempt to chart and categorize improvements in behavior are laudable and appropriate, given their intention (to spread the practice of TM). I don't have the same intention, and would not even attempt to say anything about enlightened behavior except that enlightenment is all about living eternal, infinite, immortal, freedom. Anything else is up for interpretation and I just don't go there.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: I detest that expression enlightened behavior because it attempts to signify a state which is all about eternal, universal immortal freedom and categorize it so that the dualistic mind can make it comprehensible. As Jody at Guruphiliac blog might say, it's just more occluding nonsense that makes people believe that enlightenment is all about achieving a dualistic state of being some sort of hagiographied mind-body man-god. Exactly. Such descriptions though seem to serve a useful purpose initially into tricking the mind identified with a dualistic view, into thinking that its problems will be solved *on its own terms* by achieving enlightenment. Then once enlightenment dawns, it is completely different, since a bound mind cannot concieve of its own freedom anyway. And it is so naturally fulfilling that who cares at that point? Pretty funny little sequence we all go through in gaining our natural and universal identity.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 13, 2007, at 6:51 PM, Rory Goff wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: It's more than a premise IMO. Hang around enough saints and you begin to recognize a spontaneous quality that can only be termed virtues or virtuous. It's the Natural Condition. Co-emergent with that recognition is our own Natural State, which is equally abundant in what I call spontaneous qualities (of the enlightened state). Any meditator will begin to recognize that quality in others. No scientific research necessary, this is something most people would recognize. ...as co-dependent moodmaking. *lol* No, as spontaneous [excellent] qualities. We already have one editor here, who needs a retired antiquarian? if you spoke in plain English, instead of this pseudo-precious language: spontaneous qualities (of the enlightened state)...I mean wtf?! Are you trying to say these folks are just plain *nicer* to be around?? or struck you as friendlier? That I get, but this? After reading this post of yours I imagine folks walking around softly, and...talking...softly...and everyone near them murmuring...softly, and nodding... sagely...at ...every ...utterance...of...their (spontaneous)wisdom- - doesn't sound like a very fun party to me at all.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 13, 2007, at 9:17 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Nov 13, 2007, at 6:51 PM, Rory Goff wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: It's more than a premise IMO. Hang around enough saints and you begin to recognize a spontaneous quality that can only be termed virtues or virtuous. It's the Natural Condition. Co-emergent with that recognition is our own Natural State, which is equally abundant in what I call spontaneous qualities (of the enlightened state). Any meditator will begin to recognize that quality in others. No scientific research necessary, this is something most people would recognize. ...as co-dependent moodmaking. *lol* No, as spontaneous [excellent] qualities. We already have one editor here, who needs a retired antiquarian? if you spoke in plain English, instead of this pseudo-precious language: spontaneous qualities (of the enlightened state)...I mean wtf?! Are you trying to say these folks are just plain *nicer* to be around?? or struck you as friendlier? That I get, but this? After reading this post of yours I imagine folks walking around softly, and...talking...softly...and everyone near them murmuring...softly, and nodding... sagely...at ...every ...utterance...of...their (spontaneous)wisdom- - doesn't sound like a very fun party to me at all. Spontaneous is spontaneous, what do you want me to say. It's just the way it is. spontaneous I get, I understand that-- but what I was looking for was a description from *you* about what all this feels like, to *you*. This looks like fake stuff is all. Like creating a mood of some kind, and it also sounds dull.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Improved Behavior
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Nov 13, 2007, at 9:41 PM, Rory Goff wrote: Speaking of editing, perhaps you missed the editor's gentle hint the first time around: the possessive of it is its -- not it's, which is only used by the literate as the contraction of it is. V: Yes and my understanding (perhaps not of publishing genre) was that it's ok per casual anglais. Suit yourself; to me it reeks of ignorance. Speaking of ignorance (how's that for a segue), you apparently ignored the main point of the post, about sattva vs. purusha: Apparently, one person's spontaneous [excellent] qualities are another's co-dependent moodmaking, then, Vaj; or maybe you meant to say, *our* group's enlightened qualities are spontaneous and excellent; *yours* are co-dependent moodmaking? Either way, one could probably make a good case for this whole line of thinking being baloney, along the lines of mistaking sattva (a guna) for purusha (free from gunas), or mistaking making it a really, really *good* movie with actual freedom from belief in the movie. I don't live by my c. 1977 Norton Reader or (heaven forbid) a dictionary. I'm just an ordinary being. If only. unfortunately, it looks like if you mistake sattva for purusha, the satva spontaneously transforms into tamas rather quickly...or tamas/rajas at any rate
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solving the global warming problem overnight
Not as a general statement of favorable conditions, but as an absolute, yes. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, put like that, doesn't the notion of best possible incarnation on this planet lose its meaning? jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: Yes, what you say is certainly true. Even our IQ tests are slanted in your favor. But this doesn't mean that you couldn't use your privileged status to do something for the rest of us niggers. a I don't think the privilege, if you can call it that, of incarnating with a favorable set of characteristics on this planet means necessarily that a person is in a better position to do something for the rest of humanity. The homeless white American male I see over at Safeway would probably agree with my conclusion. I'd think that power would convey more automatically to those who are born into great wealth, regardless of their race, gender and nationality. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solving the global warming problem overnight
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then my original question about your obligations as a favored white dude still stands. But, maybe, in America the ancient European tradition of noblesse oblige has lost its relevance. Too bad. I'm in a good incarnation and fuck you doesn't strike me as a viable means to planetary stewardship, but that does seem to be the way things are with 30% white folks and 70% colored folks on this small rock. It is a fact that it's still a man's world, and, moreover, a white man's world. But it's condition does not speak well for you. a At this point you appear to be ascribing way too much power to the fact that I am an american white male. I do my best to act in a way that is responsible, kind and reasonable, even to other white american males. Even if I was a non white, female non american, I'd do the same. Other than that, if you are suggesting that I have the ability to have a far reaching impact on the entire world's population through some mechanism like charity or government or politics, merely because of my gender, skin color and nationality, that seems out of perspective with regard to what we are discussing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Deepak Chopra and Mike Myers on Sundance Channel
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: [snip] Rubbish. This Chopra fellow was kicked out because of his enormous, rather hardedged ego. And because he got scared by some little threats to his wife's life, so he chickened out and did not want to run as a candidate for NLP. My understanding about the separation of Deepock Chopra from Maharishi was given to me by observers who wish to remain anonymous. Their account was further coroborated to me by one of Chopras assistants. (I realize that this is second hand information and acknowledge it to be such. I was not there personally to witness this.) As I understand it, Chopra went to Maharishi and complained about the integrity of the activities of the people in his (Maharishi's) organization. Chopra had also been chastised publicly by a Maharishi big-wig for stating his own views that contradicted current TM organization policy - and which had 'publicly' compromised Chopra's 'authority'. This was also presented to Maharishi by Chopra. (Deepock Chopra was, at that time, considered to be the 'heir apparent' to Maharishi.) As I was told, the meeting between Maharishi and Chopra was very strained. Maharishi was grim and Chopra was insistent. Chopra made his case by saying I am an intelligent human being and I see that what these people under you are doing is wrong. I can not any longer participate in this without you doing something about it. And Maharishi told him, I am your master. You will do what I say. Chopra said, I cannot accept that you refuse to see the reckless behaviour of these people. Maharishi repeated, I am your master. You will do what I say. Chopra looked at him and said, You are not my master. I am my own master. And he walked out of the room. This story confirms what I said about Chopras ego, if true. But Maharishi saying I am you master ? Never heard him say such a thing which brings me to believe this is a sketchy story painted by the wishful memory of someone who was not present. in observing the telling of these anecdotes, hearsay seems to take on the attribute of fact whenever someone wants to confirm their prejudices about Maharishi, either pro or con. The I am your Master thing doesn't ring true with me either.
